quote: Thank you for acknowledging that you have given up your belief in Bible inerrancy due to the arguments of unbelievers.
But that is not what Phat said. Had you managed to provide good honest answers to our arguments - or managed a good pretence - Phat would not have been convinced.
Had you even been more Christian things might have been different.
quote: I'm saying that's giving in to the world and you would do a lot better to listen to Christian teachers.
If your “Christian teachers” have the answers then why did you not use them ?
quote: I'm mostly just responding to your recent personal attacks on me
And let us note that you refuse - as usual - to admit to your own bad behaviour. How is that going to go down at the Last Judgement. Confronted with your sins are you going to rant and rave and deny them ?
quote: Just don't come attacking me as you did from your new man-centered theology
It seems to me that Phat’s theology is less man-centered than yours. Honesty and truth aren’t men. The physical evidence is not a man. Your “Christian teachers” are men.
And you still can’t admit that the evidence is so thoroughly against you that making up ignorant excuses won’t work. Nor will jumping to the wrong conclusion. Nor will calling people stupid or claiming that they don’t understand when they disagree with you. Nor will insisting that your theology must take precedence - when you can’t or won’t argue for that theology in any rational way.
Creationists - many of them better informed than you - have had plenty of time to deal with the order in the fossil record. They haven’t. And that’s just one of many items of evidence you’d need to answer before you can win. So how can you imagine that you can win just be refining your current arguments ?
Even if your pride won’t let you admit how awful your arguments are surely the fact that there are very serious problems that have gone unanswered for 200 years should give you pause.
Great evidence against the Flood. You might as well go around shouting “the Flood’s a stupid lie!”
quote: Nice straight flat strata just aren't going to form over millions of years, but water does form such layers
Well that’s contradictory for a start - since most strata are marine in origin anyway, why wouldn’t they be flat? You don’t get strata laid down on mountains for obvious reasons.
Then there are all the other features of the strata that contradict an origin in the Flood, such as evaporite deposits. You can’t honestly claim ignorance of these.
quote: and fossils don't just lie down and die in families, and fossilization needs special conditions to occur, which the Flood would have provided.
I’m not sure how the first point is meant to help you at all. The second is easily answered. Plenty of things can provide those conditions - anoxic lakes are great. Sandstorms can do it too - and have done it. Are you really telling me that you need a global flood to have sandstorms ?
quote: Those simple obvious facts require rethinking the fossil order since it can't possibly reflect billions of years of evolution
The order of the fossil record is a fact. Facts do not require rethinking because you reject their implications.
Moreover, your facts - in so far as they are facts - do nothing to even encourage us to reject those implications, let alone the fact. That the Flood could produce conditions conducive to fossilisation is not evidence - the more so since there are fossils that were not produced by any sort of flood. And we have already discussed much evidence that the strata were not produced by the Flood - which you have yet to deal with.
So, this answer only shows more facts that you should admit to, but do not,
Just like only you, yourself, can know if you intended to kill ?
It is not a strange idea that the law can make determinations about your mental state, or take those determinations into account in sentencing. It is a common principle called mens rea - and it can even be applied to liability in civil cases.
Just as a point of information, English law can decide whether you hate or not
quote:Under section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court must treat as an aggravating factor the fact that:
an offender demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on his or her disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity (or presumed disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity); or
the offence was motivated by hostility towards persons who have a particular disability, who are of a particular sexual orientation or who are transgender.
quote: That doesn't have anything to do with mens rea.
When it comes to judging hate as a motive for a criminal act - and sentencing more severley if it is judged to be so - the relationship is pretty obvious.