Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?

[Right Divider]

Stating a fact is neither making an appeal or a fallacious argument. People through the ages have recognized allegory in the creation account. That you don't, can't or whatever doesn't undermine that.

Once again... this fact does not prove that it's the correct understanding. THAT is the aspect of this that is fallacious.

The Bible, repeatedly, says that Adam is the first man... but you say no. The Bible is correct, you are wrong!

Well, no, but you convince yourself of that if you want.

You are the one that has convinced yourself that a lie is the truth.

It wasn't really me that was the recipient of it overall and I've got a thick enough skin to deal with childish antics on here anyway.

It's just the truth.... you claim to believe "science" and yet you do not understand it and cannot discuss it.

Again, nope, but you carry on with that if you want.

You're so indoctrinated that you cannot see plain truth right in front of you fact.

You're convinced that the Bible cannot even tell us that people have sons. You believe some baloney link on the internet over the Word of God.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

if there was a real Adam and Eve, how do you get from there to here without incest?

You don't. So???

 

[Right Divider]

You don't. So???

Exactly!

Some here claim that incest has always been wrong... They cannot prove that... but they are outraged that anyone could think otherwise.

 

[ok doser]

Exactly!

Some here claim that incest has always been wrong... They cannot prove that... but they are outraged that anyone could think otherwise.

It's a trigger for them - like rape, underage marriage, "the patriarchy" - it all ties in with God-rejecting feminism

 

[annabenedetti]

Exactly!

Some here claim that incest has always been wrong... They cannot prove that... but they are outraged that anyone could think otherwise.

It's a trigger for them - like rape, underage marriage, "the patriarchy" - it all ties in with God-rejecting feminism

Best example of Poe's Law I've seen in a while, good job!

 

[Right Divider]

Best example of Poe's Law I've seen in a while, good job!

You always have a response with no real content.

You claim that "incest is and has always been wrong", but you cannot justify that claim.

The Bible makes it clear God created ONE man and ONE woman.... they had children.... the rest of obvious to anyone that actually believes God and His Word.

 

[ok doser]

You always have a response with no real content.

She grows more and more irrational and more and more frantic as the inevitability of Trump's re-election looms. :sigh:

 

[7djengo7]

LOL

See, even you know you've got nothing.

But that's the embarrassment to which you've bound yourself by being the rank hypocrite you are on account of your complaining that others are bound to their beliefs while it is obvious that you are bound to your beliefs. Not only that, but you are sitting there, in your rank hypocrisy, demanding that others become unbound to their belief that Adam and Eve, etc., are not allegory, and that others become bound to the same belief to which you are bound, viz., your belief that Adam and Eve, etc., are allegory.

Why do you demand that we become bound, as you are bound, to your beliefs that Genesis is false, and that Adam and Eve never existed?

 

[7djengo7]

Stating a fact is neither making an appeal or a fallacious argument.

In light of the fact that you've stated no fact, and that you are manifestly in the habit of refusing to state facts, and of refusing to believe facts, what (if any) point are you trying to make in saying that?

People through the ages have recognized allegory in the creation account.

When are you going to get around to telling us exactly to what (if anything) you are referring as "allegory in the creation account"? When are you going to get around to telling us what (if any) hidden meaning(s) you imagine are hidden in Genesis? Oh, that's right: you're not going to, because you can't: you have nothing to say.

Try giving us, say, five particular examples of persons to whom you refer, here, as "people through the ages [who] have recognized allegory in the creation account". And then, try telling us what hidden meaning(s) each of these individuals has claimed they have found in whatever text(s) you are referring to as "the creation account".

Or, instead, feel free to, as you are wont to do, just stonewall against these requests, and just keep repeating the nonsense and falsehood you've already been repeating, as you obviously love to do.

In Genesis 4:1, we read:

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the ​ LORD.​

​

• Arthur Brain, is that--what is written in Genesis 4:1--meaningful? Yes or No?
• If Yes, then what would you, Arthur Brain, say is meant by it?

Happy stonewalling, to you and your failed "support" staff (a.k.a. annabenedetti).
​

 

[7djengo7]

Noticing allegory in the creation account is hardly something I invented, it's been on record through the centuries and as many Christians can attest to, there's no cognitive dissonance with accepting an old earth/evolution with a belief in God.

Here, you are admitting that the Bible nowhere literally teaches that the earth is billions of years old. So, now you've got yourself the problem that, if you want to say that the Bible at all teaches that the earth is billions of years old, then you will be telling us that the Bible somehow non-literally teaches that the earth is billions of years old. By all means, please do tell us, and quote for us exactly where in the Bible you'd like to say it is being non-literally taught that the earth is billions of years old.

• Arthur Brain, does the Bible teach that the earth is billions of years old? Yes or No?
• If Yes, then how does the Bible teach that the earth is billions of years old? Literally or Non-literally?

You don't start with an immutable conclusion

Nobody starts with a conclusion. You obviously are not aware that, by definition, to conclude is not to start, and that to conclude is to end. It's impossible to start by concluding, and so, like I said, nobody starts with a conclusion. It's sad that you failed to gather as much from simply observing the word, 'conclusion', itself. Do you really not know the difference between conclusions and premises? Whatever proposition somebody starts with is not a conclusion; it is a premise. Whatever proposition somebody ends with is not a premise; it is a conclusion. You'll be proud to learn that your fellow irrational thinker/Darwin cheerleader, annabenedetti, proudly shares your ignorance and hatred of syllogisms:

Yeah I don't converse in syllogisms.

That's your fellow Darwin cheerleader, annabenedetti, admitting that she has no arguments to offer--about anything. That's annabenedetti admitting that she's on TOL for no other purpose than to make meaningless, angry, repetitive and formulaic noise, out of the depth of her reservoir of emotion as the cookie-cutter nihilist she is.

Anyway, what you, Arthur Brain, being a Bible-despising Darwin cheerleader, do regarding Genesis is to start with--start by asserting--that contra-Biblical falsehood you love--viz., that the earth is billions of years old; and then, because you wish the Bible would not contradict what you assert, you go about asserting, and re-asserting ad nauseum that the Bible does not teach that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Note, though, that just as I would never say (what you, in your ignorance, say) that someone has "started with a conclusion", I would also never say, of any of the falsehoods promulgated by you on TOL, that you have concluded them, nor that they are conclusions, nor that you have drawn, or come to, a conclusion. Why? Because, to conclude something is to reason--to have a conclusion is to have an argument. Whereas, you, Arthur Brain, persistently fail to reason on TOL; you, Arthur Brain, have no arguments.

 

[annabenedetti]

I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

 

[7djengo7]

I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

Parties where people converse in syllogisms? Sure. Why wouldn't I be?

Parties where people converse in mindless clichés? Of course not; that's your milieu, not mine.

 

[annabenedetti]

Parties where people converse in syllogisms? Sure.

:chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Once again... this fact does not prove that it's the correct understanding. THAT is the aspect of this that is fallacious.

The Bible, repeatedly, says that Adam is the first man... but you say no. The Bible is correct, you are wrong!

Or, the correct understanding, as many have pointed out, is that it's allegorical, your belief system notwithstanding.

You are the one that has convince yourself that a lie is the truth.

Hardly, I'm just not constrained to a blinkered belief system.

It's just the truth.... you claim to believe "science" and yet you do not understand it and cannot discuss it.

I accept science, which is far removed from the bunk that masquerades as such. If that's a problem for you then pfft...

You're so indoctrinated that you cannot see plain truth right in front of you fact.

You're convinced that the Bible cannot even tell us that people have sons. You believe some baloney link on the internet over the Word of God.

Eh, my days of being in a fundamentalist church are long gone thanks.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

:chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

See, even you know you've got nothing.

But that's the embarrassment to which you've bound yourself by being the rank hypocrite you are on account of your complaining that others are bound to their beliefs while it is obvious that you are bound to your beliefs. Not only that, but you are sitting there, in your rank hypocrisy, demanding that others become unbound to their belief that Adam and Eve, etc., are not allegory, and that others become bound to the same belief to which you are bound, viz., your belief that Adam and Eve, etc., are allegory.

Why do you demand that we become bound, as you are bound, to your beliefs that Genesis is false, and that Adam and Eve never existed?

Seriously, how have you not got the memo yet? I'm not interested in the self impressed, juvenile garbage that you churn out on here under the guise of "debate". So, have fun with your usual and I'll spend time addressing people who act like they're over the age of fourteen.

:e4e:

 

[7djengo7]

LOL @ airheads:

I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

Originally posted by Arthur Brain >>
I'll bet you're a great laugh at parties...

I'll bet you're great fun at parties...

Originally posted by Arthur Brain >>
I'll bet you're a great laugh at parties....

you must rock the dance floor at parties!

You must just set parties alight when you walk into a room.

 

[Arthur Brain]

LOL @ airheads:

Wow, I'll bet you just enliven the place at dinner gatherings...

 

[annabenedetti]

:rotfl: GMTA

Arthur one of those goes back to 2010, a couple to 2016. Good times. :chuckle:

 

[annabenedetti]

Still :rotfl: Especially at the "set parties alight..."