Monday, October 31, 2011

FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #15

Okay, Johnny P has decided not to switch tactics but again tries to attempt to mix in "logic" with his ad hominem instead of just name-calling. So here is round 15.

I had said
"Well, at least your arguments have evolved over the past month and are more clearly defined as you struggle to debate me. Evolved but not improved. You're welcomed by the way. I've been toying with you and it's been fun."

What a tool. Hiding behind ridiculous assertions in the hope that no one ACTUALLY reads the crap you have spewed over the last month. You are such a desperate man. I have skimmed this post, which is more than I did for the last few. You are the most disingenuous, self-deluded nutjob I have had the misfortune to interact with.

Wait for it. He's going to try to point to specific examples. Adorable. I hink he skims the Bible like he skims my posts. It would explain why he sometimes makes no sense.

As someone others said of you once, do you have a girlfriend? Friends? A life? Because if you are like this in real life, if you ever opened your mouth to speak the lies and distortion evident here, people would want to shut it in a not very complimentary manner.

Wait the "logic" will kick in eventually.

The sheer mind-numbing stupidity of your question begging assertions are hilarious:

"Well, Johnny P, if God had done that, you wouldn't be here would you? Nope. In fact none of us would be here, because none of can love God without His help."

You'd be laughed out of the philosophy and theology departments of your local university in shame!

Johnny, I'll take it that you can't answer the question. And given the things that you have said about theology and philosophy are demonstrably wrong (which I have pointed out), I wonder what makes you think that the rhetorical question is wrong and baseless given the Christian worldview you think you know well enough to criticize?I'm wondering what books you have skimmed to think that? (Not rhetorical) Maybe the problem is you don't understand the point being made. It would explain a lot. (Try the "T" in "Tulip" in Reformed Theology for help)


The fact you don't seem to see the logical invalidity of your arguments is sad, really.

You haven't demonstrated a logical invalidity but instead incessantly say its wrong and hide from any challenges to prove yourself correct. But that's okay, God loves you anyway.

Here is YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOUR DISHONESTY:

"You fallaciously conflated still-births and miscarriages with Abortions"

I think you'll find I said 'natural abortion'.

Yeah, you did. I still say you are mixing categories. Look I don't know if you are an American, but given some clues I'd say not. However, I think you should know a miscarriage or a still-birth is qualitatively different from a surgical procedure.

So, point 1 - you MISQUOTED ME AGAIN.

I wasn't tying to quote you. Did you see quotation marks? Italics? Standard English grammar, look it up.

Point 2, a definition from the OED of abortion -"the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus by natural causes before it is able to survive independently.

or from nrcl.org - "The term "abortion" actually refers to any premature expulsion of a human fetus, whether naturally spontaneous, as in a miscarriage, or artificially induced, as in a surgical or chemical abortion. "

Actually, to have been more accurate, I could have used the term naturally spontaneous abortion as in "A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion for natural, physiological reasons" so as not to confuse it with a herbal abortion.

This is why it's good to define terms. Interesting that you would want to discuss and defend your definition of "abortion" but will not discuss what you mean about "perfect world". The word has been changed and I didn't get the memo. You seem to be using a different definition than I am and I apologize for accusing you of confusing them. You are right that people are using "Natural Abortions" to describe miscarriages. It still doesn't change the point that God has a plan for everything that happens including miscarriages. I can admit when I'm mistaken, and you don't seem able to. Interesting that one of the few points you have correct has little to do with the main topic.

But the fact that God allows these fetal abortions to occur naturally, by his 'design' - (did he not design the world, could he not stop them?), means that he is responsible for these occurrences - the fetuses certainly aren't. They aren't even sentient yet.

How do you know they are not sentient yet? And yes, it is by God's design and He has chosen not to stop them, but He has sufficient reason for what He does even if we don't. Don't like it, talk to him about it, like Job and Habakkuk talked to Him about the evils that concerned them.

And this is what you do time after f"cking time. It's an embarrassment to good thinking Christians with whom I debate every day.

Do what? Misquote you? Misunderstand you? Disagree with you? What? I think you are wrong. I've behaved far better than you have towards me. And also I have not misrepresented the Bible nor what Christians believe, but you have.

Literally every single sentence you have written in red is a shocker up there. And if you believe the biblical account of the flood in the face of
masses of empirical evidence to the contrary and an account in the Epic of Gilgamesh (Tablet XI) which predates the biblical account by a thousand years, and yet has verses verbatim, you are worse than I thought. Genetics, human geography, population statistics, biology, geology, palaeontology, etc etc all disprove the global flood myth. Your cognitive dissonance threshold must be really high.

I think you're over reaching. And my views are not all that out there just because you disagree with me. Let me ask you a question: Why does the Epic of Gilgahmesh (which I think is good story) describe a vessel that could not been sea worthy, but the Bible's description of the Ark describes a vessel whose dimensions are not only sea worthy but all ship built to those proportions of length-width-height is almost impossible to capsize in stormy ocean conditions? Why is it that are largest ocean-going-ship are also built to the same proportions? Be clear, I'm not suggesting that we got those dimensions from the Bible but that science validates something that no one else knew, but the Jews, for at least 4000 years.

And don't quote the bible to prove the bible, you nonce.

I'm trying to get you to agree on what the Bible says first, noob. Then we can discuss if its true or not.

Fallacious and a schoolboy error. It's not my fault there is bugger all else you can pull on to prove the verisimilitude of the biblical accounts. Thinking quoting John can answer the implications of divine personhood in atemporal existence is hilarious.

John gives the answer to your question. Perhaps you misunderstood it. If you need help, just ask.

You just keep getting schooled. More so by your own own goals. But hey, you carry on asserting and asserting, misrepresenting and throwing in continual fallacies. I'm sure you think you sound great, just swell.

Me schooled? Yup, everyday, just not by you. I did learn something about how people are now using the term "natural abortion" (and I think it's stupid unfortunate), but aside from that all I've learned from you is that you think that there is too much evil and suffering to make God's existence probable, and you think the Bible is in error, and you think I'm dumb but you can't prove any of it. Yup, lots to learn from you. Also you write large blog articles about why you don't think Christianity is not probable, punting to emotion, and then say you are not trying to show that Christianity is wrong

BTW, presuming you are a Calvinist, the belief that we have no free will is about the .nly area we might ever agree,

You don't have to be Calvinist to question whether or not we have free will. Considering how much you butcher what Christians believe, I take it that you have misunderstood Christians who happen to be non-Calvinist. I bet you don't even know any real reformed folk. You really should read more.

What had happen' was.....: FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #14
Enhanced by Zemanta

40 comments:

  1. Johnny P; even if the bible is mostly a pseudo-historical record full of legends and myths, that does not mean there is not some wisdom in it. As far as conversing with Marcus goes, I'd check out Matthew 7:6. I'll paraphrase "Yea, and so be it that arguing with retards maketh one a retard themselves".

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Pseudo historical record"? And he calls me a retard. lol

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have never denied the wisdom in it. I deny the wisdom in quoting the bible to support...the bible, as being circular and widely discredited as a form of appeal.

    I will take your advice and leave this retard to his huge audience of admirers. We could go on, I could point out that the ark made of wood in biblical proportions is not physically possible, that the earth's crust would have imploded with the weight of the water, that population growths and distributions are physically impossible, that there is not enough water in he world to fulfil the description, that housing that many animals is physically impossible, especially needing all the other animals to feed them, so on and so forth. The list is endless, and only literalist gullibles would believe it. But I don't care any more. I really don't. He's welcome to his delusions.

    Good riddance.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @JohnnyP

    I have never denied the wisdom in it.

    Naw, that really would be screwry

    I deny the wisdom in quoting the bible to support...the bible, as being circular and widely discredited as a form of appeal.

    Again you can deny the Bible as being factual all you want, you're wrong of course but that isn't the point. You claimed to be talking about the Christian worldview which is based on....? Yes, the Bible. Therefore I can quote it when you butcher my worldview to show just how wrong your are.

    I will take your advice and leave this retard to his huge audience of admirers.

    we'll see how long that last

    We could go on, I could point out that the ark made of wood in biblical proportions is not physically possible, that the earth's crust would have imploded with the weight of the water, that population growths and distributions are physically impossible, that there is not enough water in he world to fulfil the description, that housing that many animals is physically impossible, especially needing all the other animals to feed them, so on and so forth. The list is endless, and only literalist gullibles would believe it.

    Nope. Each of these contentions have answers. Good ones. i guess you aren't educated enough to have interacted with them, so I won't waste my time given that you totally ignored the argument given by the size of the Ark fits modern ship building criteria. And you failed to explain how the author of Genesis knew it (it's irrelevant who it was, because the account predates how anyone would know it).

    But I don't care any more. I really don't.

    LOL. Yes, you don't.

    He's welcome to his delusions.

    You mean like the one that you are actually worth interacting with?

    Good riddance.

    Thanks for playing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Each of these contentions have answers.

    Yeah, great answers that appeal to mere possibility. It's the classic Marcus "You can't prove I'm wrong" argument.

    ...given that you totally ignored the argument given by the size of the Ark fits modern ship building criteria.

    What are modern ships made out of? Oh, wait, right, I can't prove "gofer" wood wasn't stronger than steel... sigh...

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Ryan

    So thanks for admitting that you can't prove I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  7. OK, and as always thank you for admitting you are a dimwit.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Feel free to prove that because you surely have a lot of personal experience writing dumb things.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Feel free to prove...

    Since you are quoting Vilenkin all of a sudden, perhaps you should consider this...

    "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man."

    PS: you are not qualified to disagree with him.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ryan, you poor lost soul. The quote from Vilenkin doesn't do anything negative to what I've said. Only demonstrates that you are unreasonable. Vilenkin is not God, of course I can disagree with the theological conclusions he drew in what I quoted. I'm not disagreeing him on his physics. And just because you are not qualified to make such a judgement in Physics or Theology, doesn't mean I am mot.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am not qualified to disagree with his philosophy or his physics? Pick one or both. Vilenkin is not a theologian or philosopher, therefore his opinion is no more valid than mine. It's not his expertise. The science can tell us what happened and how it happened, but it can't tell us why it happened. The theorem does not tell us that the universe did not have a beginning and does nothing to refute any theologian who has concluded that it does. And I am not disputing Vilenkin's scientific facts, I'm far more qualified than you to speak on matters of mathematics and physics and mathematical modeling. I've been trained in Physics and you apparently have not.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Ryan why did you not completely quote Vilenkin?

    It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

    Well?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kinda desperate quoting a typo correctly and ignoring the fact that you half quoted Vilenkin. Pathetic argumentation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kinda funny calling me out on your typo. Anyway, I'm not all that interested in the BGV theorem, but it doesn't get WLC what he thinks it does. In any case, I didn't half quote Vilenkin, what I did was quote him quoting an anonymous truism which had nothing to do with cosmology, but everything to do with your fatally flawed epistemology. I believe you are too dumb to understand that though...

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Ryan
    Kinda funny calling me out on your typo.

    I didn't realize the mistake. I thought it weas your mistake. You're just as prone to typos as everyone else. Your arguments are another problem for you.

    Anyway, I'm not all that interested in the BGV theorem, but it doesn't get WLC what he thinks it does.

    You are sure spending a lot of time on something that doesn't matter to you. And your opinion that it does not provide evidence for Dr Craig's position, shows just how much you don't understand.

    In any case, I didn't half quote Vilenkin, what I did was quote him quoting an anonymous truism which had nothing to do with cosmology, but everything to do with your fatally flawed epistemology.
    I believe you are too dumb to understand that though...


    I believe you only quoted the part you misunderstood. It applies to you more than it applies to me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I thought it weas your mistake.

    Something about planks in eyes...

    I believe you only quoted the part you misunderstood. It applies to you more than it applies to me.

    So thanks for admitting that you can't prove I'm wrong.

    Dimwit...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well pointing out and mocking typos is a whole lot easier than rebutt arguments which I have done and you have not.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well pointing out and mocking typos...

    oh and "mot"?

    Dimwit...

    ReplyDelete
  19. You can have that because that's the only argument you have. No wonder you are miserable.

    ReplyDelete
  20. No wonder you are miserable.

    I'm not. You?

    ReplyDelete
  21. You must be miserable given you spend time discussing things you don't care about like the BGV theorem and not doing it well...for entertainment. God can fulfill you much better. That would be ultimately best. But given that you would deny that...maybe you need a hobby.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just ran a marathon on Sunday, and am building my daughter a kayak. So I'm cool.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh, and the fact you thought my blog post was an essay was hilarious. I can give you plenty of essays I have written, but a blog post is hardly an essay. It's barely the length of an abstract...

    And as for flood ripostes, I love the utterly underwhelming 'good answers' which speaks volumes for the plausibility they have even with you, deep down. You'll be singing their praises through the mountains next, I'm sure.

    It's always good to get Christians' views on the flood:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24318573/Geologists-Noahs-Flood-Paper-at-ETS-by-Wolgemuth-Bennett-Davidson

    http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/flood357903.shtml

    Such that:
    "Simply put: there is not enough water in Earth’s atmosphere to raise the ocean’s levels over an inch, much less to cover Mt. Ararat with water from 40 days of rain. There is simply not that much water in the system.

    Thus, in order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many biblical literalists are willing to do. It is hypothetically possible that, say, the polar ice caps melted. This could raise the ocean levels beyond the 2.5 centimeters that all the earth’s atmospheric water could were it to all rain down, but even then the thaw would only slightly affect the world’s coastlines. Additionally, all scientific evidence points to larger polar ice caps in recent history, not smaller.13

    Simply put: there is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood. In other words, it’s impossible. There is not enough water in the earth’s atmospheric system to even come close to covering all of the earth’s landmasses.

    It is time for Christians to admit that some of the stories in Israel’s primordial history are not historical. It is ok to concede that these stories were crafted in a pre-scientific period and were designed to offer ethical answers to questions of why and not questions of how. Christians and Jews must concede that the Bible can still be “inspired” without being historically or scientifically “inerrant.” As the early church father Origen explained regarding the preservation of empirical truth within problematic documents edited by human hands, “the spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in material falsehood.”14 Simply because a factual error exists in the text of the Bible does not mean that an ethical truth or principal cannot still be conveyed. It is time for Christians to concede that “inspiration” does not equal “inerrancy,” and that “biblical” does not equal “historical” or even “factual.” Some claims like the flood and the six-day creation are neither historical nor factual; they were written to communicate in an pre-scientific literary form that god is responsible for the earth. It is time Christians conceded that there was no flood. It is time for Reformed Theological Seminary to concede that Bruce Waltke has a point.15 It is time for groups of evangelical amateurs to stop making sensational claims about discoveries they did not really make. And it is time for people to stop looking for Noah’s ark.

    It’s not there."

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh, and the fact you thought my blog post was an essay was hilarious. I can give you plenty of essays I have written, but a blog post is hardly an essay. It's barely the length of an abstract...

    So an "essay" is determined by it's length? I was being generous referring to it as an "essay", you should have taken it as such.

    And as for flood ripostes, I love the utterly underwhelming 'good answers' which speaks volumes for the plausibility they have even with you, deep down. You'll be singing their praises through the mountains next, I'm sure.

    Johnny P, you do realize that the book of Genesis describes a hydrological cycle that we don't see today right?

    It's always good to get Christians' views on the flood:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24318573/Geologists-Noahs-Flood-Paper-at-ETS-by-Wolgemuth-Bennett-Davidson

    http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/flood357903.shtml

    Such that:
    "Simply put: there is not enough water in Earth’s atmosphere to raise the ocean’s levels over an inch, much less to cover Mt. Ararat with water from 40 days of rain. There is simply not that much water in the system.


    Guess not. What about all the water above the sky that we don't have today, but you can't prove was not there in the past?

    Thus, in order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many biblical literalists are willing to do. It is hypothetically possible that, say, the polar ice caps melted. This could raise the ocean levels beyond the 2.5 centimeters that all the earth’s atmospheric water could were it to all rain down, but even then the thaw would only slightly affect the world’s coastlines. Additionally, all scientific evidence points to larger polar ice caps in recent history, not smaller.13

    Simply put: there is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood. In other words, it’s impossible. There is not enough water in the earth’s atmospheric system to even come close to covering all of the earth’s landmasses.

    It is time for Christians to admit that some of the stories in Israel’s primordial history are not historical. It is ok to concede that these stories were crafted in a pre-scientific period and were designed to offer ethical answers to questions of why and not questions of how. Christians and Jews must concede that the Bible can still be “inspired” without being historically or scientifically “inerrant.” As the early church father Origen explained regarding the preservation of empirical truth within problematic documents edited by human hands, “the spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in material falsehood.”14 Simply because a factual error exists in the text of the Bible does not mean that an ethical truth or principal cannot still be conveyed. It is time for Christians to concede that “inspiration” does not equal “inerrancy,” and that “biblical” does not equal “historical” or even “factual.” Some claims like the flood and the six-day creation are neither historical nor factual; they were written to communicate in an pre-scientific literary form that god is responsible for the earth. It is time Christians conceded that there was no flood. It is time for Reformed Theological Seminary to concede that Bruce Waltke has a point.15 It is time for groups of evangelical amateurs to stop making sensational claims about discoveries they did not really make. And it is time for people to stop looking for Noah’s ark.

    It’s not there."


    So unfortunately some people still want to think of themselves as Christians but chuck Biblical inerrancy under the bus. So what? That does not mean the Bible is wrong or conflict with science. The article is assuming the same hydrological cycle as we have today. This comment is as pointless as Johnny P's original post. I'd laugh if it weren't so so pathetic and desperate.

    Oh well, I'll laugh anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Guess not. What about all the water above the sky that we don't have today, but you can't prove was not there in the past?

    Wow...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ryan, I have to agree with you. THAT's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

    With that logic, unicorns and goblins existed too!

    This is a guy that uses science when it suits him, but when it directly contravenes his biblical passages, he cherry picks his way to corner.

    The best part is this: "so so pathetic and desperate"

    Never will you here a guy sound so defensive and desperate as this. Faced with overwhelming evidence and plausibility, all he can do is turn, once again, to ad hom.

    He'll probably claim there IS scientific evidence, but won't submit the sources until Margaret from three doors down submits her qualifications to him personally.

    I love the fact he claims it is pathetic and then relies on this for rebuttal:

    "Guess not. What about all the water above the sky that we don't have today, but you can't prove was not there in the past?"

    That is flat out the funniest thing I have heard this year. Seriously bad. He has gone from zero credibility to beyond Absolute Zero. That's a 'good answer' Marcus, it really is! It convinces me...and NASA... and the NAAS ... and the RS ...

    Shit me, there's a unicorn!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Johnny P, you are the king of ad hominem. you have to be...that's all you got in lieu of logic, arguments, and a point to your existence.

    since you and Ryan Anderson have no hope of exegeting the Biblical text, let met help you. I'll go out on a limb and tell you to read Genesis 1:6,7 and ask yourself a single question, "Does the water described above the sky mean liquid"? Doesn't have to. You have heard the theory that the earth used to have a ring of ice like Saturn does now? Guess not. Figures.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Idiot; can you find us one, just one, example where an unqualified mayim is ever used to refer to “frozen water”, instead of using qerach, sheleg, kĕfowr or the like. It’s worth noting too that I’m only aware of one place where mayim is qualifying with another word to render “frozen water” (also note, it’s not qualified in Genesis 1) and the word used to qualify it, lakad, is nothing like how we understand “frozen” in the English sense (change of state from liquid to solid) and occurs in a book that is stylistically and culturally pretty far removed from the Pentateuch. Now, with all that said, instead of just baseless asserting that my exegesis is horrible, how about you just provide one example of the above. That would be great for a change.

    It’s also extremely entertaining how you will punt to “miracle” for certain things (talking donkeys, etc…), but hopelessly try to support this obvious myth with unevidenced speculation and a ridiculously liberal reading of Hebrew. If ever there was a time for you to punt to “miracle”, it’s now Marcus, punt punt punt!!!

    And believe it or not, there is actually not much we can argue with if you simply claimed “God magically created a lot of water, magically prevented the earth’s crust from collapsing, magically prevented the atmosphere from boiling away, but then magically prevented evidence of this event from being seen in the geological record, and then magically made all the water go away, magically preventing the crust from exploding outward from the release of pressure, of course. After all, he’s God”. We could still call you a deluded moron, but we couldn’t actually argue with the statement.

    And for the record, I was not aware that anyone thought the earth formerly had rings of ice, especially during the last 80,000 years (note: rings of ice around the earth does not really help you take “the firmament separated the waters above from the waters below” literally). And now that I’ve researched it, I’m still not aware that anyone of any consequence actually takes that “theory” seriously.

    This is just you cherry picking the bible and, um, I guess “science”, so you can continue to believe what you’ve already committed to believe.

    ReplyDelete

  29. Idiot; can you find us one, just one, example where an unqualified mayim is ever used to refer to “frozen water”, instead of using qerach, sheleg, kĕfowr or the like. It’s worth noting too that I’m only aware of one place where mayim is qualifying with another word to render “frozen water” (also note, it’s not qualified in Genesis 1) and the word used to qualify it, lakad, is nothing like how we understand “frozen” in the English sense (change of state from liquid to solid) and occurs in a book that is stylistically and culturally pretty far removed from the Pentateuch. Now, with all that said, instead of just baseless asserting that my exegesis is horrible, how about you just provide one example of the above. That would be great for a change.


    Your exegesis is horrible. Just because the text does not say that the water was frozen doesn't mean that it wasn't.

    It’s also extremely entertaining how you will punt to “miracle” for certain things (talking donkeys, etc…), but hopelessly try to support this obvious myth with unevidenced speculation and a ridiculously liberal reading of Hebrew. If ever there was a time for you to punt to “miracle”, it’s now Marcus, punt punt punt!!!

    Given that the earth was most radically different before the flood, I don't think that "magic" is necessary to understand how God did it. Jesus did not think it was a myth. Neither did Peter, nor any evidence that anyone contemporaneous to when the Bible was written seem to think that Noah was a myth. You always seem to punt to stupidity and foolishness.

    And for the record, I was not aware that anyone thought the earth formerly had rings of ice, especially during the last 80,000 years

    Now you know. At least you aren't completely dense. You're welcomed.

    (note: rings of ice around the earth does not really help you take “the firmament separated the waters above from the waters below” literally). And now that I’ve researched it, I’m still not aware that anyone of any consequence actually takes that “theory” seriously.

    Do you mean that the earth had rings? IT still has a very faint one. Keep Googling. And Considering that the Bible is not very descriptive, I see no reason taking it to mean something that we can't prove or is wrong. Why not just admit we don't know yet what it was like instead of using your limited imagination and crying foul because you can't prove it? Oh because then you can continue pretending that the Bible is errant.

    This is just you cherry picking the bible and, um, I guess “science”, so you can continue to believe what you’ve already committed to believe.

    You sure have a very strange definition of "Cherry Picking". I haven't just taking anything and spun it. The truth is you are free to ignore the idea that Bible is referring to rings in orbit, but you can't deny that they were there.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Your exegesis is horrible.

    Right, no example. OK.

    ReplyDelete
  31. If you really understood what you are talking about you would know that I am merely making a suggestion, not a dogmatic fact. It doesn't really matter if I am wrong and I freely I admit that it may not be referring to Earth's rings, but that only means I'm wrong, not the Bible. The Bible is inerrant. I am not inerrant and your surely are prone to much error. You are just too prideful and arrogant to admit when you are wrong and had not considered something. I hope you enjoyed all the research you went into hoping I was wrong to sway your fears that I might be right.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I am merely making a suggestion...

    Nope, you are trying desperatly to find some reason to believe in a pre-scientific, goofy myth.

    but that only means I'm wrong, not the Bible.

    True, but it also means you have no reason to believe the bible is correct in this case.

    You are just too prideful and arrogant to admit when you are wrong and had not considered something.

    Me, earlier: "I was not aware that anyone thought the earth formerly had rings of ice, especially during the last 80,000 years".

    I mean seriously, that was two posts back. What's wrong with you?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Nope, you are trying desperatly to find some reason to believe in a pre-scientific, goofy myth.

    Prove that


    True, but it also means you have no reason to believe the bible is correct in this case.


    You have no reason to believe the Bible is incorrect, beside the fact that you are desperate not to believe it. You can't prove it wrong.

    Me, earlier: "I was not aware that anyone thought the earth formerly had rings of ice, especially during the last 80,000 years".

    I mean seriously, that was two posts back. What's wrong with you?


    I thought maybe you actually learned something. My mistake. I apologize for thinking more of you that I had real reason to assume.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I love the horrible exegesis that Marcus has. His exegesis is this:

    Presuppositionally believe everything the bible says and then frantically google for hours on end to find some utterly implausible and ad hoc manner in which he can still delude himself that the bible is true. The very definition of cognitive dissonance. If he went to NASA, NAAS, the RD or any other scientific organisations with his theories, he'd be laughed out of the room. The funny thing is, he cherry picks his cosmology and the punts to rings of frozen water around the earth to justify a literal Genesis. And then has the audacity to claim OUR exegesis is horrible.

    He has no threshold for plausibility for believing biblical passages. He will only choose science which coheres with the bible, and as soon as it doesn't, it gets presuppositionally trumped by a 2000 year old book.

    But apparently, that evidence is amazing and self-authenticating, it's just that we poor fools are unable to interpret it correct;y. By correctly, I mean in exactly the way Marcus does.

    Spot on Ryan with this: "And believe it or not, there is actually not much we can argue with if you simply claimed “God magically created a lot of water, magically prevented the earth’s crust from collapsing, magically prevented the atmosphere from boiling away, but then magically prevented evidence of this event from being seen in the geological record, and then magically made all the water go away, magically preventing the crust from exploding outward from the release of pressure, of course. After all, he’s God”. We could still call you a deluded moron, but we couldn’t actually argue with the statement."

    The old logical trumps utterly probable shenanigans. I'd love to see you sit a geology or astrophysics course. You'd get howled at.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Here's a guy who thinks he's all that and a bag of chips; who thinks he knows philosophy. Look at this post on oughts and morality. He simply asserts. He starts from assertions and goes on. He doesn't realise that 'ought' is simply a prostasis to a hidden apodosis and has no intrinsic meaning. He doesn't realise that to even argue that, he needs to prove reasons externalism (over reasons internalism). He doesn't realise that objective morality is harder (you need to jump more hurdles and get over more assertions) to philosophically argue objective morality, or moral realism than to argue consequentialist or utilitarian ethics. He doesn't realise that the term 'objective' is hugely problematic and he needs to prove its internal coherence first. He doesn't realise that God is a consequentialist moralist, thus either invalidating objective morality or making its intrinsic value worthless in comparison to consequences. This is proven by God himself in the bible.

    No, what does he do? Appeal emotively to Hitler like some bad dinner party conversation.

    As I have sadi before, if you are going to deal with philosophy in a serious manner, get a philosophy qualification or at least do some serious reading and research. You'd get shot down in flames in a moral philosophy course with such 'reasoning'.

    ReplyDelete