Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[AV1611VET]

Haha, no.

Which son of Noah did they come from then?

 

[VirOptimus]

Which son of Noah did they come from then?

I dont belive in Noah (or any other myths in the bible or other religious texts).

 

[disciple Clint]

No your views (or any other views from other ignorant persons) wont matter, and your gish gallops are all PRATTS.

all that talk but i still do not see any of my posts refuted. talking a big game does not win the game. insulting people by calling them ignorant does not benefit anyone.

 

[VirOptimus]

all that talk but i still do not see any of my posts refuted. talking a big game does not win the game. insulting people by calling them ignorant does not make anyone look like they are intelligent.

I give your posts the answer they deserve.

 

[AV1611VET]

I dont belive in Noah (or any other myths in the bible or other religious texts).

So "Haha, no" would apply to any son of Noah, correct?

That's real scholarly.

 

[VirOptimus]

So "Haha, no" would apply to any son of Noah, correct?

That's real scholarly.

I, unlike you, accept reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

I, unlike you, accept reality.

Only the part that shows. The rest is blacklisted and/or firewalled.

 

[VirOptimus]

Only the part that shows. The rest is blacklisted and/or firewalled.

You dont accept the reality that "shows" which is a losing position.

 

[AV1611VET]

You dont accept the reality that "shows" which is a losing position.

Only the parts that contradict the Bible.

That's why I won't step off of a tall building; I know reality will let me down.

 

[VirOptimus]

Only the parts that contradict the Bible.

-snip-

Correction, the parts that contradict your interpretation of one version of the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Correction, the parts that contradict your interpretation of one version of the bible.

Which is larger? total reality, or scientific reality?

In your opinion, I don't accept scientific reality; and in my opinion, you don't accept total reality.

Who's the bigger loser?

 

[VirOptimus]

Which is larger? total reality, or scientific reality?

In your opinion, I don't accept scientific reality; and in my opinion, you don't accept total reality.

Who's the bigger loser?

Loser? Thats a childish term.

I accept reality and what can be supported by evidence.

People can have whatever religious faiths they want, if its positive for them then thats great if it isnt, thats tragic.

But science doesnt care about faith, miracles, magic or god(s). Pitching religion against science is incredibly stupid.

 

[AV1611VET]

Loser? Thats a childish term.

But effective.

I accept reality and what can be supported by evidence.

I believe I said you do.

People can have whatever religious faiths they want, if its positive for them then thats great if it isnt, thats tragic.

And ... ?

But science doesnt care about faith, miracles, magic or god(s).

Well at least I care enough about science to say that true scientists are gifted to us from God; unlike some, who won't even acknowledge the true God.

Pitching religion against science is incredibly stupid.

It sure is. It exposes worldly science as containing a pack of lies.

 

[Mr Laurier]

If it is impossible to refute the evidence, a weak criticism could be made that it is posted in the wrong place.

I am very interested to see the evidence that you have to support your assertion. Please what do you have to refute the evidence I provided.

The unedited copies of Josephus are available for viewing in museum.
And copies are available from public libraries.
The original Josephus refers to several men named Jesus. One being Jesus Bar Rabi. Another being Jesus Ben Pantros.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Neat trick, since the Chinese come from Noah's great grandson.

Genesis 10:17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,

Noah → Ham → Canaan → Sinites

No trick. The Chinese came from the Yellow river valley, and the Yangtze river valley.
Your "Sinites" are imaginary.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Which son of Noah did they come from then?

None

 

[Frank Robert]

Actually it's never been explained, certainly not on this thread.

Sure it has. I've explained it at 3 times. Mutations are random, natural selection is not. What don't you understand?

 

[Astrid]

any and all posted facts are subject to being refuted, if your assertions are true it should be of no effort for you to do so. I understand that is much easier to attempt to dismiss information that challenges closely held beliefs or should I say non beliefs.

Your kalam cosmo is philosophy not science. It certainly is not information.
Various refutations are available on line for
those amused by dueling websites.
Nobody can claim "cosmo" has anything
to do with science.
So throw that bit- o- gish out.
What do you want refuted next ?

Keep in mind that a simple claim or accusation
is easy to make, could be a major effort to disprove.
(See IRS audit)

Also, of course, to prove one significant feature of
a theory or law has an exception rings the whole thing
down, while a gish has virtually infinite resources.

If you even did admit that cosmo isn't science,
next just say "paluxy man tracks".
Well, if real, those would disprove ToE.

So I spend how long marshaling all the data
against their being real, and you can just
handwave; and the gish o pretty stretches infinitely
to the horizon.
Now, if that feels like a win, terrif. Go forth
in glory. (See humpty dumpy definition of glory, Lewis Carrol)

If perchance a sensible discussion is wanted,
pick one item that you feel would disprove
ToE. No gsh gallop needed. A rapier thrust
to the heart of evolution!
If you cannot or will not do that a gish
is like a garbage dump, it will convince
people of something, but not, you know, that
a glorious win for God has taken place.

 

[Astrid]

My views or the views of any other person will always matter. I have provided evidence if you want to refute it be my guest, in fact I invite you to refute it.

And you are invited to submit ONE item for review.

 

[AV1611VET]

No trick. The Chinese came from the Yellow river valley, and the Yangtze river valley.

Those are geographical areas, not DNA sources.

Your "Sinites" are imaginary.

You're imagining this.