I dísagree that I've ignored the logic you acuse me of. shall we continue on this topic we have already disagreed on forever? is that what your plan is?

Calilasseia wrote:Indeed. "I disagree" is merely an opinion. "I disagree because the following substantive reasons lead me to this conclusion" is somewhat different. A distinction that tends to be lost on apologetics pedlars, because most of them are blissfully ignorant of even elementary rules of discourse.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:When I pointed out that his personal incredulity is not a valid rebuttal, he once again responded with "I disagree, I'm unconvinced".

Sendraks wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:When I pointed out that his personal incredulity is not a valid rebuttal, he once again responded with "I disagree, I'm unconvinced".

At which point the correct response would be.

"That would be a 'you' problem."

"Being godless also means being a #hypocrite on an extremely large scale"
Correction; being an internet apologist page means posting dishonest straw-man charicatures.

^^^^^^so says the guy who thinks slime and theoretical years literally created creatures^^^^^^

godless logic = giving you personal opinion 1000% based upon your reality that you came from a magical soup.

But these opinions that obviously you threw out as some sort of "evidence" where is the information that backs your claims or would you like to continue blaming everyone and everything for your personal lack of FAITH in creation?

Atheists claim Christians are awful people if they need someone watching over them to not murder—but on the same token atheists kill people because they believe no one is watching over them. The latter is obviously much worse because there are no moral restraints for the atheist to not murder. History has demonstrated the nature of atheism is autocratic and violent because atheists substitute themselves as judge, jury, and executioner of anyone who poses a threat to their worldview. Fearing God is obviously healthy for the reasons stated above.

Code: Select all

https://www.facebook.com/EvolutionandAtheismRekt/

Evolution defies every law of science to even exist. Evolution is not fact and there is not a single shred of evidence to support it. That's why the theory of evolution keeps changing. But the word of God still stands true and is supported by science

I believe in adaptation but evolution is silly science . Nothing can change from one species to a completely different one just because ....the complexity of DNA itself disproves it .

Sorry I didn't reply earlier . I was in church . Adaptation is completely different than evolution . Yes a deer adapts to an environmental change but that in no way changes their DNA . But to say than man evolved from single cell sludge in a swamp is Ludacris . And even if it cld happen , where did this single cell life form come from ??? There's zero evidence to support macro evolution ! U are no doubt a very smart person . If u can show me where man as smart as some are has ever created life even one single cell then your argument might be able to make me at least look at it closer . Till then , God Bless and have a great weekend .

there is no scientific evidence for macro evolution , only the assumption that if micro evolution does take place, macro evolution could. We have taken the Hardy-Weinberg Principle and merely assumed that it could lead to speciation, though we have NEVER observed such. Belief in that theory, in the absence of its proof is no less a leap of faith than ID.

Calilasseia wrote:Apparently the idiots posting that apologetics, fail to understand that what stops us from committing murder, is recognition of the harm that would be inflicted upon the victim, coupled with an understanding of the principle of reciprocity. That's all we need.

It's funny, materialists will find any fallacious excuse to ignore the arguments... "credentials"... the much criticized "peer review" process... Never mind that Meyer is a physicist and philosopher of science, which perfectly positions him to make exactly the arguments he makes.

Meyer did his doctoral work on the philosophy of science. Science is predicated on philosophy. Without philosophy, there is no science. The question of whether a particular intellectual enterprise is scientific it's one that's settled in philosophy, and that's Meyer's domain. And you haven't answered a single argument, you just like to posture. I doubt you even know what his arguments are.

Those who believe in God have no idea who God is. But they wisely believe in God. Those who believe in Scientism have no idea where existence began. They wisely search for that beginning. The so-called Bible myths in actuality are way beyond our reasoning, at worst let's say they'll get you across the parking lot on a good day. The Creation story states that the earth's land was laid over the waters, which is a cosmic poem bookmark of sorts. On closer inspection, do the planetary water/ice ratios provide empirical proof? The Big Bang is a subset of something else. A cosmic IED existed. Really? Science has no enforceable set of ethics based on a higher power than science itself and for all it's life-saving advances, its greater progress in wartime and the taking of human life because Science has no conscience although its productivity benefits good and evil. Oops, scratch out that word evil, sorry.