Creationist child abusers close doors

Professor Baxter said:
I am not the one claiming the covenant was exclusive, you are. It clearly states that the covenant is intended for all of humanity and other life throughout the earth's existence.
Click to expand...

????....I have never said anyone was excluded.....Noah and his descendants were the only humans alive to make a covenant with......you were arguing there were others......
 
Professor Baxter said:
Unlike you, I don't try to change the meaning of others statements.
Click to expand...

lol....obviously you do.......you tried to make it look like I was talking about the last instead of the first, you've tried to make it look like I was excluding people from the covenant......you've even tried to make it look like I deny evolution......
 
now let me ask you this......do you believe mold is on the evolutionary path between bioslime and humans or is it on a separate evolutionary path?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
again the similarities do no prove transition....if you see similarties in three paintings done by a particular artist is it "obvious" that they are done by the same artist or it "obvious" that one is the ancestor of the other two?......

I admit its a faith choice......if you would simply do the same we would have no argument....
Click to expand...

They do prove transition over time.

Animals are not analogous to works of art. Works of art do not change in appreciable ways over time. There is no proof of animals being "created" and even modest changes affected by "artificial" selection are quite recent and proof of evolution.

Yours is a faith choice or a belief not based in reason and without supporting proof. It is not merely lacking what a denier of science will accept as proof but it is without any support or proof.

If you want to believe in fairy tales and unicorns that is fine but the problem is that you take offense when science challenges your unsupported views. You will have to get use to it, as the dominance of your views in the culture is slipping quickly.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously they existed at different times.....
Click to expand...

The fact that they existed at different times does not answer the question.

Did God create them at different times? It's a simple yes or no question. You don't have to get inside the head of a fictional character to answer an irrelevant question, such as whether Noah knew how big the world was. Did God create them at different times? Yes, no or I don't know.... those are appropriate answers.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????....I have never said anyone was excluded.....Noah and his descendants were the only humans alive to make a covenant with......you were arguing there were others......
Click to expand...

I was not arguing any such thing, liar. The story indicates that it WAS a worldwide flood and so the only things that were supposedly alive of the "flesh" that walks the earth came off the ark. What I actually said, was that the covenant covers all future generations, as it clearly states. So the absurdity that it the story was meant to indicate a localized flood causes continuity problems with the covenant as we have had localized floods. It also causes problems of continuity for the preaching of Christ.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....obviously you do.......you tried to make it look like I was talking about the last instead of the first, you've tried to make it look like I was excluding people from the covenant......you've even tried to make it look like I deny evolution......
Click to expand...

I did not attempt to make it look like you meant something else. I correctly guessed what you had intended and responded. You used a word (ultimate) that would mean last ancestor or most recent. Your command of vocabulary is only slightly better than your command of math and/or science.

You were implying that the covenant only covered those who exited the ark. If not and I misunderstood then you are faced with the problem I noted that a covenant for no more localized floods has not been honored.

You absolutely do deny evolution. You reject that the whale or horse fossils are proof of evolution and explain it away with some unsupported belief in an active creator.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
now let me ask you this......do you believe mold is on the evolutionary path between bioslime and humans or is it on a separate evolutionary path?......
Click to expand...

Mold is too general a term. To me it connotes mold you find on bread, but you may have something else in mind. Bioslime is too general as well.

I know that all you have are your little bag of tricks which include constant strawman arguments, the reliance on vague and general claims and the supernatural shortcuts, but you will only fool fools like monty with that nonsense. They just prove that you are not really interested in or capable of an honest discussion.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Works of art do not change in appreciable ways over time.
Click to expand...

my point exactly.....none of the three fossils changed at all.....they are simply three fossils......today they look like they did when they were uncovered......the day they were uncovered they looked like they did when the creature died.....
 
Professor Baxter said:
The fact that they existed at different times does not answer the question.

Did God create them at different times? It's a simple yes or no question. You don't have to get inside the head of a fictional character to answer an irrelevant question, such as whether Noah knew how big the world was. Did God create them at different times? Yes, no or I don't know.... those are appropriate answers.
Click to expand...

how on earth would anyone one know that?......the fossil in question is dated to a specific date......but the same type of animal may have been roaming the earth for thousands of years.....we only have a few million or less fossils out of the trillions of animals that have ever lived.......who knows what the ones we don't have fossils of looked like......
 
Professor Baxter said:
I was not arguing any such thing, liar. The story indicates that it WAS a worldwide flood and so the only things that were supposedly alive of the "flesh" that walks the earth came off the ark. What I actually said, was that the covenant covers all future generations, as it clearly states. So the absurdity that it the story was meant to indicate a localized flood causes continuity problems with the covenant as we have had localized floods. It also causes problems of continuity for the preaching of Christ.
Click to expand...

well explain to me why you think God making a covenant with the people who walked off the ark and extended to all their descendants, means a localized flood negates the covenant?......I see no problem for continuity whatsoever.....
 
Professor Baxter said:
I correctly guessed what you had intended and responded.
Click to expand...

well, except for the part about being correct.....you thought I was referring to the most recent ancestor instead of the one farthest removed......and you were wrong when you guessed I was excluding someone from the covenant........and then you were wrong about what I believe about evolution.......

so far you're consistent....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
how on earth would anyone one know that?......the fossil in question is dated to a specific date......but the same type of animal may have been roaming the earth for thousands of years.....we only have a few million or less fossils out of the trillions of animals that have ever lived.......who knows what the ones we don't have fossils of looked like......
Click to expand...

Trillions of animals, were they all on the ark?
 
Professor Baxter said:
Bioslime is too general as well.
Click to expand...

well, please be specific.....bioslime is what the wiki entry said for prokaryotes....

perhaps, beginning with prokaryotes and ending with humans you could list for us who you believe our exact ancestors were.......please be specific and provide links to scientific proof whereever possible......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
my point exactly.....none of the three fossils changed at all.....they are simply three fossils......today they look like they did when they were uncovered......the day they were uncovered they looked like they did when the creature died.....
Click to expand...

You were expecting the fossils to morph? The fossils are proof of transition in the line.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You were expecting the fossils to morph? The fossils are proof of transition in the line.
Click to expand...

no......they aren't.......your assumptions link them together.....assumptions which cannot be proven scientifically......

the fact that a creature with nostrils in a certain location had teeth is not proof of transition between a creature that had teeth and a creature that had nostrils......its merely proof that there was a creature with nostrils in a certain location that had teeth.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
how on earth would anyone one know that?......the fossil in question is dated to a specific date......but the same type of animal may have been roaming the earth for thousands of years.....we only have a few million or less fossils out of the trillions of animals that have ever lived.......who knows what the ones we don't have fossils of looked like......
Click to expand...

So then you don't know whether God created them yet you reject the theory of evolution proven by the fossils and explaining them?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well explain to me why you think God making a covenant with the people who walked off the ark and extended to all their descendants, means a localized flood negates the covenant?......I see no problem for continuity whatsoever.....
Click to expand...

Because the covenant was that he would not bring another flood destroying the earth. If the "earth" really only meant a small part of the world then localized floods would break the covenant.

You see it or you are far more stupid than I thought. You are just pretending you don't see it. That is, you are lying.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well, except for the part about being correct.....you thought I was referring to the most recent ancestor instead of the one farthest removed......and you were wrong when you guessed I was excluding someone from the covenant........and then you were wrong about what I believe about evolution.......

so far you're consistent....
Click to expand...

No, I stated that you must mean the furthest removed even though you stated it incorrectly. I can quote where I said that for you if you want to continue lying about it.

You deny evolution. You put on a show of accepting it just like you pretend not to see the problem with the covenant and localized floods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top