Debate between Dan Cardinale and Kent Hovind

[HitchSlap]

Ever notice how they complain that we're "preaching," when we just quote the Bible, and then told to "learn to think outside the box;" then, when we do, they complain we're "making up facts"?

Catch-22.

Looking “outside the box” is not euphemism for make poop up. We shouldn’t be too hard on you guys though, as I sometimes forget that religious minds are primed to accept the “unacceptable,” so these ad hoc explanations actually seem probable to you guys.

 

[AV1611VET]

Looking “outside the box” is not euphemism for make pool up.

Ah ... I think I got it.

By "look outside the box," you mean, "look inside science's box" ... right?

 

[Astrid]

Looking “outside the box” is not euphemism for make pool up. We shouldn’t be too hard on you guys thought, as I sometimes forget that religious minds are primed to accept the “unacceptable,” so these ad hoc explanations actually seem probable to you guys.

Being inspired "of" god is not* making things up.

*(just)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I somehow don't think the Bible writers think I'm "off the charts nuts."

Today's academians do though.

But I get the impression you're saying they would cut me some slack if I said Adam spoke Hebrew.

That's not what I said...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ever notice how they complain that we're "preaching," when we just quote the Bible, and then told to "learn to think outside the box;" then, when we do, they complain we're "making up facts"?

Catch-22.

Seems like you're the one complaining here - and playing the victim by conflating unrelated posts as an excuse.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ever notice how they complain that we're "preaching," when we just quote the Bible, and then told to "learn to think outside the box;" then, when we do, they complain we're "making up facts"?

My bolding.
I'd be satisfied if just once you demonstrated the ability to think inside the box.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd be satisfied if just once you demonstrated the ability to think inside the box.

Meaning the box of science?

 

[driewerf]

Most creationists aren't defining "kind" based on what they find in a thesaurus.

The creationist definition of kind is easy: "everything the evolutionist I am debating now can't answer"

 

[Ophiolite]

Meaning the box of science?

Or of conventional theology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or of conventional theology.

Like here?

That's funny coming from a seeker; especially since I justified it with Scripture, as well as basic doctrine.

I can see an atheist saying that; albeit, they should at least acknowledge that it is basic doctrine -- even though they don't agree.

Maybe ... just maybe ... an agnostic -- who wants to stay an agnostic all his life might call eschatology a "fantasy" ... but a seeker?

 

[Ophiolite]

Like here?

I see you claiming adherence to basic doctrine, but when I track back through the posts I find no evidence of it. So, no, not "like here".

 

[AV1611VET]

I see you claiming adherence to basic doctrine, but when I track back through the posts I find no evidence of it. So, no, not "like here".

Would you even know basic doctrine if you saw it then?

Try this one:

Well, I am.

And I'm not going to sit here and argue basic doctrine with a Lutheran preterist.

And if I said what I thought of that guy in your avatar, I'd be moderated.

And if you still don't see it, I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

[Ophiolite]

Would you even know basic doctrine if you saw it then?

I would be disappointed if I didn't.
As to your second example, I'm not going to play the game of scrolling back through a lenghty exchange to try to figure out what you think you have presented as basic doctrine. Just point me to the post where you express it, not where you reference it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would be disappointed if I didn't.
As to your second example, I'm not going to play the game of scrolling back through a lenghty exchange to try to figure out what you think you have presented as basic doctrine. Just point me to the post where you express it, not where you reference it.

Have a good day, sir.

I'll take the ridicule for the win.

You're making yourself look bad, not me.

I only have 3,837,233 posts, minus the ones that were deleted -- help yourself.

(Hint: use the search engine and type in "basic doctrine" by AV1611VET.)

 

[HitchSlap]

Meaning the box of science?

It’s an infinitely bigger box! Religion is myopic.

 

[HitchSlap]

Have a good day, sir.

I'll take the ridicule for the win.

You're making yourself look bad, not me.

I only have 3,837,233 posts, minus the ones that were deleted -- help yourself.

(Hint: use the search engine and type in "basic doctrine" by AV1611VET.)

Which do you think would have more hits, “basic doctrine” or “number counting?”

 

[Ophiolite]

I'll take the ridicule for the win.

There was no ridicule and I take offence at the accusation.

You claim you follow basic doctrine. You imply you do so routinely. I have asked you twice to provide examples; you have dissembled. I'll let others judge who is looking bad, but I'm finished here.

 

[AV1611VET]

It’s an infinitely bigger box! Religion is myopic.

MMMM ... not so, Kimosabe.

Kingdom of Heaven much, much bigger.

Encompass physical reality, as well as spiritual domain, with all its inhabitants.

 

[HitchSlap]

Real

MMMM ... not so, Kimosabe.

Kingdom of Heaven much, much bigger.

Encompass physical reality, as well as spiritual domain, with all its inhabitants.

There is only reality, Tonto.

 

[Phred]

snip.

AV is the ultimate pigeon on a chessboard. He'll flutter down and insist you play with him. By his rules. Which he immediately grows bored with and ... well, you know what happens.