Search results

This part: This is why I quoted this part immediately preceeding my question.  You could tell that my question referred to this part because I quoted it.  Since this does not appear to relate to anything, I wanted to you clarify.  That's why I asked for clarification.&nbsp...

I hope and expect that LouisBooth would not abuse his position.

The "creation of the world from chaos" as written in the Genesis stories are hardly detailed descriptions of the Big Bang and the evolution of life on Earth.  Likewise, if I told you that ships would travel through space, it can't be considered a tretise on the reactionless motor...

Please don't mistake well-placed skepticism for mocking. If I ask you for supporting evidence, I'm not mocking you, I'm simply asking you for supporting evidence. Future requests can be taken in the same light. If you can defend your claims, please do so. Otherwise, all you need to do is...

Let's look at the recent pattern: (1) Satoshi writes post. (2) LouisBooth disagrees, but doesn't support it with facts. (3) Satoshi invites LouisBooth to present facts to support LouisBooth's belief. (4) LouisBooth claims to have supporting facts, but declares that he'll never...

So you disagree but again refuse to defend your claims in any way, shape, or form.  Amazing--you continue to demonstrate the accuracy of my assessment every time you refuse to support yourself!  What really makes this post special for me is that... ...you do it twice in one...

You assumed that the God created the Earth.  Your assumptions are not evidence.  Nonetheless, I've accepted this premise for the sake of argument.  Furthermore, it seems that you've accepted that the Earth looks old.  If the Earth is actually young, you must find reasons for...

Your "experience" is again inaccurate.  A glance at your posting record shows not that people flatly refuse to hear your detailed explanations and examine your extensive evidence, but that you never try!  If you disagree, you can link to posts in which you do defend your claims. I...

You are incorrect on this point.  The argument from ignorance ("argumentum ad ignorantiam" or "appeal to ignorance" may turn up better hits on Google) is a fallacy that occurs when an arguer uses the fact that nothing has been proved about something as evidence in support of some...

Since you find yourself unable to post your evidence, I guess we'll never know. I can't help but wonder what else LouisBooth will "prove."  Using this tactic, the sky's the limit: The Earth is actually hollow!  But your mind is pretty made up, as I have...

Please try to respond to previous posts rather than asking unrelated questions.  If this question does indeed relate to my post in some way, please clarify it.

Please feel free to present evidence to the contrary if you disagree, LooLoo. :)

Argument from ignorance and tu quoque.  Edited to add: FYI, these are fallacies, LouisBooth.

I have no difficulty with this claim.  However, perhaps we should wait for Stormy's response, who quoted Jastrow as saying: This would seem to imply that theologians were able to come to conclusions that science has now found with their respective scriptures (and without the...

If you can find no reason to believe that God's not deceptive, then why continue to claim that God is not deceptive? Besides, if you want to believe in a non-deceptive God, then why not simply dismiss young-Earth creationism as God's word?  After all, if the universe and the Hitchhiker's...

Why is it that religious texts can only be said to predict events or theories _after_ the fact?  Why was no one using the Bible to predict the cosmic microwave background before the Big Bang theory was formulated?  Why didn't Christians use the Bible to work out General and...

So why would God lay down fossils of creatures that never existed and plant faulty clues? What possible purpose would this serve? How does a fake universe filled with stars that never existed fit into God's plan? Why would God decide to make it look like humans and other apes share a common...

Because you assert it so?

Another irony meter melts down.  I really liked this one, too.

No need to wait! I have some of npetreley's possible responses: (1) This "evidence" is nothing more than the product of evolutionists' imaginations! Just like evolution! (2) This "evidence" was studied by people who were BIASED toward naturalistic DOGMATISM. Just like evolution! (3)...