Re: No Absolute Bible Refutation


<mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mccoy-1186339928.589276.301630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Athiests are often quick to dispose of the Bible, claiming that it is
based on myths.


We note the following however. There is no hard fact of science that
proves the Bible wrong. There is no hard fact of archeology that
proves the Bible wrong. Let's take a look at some simple facts:

The Bible states that there was a world wide flood. This predicts
that there would be large-scale burial of plants and animals. You
could prove the Bible wrong if there were no fossils. Yet petroleum
and coal are excellent proofs thereof.

Hi there Mr. McCoy. We could have some interesting discussions if you could
adopt a more realistic position. Personally, I am always willing to look at
new evidence and have no problem with accepting that if it seems reasonable.
I do not need for the Bible to be full of myths or the ToE to be entirely
true, but for the time being, that is what the evidence says.

As for you - it ssems that you ahve decided that the Bible is true and that
that is waht you want to belive and that you are going to believe until you
die, regardless of what the evidence says.

With that position of yours, intelligent discourse is out of the question.

Now, WRT your undocumented claim of "petroleum
and coal are excellent proof", it simply is as false as can be. If you had
bothered to really study geology, you would already have known that.

I have inserted another t.o. post here that ought to cause some kind of
reaction from you, but with your track record, I suppose it will mean
nothing to you. In all sincerity, i don't think any amount of evidence could
make you change yuor mind. People like you or Kurt Wise, you have decided to
stick to the Bible no matter waht the evidence says. Well, it's your funeral
and no business of mine.

From: "Desertphile" <desertphile@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: The awakening of a Young-Earth petro-geology worker
Date: 1. august 2007 18:38

I suppose most in talk.origins know this article already.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

Why I left Young-earth Creationism
by Glenn R. Morton
....

It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they
questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my
difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me
that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors.
When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then
said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he
consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this
type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have
been called nearly everything under the sun but they don't deal
with the data I present to them. Here is a list of what
young-earthers have called me in response to my data: 'an
apostate,'(Humphreys) 'a heretic'(Jim Bell although he later
apologised like the gentleman he is) 'a compromiser'(Henry Morris)
"absurd", "naive", "compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy",
"reckless disregard", "extremely inaccurate", "misleading",
"tomfoolery" and "intentionally deceitful"(John Woodmorappe) 'like
your father, Satan' (Carl R. Froede--I am proud to have this one
because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.) 'your
loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly
genuine' (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas]) "[I] have
secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind
the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99

--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

[I have snipped all from your post here. It was 100% pure nonsense and
ought to have stayed within your muddy brain.]

If you really want to discuss oil and coal deposits, fine - but you have to
relate to fact and evidence. Are you capable of that? I seriouslyt doubt it.
Let us include limestone, chalk and salt deposits as well.


.