Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sure you studied polystrate trees through several different layers of sediment, each sedimentary layer **supposedly** taking millions of years to form. So the trees took millions of years to grow as the sedimentary layers were laid down around them? And some of the trees are upside down and are found around the world.
P.S. The Bible actually is a historical document.
So do you stand by your accussations that my profs, TAs and myself are cowards and liers? The Bible has a commandment that says not to make false testimony and you told your God to F himself. That is priceless.
I look around and there is zero evidence of a global flood and you can quote all the creationist pages and they stock points (which all have been debunked if you bothered to look them up). You never address the points made to you due to lack of knowledge of anything other than cut and paste what creationist sites blab about. A global flood would mean that practically every law of nature was suspended.
Why should anyone take the Bible serious if you need to violate it and lie to try to prove it? Especially when you yourself disregard the message that your supposed god and saviour made it in.
So do you stand by your accussations that my profs, TAs and myself are cowards and liers? The Bible has a commandment that says not to make false testimony and you told your God to F himself. That is priceless.
I look around and there is zero evidence of a global flood and you can quote all the creationist pages and they stock points (which all have been debunked if you bothered to look them up). You never address the points made to you due to lack of knowledge of anything other than cut and paste what creationist sites blab about. A global flood would mean that practically every law of nature was suspended.
Why should anyone take the Bible serious if you need to violate it and lie to try to prove it? Especially when you yourself disregard the message that your supposed god and saviour made it in.
Please show us where I told God to F Himself. I'm sure you studied polystrate trees through several different layers of sediment, each sedimentary layer **supposedly** taking millions of years to form. So the trees took millions of years to grow as the sedimentary layers were laid down around them? And some of the trees are upside down and are found around the world.
For you to prove such a statement you would have to prove all the genealogies are not historical. All the places, dates etc. are not historical. All the battles are not historical. All the countries Israel were in were not historical. You'd have to prove the prophets were not historical. You'd have to prove Jesus and the 12 and Pilate and Paul and all the others are not historical.
You see, you can't just say so without proving so. Now get to work and see if you can prove your thesis.
That's not how it works. You claim that the bible is a historical document and that it is literally true.
That's not how it works. You claim that the bible is a historical document and that it is literally true.
The burden of proof is on you. Get to work!
The work has already been done for me. Just read the Book.
Just more obfuscation from you. You can't prove it's not historical so you pull the switch tactic. Tisk, tisk, tisk.
I'm sure you studied polystrate trees through several different layers of sediment, each sedimentary layer **supposedly** taking millions of years to form. So the trees took millions of years to grow as the sedimentary layers were laid down around them? And some of the trees are upside down and are found around the world.
And still you refuse to answer my questions which were asked first and seveal times. If you have to so dishonest to prove your work of fiction so be it.
I am more aware of the geology and geography in my area than you are, and yet you claim to know about it than me, not even knowing where I am.
As you are either unwilling or unable to answer my question on is your God or your sited web site wrong I will take it as both are wrong, one incorrectly stated a fact that is indeed not true and the other is incompentent.
The work has already been done for me. Just read the Book.
Just more obfuscation from you. You can't prove it's not historical so you pull the switch tactic. Tisk, tisk, tisk.
The story of a global flood is false therefore according to your comments the entire Bible must be false as well.
Plus you do not know how proving or disproving anything works.
The work has already been done for me. Just read the Book.
Just more obfuscation from you. You can't prove it's not historical so you pull the switch tactic. Tisk, tisk, tisk.
There's no switch involved, the burden of proof is on those that make the claim.
The claim: The bible is an actual historical document
I reject your claim.
Now it is your job to bring sufficient evidence to backup your claim. The bible isn't proof that the bible is a historical document. That is what we call circular reasoning, genius
And still you refuse to answer my questions which were asked first and seveal times. If you have to so dishonest to prove your work of fiction so be it.
I am more aware of the geology and geography in my area than you are, and yet you claim to know about it than me, not even knowing where I am.
As you are either unwilling or unable to answer my question on is your God or your sited web site wrong I will take it as both are wrong, one incorrectly stated a fact that is indeed not true and the other is incompentent.
I wonder why your link doesn't mention upside down polystrate trees.
Obviously you were taught according to the idea of uniformitarianism. It's not your fault and maybe not the fault of those who taught you.
I don't know what your question is about "is my God on my sited web site wrong?" Wrong about what and what cited web site?
There's no switch involved, the burden of proof is on those that make the claim.
The claim: The bible is an actual historical document
I reject your claim.
Now it is your job to bring sufficient evidence to backup your claim. The bible isn't proof that the bible is a historical document. That is what we call circular reasoning, genius
Nope, you said it wasn't historical. So it is up to you to prove so. We can do this round and round a hundred or more times if you want.
Why is it every time I post this, no one comments on it? Is Flew that hot of a potato for atheists and evolutionists that they just hope it gets buried within hundreds of posts?
He said:
"In October 2004 (before the December publication of the Flew-Habermas interview), in a letter written to the historian and atheist Richard Carrier of the Secular Web Flew stated that he was a deist . . . Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."
Flew used to be a world-renowned atheist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
