Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[Cabal]

So you have to have a lobotomy before you can enter heaven to ensure you forget all the objections that anybody with a normally functioning mind would have to the way the management are organising things? Nice.

Interesting that this is the only way to get round the problem of people being distraught at the thought of friends and relatives suffering in hell, which would clearly take the gloss off any attractions heaven has to offer.

So I wonder did God forget to lobotomise Lazarus the pauper? He seemed to recognise the rich man suffering in hell, who neglected his needs during their time on earth.

That must have been interesting if he was actually lobotomised, did the gospel writers miss out the massive conversation where a man on fire tries to convince a guy on another plane of existence that there once was this planet called "earth"....

 

[AV1611VET]

Because you conflate understanding with acceptance?

Wondering where the Flood waters went does not sound like the questioner is rejecting the story.

It sounds like the questioner is requesting further information.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you have to have a lobotomy before you can enter heaven to ensure you forget all the objections that anybody with a normally functioning mind would have to the way the management are organising things? Nice.

You asked a question, and I answered it.

Are you here to learn, or are you here to vent & ridicule?

 

[Belk]

Wondering where the Flood waters went does not sound like the questioner is rejecting the story.

It sounds like the questioner is requesting further information.

No, it is called the Socratic method.

Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea is to ask questions so that you find out where your hypothesis breaks down.

 

[AV1611VET]

"One small step for [a] man, one giant leap for AV."

Whatever.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it is called the Socratic method.

Funny that I'm not detecting any real sincerity, eh?

 

[Belk]

Funny that I'm not detecting any real sincerity, eh?

You mean you find it odd that people don't take your claims serious when you have no evidence, claim there can be no evidence, say that a large portion of the evidence we do have is wrong? Do you find other peoples claims of ipsie dixit terribly compelling? No AV, I don't find your lack of detection of sincerity funny at all. I think it is right on the mark. But then, I am one of those horrible evil agnostics who wants things like evidence and demonstration before I believe something.

 

[Non sequitur]

Like this one?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The statement in itself makes sense.

"An un-testable thing created things."

It doesn't prove it's claims, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

But then, I am one of those horrible evil agnostics who wants things like evidence and demonstration before I believe something.

Don't use the phone book then.

 

[AV1611VET]

The statement in itself makes sense.

"An un-testable thing created things."

It doesn't prove it's claims, though.

Are you talking about God here, or abiogenesis?

 

[Belk]

Don't use the phone book then.

Sorry, this must be one of your catch phrases I am not familiar with.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, this must be one of your catch phrases I am not familiar with.

I can just see you asking your wife for the number to Pizza Hut:

• You: Honey, what's the number for Pizza Hut?
• Honey: It is...
• You: Wait! Is that from the phone book?
• Honey: Yes, why?
• You: Has that number been confirmed, or are you taking it by faith it is the correct number?
• Honey: Look it up, yourself, then.

 

[Cabal]

Don't use the phone book then.

Presumably when a creationist dials a wrong number and reality disappoints their expectations, they insist on telling the person they dialled that they're wrong to say they're someone else, and must be the person they were expecting to reach?

 

[Non sequitur]

Are you talking about God here, or abiogenesis?

I was talking about the theory of your God, not the theory of abiogenesis.

 

[Cabal]

I can just see you asking your wife for the number to Pizza Hut:

• You: Honey, what's the number for Pizza Hut?
• Honey: It is...
• You: Wait! Is that from the phone book?
• Honey: Yes, why?
• You: Has that number been confirmed, or are you taking it by faith it is the correct number?
• Honey: Look it up, yourself, then.

No, it's checked by observation, by DIALLING THE NUMBER.

Creationists and analogies don't make good bedfellows.

 

[Belk]

I can just see you asking your wife for the number to Pizza Hut:

• You: Honey, what's the number for Pizza Hut?
• Honey: It is...
• You: Wait! Is that from the phone book?
• Honey: Yes, why?
• You: Has that number been confirmed, or are you taking it by faith it is the correct number?
• Honey: Look it up, yourself, then.

Funny, because when I have used the phone book in the past it has worked as advertised. See, that would be part of the whole testing thing.

 

[Non sequitur]

Funny, because when I have used the phone book in the past it has worked as advertised. See, that would be part of the whole testing thing.

Testing?

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

No, it's checked by observation, by DIALLING THE NUMBER.

Creationists and analogies don't make good bedfellows.

At least someone will answer the phone, even if you dialed the wrong number.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's checked by observation, by DIALLING THE NUMBER.

Every phone number is a potential test tube, isn't it?

 

[Non sequitur]

Every phone number is a potential test tube, isn't it?

That's where the whole stem cell thing comes in.