Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Were you there when Adam and Eve were made Gabor?

Expand Messages
  • ochs_matt
    ... man s speculations, Gabor immediately leaps to his speculations about his alleged Creator God. It s often very difficult keeping up with the many
    Message 1 of 579 , Apr 1 12:10 AM
      > Leon: LOL! From the admission that "the 'origin' of 'god' is
      man's speculations," Gabor immediately leaps to his "speculations"
      about his alleged "Creator God." It's often very difficult keeping
      up with the many forms of blatant illogic of fundamentalist
      creationists. He also falls back on others of his favorites here,
      i.e., blatant exercises in "begging the question," i.e., assuming
      his alleged "God's" existence and nature as he "speculates" about
      them. Fundie Gabor's illogic gets very tangled as it feeds on
      itself.
      >
      > Gabor:
      > Professor Leon try to be more focused please. Men speculate
      out "gods". The Creator God proves Himself by the facts of the
      existing world or worlds. Rational, sane thinking can see all those
      evidences, in addition to His verbal revelation which is the
      Scriptures.
      >
      > False "science" is cornered at once when the problem of ORIGIN
      comes up.
      >
      > So here is one of the questions of ORIGIN,
      > fatal to evolutionism. I keep asking it and there is no answer
      from the evo camp.

      MATT: No a god does not prove herself at all there are only words in
      a book. The facts of the existing world? Bullshit. So you would look
      at The Grand Canyon for example and say wow look at what a god did.
      You truly are delusional. There is no such thing as evolutionISM
      there is biology. You get answers all the time. Wake up instead of
      ignoring them. ;-)))))
    • Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology, ret.
      ... about ... the ... put ... A thousand year hence you will be dead, as will I and nothing we have written will even be remembered, but the Book you speak
      Message 579 of 579 , May 30, 2007
        --- In creation_evolution_ debate@yahoogrou ps.com, "ochs_matt"
        <mochs@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In
        href="mailto:creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com">creation_evolution_ debate@yahoogrou ps.com, "Leon Albert,
        > Prof. of Anthropology, ret." <lalbert001@ >
        wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In
        href="mailto:creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com">creation_evolution_ debate@yahoogrou ps.com, "ochs_matt"
        > > <mochs@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > Timothy E.K.(partial)
        > > > > The Trinity is not a
        teaching which is understood by unaided
        > > human
        > > >
        reason. One believes in the Trinity or one does not so believe,
        > it
        > > > is not a teaching which is rational or can be reduced to
        simply
        > > > rational terms.
        > > > > There is a
        story (the original source of which I have not be
        > > able
        > > > to find) about Augustine walking on the beach and thinking
        about
        > > the
        > > > Trinity. He notices a boy who has dug a
        hole in the sand and
        the
        > > boy
        > > > indicates (or
        perhaps Augustine thinks) the boy is trying to
        put
        > > the
        > > > > sea in the little hole. Augstine suddenly understands
        that he
        > > can
        > > > no more understand the Trinity than
        the boy can put the sea in
        > the
        > > > hole.It is useful to
        remember this story when one treats the
        > > subject.
        > > > >
        > > > > Gabor:
        > > > > Brilliant Timothy,
        thank you, I really appreciate it.
        > > > > It is also the only
        logical, reasonable approach to the
        > > infinitely
        > > >
        great Creator God.
        > > > > If we would understand all His
        greatness we would be equal to
        > > Him.
        > > > An
        impossibility.
        > > >
        > > > MATT: No it isn't. There is
        no evidence for the trinity.
        > >
        > > That depends on what
        you mean by evidence. There is indeed no
        > > evidence for the Trinity
        as evidence is understood in MNS.
        > >
        > > Timothy E.
        Kennelly
        > >
        > > Leon: Yeah right, Timothy. There is also
        indeed no evidence for
        > tooth fairies as evidence is understood in
        MNS.
        >
        > MATT: Indeed. Indeed. Indeed. What do you think I mean by
        evidence
        > Tim? What alternative, other evidence do you see outside of
        science
        > Tim? That is, other than alleged testimonials in a piss-poor
        book?
        > Could your evidence be being in a state of AWE of
        COMPLEXITY?! ?!
        >

        A thousand year hence you will be dead, as will I and nothing we have
        written will even be remembered, but the Book you speak will still be
        read and studied.

        Timothy E. Kennelly
        Leon: The same is probably true of _Mein Kamph_ and Grimm's fairy tales. This doesn't make any of them necessarily valid or true. The same holds for your beloved Plato, Timothy. Must practically all devotees of the "Book" also be devotees of such blatant illogic and such lousy and inept analogies?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.