Fairytale?

[TheOutsider]

IBTL!!

 

[FoeHammer]

You don't get to redefine words to suit your purpose.

Had I done as you claim I am sure I would have been inundated with posts from others of all persuasions claiming the same but I haven’t. The fact is that you are the only one who cannot/will not accept that faith is synonymous with trust. It is obvious to all that you are now forced to pursue this point in a vain attempt to save face. You are wrong…. Live with it.

But you just told me you base your belief on evidence. How can that be if you're talking about the supernatural?

He is the supernatural creator of the natural and as such is able to manifest Himself in the natural.

No, realizing something has happened (and we both agree that this happened) and trying to figure out how it happened -is not a denial of common sense. A denial of common sense is when you assume it was magic.

It is when you as a non-believer in the supernatural must come up with a natural explanation that you are forced to deny common sense. Take the origin of the universe as an example, your “fourth option”

…So I will go with a fourth option; all mass, energy, space itself, and even time -erupted into this dimension from a quantum singularity, which may have been caused by rift in the space/time continuum. Although I would happily entertain any other explanation which has both evidenciary support and explanatary power at least equivilent to current cosmology.

(Complete with get out clause.)
If there is no space, energy, matter or time, what would be left? Nothing. Now it is ridiculous to suggest that something can come from nothing so what do string theorist do in order to overcome this problem? They “conjure up” another universe, or was it two?

String theorists say it was a rupture caused by the collision of two dimensions. Taoists say it was a conflict between light and dark forces. They're so close, that I would just as easily go with either one for the moment. But I'd still like to see a better option presented.

(Again complete with get out clause.)
It was two universes. Now I don’t know about what you call common sense would suggest to you but what I call common sense suggests to me an obvious question… Where did these other two universes come from? What objective evidence is there that these other universes even exist outside of the imagination of string theorists?
I gave an option of the universe always having existed but you were argued out of that position, remember? Are you now suggesting that although this universe has not always existed at least two others have? How does that answer the fundamental question of the origin of the universe(s)?

You want me to produce evidence of something you believe in but I don't? And you say I would have to do that to prove that I have common sense? What?

If you do not believe in something from nothing then you are going to have to explain the origin of any universe you or string theorists can conjure up. Good luck with that. LOL …..And just as I’d decided there was nothing amusing about your posts any more, I was wrong….. see, I can admit it when I am.

Just like all the other supposedly "holy" books to every other god.

You deliberately missed the point didn’t you?

In other words, assume your conclusions and pretend that its absolute truth. That's one of many reasons why it can't be either infallibly or inerrently accurate.

STRAWMAN.

You're still wrong about that, and forever will be.

I did note what you said about faith being a means of auto deception and in this instance I’m going to agree.

Wrong again. Jesus met none of the criteria prophesied of "Imanuel", and he only spoke in parables, which is what Genesis is.

I am not going to pursue this given your apparent ignorance of scripture and eagerness to mock.

That much is true…..

I know, the rest of what you said was not.

So I'm being dishonest by admitting that most evolutionists are Christians and most Christians are evolutionists, including all the pioneers of evolutionary science, and you're being honest by misrepresenting and ignoring that fact?

I think you are being dishonest with yourself when you claim as much in an effort to argue your atheistic evolutionary cause.I mean, being Christians they were/are probably all “liars” and “charlatans” Why would you have any faith in what they say?

Oh that's right. YOUR faith is based on evidence, and science be damned. Right?

Not quite… My faith is based on evidence and atheists are damned.

If you had any grasp of what you're talking about, you'd realize that evolution only allows variation within one's lineage or clade, because it is impossible to evolve out of one's ancestry, which is what creationists demand; another strawman. Can you at least admit this one fact and stop demanding something evolution never permitted?

Our common ancestor ultimately was a simple(?) single celled life form was it not? If evolution didn’t allow for the changes then what did?

Only if you make a bunch of unquestioned assumptions based on nothing but other assumptions. Evidence, however is objective; it is a set or series of facts indicative of, or explicable by, only one scenario over any other. I would bet you don't have even one such fact in your favor. So whatcha got?

For a start I have the failure of any one, any where, at any time to give a reasonable naturalistic explanation regarding the origin of the universe. To assume a supernatural explanation therefore is not unreasonable. And based on that assumption real science is still valid. It is the atheist who uses “science” in any attempt to justify his own faith in his own subjective world view that invalidates science.
As for facts, creationists have the same facts that you do but they interpret them differently based on an eye witness account (which is something you don’t have).

Says the man who believes in magic invisible ghosts for no reason.

Post one quote where I have said that I believe such a thing.

No, I am definitely harder to convince than you. But if both sides of this issue share the same rigid and specific definition,

You and I do not.

then you don't get to change it, and I'll adhere to that too. And we do; even young earth creationists accept the following biological definition:

This YEC doesn’t.

“A transitional fossil is one that looks like it’s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage...”

--WasDarwinRight.com

In layman’s terms:
A transitional fossil is a fossil that looks transitional.
Observation:A fossil looks transitional.
Test: Check definition of transitional fossil..
Demonstrate: By definition it is a transitional fossil.
Conclusion: It is a transitional fossil.
Evo-fundie: Dr Soandso PhD. B.Sc. A.Bc. X.Yz. (who I have no faith in) says that it is a transitional fossil ergo it is a transitional fossil, to reject this is to reject science.

I have a list of hundreds of examples which meet all these criteria; acanthostega, rahonavis, Dryopithecus, Procyonosuchus, Solenodonsaurus, and myriad others. Do you admit this? Or if you do not, which ones fail on which points?

They all fail because the definition is based on circular reasoning.

Just bare that in mind when you speak the "word of God" as if there was only one source for that.

There is only one source.

Then its not faith, because faith is not just 'trust', it is either trust, confidence, or belief with the qualifier that it be unquestioned and unreasonable and not based on evidence. But you have evidence of that, as you've just explained.

Addressed in my response to post #766.

It is not "God's" word, it is the word of men pretending to speak for God.

How can to possibly know this?

This faith you speak of, which you admit is "complete" and "firm" is also not based on evidence but on subjective emotional assumptions instead.

And how can you possibly know this also?

FoeHammer.

 

[FishFace]

How do you know he evolved? Do you have records to that effect?

Yes.

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Fairytale? (2)"