Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?

[ok doser]

:chuckle: Silly sod, pretending a one-liner is a tantrum. You must be bored.

Made ya post :chuckle:

 

[7djengo7]

Again (9th time), is this--

Brother and sister relations are incest.

--you defining what (if anything) you mean by "incest"? Yes or No?

<NO ANSWER>

 

[Arthur Brain]

Again (9th time), is this--

--you defining what (if anything) you mean by "incest"? Yes or No?

LOL.

Answered already, you have been!

:wave2:

 

[7djengo7]

Again (10th time), is this--

Brother and sister relations are incest.

--you defining what (if anything) you mean by "incest"? Yes or No?

<NO ANSWER>

Why can you not answer this simple, yes-or-no question?

I challenged annabenedetti to try to quote you answering it:

If you really would like to clear him from the true charge I've been levelling against him--viz., that he is lying when he says he has answered the yes-or-no question I've asked him at least eight times--feel free to try to quote him saying either "Yes" or "No" in response to it. Of course, as you and I both know well, you have no hope of doing that, because, since Arthur Brain has never answered the question, it's impossible for anybody to quote him answering it.

So far, she's failed the challenge, just as you have.

 

[annabenedetti]

challenged annabenedetti to try to quote you answering it:

So far, she's failed the challenge, just as you have.

I haven't even bothered. :chuckle:

Get over yourself and move on. Begging him for answers is kind of unseemly.

 

[7djengo7]

I haven't even bothered. :chuckle:

Thanks for the admission. That's you admitting to me that you've never found Arthur Brain answering the question I've asked him 10 times. And, by that admission, you further demonstrate that you were lying when you tried to give him moral support in his lying--his saying, falsely, that he'd answered the question I'd asked him. :chuckle:

Get over yourself and move on. Begging him for answers is kind of unseemly.

That's how you characterize what I'm doing? "Begging him for answers"? As usual, your shallowness causes you to be quite mistaken. I obviously wouldn't beg him to do what I know he can't do. I know that he can't answer the question I've asked him. That's the thing, see: now, not only do I know that he can't answer the question, but you know, and he knows, that he can't answer it. People who think they can answer a question do not stonewall against it the way errorists like Arthur Brain and yourself need to stonewall against questions.

 

[Stripe]

You start off with an unshakable conviction that the earth and universe can only be so old.

Nope. Present evidence showing that what we believe cannot be true. Watch our response. :up:

You only entertain ideas that fit in with the determined conclusion and ignore/discard the plethora of actual science that undermines it.

Nope. I regularly read ideas and explanations from sources that I wholly disagree with.

You know as much about science as you do about law.

Thanks! :up:

You know nothing about either. Watch:
What is science?
What is the law?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope. Present evidence showing that what we believe cannot be true. Watch our response. :up:

The evidence has been presented time and time again, by Alate One & Barbarian, people who are completely versed in science. You're that entrenched in your belief that you never listened or even understood. Science itself undoes what you believe to be true. YEC is again, not science.

Nope. I regularly read ideas and explanations from sources that I wholly disagree with.

Oh be honest. You are never going to entertain anything that counters your belief in a young earth.

Thanks! :up:

You know nothing about either. Watch:
What is science?
What is the law?

You're welcome, if you like having your ignorance pointed out so much. That thread of yours where you oh so foolishly tried to take on TH about law when you didn't even have a layman's understanding of the basics was entertaining as anything! :thumb:

Nah, think you need to watch those instead.

 

[7djengo7]

The evidence has been presented time and time again, by Alate One & Barbarian, people who are completely versed in science.

One of your problems, here, is that what you and your fellow Darwin cheerleaders call "evidence" is naught but a combination of falsehood and nonsense. They, and you, have, time and again, presented evidence that you are versed in the falsehood and nonsense you falsely call "science" and "evidence".

You're that entrenched in your belief that you never listened or even understood.

It is by listening to your Darwin cheerleading that we have been enabled to understand that the falsehood and nonsense that you Darwin cheerleaders have been calling "science" and "evidence" is falsehood and nonsense, and that it is neither truth, nor science, nor evidence.

Science itself undoes what you believe to be true.

How does the falsehood and nonsense you, as a Darwin cheerleader, call "science" undo the truth that is YEC? That's right: the falsehood and nonsense you promulgate does not undo the truth that is YEC. What's always an amusing spectacle, however, is how Darwin cheerleaders such as yourself are constantly undoing yourselves by your own irrational thinking in your performance as Darwin cheerleaders.

YEC is again, not science.

Well, YEC definitely is not the falsehood and nonsense you call "science". What YEC is, though, is Bible truth. Which is why Bible-despisers such as yourself and all other Darwin cheerleaders despise YEC.

Oh be honest. You are never going to entertain anything that counters your belief in a young earth.

Since YEC is true, anything that counters YEC is either falsehood or nonsense. Duh. So, if by "entertain", you mean believe, then why would, or should anybody who believes the truth that is YEC stop believing it and start believing the falsehood you believe and preach--the falsehood that counters YEC?

 

[Right Divider]

AB is convinced that man can tell more about the creation by "observing" it than the one that created it can in His Word. And yet AB still describes himself as a "believing Christian". It's stunning.

 

[7djengo7]

AB is convinced that man can tell more about the creation by "observing" it than the one that created it can in His Word.

Man can tell more about God's creation than God can: more falsehood! Arthur Brain, for example, makes it his personal business, day by day, to tell as much falsehood about God and His creation as he can. Like you, and unlike Arthur Brain, I'll stick with the Bible truth that is YEC.

 

[Stripe]

The evidence has been presented time and time again, by Alate One & Barbarian

But you won't tell us what it is or what they were responding to. :idunno:

people who are completely versed in science.

Quite unlike you. You have no idea what it is. You think that because they say it, it is science.

You're that entrenched in your belief that you never listened or even understood. Science itself undoes what you believe to be true.

YEC is again, not science.

Nobody said it was, and nor should they. This is another tacit admission that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh be honest.

OK

If you take a declarative statement from me and present evidence that shows it cannot be true, I will shift my belief. :up:

For example, the Earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago.

Go ahead. We have plenty of time. :up:

You're welcome, if you like having your ignorance pointed out so much. That thread of yours where you oh so foolishly tried to take on TH about law when you didn't even have a layman's understanding of the basics was entertaining as anything! :thumbNah, think you need to watch those instead.

You have no idea what science or the law are.

 

[Right Divider]

Quite unlike you. You have no idea what it is. You think that because they say it, it is science.

You're that entrenched in your belief that you never listened or even understood. Science itself undoes what you believe to be true.

I've tried to discuss some science with AB regarding radiometric dating. Not ONCE did he ever discuss the scientific details. Every single time he ran to a fallacious argument. Typically the appeal to authority or the appeal to popularity. He repeated those over and over and over .....

 

[Arthur Brain]

But you won't tell us what it is or what they were responding to. :idunno:

Oh please, they've undermined the nonsense of YEC on here for years.

Quite unlike you. You have no idea what it is. You think that because they say it, it is science.

You're that entrenched in your belief that you never listened or even understood. Science itself undoes what you believe to be true.

No, it's because what they're saying is science, not because I think it's science. This is lame even by your standards. Science doesn't undo itself silly, but it does undo non science like YEC/"creation science".

Nobody said it was, and nor should they. This is another tacit admission that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Sounds like someone has his pedantic hat on. "Creation science" is not science.

OK

If you take a declarative statement from me and present evidence that shows it cannot be true, I will shift my belief. :up:

For example, the Earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago.

Go ahead. We have plenty of time. :up:

Barb, Alate and others have shown you how ridiculous YEC is on here for years and you were never going to listen.

You have no idea what science or the law are.

You carry on talking to yourself if you want. You are completely clueless...

 

[Arthur Brain]

AB is convinced that man can tell more about the creation by "observing" it than the one that created it can in His Word. And yet AB still describes himself as a "believing Christian". It's stunning.

I haven't described myself as anything and I'm not going to either. There's nothing "stunning" about Christian's accepting actual science and having faith either as plenty have displayed on here.

 

[Right Divider]

I haven't described myself as anything and I'm not going to either.

So you have a secret belief system?

There's nothing "stunning" about Christian's accepting actual science and having faith either as plenty have displayed on here.

I accept actual science.... theories about ORIGINS are not the same kind of science that builds computers and skyscrapers.

You have rejected God's OWN description of the events and have instead accepted a man-made idea about it.

Call yourself whatever you want. You appear to be neither a Christian nor a scientist.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So you have a secret belief system?


I accept actual science.... theories about ORIGINS are not the same kind of science that builds computers and skyscrapers.

You have rejected God's OWN description of the events and have instead accepted a man-made idea about it.

Call yourself whatever you want. You appear to be neither a Christian nor a scientist.

Well, no, I've accepted actual science and I'm not tied to some restrictive belief system that has no room for allegory in it. Rejecting fundamentalism is entirely different. This is why many Christian's have no cognitive dissonance with accepting science and having faith.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, no, I've accepted actual science and I'm not tied to some restrictive belief system that has no room for allegory in it.

Why do you lie about me again? I leave plenty of "room for allegory". But unlike you, I do not force allegory were it is not there.

Rejecting fundamentalism is entirely different.

It's a bit ironic that you cannot see that you have your own form of fundamentalism that is wrong.

This is why many Christian's have no cognitive dissonance with accepting science and having faith.

I too have no problem with accepting science and having faith. Real science and not your brand of pseudo-science.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why do you lie about me again? I leave plenty of "room for allegory". But unlike you, I do not force allegory were it is not there.

There's no need for force.

It's a bit ironic that you cannot see that you have your own form of fundamentalism that is wrong.

Probably because I don't.

I too have no problem with accepting science and having faith. Real science and not your brand of pseudo-science.

Sure you do because what you accept simply isn't science, it's pseudo bunk that is rightfully derided for the nonsense that it is. You don't accept actual science at all.

 

[Right Divider]

There's no need for force.

I agree... but you do it anyway.

Adam is ALWAYS spoken of in scripture as an actual MAN and not as an "allegory".

1Ti 2:13 KJV For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Gen 4:25-26 KJV And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. (26) And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Oh look!!! Allegories having allegories :rotfl:

Probably because I don't.

Of course you do... your fundamentalism includes:

• God's Word cannot be taken seriously.
• Man-made ideas are above God's Word.
• etc. etc. etc.

Sure you do because what you accept simply isn't science, it's pseudo bunk that is rightfully derided for the nonsense that it is. You don't accept actual science at all.

You can continue to lie. It suits your nature.

"Science" is your "god".