I almost choked to death on pizza!

[Subduction Zone]

I don't like apologists and I am aware of the many lies they tell, which is why I avoid them (general statement about modern apologists). What lie have I fallen for? What is your interpretation based on?

It is not particularly useful to say "2x5 is not 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 11, or 12..." and so on without just saying that it is 10 (and it's much faster just to say). So what is the lie specifically, what is your interpretation based on specifically, who is this "we" that you cite in "we know" and how does this "we" know specifically? For I do not want to be entrapped by any lies but perhaps I am not worth enlightening, but that is fine too, even an atheist can apply the Lord's word to "not give what is holy to the dogs."

We know that there never were only two people. Or just one for that matter. And I do not reinterpret after the event as you have. When it becomes obvious that God screwed the pooch you start making excuses for him. That indicates that you think he is weak.

 

[Lain]

And I do not reinterpret after the event as you have. When it becomes obvious that God screwed the pooch you start making excuses for him.

How am I reinterpreting the event, and where is it obvious that God "screwed the pooch"? Far be it from me to presume to defend God, He can come down and defend Himself like He did to Job.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How am I reinterpreting the event, and where is it obvious that God "screwed the pooch"? Far be it from me to presume to defend God, He can come down and defend Himself like He did to Job.

This has been explained to you. At this point you just have denial. He made a flawed creation according to the myth. That can not be denied. Then he set them up to fail.. Lastly he blamed them for his failure.

And I see that you are still running away from the fact that it is known to be a myth.

 

[Lain]

This has been explained to you. At this point you just have denial. He made a flawed creation according to the myth. That can not be denied. Then he set them up to fail.. Lastly he blamed them for his failure.

And I see that you are still running away from the fact that it is known to be a myth.

I'm not running away from anything, I agree that it's a myth, I see no need to comment on where we agree so I don't respond to it.

The only explanation you ever gave me is your own commentary on Genesis. I do not (in reviewing it just for you) see where it says there was a set up to fail or a flawed creation then. In fact, when also considering the context of all the Scriptures (which I am not sure why one would not do this) the opposite is the case. But perhaps you have not read them all or considered the commentary of God Himself on the event elsewhere.

It is not unusual for a false conclusion to be drawn when one does not consider all the relevant information on something, but if considering this is denial then I suppose I'm up the river.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not running away from anything, I agree that it's a myth, I see no need to comment on where we agree so I don't respond to it.

The only explanation you ever gave me is your own commentary on Genesis. I do not (in reviewing it just for you) see where it says there was a set up to fail or a flawed creation then. In fact, when also considering the context of all the Scriptures (which I am not sure why one would not do this) the opposite is the case. But perhaps you have not read them all or considered the commentary of God Himself on the event elsewhere.

It is not unusual for a false conclusion to be drawn when one does not consider all the relevant information on something, but if considering this is denial then I suppose I'm up the river.

Then why try to defend it as if it actually happened?

But let's go over this logically. We know that the creation was flawed because it failed. Can you understand that?

 

[Lain]

Then why try to defend it as if it actually happened?

But let's go over this logically. We know that the creation was flawed because it failed. Can you understand that?

I don't see myth as opposed to actual happenings, perhaps we have a different definition of myth. But I definitely place this event as myth, as other myths in Scripture, Scripture even has fairy tales, historical novels, and a specific kind of myth I forget the technical name of which insults people (and that latter truly is hilarious)!

I thought you were going over this logically beforehand, but alright.

Depends on your definition of flawed, for I genuinely see no flaws that were in it in the narrative which we are discussing. Perhaps you think creatures should be unable to tend towards non-existence but as they "began" in it so-to-speak I do not see how that is possible (logically). Moreover would not a failure be dependent on what a person is aiming to do to a degree? Or do you disagree with that? Then we'd need to see what God was aiming to do to see if He failed in doing this, wouldn't that be necessary?

 

[Kenny]

Is a car with seat belts better or worse than a car without seat belts, everything else being equal?

Unless a person uses it... neither is worse.

I think the better question is "What is worse... a person who has a seatbelt and doesn't use it, or a person who has a seatbelt and uses it'... not a design problem but how they use it.

 

[Koldo]

Unless a person uses it... neither is worse.

I think the better question is "What is worse... a person who has a seatbelt and doesn't use it, or a person who has a seatbelt and uses it'... not a design problem but how they use it.

Is a car designed to prevent crashes better than a car not designed to prevent crashes, everything else being equal?

 

[Kenny]

Is a car designed to prevent crashes better than a car not designed to prevent crashes, everything else being equal?

I am trying to make apples with apples and not apples with oranges.

The proper analogy is that there are two people with exactly the same equipment. One chews and one doesn't. It isn't an engineering problem... it is an implementation problem and that being chewing!

Sooo... the proper application is that both have seatbelts, one uses it and one doesn't.

 

[Koldo]

I am trying to make apples with apples and not apples with oranges.

The proper analogy is that there are two people with exactly the same equipment. One chews and one doesn't. It isn't an engineering problem... it is an implementation problem and that being chewing!

Sooo... the proper application is that both have seatbelts, one uses it and one doesn't.

Any safety measure that could possibly work all the time is better than a safety measure that depends on specific user input.

 

[tas8831]

hmmm... there is already two tubes with a cartilaginous flap to prevent problems.

Hmmm.... In my better design there is no need for a flap at all.

 

[tas8831]

If you are unable to make the connection, I’m not taking the time to explain it to you. Good day!

Code for 'what do I do now???'

 

[tas8831]

Original Sin by definition (if you have ever seen the doctrine written out) is not imputing personal guilt to other persons. Do you remember the person/nature distinction that I mentioned earlier?

Apologetics is amazing. It can made the devotee believe that up is down.

 

[Kenny]

Hmmm.... In my better design there is no need for a flap at all.

nope.

 

[tas8831]

nope.

Yes, my design had no flap.

Isn't it funny - we are challenged to come up with something better, and when we do, it is laughed or denied away.

Had a YEC engineer 'challenge' me to design an eye that did not have a blind spot (because an eye with a blind spot is the BEST!!).

Piece of cake - I posited that the axons of the photoreceptors and ganglion cells in the retina could be directed to the periphery of the retina, routed behind it, to converge centrally to form the optic nerve. Voila ! No blind spot.
He called me "stupid" because this would create 'shadows' on the retina. I explained that if shadows were an issue, they would be worse with the current design since as they converge toward a central location, they start to overlap each other (think the spokes on a bike wheel). Nope. I was wrong.
Even though I wasn't. Such is discussing anatomy with non-anatomist creationists.

Oh, forgot - he also claimed that it is impossible for gases heavier than air (Like CFCs) contribute to climate change because they would not rise - and to prove this, he explained that if you put a drop of mercury in a glass of water, it just sits there. I explained to him that if he was right, then we would all be dead since there is enough Argon (heavier than oxygen) in the atmosphere to form a layer at the surface of the earth some 60 feet thick (or whatever it was - this was a long time ago).
As this was on his Google group, he just banned me....

 

[Firelight]

Code for 'what do I do now???'

No. Code for: I don’t care enough about it to take the time to explain or to answer your questions.

 

[tas8831]

No. Code for: I don’t care enough about it to take the time to explain or to answer your questions.

Concession accepted.

 

[Firelight]

Concession accepted.

I didn’t offer a concession.

 

[tas8831]

I didn’t offer a concession.

Didn't need to. But thanks for playing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didn't need to. But thanks for playing.

That is what you get for arguing with a giraffe. Or is he a koala? I am not sure. He won't say for sure. He only denies that he is a human being.