After a couple of requests, I gave in. Here are the emails from that Christian nutbag. Beware, it's huge and split into many different emails when I replied. Posted here are the most significant. If you can spot made-up/misinterpreted facts or logical fallacies please do point them out, and if possible, with a description of the error. Happy reading.
Note: these are only excerpts. None of this, however, was cut out of context or cut and pasted into each other.
My previous topic about this had part 1 of "why gay people don't need rights after all", but I think I deleted the continuance. Maybe I'll find it later.
I'll start off with one of the funniest ones. I pointed out that various verses from the bible support the poorly-supported theories of the time, such as a flat world. This is his response to me pointing out Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Because you can totally see everything on a sphere.
Big deal, i can show you that from my living room.
And a demon did control me, i saw my future as it would affect my family, so i know about that kind of power to transfigure and visualize,and it didnt take a mountaintop to do that. Satan asked God to jump from that mountain and have Gods Angels to save him. Jesus said, "Do not test the lord".
You cant see the kingdoms from a mountain? We already covered this senile boy, Hell i can see them on my 60 inch HDTV. and im certainly not in the least bit supernatural
One of his emails stating that science needs to revolve around a storybook. I kinda lost him after a while.
DNA is designed no doubt about it. Now we have new and recent developments in DNA. Its even more complex as there are now known to be codes within codes, the Epigenetic Code and the Splicing Code, above and below. We have codes within codes, codes above and below codes -- a hierarchy of codes. They can't just stick their finger in the pistol this time and bluff their way out of it with smooth talking now, not with cannons to the left of them and cannons to the right of them, a whole arsenal aimed at their vital parts. This is a total game changer in intelligent design. No more bluffs claiming evolved DNA. The information age is showing intelligent design is highly likely , no accidents of nature, and claims of evolution in the life factors are crumbling .
And what about the earth as the center? atheists like to claim the Bible said it, it doesnt, but anyway , here is the crux of it. Actually we will never ever prove either way, and thats the real truth. Why , would I say that? read below.
Does the earth really revolve around the sun,or is the earth the center of the universe? Sound like a dumb question? modern science has reached some revolutionary conclusions in the wake of the General Relativity Theory. Specifically, modern science is now convinced that when two systems are in motion relative to one another, it could never be ascertained, from the scientific view point, as to which is in motion and which at rest, or whether both are in motion. remember that that the General Relativity theory has been accepted as fundamental to all exact sciences .
Earth center2,Consider this, (1) the same effect would be observed if the stars are centered around the sun and partake of the sun's annual motion around the earth. (2) the sun has an aether field attached to it that sweeps past the earth with a period of one year. The sun's aether would drag the starlight with it and an aberration would be observed. Science knows this as the Fresnel Drag, and it is readily observable."
Earth center 3,Fred Hoyle did say: We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. (Hoyle 1975) He said this because all the observations would be the same. The only way that one could objectively say that the sun is the centre of the solar system is to be outside the solar system in an objective frame, with the solar system moving against a non-moving background.
Now we distinguished mathematicians and scientists saying that the only way we can explain Dark Energy is for the earth to be the center of the universe AGAIN
"Dark Energy May Not Exist At All"
Overturning Copernicus, eliminating dark energy Google , first item
Now, a paper set to be published in an upcoming edition of Physical Review Letters (arXiv pre-print available now) by a trio of Oxford astrophysicists suggests a different explanation for the accelerating expansion. In their proposal, dark energy does not exist at all and the supernovae data that led to scientists to propose it was improperly interpreted. In coming to this conclusion, however, the three researchers have to throw out a philosophical principle that has guided astronomy for over 450 years.
http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~zhu/ast210/geocentric.html shows a geocentric animation. This successfully shows why Mars is brighter during retreograde motion than at other times due to a smaller distance from earth during those times.
Have you ever observed a gyroscope?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqaMlKf9lDA&feature=related Or, "Geocentric MP4" , Gives a geocentric simulation video. This simulation appears to be a massive gyroscope holding the earth stable, and immovable, much like tht Bible inferred. This stability would place the earth on likely at least a thousand times more stable position then the heliocentric model.
"Dark energy , Still a puzzle" Some scientists claim to have new calculations that appear to prove Dark energy does not exist. The expansion of the universe away from us in all directions and in increasing speed (Dark energy) was hastily developed,but doesnt fit, to explain the phenomonen. Now it seems earth may actually be at a specuial center point of some kind and our known universe surrounds us.
The geocentric model also would show why mars is brighter during retrograde, and also why some planets seem to retrograde without explanation. Also would allow for life more than any model. Noone can prove either model and its likely we will never prove it due to our vastly limited scope.
Now even if the poetic language of Scriptures , Ecclesiastes 1:5 "the sun rises, goes down, and hurries to where he arose" seems strange to some in these days of Scientific terminology, it was not out of place thousands of years ago. The natural implication of this verse is motion. The following verses, verses 6 and 7, talk about the wind moving, and about the waters of the river moving. Thus the context backs up the sense of motion. So what reason is there to take the part that talks of the sun phenomenologically? Simply because they believe very strongly that the earth circles the sun, and thus it is the earth that truly and absolutely moves and not the sun?
That doesn't give anyone grounds to make it the exclusive way of interpreting scripture, in either event, and especially if the other opinion, the geocentric opinion, has not been disproven and never can be anyway. So when reading these passages that talk of the sun moving or the earth being still, we must read it with an open mind. It may be talking phenomenally. But it also may be talking literally. The point is You have no point either way.
Now the reality of the dogmatic and zealotic tendencies of scientists, not different than religious zealots. When the majority of them hold to a certain theory of things, other theories are cast aside and not extensively researched, because they hold that one theory as a worldview, as their truth. examples are the theory of evolution and the theories of relativity, which are not without their problems and criticisms. Once they took hold, other theories were ridiculed and not researched to the level of the predominant theory.
So what the hell do we really know??
Also, because a theory is useful, that doesn't make it true. You could use the butt of a gun to hammer in nails, So the gun could be useful in that way. But it isnt the true intended use for a gun , is it? It can be much better used than that unintended , but useful, way. Theories can be useful, but that doesn't make them correct
More on evolution!
When Did Man Appear?
Six thousand to 60,000 years ago, God created Adam and Eve. That 6,000 to 60,000 encompasses the secular date of 8,000 to 24,000. Even at this most controversial level, we have so little data to work with that we see fundamental agreement between scientific evidence and the words of the Bible.
British cosmologist, Edward Harrison, who says, "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God. The design argument of William Paley updated and refurbished. The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence for theistic design. Take you choice: blind chance that requires an infinite number of universes, or design that requires only one."
Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline towards the theistic or the design argument, and for good reason. It's because the appeal to an infinite number of universes where ours by pure chance out of that infinite number takes on the conditions essential for life, is committing the gamblers fallacy
You're assuming the benefit of an infinite sample size, when you can only provide evidence for one. Let me give you an example. If I were to flip a coin 10,000 times and it were to come up heads 10,000 times in a row, you could conclude that the coin has been fixed with a purpose to come up heads. That's the rational bet.
But the irrational better would say that conceivably, two to the 10,000 coins could exist out there. And if those two to the 10,000 coins are like my coin, but all getting different results than I see here, then this coin could be fair.
It's the gamblers fallacy because you have no proof of the existence of those other coins or that they take on similar characteristics of the coin that you're flipping, and you have no evidence that those coins are producing different results.
The equations of General Relativity guarantee that we will never discover another universe. God may have created two, but we'll never know about it because the equations of General Relativity tell us that the Space-Time manifold of universe A will never overlap the space-time manifold of universe B.
Other Universes? No Way to Know
That means we will be forever ignorant about the possibility of other universes, because the sample size will always be one. Therefore, the appeal to infinite chances rather than to the God of the Bible is the gambler's fallacy.
Some more about the bible's stupidity
You still do not research or read the entire Scriptures. Ecclesiasties 1, 4-11
"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises'.
Were from Solomons search and as Solomon said in verse 2 "Meaningless! Meaningless! Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless!" In verse 4, Solomon begins the substantiation of his conclusion. First, he points out that man's existence is fleeting, as compared to the perpetuity of nature: "Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever" (vs. 4). Since we "come" and "go", how could there be any lasting meaning for us here? "Though the earth abideth, yet, because man abides not on the earth to possess it, therefore his rest and happiness cannot be here."
Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. 7All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. 8All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. Solomon found life "wearisome" because he discovered that the "eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing."
Solomon found life wearisome, and was stating that in his own conclusions . He was seeking satisfaction in the things of the world, and if you read the Scriptures you would have known that.
Solomons words as others were a part of the reality of the Bible. As it should be,. life as it really is. The things of this world are not satisfying, wearisome at times, and that is reality. We will experience all of this, until the eternal life where "all things are new"
We also know that Atheist dominated countries killed 130 million in the last century alone. That is much more than all crimes from that could even remotely be blamed on Christians in history. And those Atheist inspired killings are in the in last century alone. not even to mention those B4 that. Show me some proof that atheism would have been somehow better. I have already shown the many benefits this world has known from Christianity, and even now its apparent.
Number of massacres in the name of no god: 0
Number of massacres in the name of God:
linkAnother couple of snips I found about Evolution:
You still fail to understand there are no DNA connections, there is NO proof. And Science theorized (falsifiable) common ancestors and that has NO DNA connections, and there are also NO logical connections, Because the fossils have NO transitionals only those that appear alike, which could have been the designers game, as well as Darwins. The Cambrian Period showed NO phyla either before or after The Cambrian period, there were NO transitions. You have nothing and the Biblical Genesis definition of creation precedes Science by thousands of years. The millions of accidental and unlikely evolutions totally crossing over from species is the most illogical answer. It well could be that Occams Razor has some validity there also, wheras , the simplest explanation is usually the right one. And the simplest explanation is a designer, just as it is in everything that surrounds you right now. Deny that and your actually denying the reality of your home, your car, the computer and almost everything around you. Those were all designed, none of it accidentally happened
Provide one example where new information was added to DNA as observed by science. After thousands of years of breeding different species it has never led to completely new species being formed. Until that happens there is NO proof of macroevolution. Richard Dawkins was given this in a debate, He never answered it because there are NONE.
Oh yeah, and Riddler was a Christian. I gave a couple of quotes in my reply, this was his response:
We know that the Holocaust was also anti-Christian. After Riddler revealed his true intentions, the Catholic Church opposed him.
"I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."
-Adolf Riddler (Speech in Reichstag, 1936)
"[I wish to express my church's] sincere and joyous preparedness to cooperate as best they could with the government now ruling that had set itself that tasks of promoting the Christian education of the people, repelling ungodliness and immorality, developing readiness to make sacrifices for the common good and protecting the rights of the Church."
- Cardinal Adolf Bertram, Archbishop of Breslau (letter to Adolf Riddler following the announcement of the Concordat between national socialist Germany and the Vatican)
I KNOW the following quote is a fallacy, I just don't know which. Someone tell me.
If Thor or whatever, including your Klook or whatever, was a true God, wouldnt there be 8 billion of their Bibles worldwide, and wouldnt their Gospels be in every nation on earth as Jesus said, and as the Bible is? you cant argue that, you have nothing. End of Story.
One of dozens:
If God is real, and you know its more likely that he is, how can you possibly justify driving someone into Atheism. To destroy someones soul and eternal life is not only cruel, but pathetically cruel and sadistic. A God who wants his children to have eternal life, would certainly destroy forever anyone who destroys his own. I doubt you can begin to understand that, as its unlikely you have children. What can you possibly gain by doing this?
Loving his neighbor all right.
Here he summarizes my reply
Idiotic unread and falsely placed lies by Atheists WOW.
Sooooo yeah. If you guys can find facts that are made up/misinterpreted, logical fallacies, or if possible, ways to refute this, please tell me. I'll add some more good stuff later.
