taiji2's complaint

I didn't answer it for the same reason you didn't answer mine.First, you need to produce evidence that god created the natural laws. Until then, the question is a waste of time.

Typical. You presented a quote of mine without presenting the entire quote. My assumption is you wish to lose the context. Very convenient.I call this diversion. Perhaps straw man. hmmmmm And your authority for saying that is.................? The truth is that god creating the natural laws is logically implied from the idea that creation came from nothing. Arguments from a microcosm suggesting a priori dismissal of views from any not within that microcosm might be considered frivolous and argumentative. I certainly consider them such.Edited by taiji2, : oops, left out your quote... full quote by the way

No, it isn't. That is something you made up.

We will see. It is what logically came to my mind, considering what creation implies and what nothingness is understood to be. I expect to find better minds than mine to argue the details.You have not answered my now specific question. What are you going to do when creationists claim natural laws as part of gods' creation. Where will you argue from when they claim your science as their own and propose you have misused it?

That's not how logic works. You have to establish that god did create the natural laws before you can ask such a question. You might as well ask what we are going to do when people claim that rainbows are dragon farts.

thank you. that is very much the response I expected. The vultures circle.don't want to answer a direct question, huh?

Interestingly, something along these lines is a very common argument in support of science when in discussion with Biblical literalists, who argue that where science and Bible disagree that science is wrong because the Bible is God's inerrant word. But, responds science, man wrote the Bible, and men lie. God wrote the universe, and the universe doesn't lie.--Percy

Waiting for you to back the claims made in the question.

Nowhere will you ever find me arguing the bible as god's inerrant word. Are you making a point referencing something I have said, or just offering interesting commentary?By the way, my specific question has not been answered. I would love to hear your answer to it.

Your honor, will you please instruct the witness to answer the question as directed?Judge: answer the question

Objection, leading the witness.Judge: Objection upheld."In common law systems that rely on testimony by witnesses, a leading question or suggestive interrogation[1] is a question that suggests the particular answer or contains the information the examiner is looking to have confirmed."
Leading question - WikipediaEdited by Taq, : No reason given.

Interestingly, I know a judge. I went to school with him and he is in town. I doubt he would have said that. The game is fun though, by all means continue ..... take all the rope you want.

You asked Taq what he would do when creationists claim natural laws as part of God's creation, so I thought you might find it interesting that it is more often science pointing out that if God wrote nature's laws that the universe must contain much better evidence of what is true than a Bible written by men. Creationists have already attempted to claim that natural laws are part of God's creation, and that science has misinterpreted the evidence to arrive at the wrong conclusions. They called it creation science. Public schools teaching creation science wound up in court on several occasions and lost, thereby giving birth to a new version of creation science called intelligent design that dropped all the religious trappings. Intelligent design hasn't fared any better than creation science, and a good many Christian fundamentalists reject it out of hand.--Percy

You are leading the witness, as already shown. You need to establish that god created the natural laws first. You don't get to throw your unproven conclusion into a question and act like it is already fact. That's not how it works.How would I answer the question "What are you going to do when creationists claim natural laws as part of gods' creation."? I would ask the person for the evidence that God created the natural laws. That is what I would do. Each and every time creationists have been asked to back up this claim, we are met with nothing but silence.

You seem to have spotted that what I said had nothing to do with science and everything to do with my exasperation for your constant whining and inability to present a coherent argument. Get on with my life and shake my head in nonplussed wonderment.Now perhaps you'll drop all this me stuff and start debating properly.