Yeah even your personal attacks donít make a lot of sense, but they do make me smile, so thank you.
Alright, you want to "sink your teeth." Since you're the one who is "absolutely certain" then provide me with evidence suggesting the Earth is 6000 years old. It seems like you're pretty confident so have at it. My guess is you won't, because your only strategy is to play devil's advocate, dodge, and misrepresent arguments. Lets see you put some stuff out there for us to critique.
Wait, so you are conceding that you do not have a reason for believing the Earth is billions of years old? Iíd like to get that in writing first :- )
The cogito is true outside the "preconditions of intelligibility", which is entirely the point of it.
Nope itís actually not true apart from the preconditions because it assumes laws of logic exist which is one of the preconditions of intelligibility.
All it says that if you think you must exist, not that your senses are reliable or that the laws of nature are predictable or any of that.
Yes, and it assumes that you cannot both think and not think at the same time and that you canít exist to think and not exist to think at the same time. It assumes laws of logic exist and discern truth so it most certainly is a form of knowledge gained through experience.
Are you really going to take the position that knowledge is not possible? Remember, that if you and I both agree on the truth of a certain premise then asking me to demonstrate that premise is simply a waste of time and even a bit intellectually dishonest.
Perseverance of the Saints
I'll be waiting, most likely for a looooooooooooooong time.
Its called sarcasm. The 5 d's is a line from a movie. So when you got all high and mighty by correcting me, it made me laugh. If this forum was Madden 13, your awareness would be around 42.
Wait, now you’re trying to prove your point with movie lines and video game references? No wonder you’re an atheist.
Nope, I'm giving up on my expectations of you giving a straight answer and not deflecting/dodging.
How on Earth is pointing out that your dating methods are completely un-scientific “dodging” the issue? Do you want me to just roll over and accept completely unverified methods of dating as you have? I am sorry, I just cannot do that.
Since you only want to play devil's advocate, I've challenged you to present your argument. Unlike you, I'll actually address your points (if you make one....doubt it). So, like I previously stated, go ahead and give your evidence for a young Earth.
Not until you concede that you do not have a valid reason for believing the Earth is billions of years old. After that we can then move onto discussing how old it really is.
What really makes me laugh is that you refuse to present your own argument for young Earth, unless I say that I'm wrong. Please just read that last sentence a few times, you refuse to debate with your own ideas, until the other side admits defeat. I never asked you to accept the methods of dating I described; I only ask that you debunk them. If the evidence is sub-par like you insist, it should be no problem for you to debunk. You can call your reasoning whatever you like (you're a master at that whole delusional thing) but it's the definition of a dodge.
So go ahead and quote this sentence by sentence and try to reason why you're not dodging and blahblahblah, until you put something forward or acknowledge what I've put forward, you're not worth another post. And yes, you'll go on about how this is me retreating and admitting defeat, exactly like you did with Rob when he was sick and tired of watching you run around in circles. If that makes you feel like a big winner, please go right ahead.
Not sure how I missed this, but apparently I'm an atheist. Waldorf, I could be wrong but I don't think I identified myself as anything yet. Like I said, maybe I did, I don't feel like going back and checking. I'm almost positive that I've only just said that I don't believe in young Earth.
I don't know a single Christian in my personal life that believes the Earth is young, I'm going to be real busy today, I have to give them all calls and tell them that they're actually atheists.
I used a movie quote to summarize your debating skills
No, you used a movie quote to avoid having to address my arguments, which makes you the one who is “dodging”, ironic huh?
and a video game reference to depict your inability to detect sarcasm (neither had anything to do with my point).
Considering that sarcasm is a tonal quality I don’t really blame myself for missing it in writing.
I already expressed my point, and you refused to debate it, instead you deflect by saying, "it's not good enough for me to even debate." This of course is just your way of saying, I can't debate this point without looking ignorant, nor can I present my own evidence.
Which point are you referring to? If it’s a logically fallacious point all I am obligated to do is point out your error, which I did. Debating a point that is not logically valid to begin with is a waste of both of our time.
What really makes me laugh is that you refuse to present your own argument for young Earth, unless I say that I'm wrong.
As I already pointed out, I don’t have to, scripture supports my position and until you can provide any reason to doubt scripture then I am completely justified in accepting its timeline. If someone told me, “Yeah my son is 15 years old”, without any evidence to the contrary I have no reason to doubt them that their son is really 15, and neither do you. Nor would you ask me to provide any additional evidence to believe he’s 15. Now say that the parent who claims their son is 15 years old is infallible, well then I would be completely irrational to then doubt the age of their son. So from where I stand you look completely irrational because you doubt the Biblical account without any evidence to support your skepticism. Being skeptical for the sake of skepticism is not rational behavior.
I never asked you to accept the methods of dating I described; I only ask that you debunk them.
I already did, if they can’t date rocks of known age then there is no basis at all to believe they can date rocks of unknown age; method debunked.
If the evidence is sub-par like you insist, it should be no problem for you to debunk.
It wasn’t a problem.
So go ahead and quote this sentence by sentence and try to reason why you're not dodging and blahblahblah, until you put something forward or acknowledge what I've put forward, you're not worth another post.
Not worth another post? That seems a bit harsh :-P
And yes, you'll go on about how this is me retreating and admitting defeat,
Running from debates isn’t usually a successful strategy for winning debates, but it is a play out of Dawkins’ playbook so I at least know where you learned it.
exactly like you did with Rob when he was sick and tired of watching you run around in circles.
Rob ran from the debate before we even started; kudos for having the stones to stick it out longer than he did though.
If that makes you feel like a big winner, please go right ahead.
I don’t debate to put notches in my belt, I debate to defend my position and to poke holes in the opposition’s position.
Are you saying you’re a Christian then? Now’s your chance to identify yourself.
I don't know a single Christian in my personal life that believes the Earth is young,
The majority of Christians I know believe it is young, maybe you just need to meet more Christians.
I'm going to be real busy today, I have to give them all calls and tell them that they're actually atheists.
I never said they were all atheists, I believe they are completely inconsistent though. An atheist who is worth his weight in salt can poke holes in an Old Earth Christian so easily, where as a Young Earth Christian holds to a much more consistent position when it comes to their views of reality, so they are far tougher in debates in my opinion. This is exactly why Dawkins will not debate the young earth guys but has no problem debating the old earth ones; even though I don’t think he fairs too well against even those guys (see his debate against Lennox, it’s hilarious).