Poly's pick 05-23-05

[Poly]

Allsmiles responded to 1A: Perhaps ignorant savages thought that the stars and the sun were ACTUALLY gods, but to any intelligent person who looked at the night sky aeons past, they were representations of the incomprehensible over god.

That’s a weak argument. They worshipped the sun and moon and stars. For you to say they didn’t really believe it is unfounded. You are making things up to support a bad position in order to stand opposed to even obvious points.

It shows that you don’t have the intellectual honesty even to admit a single good point.

Allsmiles responded to 1B: Once again, maybe the ignorant peasants thought that atlas was holding up the planet, but anyone who knew how to think and that was educated knew that this just wasn't so.

Wasn’t it Socarates who posed that the world sat on the back of a turtle?

Allsmiles responded to 1C: Once again, the bible verifying science. Doesn't prove a thing, neither does it point to why the christian god is the creator.

The main point was that this evidence was were the Bible “gives verifiable evidence about the world around us that we would not have previously known.” The example that Matthew Maury used the Bible to discover something not previously known, only hinted at in the Bible is an excellent example of that. This is according Maury’s own account.

Do you see how far people will go to maintain their intellectual dishonesty. If you would have said, “coincidence” then perhaps you’d have an argument. But you state that it doesn’t “point to why the Christian God is the creator”, when obviously it is a piece of evidence for exactly that. That you can’t admit any points for the Christian, even those that are obviously there, shows that your position hinges on the edge. You will deny any amount of evidence because you will to deny it.

Allsmiles responded to 1D: This just seems like common sense. Obviously the sun and moon look different from each other.

<CHUCKLE>The moon is not a star. The idea that there were different types of stars seems obvious to you only due to hindsight. Likely you would be like Aristotle, had you lived in his time, affirming that the stars are all of the same type.

This is the strongest argument, I suppose, that you can muster? That you feel it was a natural observation (one which Aristotle missed).

Allsmiles responded to 1E: You really need to start quoting more of the scripture you cite. You did a good job with the last one, why not the Isaiah reference? And I can't remember who proved the world was round.

I quoted Isaiah 40:22, I gave the very address. The Bible is the best selling book of all time, are you telling me you don’t have the ability to figure out how to look up a verse? I’ll help, Isaiah is between the Song of Songs and Jeremiah.

Allsmiles responded to 1G: I'm sorry, but things wearing out is once again, a classic case of common sense.

As for who proved the world was round, I suppose it depends on what you mean by “proof”. Several gave evidence for it. Galileo came close, though some of his evidence was incorrect (Galileo believed that the tides proved the earth went around the sun, when actually the moon causes the tides). Galileo, however, was a great Christian man none-the-less.



I’m going to end here because you’ve made the same bad argument as a respond three times now. If you feel entropy is common sense, why did it take until modern times to come up with it. I agree, that these are common sense today, with our understanding of the natural science, however in Biblical times these were abnormal concepts. They were not the common sense of the day.


I think that viewing that these are the best objections to the evidence that can be given is very telling.

Context