How do creationists answer these questions: Are you an Ape? A Mammal? A Vertebrate?

[TLK Valentine]

Wrong, Chris Angle has to use an illusion. There is no such thing as magic.

Indeed -- if we want to be more specific; Chriss Angel uses theatrics; the same theatrics that convince us that some guy on stage is actually Macbeth, for example.

The difference lies in what Teller (of Penn and Teller fame) refers to as the "unwilling suspension of disbelief." Most theatrics require a willing suspension of disbelief -- We know the guy's not really Macbeth, but we agree to play along, because if we don't, there's no story.

In a Chriss Angel performance, however, we're not as willing to play along. He has to show us that there's nothing up his sleeve (even though there usually is); we're not just going to take his word for it -- OTOH, we're not about to frisk him (although I do have a few female friends who would gladly volunteer).

It's all part of the show.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

What is "real magic"?

As opposed to illusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong, Chris Angle has to use an illusion. There is no such thing as magic.

You just put 5000 magicians out of a job.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You just put 5000 magicians out of a job.

5000 magicians already know what their job is -- whose fault is it that you didn't?

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed -- if we want to be more specific; Chriss Angel uses theatrics; the same theatrics that convince us that some guy on stage is actually Macbeth, for example.

The difference lies in what Teller (of Penn and Teller fame) refers to as the "unwilling suspension of disbelief." Most theatrics require a willing suspension of disbelief -- We know the guy's not really Macbeth, but we agree to play along, because if we don't, there's no story.

In a Chriss Angel performance, however, we're not as willing to play along. He has to show us that there's nothing up his sleeve (even though there usually is); we're not just going to take his word for it -- OTOH, we're not about to frisk him (although I do have a few female friends who would gladly volunteer).

It's all part of the show.

I've see posts lately go against Wikipedia.

Wikipedia must be waxing ignorant these days.

Although they are asking for money.

And I still say that guy in that picture looks like Beastt.

Anyway, for the record:

Christopher Nicholas Sarantakos (born December 19, 1967), better known by the stage name Criss Angel, is an American magician and illusionist.

 

[EternalDragon]

Sorry, I was talking about "real" magic.

Like the magic done by all the gods since mankind first came up with concept. You know, the magic some people need to keep their fear at bay.

Fear of separation from God and eternal hellfire?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I've see posts lately go against Wikipedia.

Wikipedia must be waxing ignorant these days.

Although they are asking for money.

And I still say that guy in that picture looks like Beastt.

Anyway, for the record:

Since when is wikipedia your Bible?

Although it makes sense -- you read, but you don't bother to understand context.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since when is wikipedia your Bible?

QV please:

Based on over seven and a half years here, I'm now condensing my apologetics down into two simple rules of thumb:

Rule One: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the literal translation of the King James Bible to be contradicted.

If necessary, use even the punctuation therein to defend your point; but never let a point contradict the Bible -- ever.

Rule Two: Seek a logical explanation first; and if that doesn't work, then go with a theological explanation.

Scripture first, followed by basic doctrine, followed by suppositions; but don't let the logical trump the theological.

According to Psalm 19, there are two ways God reveals Himself to us:

1. General revelation ... through nature.

2. Specific revelation ... through the Bible.

So to answer your question:

It always has been.

 

[TLK Valentine]

QV please:

Seen it before -- didn't believe it then; not going to fall for it now.

According to Psalm 19, there are two ways God reveals Himself to us:

1. General revelation ... through nature.

2. Specific revelation ... through the Bible.

So to answer your question:

It always has been.

So Wikipedia has always been your Bible? Wasn't that easier to say?

 

[AV1611VET]

So Wikipedia has always been your Bible? Wasn't that easier to say?

You mean like the seven and a half years I've been saying I believe in 95% of the conclusions of scientists?

Isn't that the same thing?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You mean like the seven and a half years I've been saying I believe in 95% of the conclusions of scientists?

Isn't that the same thing?

Not really -- You only believe in one conclusion: your own.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really -- You only believe in one conclusion: your own.

Funny how 95% of "my own" happens to be yours as well, isn't it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Funny how 95% of "my own" happens to be yours as well, isn't it?

I accept truth without an agenda -- do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I accept truth without an agenda -- do you?

No.

 

[HitchSlap]

No.

Which means your credibility just took a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really? do you accept truth without an agenda?

If so, then we must have six moons, eh?

Either that, or you must weigh truth in some kind of scale and decide for yourself?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Really? do you accept truth without an agenda?

If so, then we must have six moons, eh?

Either that, or you must weigh truth in some kind of scale and decide for yourself?

Why would accepting the truth without an agenda imply there are six moons?

That makes no sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would accepting the truth without an agenda imply there are six moons?

That makes no sense.

There are six different theories as to how we got our moon.

One says a moon tried to pass us.

If this isn't true, then evidently truth is a matter of someone's interpretation, isn't it?

Another says we had two moons at one time.

If this isn't true, then evidently the answer to his own question would be NO as well.

Wouldn't it?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

There are six different theories as to how we got our moon.

One says a moon tried to pass us.

If this isn't true, then evidently truth is a matter of someone's interpretation, isn't it?

Another says we had two moons at one time.

If this isn't true, then evidently the answer to his own question would be NO as well.

Wouldn't it?

(bolding mine)

No.

If we don't know what happened, then we can only make guesses. There is no "truth".

 

[HitchSlap]

Really? do you accept truth without an agenda?

If so, then we must have six moons, eh?

Either that, or you must weigh truth in some kind of scale and decide for yourself?

My agenda is to accept the most reasonable explanation.