FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

View Poll Results: Who won the "Is Genesis Historically False" debate
Constant Mews won 128 97.71%
AFDave won 2 1.53%
It was a tie 1 0.76%
Voters: 131. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-29-2007, 10:04 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Tower of Babel
Posts: 557
Default

I'm still a fan of Daves narrow view of creation but just to clear the record, I did not vote in favor of afdave. I am a babelist at heart and Dave's notion of 'the truth of written record' is completely wrong under that assumption. His aggruments were very pursuasive but CM was able to counter all of them. This what you would expect if God had and STILL IS confusing the tongues of mankind (and thier so called scientific papers) in order that we not 'know' the truth of heaven.
biblethumping is offline  
Old 07-29-2007, 10:11 PM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Altadena, California
Posts: 3,271
Default

Quote:
This what you would expect if God had and STILL IS confusing the tongues of mankind (and thier so called scientific papers) in order that we not 'know' the truth of heaven.
wow. just fuckin' wow.
deadman_932 is offline  
Old 07-29-2007, 10:20 PM   #33
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A pale blue oblate spheroid.
Posts: 20,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biblethumping View Post
I'm still a fan of Daves narrow view of creation but just to clear the record, I did not vote in favor of afdave. I am a babelist at heart and Dave's notion of 'the truth of written record' is completely wrong under that assumption. His aggruments were very pursuasive but CM was able to counter all of them. This what you would expect if God had and STILL IS confusing the tongues of mankind (and thier so called scientific papers) in order that we not 'know' the truth of heaven.
This is what I expect from unreasonable people who believe every single word of the Bible.
GenesisNemesis is offline  
Old 07-29-2007, 11:29 PM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biblethumping View Post
This what you would expect if God had and STILL IS confusing the tongues of mankind (and thier so called scientific papers) in order that we not 'know' the truth of heaven.
So if you try to find the "truth of heaven," then you're defying the will of God.

Best alert the pope, so he can shut down his little operation before God smites him nigh unto coffee grounds.
ericmurphy is offline  
Old 07-30-2007, 02:13 AM   #35
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 1,057
Default

So I voted, but honestly I don't think a poll was necessary this time (other to make poor dave cringe ). Dave deliberately avoided answering CM's question about consillience; and, by doing so, admitted defeat. I'd love to see him argue otherwise.
Faid is offline  
Old 07-30-2007, 08:41 AM   #36
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,395
Default

Exactly. I remain interested in how Dave rationalizes to himself not addressing the question. I see two possibilities: he genuinely doesn't understand the problem; or he cannot address it because he is incapable of constructing his own arguments, and none of his creationist sites has attempted to do so.

His blatant accusation that every scientist alive is a fraud and a liar is, of course, too ridiculous to entertain.
Constant Mews is offline  
Old 07-30-2007, 09:15 AM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Altadena, California
Posts: 3,271
Default

I did see that Dave was on a couple of hours ago, but left no comments.

Could it be that the steady drip, drip, drip of data has made a mark on lithified crania? Can credulous Dave be considering the calamitous concept of Creationist calumny? Tune in tomorrow — same Bat-time, same Bat-channel.
deadman_932 is offline  
Old 07-30-2007, 09:24 AM   #38
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deadman_932 View Post
I did see that Dave was on a couple of hours ago, but left no comments.

Could it be that the steady drip, drip, drip of data has made a mark on lithified crania? Can credulous Dave be considering the calamitous concept of Creationist calumny? Tune in tomorrow — same Bat-time, same Bat-channel.
No. Dave is irretrievably damaged by his upbringing and his neurological condition. He will never be able to admit - or even understand - that he is wrong.
Constant Mews is offline  
Old 07-30-2007, 09:25 AM   #39
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: United States east coast
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constant Mews View Post
Exactly. I remain interested in how Dave rationalizes to himself not addressing the question. I see two possibilities: he genuinely doesn't understand the problem; or he cannot address it because he is incapable of constructing his own arguments, and none of his creationist sites has attempted to do so.

His blatant accusation that every scientist alive is a fraud and a liar is, of course, too ridiculous to entertain.
My guess: his emotional commitment to fundamentalism creates a cognitive dissonance will not allow his intellect to understand the problem.

As you well know, CM, emotions rule the intellect.

Those of us whose emotions run to challenging authority and finding things out for ourselves have a leg up on scientific understanding. Incomprehensible to those with contrary (authoritarian) dispositions.

Makes the world go around, apparently.
mitschlag is offline  
Old 07-30-2007, 09:32 AM   #40
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bloomington, MN
Posts: 2,209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deadman_932 View Post
I did see that Dave was on a couple of hours ago, but left no comments.

Could it be that the steady drip, drip, drip of data has made a mark on lithified crania? Can credulous Dave be considering the calamitous concept of Creationist calumny? Tune in tomorrow — same Bat-time, same Bat-channel.
Unlikely -- he also posted on his blog a couple hours ago, a cut-and-paste of the English Channel bullshit from his closing statement. So he's around, and he hasn't changed his mind, he's just grown scared of confrontation.

Er, excuse me, not scared -- rather, God has opened his eyes that it's a waste of time to argue with Satan's minions. Or something to that effect.
Silent Dave is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:17 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.