Question for RJHinds and other Creationists that deny evidence

Originally posted by humy
The absence of counterargument in “Whatever” in this context ( i.e. where you still don't answer the question ) indicates “Whatever” means “correct”.

If that is what you want it to mean. I haven't got the patience to try to figure out what question you think I haven't answered. If 'correct" is a satisfactory answer for you then whatever you like. I don't care anymore.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If that is what you want it to mean. I haven't got the patience to try to figure out what question you think I haven't answered. If 'correct" is a satisfactory answer for you then whatever you like. I don't care anymore.

. I haven't got the patience to try to figure out what question you think I haven't answered.

you are pretending you are so dumb as to not know. It is the one I repeated again and again; As you know, it is THIS one:

purely hypothetically, IF the Bible ALWAYS TELLS THE TRUTH AND DID explicitly say that the Earth is millions of years old and DID explicitly say abiogenesis and evolution happened and and life and humans evolved by Darwinian evolution with common ancestor and DID explicitly say the Big Bang theory is correct, would you THEN accept the said scientific evidence for evolution and old-Earth etc as being valid evidence?

This is the question that you are scared to answer thus will not answer.
Your claim that you have answered it is a lie.

If 'correct" is a satisfactory answer

you are pretending to be totally dumb again. I didn't say “correct" is an answer to a/the question. As you know, I just said:
“The absence of counterargument in “Whatever” in this context ( i.e. where you still don't answer the question ) indicates “Whatever” means “correct”. “
so "correct" would mean it is correct that "We all know that you are too scared to answer the question for it would reveal that your religious beliefs are irrational " which was what I said in my post before that one.

Originally posted by humy

. I haven't got the patience to try to figure out what question you think I haven't answered.

you are pretending you are so dumb as to not know. It is the one I repeated again and again; As you know, it is THIS one:

[quote]
[b]
purely hypothetically, IF the Bible ALWAYS TELLS THE TRUTH AND DID explicitly say that the Earth is millions religious beliefs are irrational " which was what I said in my post before that one.

Oh. I think I understand. You want me to either say yes or no with no other choices, like a lawyer's question. Right?

P.S. Like the Pharisee asked Jesus in order to trick him.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Oh. I think I understand. You want me to either say yes or no with no other choices, like a lawyer's question. Right?

P.S. Like the Pharisee asked Jesus in order to trick him.

You want me to either say yes or no with no other choices,

that is simply not true.
If you have an alternative answer to just simply “yes” or “no” such as “yes if X else no” etc then I would have no issue with that as long as it DOES answer the question.
So what is your answer to my question?

Originally posted by humy

You want me to either say yes or no with no other choices,

that is simply not true.
If you have an alternative answer to just simply “yes” or “no” such as “yes if X else no” etc then I would have no issue with that as long as it DOES answer the question.
So what is your answer to my question?

Okay then. My answer is hypothetically yes, if I believed the new version was correct and the word of God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay then. My answer is hypothetically yes, if I believed the new version was correct and the word of God.

At last you answered the question! Although I think you might be trying your very best to obscure the clarity of meaning by calling it a “hypothetical yes” and saying “IF I believed the new version was correct and the word of God” without stating what preconditions that “IF” might imply, that is still a “yes”.

OK, if you look at my opening post for this thread, you see what I would say if you answered “yes” to that question which is actually the SAME question as the one you just answered. This was:

-because, if the answer is “yes”, then that shows that the ONLY real reason why you reject the said evidence as valid/real evidence is what the Bible says and NOT because of logic/reason and that would also mean the whole premise that the said evidence is not valid/real rests on the assumption that the Bible always tells the truth. But that assumption that the Bible always tells the truth cannot be falsified because, if that assumption is false, you still could always just simply dismiss any evidence that it is false by saying that said evidence is not valid/real evidence because the Bible always tells the truth!
The problem, of course, this reasoning is circular; -what if the Bible does NOT always tell the truth? and how do you KNOW that the Bible always tells the truth?

read and think about this very carefully for a while and, just for once, without prejudice, and see if you can understand what a “yes” answer truly implies.

Originally posted by humy
At last you answered the question! Although I think you might be trying your very best to obscure the clarity of meaning by calling it a “hypothetical yes” and saying “IF I believed the new version was correct and the word of God” without stating what preconditions that “IF” might imply, that is still a “yes”.

OK, if you look at my opening post for this thre ...[text shortened]... st for once, without prejudice, and see if you can understand what a “yes” answer truly implies.

I think it implies I believe God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think it implies I believe God.

What I clearly implied/siad your "yes" answer implies is that you irrationally believe for religious reasons that the said evidence for evolution etc is not evidence -that is a logical implication of your "yes" answer. This should be obvious to you if you have you read all my post -have you?

Originally posted by humy
What I clearly implied/siad your "yes" answer implies is that you irrationally believe for religious reasons that the said evidence for evolution etc is not evidence -that is a logical implication of your "yes" answer. This should be obvious to you if you have you read all my post -have you?

Yes I read your idiotic posts. Why else would I reply to them?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes I read your idiotic posts. Why else would I reply to them?

Takes one to know one?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Takes one to know one?

you think so? 😀

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes I read your idiotic posts. Why else would I reply to them?

Back to the point:

Your “yes” answer shows that the ONLY real reason why you reject the said evidence as valid/real evidence is what the Bible says and NOT because of logic/reason and that would also mean the whole premise that the said evidence is not valid/real rests on the assumption that the Bible always tells the truth.

But that assumption that the Bible always tells the truth cannot be falsified because, if that assumption is false, you still could always just simply dismiss any evidence that it is false by saying that said evidence is not valid/real evidence because the Bible always tells the truth!

Do you agree with the above analysis? If not, what is your counterargument against it ( if any ) ?

Originally posted by humy
Back to the point:

Your “yes” answer shows that the ONLY real reason why you reject the said evidence as valid/real evidence is what the Bible says and NOT because of logic/reason and that would also mean the whole premise that the said evidence is not valid/real rests on the assumption that the Bible always tells the truth.

But that assumption that the ...[text shortened]... you agree with the above analysis? If not, what is your counterargument against it ( if any ) ?

No I do not agree with the above analysis.
My counter argument: You are bonkers. 😀

Originally posted by RJHinds
No I do not agree with the above analysis.
My counter argument: You are bonkers. 😀

No I do not agree with the above analysis.

which part and why?

My counter argument: You are bonkers.

"You are bonkers" is sadly not a “counter argument”

Originally posted by humy

No I do not agree with the above analysis.

which part and why?

My counter argument: You are bonkers.

"You are bonkers" is sadly not a “counter argument”

Both parts because you make false ssumptions.

"You are bonkers"is a counter to your false assumptions.