More leftist hypocrisy, nicely illustrated

[john w]

Just ignore everything that contradicts the bible. Just bury that head in the sand a little deeper. You either didn't read or couldn't understand the link I gave you about zircon, yet you act like you have a clue :rotfl:


You're a fool. I enjoy conversing with fools, though. So you're in luck

Translation: An emotional rant, blubbering, snorting, as I picked you apart.

Quite weighty.

Science affirms fountains in the deep.


"The bigger point beyond THAT is that you believe in impossible things simply because an old book tells you so....4000 year old manuscript.."-you



Prove Caesar existed.


Prove Washington existed.

Prove you exist.


And dig this, Aggy-there is no such thing as "luck," as the LORD God is in control, as only those who lack confidence, attribute things/events/success/lack of success, to "luck," and only fools deny the existence of God, as it is written...


Psalm 14 KJV The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Psalm 53:1 KJV The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.


And notice it says "heart." It is not a "brain" issue, for the "atheist"/"agnostic," as they know there is a God. It is a wicked heart issue, per Jerimiah 17:9 KJV.

 

[john w]

Been explained to you already why the bible isn't inerrant (snakes don't come from sticks.....etc).

Much like some others on this site (though not usually on this part of the forum) you seem to think that by asserting I haven't answered you, that means I actually haven't answered you. But much like in the real world, your personal beliefs hold little value

No, your "proof" is that since you do not understand, the bible is wrong. It is called humanism.


You can't be this stupid. You: It is reasonable that if there is a God, He could create the universe, raise the dead, but not cause a snake to come from a stick.

Nice, Lamont....nice...


Dummy.

 

[Crucible]

God performed many miracles that one must accept- the Exodus was not a natural event, as it's quick, predetermined succession of events cannot be explained with science.

There may be some things that are symbolic- the blood in the river may have been some sort of algae, for example. But all in all Moses wielded a staff that made inexplicable things happen, there's just no way around that.

 

[Greg Jennings]

"friend," you quip?

Negative-I don't associate with devil kids, who habitually lie, taught by the father of all lies, daddy devil....





Vs.

I'll let daddy devil know that you can't realize when your question has been answered

 

[Greg Jennings]

Translation: An emotional rant, blubbering, snorting, as I picked you apart.

Quite weighty.

Science affirms fountains in the deep.


"The bigger point beyond THAT is that you believe in impossible things simply because an old book tells you so....4000 year old manuscript.."-you



Prove Caesar existed.


Prove Washington existed.

Prove you exist.


And dig this, Aggy-there is no such thing as "luck," as the LORD God is in control, as only those who lack confidence, attribute things/events/success/lack of success, to "luck," and only fools deny the existence of God, as it is written...


Psalm 14 KJV The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Psalm 53:1 KJV The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.


And notice it says "heart." It is not a "brain" issue, for the "atheist"/"agnostic," as they know there is a God. It is a wicked heart issue, per Jerimiah 17:9 KJV.

Historical manuscripts from many different sources confirm that both George Washington and Julius Caesar existed.

What source other than the Bible confirms Jesus as God?

 

[Greg Jennings]

No, your "proof" is that since you do not understand, the bible is wrong. It is called humanism.

You don't understand zircon dating. Or geology, or paleontology, or astronomy, or biology, or any other science that confirms the Earth as billions of years old. That's ok, not everyone does. But to pretend like you know better than experts when you are frankly uneducated in what we are discussing is.......to put it mildly......dumb

You can't be this stupid. You: It is reasonable that if there is a God, He could create the universe, raise the dead, but not cause a snake to come from a stick.

I didn't say that. I said I'm agnostic as to whether or not God exists. If he does exist, you have no way of confirming that he is your particular brand of God. That my point that you are obviously incapable of grasping.

Nice, Lamont....nice...


Dummy.

I'm sure you've studied much of the natural history of the planet, right? :chuckle:

 

[john w]

Historical manuscripts from many different sources confirm that both George Washington and Julius Caesar existed.

What source other than the Bible confirms Jesus as God?

Nope-you "argued:"

The bigger point beyond THAT is that you believe in impossible things simply because an old book tells you so....4000 year old manuscript.

Those manuscripts are old. You have no other proof, as you have not seen/touched/smelled/tasted/heard(the empirical senses science employs) Washington, Caesar, and have not examined their remains. You have NADA.


By your own "argument," you, on record, assert that neither Caesar, or Washington, existed.

QED.


I picked you apart. When you are in a hole, quit digging, Aggy. Need help getting out of that ditch, that you are in?

 

[john w]

You don't understand zircon dating. Or geology, or paleontology, or astronomy, or biology, or any other science that confirms the Earth as billions of years old. That's ok, not everyone does. But to pretend like you know better than experts when you are frankly uneducated in what we are discussing is.......to put it mildly......dumb

You don't either, nor do you understand the bible, dummy, and fraud.


The bible is correct. You dummies are wrong.

Can you dig me, Aggy?

Good.

I didn't say that. I said I'm agnostic as to whether or not God exists. If he does exist, you have no way of confirming that he is your particular brand of God. That my point that you are obviously incapable of grasping.

Slower...How did you come to know that?

Self refuting argument. Do you always saw off the branch on which you are perched?



You cannot be this stupid, Lamont.


How do I know you, this Greg Jennings, exists?


I will wait...

I'm sure you've studied much of the natural history of the planet, right? :chuckle:

I am sure you have studied much about the history of science, in that these alleged "expert" scientists, over history, have disagreed on a myriad of issues, including "he natural history of the planet, right?"


Next "argument" of sophistry, deceit..

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope-you "argued:"


Those manuscripts are old. You have no other proof, as you have not seen/touched/smelled/tasted/heard(the empirical senses science employs) Washington, Caesar, and have not examined their remains. You have NADA.


By your own "argument," you, on record, assert that neither Caesar, or Washington, existed.

QED.

I don't think every historian and forensic anthropologist who HAS examined their remains were all lying. I think that's a dumb argument at best. Manuscripts confirming Washington and Caesar existed come from a variety of sources. Manuscripts confirming Jesus' existence are far fewer, and only the bible confirms him as God. There is no extra-biblical support for this notion, whereas there is substantial proof for Washington and Caesar from multiple sources (regardless of age)

I picked you apart. When you are in a hole, quit digging, Aggy. Need help getting out of that ditch, that you are in?

You're just ignoring my answers to your same question that you've asked over and over again, pretending like I didn't ever give you one. While ignoring all questions asked to you.

I guess that counts as debate where you come from?

 

[Greg Jennings]

You don't either, nor do you understand the bible, dummy, and fraud.


The bible is correct. You dummies are wrong.

Can you dig me, Aggy?

That depends. Are you saying that the Bible is right even about things that science has shown to be false, like the age of the Earth?

Slower...How did you come to know that?

Self refuting argument. Do you always saw off the branch on which you are perched?



You cannot be this stupid, Lamont.


How do I know you, this Greg Jennings, exists?

Because I'm here talking to you. When has God typed on a computer to you, curly?

I will wait...



I am sure you have studied much about the history of science, in that these alleged "expert" scientists, over history, have disagreed on a myriad of issues, including "he natural history of the planet, right?"

Of course. Did you expect them to just all start with the right answer without doing any work to find it? There are competing theories, and the ones that are confirmed by the evidence gathered and studies performed survive (evolutionary theory) while weaker theories (Lamarckism) are dropped. It's this competition amongst ideas that produces correct results: the strongest theory with the best evidence survives

The final theory that becomes agreed upon will be the one supported by the evidence. Examples include plate tectonics, evolution of species, and relativity (physics)

 

[john w]

I don't think every historian and forensic anthropologist who HAS examined their remains were all lying. I think that's a dumb argument at best. Manuscripts confirming Washington and Caesar existed come from a variety of sources. Manuscripts confirming Jesus' existence are far fewer, and only the bible confirms him as God. There is no extra-biblical support for this notion, whereas there is substantial proof for Washington and Caesar from multiple sources (regardless of age)

1. Nope-you "argued:"

The bigger point beyond THAT is that you believe in impossible things simply because an old book tells you so....4000 year old manuscript.

And you lied about that, contradicted it:

Vs.

Veracity is independent of age.

Manuscripts confirming Washington and Caesar existed come from a variety of sources. Manuscripts confirming Jesus' existence are far fewer, and only the bible confirms him as God.

That is not what you "argued," you deceitful drone. Nice move the goal posts....That is slick....Real slick...As slick as a pig, sliding down an oiled plank...

The bigger point beyond THAT is that you believe in impossible things simply because an old book tells you so....4000 year old manuscript.

And you lied-again, There is very little written, re. Caesar, relatively speaking, as compared to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Fact, Aggy.

2. I don't think the eyewitnesses re. the Lord Jesus Christ, "writers" the LORD God, the author of the book, employed to pen His word, Josephus, every historian ....................................................................................................lied about his existence, nor His miracles, rising from the dead. I think that's a dumb argument at best.


See how that works?


Those manuscripts are old. You have no other proof, as you have not seen/touched/smelled/tasted/heard(the empirical senses science employs) Washington, Caesar, and have not examined their remains. You have NADA.

By your own "argument," you, on record, assert that neither Caesar, or Washington, existed.

QED.

You're just ignoring my answers to your same question that you've asked over and over again, pretending like I didn't ever give you one. While ignoring all questions asked to you.

I guess that counts as debate where you come from?

No, Aggy-one more time: Do not confuse your lack of reading comprehension skills, with any alleged error on my part, to address your trap questions.


Now, what proof do you have that Caesar existed, or Washington? And you cannot provide this "manuscript" "proof," as your own, on record words, exclude them being offered.

I/the TOL audience, will wait...for an eternity.

 

[john w]

I asked our hero:

How do I know you, this Greg Jennings, exists?

His spin:

Because I'm here talking to you. When has God typed on a computer to you, curly?

1.Nope. It could be someone else.

Prove you exist. Evidence, not because "you say so."

2. Computers existed thousands of years ago, Spanky?


3.God cannot type on a computer, using others, even though he created commputers, others?


You cannot be this stupid, Lamont. Keep posting, as the ditch gets deeper....


4. Because God is talking to me, through His word.


See how that works?


QED.


I picked you apart, again.


Stay down, on the mat....Lick your wounds...

 

[john w]

Historical manuscripts from many different sources confirm that both George Washington and Julius Caesar existed.

What source other than the Bible confirms Jesus as God?

1. You changed your "argument," Spanky, arguing you cannot use "old" ms. evidence.

2.Historical manuscripts from many different sources confirm that the Lord Jesus Christ existed, performed miracles, and the evidence for Him rising from the dead, is overwhelming.

He is the LORD God.



You just have not examined the evidence, as other lawyers, punk, and others, have, sand are a deceitful drone, hypocrite, excluding the type of evidence we use in the secular world every day.

 

[john w]

Of course. Did you expect them to just all start with the right answer without doing any work to find it? There are competing theories, and the ones that are confirmed by the evidence gathered and studies performed survive (evolutionary theory) while weaker theories (Lamarckism) are dropped. It's this competition amongst ideas that produces correct results: the strongest theory with the best evidence survives

The final theory that becomes agreed upon will be the one supported by the evidence. Examples include plate tectonics, evolution of species, and relativity (physics)

The punk cannot even follow his own "argument," and my counterpoint:

I'm sure you've studied much of the natural history of the planet, right?

 

[john w]

That depends. Are you saying that the Bible is right even about things that science has shown to be false, like the age of the Earth?

1.No, science has not "shown" that the Bible is wrong about things-you made that up.

2.Science, through history, has repeatedly called the bible wrong on many "things," that later turned out to be exactly as the bible said. And historians have done the same thing.

But, because you are a lazy drone, dishonest seeker, you did not examine that, did you, drone? Rhetorical q.