Hitchen's Challange

[DNB]

Why?

For it appears to be a rather oblivious statement to make.

 

[DNB]

That's not in the earth's core, read the article.

"The water is hidden inside a blue rock called ringwoodite that lies 700 kilometres underground in the mantle, the layer of hot rock between Earth’s surface and its core."

...and there is still no geological evidence for a global flood.

UNDER THE FLIPPIN' SURFACE!

 

[Sheldon]

No other creature on earth mourns the loss of their family,

Nonsense...

 

[DNB]

If you say so, but wicked is clearly a subjective term, and the idea we are all the same is absurd.



The taxonomy of humans is that we are apes, and evolved from apes like ancestors, denying it would be pointless. I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean sorry, this is a debate forum, why do so many theists not seem to grasp that? It's right there in the title of the forum after all.

...meaning, why so much ado about something that you declare has not an iota of evidence?
Me thinkest that thou dost protest too much!

 

[Sheldon]

UNDER THE FLIPPIN' SURFACE!

Under the surface is not "the core", as has been explained.

 

[DNB]

Name one and tell us what they see.

Have you seen photos of polar ice?

Hugh Ross Team Archive - Reasons to Believe

No, I've never seen polar ice, ...unless you're talking about the ice cream treat?

 

[Sheldon]

...meaning, why so much ado about something that you declare has not an iota of evidence?
Me thinkest that thou dost protest too much!

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted?

 

[DNB]

That? Goodness. A little knowledge of chemistry would save the
embarrassment of trotting that out.

In simple terms, water added to
dehydrated gypsum gives you plaster for
sheetrock. Cool limestone and get cement.

For a little more technical-

The "water" in the ringwoodite is actually
hydroxide ion, OH. not HOH (H20) aka water.

Hyrdoxide ions are toxic.

The article says otherwise?

 

[Sheldon]

For it appears to be a rather oblivious statement to make.

On the contrary, when someone points out that a claim you have made is not supported by a "shred of objective evidence", it is hardly a cogent response is to ask what a shred means, is it.

You can't expect anyone to believe you don't know what the term means, so it was yet more evasion and equivocation.

"There are at least twenty-one scientific reasons a worldwide flood recounted in the Bible cannot have happened."

 

[DNB]

What a terrible view of humanity. I'm glad I'm not a member of your religion.

You;re the one who has a terrible view of humanity - calling wickedness and selfishness, good - calling materialism, harmless - calling wars and dissention, normal behaviour - calling pornography and hedonism, healthy - calling alcoholism, one's freedom of choice, etc...

Take a look around you, do you like what you see and hear about every single day?

 

[DNB]

Nonsense...

How so, you've seen a cat give a eulogy for the death of one of its kittens?

 

[Audie]

Thank you for the personal update, ...you speak English very well as it is your 2nd Language. My French is nowhere near the competency of your English.

On the contrary, again, you are applying secular means to try and demonstrate the spiritual and transcendent - no wonder you've induced that there is no evidence, ...which, unfortunately, you actually should've gained some insight of the Creator by the existence, design and functionality of the universe (cosmological and teleological arguments).

Man is a spiritual being, his sense of righteousness and order is not derived solely for the sake of pragmatism, his heart feels compassion for others even though their demise may have absolutely no impact on the onlooker's lives. No other creature on earth mourns the loss of their family, protests injustices, or does unto others as themselves. As it is written: we were created in the image of God, who is Spirit. Thus, our spirit comprehends spiritual issues, as no other non-human does. This spiritual awareness did not come from stardust or protoplasm, but from a spiritual source.

So, my point is, being aware of the Creator's presence is more imperative and astute, rather than comprehending the mechanics of the universe - that is reserved for either those trained in the field , or the sceptics. And, the former use the information for the sake of technological advancements , while the latter simply to try and justify their blindness. Was the earth created in 6 24 hr days, despite evidence showing otherwise? My position is yes, God can create a universe within a short period of time, while making it appear that its properties has eons of age. Was there a Global flood, as far as the intent is concerned: ABSOLUTELY, as far as the logistics are concerned: ABSOLUTELY, as far as the evidence is concerned: apparently not. Does God have the ability and the grounds to confound the evidence: ABSOLUTELY.

Do be careful Audie, it is written that God deliberately sends delusions in order bewilder the cynical and proud. You are looking in the wrong place for the evidence of the Transcendent.

The earth is made of like rocks and things.
The physical earth never experienced a flood.

Rocks are rocks. If "transcendent" even exists
it is not about rocks. Im not the one who is
mixing them up.

 

[DNB]

Under the surface is not "the core", as has been explained.

Are you getting pedantic again?

 

[DNB]

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted?

Earth to Sheldon, come in???

 

[Sheldon]

You;re the one who has a terrible view of humanity - calling wickedness and selfishness, good - calling materialism, harmless - calling wars and dissention, normal behaviour - calling pornography and hedonism, healthy - calling alcoholism, one's freedom of choice, etc...

Take a look around you, do you like what you see and hear about every single day?

Wicked is a subjective term, it seems you're not fully grasping what that means.

 

[Sheldon]

Earth to Sheldon, come in???

Again this vapid handwaving doesn't remotely address what I originally said.

 

[DNB]

On the contrary, when someone points out that a claim you have made is not supported by a "shred of objective evidence", it is hardly a cogent response is to ask what a shred means, is it.

You can't expect anyone to believe you don't know what the term means, so it was yet more evasion and equivocation.

"There are at least twenty-one scientific reasons a worldwide flood recounted in the Bible cannot have happened."

'...Again I can only be thankful there isn't a shred of objective evidence any such deity exists....'

Can you define 'cogent'?

 

[Sheldon]

Are you getting pedantic again?

Don't be absurd, you said in the core, and that was the claim I addressed.

 

[Sheldon]

'...Again I can only be thankful there isn't a shred of objective evidence any such deity exists....'

Can you define 'cogent'?

Yes, of course, What has that to do with my post? Tread carefully, as your responses are starting to look like trolling.

 

[DNB]

The earth is made of like rocks and things.
The physical earth never experienced a flood.

Rocks are rocks. If "transcendent" even exists
it is not about rocks. Im not the one who is
mixing them up.

Now, this is what I call 'rocks'!