Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 475 of 1677 (841063)
10-07-2018 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Faith
10-07-2018 2:42 PM


Re: Oh well
quote:
You tell a lot of lies under the label "truth."
Please provide evidence that I tell a lot of lies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 10-07-2018 2:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 10-07-2018 3:00 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 479 of 1677 (841073)
10-07-2018 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by Faith
10-07-2018 3:00 PM


Re: Oh well
quote:
everything you say about me is a lie. You lie lie lie lie lie about me, all namecalling lies that are supposedly against the EvC rules but obviously nobody cares.
That is not evidence that I lie at all. When you ask for evidence I provide it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 10-07-2018 3:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 487 of 1677 (841086)
10-08-2018 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by Faith
10-07-2018 11:26 PM


Re: Oh well
quote:
It is possible to trace a genealogy in many different ways.
Maybe. But what is actually written is quite clear.
quote:
Some think one of them is Joseph's and the other goes through Mary's father, but there are also other interpretations.
It would be extremely unusual to write Mary’s genealogy as if it were Joseph’s. In fact, so far as I know it is unheard of. As far as other interpretations go there is absolutely no feature of either genealogy that suggests that it is anything other than a simple patrilineal genealogy. (Other than the author of Matthew missing out names to get the counts he wants)
quote:
David had many sons and they could have been his descendant through many of them.
Not through a patrilineal genealogy - at least part of it would have to be traced through the female line. Which wouldn’t count.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by Faith, posted 10-07-2018 11:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 12:16 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 489 of 1677 (841089)
10-08-2018 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 486 by Faith
10-07-2018 11:48 PM


Re: Oh well
quote:
Surprising it is, but the earth really isn't billions of years old and Adam and Eve were certainly real.
The evidence says otherwise.
quote:
Do you really think somebody just invented all those genealogies? That's a lot weirder than the claim that it's all real, and the genealogies count to about 6000 years from Adam and Eve.
It’s not at all weird for humans to invent genealogies (do you really think that Julius Caesar was descended from the goddess Venus?)
It would be extremely weird for the massive amounts of evidence otherwise to be so incredibly misleading.
(If you think otherwise RAZD’s threads are there - just post your refutation)
quote:
That's actual evidence, which is why they are given in the Bible. God knows we need evidence and He gives us a LOT of evidence in the Bible for the reality of its various claims.
No, that really isn’t true.
quote:
And there really was a Flood and there is even extrabiblical evidence for that one: strata and fossils.
Which show no sign of a worldwide flood.
quote:
Misappropriated to other explanations but in-your-face evidence to anyone who can actually see.
Looking at the evidence to properly evaluate it is hardly misappropriating it and refusing to see the evidence is not actually seeing. In reality the order of the fossil record - and I have to say the observed order because otherwise you’ll decide I meant something else - is quite inexplicable under the assumption of a flood. As we have seen. But you ignore that.
But this post is fine evidence of your irrationality and prejudice.. Thanks for proving that I spoke the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Faith, posted 10-07-2018 11:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 12:37 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 493 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 12:47 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 491 of 1677 (841092)
10-08-2018 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 488 by Faith
10-08-2018 12:16 AM


Re: Oh well
quote:
Well, a lot of it isn't patrilineal, or simply patrilineal anyway. We are often reminded of the presence of Tamar and Ruth and Rahab in Jesus' ancestry.
Mentioning a few of the mothers doesn’t change the fact that ancestry is traced down the male line. So no, it is simply patrilineal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 12:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 492 of 1677 (841093)
10-08-2018 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by Faith
10-08-2018 12:37 AM


Re: Oh well
quote:
Nobody could invent the particular genealogies in Genesis.
Making strange assertions is hardly worth it. Why can’t they be invented ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 12:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 494 of 1677 (841096)
10-08-2018 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by Faith
10-08-2018 12:47 AM


Re: Oh well
quote:
The fossil order is just a handy rationalization.
It is a massive fact which can’t be explained by the Flood.
quote:
In reality there is no genetic way to get from one major life form to another, and those life forms such as trilobites that exist in a huge number of strata which supposedly represent millions of years each, in reality would have developed as normal variations over a few hundred years of microevolution. And genetic variation depletes genetic diversity over generations so evolution beyond the Kind can't happen anyway.
Aside from the fact that this is just your nutty opinions it is completely irrelevant. The order of the fossil record is an observed fact. Evolution doesn’t enter into that argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 12:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 1:01 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 496 of 1677 (841098)
10-08-2018 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
10-08-2018 1:01 AM


Re: Oh well
quote:
The fossil order is of no use except as a rationalization for evolution and since evolution is genetically impossible the fossil record is just a useless odd fact.
It doesn’t matter whether you consider it useless or not. The order of the fossil record is a major feature. Any viable explanation of the fossil record must account for it. The Flood explanation fails to do so. Even if your opinions about evolution were true it wouldn’t matter.
But again thank you for proving me correct about you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 1:01 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 1:33 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 498 of 1677 (841102)
10-08-2018 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by Faith
10-08-2018 1:33 AM


Re: Oh well
quote:
But if there is no evolution there is no order, it's just an odd illusion, so there is nothing to account for.
That is nonsense. The order is an observed fact. Again - since you seem to have missed it - I am talking of the observed order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 1:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 2:14 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 500 of 1677 (841104)
10-08-2018 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by Faith
10-08-2018 2:14 AM


Re: Oh well
quote:
But there is no problem with the order in the sense of the same fossils ending up in the same layers, that's just a mechanical thing.
Then please produce this mechanical explanation. Because nobody else has been able to come up with one that explains the actual order. And you haven’t in previous discussions either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 2:14 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 8:33 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 505 of 1677 (841112)
10-08-2018 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 503 by Faith
10-08-2018 8:33 AM


Re: Oh well
quote:
Since evolution is false on other grounds so that the order is not evidence for evolution, you have no explanation for the order either.
Wrong on every count. The most important point is that we only need the life on Earth to change over time - Progressive Creation works as well for that as evolution.
quote:
It must be mechanically explained, but since you don't have an explanation either, that's the best that can be said for now.
Since you have no viable explanation and since your arguments against evolution don’t work - and wouldn’t be sufficient even if they did - we can still say that the order of the fossil record is strong evidence against the claim the the Flood created the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 503 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 8:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 525 of 1677 (841192)
10-09-2018 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by Faith
10-08-2018 6:47 PM


Re: pizza
quote:
You really have no idea what you are talking about. I don't care about pizzagate, only about PaulK's attack on me personally, which is the only reason I wanted a reminder of what I'd said. I was very very very clear that I was NOT interested in reviewing the subject otherwise. Now as usual YOU are making a big deal about it anyway and making it MY problem when it is not my problem.
If you are happy to accept that my criticism was correct you can stop there. But if you aren’t then you obviously are interested in digging further. Either you do havel evidence that would justify the idea that sex with children was involved. or you don’t. And if you don’t I was right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Faith, posted 10-08-2018 6:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 550 of 1677 (841290)
10-11-2018 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 549 by Faith
10-11-2018 8:06 AM


Re: loving God
So here’s the difference.
GDR and Faith agree that the Bible says that God ordered the killing of particular peoples. Which is, by definition, genocide.
GDR and Faith agree that genocide is wrong and that God would not order it.
GDR straightforwardly concludes that God did not give the orders.
But Faith insists that God did give the orders but we have to pretend it isn’t genocide. Even though it absolutely clearly is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 8:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 9:00 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 552 of 1677 (841296)
10-11-2018 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 551 by Faith
10-11-2018 9:00 AM


Re: loving God
No. The OED definition is:
The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
Oxford English Dictionary
Instead of denying that it is genocide you ought to be arguing that there is such a thing as justifiable genocide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 9:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 553 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 9:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 554 of 1677 (841308)
10-11-2018 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 553 by Faith
10-11-2018 9:17 AM


Re: loving God
No, the definition is not meant to define it as murder. The OED is not in the habit of missing out important parts of definitions.
There is no semantic mess. You are simply wrong. And refusing to admit it even in the face of clear evidence.
You may note that Merriam-Webster also disagrees with you.
And if you are interested in the criminal definition, so does the UN
ABE
quote:
ABE: "Justifiable genocide" wouldn't work because it still implies less than the absolute perfect justice enacted by God.
Why not ? It is genocide and you claim it is justified.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 9:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 2:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024