Real Science Friday: Anti-Creationist AronRa YouTube Star
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
lucaspa
Member
A possible characterization of AronRa. Are you trying to say that "internet celbrity" = "leading anti-creationist"/
You remined me of the weaels in Roger Rabbit
lucaspa
Member
No, it's not. Did you even bother reading on to see why the characterization is not Bob's.
But thank you for proving my point about dummies who confuse the statement/claim with the people who make it. That was nice of you.
some other dude
New member
I know what weak sauce is. There's a reason you're Watson and not Holmes.
Now I'm laughing at you, because you can't spell; celebrity, remind or weasels.
As for AronRa, the description was "...one of the web's leading anti-creationists..," which is not the same as "leading anti-creationist." It's not like he was being compared to Dawkins.
Dr.Watson
New member
:darwinsm:
Urban Dictionary?
Rice University Neologisms database:
http://neologisms.rice.edu/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=1247
http://neologisms.rice.edu/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=1247
What did you expect from a "youtube celebrity"?:rotfl:
Tilting at windmills, anyone?
Evolutionists are typically not interested in talking about the meat of an issue. Lighthouse's mistakes with spacing are much more interesting to them. :chuckle:
some other dude
New member
He rejects God's word. What's to be impressed with?
Hello all,
I just finished listening to Bob's Friday show (Nov. 18). Yesterday I was invited to the home of a Christian friend. One of his guests was a Ph.D. (physicist). He and I talked. Out of curiosity, I asked him if he were a Christian. He answered, "of course!" But as our conversation progressed, I thought I was talking to AaronRa. Nothing was true, not even that he existed. He, like AaronRa, argued that we would basically have to know everything to know anything. And he argued that what was true for me was not necessarily true for him. My pointing out to him that truth can't be relative or subjective went over his head.
And then he said something that astonished me. He posited that God could even change what was true. But then I asked him if the truth was changed, would it still be true? And I pointed out that Jesus said, "I am the Truth..." and asked if Jesus changed what was true, He would be denying Himself? Our host, who is a Christian like myself, was becoming embarrassed by this very educated man's answers. So I politely ended the conversation.
Why do atheists shy away from anything absolute? Because in their worldview, there can be no absolutes. For a matter to be absolutely morally wrong or right, an Authority above man has to exist. So atheists have given up this moral high ground and are forced to argue that there is no absolute right or wrong. But then they come on ToL and post how immoral God is for killing the Ites or condoning slavery, or.... But when they do this, they are being illogical, arbitrary, and inconsistent within their worldview. They use God's moral prescriptions to condemn a God they claim does not exist. If they stay within their atheist worldview, they have no moral foundation to condemn any behavior. They must borrow from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview.
Now, as AaronRa shows on Bob's show, they must shy away from truth. "There is no Truth." But is that true? Pilate, about 2,000 years ago, said to Jesus, "What is truth" (John 18:38). Pilate was totally unaware that The Truth was standing before him. So why does truth affect an atheist as the Cross affects Dracula? I contend that when atheists admit that anything is absolute, they are getting dangerously close to God. So we hear phrases like: "Science can't prove that anything is true." "What's true for you is not true for me." "There is no truth." "Truth is relative." But all relativistic arguments defeat themselves.
A few Bible truths:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD [jesus] WAS GOD" (John 1:1).
"I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life..." (John 14:6).
"... the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you" (John 14:17; and see John 15:26).
"... everyone who is of the truth hears My voice" (John 18:37).
God's word is truth (John 17:17).
Atheists instinctively know that to admit any absolutes, they must admit a God exists.
Atheists are now moving in the direction of arguing that the laws of logic are not absoute but conventional (what's agreed upon by society). In "The Great Debate" between Christian Dr. Bahnsen and atheist Dr. Stein, Dr. Stein argued that the laws of logic were not absolute but conventional, or "What's logical for you is not logical for me." Sound familiar? But Dr. Bahnsen pointed out to Dr. Stein that if laws of logic were relative, then he could claim that his argument was logical and Dr. Stein's arguments were logical and both coud not be logical or illogical so they may as well go home and watch TV.
Why are atheists moving in this direction? Because apart from God, they can't justify logic and reason apart from logic and reason (circular). So if laws of logic are absolute, then they must look for a basis for logic and reason apart from logic and reason. Again, they are getting dangerously close to a Creator.
For any atheist to argue against what I have posted here, they must use laws of logic and rational (most likely irrational) thought. But logic and reason are not physical. So what they are doing is using the immaterial laws of logic and reason to argue that nothing but the physical exists. This can be likened to arguing against the existence of gravity while using gravity to stand on the ground and make an argument. Atheists are illogical, arbitrary, and inconsistent.
Tom
I just finished listening to Bob's Friday show (Nov. 18). Yesterday I was invited to the home of a Christian friend. One of his guests was a Ph.D. (physicist). He and I talked. Out of curiosity, I asked him if he were a Christian. He answered, "of course!" But as our conversation progressed, I thought I was talking to AaronRa. Nothing was true, not even that he existed. He, like AaronRa, argued that we would basically have to know everything to know anything. And he argued that what was true for me was not necessarily true for him. My pointing out to him that truth can't be relative or subjective went over his head.
And then he said something that astonished me. He posited that God could even change what was true. But then I asked him if the truth was changed, would it still be true? And I pointed out that Jesus said, "I am the Truth..." and asked if Jesus changed what was true, He would be denying Himself? Our host, who is a Christian like myself, was becoming embarrassed by this very educated man's answers. So I politely ended the conversation.
Why do atheists shy away from anything absolute? Because in their worldview, there can be no absolutes. For a matter to be absolutely morally wrong or right, an Authority above man has to exist. So atheists have given up this moral high ground and are forced to argue that there is no absolute right or wrong. But then they come on ToL and post how immoral God is for killing the Ites or condoning slavery, or.... But when they do this, they are being illogical, arbitrary, and inconsistent within their worldview. They use God's moral prescriptions to condemn a God they claim does not exist. If they stay within their atheist worldview, they have no moral foundation to condemn any behavior. They must borrow from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview.
Now, as AaronRa shows on Bob's show, they must shy away from truth. "There is no Truth." But is that true? Pilate, about 2,000 years ago, said to Jesus, "What is truth" (John 18:38). Pilate was totally unaware that The Truth was standing before him. So why does truth affect an atheist as the Cross affects Dracula? I contend that when atheists admit that anything is absolute, they are getting dangerously close to God. So we hear phrases like: "Science can't prove that anything is true." "What's true for you is not true for me." "There is no truth." "Truth is relative." But all relativistic arguments defeat themselves.
A few Bible truths:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD [jesus] WAS GOD" (John 1:1).
"I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life..." (John 14:6).
"... the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you" (John 14:17; and see John 15:26).
"... everyone who is of the truth hears My voice" (John 18:37).
God's word is truth (John 17:17).
Atheists instinctively know that to admit any absolutes, they must admit a God exists.
Atheists are now moving in the direction of arguing that the laws of logic are not absoute but conventional (what's agreed upon by society). In "The Great Debate" between Christian Dr. Bahnsen and atheist Dr. Stein, Dr. Stein argued that the laws of logic were not absolute but conventional, or "What's logical for you is not logical for me." Sound familiar? But Dr. Bahnsen pointed out to Dr. Stein that if laws of logic were relative, then he could claim that his argument was logical and Dr. Stein's arguments were logical and both coud not be logical or illogical so they may as well go home and watch TV.
Why are atheists moving in this direction? Because apart from God, they can't justify logic and reason apart from logic and reason (circular). So if laws of logic are absolute, then they must look for a basis for logic and reason apart from logic and reason. Again, they are getting dangerously close to a Creator.
For any atheist to argue against what I have posted here, they must use laws of logic and rational (most likely irrational) thought. But logic and reason are not physical. So what they are doing is using the immaterial laws of logic and reason to argue that nothing but the physical exists. This can be likened to arguing against the existence of gravity while using gravity to stand on the ground and make an argument. Atheists are illogical, arbitrary, and inconsistent.
Tom
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Well there are people who are impressed by that . . . but I think he must not have done well if that crowd is disowning the guy
Well there are people who are impressed by that . . . but I think he must not have done well if that crowd is disowning the guy
Somebody made him a "star."
He goes to a college in the metroplex. And he's a pretty smart guy. Bit I think he'd laugh at the characterization of himself as a leading anti-creationist.
I wonder if he knows Enyart's tried to make him out to be this Great Intimidating Foe.