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 misjudged you. That's rare for me...as sizing people and situations up is a strong suit for me, even in a removed environment like this.
OTOH...Thanx for that. I am now hip to the actual level of mentality I am dealing with in your case.
"GOD" is everything in totality...inclusive of anything and everything you may childishly find to be "icky".
Thank you for the accolades. I generally make an attempt to judge the nature of the discussion and then go with the flow.
When you and the other Christians agree about what the Bible says get back to anyone else but me.
When you can prove one or all are wrong get back to me.
Quote:
Sound evidence will convince a skeptic.
The only verifiable evidence for the existence of God is His creation, which you do not accept, but are unable to offer an idea that can be proved.
Quote:
All you have shown is a closed mind to evidence. What you call an 'open mind' is gullible swallowing of faith claims with no more support than you have produced, which, old mate, was nothing like good enough.
Not good enough for you, but good enough for millions. You accept evolution and you have no verifiable evidence for anything it preaches.
God certainly exists in the minds of many. It's just that you cannot establish in any way that God exists physically. A god who only exists in the imagination but not physically is not a god we really need to concern ourselves with very much.
God certainly does snot exist in the minds of many. It's just that you can't establish in any way that He doesn't. A God who does exist is any way is One you need to concern yourself with.
What is the natural circumstance that started your genetic line off centuries ago? You can't tell us, because you don't know. You weren't there. But you know there had to be one.
What started all genetic lines was not natural, it was supernatural.
If you thought those were accolades, your judgment is in serious doubt.
I'm afraid, Mystic, that I can't give you the benefit of doubt of the dryest of irony in your post. I can only put it down to a totally hunourless obtuseness that gives me the creeps, frankly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You don't have "Negative Evidence"...you claim you have "NO Evidence.
Then you try to use No Evidence as evidence...that you employ as a flawed premise in an illogical Argument From Ignorance to come to your unreasonable determination.
You are standing in a goldmine, with a shovel full of pure gold...and claim you have no evidence for the existence of any gold. I guess you think if you deny observations...that somehow means they don't exist.
Thank you for exhibiting your dishonesty in misrepresenting the negative evidence point (since I just explained it, ignorance is no excuse for you) and then forcing it on us. It's a stock theist ploy from reversal of burden of proof, to double standards regarding the degrees of probability.
When you can prove one or all are wrong get back to me.
The only verifiable evidence for the existence of God is His creation, which you do not accept, but are unable to offer an idea that can be proved.
Not good enough for you, but good enough for millions. You accept evolution and you have no verifiable evidence for anything it preaches.
Fine with me, but I doubt it.
Utter cheek and dishonesty. I have explained discrepancies three times and you have simply ignored them and now demand I 'prove' them (a stock Eusebian ploy - if you deny everything, it hasn't been proved) I have posted them - now it's down to you to show they are NOT contradictions.
The museums full of verified evidence, the verified evidence of DNA, which you dismissed with a display of double standards (1) and the in your face morphological evidence that you simply (as Eusebius) refused to look at.
Game over, as I said, despite your whingeing.
(1) ignoring the 90 -odd % DNA links for primates than with other bioforms - which is a relationship -pattern that holds throughout the biosphere, and saying the few percent difference means there in no genetic relation.
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.
