[Jukia]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

I don't have a problem accepting truth. My problem is with accepting baseless assumptions, especially if they are rooted in the flimsiest of evidence.

And the non-flimsy evidence for behemoth = dinosaur is...?

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

That's actually irrelevant. Right or wrong, they're nothing but circular reasoning and arguments from silence. They assume evolution is true and thereby deny any interpretation of the Bible that disagrees with evolution, even if it is the most logical interpretation.

Nonsense. They merely take into account the well-known and empirically demonstrable fact that dinosaurs have been extinct on this planet for some 65 million years. It's your mindless denial of this fact that constitutes circular reasoning and arguments from silence. Try again.

Their only support is, "Evolution is true, so these animals could not have been dinosaurs."

Nope. On wholly exegetical grounds, these animals could not have been dinosaurs, as the material in Post #269 readily demonstrates.

It reminds me of the time I tried to read Origin of the Species. It all boiled down to, "this must be true."

Oh, well...at least you "tried," right...?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by noguru

Can you give us a specific real example of where Darwin does this in " The Origin of Species"?

I don't have a copy at hand. What I recall first is something about the teeth of a certain rodent, and the statement that they must have evolved. And they left it at that. It was sad. But iirc it wasn't Darwin who wrote that particular anecdote. But I know Richard Dawkins admitted that most of his books were written from that perspective.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Jukia

And the non-flimsy evidence for behemoth = dinosaur is...?

>crickets chirping<



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Jukia

How about finishing the start.

If Darwin made "plenty of sense" what is the problem with it?

I was able to understand what was being said. That is all I meant.

Originally Posted by Jukia

And the non-flimsy evidence for behemoth = dinosaur is...?

He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
-Job 40:17

Indeed the river may rage,
Yet he is not disturbed;
He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,
-Job 40:23

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Nonsense. They merely take into account the well-known and empirically demonstrable fact that dinosaurs have been extinct on this planet for some 65 million years. It's your mindless denial of this fact that constitutes circular reasoning and arguments from silence. Try again.


Nope. On wholly exegetical grounds, these animals could not have been dinosaurs, as the material in Post #269 readily demonstrates.


Oh, well...at least you "tried," right...?

Uh huh, sure, right, whatever.

[taikoo]

[quote=Lighthouse;2537516]It's a start.

Thank you for admitting that

.

That is not an "admission". i guess you dont even understand it.

Which is why it fails so often.

you are confused.

The Toe is based on empirical data, and your idea that "
just has no semblance at all to the science."

Simply false statement on your part, even if you believe it.

I have a minor in chemistry. The only chemists who or other scientists you could find who dont believe in evoluiton are ones who cant, like you, for religious reasons. Not a one of them has a single data point to back their opinion, just religion.

They dont. Simple. They dont.
Researchers dont find it necessary to chant before every statement something like "we recognize that all theory is provisional and open to falsification"
NOTHING in science starts with the premise that it is 'true".

"thanks" for admitting you dont know enough about science to even know that.

you dont have to say it. They would all have to be doing it.

Its a joke to you because you dont even understand it, dont know enough to see why it is so.

now THAT is a joke. you are describing your "faith" in an invisible sky god. and a talking snake book.



I'm not going to get into another conversation about my reading abilities. The book made plenty of sense. It began with actually stating that it had to happen the way they say it did with no support whatsoever.

Ok now to brass tacks, if evolution is so false and dumb, surely someone will just come along and prove that.

All you can do is make statements about your attitude. You do not have one single data point, neither does anyone else on planet earth to falsify evolution. I will speed dial the Nobel people when you produce one.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

I don't have a copy at hand. What I recall first is something about the teeth of a certain rodent, and the statement that they must have evolved. And they left it at that. It was sad. But iirc it wasn't Darwin who wrote that particular anecdote. But I know Richard Dawkins admitted that most of his books were written from that perspective.

Well you should be able to find it here.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

>crickets chirping<

This is intellectual dishonesty.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by taikoo

That is not an "admission". i guess you dont even understand it.

Which is why it fails so often.

you are confused.






Ok now to brass tacks, if evolution is so false and dumb, surely someone will just come along and prove that.

All you can do is make statements about your attitude. You do not have one single data point, neither does anyone else on planet earth to falsify evolution. I will speed dial the Nobel people when you produce one.

Fix your formatting.

Originally Posted by noguru

Well you should be able to find it here.

No thanks.

[Jukia]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse;2537537He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
-Job 40:17

Indeed the river may rage,
[I

Yet[/i] he is not disturbed;
He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,
-Job 40:23

Wow, solid, solid evidence. How does a cedar move? Who is to say that my thigh sinews are not tightly knit? Well, you know, but anyway, what does "sinews tighly knit" mean? Were there dinosaurs in the Jordan river at the time of Job? any other evidence of that?

[taikoo]

[quote=Lighthouse;2537548]

Originally Posted by taikoo

Fix your formatting.


No thanks.

"fis your formatting' perfect argument. no wonder i had you on ig for so long. back you go.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

This is intellectual dishonesty.

In what way, specifically...?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Jukia

Wow, solid, solid evidence. How does a cedar move? Who is to say that my thigh sinews are not tightly knit? Well, you know, but anyway, what does "sinews tighly knit" mean? Were there dinosaurs in the Jordan river at the time of Job? any other evidence of that?

The sinews are irrelevant.

What other animals could be said to have tails that move like cedars, or not be moved by raging rivers?

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

No thanks.

So your not interested in showing us the support for your original claim, then?

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

Uh huh, sure, right, whatever.

This is intellectual dishonesty.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+