Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for the Supernatural
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(2)
Message 71 of 107 (650244)
01-29-2012 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Buzsaw
01-29-2012 9:10 AM


Re: Debating Skeptics
Buz, the thread title is "Evidence for the supernatural". When you resurrected this long-dead thread it was reasonable to assume you were either going to request evidence or supply evidence. So far all we've got is a vague claim about a fulfilled prophesy, a prophesy you don't even provide a proper source for.
On top of that, you've just referred someone to your previous threads to find what you consider evidence. THIS is the thread you should be producing your evidence in. I'm not prepared to pull up your entire list of posts and wade through them all to find what you claim is evidence, so I'll rely on my memory.
Most of your claims rely on a twisting of the bible to suit a later event, or a twisting of a later event to suit a biblical prophesy. Unless everyone agrees what a prophesy says and everyone can see the fulfillment of it, regardless of their "side", it cannot be considered hard evidence. That's the whole point of evidence. No-one is going to accept your evidence in this thread since even you claim your evidence is scattered around in posts over the last few years.
So produce your evidence for the supernatural in a thread called evidence for the supernatural which you have chosen to drag back through the years. Otherwise, you should have left it well alone if you have nothing to say.
Finally, the sour grapes over a Great Debate topic doesn't cut it. For someone who hits the "Jeers" button regardless of post quality, but based on which side of the debate someone is on, your whinge is ironic. All those times you jeered people for purely partisan reasons, thinking you were doing it anonymously, have been noticed even by me and I'm just back.
I'm jeering your post to Warthog because all your post does is refer a new member to your screeds and screeds of previous posts, without even providing links to ones you feel may answer his questions. You've made over 8,900 posts since you joined. Do you expect him to wade through all of that, much of which has nothing to do wth fulfilled prophesy or evidence for the supernatural? If ever a post arrogantly hand-waved away a genuine question, this is it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 01-29-2012 9:10 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 01-29-2012 11:04 PM Trixie has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 81 of 107 (650313)
01-30-2012 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Buzsaw
01-29-2012 11:04 PM


Re: Debating Skeptics
The only "evidence" you've cited in this thread is a link to your own opening post in the Great Debate! As you yourself noted, your post in the Great Debate wasn't debated, therefore it's content is a bunch of untested assertions. Yes, in that post you quote various passages from the Bible, but are they relevant? So bring them here and lets get to it.
It's not the job of other posters to make your case for you in this thread. You brought this thread back, no-one else. If you're not going to provide your evidence in this thread, why did you bother?
You feel your jeers were justified so we'll leave it at that - it's obviously in the eye of the beholder.
I don't understand your last sentence. Care to elaborate or fill in the missing words?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 01-29-2012 11:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 82 of 107 (650314)
01-30-2012 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Buzsaw
01-29-2012 11:23 PM


Re: Meldinoor, Reconsidering?
The significant thing is that he essentially declared my OP irrefutable, knowing that he would not prevail in the debate.
This should not pass without comment. As Paul pointed out, he declared nothing of the sort and you know it! Now, if it was an honest mistake on your part, that's one thing, but you have amply demonstrated that this was never, on God's green earth, an honest mistake. It is a deliberate falsehood in an attempt to rewrite part of your history here. The phrase "lying for Jeebus" springs to mind.
What part of "Thou shalt not bear false witness" do you not understand?
Edited by Trixie, : Formatting error corrected

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 01-29-2012 11:23 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Pressie, posted 01-30-2012 4:44 AM Trixie has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 84 of 107 (650319)
01-30-2012 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Pressie
01-30-2012 4:44 AM


Re: Meldinoor, Reconsidering?
It was a Great Debate and as such no-one other than the two of them was allowed to post which is why Buz's assertions remained unrefuted. The only reason they were unrefuted was because they were "undiscussed"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Pressie, posted 01-30-2012 4:44 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024