Just a question. Is it now seen as provocative when someone, (understandable a Creationist Admin) calls you a liar to simply ask them to present their evidence?
I realize that when a Creationist calls someone a moron or idiot or freak or liar or says a poster should be shot they should not be sanctioned, but is it now considered provocative to simple ask them to present their evidence?
My point is that the bottom line of Bible-creos debate in the geology/flood threads is that the Bible is a historical record. This is one of the big issues Faith addressed from time to time, adamantly debating for the historicity of the Biblical record.
Buz, you and Faith might believe such nonsense but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually true.
If you want to have things like the Biblical Flood account considered as anything more than a fairy tale you will have to provide the body of evidence and models that support such a position better than the vast body of evidence and models that show the Flood never happened.
If this is not acceptable to you, I propose that we move the threads regarding the flood and the canopy to Faith and Belief.
This is simply a continuation of the tactic of demanding special pleading where you declare that your fantasies should be accepted as valid.
I assume you have some evidence to present showing where I have attacked the poster instead of the content?
Is pointing out where you misrepresent the Bible an insult?
Since your posts misrepresent what is actually in the Bible is it unreasonable to ask if you have read it?
The particular post you are whining about says:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningâ€”the first day.
So each day was light and dark, even before there was a Sun.
No need of a Sun or Moon.
Have you ever read the Bible Buz?
Is there anything in there that is not addressing your Message 14 where you said:
"The Bible does not designate the length of the days before day 5 after the sun and moon were created."
It is quite clear from what I posted that the Bible does specify the length of a day in EXACTLY the same method as used after the Sun and Moon are created.
See Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsâ€”the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morningâ€”the fourth day.
Look at Genesis 1:5
"5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningâ€”the first day."
and Genesis 1:19 which is after the creation of the Sun and the Moon:
"19 And there was evening, and there was morningâ€”the fourth day."
Exactly the same description is used both before and after the creation of the Sun.
Buz, if you are going to get upset when folk point out that you misrepresent what is in the Bible, there is a simple solution; stop misrepresenting what is in the Bible.
It is unlikely that simple and whatever are the same person. However, they both use multiple ips, create new aliases, register new accounts while banned, tend to show back up and leave at the same general times, post nothing but absolute rubbish, and contribute nothing except disruption.
In his, her, their defense, over the years they have posted some of the funniest messages ever at EvC, exceeding the humor contributions of such notables as Buz, Ray, JimSDA (certainly a contender), Lysimachus or even Eddy Pengelly. I miss Eddie.
Re: Nem closes Positive Evidence for Atheism thread
No, I have no problems. Having been an Admin I'm sure I too was guilt of taking the easy route and simply doing what was needed without thinking about which account I happened to be in. However to close the thread Nem used his Admin account. The only possible case I see is he did not add yet another message where he announced closing.
Like I said, no harm no foul (other than the topic itself).