You see, reef. It’s answers like this that are so off-putting.
We know you are smart enough, so there is only one conclusion, and that is that you are not an honest debater.
What I would like to know is why?
Why would someone do this, you don’t feel ashamed while typing the stuff you do?
Could you give me an honest answer? Are you capable of that?
Why don’t you read this, and if you have any questions that aren’t covered there we can discuss them.
My earnest companions, why bother. Although everyone here is using English words, some are clearly speaking a different language than others. A person who believes that debate is a matter of who can throw the most quotes is not on the same playing field as a person who believes that quotes are only useful to illustrate a concept. A person who believes in raising objections to individual points is not concerned whether his objections compose an internally coherent system.
And a person who deliberately confuses the formation of sedimentary rocks with the explanation of why they are found where they are now is not likely to accept anything else about geology.
Cool. I was browsing and in the biology section, CB105 is better on the technical side than what I said at post 545.
It also reminded me that there are whole “new” - we suppose - classes of xenonucleic acids (XNAs) that have the same base pairs but a different “backbone” and can undergo normal evolution.
I just figured that if reef shark was going to go down the same standard list of questions we’ve heard a thousand times before, why not just provide the standard list of answers?
That’s right I justified it with the wiki article.
No you, and only you, just said that once.
Please quote where they clearly show that I am wrong.
You asked what source Wiki used. So I ask what source your good doctors used. But I guess you don’t need one since you can’t produce a quote that supports your claim in the first place.
You believe in Noah’s ark Professor? If we are to believe the Genesis stories as real then the dating between the Bible flood and the Titanic guys flood is off by about 2000 years.
The moon doesn’t have any light to give. So that’s strike one against the Matthew prophecy. (Also, the stars will fall from heaven? Presumably onto earth - really?)
Strike two is that the early Christians expected the end times to happen in their own time.
Strike three is that it didn’t happen and it’s been over 2000 years.
Show me where a hominid fossil lays along side a fossil of a cambrian creature (ex. Trilobites). You do that, then you have a case.
We both know you can’t do that though. In fact, you can’t show any hominid fossils where they are not expected (via evolutionary theory) to be. Another blow against creationism and a global flood. In short, the global flood ‘theory’ has been falsified.
Why can’t plants live in space if they can live without the Sun? Why do they need photosynthesis at all? If they can live without the Sun they can live without food, heat, and a whole host of other things.
In short, your position is ridiculous.
Also, I will take your silence on the moon and your prior post as a concession that you do think that the moon generates it’s own light - as the Bible teaches - as opposed to reflecting light from the Sun, as science has shown. I’m curious, since this is your implied position, does this mean you deny the moon landings as well, since the astronauts would have melted when they landed on the lesser light that is the moon?
Your position is becoming more and more bizarre and laughable.
No, I don’t believe in Noah’s ark.
Did I? Are you suggesting Catholics didn’t burn people to death?
So you’re claim is that the Catholic Church tortures and burns people to death because of their “disposition” and that’s supposed to make it better?
I’m glad to know you think it was wrong from the “perspective of the 21st century”, but the way you write, you make it sound like you don’t think it is wrong in general.
OK I see, that makes it alright.:rolleyes: Anyway:
Bolding mine.
I didn’t think you would. As I recall you believe in the historicity of the bare minimum number of miracles that you think will gain you entrance into heaven.
What an interesting conceit. False, but interesting. Tell me, has this overtly confrontational style of yours ever convinced anybody of anything?
Reef shark sounds like a real Christian. Has he answered the OP yet?
Reef shark, why are scientists more likely to be non-believers?
OK, from prior talks I’m pretty sure you believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and of course that angels sang to you personally. Any other literal Bible miracles you believe in? Please be specific.
Generally not the person I’m debating, they get too defensive, I think it’s psychology. However, my girlfriend renounced her faith and became an atheist after I showed her some of my online debates with other Christians.
No, off topic. I dropped by to show there was some scientific evidence for the Flood, although not worldwide, since that was being discussed.
Nope. Straw man.
Nope. Different. You are trying to imply that the Church attacked Bruno for his scientific endeavors and I am noting that your claim is wrong.
Only in your mind.
No. It does not make it right. It does, however, indicate that your claim is wrong.
Both your cherry picking and your error are noted.
All of the accusations are religious in nature, even your weird attempt to include the belief in a plurality of universes as science when it is a philosophical position that has nothing to do with science. (Plurality of worlds is not a claim for life on other planets, but a claim that there are multiple universes. As a scientific proposition, (still pretty weak), that is not something that preceded the 20th century and had no part in Bruno’s ideas.)
How so?
No I said the Church attacked Galileo for his scientific endeavors. I think I also mentioned that it was hard to put a pro-science spine on the Burning of Bruno. What were you saying about straw men?
Do you think it was wrong to burn Bruno?
Bruno’s cosmology was listed as one of the reasons they killed him. So sorry. You seem really attached to this. Are you Catholic?
I didn’t think you would want to answer. Which pretty much does answer my question. Thanks for dropping by to show that there is some scientific evidence of floods but think everyone knew that already.
And here I thought I was a dull person to date.
Women love atheists. I think it’s that whole bad boy thing.