Re: Necessity of Hermeneutics: (All atheists are fools)
In answer to your question to me, I saw an argument from DBWillis which he appears to have designed specifically to NOT "apologize"!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- I had written (in part):
>> These Psalms are not meant for you to use in insultingDB Willis now replies (in relevant parts):
>> the people who need to come to the Lord. And they sure
>> aren't meant to be something you throw out at someone
>> in the place of a rational answer when they point out
>> the factual errors in your arguments.
>> You tell the atheist -- who might happen to know a little
>> something about science -- that he has to believe the
>> Earth is only a few thousand years old to be a good
>> Christian, and then you show him some of your bogus
>> young-earth "scientific evidence" and he tells you that
>> your evidence is nonsense, and so you call him a fool.
>> The devil had to stay up late one night to come up
>> with that tactic.
> I don't use Ps. 14:1 to try to support myAfter three months of unsuccessfully trying to bamboozle us
> YE view at all. I would say the
> same about the passage if I were AE.
> >>You tell the atheist -- who might happen to know a little
> something about science -- that he has to believe the
> Earth is only a few thousand years old to be a good
> Christian, and then you show him some of your bogus
> young-earth "scientific evidence" and he tells you that
> your evidence is nonsense, and so you call him a fool.
> The devil had to stay up late one night to come up
> with that tactic.>>
> How late did he stay up with you to convince you to
> falsely accuse me of that? Do you have a regularly
> scheduled appointment each night?
> I agree that if someone tried to say, "this man is
> an atheist and therefore for that reason alone he
> must be wrong on this point"....he would be wrong
> to do that.
> Nobody I know of does that.
> You are bashing a straw man. Sounds
> like YOU are the one using ad hominems.
> I totally agree that if all I said was "he is
> an atheist, atheists are fools so they must be
> wrong on this scientific point for that reason
> alone"...I have not given a good reason to him.
> So can we move on? The Bible still says
> he is a fool. Saying he is a fool does not
> of itself mean that each argument he uses has
> no "smart science" in it. It is his conclusion
> that makes him a fool.
with such YEC gems as the "Laetoli footprints are from
modern humans" claim, the "eye proteins from shrews and
elephants are too similar" claim, the old "not enough salt
in the sea" argument, Keith Sisman's stupid "moon recession"
claim, the "too much helium in zircons" claim, the "Earth is
at the center of the Universe" claim, and his forlorn attempt
at defending the theologically and empirically bankrupt
"apparent age" excuse, DB Willis wrote:
(December 14, 2006)
| Subject: Three Fools
| The fool has said in his heart there is no God.
| Another fool has said in his heart God cannot
| create mature things instantly.
| Another fool has said in his heart that there is
| some reason that God WOULD not create mature things
| They are ALL FOOLS.
Anybody want to take a stab at guessing who those three
"fools" are that DB Willis is talking about here?
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism