"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[Subduction Zone]

Hes a loving God but he in no way will clear the guilty

Guilty of what?

And you do realize that you do not have to believe the myths of Genesis to be a Christian, don't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a great question, but a little misleading.

Convincing me doesn't prove anything.

If you can't answer an honest question what are you even doing here?

 

[Prestor John]

If you think you're so smart, how about providing a quote that provides his thoughts on the matter?

I think saying stuff like that makes you look ignorant.

You are deliberately taking me out of context.

I said what you quoted above to someone after they claimed that it would be stupid for someone to claim that science refutes the existence of God.

It is a well-known fact that Stephen Hawking has repeatedly claimed that science has proven that there is no God.

I never said that I was smart or that Stephen Hawking was stupid.

I was only proving the point that there are those in the scientific community that claim that science has refuted the existence of God.

 

[Prestor John]

But so far you've essentially told us that instead of being loving and forgiving, he's deceitful, vengeful, spiteful and judgemental.

I think you are giving your religion a bad name.



According to your interpretation your god would deserve NO forgiveness or respect.

What are you on about?

 

[Prestor John]

If you can't answer an honest question what are you even doing here?

I'm not going to say that the question was dishonest, but it was misleading.

How does convincing me of anything prove what is or is not true?

You need to get off of your high horse.

 

[Polymath257]

I never claimed to know everything. I have repeatedly stated that I do not know everything.

I'm not asking you to know everything. I am asking what you think is missing between the evidence you have seen so far and what would convince you. That might eliminate a hit-or-miss discussion by focusing on your specific needs.

That is why I have asked others to present their most convincing evidence.

What is convincing to others may not be convincing to you. What is needed for *you* to be convinced.

I'd watch that.

It's a joke. If that is what would be required, I'll say that your requirements are way too stringent.

 

[Darkstorn]

You are deliberately taking me out of context.

No i'm not.

I said what you quoted above to someone after they claimed that it would be stupid for someone to claim that science refutes the existence of God.

I know and never implied otherwise.

It is a well-known fact that Stephen Hawking has repeatedly claimed that science has proven that there is no God.

That is false. If it's a well known fact then you should have no trouble fetching the quote where he said it.

That is the point of my reply.

never said that I was smart or that Stephen Hawking was stupid.

If you think this was the point of my message, you are mistaken.

I was only proving the point that there are those in the scientific community that claim that science has refuted the existence of God.

But you have failed to prove this point.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not going to say that the question was dishonest, but it was misleading.

How does convincing me of anything prove what is or is not true?

You need to get off of your high horse.

And you are right. The scientific community, which is familiar with the evidence, has been convinced of the truth of the claim that we are descended from these hominoids. that claim has been tested in a number of different ways and has held up to scrutiny. By scientific standards, it is a reliable conclusion.

 

[Prestor John]

Can you be polite?

Yes, I have been.

Can you provide an example of me not being polite?

Can you be honest?

yes, I have been.

Can you provide an example of me not being honest?

Your posts,to date indicate that you cannot do so.

You have yet to provide one example.

If you want people to do more than to simply point out your errors you need to improve your behavior here.

You have yet to point out any of my errors or prove that my behavior needs improvement.

Ok. So you are unable or unwilling to share all this evidence you claim to have.

If you were confident in your ability to prove yourself right, you would have done so by now.

I see an endless circle of you trying to add one condition after another upon me while you say nothing.

Are you ever going to put your money where your mouth is?

 

[Audie]

They cant judge the Bible if they dont how to interpret it correctly
.

So how about you, are you infallible? You bible-reading is infallible?

 

[Darkstorn]

Can you provide an example of me not being honest?

You have yet to provide one example.

Making false claims about Stephen Hawking?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This argument from authority is no different than someone referencing the Bible to convince people to reject Evolution.

Scientific truth is not one of consensus.

My Church has taught against the practices of drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco during the days when physicians claimed that both were good for you.

Some physicians. So what?

Lots of things existed on this planet before humans.

Humanoid = Human?

There are animals that use stones and sticks.

You do realize that you are an animal too, don't you? And no, humanoid does not equal human.

I would have to know everything there is to know about the given topic in order to answer that.

I never claimed to know everything. I have repeatedly stated that I do not know everything.

That is why I have asked others to present their most convincing evidence.

You were the one that made claims about missing evidence. Now you are simply demonstrating that you will not approach this concept honestly. And no, there is no need to know everything, that is a typical false claim of creationists. You are the one that is rejecting reality, that puts the burden of proof upon you.

I'd watch that.

Now you are either not being honest or you did not understand that question. And you have admitted that you cannot think rationally when it comes to this topic.

 

[Audie]

Many people make that claim, including Stephen Hawking, a supposed smart guy.

I'd say a prophet's interpretation of the Bible is our best bet.

I have seen many things people claim are evidences against a worldwide Deluge, but I disagreed with their conclusions.

What do you believe are the most convincing evidences against a worldwide Flood?

You believe I would be dishonest if I disagreed with the conclusions drawn by the evidences you would share?

They are not at all the same and I never said otherwise.

I can only comment on what I've seen. What I know.

To make claims about anything else would be dishonest.

Because I disagree I must be ignorant?

Then enlighten me.

Luckily my faith does not rely on any scripture.

Scripture is an amazing tool, but only a tool.

Claiming that faith relies on scripture would be like claiming that science relies on textbooks.


I wouldn't know anything about whiskey.

If science does not prove, then why are so many on this thread claiming that it does?

The only ones who talk about science doing or trying to do proof are the ignorant creationists. Why are there so many ignorant creationists? Who knows.

Why didnt you know that science does not do proof?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So how about you, are you infallible? You bible-reading is infallible?

Religious texts are endlessly reinterpreted. Muslims are really good at reinterpreting their holy book. Christians can do the same. And their "proof" is that it matches the sciences that they agree with but not the sciences that they disagree with.

 

[Audie]

Yes, I have been.

Can you provide an example of me not being polite?

yes, I have been.

Can you provide an example of me not being honest?

You have yet to provide one example.

You have yet to point out any of my errors or prove that my behavior needs improvement.

Ok. So you are unable or unwilling to share all this evidence you claim to have.

If you were confident in your ability to prove yourself right, you would have done so by now.

I see an endless circle of you trying to add one condition after another upon me while you say nothing.

Are you ever going to put your money where your mouth is?

Your behaviour could use some improvement in this regard-instaed of endless circling and saying nothing to
answer the question, why dont you just say yes or no to the question about whether your bible reading infallible.

"Money where mouth is", and all!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to say that the question was dishonest, but it was misleading.

How does convincing me of anything prove what is or is not true?

You need to get off of your high horse.

How was it misleading?

And you need to be more honest if you want to make any demands of anyone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I have been.

Can you provide an example of me not being polite?

yes, I have been.

Can you provide an example of me not being honest?

You have yet to provide one example.

You have yet to point out any of my errors or prove that my behavior needs improvement.

Ok. So you are unable or unwilling to share all this evidence you claim to have.

If you were confident in your ability to prove yourself right, you would have done so by now.

I see an endless circle of you trying to add one condition after another upon me while you say nothing.

Are you ever going to put your money where your mouth is?

Nope, you are being rude. It is rude to excessively break up a post. Just as in a debate one is not allowed to but in at any time, in a discussion one needs to deal with whole concepts. You do not do that because the whole concepts demonstrate that you are wrong. I have given examples of you being dishonest. Once again here are the rules, if you want to go over a point that you did not understand you need to bring it up separately. And that is only if you can deal with a concept.

When you are ready to learn people here are willing to help you. But if you keep up with this attitude all that people will do is to correct your obvious errors.

 

[Audie]

You are deliberately taking me out of context.

I said what you quoted above to someone after they claimed that it would be stupid for someone to claim that science refutes the existence of God.

It is a well-known fact that Stephen Hawking has repeatedly claimed that science has proven that there is no God.

I never said that I was smart or that Stephen Hawking was stupid.

I was only proving the point that there are those in the scientific community that claim that science has refuted the existence of God.

Would you care to provide the quote?
The one where Hawking says what you claim he said?

I think we are going to see something funny when you try.

Stand by.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that Prestor John may have conflated his version of God being disproven with all versions of God being disproven For example when one says that God did flood the entire Earth and that God does not lie then one can demonstrate that that God does not exist. That of course in not proving that God himself does not exist. Many theists make the error of thinking that their version of God is the only possible one and if you show that version to be wrong you are "proving God not to exist".

 

[Audie]

I think that Prestor John may have conflated his version of God being disproven with all versions of God being disproven For example when one says that God did flood the entire Earth and that God does not lie then one can demonstrate that that God does not exist. That of course in not proving that God himself does not exist. Many theists make the error of thinking that their version of God is the only possible one and if you show that version to be wrong you are "proving God not to exist".

Lets see how he handles his phony claim about Hawking.

Try to equivocate and obfuscate his way through, or
be an honest man and admit he was wrong?