Re: puke calls God "stupid"
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:09:52 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <gb4ah5p6okqrpjr5n...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:56:28 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <nag7h5ltk5ijb7qpn...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:52:16 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <8al5h59kkjgnphhhh...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:14:25 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures)
wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article <sfu4h5hr6j1hvhtus...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:36:35 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures)
> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >In article <leq2h5dvjfhj0o3se...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:18:33 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <gq42h5t3ss38dbg0g...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 27 Nov 2009 18:28:09 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray
> >> >Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Yes, the Bible contradicts itself. A lot.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>Nope. Not the inspired words of God.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>Puke is lying. He says that ALL of the Bible is the
> >> >> >inspired word of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>God.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Nope. Quite the opposite. The words of God are without
> >> >error, but
> >> >> >> >> >> >the writer
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>using the culture of his time sure can embellish the
> >> >> >scripture as he
> >> >> >> >> >> >injects his
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>personal life style into the picture.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>So now puke says that the Bible is "stupid".
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>There's no telling what runs around in your head.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You stated that the Bible is the "word of God".
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Now you say He's "stupid".
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> You.............really don't understand what the bible is,
> >> >do you!!!
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >� What's to understand if the bible tells us that the
> >> >> >13.7-billion year
> >> >> >> >> >> >old universe was created by God c. 6000-years ago?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Simple - the bible says nothing about creation 6000 years ago.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >� Add up the time periods in Genesis and they span c. 6000years.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Uh, not quite, rl. As far as Genesis is concerned, there is no
> >> >6000 years
> >> >> >> >> mentioned as far as I know.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 1. Now: If one adds up all the days **simply mentioned** in the
> >> >> >bible, and
> >> >> >> >> assuming they are 24 hour days, then they do add to about
6000 years
> >> >> >worth of
> >> >> >> >> "days mentioned", which of course includes the 2000 years of
> >> >Christianity.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 2. Now, if one adds up the "generations" discussed in Mat
1, it adds
> >> >> >up to 42
> >> >> >> >> generations to the birth of Christ, or, just for grins let
us say a
> >> >> >generation
> >> >> >> >> is 100 years, then 42 generations + 2000 years since Christ,
we get
> >> >> >about 6000
> >> >> >> >> years.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> However, that period is from Abraham to now.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 3. If we do the same with Luke 3, that same period is from
> >Adam to now.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >� The Hebrrew word adam means mankind. As any rabbi can tell
> >you, the
> >> >> >> >whole A and E story is an allegory.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Items 1& 3 still shade the scientific truth.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >� not in my mind. The scientific truth is not evident in Genesis.
> >> >>
> >> >> So a groundhog created the universe in 6-24 hour days?
> >> >>
> >> >� Your words, not mine Duke. The universe is yet being created as I
> >> >click Post.
> >>
> >> Sorry, the universe is not still being created. It's all "here" as of 13.7
> >> billion years ago. ..
> >
> >� Were humans here 13.7 billion years ago?
>
> Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
>
� is Duke losing his grip?
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Liz
> In article <6gqch51esep62jie551e3v76f1k357r...@4ax.com>, duke
>
[----]
> > >• Were humans here 13.7 billion years ago?
>
> > Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
>
> • is Duke losing his grip?
>
It was lost a long time ago . . . if it was ever present to begin
with.
Liz #658
�R.L.Measures
<5150d7d6-cc4a-47b6...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Liz
<ehu...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 7:21=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article <6gqch51esep62jie551e3v76f1k357r...@4ax.com>, duke
> >
> [----]
> > > >=95 =A0Were humans here 13.7 billion years ago?
> >
> > > Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
> >
> > =95 =A0is Duke losing his grip?
> >
>
> It was lost a long time ago . . . if it was ever present to begin
> with.
>
>
> Liz #658
** alas
cheers Liz
�R.L.Measures
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:21:42 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) in
> alt.abortion with message-id <r-0212091...@10.0.1.7> wrote:
>
> >> >� Were humans here 13.7 billion years ago?
> >>
> >> Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
> >>
> >� is Duke losing his grip?
>
>
> Did he ever have a grip?
>
� prior to RCC inculcation, probably.
duke
Gotcha, rl.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
Now, liz, people like you shouldn't be challenging others. You simply are not
intelligent enough to know why my answer is dead on.
duke
alass to you and liz.
Mark Sebree
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:12:59 -0800 (PST), Liz <ehu...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 2, 7:21 pm, r...@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >> In article <6gqch51esep62jie551e3v76f1k357r...@4ax.com>, duke
>
> >[----]
> >> > >• Were humans here 13.7 billion years ago?
>
> >> > Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
>
> >> • is Duke losing his grip?
>
> >It was lost a long time ago . . . if it was ever present to begin
> >with.
>
> Now, liz, people like you shouldn't be challenging others. You simply are not
> intelligent enough to know why my answer is dead on.
Your answers are almost never even close to being "dead on". That is
why you cannot support them when challenged. In fact, you almost
never give relevant answers in the first place. You usually resort to
one of several logical fallacies and ignore objective facts and
verifiable cites.
She is intelligent enough to see through your charades, evasions,
insults, and delusions. And you cannot accept of handle people
intelligent enough to see through your trick and smoke screens. You
actually claimed in the past that you wanted intelligent discourse and
discussion, but you have never demonstrated this desire to anyone that
I have seen. My analysis is that you are not interested in
intelligent discussion, you only want someone to accept your
pronouncements without thinking about what you claim. And that is NOT
an intelligent discussion.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 3, 2:24�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:12:59 -0800 (PST), Liz <ehu...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 2, 7:21�pm, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>> >> In article <6gqch51esep62jie551e3v76f1k357r...@4ax.com>, duke
>>
>> >[----]
>> >> > >� �Were humans here 13.7 billion years ago?
>>
>> >> > Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
>>
>> >> � �is Duke losing his grip?
>>
>> >It was lost a long time ago . . . if it was ever present to begin
>> >with.
>>
>> Now, liz, people like you shouldn't be challenging others. �You simply are not
>> intelligent enough to know why my answer is dead on.
>You usually resort to
>one of several logical fallacies and ignore objective facts and
>verifiable cites.
Explain a logical fallacy to me. Here's one - God created a rock so heavy he
couldn't lift it.
Mark Sebree
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:52:03 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 3, 2:24 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:12:59 -0800 (PST), Liz <ehu...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 2, 7:21 pm, r...@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >> >> In article <6gqch51esep62jie551e3v76f1k357r...@4ax.com>, duke
>
> >> >[----]
> >> >> > >• Were humans here 13.7 billion years ago?
>
> >> >> > Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
>
> >> >> • is Duke losing his grip?
>
> >> >It was lost a long time ago . . . if it was ever present to begin
> >> >with.
>
> > > Now, liz, people like you shouldn't be challenging others. You simply are not
> > > intelligent enough to know why my answer is dead on.
> > why you cannot support them when challenged. In fact, you almost
> > one of several logical fallacies and ignore objective facts and
> > verifiable cites.
>
> Explain a logical fallacy to me.
http://essay-writing.suite101.com/article.cfm/logical_fallacy
"A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to
mislead or distract people from the real issue. "
"A logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is flawed,
essentially rendering the line of reasoning, if not the entire
argument, invalid."
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
"Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logical+fallacy
"Noun 1. logical fallacy - a fallacy in logical argumentation
fallacy, false belief - a misconception resulting from incorrect
reasoning
hysteron proteron - the logical fallacy of using as a true premise a
proposition that is yet to be proved
ignoratio elenchi - the logical fallacy of supposing that an argument
proving an irrelevant point has proved the point at issue
petitio, petitio principii - the logical fallacy of assuming the
conclusion in the premises; begging the question
post hoc, post hoc ergo propter hoc - the logical fallacy of believing
that temporal succession implies a causal relation"
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/welcome.htm
"An argument commits a fallacy when the reasons offered do not support
the conclusion."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
"A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning. ... Fallacies should not
be persuasive, but they often are. Fallacies may be created
unintentionally, or they may be created intentionally in order to
deceive other people."
This should be enough to get you started, even though you have had
this explained to you before.
> Here's one - God created a rock so heavy he
> couldn't lift it.
No, that is not a logical fallacy. It does not fit the definition.
Claims that others will be sent to Hell if they do not follow your
beliefs is a logical fallacy, however, and one of your favorite ones
to use.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> Explain a logical fallacy to me. Here's one - God created a rock so heavy he
> couldn't lift it.
Such a contradiction argues against the existence of an omnipotent god,
which hurts your own position.
duke
wrote:
>> Explain a logical fallacy to me.
>
>http://essay-writing.suite101.com/article.cfm/logical_fallacy
>"A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to
>mislead or distract people from the real issue. "
>
>"A logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is flawed,
>essentially rendering the line of reasoning, if not the entire
>argument, invalid."
Yeah, like God creating something so heavy that he can't lift it. Now THAT's a
logical fallacy.
The rest of your crap is a joke.
duke
Prove that God's existence is a logical fallacy.
Mark Sebree
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 13:10:50 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > Explain a logical fallacy to me.
>
> > http://essay-writing.suite101.com/article.cfm/logical_fallacy
> > "A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to
> > mislead or distract people from the real issue. "
>
> > "A logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is flawed,
> > essentially rendering the line of reasoning, if not the entire
> > argument, invalid."
> >
> logical fallacy.
No, it is not. It does not fit the definition or any of the
categories. If you think that your "example" is a logical fallacy,
then state what type of fallacy that it is.
A real logical fallacy are things like you claiming that everyone go
to hell if they do not do as you believe. That is an example of an
appeal to threats. Your constant references to your deity are appeals
to belief.
>
> The rest of your crap is a joke.
You are the only joke here. And since you asked what a logical
fallacy was, you were given multiple definitions from multiple
sources.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Mark Sebree
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> Explain a logical fallacy to me. Here's one - God created a rock so heavy he
> >> couldn't lift it.
>
> >Such a contradiction argues against the existence of an omnipotent god,
> >which hurts your own position.
>
> Prove that God's existence is a logical fallacy.
You first have to prove that your deity even exists. Your insistence
on claiming that everyone is subject to your beliefs is an appeal to
belief, as is your insistence that only your deity exists.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Ray Fischer
> Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>>> Explain a logical fallacy to me.
>>
>>http://essay-writing.suite101.com/article.cfm/logical_fallacy
>>"A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to
>>mislead or distract people from the real issue. "
>>
>>"A logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is flawed,
>>essentially rendering the line of reasoning, if not the entire
>>argument, invalid."
>
>Yeah, like God creating something
Nobody believes an admitted liar like you, puke.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Budikka666
> Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
So Noah didn't have 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes? How on
Earth did he build the ark?
"Discussing" with Duck-Egg Dopey duke is like shooting fish in a
barrel.
Budikka
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 13:10:50 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Explain a logical fallacy to me.
> >
> >http://essay-writing.suite101.com/article.cfm/logical_fallacy
> >"A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to
> >mislead or distract people from the real issue. "
> >
> >"A logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is flawed,
> >essentially rendering the line of reasoning, if not the entire
> >argument, invalid."
>
> Yeah, like God creating something so heavy that he can't lift it. Now THAT's
> a
> logical fallacy.
Which means that, if logic is to work, there cannot be any such an
allegedly omnipotent god.
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 3, 1:24�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
>So Noah didn't have 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes? How on
>Earth did he build the ark?
Noah did. Don't you realize he needed those to build the ark.
duke
wrote:
>> Yeah, like God creating something so heavy that he can't lift it. �Now THAT's a
>> logical fallacy.
>No, it is not.
It's the perfect example, turkey nuts.
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 5, 8:17�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
There can only be one ALL-mighty.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Earl Weber ("duke") <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> Noah did. Don't you realize he needed those to build the ark.
"Ark." LOL!! You and AESOP could have been friends.
Mark Sebree
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 07:51:40 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 5, 8:17 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:27:20 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >> >In article <2hmih5911l5hvoj1gfjko8u7kn9en99...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> Explain a logical fallacy to me. Here's one - God created a rock so heavy he
> >> >> couldn't lift it.
>
> >> >Such a contradiction argues against the existence of an omnipotent god,
> >> >which hurts your own position.
>
> >> Prove that God's existence is a logical fallacy.
>
> >You first have to prove that your deity even exists. Your insistence
> >on claiming that everyone is subject to your beliefs is an appeal to
> >belief, as is your insistence that only your deity exists.
>
> There can only be one ALL-mighty.
>
However, there is no evidence that yours exists. And different belief
systems have different ideas on the subject.
Besides, your beliefs encompass more than just your deity. They also
encompass how you claim that people should act and what they should
and should not support. Each Christian sect has a different idea on
that subject, and it can even vary between different preachers,
ministers, and priests within the same sect.
Mark Sebree
> Duke
Mark Sebree
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 07:40:41 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > logical fallacy.
> >
> > categories. If you think that your "example" is a logical fallacy,
> > then state what type of fallacy that it is.
> >
> > A real logical fallacy are things like you claiming that everyone go
> > to hell if they do not do as you believe. That is an example of an
> > appeal to threats. Your constant references to your deity are appeals
> > to belief.
>
Then why were you not able to specify the type or category of logical
fallacy that it was as you were asked to? Probably because it is not
a logical fallacy in the first place.
Since you do not deem to be able to correctly define your example, I
will. What you gave is a paradox, not a logical fallacy.
Specifically an omnipotence paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
A paradox can be a tool to wreck an argument by showing its logical
weaknesses, but it is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is
rather different, as I explained above. A paradox can even be the
premise around which a debate or discussion is started.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Ray Fischer
>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:27:20 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>>> >In article <2hmih5911l5hvoj1gfjko8u7kn9en99...@4ax.com>,
>>> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Explain a logical fallacy to me. �Here's one - God created a rock so heavy he
>>> >> couldn't lift it.
>>>
>>> >Such a contradiction argues against the existence of an omnipotent god,
>>> >which hurts your own position.
>>>
>>> Prove that God's existence is a logical fallacy.
>>
>>You first have to prove that your deity even exists. Your insistence
>>on claiming that everyone is subject to your beliefs is an appeal to
>>belief, as is your insistence that only your deity exists.
>
>There can only be one ALL-mighty.
Wrong again, puke. There can be NO "almighty".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 07:40:41 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Yeah, like God creating something so heavy that he can't lift it. �Now
> >> THAT's a
> >> logical fallacy.
>
> >No, it is not.
>
> It's the perfect example, turkey nuts.
>
Then omnipotence is a logical fallacy, and one of the alleged properties
of your alleged deus is falsified.
duke
You know, cc, it's a ...............boat.
duke
wrote:
>> > > Yeah, like God creating something so heavy that he can't lift it. Now THAT's a
>> > > logical fallacy.
>> > A real logical fallacy are things like you claiming that everyone go
>> > to hell if they do not do as you believe.
>> It's the perfect example, turkey nuts.
>Then why were you not able to specify the type or category of logical
>fallacy that it was as you were asked to?
I pointed it out to you.
Mark Sebree
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:19:40 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > > > logical fallacy.
> > > > categories. If you think that your "example" is a logical fallacy,
> > > > then state what type of fallacy that it is.
> > > > appeal to threats. Your constant references to your deity are appeals
> > > > to belief.
> >
> > Then why were you not able to specify the type or category of logical
> > a logical fallacy in the first place.
>
No, you did not. You did not name the type of fallacy that it was.
But then, that is because it is a paradox, not a fallacy.
Specifically an omnipotence paradox. And below is where I even
supported my statement.
> > Since you do not deem to be able to correctly define your example, I
> > will. What you gave is a paradox, not a logical fallacy.
> > Specifically an omnipotence paradox.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
> >
> > A paradox can be a tool to wreck an argument by showing its logical
> > weaknesses, but it is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is
> > rather different, as I explained above. A paradox can even be the
> > premise around which a debate or discussion is started.
You are just showing that even after it has been explained to you, you
still do not understand what a logical fallacy is, and you think that
a paradox is a logical fallacy.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:19:40 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> > > Yeah, like God creating something so heavy that he can't lift it. Now
> >> > > THAT's a
> >> > > logical fallacy.
>
> >> > A real logical fallacy are things like you claiming that everyone go
> >> > to hell if they do not do as you believe.
>
> >> It's the perfect example, turkey nuts.
>
> >Then why were you not able to specify the type or category of logical
> >fallacy that it was as you were asked to?
>
> I pointed it out to you.
Your pointer seems to be broken, just like your logic.
"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with
reality at any point."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the
aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles
against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates
from God."
Martin Luther
duke
wrote:
>> I pointed it out to you.
>No, you did not. You did not name the type of fallacy that it was.
>But then, that is because it is a paradox, not a fallacy.
>Specifically an omnipotence paradox. And below is where I even
>supported my statement.
Well, for idiot's like you, it's a logical fallacy.
duke
>In article <mf9oh553ldu0g0skg...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:19:40 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Yeah, like God creating something so heavy that he can't lift it. Now
>> >> > > THAT's a
>> >> > > logical fallacy.
>>
>> >> > A real logical fallacy are things like you claiming that everyone go
>> >> > to hell if they do not do as you believe.
>>
>> >> It's the perfect example, turkey nuts.
>>
>> >Then why were you not able to specify the type or category of logical
>> >fallacy that it was as you were asked to?
>>
>> I pointed it out to you.
>
>Your pointer seems to be broken, just like your logic.
>
>"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with
>reality at any point."
> - Friedrich Nietzsche
Fred was a dingbat.
Mark Sebree
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 15:55:01 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > No, you did not. You did not name the type of fallacy that it was.
> > But then, that is because it is a paradox, not a fallacy.
> > Specifically an omnipotence paradox. And below is where I even
> > supported my statement.
> >
> > > > Specifically an omnipotence paradox.
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
> > > > A paradox can be a tool to wreck an argument by showing its logical
> > > > weaknesses, but it is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is
> > > > rather different, as I explained above. A paradox can even be the
> > > > premise around which a debate or discussion is started.
> >
> > You are just showing that even after it has been explained to you, you
> > still do not understand what a logical fallacy is, and you think that
> > a paradox is a logical fallacy.
>
You are the only idiot here since you are the only one that is
claiming that it is a logical fallacy. Your paradox is a paradox to
me because that is what it is. Unlike you, I know the difference
between a logical fallacy and a paradox. That is why I provided a
link that explains that paradox specifically.
Since you cannot be bothered to read any material that you are given,
here is the facts in a nutshell. A paradox is a self-contradictory
statement, such as the one that you gave above. It is known
specifically as the omnipotence paradox. It is a paradox because,
according to mythology, God is supposed to be omnipotent, which means
that he is able to do anything. That means that he should be able to
create any object and lift any object. However, if he can create a
rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, then he is not omnipotent
because he cannot lift the rock, and if he cannot create rock so heavy
that he cannot lift it then he is not omnipotent because he cannot
create anything that he wants.
This reasoning is completely internally consistent. Therefore, it is
not a logical fallacy.
If you think that the omnipotent paradox is a logical fallacy, then
name the category and/or type of fallacy that it is. If you need
links to lists of logical fallacies, just ask. There are plenty on
the internet. It may even help you improve your arguments and claims.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 15:55:01 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> I pointed it out to you.
>
> >No, you did not. You did not name the type of fallacy that it was.
> >But then, that is because it is a paradox, not a fallacy.
> >Specifically an omnipotence paradox. And below is where I even
> >supported my statement.
>
> Well, for idiot's like you, it's a logical fallacy.
A paradox is not the same as a logical fallacy. Perfectly logical things
can be paradoxical and logical fallacies need not be.
So that Puke is wrong again.
�R.L.Measures
<5150d7d6-cc4a-47b6...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Liz
<ehu...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 7:21=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article <6gqch51esep62jie551e3v76f1k357r...@4ax.com>, duke
> >
> [----]
> > > >=95 =A0Were humans here 13.7 billion years ago?
> >
> > > Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
> >
> > =95 =A0is Duke losing his grip?
> >
>
> It was lost a long time ago . . . if it was ever present to begin
> with.
>
>
> Liz #658
** RC inculcation?
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
�R.L.Measures
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:21:42 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) in
> alt.abortion with message-id <r-0212091...@10.0.1.7> wrote:
>
> >> >� Were humans here 13.7 billion years ago?
> >>
> >> Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
> >>
> >� is Duke losing his grip?
>
>
> Did he ever have a grip?
>
� Maybe in kindergarten?
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:21:42 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <6gqch51esep62jie5...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:09:52 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <gb4ah5p6okqrpjr5n...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:56:28 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <nag7h5ltk5ijb7qpn...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:52:16 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures)
wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article <8al5h59kkjgnphhhh...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:14:25 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures)
> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >In article <sfu4h5hr6j1hvhtus...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:36:35 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <leq2h5dvjfhj0o3se...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:18:33 -0800, r...@somis.org
(�R.L.Measures)
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article
<gq42h5t3ss38dbg0g...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >> >> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 27 Nov 2009 18:28:09 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray
> >> >> >Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Yes, the Bible contradicts itself. A lot.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>Nope. Not the inspired words of God.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>Puke is lying. He says that ALL of the Bible is the
> >> >> >> >inspired word of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>God.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Nope. Quite the opposite. The words of God are
without
> >> >> >error, but
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >the writer
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>using the culture of his time sure can embellish the
> >> >> >> >scripture as he
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >injects his
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>personal life style into the picture.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>So now puke says that the Bible is "stupid".
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>There's no telling what runs around in your head.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You stated that the Bible is the "word of God".
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Now you say He's "stupid".
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You.............really don't understand what the
bible is,
> >> >> >do you!!!
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >� What's to understand if the bible tells us that the
> >> >> >> >13.7-billion year
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >old universe was created by God c. 6000-years ago?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Simple - the bible says nothing about creation 6000
years ago.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >� Add up the time periods in Genesis and they span c.
6000years.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Uh, not quite, rl. As far as Genesis is concerned, there is no
> >> >> >6000 years
> >> >> >> >> >> mentioned as far as I know.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> 1. Now: If one adds up all the days **simply
mentioned** in the
> >> >> >> >bible, and
> >> >> >> >> >> assuming they are 24 hour days, then they do add to about
> >6000 years
> >> >> >> >worth of
> >> >> >> >> >> "days mentioned", which of course includes the 2000 years of
> >> >> >Christianity.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> 2. Now, if one adds up the "generations" discussed in Mat
> >1, it adds
> >> >> >> >up to 42
> >> >> >> >> >> generations to the birth of Christ, or, just for grins let
> >us say a
> >> >> >> >generation
> >> >> >> >> >> is 100 years, then 42 generations + 2000 years since Christ,
> >we get
> >> >> >> >about 6000
> >> >> >> >> >> years.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> However, that period is from Abraham to now.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> 3. If we do the same with Luke 3, that same period is from
> >> >Adam to now.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >� The Hebrrew word adam means mankind. As any rabbi can tell
> >> >you, the
> >> >> >> >> >whole A and E story is an allegory.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Items 1& 3 still shade the scientific truth.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >� not in my mind. The scientific truth is not evident in Genesis.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So a groundhog created the universe in 6-24 hour days?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >� Your words, not mine Duke. The universe is yet being created as I
> >> >> >click Post.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry, the universe is not still being created. It's all "here"
as of 13.7
> >> >> billion years ago. ..
> >> >
> >> >� Were humans here 13.7 billion years ago?
> >>
> >> Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
> >>
> >� is Duke losing his grip?
>
> Gotcha, rl.
>
� The one true church has gotcha.
Ray Fischer
>On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:24:13 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
>>In article <mf9oh553ldu0g0skg...@4ax.com>,
>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:19:40 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > > Yeah, like God creating something so heavy that he can't lift it. Now
>>> >> > > THAT's a
>>> >> > > logical fallacy.
>>>
>>> >> > A real logical fallacy are things like you claiming that everyone go
>>> >> > to hell if they do not do as you believe.
>>>
>>> >> It's the perfect example, turkey nuts.
>>>
>>> >Then why were you not able to specify the type or category of logical
>>> >fallacy that it was as you were asked to?
>>>
>>> I pointed it out to you.
>>
>>Your pointer seems to be broken, just like your logic.
>>
>>"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with
>>reality at any point."
>> - Friedrich Nietzsche
>
>Fred was a dingbat.
You're an admitted liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
duke
wrote:
Only a village idiot can't see the fallacy of the creator of a rock not being
able to lift it.
duke
I'll stick with the rock's point of view.
duke
>In article
><5150d7d6-cc4a-47b6...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Liz
><ehu...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 2, 7:21=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
>> > In article <6gqch51esep62jie551e3v76f1k357r...@4ax.com>, duke
>> >
>> [----]
>> > > >=95 =A0Were humans here 13.7 billion years ago?
>> >
>> > > Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
>> >
>> > =95 =A0is Duke losing his grip?
>> >
>>
>> It was lost a long time ago . . . if it was ever present to begin
>> with.
>** RC inculcation?
Scientific inculcation.
Budikka666
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:26:16 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 3, 1:24 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
> >So Noah didn't have 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes? How on
> >Earth did he build the ark?
>
> Noah did. Don't you realize he needed those to build the ark.
So Noah, whom the Bible's own chronology dates to some 4,300 years
ago, was actually here 13.7 billion years ago building his ark?
Budikka
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> Only a village idiot can't see the fallacy of the creator of a rock not being
> able to lift it.
But if your god were really omnipotent it would have to be able to make
one that heavy.
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:49:45 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><5150d7d6-cc4a-47b6...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Liz
> ><ehu...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 2, 7:21=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >> > In article <6gqch51esep62jie551e3v76f1k357r...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >
> >> [----]
> >> > > >=95 =A0Were humans here 13.7 billion years ago?
> >> >
> >> > > Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
> >> >
> >> > =95 =A0is Duke losing his grip?
> >> >
> >>
> >> It was lost a long time ago . . . if it was ever present to begin
> >> with.
>
> >** RC inculcation?
>
> Scientific inculcation.
>
� ?
Mark Sebree
> > claiming that it is a logical fallacy. Your paradox is a paradox to
> > me because that is what it is. Unlike you, I know the difference
> > between a logical fallacy and a paradox. That is why I provided a
> > link that explains that paradox specifically.
> >
> > Since you cannot be bothered to read any material that you are given,
> > here is the facts in a nutshell. A paradox is a self-contradictory
> > statement, such as the one that you gave above. It is known
> > specifically as the omnipotence paradox. It is a paradox because,
> > according to mythology, God is supposed to be omnipotent, which means
> > that he is able to do anything. That means that he should be able to
> > create any object and lift any object. However, if he can create a
> > rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, then he is not omnipotent
> > because he cannot lift the rock, and if he cannot create rock so heavy
> > that he cannot lift it then he is not omnipotent because he cannot
> > create anything that he wants.
> >
> > not a logical fallacy.
> >
> > If you think that the omnipotent paradox is a logical fallacy, then
> > name the category and/or type of fallacy that it is. If you need
> > links to lists of logical fallacies, just ask. There are plenty on
> > the internet. It may even help you improve your arguments and claims.
>
> able to lift it.
Then you must think that everyone that is intelligent and educated is
an idiot since anyone that knows what a logical fallacy is and what a
paradox is will understand that the omnipotence paradox is not a
logical fallacy. You cannot even name what category or type of
logical fallacy that you think it is as you were asked to.
The only conclusion that can be gained from your evasions is that you
cannot state what type or category of logical fallacy the omnipotence
paradox is because it is not a logical fallacy in the first place.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
duke
wrote:
Where does the bible categorically and officially sate that noah was here 4300
years ago?
I keep telling you that the flood could have occurred anytime in the last 4.5
billion years of the earth. But somehow, you just can't understand that.
duke
And God could lift it.
duke
wrote:
>> Only a village idiot can't see the fallacy of the creator of a rock not being
>> able to lift it.
>
>Then you must think that everyone that is intelligent and educated is
>an idiot
You are anyway.
duke
Do you not know that we are made of the stuff of stars long gone?
Dan Listermann
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ol8vh59vckpfp0nkb...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:30:25 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree
> <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Only a village idiot can't see the fallacy of the creator of a rock not
>>> being
>>> able to lift it.
>>
>>Then you must think that everyone that is intelligent and educated is
>>an idiot
>
> You are anyway.
>
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:56:47 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <7j4th5tijacdtl188...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:49:45 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article
> >> ><5150d7d6-cc4a-47b6...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Liz
> >> ><ehu...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Dec 2, 7:21=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >> >> > In article <6gqch51esep62jie551e3v76f1k357r...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >
> >> >> [----]
> >> >> > > >=95 =A0Were humans here 13.7 billion years ago?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > =95 =A0is Duke losing his grip?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It was lost a long time ago . . . if it was ever present to begin
> >> >> with.
> >>
> >> >** RC inculcation?
> >>
> >> Scientific inculcation.
> >>
> >� ?
>
> Do you not know that we are made of the stuff of stars long gone?
>
� yes
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:30:25 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Only a village idiot can't see the fallacy of the creator of a rock not
> >> being
> >> able to lift it.
> >
> >Then you must think that everyone that is intelligent and educated is
> >an idiot
>
> You are anyway.
And then there are idiots like puke who are neither passably
intelligent nor passably well educated, but still display their
inadequacies in both respects publicly.
Virgil
>
> Do you not know that we are made of the stuff of stars long gone?
Did you suppose we are made of the stuff of stars still shining?
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
Then humanity must have been around for even longer, to have survived it.
And, if I recollect, for the early part of that 4.5 billion years, the
still molten earth could not have had any liquid water on it. So any
flooding would have had to wait until a crust formed cool enough not to
boil off any water.
Mark Sebree
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:56:23 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> Only a village idiot can't see the fallacy of the creator of a rock not being
> >> able to lift it.
>
> >But if your god were really omnipotent it would have to be able to make
> >one that heavy.
>
> And God could lift it.
According to the definition, no he could not. If he is making a rock
so heavy that he cannot lift it, then obviously he cannot lift it, and
thus he is not omnipotent.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Mark Sebree
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:30:25 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
[snip of previous material which explained what a logical fallacy was
to Duke. He obviously did not pay attention.]
> > > Only a village idiot can't see the fallacy of the creator of a rock not being
> > > able to lift it.
>
> > Then you must think that everyone that is intelligent and educated is
> > an idiot since anyone that knows what a logical fallacy is and what a
> > paradox is will understand that the omnipotence paradox is not a
> > logical fallacy. You cannot even name what category or type of
> > logical fallacy that you think it is as you were asked to.
> >
> > The only conclusion that can be gained from your evasions is that you
> > cannot state what type or category of logical fallacy the omnipotence
> > paradox is because it is not a logical fallacy in the first place.
>
> You are anyway.
You have been defeated. You cannot support your premise, and I have
shown that your premise is actually wrong by defining what your claim
really was, and explaining why it was not what you claimed it was.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
duke
>In article <808vh5tiu0hln9mb6...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:04:38 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 6, 8:04�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:26:16 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Dec 3, 1:24�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
>> >> >So Noah didn't have 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes? �How on
>> >> >Earth did he build the ark?
>> >>
>> >> Noah did. �Don't you realize he needed those to build the ark.
>> >
>> >So Noah, whom the Bible's own chronology dates to some 4,300 years
>> >ago, was actually here 13.7 billion years ago building his ark?
>>
>> Where does the bible categorically and officially sate that noah was here 4300
>> years ago?
>>
>> I keep telling you that the flood could have occurred anytime in the last 4.5
>> billion years of the earth. But somehow, you just can't understand that.
>Then humanity must have been around for even longer, to have survived it.
Heeheeheehee. Yep.
>And, if I recollect, for the early part of that 4.5 billion years, the
>still molten earth could not have had any liquid water on it. So any
>flooding would have had to wait until a crust formed cool enough not to
>boil off any water.
Yep.
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 9, 8:14�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
But why can't he lift it if he can create it? It's takes an illogical gobbler
to not understand that premise.
duke
The inadequacies of sebreeze and vacant lot cannot be rejected.
duke
wrote:
A sebreeze with a sense of intelligence is a logical fallacy.
duke
Then why didn't you understand my comment?
duke
Shining here or there?
Ray Fischer
>On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:13:27 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Dec 9, 8:14�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:56:23 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>>> >In article <se4th5d14t78snv2v9b0m78gvvmsdp0...@4ax.com>,
>>> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Only a village idiot can't see the fallacy of the creator of a rock not being
>>> >> able to lift it.
>>>
>>> >But if your god were really omnipotent it would have to be able to make
>>> >one that heavy.
>
>>> And God could lift it.
>
>>According to the definition, no he could not. If he is making a rock
>>so heavy that he cannot lift it, then obviously he cannot lift it, and
>>thus he is not omnipotent.
>
>But why can't he lift it if he can create it?
If He's powerful enough to lift it then He's not omnipotent because He
cannot create a rock big enough so that he cannot lift it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
�R.L.Measures
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >You have been defeated. You cannot support your premise, and I have
> >shown that your premise is actually wrong by defining what your claim
> >really was, and explaining why it was not what you claimed it was.
>
> A sebreeze with a sense of intelligence is a logical fallacy.
As are sensible theists.
Virgil
> >> Do you not know that we are made of the stuff of stars long gone?
> >>
> >� yes
>
> Then why didn't you understand my comment?
Why bother to try digesting garbage?
Budikka666
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:04:38 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 6, 8:04 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:26:16 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 3, 1:24 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
> >> >So Noah didn't have 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes? How on
> >> >Earth did he build the ark?
>
> >> Noah did. Don't you realize he needed those to build the ark.
>
> >So Noah, whom the Bible's own chronology dates to some 4,300 years
> >ago, was actually here 13.7 billion years ago building his ark?
>
> Where does the bible categorically and officially sate that noah was here 4300
> years ago?
Where did I state that it "categorically" does, you pathetic, LYING
piece of ignorant pig shit? I specifically said (go back up there and
read it. It's OK to get an adult to help if you're struggling. We'll
wait) "the Bible's own chronology dates to some 4,300 years ago".
There's no "categorically". There's nothing there but your own
Bible's own chronology. Can you get that much straight at least you
sad little weasel?
You've had this selfsame chronology repeatedly spelled out to you in
great detail, including::
http://tinyurl.com/yafwzz4 (March 2007 - Thread "Why There was No
Flood #57")
http://tinyurl.com/yjl9p4j (November, 2007 -Thread "Run, Duke, Run")
http://tinyurl.com/yjcgbfo - Last November
and every time I've done that, you've RUN AWAY.
Here it is again, you monumentally retarded waste of DNA:
The Bible genealogy places the flood just 290 years prior to Abram:
Abram
back to Terah: 70
back to Nahor: 29
back to Serug: 30
back to Reu: 32
back to Peleg: 30
back to Eber: 34
back to Shelah: 30
back to Arpachshad: 35
The Bible insists that Noah was 600 when Arpachshad was born. That's
also when the flood came, but this means the flood actually came
**ONLY 290 YEARS BEFORE ABRAM** according to *detailed* *Bible*
*chronology* you abysmally stupid dick wad.
Abram's time is typically placed somewhere around 2166BC, this would
place the flood in 2456BC, or 4,464 years prior to 2009.
> I keep telling you that the flood could have occurred anytime in the last 4.5
> billion years of the earth. But somehow, you just can't understand that.
We know you're so stupid that you continuously trip yourself up and
don't even notice what you're doing to yourself. That's not news and
neither is your bizarre claim repeated above. The only problem I have
with it is that whenever I tackle you on this specific claim YOU RUN
AWAY. Are you going to go toe-to toe with me on this claim right here
and now, and support what you just said with objective and or
scientific evidence or are you going to RUN AWAY again?
Here's the problem with your claim above, that the flood could have
taken place any time within the last 4.5 billion years, and the
problem is that Noah was a human and humans have not been on the
planet for 4.5 billion years. I've spelled this out to you before
only to see you RUN AWAY, sad little coward that you are.
The truth is that until there were air-breathing organisms, a global
flood would have made no sense, since the sole purpose of it was to
drown the sinners.
So are you claiming that bacteria, 3.8 billion years ago, sinned so
badly that god punished them all except for Mr Bacterium and his
immediate family? If so, please support that claim with detailed
reference to Biblical texts.
If not, then your flood cannot possible have been 4.5 billion years
ago! Even interpreting your asinine claim at its most bizarre, the
earliest you could possibly claim the flood took place would be after
there were air-breathing organisms on Earth, which wasn't until
approximately 400 million years ago.
In that case, are you claiming that Mr Insect and his immediate family
were saved from drowning in a world-wide flood sent to wipe out all
the other sinful insects?
If that's the case, how did the insects get the birds on board the ark
when something even approaching the first bird wouldn't evolve for
another 100 - 200 million years?
I think that's your cue to RUN AWAY. Again. Buh-bye little moron.
Budikka
Mark Sebree
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:13:27 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 9, 8:14 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:56:23 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >> >In article <se4th5d14t78snv2v9b0m78gvvmsdp0...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> Only a village idiot can't see the fallacy of the creator of a rock not being
> >> >> able to lift it.
>
> >> >But if your god were really omnipotent it would have to be able to make
> >> >one that heavy.
> >> And God could lift it.
> >According to the definition, no he could not. If he is making a rock
> >so heavy that he cannot lift it, then obviously he cannot lift it, and
> >thus he is not omnipotent.
>
> But why can't he lift it if he can create it?
Because he was trying to create a rock so large that he could not lift
it. If he cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, then
he is not omnipotent since he cannot create the rock. And if he can
create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, then he is not
omnipotent since he cannot lift the rock.
> It's takes an illogical gobbler
> to not understand that premise.
You are the only one that is being illogical here. You seem to be
wanting to address the paradox, but you do not understand it well
enough to see what it states, and thus cannot come up with any
intelligent or reasonable rebuttal.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Mark Sebree
Your statement is a logical fallacy, specifically an ad hominem, or an
attack on the person. You have nothing to support your claims or your
supposed premise, and I have shown that your claims and premise is
wrong by explaining exactly what it is, and providing objective links
to support my claims. You are defeated, and by someone that you claim
is not very intelligent despite the evidence to the contrary.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 9, 7:04�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:04:38 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 6, 8:04�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:26:16 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Dec 3, 1:24�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
>> >> >So Noah didn't have 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes? �How on
>> >> >Earth did he build the ark?
>>
>> >> Noah did. �Don't you realize he needed those to build the ark.
>>
>> >So Noah, whom the Bible's own chronology dates to some 4,300 years
>> >ago, was actually here 13.7 billion years ago building his ark?
>>
>> Where does the bible categorically and officially sate that noah was here 4300
>> years ago?
>Where did I state that it "categorically" does, you pathetic, LYING
>piece of ignorant pig shit?
Where you said above "So Noah, whom the Bible's own chronology dates to some
4,300 years ago, was actually here 13.7 billion years ago building his ark?"
> I specifically said (go back up there and
>read it. It's OK to get an adult to help if you're struggling. We'll
>wait) "the Bible's own chronology dates to some 4,300 years ago".
And I said it "doesn't say 4300 years ago". Heeheeheehee.
>There's no "categorically". There's nothing there but your own
>Bible's own chronology. Can you get that much straight at least you
>sad little weasel?
No such chronology. My bible's chronology specifically states that Gen 1-11,
the source chapters addressing the flood, clearly states that Gen 1-11 is not a
historical record of God's creation of the universe.
>You've had this selfsame chronology repeatedly spelled out to you in
>great detail, including::
>http://tinyurl.com/yafwzz4 (March 2007 - Thread "Why There was No
>Flood #57")
>http://tinyurl.com/yjl9p4j (November, 2007 -Thread "Run, Duke, Run")
>http://tinyurl.com/yjcgbfo - Last November
>and every time I've done that, you've RUN AWAY.
Heeheeheehee. You're too dumb to understand what I've been telling you for
years, you big dna dud..
So long, gobbler.
duke
Dummy, he is limitless in both categories. But dingbats like you can't
comprehend that.
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 10, 12:05�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:13:27 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 9, 8:14�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:56:23 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>> >> >In article <se4th5d14t78snv2v9b0m78gvvmsdp0...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Only a village idiot can't see the fallacy of the creator of a rock not being
>> >> >> able to lift it.
>>
>> >> >But if your god were really omnipotent it would have to be able to make
>> >> >one that heavy.
>> >> And God could lift it.
>> >According to the definition, no he could not. �If he is making a rock
>> >so heavy that he cannot lift it, then obviously he cannot lift it, and
>> >thus he is not omnipotent.
>>
>> But why can't he lift it if he can create it?
>
>Because he was trying to create a rock so large that he could not lift
>it.
Why can't he lift it? You are a logical fallacy.
duke
>As are sensible theists.
I have value to be gained.
duke
wrote:
>> A sebreeze with a sense of intelligence is a logical fallacy.
>Your statement is a logical fallacy, specifically an ad hominem, or an
>attack on the person.
A logical fallacy speaks.
duke
Nothing to do with it. The link is still there - missing but not lost.
duke
Just because you don't understand doesnt' mean rl doesn't.
The Chief Instigator
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:50:58 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
>>In article <ala2i5hgijts199f2...@4ax.com>,
>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >You have been defeated. You cannot support your premise, and I have
>>> >shown that your premise is actually wrong by defining what your claim
>>> >really was, and explaining why it was not what you claimed it was.
>>>
>>> A sebreeze with a sense of intelligence is a logical fallacy.
>
>>As are sensible theists.
>
> I have value to be gained.
Value? Nutty Cathoholics like you have nothing to gain for the rest of us
that are rational.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (OT, December 4)
NEXT GAME: Friday, December 11 vs. Peoria, 7:35
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> A logical fallacy speaks:
>
> The Dukester, American-American
He should better shut up.
Mark Sebree
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:30:54 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 10, 12:05 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:13:27 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 9, 8:14 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:56:23 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > > > > >In article <se4th5d14t78snv2v9b0m78gvvmsdp0...@4ax.com>,
> > > > > > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Only a village idiot can't see the fallacy of the creator of a rock not being
> > > > > > > able to lift it.
>
> > > > > > But if your god were really omnipotent it would have to be able to make
> > > > > > one that heavy.
> > > > > And God could lift it.
> > > > According to the definition, no he could not. If he is making a rock
> > > > so heavy that he cannot lift it, then obviously he cannot lift it, and
> > > > thus he is not omnipotent.
>
> > > But why can't he lift it if he can create it?
>
> > Because he was trying to create a rock so large that he could not lift
> > he is not omnipotent since he cannot create the rock. And if he can
> > create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, then he is not
> > omnipotent since he cannot lift the rock.
>
Because he created it to be too heavy to lift by definition, as was
explained to you multiple times.
> You are a logical fallacy.
A person cannot be a logical fallacy. Apparently, you cannot even
remember the definitions that you were given less than a weak ago at
your own request.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Syd M.
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:04:54 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
>
> <2eenh5hs7cjk3b5brbr2mee8ri5n47o...@4ax.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:26:16 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 3, 1:24 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>Earth did he build the ark?
>
> >Noah did. Don't you realize he needed those to build the ark.
>
>
> I have requested you support your assertions since November 23, 2009,
> with no factual response.
>
Some of us have been challenging him to support his assertions for far
longer. In my case, the result was that Dork finally killfiled me for
my trouble.
PDW
Budikka666
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:05:50 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 9, 7:04 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:04:38 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 6, 8:04 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:26:16 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Dec 3, 1:24 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> Yes, but not with 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes.
> >> >> >So Noah didn't have 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers and 10 toes? How on
> >> >> >Earth did he build the ark?
>
> >> >> Noah did. Don't you realize he needed those to build the ark.
>
> >> >So Noah, whom the Bible's own chronology dates to some 4,300 years
> >> >ago, was actually here 13.7 billion years ago building his ark?
>
> >> Where does the bible categorically and officially sate that noah was here 4300
> >> years ago?
> >Where did I state that it "categorically" does, you pathetic, LYING
> >piece of ignorant pig shit?
>
> Where you said above "So Noah, whom the Bible's own chronology dates to some
> 4,300 years ago, was actually here 13.7 billion years ago building his ark?"
>
> > I specifically said (go back up there and
> >read it. It's OK to get an adult to help if you're struggling. We'll
> >wait) "the Bible's own chronology dates to some 4,300 years ago".
>
> And I said it "doesn't say 4300 years ago". Heeheeheehee.
So you admit you LIED about what I said.
So you admit you're too stupid to understand the term "Bible
chronology"
> >There's no "categorically". There's nothing there but your own
> >Bible's own chronology. Can you get that much straight at least you
> >sad little weasel?
>
> No such chronology.
How is a list of names and ages *not* a chronology you LYING piece of
shit? I notice you skipped right over these:
Abram
back to Terah: 70
back to Nahor: 29
back to Serug: 30
back to Reu: 32
back to Peleg: 30
back to Eber: 34
back to Shelah: 30
back to Arpachshad: 35
Just find the guts for once to admit that you're nothing but another
Coward for Christ™, another limp Peter at the passion, shrinking away
because you know for a flat-out absolute undeniable *fact* that you've
had your dumb ass handed to you on a plate *yet* *again*.
> My bible's chronology specifically states that Gen 1-11,
> the source chapters addressing the flood, clearly states that Gen 1-11 is not a
> historical record of God's creation of the universe.
Care to quote that verse in the actual text, LIAR, instead of hiding
behind your bible commentary which you woyourself admit is wrtten by
fallible humans?
And when you can't do that, are you actually *ever* going to address
the detailed chronology showing names and ages right here:
The Bible genealogy places the flood just 290 years prior to Abram:
Abram
back to Terah: 70
back to Nahor: 29
back to Serug: 30
back to Reu: 32
back to Peleg: 30
back to Eber: 34
back to Shelah: 30
back to Arpachshad: 35
> >You've had this selfsame chronology repeatedly spelled out to you in
> >great detail, including::
> >http://tinyurl.com/yafwzz4(March 2007 - Thread "Why There was No
> >Flood #57")
> >http://tinyurl.com/yjl9p4j(November, 2007 -Thread "Run, Duke, Run")
> >http://tinyurl.com/yjcgbfo- Last November
> >and every time I've done that, you've RUN AWAY.
Here's the chronology again which you LIE doesn't exist:
Abram
back to Terah: 70
back to Nahor: 29
back to Serug: 30
back to Reu: 32
back to Peleg: 30
back to Eber: 34
back to Shelah: 30
back to Arpachshad: 35
> >Here it is again, you monumentally retarded waste of DNA:
> >The Bible genealogy places the flood just 290 years prior to Abram:
> >Abram
> >back to Terah: 70
> >back to Nahor: 29
> >back to Serug: 30
> >back to Reu: 32
> >back to Peleg: 30
> >back to Eber: 34
> >back to Shelah: 30
> >back to Arpachshad: 35
And here again is the entire section which you RAN AWAY like the
pathetic piece of shit that you are:
Keep running, you pathetic trash. I'll add this thread to the ever-
growing list of threads you fled.
Budikka
Budikka666
genealogy places the flood just 290 years prior to Abram:
Abram
back to Terah: 70
back to Nahor: 29
back to Serug: 30
back to Reu: 32
back to Peleg: 30
back to Eber: 34
back to Shelah: 30
back to Arpachshad: 35
The Bible insists that Noah was 600 when Arpachshad was born. That's
also when the flood came, but this means the flood actually came
**ONLY 290 YEARS BEFORE ABRAM** according to *detailed* *Bible*
*chronology* you abysmally stupid dick wad.
Abram's time is typically placed somewhere around 2166BC, this would
place the flood in 2456BC, or 4,464 years prior to 2009.
Budikka
Budikka666
duke
wrote:
>> > Because he was trying to create a rock so large that he could not lift
>> > it. If he cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, then
>> > he is not omnipotent since he cannot create the rock. And if he can
>> > create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, then he is not
>> > omnipotent since he cannot lift the rock.
>> Why can't he lift it?
>Because he created it to be too heavy to lift by definition, as was
>explained to you multiple times.
You don't have a clue, do you.
duke
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:12:12 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:50:58 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <ala2i5hgijts199f2...@4ax.com>,
>>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >You have been defeated. You cannot support your premise, and I have
>>>> >shown that your premise is actually wrong by defining what your claim
>>>> >really was, and explaining why it was not what you claimed it was.
>>>>
>>>> A sebreeze with a sense of intelligence is a logical fallacy.
>>
>>>As are sensible theists.
>>
>> I have value to be gained.
>
>Value? Nutty Cathoholics like you have nothing to gain for the rest of us
>that are rational.
Yep, an eternity in heaven with God, as opposed, of course, those of you that
volunteer for an eternity with satan.
Ray Fischer
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:52:51 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
>>In article <9na2i5dv95acn54ug...@4ax.com>,
>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Do you not know that we are made of the stuff of stars long gone?
>>> >>
>>> >� yes
>>>
>>> Then why didn't you understand my comment?
>>
>>Why bother to try digesting garbage?
>
>Just because you don't understand doesnt' mean rl doesn't.
Just because you claim you understand doesn't mean that you do.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� there is no such thing as scientific inculcation.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:13:27 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Dec 9, 8:14�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:56:23 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>>>>> >In article <se4th5d14t78snv2v9b0m78gvvmsdp0...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Only a village idiot can't see the fallacy of the creator of a rock not being
>>>>> >> able to lift it.
>>>>>
>>>>> >But if your god were really omnipotent it would have to be able to make
>>>>> >one that heavy.
>>>
>>>>> And God could lift it.
>>>
>>>>According to the definition, no he could not. If he is making a rock
>>>>so heavy that he cannot lift it, then obviously he cannot lift it, and
>>>>thus he is not omnipotent.
>>>
>>>But why can't he lift it if he can create it?
>>
>>If He's powerful enough to lift it then He's not omnipotent because He
>>cannot create a rock big enough so that he cannot lift it.
>
>Dummy, he is limitless in both categories.
According to a known liar and cult fanatic.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net