AV1611VET #fundie

AV1611VET #fundie christianforums.com

"Anyway, I think the main point is, that if one debates a creationist in public, they have to agree on things that can't be talked about."

I won't debate creationsim with anyone on TV or radio that won't first agree that we don't step outside of Genesis 1.

Once they get you outside of Genesis 1, the conversation is over; as they'll bring up the Fall, the Flood, the Grand Canyon, SN1987A, ERVs, varves, tree rings, ice cores, K-T boundary, sin nature, Adam's rib, Cain's wife, Hebrews in the desert, contradictions in the Bible, who wrote what, the Crusades, witch hunts, the Inquisition, was Jesus born in December, the order of events on Resurrection morning, definition of "kind", she bears mauling children, rape, incest, genocide, macroevolution, microevolultion, water canopy, abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, spontaneous combustion, the Ten Commandments, the fallibility of the Scriptures, was Mary a virgin, conflicting lineages in Matthew & Luke, Q, the 10 plagues, how did Judas die, the Filoque Controversy, and a few other things you guys like to bring up.

And that's just before the first commercial.

44 comments

old comment by Solipsism for Jesus

Just say that you think Genesis 1 is literal and Genesis 2 is metaphorical, along with many other sections of the Bible, and that they are irrelevant. You're still wrong, but at least you can say you stayed on-topic and they committed a fallacy. On the other hand, if you think both 1 and 2 are literal, you have some e explaining to do, but not about she-bears, Judas, or the Ten Commandments since those have nothing to do with the origin of the Universe in either the Biblical canon or scientific worldview.

(I know the OP won't read this comment, but some intelligent creationist might, and in that case they'd learn a little about how to debate and how to recognize when they're wrong. There are some bizarre but possible philosophical situations where creationism could be true in some forms, but they never use those. People with a naturalistic perspective already assume they can avoid non-naturalistic explanations, so it's a big communication breakdown that stops people from moving on, but those who recognize it seem unable or unwilling to communicate said communication breakdown. Science vs. religious literalism is a legit philosophical argument, but not a legitimate scientific argument since science is a collection of conclusions based on a very specific method, so questioning science means questioning its method rather than its conclusions since people can come by conclusions in many different ways. It would be helpful to provide a specific alternative method. If you can't do this, be a Bible scholar instead of a creationism advocate/scientist.)

old comment by Doubting Thomas

So nobody can even point out the contradicting creation story in Genesis 2?

Yeah, when you can't refute their arguments, limit the arguments they can use. But it doesn't take a genius to realize that even just Genesis 1 reads like a fairy tale. Where is that firmament way up there in the sky? How was light created before the sun was created? Why did God create photosynthetic plants before creating the sun? Why did God focus so much time on the earth, then almost as an afterthought create the billions of stars and other planets? Why did God create the stars to "give their light upon the earth" when the vast majority of them can't be seen with the naked eye?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"I won't debate creationsim with anyone on TV or radio that won't first agree that we don't step outside of Genesis 1.

Once they get you outside of Genesis 1, the conversation is over;"

As far as you're concerned.

"as they'll bring up the Fall, the Flood, the Grand Canyon, SN1987A, ERVs, varves, tree rings, ice cores, K-T boundary, sin nature, Adam's rib, Cain's wife, Hebrews in the desert, contradictions in the Bible, who wrote what, the Crusades, witch hunts, the Inquisition, was Jesus born in December, the order of events on Resurrection morning, definition of "kind", she bears mauling children, rape, incest, genocide, macroevolution, microevolultion, water canopy, abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, spontaneous combustion, the Ten Commandments, the fallibility of the Scriptures, was Mary a virgin, conflicting lineages in Matthew & Luke, Q, the 10 plagues, how did Judas die, the Filoque Controversy, and a few other things you guys like to bring up."

Facts. Which no fundie like you dares to try to contradict, for fear of your precious 'faith' being completely annihilated.

It's why Europe is so secular today. Gaps. Not many left now. And the more gaps are filled, the less relevant an unprovable & therefore irrelevant a 'God' is in peoples' lives.

All you have to do is to try and contradict Reality itself - and all the evidence it has to back up what it says - in a court of law, AV1611VET. A Reverse-Scopes Monkey Trial, in which all fundie religious clergy have to prove what they - and their 'Word of God' - say is fact, to prove scientific facts wrong.

Good luck with that, seeing as how even your precious 'Word of God' & it's so-called 'Truth' is [i]in[/i]admissable as evidence in said court of law; judges & juries only accept hard, solid, [i]physical[/i] forensic evidence.

So go ahead, AV1611VET. I'm not stopping you.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@KittyKaboom

I can picture said Reverse-Scopes Monkey Trial; Twilight Sparkle in her lawyer's suit (and glasses; I like the idea of Meganekko ponies! :3 ), showing AV1611VET a picture of how equines evolved; starting from Eohippus.

Then a picture of a Mule. Her asking him the question 'So, according to Genesis, all lifeforms were just poofed into being, 'as is', unchanging, eh? Then how do you account for Mules: from the union of two different species - male donkey and female horse - comes something that didn't exist in nature originally?! And that's before I mention Labradoodles: 1988 AD. Why no mention of Genetic Compatibility - or even Genes, period - in the Bible?'

Then holding up to AV1611VET an ordinary domestic smoke detector. Opening it up, she points out the Ionisation Chamber: 'See this? Inside it is a few microcuries of Americium: A completely man-made radioactive isotope that does not exist in nature. Explain this Biblical omission - and no use of Bible Apologetics allowed; if it isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible, it never happened - to the jury, please...?

Therefore Humans (Homo Sapiens) are God? You don't even need to answer the first question, even though it doesn't step outside Genesis 1 or 2, but the second question does.'

That's why I love "MLP:FiM": it makes people think; even beyond the references/'in-jokes' to the adult viewership (and within it's intended demographic), and certainly beyond it's required moral message(s). It's fun, but with brains. And it's audience has that. Both Bronies and Pegasisters. /)^3^(\

Praise be the original Pegasister - or even Alicorn! - Lauren Faust (Ponies and Blessings Upon Her). She came up with a buckin' good scenario!