Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So, was God not directly responsible for a mass extinction, of both mankind and other animals?
If "Yes, he was.", then congratulations, God, you're officially the world's most successful mass murderer!
If "No!", then what was this "flood?".
God never murdered anyone.
Just like Bill Clinton gets to define the word "IS" so that he did not commit adultery.
God never murdered anyone.
I thought what happened was he didn't count oral sex as sexual relations. I think he may have even defined what sexual relations before it was asked.
You should read the bible, Its full of god murdering people.
Sadly, you're correct. A cause is usually harmed the most by its most fervent defendants. Unfortunately, this also applies to atheism as I've heard some of the most irrational, disrespectful, and outright idiotic comments from some overzealous atheists as well as religious fundies.With the amount of damage he inflicts on Christianity it can only be assumed that AV1611VET is one of the devils representative here on earth, from an Atheist point of view I would think they are applauding AV1611VET for his good work,
I also think Mr Dawkins would be proud of him.
Has he ever said 'Christianity can take a hike'?
I still think the Flood was catastrophic though.
Whether it shows up in the geological record or not, it was certainly a catastrophe.
By your definition, you'll never be able to show me Supertyphoon Pamela, outside of software and some anecdotal testimony.Err, no. You are still confusing your concepts.
In catastrophism, a "catastrophy" is a single, large and temporarily limited event that is responsible for certain results that are observed.
So if it doesn´t "show up", it has no "certain results" to be responsible for. But then it is useless to include in any explanatory system.
You can "think" about it what you want... it is meaningless as an explanation for anything.
You can blame me all you want; it's not going to wash with God though.With the amount of damage he inflicts on Christianity it can only be assumed that AV1611VET is one of the devils representative here on earth, from an Atheist point of view I would think they are applauding AV1611VET for his good work,
I also think Mr Dawkins would be proud of him.
Has he ever said 'Christianity can take a hike'?
Well, considering that there's physical evidence, living eyewitnesses, climate records, photographic evidence, one death as a result, and, very importantly, there's a known, natural method through which the typhoon occurred, I'd say that the typhoon is pretty well covered.By your definition, you'll never be able to show me Supertyphoon Pamela, outside of software and some anecdotal testimony.
And that's just 33.5 years later --- wait until it's 4000 years later.
So did a catastrophe occur on Guam in 1976 or not?
Like I said... more harm than good and he doesn't even realize it.You can blame me all you want; it's not going to wash with God though.
Picking what you think is the lowest common denominator to make a decision is not always the best way to go.
Besides, you guys don't need me; you already have the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials to blame.
I'm just a rookie.
Yes, and if my memory serves me correctly, there was a little girl born either during or just after the storm; and she was named --- you guess it --- Pamela.Well, considering that there's physical evidence, living eyewitnesses, climate records, photographic evidence, one death as a result, and, very importantly, there's a known, natural method through which the typhoon occurred, I'd say that the typhoon is pretty well covered.
This is not the question. We are looking at geological features and the explanations for them.By your definition, you'll never be able to show me Supertyphoon Pamela, outside of software and some anecdotal testimony.
And that's just 33.5 years later --- wait until it's 4000 years later.
So did a catastrophe occur on Guam in 1976 or not?
This is not the question. We are looking at geological features and the explanations for them.
If you can point me to some geological features that were created by Supertyphoon Pamela, I am quite sure the geologists can pin them down as the result of a huge storm somewhere within the last 50 years. If it didn´t leave a results traceable in geology, then it is simply irrelevant for explantations of geological features.
Is that so difficult to understand? If something is to be used as an explanation, it has to have had an impact.
Why are you taking out the climate records of that time, the photographs, and the physical evidence left behind by it? Are you saying that the photographs and records were made up by the simulation software??Yes, and if my memory serves me correctly, there was a little girl born either during or just after the storm; and she was named --- you guess it --- Pamela.
But let's pare your list.
Here's your list:
Filtering the software leaves:
- physical evidence
- living eyewitnesses
- climate records
- photographic evidence
- one death
- known natural method
Filtering the one death which, if my memory serves me, was a heart attack attributed to the storm for insurance purposes, that leaves:
- physical evidence
- living eyewitnesses
- one death
Filtering physical evidence which today cannot be attributed to Pamela de facto, leaves:
- physical evidence
- living eyewitnesses
And we're not going to be around much longer. After we're gone, all you're going to have is software to go by, but eventually that will be brought into question.
- living eyewitnesses
To you, Supertyphoon Pamela is software; but to me (and my wife), Supertyphoon was experience.
Why are you taking out the climate records of that time, the photographs, and the physical evidence left behind by it? Are you saying that the photographs and records were made up by the simulation software??Yes, and if my memory serves me correctly, there was a little girl born either during or just after the storm; and she was named --- you guess it --- Pamela.
But let's pare your list.
Here's your list:
Filtering the software leaves:
- physical evidence
- living eyewitnesses
- climate records
- photographic evidence
- one death
- known natural method
Filtering the one death which, if my memory serves me, was a heart attack attributed to the storm for insurance purposes, that leaves:
- physical evidence
- living eyewitnesses
- one death
Filtering physical evidence which today cannot be attributed to Pamela de facto, leaves:
- physical evidence
- living eyewitnesses
And we're not going to be around much longer. After we're gone, all you're going to have is software to go by, but eventually that will be brought into question.
- living eyewitnesses
To you, Supertyphoon Pamela is software; but to me (and my wife), Supertyphoon was experience.
It's called 'clutching at straws', creationists do it as a last resort, if you fall for it they think they have won the argument, if you don't fall for it they leave and forget that they even had the argument, the ability to do that has taken many many years of indoctrination to acquire.Why are you taking out the climate records of that time, the photographs, and the physical evidence left behind by it? Are you saying that the photographs and records were made up by the simulation software??
Also, why are you taking out the fact that we know (tenuously, granted) how typhoons work or, at the very least, we know that they do indeed happen in nature?
Fair enough, Freodin.Is that so difficult to understand? If something is to be used as an explanation, it has to have had an impact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?