Questions for Evolutionists

[Guest Maeyra]

I suppose that's better than being popular but spouting nonsense all day though.

Mae

[Joy in the Journey]

You know what gets me most about evolutionists ?

They'll believe some supposed fossils that are supposedly some 4.6 billion years old -

but hey won't believe the Bible

They'll believe a text book -

but they won't believe the Bible

They'll believe a "scientist" who says something is xxx years old -

but they won't believe the Bible

They'll believe an archeologist who says the Bible is a real book and it's authentic...but evolution is the only answer -

but they won't believe the Words contained within the Bible

And the atheist says a Christian's faith is stupid and unfounded ?!?!?

Right!!!!! You atheists have more faith than we Christians do!

God bless,

Tim

[mrs]

Kent Hovind has some good material, but he does refuse to stop using arguments that we know to be outdated and incorrect.Just keep that in mind when sorting out the good things...

[Bread_of_Life]

They'll believe some supposed fossils that are supposedly some 4.6 billion years old -

Actually, they won't. The oldest fossils ever found are 3.7 billion years old. The author here is mixing up the age of the earth with the age of life on earth. This is quite typical of creationists.

They'll believe a text book -

They'll believe a "scientist" who says something is xxx years old -

These are called "Strawmen" arguments - they portray an imaginary atheist's position such that it is easy to argue against. Of course, I have never met an atheist or non-atheist scientist who believes in an old earth because someone told them, or because they read it in a textbook. I've never met an atheist or non-atheist scientist who would argue this way. But never mind, it's easier to knock the argument from authority than it is to knock my *real* arguments for an old earth, isn't it?

Also note that I have never seen the author (or anyone else here) actually engage me in a proper argument on radiometric dating. I wonder therefore where the author gets the impression that I would use arguments from authority, rather than arguments from evidence?

[Joy in the Journey]

Dear ScientificAtheist,

There is only one flaw with what you said to me- you assume that I want to engage in debate with you. Problem is, I do not I looked at your profile and you have been here a year and a half. I also did a search on your name and read a bunch of posts by you. Honestly ? I don't know why you are still here I don't say that to be rude, but you obviously have no use for Jesus whatsoever ( your name alone implies that ).

So- to me, the questions to be asking you isn't " how old is the Earth " but rather " why do you still continue to hang around a Christian message board ? " and " why don't you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord ? "

What is it that you seek here ? You've spent considerable amounts of time talking science ( and God bless you sir, if that is your thing )...but- why here at a Christian message board and for a better part of a year and a half ?

Again, I have no desire to talk science with you or anyone here. I'd rather talk about Jesus and His gift of salvation that is openly available to you if you want it If you'd rather not, the choice is yours and we can politely ignore each other until you are ready...and it's long overdue my friend. It's time to get serious about Jesus Christ- before it's too late

Be blessed in the Lord my friend,

Tim

[Joy in the Journey]

You're not against learning or knowing the truth are you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope

[PwrInTheBld]

A gorilla in a zoo was holding a Bible in one hand and Darwin

[Bread_of_Life]

Dear Tim,

It would seem that you failed to answer any of the points I posted about your previous post. Rather, you decided to attack me personally, asking why I am still on these boards. This seems strange, I would have thought you'd have welcomed criticism of your first post, and answered my questions. Just in case you missed it all, here it is again:

They'll believe some supposed fossils that are supposedly some 4.6 billion years old -

Actually, they won't. The oldest fossils ever found are 3.7 billion years old. The author here is mixing up the age of the earth with the age of life on earth. This is quite typical of creationists.

They'll believe a text book -

They'll believe a "scientist" who says something is xxx years old -

These are called "Strawmen" arguments - they portray an imaginary atheist's position such that it is easy to argue against. Of course, I have never met an atheist or non-atheist scientist who believes in an old earth because someone told them, or because they read it in a textbook. I've never met an atheist or non-atheist scientist who would argue this way. But never mind, it's easier to knock the argument from authority than it is to knock my *real* arguments for an old earth, isn't it?

Also note that I have never seen the author (or anyone else here) actually engage me in a proper argument on radiometric dating. I wonder therefore where the author gets the impression that I would use arguments from authority, rather than arguments from evidence?

Now, as for your most recent "addition" to the boards:

There is only one flaw with what you said to me- you assume that I want to engage in debate with you. Problem is, I do not

I'm not at all surprised - if I were to post up such flimsy arguments, I wouldn't want to defend them either - especially against someone who knows what they're talking about. This tactic is called "hit and run" on boards like this.

So- to me, the questions to be asking you isn't " how old is the Earth " but rather " why do you still continue to hang around a Christian message board ? " and " why don't you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord ? "

That wasn't the question that you addressed in your last post. Has the question changed for you since you last posted?

What is it that you seek here ? You've spent considerable amounts of time talking science ( and God bless you sir, if that is your thing )...but- why here at a Christian message board and for a better part of a year and a half ?

I am on a crusade - to rid the world of scientific illiteracy and ignorance, one person at a time. The best and only place to start for that is an American Christian bulletin board, where scientific illiteracy, in my experience, is highest.

Again, I have no desire to talk science with you or anyone here. 

Yet, you posted a strawman argument seemingly against science in your last post. That seems odd behaviour for someone who has no desire whatsoever to talk about science. Perhaps you should be either promote more consistancy between your wishes and actions, or simply write better informed posts when you do stray into scientific matters?

Foglight

If you can not longer defend your position in a 20+ page thread on a topic then you can just get it deleted, not simply closed so it can be referenced but deleted (like burning a book so it can never be read). Then you can start a new thread which completely ignores the fact that all of your information, points, premises and "facts" were already proven wrong.

This is a great way to reinforce your position, remove the unwanted information and reassert your position over and over so that people see only your position and eventually the opposition will get tired of refuting the same thing over and over and over... tricky, very tricky indeed.

You know, I PMed Horizoneast, and havn't gotten any response, nor have I heard from him/her much on the boards since that thread. They'll be back though, give them time.

However, they can delete a thread from the boards, but they can't delete the content from my mind. I know exactly what was posted there - what horizon failed to respond to - and just as soon as he/she tries to attack one of my posts again, I'll challenge them with it. Elephants never forget

[halifaxchristian]

Dear Tim,

It would seem that you failed to answer any of the points I posted about your previous post. Rather, you decided to attack me personally, asking why I am still on these boards. This seems strange, I would have thought you'd have welcomed criticism of your first post, and answered my questions. Just in case you missed it all, here it is again:

They'll believe some supposed fossils that are supposedly some 4.6 billion years old -

Actually, they won't. The oldest fossils ever found are 3.7 billion years old. The author here is mixing up the age of the earth with the age of life on earth. This is quite typical of creationists.

They'll believe a text book -

They'll believe a "scientist" who says something is xxx years old -

These are called "Strawmen" arguments - they portray an imaginary atheist's position such that it is easy to argue against. Of course, I have never met an atheist or non-atheist scientist who believes in an old earth because someone told them, or because they read it in a textbook. I've never met an atheist or non-atheist scientist who would argue this way. But never mind, it's easier to knock the argument from authority than it is to knock my *real* arguments for an old earth, isn't it?

Also note that I have never seen the author (or anyone else here) actually engage me in a proper argument on radiometric dating. I wonder therefore where the author gets the impression that I would use arguments from authority, rather than arguments from evidence?

Now, as for your most recent "addition" to the boards:

There is only one flaw with what you said to me- you assume that I want to engage in debate with you. Problem is, I do not

I'm not at all surprised - if I were to post up such flimsy arguments, I wouldn't want to defend them either - especially against someone who knows what they're talking about. This tactic is called "hit and run" on boards like this.

So- to me, the questions to be asking you isn't " how old is the Earth " but rather " why do you still continue to hang around a Christian message board ? " and " why don't you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord ? "

That wasn't the question that you addressed in your last post. Has the question changed for you since you last posted?

What is it that you seek here ? You've spent considerable amounts of time talking science ( and God bless you sir, if that is your thing )...but- why here at a Christian message board and for a better part of a year and a half ?

I am on a crusade - to rid the world of scientific illiteracy and ignorance, one person at a time. The best and only place to start for that is an American Christian bulletin board, where scientific illiteracy, in my experience, is highest.

Again, I have no desire to talk science with you or anyone here.

[Joy in the Journey]

Dear Tim,

It would seem that you failed to answer any of the points I posted about your previous post. Rather, you decided to attack me personally, asking why I am still on these boards. This seems strange, I would have thought you'd have welcomed criticism of your first post, and answered my questions. Just in case you missed it all, here it is again:

I never attacked you sir All I asked you was why you, a self proclaimed atheist is still hanging around a christian message board and why you don't have Jesus as your Saviour. I was never rude to you at all

That wasn't the question that you addressed in your last post. Has the question changed for you since you last posted?

I don't believe I ever directed a question about science to you You assumed I did perhaps, but never once did I address you ( until you addressed me- then I asked you the two questions that you took as an attack )

I am on a crusade - to rid the world of scientific illiteracy and ignorance, one person at a time. The best and only place to start for that is an American Christian bulletin board, where scientific illiteracy, in my experience, is highest.

I too am on a crusade...and you are in my territory, not the other way around I may be new here, but this IS a Christian board- and the goal here is to talk Jesus.

Yet, you posted a strawman argument seemingly against science in your last post. That seems odd behaviour for someone who has no desire whatsoever to talk about science. Perhaps you should be either promote more consistancy between your wishes and actions, or simply write better informed posts when you do stray into scientific matters?

Where did I post anything stating I wanted to talk science to you or to anyone I stated a few observations about atheists that I know on how they'll believe text books but not the Bible ( and as "unscientific" as my "strawman arguments" may be- that's not really relevant to my argument is it ? )...if you felt I was attacking YOU or even talking about you....well....

I invite you to talk about the Bible with me- if not, then you may take up my offer ( which I once and now twice am extending to you ) to politely ignore each other until you are ready to talk Jesus- as that's all I'm concerned about

God bless you,

Tim