The Flood (2)

[MoonLancer]

That's why I don't rely on fallacy.

actually it does, otherwise you would not use it.

Historical revisionism.

says the man with no evidence... and no way to demonstrate his position.

What your really saying is the bible doesn't get a free pass and must be treated with the same considerations as any other document.

When the bible is treated as a historical document rather then something that must be believed through faith it falls flat on its face.

 

[AV1611VET]

All you need is evidence.

Come right on up here to the chalkboard and point out to me where it's at:

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The only reason -- (or maybe you have more, I don't know) -- but the only reason you think it's dishonest, is because you don't understand it.

In my opinion.

That wouldn't make it dishonest, and yet, it is: injecting religious dogma under the guise of genuine curricula is dishonest. That is what you are proposing, and it is dishonest. Teach it as religion, because that's all it is. If you can give us the evidence that supports your claims, it can go in the school curriculum. But by your own admission, there is no such evidence...

 

[MoonLancer]

What your really saying is the bible doesn't get a free pass. Oh yes so bias and revisionist.

instead its treated with the same consideration as any other document of its type. You are in fact someone who simply picks bible verses because they sound like they belong in a given argument and have absolutely no understanding of the historical context. And coming from someone who believes that only the KJV is the true word of God you really have no position to be talking about history. Someone who wont even visit the bible in Latin to understand it in a historical context.

oh I'm sorry. you have faith. So much for history.

 

[MoonLancer]

Come right on up here to the chalkboard and point out to me where it's at:

*points to any star in the sky*

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Come right on up here to the chalkboard and point out to me where it's at:

YouTube - Beck - Where It's At

 

[AV1611VET]

But by your own admission, there is no such evidence...

And by your (pl.) own [lack of proper] responses to my Apple Challenge, it's your (pl.) admission as well.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

On a serious note AV, why do expect us to believe that which has zero evidence?

Note: Serious question, although I expect you'll respond with your normal MO.
An honest reply would be appreciated and respected however.

 

[MoonLancer]

And by your (pl.) own [lack of proper] responses to my Apple Challenge, it's your (pl.) admission as well.

many people have already refuted your apple challenge. the horse is dead man.

 

[AV1611VET]

*points to any star in the sky*

Swing and a [big-time] miss -- not even the sun existed as yet, and certainly wouldn't be on my chalkboard.

 

[MoonLancer]

Swing and a [big-time] miss -- not even the sun existed as yet, and certainly wouldn't be on my chalkboard.

another thing you have no evidence for. sorry ;0

 

[MoonLancer]

Stars give off light and scientists know how far that light is.

So your forced to believe god created those stars with light already in motion, or the universe is at least as old as the distance that light has traveled.

 

[AV1611VET]

On a serious note AV, why do expect us to believe that which has zero evidence?

It's called "faith" -- believing something, even when science says otherwise.

An honest reply would be appreciated and respected however.

YouTube - Coughing Fit

 

[AV1611VET]

So your forced to believe god created those stars with light already in motion, or the universe is at least as old as the distance that light has traveled.

Not on Day One, He didn't -- which is what my Terra Aqua pic is.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

It's called "faith" -- believing something, even when science says otherwise.

I believe it was Samuel Clemens who said it best: Faith is believin' what you know ain't true.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe it was Samuel Clemens who said it best: Faith is believin' what you know ain't true.

Ya -- and NASA said 'go for throttle-up' -- what's your point?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I totally disagree.

The universe at one time was estimated to be 40 billion years old.

The moon at one time was considered much older.

But its actual age never changed -- we just got more accurate in figuring it out.

 

[AV1611VET]

But its actual age never changed -- we just got more accurate in figuring it out.

Well, keep trying, will you?

You've got a lot more accuracy to go.

 

[MoonLancer]

Not on Day One, He didn't -- which is what my Terra Aqua pic is.

so you have a picture of a hamster ball. congratulations.

 

[MoonLancer]

Ya -- and NASA said 'go for throttle-up' -- what's your point?

Not everyone who works at nasa are scientists. If they were this would never have happend