Re: Re: R. Forrest: common rat

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:51:33 -0700, Ray Martinez
<pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Jun 29, 5:42 pm, geop...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 30, 12:11 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jun 29, 3:45 pm, geop...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jun 29, 11:30 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 29, 3:23 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 29, 5:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Richard Forrest has a nasty habit of calling Creationists liars.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43c47f3198434e57

Forrest speaking about S. Pitman:

"So basically, he's just a typically dishonest creationist who
dogmatically refuses to learn anything and thinks that if he writes
stuff that looks scientific, he can fool other creationists into
thinking that he has valid arguments."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e3f18179ce30b4ac?

Forrest speaking about me:

"Ray, after the persistent dishonestly you demonstrate on this forum,
and no doubt elsewhere, perhaps you should consider if you should
show
your face here."

We also know that Forrest routinely claims that lies persist rampantly
on Creationist websites.

We know Richard Forrest is an Atheist-evolutionist, and we know that
he actually believes apes morphed into men over the course of millions
of years. He also believes that a magnificent nature shows no signs of
Intelligence but was produced by something that has no mind. Forrest
believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early
quasi-ape men but the arm and hand that supposedly crafted these tools
is not the product of design. Forrest thinks bat sonar and
echolocation was produced incrementally, leaving the flying creature
unable to conduct its business in its natural habitat of lightless
caves, until a blind and mindless natural selection got around to
completing the task. And the human eye, Forrest believes - the most
obvious irreducible complex organ of all - was also formed
incrementally with no Designer involved.

We know for a fact that the Stone Age never existed. Genesis says Cain
built a "city" and not some A frame mud hut with a rock tied to a
piece of wood. Man was created ultra-intelligent. The Great Pyramid -
the only true World Wonder - from top to bottom; inside and out;
proves this claim and falisfies the existence of a Stone Age. We know
it is impossible for a sonar apparatus to have been built
incrementally by something that has no mind or consciousness. And we
know the human eye is formed in the womb (and not over milions of
years) by wondrous mechanisms invented by God.

In view of these facts I feel no insult whatsoever in being called a
liar by Richard Forrest. His disapproval is the best endorsement of my
honesty. Anytime a person who believes what he believes, and denies
what he denies, thinks I am a liar, this is the very best evidence
that I am not. Common sense says persons who believe the things that
Forrest believes should not be going around calling anyone a liar.

Ray

ancient books are not evidence of anything other than the fact that
people wrote books a long time ago.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am well aware of the tenets of conventional Atheist ideology - what
is your point?

He just made the point, Ray. You ad hommed him instead. It's only a
one line point, Ray, it's not that hard: do you think snex is correct,
or not, and why?

We know Atheists believe the Bible is not evidence, this is common
sense, are you a teenager?

Are you, Ray? You don't seem to be able to address the point. Snex
said the Bible doesn't count as evidence.

I will ask you to address my question since Snex basically repeated
his reply:

We know Atheist ideology and philosophy believes that the Bible is not
evidence, what is Snex's point?

That ancient books are not evidence of anything other than the fact
that people wrote books a long time ago.

It really is that simple Dishonest Ray. What part of his point are you
missing?

And I have another question: why have you evaded this question two
times now?


Are you going to show him
why he's wrong,

You have misunderstood. I have not questioned his belief (and the
belief of Atheism) that the Bible is not evidence. I am attempting to
find out if there is some point that I am missing since we already
know what Atheists believe about the Bible. Why did Snex make said
comment? I know that he thinks the Bible is not evidence. Is there
some hidden point that has escaped my attention?

His point was that ancient books are not evidence of anything other
than the fact that people wrote books a long time ago.

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: R. Forrest: common rat
    ... he can fool other creationists into ... believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early ... Forrest thinks bat sonar and ... people wrote books a long time ago.- Hide quoted text - ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: R. Forrest: common rat
    ... believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early ... Forrest thinks bat sonar and ... one line point, Ray, it's not that hard: do you think snex is correct, ... Are you, Ray? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: R. Forrest: common rat
    ... believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early ... Forrest thinks bat sonar and ... That ancient books are not evidence of anything other than the fact ... We know Atheists and Darwinists believe the Bible is not evidence, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: R. Forrest: common rat
    ... he can fool other creationists into ... believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early ... Forrest thinks bat sonar and ... people wrote books a long time ago.- Hide quoted text - ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: R. Forrest: common rat
    ... believes crude Stone Age tools and shelters are "evidence" of early ... Forrest thinks bat sonar and ... That ancient books are not evidence of anything other than the fact ... We know Atheists and Darwinists believe the Bible is not evidence, ...
    (talk.origins)