Circular Reasoning?

Originally posted by Regret
Actually it was in reference to your statements in the past. Referring to the concept that if the "world", in your eyes, hates you, that you are thus one of those referred to by the verses that state "if the world hate you" or similar.

But what bearing does that have on my post to you seeming agitated? And your accusation that I am dancing around a subject. I asked you had you perused a link, and I asked this with no ill-will whatsoever. Here is what I got from you:

Originally posted by Regret
I have not, and probably will not peruse it. It confirms nothing, it is only someone as deluded as yourself as to an interpretation of Biblical text. The Bible does not "affirm" your views, your views are merely interpretations based on the Biblical text that extrapolate overly much on extremely small amounts of informative text. If I wanted someone else's opinion on the subject I would apply the question to the various search engines out there and read the various sites dedicated to such, but no, I am interested in the views and reasoning of people that have not dedicated their lives to the proving of their personal beliefs.

How we got on the subject of persecution complexes from this previous post which had nothing to do with persecution at all is a mystery to me. We were discussing God creating the universe out of nothing. Sounds to me like you are endeavoring to change the direction of the discussion (or dance around it as you claim that I did). You are guilty of your own words:

Originally posted by Regret
No, I did, you are dancing around the subject, and going into semantics to alter the direction of the discussion.

I asked you a question about a link pertaining to the discussion at hand. You come back talking about you don't want to read it. I come back with a joke:

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I didn't know the truth was that painful for you. Did it go oops upside your head (just kidding). I have never seen you this agitated before. I would've just said no I didn't peruse it and left it at that.

Next thing I know you changed the direction of the discussion. You started talking about things that you said that I said or did in the past.

Originally posted by Regret
Actually it was in reference to your statements in the past. Referring to the concept that if the "world", in your eyes, hates you, that you are thus one of those referred to by the verses that state "if the world hate you" or similar.

Hmmm? (scratches head)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But what bearing does that have on my post to you seeming agitated? And your accusation that I am dancing around a subject. I asked you had you perused a link, and I asked this with no ill-will whatsoever. Here is what I got from you:

How we got on the subject of persecution complexes from this previous post which had nothing to do with persecution at all is a mystery to me. We were discussing God creating the universe out of nothing. Sounds to me like you are endeavoring to change the direction of the discussion (or dance around it as you claim that I did). You are guilty of your own words:

I asked you a question about a link pertaining to the discussion at hand. You come back talking about you don't want to read it. I come back with a joke:

Next thing I know you changed the direction of the discussion. You started talking about things that you said that I said or did in the past.

Hmmm? (scratches head)

Lol, perhaps you should not ignore people. I responded to comments between Shaky and Alliance, regardless of whether they were about you, they were not directed at you in any way until you asked about them. I have responded to your posts and have not changed the subject, I was merely speaking to someone else in the posts that quoted someone else and not you.

Originally posted by Regret
Lol, perhaps you should not ignore people. I responded to comments between Shaky and Alliance, regardless of whether they were about you, they were not directed at you in any way until you asked about them. I have responded to your posts and have not changed the subject, I was merely speaking to someone else in the posts that quoted someone else and not you.

I did not ignore you I left the forum and came back.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I did not ignore you I left the forum and came back.

Originally posted by Regret
The ignore reference was to you ignoring Alliance. There were not enough posts between our comments to have gotten lost, I have to assume you missed something via ignore.

Perhaps.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Perhaps.

Perhaps? 🙄

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Speaking from the courses I have done it could be for any number of reasons - but it is highly unlikely to be the one you described, unless it is a problem over there that students get all funny and drop classes for stupid reasons.

First of all - focus of subject? Was it biology in general or was the focusing theme to it? If not then evolution might have been just another component.

Secondly - evolution isn't always simple. Depending on the nature of the course it isn't uncommon to save the more difficult parts for later in order to allow students to get to grips with the terminology and under lying theories - generally why in med school they make you do theory before they drop you in to treat real people. If this is a first year class, then it is quite understandable. A fourth year class? By rights if it was focused on evolution one should be ready to jump right in.

Thirdly - it might not have been appropriate sooner - this could be if guest speakers were involved (I know we sometimes get guest speakers and they are usually booked months in advance), equipment, other classes doing similar, if essays will be based upon it and require specialist markers etc.

Age of lecturer - true in my tutorials some of the ones that take them are PHD students teaching as part of the PHD - they pace themselves in order to get to grips with things as well. Once again they are unlikely to jump in to the most difficult ones initially.

Nature of institution - Is this you normal scientific/academic insitute or is it religious in nature? Because I know that religious collages can be odd in the things they give preference to.

And so on.

Perhaps

If you dumb down something through ignorance, even the most intelligent things can seem ridiculous.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Perhaps? 🙄

No kidding. If JIA is so right, why can't he argue hsi positions?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Perhaps. Yes I dare say that is correct in fact.

I fixed it.

And todays posting has been brought to you by the letter P(erhaps).

Originally posted by ThePittman
If God created all things down to the smallest particle to atoms then how can it be explained though science and not some mystical power, why would he make it so that it can be explained through science?

http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/els/sld001.htm

Is there evidence of God's existence?

Is the Bible really true? A former atheist and hardcore Bible skeptic, Ralph Muncaster spent 15 years conducting research to dispute the Bible. To Ralph, it seemed that the Bible could not possibly be consistent with such sciences as anthropology, molecular biology and physics. Armed with an engineering education and a critical, questioning mind, to his surprise the more he searched, the more evidence he found - evidence that supports the Bible's claims. In 1986, Ralph became aware of the prophetic accuracy of the Bible. He recognized that such precision is "statistically impossible". Investigating the scientific and historical documentation and its consistency with the Bible, he was startled by his findings: manuscripts written thousands of years ago contain information that could not possibly have been known at that time . . . without divine intervention.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/els/sld001.htm

[B]Is there evidence of God's existence?

Is the Bible really true? A former atheist and hardcore Bible skeptic, Ralph Muncaster spent 15 years conducting research to dispute the Bible. To Ralph, it seemed that the Bible could not possibly be consistent with such sciences as anthropology, molecular biology and physics. Armed with an engineering education and a critical, questioning mind, to his surprise the more he searched, the more evidence he found - evidence that supports the Bible's claims. In 1986, Ralph became aware of the prophetic accuracy of the Bible. He recognized that such precision is "statistically impossible". Investigating the scientific and historical documentation and its consistency with the Bible, he was startled by his findings: manuscripts written thousands of years ago contain information that could not possibly have been known at that time . . . without divine intervention. [/B]

Yes, because an engineering education lends itself perfectly to anthropology, molecular biology and physics.

And the Bible isn't, historically, possessing amazing wells of information that could not be possible at the time. More would be true for Egyptian Engineering practices and early Greek natural science.

The claim "contains information that could not possibly be known at the time"- is dodgy, and usually based upon an ignorance of the true wonder of the ancient world - the claim Pyramids could not have been built by "primitives" - clearly aliens were involved. The claim the African cities could not have been built by the black people - clearly at some point a sophisticated European civilisation went there and built them.

Erroneous, all of it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/els/sld001.htm

[B]Is there evidence of God's existence?

Is the Bible really true? A former atheist and hardcore Bible skeptic, Ralph Muncaster spent 15 years conducting research to dispute the Bible. To Ralph, it seemed that the Bible could not possibly be consistent with such sciences as anthropology, molecular biology and physics. Armed with an engineering education and a critical, questioning mind, to his surprise the more he searched, the more evidence he found - evidence that supports the Bible's claims. In 1986, Ralph became aware of the prophetic accuracy of the Bible. He recognized that such precision is "statistically impossible". Investigating the scientific and historical documentation and its consistency with the Bible, he was startled by his findings: manuscripts written thousands of years ago contain information that could not possibly have been known at that time . . . without divine intervention. [/B]

That is a real atheist. He spent 15 years conducting research to dispute the Bible.

However, the incontrovertible evidence contained in the Bible was too much even for him to resist and refute. He is now a believer.

I think he is a plant.

Originally posted by Alliance
I think he is a plant.

I think so as well.

What kind of engineer was he?

Did he actually have a job or did he exist day to day by "trying to disprove the Bible."

What makes him different from the numerous others who have satisfied themselves in proving the Bible false?

And so on.

Discussions with JIA are always humorous.

Originally posted by crazy
Discussions with JIA are always humorous.

Personally I don't know why he thinks a guy who actively seeks to disprove the Bible is any more a "real atheist" from any other atheist.

And the site is dodgy.

However for someone committed to naturalism no amount of evidence will do.

I like how people who take that tack try and make out it is the naturalist who is unreasonable:

Naturalist: "What evidence...."

Biblical advocate: "The Bible."

Naturalist: "No, I mean testable evidence or archaeological..."

Biblical Advocate: "I knew it would be like this. No amount of evidence could convince you. Your mind is closed."

Naturalist: "WTF? You didn't give me any evidence, the Bible does not..."

Biblical Advocate: "Someone committed to naturalism would never have enough evidence."

Naturalist: "You tosser. How is it that I find the evidence science offers sufficient if "no evidence is ever enough" - maybe I just don't find the claim of evidence that doesn't exist enough."

The Moral argument - our moral values point to the existance of a moral creator

Hogwash.

The unparraleled reliability and accuracy of the historical text of the Bible

Ah.... that is in no way true. Historical events put in a unhistorical frame does not mean that unhistorical frame is in any way accurate or reliable. In fact the exact opposite.

And so on and so on.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
[B]Personally I don't know why he thinks a guy who actively seeks to disprove the Bible is any more a "real atheist" from any other atheist.

Because he did not just discount the evidence like you. He spent 15 years conducting research before he was convinced that the Bible is in fact true.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Because he did not just discount the evidence like you. He spent 15 years conducting research before he was convinced that the Bible is in fact true.

So, to be qualified as a "real atheist" one has to dedicate nearly two decades of ones life to disproving the book one already doesn't believe in before deciding "hey, this is actually true! I have been converted!"

It sounds dodgy.

And what about all those Biblical scholars who have studied the Bible for 20 years? Or 50 years? And have remained Atheists? The ones who study it for scholarly purposes, not seeking to disprove it at all?

Originally posted by Alliance
I think he is a plant.

What kind of plant do you think JIA is? 😆