Not in so many words, but the sentiment appears in one of his eleventy thousand other threads.Has he mentioned Foxholes yet?
Have you seen the one where that same bunch of liars says it has proof of anti-gravity technology?Have you seen this one?
Yes, he thinks that, and he's not wrong.@Rusty Tyler Do you really think posting sensational YouTube videos is your best argument?
They say it better than I could.
Well I suppose conceding that you are not quite as good at lying as the video makers is a small bonus in your favor.
We'd all look like the past living Hapsburg.Setting aside the (massive) issues of structural physics with the supposed Ark for a moment, thinking that the central point of the Ark story (taking 2 of each animal) could result in a repopulated Earth would require ignoring the effects of inbreeding beyond levels that Anne Rice and V.C. Andrews could ever dream of.

Make it a tanker and puree them.And to quote Tricky from way back, "you couldn't fit two of every animal on the ark if you froze and stacked them".
Yes. What else are you going to use to evaluate something?Is it fair to reject God on the basis of evidence?
They say it better than I could.
Considering how they say it, that's a pretty sad admission.
And yet Thomas was shown physical proof. Funny how the same character (Yeshua) showed him but no others...Doubting Thomas was a skeptic.
Jesus applauded those who believed having not "seen". (scripture below)
You have that backwards. It's only 'fair' to accept a deity when demonstrable, objective evidence is provided for its existence.The Bible says that creation makes plain the evidence of a creator God. (so men are without excuse)
Skeptics renounce the Bible. How many other ancient texts do they discount?
Is it fair to reject God on the basis of evidence?
I guess he wasn't blessed then. Bummer for him.John 20:29 NIV
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Non-overlapping magisteria is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.exactly.
Faith and Science are none-overlapping.
You can believe in God, but do what the best empirical evidence supports.
Don't use science to disprove the existence of God, don't use God to question science.
Science can't disprove a belief system (religion) but it is the only way to discover if any kind of god actually exists.Well, obviously science can't disprove religion, any more than I can disprove the existence of a billionaire who left me everything in his will. Just in both cases I won't plan my life around it being true![]()
Yes, science is absolutely incompatible with fantasy.But aren't they incompatible?
Saving from what? The eternal punishment meted out by the very same being which I'm supposed to be calling on to 'save' me? Total mafia behavior. ◊◊◊◊ that guy.My agnostic friend says the same thing. "I don't need it."
What would have to happen to you before you reached the breaking point of calling on anything that would save you?
Yes, blessed are the gullible; they wil be easily relieved of their possessions!Yes, signs were given. But in general...
"Blessed are those who believe without seeing."
No, evolution is real.That saw cuts both ways.
Evolution is a theory.
Well... sure. But in my case, she really was in love with me. You just wouldn't know her as she... uh... moved to Canada.I strongly suspect that the sentiment is less about God wanting a personal relationship with everyone and more about certain people wanting to believe they have a personal relationship with a god who cares that they exist. Faith then is more like delulu celebrity-stalkers or believing the stripper is really in love with you.
Likening God to a "Canadian girlfriend" seems pretty spot on.Well... sure. But in my case, she really was in love with me. You just wouldn't know her as she... uh... moved to Canada.
It's obvious that it'sWell, I do believe we already established that our interlocutor has bugger all knowledge of any of the sciences which lie behind evolution and the evidence for it and natural selection.
I dread to think how our interlocutor thinks the computer/phone/magic talking box they use manages to communicate their, errrr, thoughts out to the rest of us...
While Google LLM is right in calling the image a fake, I think that calling it LLM generated is wrong. I recall seeing this image fifteen to twenty yeaes ago, meaning it was likely made with early photoshop or its predecessors.Quick call the Fantastic Four, Galactus is back!!
Oh wait.. Google AI reverse image search says...
To bad Rusty, ya nearly had us there...
View attachment 72121
Very Adams.Surely this is claimed as evidence for god so it denies faith.
Georgina Tropicana was your girlfriend too?Well... sure. But in my case, she really was in love with me. You just wouldn't know her as she... uh... moved to Canada.