WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-10-29 10:07pm

http://www.creationweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=238

Fucking moron! Only problem is he's a mod, and consequently not someone to go toe to toe with in the early stages of an invasion.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-10-29 10:08pm

weemadando wrote:http://www.creationweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=238

Fucking moron! Only problem is he's a mod, and consequently not someone to go toe to toe with in the early stages of an invasion.

grrr.....damn him.....grr.....

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-10-29 10:29pm

Dumbass. He says that he doesn't deny evidence when he completely disregards cosmology. Stupid fuck.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-29 10:35pm

I accepted that logical truth on faith and proceeded to prove it by strict adherence to the literal English wording of the King James Bible in explaining the observations of the Earth Sciences

CAN YOU SPOT THE LOGIC FALLACYS?

Lets count the contradcitions!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-29 11:25pm

Ask him if he can show how you can derive the Bible solely from logic and observation, rather than explaining observation from the Bible. If he can't, then he is admitting that his logic is circular; he cannot prove the Bible without using the Bible to prove itself.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-10-29 11:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:Ask him if he can show how you can derive the Bible solely from logic and observation, rather than explaining observation from the Bible. If he can't, then he is admitting that his logic is circular; he cannot prove the Bible without using the Bible to prove itself.

I know...I kinda did ask him that, didnt I?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-10-29 11:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:Ask him if he can show how you can derive the Bible solely from logic and observation, rather than explaining observation from the Bible. If he can't, then he is admitting that his logic is circular; he cannot prove the Bible without using the Bible to prove itself.

I have to say though that logic and observation are not in the vocabulary of people like him, only faith. Therefore, he wouldn't know logic even if it walked up to him and bit his balls off.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-10-29 11:31pm

Shinova wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Ask him if he can show how you can derive the Bible solely from logic and observation, rather than explaining observation from the Bible. If he can't, then he is admitting that his logic is circular; he cannot prove the Bible without using the Bible to prove itself.
I have to say though that logic and observation are not in the vocabulary of people like him, only faith. Therefore, he wouldn't know logic even if it walked up to him and bit his balls off.

yeh..they tried to debate logic....they came up with that they couldnt do it.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-29 11:34pm

What a dumbass.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-29 11:53pm

I've read his inaugral post over and over ... what exactly is he trying to say?

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-10-30 12:05am

posted a response...

http://www.creationweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=238

I think my powers of sarcasm and cynicism are weakened by the assault.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-30 12:07am

My brain hurts after reading some of that stuff on his website...

From a Pseudoscience and other whackos page:

The Christian Geology Ministry site has the interesting distinction of being both bad science and bad religion. Not only was there a specific creation six thousand years ago, but it was a regeneration of everything. They also talk about Noah's flood, etc., and try to find geologic evidence that supports the Bible. They end up twisting the Bible in knots, which is pretty funny. Sorry, no prize quote from this page, but it certainly is a bizarre little read.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-10-30 12:39am

http://www.creationweb.org/viewtopic.php?p=2317#2317

More beatdowns being administered by your friendly local ATJ reps.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2002-10-30 12:46am

Man... Can you feel the admin-whorrage?

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2002-10-30 08:41pm

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2002-10-30 08:51pm

Exonerate wrote:Man... Can you feel the admin-whorrage?

Exonerate, I just wanna clear something uo here.

I was the guy that got banned and complained about it in the bug forum, not Alyrium. He isn't a big whiner like I am, so I guess he just took it better than me.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-30 09:01pm

Exonerate wrote:Man... Can you feel the admin-whorrage?

Indeed

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-10-30 11:49pm

Weemadando...

"The Apologist" has accepted your debate challenge about the legitimacy of the Bible. He's making a comparison to the existance of Julius Caesar and Roman history, as in the Gallic Wars. He also wants to be your sole debate partner.

That being the case, I'll lurk quietly but I offer my services to you here on SDNet. I am right now taking my final BA course on Roman history and have Livy, Suetonius, Polybius, Virgil, and Caesar's writings literally at my fingertips. I can also give you any info I have regarding Jewish philosophies in correclation to NT stuff. I can also dig up lots of Islamic material, as I have studied that on m own for about seven years.

Consider me your "Help Line"...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-30 11:59pm

Coyote wrote:Weemadando...

"The Apologist" has accepted your debate challenge about the legitimacy of the Bible. He's making a comparison to the existance of Julius Caesar and Roman history, as in the Gallic Wars. He also wants to be your sole debate partner.

That being the case, I'll lurk quietly but I offer my services to you here on SDNet. I am right now taking my final BA course on Roman history and have Livy, Suetonius, Polybius, Virgil, and Caesar's writings literally at my fingertips. I can also give you any info I have regarding Jewish philosophies in correclation to NT stuff. I can also dig up lots of Islamic material, as I have studied that on m own for about seven years.

Consider me your "Help Line"...

I would be wary of letting him pull you into a debate over minutae. The key point of Biblical validity is: when you say "valid", what do you mean? Inerrant, or merely "not 100% false"? The former is easy to disprove; the latter is a deliberate exaggeration.

The fact is that these debaters usually use a grotesque black/white fallacy. They prove that the Bible is not 100% false, and then assume that this constitutes proof that the Bible is 100% true. The monstrously fallacious "logic" of this general argument (echoed by all of the fundies I've ever encountered) is the real issue, not the details of how they try to prove that it's not 100% false.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-10-31 02:00am

Coyote wrote:Weemadando...

"The Apologist" has accepted your debate challenge about the legitimacy of the Bible. He's making a comparison to the existance of Julius Caesar and Roman history, as in the Gallic Wars. He also wants to be your sole debate partner.

That being the case, I'll lurk quietly but I offer my services to you here on SDNet. I am right now taking my final BA course on Roman history and have Livy, Suetonius, Polybius, Virgil, and Caesar's writings literally at my fingertips. I can also give you any info I have regarding Jewish philosophies in correclation to NT stuff. I can also dig up lots of Islamic material, as I have studied that on m own for about seven years.

Consider me your "Help Line"...

Cool, being an Ancient Civs major myself I think I should be able to handle it, but it will be nice to have backup.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-10-31 02:01am

Where the hell did he move that post to anyway? Or has it been deleted?

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-10-31 02:08am

http://www.creationweb.org/viewtopic.php?p=2515#2515

Debate challenge accepted. Smackdown beta0.45 initiating.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-31 05:32am

Post frequent updates, as I can't visit (IP banned and all)

If you'd like, this extract on historicity between Caesar and the Resurrection is perfect:

"He [the fundie idiot] then issues a comparison, in the voice of a mock critic, asserting that the resurrection of Jesus is as historically evidenced as Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C. But let's examine that claim:
First of all, we have Caesar's own word on the subject. Indeed, The Civil War has been a Latin classic for two thousand years. On the other hand, not only do we not have anything written by Jesus, but we don't even have anything written by anyone who actually knew him--unless we accept the questionable authenticity of some of the non-Pauline epistles, but they don't describe the resurrection and thus present no direct evidence of that event anyway.

Second, we have many of Caesar's enemies, including Cicero, reporting the event, whereas we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until long after the Christian's own claims had been printed and widely spread across the whole Empire.

Third, we have a huge number of inscriptions produced in the very same years of the Republican Civil War attesting to the event, including mentions of battles and conscriptions and judgments, which in fact form a continuous chain of evidence for Caesar's entire march. We also have coins referring to the event. On the other hand, we have absolutely no physical evidence of any kind in the case of the resurrection.

Fourth, we have the story of the Rubicon crossing in every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Tacitus, Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have a proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they all quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a regular desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn't enough, all of them cite or quote sources which were written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions. Compare this with the resurrection: we have not even a single prominent historian mentioning the event, and of those few people who do bother to mention it, none of them show any wide reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature or scholarship to their credit (which could in turn be tested for accuracy by comparison with other evidence), and have an overtly declared bias towards persuasion and conversion.

Fifth, the history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy. Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or conscripted Italian men against Pompey's forces in Greece. On the other hand, all that is needed to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.

It should be clear that we have a huge number of reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the resurrection. In fact, when we compare all five points, we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence--a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses. Indeed, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes. And this is the case even before we consider the relative probability of the event. In other words, I have not even mentioned the fact that an "actual" resurrection, in light of the incredible paucity of proof that any miracle has ever really happened, is very, very improbable--so improbable, in fact, that even a very unlikely natural explanation would still be more probable (I discuss this all at great length in my essay on the resurrection; for more on the relevant issues of historical method in general, see my review of Beckwith)."

from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ef/4b.html

Good luck, kick his ass!

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-11-01 10:52am

Weemadando...

If you're going after this guy, I've also got some great questions about the validity of the Resurrection. I'll bring it by in a bit, got a class to go to now...

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

Re: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!