Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Originally posted by Zakath
First of all, I owe you precisely nothing.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. True its Bob that you actually owe the apology to. But since this is a public debate the reasonable thing to do would be to publicly admit your error and apologize.

You remind me of the faithful church members who cannot see their pastor's humanity when he's caught having an affair with the secretary... "touch not the Lord's anointed"...

Enyart miscommunicated. I pointed it out. Get over it.

Click to expand...

What a coward you are. :down:

When we make mistakes - and we all do - we should "man-up" and right our wrongs. But not you Zakath, for your moral compass is bent.

Just cannot admit you misread things, can you novice?

I'm not going to aplogize to you or anyone when I committed no error.

It appears that some of you theists are so wrapped up in guilt you seem to require that everyone else be guilty of something as well. Even if you have to fabricate a circumstance...

If I was a coward as you state, I never would have agreed to debate Enyart in public. Think about it. :think:

Move on...

Originally posted by Zakath

I'm not going to aplogize to you or anyone when I committed no error.

Click to expand...

Noted.

Good. Have a nice weekend.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Zakath non-point.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Zakath non-point.

Originally posted by heusdens
If would not state it like that "science does not know how the universe began". It seems to imply the universe is in need of some sort of beginning. But this is exactly the point in which materialistic science differs with theism. Theism claims to KNOW that the universe began. Science can just claim that there is no begin to time, but even so, we can not say something meaningfull about the state of the world, of which we don't have any real knowledge.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that the universe is eternal? What is your evidence of that? If you can't prove it, is that any different that the theists position? Wouldn't that make it your "religion?" A definition of religion from Websters: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Since you take it with faith that the universe (or at least matter) has always existed, would that qualify as a religion?
By the way: we Christian readily admit that we "believe" in creation. Our believe is based on the scientific evidence, especially the scientific laws.

As to this, science can positively claim that the world, no matter how long ago, existed, but has as yet no clue as in what form the world existed, let's say a trillion years ago.

Click to expand...

You can positively claim that the world existed a trillion words ago? That's quite a claim. What scientific proof do you have for that?

In fact the Big Bang itself is a horizon to any observable facts (more precisely, the 'oldest' thing we see in the cosmos is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which formed 300.000 years after the Big Bang), we can maybe go back some more using all of our theoretical skills, but at some point we can just say we don't know. We have learned not to pretend we know something when in fact we don't. Man's inituition has proven to have failed in many occasions. Of that of which one can not speak, one should keep silence.

Click to expand...

The Big Bang is still very disputed, regardless of how many scientist believe in it. Of course you can at some point say that you don't know.
My question for you is: If you know that the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation formed 300,000 years after the Big Bang;" wouldn't you have to have a date for when the "Big Bang" happened? Plus, what observable and repeatable (and falsifiable) tests have you used to know the exact age of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation?

Originally posted by novice
Hello Mr. Hypocrite!

The truth is Zakath either made an error which he should apologize for.... or he is just flat out lying.

If Bob had made an error such as this you would be all over him.

So... do you think its OK to claim your opponent didn't say something when he clearly did? And furthermore... Zakath insinuated that Bob might have had ulterior motives for doing so!

Obviously this just proves Bob even more correct when he wrote in his VERY FIRST post...

Click to expand...

I never said Zak was my champion of this cause. I am in between both of thier belief systems. If you actually took the time to read my statement, I never was saying who I was cheering for. There is basically nobody really cheering for Zak so I don't have to say anything about the fanboys on his side. Also I said why not point out the misconception instead of having a parade. I stated basically that. It is in my quote that you used right there. So where did I claim that Zak didn't say such things? I am looking through my post and I see nothing of the kind. I support the fact you brought it up, but not changing my words so you could slander one of the "Bad Guys". Which I am not even on his side. Get your facts straight. Next time you call someone a hypocrite at least make sure that they are stating something hypocritical. Thanks-you can drive thru now.


Spartin

Originally posted by Spartin
Thanks-you can drive thru now.


Spartin

Click to expand...

I said I wanted fries with my shake!!!! :madmad:

Actually I wouldn't be all over Bob, just like I am not all over Zak. I am just an interested bystander to this whole affair. They both raise interesting points. I will give you my conclusion after this is all done. Btw, you said Zak should apologize for that oversight, yet you won't on yours. Seems hypocritical to me:chuckle:


Spartin

a mule's will
is hard
to be
broken

Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Zakath non-point.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Zakath non-point.

Originally posted by Zakath
Being human, scientists are probably about as likely as theologians to admit to incorrect interpretation of their evidence during their lifetimes.

Click to expand...

So, what is it about human nature that makes people so stubborn? Why is it so hard for people to admit they are wrong?

The largest difference is that when someone stubbornly refuses to change with the times in science, their funding dries up and they're out of business. This is quite unlike theology where someone can found a new sect at will, and if they can convince enough people to support it, live very comfortably.

Click to expand...

In science, if you don't dogmatically follow evolution theory, your funding dries up. Yes there are bad theologians who can keep getting funding, but that goes back to my previous point about deception. Just because someone has a large following doesn't make their message true.
Science isn't as pure as you make it out to be. Go back to your first quote about scientists being as likely to change as theologians. And, are you saying that no scientist has ever doctored evidence to get more funding?

I don't know you personally, but I would say, based on my past experience in evangelism, that many people are "shown truth" without making any kind of change at all. Some folks take years to change, others never do...

Click to expand...

I've made many changes in my life. I used to be a "moderate democrat" and now I find the republicans too liberal for my tastes. I used to be very shy, now I'm outspoken (since I now have good news to share) . I used to want to have sex before I was married, after I got saved I wanted to remain pure until marriage. I used to believe I couldn't judge, now I realize it is imperitave to judge rightly. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Am I perfect? Hardly. The difference is that when before I thought I was a pretty good person, now I realize that I have no righteousness of my own.

While it may be convenient for you to think things are that simple, it's not quite that way. I take ultimate responsibility for my own decisions. But I draw on what I consider to be the best from a number of standards outside myself.

Click to expand...

That's good to know. But, how can you be sure that your standards are correct?

While there are many flood myths, I don't recall that it is true that they are universal or that many of them describe global floods. IIRC, the flood myth is only found in cultures that had settlements near lakes, large rivers, or seasides. Since all of these water sources flood periodically (and sometimes unpredictably) with the concomitant damage and loss of life, ancient people sought explanations. Since they could not come up with a natural one, a supernatural one was devised to fill the gap until science developed a natural explanation.

Click to expand...

First of all, you wouldn't expect any civilization to setup shop in a desert. It just wasn't feasible. So, the fact that people set up shop next to a river is hardly a surprise. Also, any river is capable of flooding (I grew up in Chicago, lived in Indiana and am now next to the Mississippi River), and rivers do tend to over flow in all areas. this does nothing for your argument. The fact that peoples all over the world have stories about a flood where a small family boarded a boat to be saved from a coming flood is outstanding evidence for the Bible's account, regardless of the spin you put on it.

This is a very weak argument based on a logical fallacy called argumentum ad numerum in which you assert that the more people believe something, no matter how outlandish, the more likely it is to be true. Remember that until the late 19th century, most people believed that malaria was caused by bad air. Centuries of improper belief did not change the reality that malaria is caused by a mosquito carried protozoan, not the air.

Click to expand...

So what. I never said that if most people believe it, that makes it true. The Bible once again teaches that most people will reject God. Most people at one time believed the earth was flat (due to Greek philosophy). This did not change the fact that the Bible said that God "sat upon the circle of the earth." And, most people believed that the earth was held up by columns (which looked like Roman Columns), while the Bible stated that God "hung the earth on nothing. So, while the majority of people and philosophers believed wrongly, the Bible was correct.

Certainly. More people disbelieve Christianity than believe it, could all those e people be wrong?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. This, of course, comes as no surprise to the Bible. Notice this verse in Matthew 7:13-15 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Also, Matthew 15 warns about the deceivers that claim to be followers of Christ: 15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
Again, the Bible is not surprised that people would falsely identify themselves as Christians or that the majority would believe a lie.
My question for you is: since the majority of scientists believe that evolution is true, can the majority be wrong?

Originally posted by Spartin
Btw, you said Zak should apologize for that oversight, yet you won't on yours. Seems hypocritical to me:chuckle:


Spartin

Click to expand...

Uh... Zakath's was a bit more than an "oversight" don't you think?

I didn't make any oversight's therefore I have nothing to apologize for.

Originally posted by novice
Uh... Zakath's was a bit more than an "oversight" don't you think?

I didn't make any oversight's therefore I have nothing to apologize for.

Click to expand...

Hmmm either you are using that new thing called sarcasm or you are wayy out into left field. I think the sarcasm machine is going to blow up. Still hypocritical mind you.


Spartin

Originally posted by Spartin
Hmmm either you are using that new thing called sarcasm or you are wayy out into left field. I think the sarcasm machine is going to blow up. Still hypocritical mind you.


Spartin

Click to expand...

:kookoo:

Best laid plans of mice and men...(and Eyni)

Best laid plans of mice and men...(and Eyni)

Hey!

People ARE cheering for Zak. He’s winning, Big Time.

He has pulled the plug on Eyni’s game plan. Ole Eyni keeps trying to maneuver Zak back into his kill zones so he can regain control of the debate. Doesn’t that remind you of a little boy saying, “Stand still so I can hit you”! LOL.

Now Eyni says that he is not going to answer Zak’s questions unless Zak asks them the way Eyni wants him to ask. Again. I hear a little boy saying, “If you don’t let me win, I’ll take my ball and go home”! LOL.

I’d be willing to bet that 99% of what Eyni knows of God comes from the Bible, but he, evidentially, has so little faith in his ability to defend it, that he refuses to answer any reference to it (Talk about a coward! Ha!).

Maybe, since Eyni makes a comfortable living from these Scriptures, and since he, obviously, plans to use this debate as propaganda, then, maybe, the last thing he wants is for everyone to see how easily his Bible can be shot full of holes? That's why he has to wait until the last post before he brings up the Bible. And yet, he is fine with hurling any question he can devise (or read) on any subject he chooses. Is that fair? Nope. I guess if his followers found out the truth about the Bible, lol, he’d be out of a job! Imagine that. We've got a preacher trying to obscure the truth and an atheist trying to establish it. It reminds me of the old saying, "I once was lost, but now I'm just blind".

So, it looks to me like this thing is backfiring for ole Eyni.



Oh yeah, Tenkeeper:
I read.
I read your post.
Read, read, read.
See me read?
Read, read, read.
I can read.
-back atcha!

To John Ignatius:
The debate is about, "Does God exist". It is not a debate about why Zakath does not believe in the Bible or Christianity. Even if Zakath could prove the Bible wrong and make Bob reject the God of the Bible he still would not have answered the question. Does God exist? If Bob were arfaid of defending his beliefs he is in the wrong job, don't you think? Pastor and radio talk show host?

It is Zakath who is afraid to answer the Questions that Bob has posed. He, has tried to change the debate from here our evidences and proof that God does exist: to the Bible is wrong, and if it is wrong then God may not exist. BUT he hasn't responded and answered the questions already posed that would defend or weaken his own atheistic position.

Sorrry it is not working with me.

Work this

Work this

What is God? Where is God? What and where is Heaven and Hell? How big is Heaven? What is on the other side of it? Hell? OK, then what is next out there? What is a spirit? How does a spirit burn without physical nerve endings and a brain to register pain? Can you imagine burning in hell forever because you misunderstood the criteria for avoiding hell? Whose responsibility is it to insure everyone makes an informed decision based on the facts? If I were born in Iran and everybody I trusted and believed in, taught me that Christianity was the great satan, what are my odds of becoming a Christian? Oh sure, it happens, but what are the odds? Not likely. You wouldn’t turn to allah, would you? Believe me, they are just as secure in their faith as you are in yours. Just think of all the poor Jehovah Witnesses burning in hell forever and ever because they read the wrong Bible. What a shame. And the poor old pagans. Their momma rocked them to sleep singing about the wrong god. Now they’re burning forever, tormented and racked with pain and grieving. Poor child. Believed his mother. Tell me this. If your child were in trouble, wouldn’t you do everything possible to protect him? If his life depended on making the right decision regarding a situation, wouldn’t you make sure he, not only had the facts, but that he perfectly understood them? Or would you take a haphazard, nonchalant attitude like the Christian God has done in getting the information out to the world?You’ll say, ”He died for us”. Can God die? Does that mean we are all saved now? No? Does that mean it didn’t work? Oh, I see. We have to believe the way you say and reject all else. And pay our 10%, of course. Suppose I get some bad information and I take a position different from yours? I guess I’ll be damned to an eternal torment with demons tearing my flesh (flesh? Lol) and fire and sulfur and…..yeah right. I guess it’s a good thing we finally got a Bible that was right. Or maybe this one is wrong and you’re going to be tormented forever in hell fire. No, no, no. Crying won’t do ya no good. You made a boo boo and now you’re gonna pay. You messed up and believed the wrong thing. You should have known better. Now depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire! Wher the worm…. The wor…. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The worm never dieth!…. Toto! Toto…… SILENCE! Young whippersnapper. The great and powerful OZ knows exactly what you are in need of! –Oh, sorry. Wrong story. So, tell me. Do you know anyone who would like to go to hell and burn forever? Duh? Point is, if given correct information, who would want to go to hell? But, that IS the point, isn’t it? What has God said about all this? How would we know it was He that said it? Where is He? In His absence and His nonchalant attitude regarding this information, I’d have to say that it must not be important. I guess the New Agers and their near death experiences were right after all.


Oh yeah, don't use the Bible. Save it for your last post.

Re: Work this

Re: Work this

Originally posted by JOHN_IGNATIUS
What is God? Where is God? What and where is Heaven and Hell? How big is Heaven? What is on the other side of it? Hell? OK, then what is next out there? What is a spirit? ....................................
.................................
..............................

Oh yeah, don't use the Bible. Save it for your last post.

Click to expand...

Dear JOHN,
Well that what quite the prolonged set of questions.

Life can be hard, yes. I realize the puzzles of life are mind boggling, and that you would prefer to have God spoon feed you unequivocal answers. That may not happen. In the meantime you need to take a few deep breaths and realize that if God is good, He have made a way for you to find Him and experience some of that goodness.

Men have an appointment with death. With the exception of eschatalogical phenomenon, our death is unavoidable. Why not let your angst drive you to search for God? What have you got to loose?

You are wound far too tight for me to engage with you at any level of detail. Suffice it to say that God, His word and His Spirit have afforded many Christians here a peace of mind that surpasses understanding. Our ability to verbalize our joy and peace is limited; these are experiences which can only be communicated to a few who choose to enter the narrow gate. We want that for you too. It's waiting for you, but you gotta want it.

Jesus said, "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."

Conscience

Conscience

Conscience is a really bad argument that Pastor Enyart has tried to use. Virtually the entire field of psychology concluded that conscience is given to us by society. This is why people from Muslim counties "feel guilty or ashamed" about different things than people from western Christian countries. Conscience is all about your society, and what moral values it teaches you. It is not really innate.

The Solar System

The Solar System

Pastor Enyart's argument is going downhill fast. He now seems to be concerned with more "cosmic wow" arguments and god-of-the-gaps stuff. These arguments always fail, because in the end, they prove nothing. If Zakath cannot tell us how the sun got it's spin, it will not prove that Enyart is right. All it will do is prove that we have gaps in our knowledge. We already know that most of the gaps that were filled since the middle ages did not end up favoring the God of the gaps. The answers to scientific questions that have persisted to this day favor the naturalistic interpretation.

Christian Scientists (Not the Mary Bakker Eddy sect)

Christian Scientists (Not the Mary Bakker Eddy sect)

It does no good to try to use arguements from authority by invoking the names of famous scientists who hapened to be Christian. There are famous scientists from many different faiths -- Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Christian, atheist, agnostic, and others -- who have all contributed to the body of knowledge of science.

Invoking the fact that some are Christian proves NOTHING about whether god exists or not, and Pastor Enyart hasn't even tried to suggest that they have -- he thinks that just mentioning their names adds weight to proving that his religion is more science-oriented or scientific.

Interestingly, he adds the post-grads from the Creation Research Society, following a list that contains laudable people like Galileo, Coppernicus, and Newton. The main difference between the people at CRS and the actual famous scientists mentioned is that NOBODY from CRS publishes peer-reviewed work -- they keep to themselves, and publish exclusively in their newsletter. If Bob Enyart does not understand the difference between actual scientists who engage in peer-review, experimentation, and field work, and a simple support group (which is what CRI, ICR, and CRS all are -- support groups for creationists, as opposed to scientific organizations devoted to the scientific process), then he's barking up the wrong tree. Duaine Gish is simply a joke in the science community. He has been caught lying and fudging facts, and has yet to produce a single peer-reviewed work in any science field, especially Chrmistry, which is what he got his degre in. There is NO COMPARISON between CRS, ICR, CRI, and Actual, working, practicing scientists.