Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
talk.origins
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion The Rocks Don't Lie
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Dana Tweedy  
View profile  
 More options Nov 17 2012, 9:57 pm
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 19:55:29 -0700
Local: Sat, Nov 17 2012 9:55 pm
Subject: Re: The Rocks Don't Lie
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 11/17/12 3:25 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 16, 6:32 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

>> You say that "evolutionists" dismiss the noachian flood myth because a
>> global flood would immediately falsify ToE.  Out of charity, I will
>> allow that you may have been mistaken the first time you said this.
>> The fact that several "evolutionists" have pointed out that 1) the
>> noachian flood would not "falsify ToE" even if it had happened; and 2)
>> many people reject a global flood because there is no physical
>> evidence for such a thing, makes your continued resort to this claim
>> not only a lie, but a transparent, demonstrable lie.

> No one expects Evolutionists to admit that occurrence is dismissed by
> starting assumption.

a global flood is not dismissed by "starting assumption".  It's
dismissed because the evidence contradicts it.

> What is it that you don't understand? Don't you
> know that Naturalism does not allow any conclusion that supports
> Supernaturalism?

Irrelevant, as science doesn't use philosophic naturalism, just
methodological naturalism.   If the evidence were to support a global
flood, science would have to accommodate such a finding.

>> The fact that several "evolutionists" have pointed out that 1) the
>> noachian flood would not "falsify ToE" even if it had happened

> Their point is moronic, DOA.

which only means you refuse to admit you were mistaken.

> Diversity seen today could not have evolved from aquatic life in 5000
> years. Again, what is it that you don't understand?

No need for diversity to have evolved from aquatic life in just 5000
years, even with a global flood.   You seem to have forgotten that Noah
supposedly saved a large amount of diversity in your story.

>> So you have, in fact, and on record, lied about "evolutionists".
>> And you have, in fact, lied about lying about "evolutionists".
>> And you have, in fact, lied about me being dishonest.

>> Further: you say,

>>> "Where did our Evolutionist obtain the idea that Christians accept the
>>> falsity of a major Biblical claim?
>>> Straight thinking says just the opposite: Christians accept the
>>> veracity of major Biblical claims.

>> I gave you two independent sources, links to christian groups who do
>> not insist on a literal global flood.

> Not in dispute.

Yet you claim that Christians don't reject a global flood.  The above
contradicts your claim.

>> To say, or imply, that all christians insist on a literal
>> interpretation of the noachian flood is a lie.

> You have completely misunderstood my point. I don't deny the existence
> of Christians who reject the Flood; rather, as a matter of logic, I
> contest their status as real or true Christians.

There's no "logic" involved in your contesting this, only your personal
malice.

>> So you have, in fact, and on record, lied about christians.
>> And you have, in fact, lied about lying about chirstians.
>> And you have, in fact, and again, lied about me being dishonest.

>>>> and about physical evidence for
>>>> the global flood

>>> Direct lie #2.

>> No, Ray-ray.  It is not a lie to say that there is no evidence for a
>> global flood.  Many people, myself included, have pointed out that
>> there is 1) a lack of any physical evidence that the earth was covered
>> with water 5000 years ago, and that the "biosphere was destroyed"; and
>> 2) there is a wealth of physical and historical evidence that no such
>> flood ever happened.

> I've identified and explained your motive for saying no evidence
> exists supporting occurrence, that's all.

Making up a bizarre fantasy is not the same as correctly identifying a
motive, Ray.

DJT


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google