The Events of Genesis Present all of the Applicable Information …

Aggie

Soldier of Knowledge
Jan 18, 2004
1,903
204
40
United States
Visit site
✟17,997.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
variant said:
As you can see, the post you are using from Edmond is an atrocious abuse of the English language, where as Cal is actually optimally readable. This would lead me to believe that they are people with completely different writing styles.
I guess… but I still think it’s possible that Cal learned to make his posts virtually unreadable as a way of trying to cover up his bad arguments.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Aggie said:
I guess… but I still think it’s possible that Cal learned to make his posts virtually unreadable as a way of trying to cover up his bad arguments.
Why doesn't he go the whole hog and type them in Flemish or Kalash or something. Then we wouldn't have to read them at all, and he could still persude himself that he won the argument.
 
Upvote 0

Electric Sceptic

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2004
3,063
80
61
✟3,622.00
Faith
Atheist
Edmond said:
This is evolution and creation my friend. This is what we are discussing....observable evidence and documentation that supports its presence. Genesis is historic documentation of events that definitely present the data to support what is observed in the real world around us.
Never, ever, ever, think of me as your friend.
 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Dannager said:
You used the words "so-called fellow Christians". The words "so-called" call into question the Christianity of those you are speaking of. There's not really any way of arguing around that, I'm afraid. However, I thank you for apologizing in such a civil manner and you are of course forgiven. I don't think many of us are in the habit of holding grudges.

As to the ridicule issue, I think getting a good laugh out of the willful ignorance of others is preferable to other forms of dealing with it that could be used and still be considered Christian, as variant has pointed out.
The so-called comment was because the actions didn't match up the the title. If someone identified me as a kind man and I then went somewhere and you witnessed me berating a store clerk, would you still see me as kind?

Again, I'd like to know where we as Christians should be looking to get a good laugh at the expense of a fellow Christian.
 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
variant said:
Unless I am reading something wrong.

For foolish children:

(Proverbs 22;13) foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

And fools in general:

(Proverbs 26:3) A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back.
The Proverbs 22:15 citation is referring to a parent/child relationship, hardly applicable here.

The Proverbs 26:1 states: "As snow in summer and rain in harvest, So honor is not fitting for a fool." verse 4 then says: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him." Well, if you see someone as a fool, you have the responsibility to point out his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes, but at the same time you're not called to act the fool either.

I hardly think taking him out back a putting a rod to him is appropriate here.
 
Upvote 0

70judge

Veteran
Aug 10, 2005
1,026
0
73
✟8,686.00
Faith
Deist
vossler said:
The so-called comment was because the actions didn't match up the the title. If someone identified me as a kind man and I then went somewhere and you witnessed me berating a store clerk, would you still see me as kind?

Again, I'd like to know where we as Christians should be looking to get a good laugh at the expense of a fellow Christian.

it does untold damage to the credibility of christians when they will not speak up against false prophets. when the benny hinn types spread their nonsense in order to shear the sheep and legitimate preachers are silent you are all painted with the same smelly brush.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,646
1,811
✟296,671.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Edmond said:
All of the basic aspects known about the studies of geology, biology and the conditions of the human psyche that have been found in the evidence of earth’s past and present history are defined and described by the events in Genesis 1-3 and 6-10, the Genesis account and the Genesis account of the flood. These accounts contain the primary material that the propositions of modern evolution have most strongly attempted to refute and then replace with the ideologies proposed by that theory.


The inclusion of the supernatural in both of these Genesis accounts constitutes the single aspect of the events that scientific cannot address or investigate. The supernatural lies beyond the boundaries and scope of empirical investigation. Aside from this exception, all of the primary observable evidences in the studies of modern biological, geological and the results of the human psychological condition that can be collected by the means of natural observation are identifiable, definable and explainable by the conditions and events described by these two Genesis events.

Primary observable evidence found by natural observation and collection does not include tentative and inconsistent measurement results as those rendered by methods such as radiometric dating or the inconsistent and non-repeatable conclusion based on inconsistent and tentative fossil remains that have been attempted to be interpreted as transitional forms and whose consistent lack of repeatable evidence have caused noted paleontologists to abandon Darwin’s conclusions of slow and gradual changes of life over long periods of time as a feasible method of explaining the evolution in the past.

The remainder of the presence of natural and observable evidence in the areas of study is present in the events described in the two accounts presented in Genesis.


Because of pervasive negative biases that oppose assertions such as those found in this OP, the recognition of these conclusions as being feasible will not be acknowledged as remotely possible by many individuals, without first engaging in a careful investigation of the information presented in the Genesis accounts and an objective and systematic collection of observable evidence as suggested. If this is done, a conclusion that such possibilities exist will be most probably be reached.


----------------------------------------------------------
"ideologies"? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
vossler said:
The Proverbs 22:15 citation is referring to a parent/child relationship, hardly applicable here.
vossler said:


The Proverbs 26:1 states: "As snow in summer and rain in harvest, So honor is not fitting for a fool." verse 4 then says: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him." Well, if you see someone as a fool, you have the responsibility to point out his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes, but at the same time you're not called to act the fool either.



I hardly think taking him out back a putting a rod to him is appropriate here.




I believe the passage was meant to suggest the natural order of things, but then again that is just my interpretation.



I have read the entirety of proverbs 26, and I would never advocate beating anyone, as I am a pacifist. I merely said that the Bible suggested it. My main point is that rebuking fools is a standard theme in the Bible.



Here is some commentary for you if you don't believe me:

Commentary on Proverbs

http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=20&c=26

Every creature must be dealt with according to its nature, but careless and profligate sinners never will be ruled by reason and persuasion. Man indeed is born like the wild ass's colt; but some, by the grace of God, are changed.



Commentary:

http://www.bibleinsong.com/Song_Pages/Proverbs/Proverbs26/Proverbs26.htm



Wicked men are compared to the horse and the ass. An unbroken horse needs a whip for correction, and an ass a bridle for direction and to check him when he would turn out of the way; so a vicious man, who will not be under the guidance and restraint of religion and reason, ought to be whipped and bridled, to be rebuked severely, and made to smart for what he has done amiss, and to be restrained from offending any more.2






 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I have nothing against rebuking someone, obviously there are many examples of such we can all come up with in our personal lives. The question, at least for me, is how we go about doing this. God clearly tells us to do it in love.

Is that what's going on here?
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
vossler said:
I have nothing against rebuking someone, obviously there are many examples of such we can all come up with in our personal lives. The question, at least for me, is how we go about doing this. God clearly tells us to do it in love.

Is that what's going on here?

Honestly, I don't see how you can gloss over Edmonds own actions. I have seen good people try very hard to reason with him, address his points and make an honest effort to speak to him in the past. Most of them seem to be giving up out of frustration. That is pretty much all I see here.



I don't blame them.



You seem to be acting like his viewpoint deserves more than rebuke, I will assure you it does not deserve any such thing. You can not love someone by allowing them to purposefully mislead themselves and others about the things where they have been corrected thoroughly.



His diatribes are aimed at people who don't know better than to rebuke him themselves, and it does untold damage to the Christian community when they go unanswered. Further he keeps reposting the same information over and over and there really isn't any more to discuss.



Honestly the Christians in this thread have only done one of a couple of things:



- Suggested that continually posting the same thing over and over and over and not addressing the obvious flaws others point out, is close to being disingenuous, either through ignorance or through willful deceit.



- Severely criticizing the clarity of his writing style.



- Suggesting that speaking to Edmond, or addressing his long pointless diatribes is useless.



All of these points are incredibly valid. I am not sure where this process becomes you are feeling the love is lost. I have no idea what you expect someone to do when they are presented over and over with a stubborn and closed minded foolishness such as they have.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
variant said:
Honestly, I don't see how you can gloss over Edmonds own actions. I have seen good people try very hard to reason with him, address his points and make an honest effort to speak to him in the past. Most of them seem to be giving up out of frustration. That is pretty much all I see here.
Please don't think I'm trying to gloss over anything. I'm sure many folks have probably many times done exactly as you say. As I eluded to earlier, I'm not a frequent visitor here and so I don't really know what's been said in many of the threads that your speaking of, however I can speak about this one. Here I saw Edmonds making what appeared to me an honest effort at dialog while he was being ridiculed and made fun of by others. That's what I saw!
variant said:
I don't blame them.
I don't blame the non-Christians either, but I do hold those who are Christians accountable.

variant said:
You seem to be acting like his viewpoint deserves more than rebuke, I will assure you it does not deserve any such thing. You can not love someone by allowing them to purposefully mislead themselves and others about the things where they have been corrected thoroughly.
I don't know how I gave you that impression, I'm not advocating anything beyond a rebuke. As for the rest of what you said I agree 100%.

variant said:
His diatribes are aimed at people who don't know better than to rebuke him themselves, and it does untold damage to the Christian community when they go unanswered. Further he keeps reposting the same information over and over and there really isn't any more to discuss.
This may be true, I really don't know. If so, then rebuke him but don't belittle him.

variant said:
Honestly the Christians in this thread have only done one of a couple of things:
variant said:
- Suggested that continually posting the same thing over and over and over and not addressing the obvious flaws others point out, is close to being disingenuous, either through ignorance or through willful deceit.

- Severely criticizing the clarity of his writing style.

- Suggesting that speaking to Edmond, or addressing his long pointless diatribes is useless.

All of these points are incredibly valid. I am not sure where this process becomes you are feeling the love is lost. I have no idea what you expect someone to do when they are presented over and over with a stubborn and closed minded foolishness such as they have.
O.K. after his initial post, which btw seemed well presented and clear, this was the first response:

you're either completely ignorant of all modern science or you are a liar

second response:

lol

third response:

unless Genesis is not literal, then nothing you say matters.

fourth:

New topic: favorite book?

fifth:an actual response

sixth (in response to the fourth): The Bible

seventh: There is another possiblity. Completely ignorant of modern science AND a liar.

eighth (in response to seventh): Seconded

I could go on but I think you get the point. Other than response #5 no one else even gave him any sort of a direct response to his post and the eighth response came from a fellow Christian where he is seconding Edmond being accused of being "Completely ignorant of modern science AND a liar"

If a thread gets off to that kind of a start, how can anyone expect a discussion worthy of anything. So no matter how you spin it, this wasn't Edmond's fault.
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Electric Sceptic said:
Never, ever, ever, think of me as your friend.
Its too bad you aparently can't keep these subjects off of the subjective level Electric. A little objectivity may reveal some amazing new things to you about evolution that don't actually exist. ... ;)

----------------------------------
 
Upvote 0

Aggie

Soldier of Knowledge
Jan 18, 2004
1,903
204
40
United States
Visit site
✟17,997.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
vossler said:
I could go on but I think you get the point. Other than response #5 no one else even gave him any sort of a direct response to his post and the eighth response came from a fellow Christian where he is seconding Edmond being accused of being "Completely ignorant of modern science AND a liar"

If a thread gets off to that kind of a start, how can anyone expect a discussion worthy of anything. So no matter how you spin it, this wasn't Edmond's fault.
I actually tried to read Edmond’s OP in this thread and several others, but was unable to. That’s why I haven’t had much to say about them. I suspect that if Edmond could word things more clearly, there wouldn’t be quite so many people reacting the same way that I have.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
vossler said:
Please don't think I'm trying to gloss over anything. I'm sure many folks have probably many times done exactly as you say. As I eluded to earlier, I'm not a frequent visitor here and so I don't really know what's been said in many of the threads that your speaking of, however I can speak about this one.
That's kind of the point - you are (not necessarly deliberately) taking this thread out of its context. Edmond has started any number of very similar threads, shown little genuine engagement with the responses he has recieved, and when it become obvious that he can no longer salvage any credibility in one thread abandons it and starts another one very similar where he completely ignores everything that has been said before. It's hardly surprising if people stop taking him seriously after a while.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
vossler said:
O.K. after his initial post, which btw seemed well presented and clear, this was the first response:

you're either completely ignorant of all modern science or you are a liar



First of all the original post is a sheer misuse of any and every aspect of the English language. It can not be “well presented and clear”, when it scores a -3.3 by text analysis for readability.

Let’s examine the first post shall we? What you seem to be missing is exactly how bad the original post was, and why it doesn’t merit any informed debate what so ever.

Edmond said:
All of the basic aspects known about the studies of geology, biology and the conditions of the human psyche that have been found in the evidence of earth’s past and present history are defined and described by the events in Genesis 1-3 and 6-10, the Genesis account and the Genesis account of the flood. These accounts contain the primary material that the propositions of modern evolution have most strongly attempted to refute and then replace with the ideologies proposed by that theory.


Point 1: What Edmond is basically saying here is that he or someone else can explain every bit of evidence found in modern biology, modern geology, and modern psychology, by referring back to two chapters of the book of Genesis (a strange and phenomenal claim) He says ALL, which is quite funny. The breath of knowledge with which he claims expertise over is honestly hilarious, added to the fact that he says he can explain ALL of it by referring to several verses in Genesis is even more bizarre.

Point 2: There is no evidence to suggest a world wide flood happened. Therefore, it can not stand as evidence for anything else. It can not explain anything in modern geology. In fact, the people who wanted to find the evidence for a great world wide flood were creationists, and the evidence they found contradicted the very idea, nearly two hundred years ago. And yes, the flood would have to be global to account for explaining EVERY finding of modern geology.

Point 3. The third sentence has no meaning in the English language. "Primary material" is not a meaningful term and is undefined. Accounts in genesis are not first hand accounts, so they can not be primary sources.

Point 4. The theory of evolution doesn’t attempt to disprove any specific Bible interpretation; it merely tries to explain the facts and evidence that we have. Edmonds claim is that it is replacing primary material of genesis with preposterous modern evolutionary "ideologies" which, also doesn’t seem to have any meaning here. This means that the last sentence in this paragraph seems to be purposefully incendiary and has no basis in fact.

The inclusion of the supernatural in both of these Genesis accounts constitutes the single aspect of the events that scientific cannot address or investigate. The supernatural lies beyond the boundaries and scope of empirical investigation. Aside from this exception, all of the primary observable evidences in the studies of modern biological, geological and the results of the human psychological condition that can be collected by the means of natural observation are identifiable, definable and explainable by the conditions and events described by these two Genesis events.


Essentially, Edmond repeats himself here. This paragraph could be deleted and would not exclude a single point from Edmonds argument. The underlining is also quite annoying.

Primary observable evidence found by natural observation and collection does not include tentative and inconsistent measurement results as those rendered by methods such as radiometric dating or the inconsistent and non-repeatable conclusion based on inconsistent and tentative fossil remains that have been attempted to be interpreted as transitional forms and whose consistent lack of repeatable evidence have caused noted paleontologists to abandon Darwin’s conclusions of slow and gradual changes of life over long periods of time as a feasible method of explaining the evolution in the past.


This is one sentence. Edmond continues to insult not only just about all scientists but also his English teachers. The word that comes to mind is Wow. First he takes issue with radiometric dating. Second he takes issue with the fossil record and transitional fossils. Then he seems to be invoking paleontologists who subscribe to punctuated equilibrium as not being adherents of evolutionary theory. In essence Edmond has brought up every, and any of his frequently refuted arguments he could think of into one sentence.

Believe me he has been refuted on these arguments before for an example see below:

Here is one where he tries to say Steven J. Gould is not a proponent of evolutionary theory. I think this is what he is talking about with his last phrase in the super sentence.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2377830

This is why some might suspect that Edmond is in fact being disingenuous. You say you are not aware of the context in which people would be dismissive of Edmond, well read up.

The fun continues though:
The remainder of the presence of natural and observable evidence in the areas of study is present in the events described in the two accounts presented in Genesis.

Because of pervasive negative biases that oppose assertions such as those found in this OP, the recognition of these conclusions as being feasible will not be acknowledged as remotely possible by many individuals, without first engaging in a careful investigation of the information presented in the Genesis accounts and an objective and systematic collection of observable evidence as suggested. If this is done, a conclusion that such possibilities exist will be most probably be reached.



Point 1. Edmond has not actually backed up any of his assertions; he just sort of mashed them all into one sentence. He has basically said that because he personally feels dismissive of all modern science, he is free to say that verses in genesis can guide him.

Point 2. He then goes on to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of bias, which is quite funny. The bias they might all share is that they don’t take the Bibles word for it, and close out all other evidence.

Point 3. The use of the term “conclusions” is strange at best. What Edmond has done is offer a set of assertions and then he concluded that he was correct.

Point 4. The events described in Genesis are not natural and observable; they are stories in the Bible. If there were evidence for a global flood Edmond could point it out to me quite easily and we would have something to talk about. This has not occurred.

Point 5. Edmond suggests that I will not be able to agree with him until I have “first engaging in a careful investigation of the information presented in the Genesis accounts and an objective and systematic collection of observable evidence as suggested”. Which means quite strangely if I winnow out all the excessive grammar, that I will not agree with him, until I read genesis with the interpretation he suggests, and look “objectively” only at evidence that agrees with it. Then I will be able to see that his conclusion is true.

Or to put it even more succinctly: I will agree with him once I agree with him.

LETS REVIEW:

Paragraph 1 main point:

All of the evidence that modern science is based upon can be explained by parts of the Bible.

Paragraph 2 main point:

The same as paragraph 1

Paragraph 3 main point:

All scientific investigation that disagrees with my preconceived conclusion is false.

Paragraph 4 main point:

Once you accept my preconceived conclusion you will accept my preconceived conclusion.

To which the first response replies (quite succinctly):

you're either completely ignorant of all modern science or you are a liar


The first poster is inherently correct. It really is an either or situation. Edmond must either be woefully ignorant of modern science, or he is being purposefully deceitful.

second response:

lol


Also a valid response to this “argument”, it is quite funny.

third response:

unless Genesis is not literal, then nothing you say matters.


Another valid point, if Edmonds assertion that Genesis is literally true is not necessary, then the whole argument falls flat on its face. Remember Edmond has referred to parts of genesis as practically the best guide we have to what happened.

fourth:

New topic: favorite book?


This doesn’t address the original post and might be considered rude, but it is not as if the argument being put forward in the original post made any sense anyhow. Or that if engaged in an argument, Edmond would be worth arguing with.

fifth:an actual response


This is probably foolhardy, but the poster does make nearly the same suggestion as first Christian responder, which was the third post.

sixth (in response to the fourth): The Bible

seventh: There is another possiblity. Completely ignorant of modern science AND a liar.

eighth (in response to seventh): Seconded



I suppose some were better than others.

I could go on but I think you get the point. Other than response #5 no one else even gave him any sort of a direct response to his post and the eighth response came from a fellow Christian where he is seconding Edmond being accused of being "Completely ignorant of modern science AND a liar"


Both are likely, it is not belittling anyone to point out willful ignorance. Willful ignorance is willful ignorance. Calling a spade a spade is not belittling it. To quote post #15 in response to post #7

When you have had the errors pointed out repeatedly, the two start to converge.


I concur; I sense both deceit and ignorance in Edmonds posts.

If a thread gets off to that kind of a start, how can anyone expect a discussion worthy of anything. So no matter how you spin it, this wasn't Edmond's fault.


The thread started out with a horrible argument that insults modern science, is based only on the assertions of one person, and is also a total mockery of logic.

This thread was not going anywhere, and yes it was Edmonds fault.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
vossler said:
I could go on but I think you get the point. Other than response #5 no one else even gave him any sort of a direct response to his post and the eighth response came from a fellow Christian where he is seconding Edmond being accused of being "Completely ignorant of modern science AND a liar"
That is a factual statement, though. He is ignorant of modern science and he is a liar. The truth stated plainly is not ridicule. Regardless, the unwillingness of the participants in this particular thread to participate is due to the history of the thread's creator, Edmond. We have in the past dealt with him in the civil manner that you suggest, but to no avail. His stubborness and willful ignorance are amazing, and eventually those who were initially willing to give him some slack grow tired of his frustratingly droll threads. There are a good number of other threads started by those sharing similar viewpoints with Edmond who have their threads responded to seriously, but many of us are beyond that when it comes to Edmond.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
vossler said:
Please don't think I'm trying to gloss over anything. I'm sure many folks have probably many times done exactly as you say. As I eluded to earlier, I'm not a frequent visitor here and so I don't really know what's been said in many of the threads that your speaking of, however I can speak about this one. Here I saw Edmonds making what appeared to me an honest effort at dialog while he was being ridiculed and made fun of by others. That's what I saw

appearances can be decieving. It is always good to have full, or a sufficient amount of information before reaching a conclusion on the matter.
 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Wow, from the looks of things Edmond has, in the opinion of many, created quite a bit of bad blood here. I suppose I could go to all the links and threads cited and confirm some of the things said, but I don't know what that would prove. Nothing I suspect. I'll just leave things as they are, go back to my little area where I've got more than enough to deal with and leave Edmond and his situation with you.
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
variant said:
First of all the original post is a sheer misuse of any and every aspect of the English language. It can not be “well presented and clear”, when it scores a -3.3 by text analysis for readability.
Let’s examine the first post shall we? What you seem to be missing is exactly how bad the original post was, and why it doesn’t merit any informed debate what so ever.

Point 1: What Edmond is basically saying here is that he or someone else can explain every bit of evidence found in modern biology, modern geology, and modern psychology, by referring back to two chapters of the book of Genesis (a strange and phenomenal claim) He says ALL, which is quite funny. The breath of knowledge with which he claims expertise over is honestly hilarious, added to the fact that he says he can explain ALL of it by referring to several verses in Genesis is even more bizarre.

The breadth of human knowledge of all of the depair throughout all of human history is summed up by one initial act and one word in Genesis 1-3. Psychology has a huge amount of knowledge about the maladaptive effects seen in humankind throughout history. 1) Give me evidence that they have clearly defined the cause and cured it ...not covered it with medication. 2) Present the evidence that defines their conclusion on the SINGLE ROOT cause of all of the conditions sited above. 3) And then tell my HOW they can authenitcate that conclusion with.
When they can begin to produce that kind of 'human knowledge' then they will have just BEGUN to produce what is clearly introduces in Genesis and subsequently addressed and the RESOLUTION offered throughout the rest of the Bible. Produce the equivalent evidence from secluar conclusion based on 'human knowledge' on that one subject alone. If we get through your first point we will proceed to the others.

--------------------
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I have little wish to debate you Edmond, I find you to be inherently disreputable as per your actions on this website. As I have stated above your post is blatantly perverse.

But I will break your post down though, because it is amusing.


Edmond said:
The breadth of human knowledge of all of the depair throughout all of human history is summed up by one initial act and one word in Genesis 1-3. Psychology has a huge amount of knowledge about the maladaptive effects seen in humankind throughout history. 1) Give me evidence that they have clearly defined the cause and cured it ...not covered it with medication. 2) Present the evidence that defines their conclusion on the SINGLE ROOT cause of all of the conditions sited above. 3) And then tell my HOW they can authenitcate that conclusion with.



Point 1. Sentence 1 has already been addressed by me; you are simply jumping to a conclusion. Merely stating the same conclusion again is not going to convince me or anyone else (I hope), (also see point 4).


Point 2. The study of psychology nor I owe you no evidence of anything. My point was that the breath of knowledge that you have claimed to be an expert on is not possible. The Burdon of evidence is on you to support your claims. Not only have you claimed to know the whole of modern psychology, but have also claimed that it can be explained by a few Genesis verses. You have yet to provide any evidence for any of that. (see also point 4).


To authenticate your statement you must:


1) Show me that you understand modern psychology down to the very last detail.


2) You must show me at least evidence that the events of Genesis literally happened.


3) You must link the two with evidence.


4) Failing that you must refer yourself to points #1 and #4.


Point 3. A criticism of modern psychology is possible but irrelevant. You have merely made an unsupported claim that all evidence seen in modern psychology can be traced back to a few verses in Genesis. Modern psychology doesn’t claim absolute knowledge of anything, but they do show evidence for their claims, something you seem to be lacking. (See points 1 and 4)


Point 4. Jumping to unsupported conclusions is not a valid form of argument!


Point 5. Modern psychology has no evidence that all psychological problems have a single root cause; that is a conclusion you have jumped to. It is also unsupported. (See point 4 again)


Edmond said:
When they can begin to produce that kind of 'human knowledge' then they will have just BEGUN to produce what is clearly introduces in Genesis and subsequently addressed and the RESOLUTION offered throughout the rest of the Bible. Produce the equivalent evidence from secluar conclusion based on 'human knowledge' on that one subject alone. If we get through your first point we will proceed to the others.



Point 1. You seem to be claiming you have something above and beyond "human knowledge" I wish you to show me exactly what you base this opinion on. I see no evidence for this here, I see someone jumping to unsupported conclusions. (See point 4).


Point 2. From this position of supernatural authority you seem to have sincerely stated that you will accept only evidence that agrees with your preconceived conclusions, rather than following where the evidence leads. (See point 4).

Point 3. You should go back and read point 1 and 4 of the previous paragraph until you understand them.
 
Upvote 0