Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

William Lane Craig commits classic anti-creation mistake

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    User name usually just posts links. It becomes clear why when he tries to engage in an actual conversation.
    Well, if I ever see him TRY to engage in an actual conversation....

    So far, I've not seen even that much from him.
    All my ancestors are human.
    PS: All your ancestors are human.
    PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by User Name View Post
      You mad bro?
      Don't be a troll, User.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        I tend to stay away from arguments over who believes what or how popular an idea is.

        When you lot are interested in OP or even a tangent that is evidence-based, let me know.
        Wasn't sure how much leash I had. Thanks.
        My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
        Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
        Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
        Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
        No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
        Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

        ? Yep

        Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

        ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

        Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Lon View Post
          Wasn't sure how much leash I had. Thanks.
          It's not you who has to worry.
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            We hear this silly accusation all the time.

            Quote someone saying that you cannot be a Christian and hold to evolution what you can't oh that's right because nobody says it.
            The whole point of this thread was you attacking WLC as inconsistent for believing in the resurrection and Evolution. Why can't you just give it a rest if it's okay. . .

            The only factor regarding salvation is: Do you confess Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour? Yes? Christian. Nothing else matters.
            I agree, yet we're still arguing.
            “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



            - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
              The whole point of this thread was you attacking WLC as inconsistent for believing in the resurrection and Evolution.
              Yes.

              And?

              Why can't you just give it a rest if it's okay.
              What?

              I agree, yet we're still arguing.
              Feel free to retract your silly accusation.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                Bones of Contention was the last book I had, it tried very hard to deal with human fossils, but it was pretty obvious they were trying to shoehorn the data into the categories they WANTED it to fit into.
                Bones of Contention was my last one too, lent to me by a work colleague. I thought the first chapter was great: as I remember, an account of the current state of politics of who gets to see hominid fossils and who doesn't. I don't know how true any of it was, but it was quite well written.

                Chapter Two onwards is, as Pauli would say, not even wrong.

                Stuart

                Comment


                • #38
                  Still, Craig is no friend of the Darwinist. He lays out exactly how prevalent equivocation and vagueness are in their propositions.

                  He really needs to debate a YEC.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X