Fish With Trish: A funny question...

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

A funny question...

Hat tip: Richard Gunther

60 comments:

BathTub said...: No it's just Gunther typical stupidity.

Humans are Apes. Creationists knew this before Darwin was even born.

Could you live in the forest like a Gorilla or Chimpanzee could? What is your measure of Fitter?

Are you Fitter than a Fish Trish?

Not that we need more evidence that you have even less of an understanding of science than Ray, when will Answer ExPatMatt's question?; January 6, 2010 at 8:56 PM
TJH said...: If Americans (most) came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?; January 6, 2010 at 9:31 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: I have never Particularly liked this line of questioning. It is not a very good argument.
Over at Answers in Genesis it is even in the Arguments we should not use section. (quote)

If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today. (In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved.); January 6, 2010 at 9:51 PM
Vagon said...: If there is Richard Gunther,
And Jim Lee is a better comic artist than Gunther,
Why is there Richard Gunther?

(Hint: tnemnorivne sih si tekram ecnanossid evitingoc eht); January 6, 2010 at 10:16 PM
BathTub said...: Heh thanks for that reminder Heath.

Yes Trish that question is so good, that it currently number 7 on Answers in Genesis' "Arguments that should never be used" list.

Well done.; January 6, 2010 at 10:32 PM
Fish With Trish said...: <>

Thanks.

Guess I didn't put much thought into this one. I laughed pretty hard when I saw it so I put it up. Thanks for doing the research for me though and thanks Heath for your comment.

I'll add the label "silly" to it. :-); January 6, 2010 at 11:10 PM
BathTub said...: Still, feel free to answer ExPatMatt's question.

"In a previous thread, Craig noted that he didn't believe for a second that you (or the LW team) thought that the doggit was a viable representation of what evolutionists mean by the term 'transitional' species.

Could you please clarify this?

Do you think that the doggit is a valid example of what evolutionists think evolution predicts?

Your statement regarding dogs and cats seems to imply that you think evolution does say that dogs evolve into cats or some such thing, but I can't be sure because of your ambiguous and muddled terminology.

You seem to be accepting speciation (the emergence of new species) in this post, just like Ray did in his discussion with Thunderf00t, is this the case?

I'd appreciate it if you replied to me this time, you've been somewhat distant of late.

Regards,"

For the 6th time.; January 6, 2010 at 11:22 PM
Weemaryanne said...: If baby men come from adult women then why are there still adult women?; January 7, 2010 at 2:50 AM
Benjamin Franklin said...: Sadly, this just highlights the fact that there are tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments for or even against evolution. Yet they march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. Unfortunately, this army seems to be impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.; January 7, 2010 at 5:10 AM
ExPatMatt said...: You know Trish, adding 'Silly' to the labels just makes it look like you agree with the graphic (in that evolution is silly), it doesn't look like you think the graphic itself is silly (wrong, would be a better word, I guess).

A bit misleading that, in my opinion.

Anywho, I guess this is an appropriate post to repeat the humble request for clarification that BathTub mention;

"In a previous thread, Craig noted that he didn't believe for a second that you (or the LW team) thought that the doggit was a viable representation of what evolutionists mean by the term 'transitional' species.

Could you please clarify this?

Do you think that the doggit is a valid example of what evolutionists think evolution predicts?

Your statement regarding dogs and cats (on the back of the tract) seems to imply that you think evolution does say that dogs evolve into cats or some such thing, but I can't be sure because of your ambiguous and muddled terminology.

You seem to be accepting speciation (the emergence of new species) in this post, just like Ray did in his discussion with Thunderf00t, is this the case?

I'd appreciate it if you replied to me this time, you've been somewhat distant of late.

Regards,"

Fingers crossed...; January 7, 2010 at 6:34 AM
Walking Man said...: Someone didn't check with the AIG Rule Book.

Funnily enough this exact argument came up from Celebrity Big Brother (UK show) Born Again Christian - Stephen Baldwin. He used this very 'argument' yesterday as part of his 24/7 preach-athon, live on TV.

It's right up there with 'Evilution says that males and females evolved separately and then somehow found each other and mated. Evilutionist are teh dumb!'

Keep 'em coming...; January 8, 2010 at 10:41 AM
Walking Man said...: "I'll add the label "silly" to it."

The label 'Creationist silliness', would be more fitting.

A label also fitting the misleading and totally disingenuous 'doggit'.; January 9, 2010 at 3:46 AM
BathTub said...: I just find it interesting what questions people refuse to answer.

Like with Ray he refuses to answer why it's ok for him to continuously lie. Or about his plagiarism.

Clearly Trish is Terrified of answering ExPatMatt's question.; January 9, 2010 at 12:09 PM
BathTub said...: Hah so Ray caught out in another lie is frantically deleting posts to cover it up.

You guys make it too easy.; January 10, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Heath The Blogless said...: This whole issue of the Doggit was discussed at length when the Doggit and other photos in the series were first published, some time last year. Just because you didn’t like the answer you got doesn’t mean that the questions have not been answered. The same or similar questions were discussed back then. Trish has every right to answer whatever questions she wants. I am sure she has many other things to do besides answer questions that have been answered by her or others. If you want to find out what creationist think about speciation have a look at the answers in Genesis web site, they will give a much more in-depth answer there, and most of the people writing there have degrees or doctorates in there field.; January 10, 2010 at 9:18 PM
Fish With Trish said...: Thank you Heath, blessings to you, brother!; January 10, 2010 at 10:16 PM
BathTub said...: Yes of course Trish has every right to avoid answering whatever questions she wants. And we in turn are free to note down which ones she avoids and why.

In this case Trish is trying to do an anti-science Tract, but has no idea what the science actually is, so refuses to answer questions on it.

And in other news, I caught Ray out again, twice in 2 days.
It's funny because you can tell when he thinks he's right, he will respond, and then when I challenged him again on what he's said he must have realised his mistake because now he's ignoring me, and trying to change the topic. He just can't accept to admit he goofed.; January 10, 2010 at 10:24 PM
BathTub said...: Oh, but big ups to Trish for her moderation policy.; January 10, 2010 at 11:00 PM
Walking Man said...: Heath The Blogless stated:

"This whole issue of the Doggit was discussed at length when the Doggit and other photos in the series were first published, some time last year."

Hi Heath, I wasn't party to that, but am interested in how you think the 'Doggit' is a valid refutation (or even a valid parody) of evolution.

I say it's a dishonest misrepresentation because evolution doesn't posit that a dog and a rabbit could breed and produce an animal with features of both.

Could you please tell me in simple terms why you believe such a thing as a 'doggitt' *ISN'T* a misrepresentation of evolutionary biology?

Best regards,

Raoul; January 11, 2010 at 4:02 AM
BathTub said...: For fun this is the latest.

Lets see how many times I have to paste this to get a reply from Ray.

[quote]BathTub said....
You stated you accept [b]Speciation[/b].

Ray Comfort said...
Please give me details of where I stated I believe in [b]speciation[/b]. Thanks.

BathTub said...
In your discussion with Thunderf00t. You accepted [b]Speciation[/b] is real.

Ray Comfort said...
BathTub...would you bet your life on it?

BathTub said...
Yes I would Ray.
How much do you want to bet?

Ray Comfort ignores...

BathTub said...
You've realised you've goofed again haven't, that's why you are ignoring me, again.

Ray Comfort ignores...

BathTub says...

Ray 8 minutes into part 7 of the Thunderf00t discussion.

"Ok, alright there is such a thing a [b]speciation[/b]"

Guess I win the bet.

Do you forfeit your life to me or are you reneging on the bet?[/quote]; January 11, 2010 at 11:42 AM
ExPatMatt said...: Heath,

If I recall correctly from the post you mentioned, that also took about 3-4 efforts at getting Trish to respond before she;
* asked me to answer the question for her,
* copy/pasted something from Ken Ham (that didn't answer the question), and
* then admitted she knew nothing about science.

Which makes me wonder why she's back at it again, apparently without doing any further reading on the subject.

As to the time thing - what is her job, exactly?

This blog is a part of her job of evangelizing. The 'doggit' tract is one of the tools she uses as part of her job - if one of my (potential) clients had concerns over a software tool I was planning to use, it would not be out of my way to respond to those concerns, would it? In fact, it would be counter-productive not to respond to those concerns - it would make my client wonder what I was trying to hide...

Besides, she clearly has time to electronically high-5 you, so why not a short comment in reply to questions we've been asking?

My hypothesis is that Trish knows that the text on the back of the tract contains falsehoods and any response from her will either confirm this or her own ignorance/dishonesty regarding scientific matters. She can't allow this to happen, so she just stays silent.

Now, I'm happy to have my hypothesis disproven, but Trish is going to have to come down from her Ivory Tower and slum it with us unwashed heathens to do so.

What say you, Trish? Fancy setting the record straight on this tract once and for all?; January 11, 2010 at 1:29 PM
Fish With Trish said...: <>

I am employeed for Ray Comfort.

Fish With Trish is not a part of my job discription. In other words, I work on my blog and website on my own free time.

<>

Evangelizing isn't a job. It's something I enjoy and feel compelled to do.

For the record, I think that the back of my tract is accurate and truthful...

Here's the back:

“If you guessed ‘Doggit’ (a mix between a dog and a rabbit) then you’re right! Evolutionists say that there must be transitional fossils, representing the evolution of one kind of animal into another, by incremental changes over millions of years. Although there appear to be transitional forms, showing the development of new species within kinds, this would be expected within a biblical worldview, where God made animals to reproduce according to their kind, but there are no fossils showing intermediates between two different kinds. Dogs developed from wolves, within the dog kind. They do not change into cats! What we can learn from fossils is that those creatures lived, were buried suddenly, and died. Have you ever wondered where you will go when you die? Judge yourself by the 10 Commandments to see if you are good enough to go to Heaven - Have you lied (even once), stolen (value is irrelevant), dishonored your parents? Those are just three of the 10 commandments and if you broke one, on Judgment Day you'll be found guilty and end up in Hell. But God made a way for you to be forgiven! Jesus Christ took the punishment sinners deserve for breaking God's Laws when He died on the cross, and then rose from the dead. If you repent and trust in Him, God will forgive your sins and grant you everlasting life. You may not have tomorrow. Please don't wait another minute to be reconciled to God.”; January 11, 2010 at 3:51 PM
ExPatMatt said...: Trish,

So you have been paying attention!

"For the record, I think that the back of my tract is accurate and truthful..."

That's great. So now we know that you're not being actively dishonest. The options could now include, 'ignorant' or - and this is my hope - 'muddled'. Could it be that you (or whoever put your tract text together) just isn't very good at communicating?

How about you try actually responding to what we're asking and we'll see if you can clear some of this up for us, eh?

"If you guessed ‘Doggit’ (a mix between a dog and a rabbit) then you’re right! Evolutionists say that there must be transitional fossils,"

Does this mean that you think that evolutionists would consider the 'doggit' to be a viable example of what a transitional form should look like?

"Although there appear to be transitional forms, showing the development of new species within kinds,"

Does this mean that you accept speciation?

"...there are no fossils showing intermediates between two different kinds. Dogs developed from wolves, within the dog kind. They do not change into cats!"

Does this mean you think evolutionists expect to find a transitional form indicating that dogs change into cats?

Can you give us a definition of what a 'kind' is?

Answers to any of these questions would be a pleasant surprise.

Cheers,; January 11, 2010 at 4:39 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Sure I will give it a go
The Doggit is not a refutation of evolution in itself but definitely is a valid parody.

Some definitions of Parody:
-Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery.
-any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.
-to imitate (a composition, author, etc.) for purposes of ridicule or satire.

This is why it is a parody it is an extreme, it can be clearly seen to any rationally thinking mind that no such animal exists.

As to the point it is a misrepresentation of evolutionary biology see points above about it being a parody.; January 11, 2010 at 7:24 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: I do not know why ridicule is to be given up to Satan as a weapon to be used against us, and not to be employed as a weapon against him. I will venture to affirm that the Reformation owed almost as much to the sense of the ridiculous in human nature as to anything else, and that those humorous squibs and caricatures, that were issued by the friends of Luther, did more to open the eyes of Germany to the abominations of the priesthood than the more solid and ponderous arguments against Romanism. I know no reason why we should not on suitable occasions, try the same style of reasoning. "It is a dangerous weapon," it will be said, "and many men will cut their fingers with it." Well, that is their own lookout; But I do not know why we should be so particular about their cutting their fingers if they can, at the same time, cut the throat of sin, and do serious damage to the great adversary of souls.
C.H.Spurgeon; January 12, 2010 at 6:09 PM
Walking Man said...: Hi Heath, thanks for your definitions.

-Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery.

I can agree with that one.

-any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.

Misses on all points.

-to imitate (a composition, author, etc.) for purposes of ridicule or satire.

Misses again.

So we are left with 'something so bad that it is a mockery'.

But it is an unintentional mockery of itself.; January 14, 2010 at 2:50 PM
Walking Man said...: Trish,

A simple and humble question, (now I've read the back of your tract):

Does it bother your conscience that you misrepresent Evolutionary theory in order to ridicule it, scientists and those who accept Evolution?

Wouldn't it be great if you could raise questions about it by actually addressing any flaws in the science rather than a strawman 'dogs change into cats' cartoon?

If you misrepresented because you are muddled, then I can understand and empathize.

I, for instance, don't know much about the Bible. If I was REALLY muddled, I could feasibly write a 'tract' mocking Christians for believing that Moses turned a donkey into a bush that set fire to Samson's hair.

One might even put a picture of a burning donkey on the front.

If I was then called on this by someone who realized my error, I would withdraw my argument/tract.

But that is my conscience speaking. I don't know how yours works, hence my question.

Respectfully,

Raoul; January 15, 2010 at 1:50 AM
ExPatMatt said...: Heath,

"This is why it is a parody it is an extreme, it can be clearly seen to any rationally thinking mind that no such animal exists".

Then why won't Trish come out and say that then?

Why do I occasionally come across Christians that ask me why we haven't found a crocoduck?

This is the thing. You might think it's parody. Trish might think it's parody (although she did just say; "For the record, I think that the back of my tract is accurate and truthful..." Make of that what you will).
But there are so many creationists who are willing to lie and distort all things evolutionary - and so many Christians lapping this propaganda up - that it is near-impossible to tell parody from genuine, attempted refutation.....which is why I would like Trish to clarify those very simple questions I asked.

But she won't.

Don't you wonder why?; January 16, 2010 at 2:58 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: What I find interesting is that, all these moral judgments are being given as to what is right and wrong. When naturalistic evolution has yet to come up with a PLAUSIBLE explanation of how morals came about in the first place. Especially in the case of moral absolutes, not just situational ethics which can change over time depending what will best suit the needs of the “fittest” at that time.; January 17, 2010 at 7:15 PM
BathTub said...: I'd be very interested in how much research you have done into morality/altrusims/etc in relation to evolutionary biology.

Could you name some moral absolutes for us Heath? I find that when asked to pin them down these absolutes suddently become very wishy washy.; January 18, 2010 at 4:05 PM
ExPatMatt said...: Heath,

Yeah, you could get all philosophical about it if you want - but there isn't really any need for that, is there? In fact, it's just a red herring.

Let's say that I have no explanation or good reason for casting moral judgements. So what? You have a nice, neat explanation (Goddidit) don't you? So it should be easy for you to identify and call out someone who's being dishonest. Not only that, but you should care!

Without proper clarification, Trish is doing something that - under any normal circumstances - would be considered unethical. However, because you're on her side spiritually and this is a religious matter, you can't actually seem to let yourself criticize what she's doing, even though it's so obviously dishonest.

So how about you stop diverting and own up to the obviousness of the truth. Trish is being deliberately deceptive and dishonest with regards to the way she presents evolution - knowing full well that many of her supporters will consider this to be a sound thrashing of evolutionary theory and that it propagates the falsehood that evolution predicts hybrids between two present-day species.

Unless she'd care to clarify the point, of course...

Regards,; January 18, 2010 at 6:33 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: Just one example needs to be read in context and in light of the rest of the Bible but I will leave that up to you.

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”; January 18, 2010 at 7:36 PM
zilch said...: Heath- what BathTub said. If you want an overview of the evolution of morality, there's a nice article available online. Trish doesn't allow url's, but if you google "The Evolution of Morality — Table of Contents/Summary" the first hit will be this article.

cheers from thawing Vienna, zilch; January 19, 2010 at 3:33 AM
BathTub said...: Wait, what?

Was that meant to be an example of a moral absolute?; January 19, 2010 at 11:09 AM
Heath The Blogless said...: It's not me you have to worry about.; January 19, 2010 at 3:48 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: I make absolutely no apologies for God and How he wants to do things, or how he does things. If you have a problem with the fact that He classes Cowardice as something morally wrong, that is something you will have to deal with him with.
It wasn't all that many years ago that a cowardice was seen as great betrayal (ie Morally wrong). In some situations it was punishable by death eg in battle.
So if you think Cowardice is not Morally wrong it somewhat makes my point that without Moral absolutes and without a moral law giver. Morals ultimately become situational and then it all depends on how it makes you feel or what you think is best, and therefore just an opinion.; January 19, 2010 at 4:01 PM
BathTub said...: Well frankly I think my point has been made.

I asked for examples of Absolute morals.

And what do we get?

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Which is practically gibberish really.

And is most definitely NOT absolute. Not even close.; January 19, 2010 at 4:21 PM
BathTub said...: Heath, I can think of 1 'absolute' for Christians. But only 1. If you can't come up with any yourself I can give you mine.; January 19, 2010 at 5:02 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: If you die in your sins without atonement for your sins through Christ, You will go to hell.
If you receive the gift of life through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, you will go to heaven.

That’s two absolutes I can think of.; January 19, 2010 at 6:24 PM
ExPatMatt said...: Heath,

"It wasn't all that many years ago that a cowardice was seen as great betrayal (ie Morally wrong). In some situations it was punishable by death eg in battle."

A finer example of subjective morality was never shown. Thank you Heath!

It's a shame you went on to bemoan how morals can become situational, as if that's a bad thing, right after your very situational moral example though.

And you're still avoiding talking about why Trish won't clarify her position on the Doggit tract of course....; January 19, 2010 at 8:36 PM
BathTub said...: Now I mean this quite sincerely.

How is that a moral?

A statement of faith or something sure. But a Moral?

"My religion is right" is all you've said but I fail to see how that's a moral statement.; January 20, 2010 at 12:24 AM
Heath The Blogless said...: You 2 make me laugh. I give you an example of several Moral absolutes in the Bible and you say they are not examples. Then you say that Cowardice is not a moral absolute, even though the Bible says that the punishment for being cowardly is in the lake of fire (that seems pretty absolute). Then I give you an example of how Cowardice was once considered very badly of. You tell me that I am showing you how that is situational, when in fact what I am trying to say was that the Moral itself has not changed, but people change what is morally acceptable to suit themselves. This will always happen we you start with the world view of no ultimate Law giver therefore no absolute morals which was my point to start with. Cowardice has and always will be an immoral act. It may become socially acceptable or excusable, just like much of the sexual immoral acts that go on today, but it does not change the foundation that it is immoral and always will be. You may not like it and that is why so many people fight against the truth of God. It is not about intellectual argument it is the fact that God sets a very high standard, and if we one day have to answer to him we are all in big trouble. So we push away any notion of a creator or one who has ultimate ownership or rule over us, and we make up something to replace Him so that we are in control of our own lives. Then we go about finding the evidence to support what we say and if it does not exist we say well we just haven’t found that bit yet but we will.

Rant over, feel free to just skim through and take out the bits that you want I am sure that’s what you will do anyway.

PS My last reply was just answering BathTub when he asked for 1 'absolute'. There was never any intention of giving a Moral one in that statment.

PPS What would you like from the Bible as a moral absolute something like "This is a moral absolute..." well the bible does not do that it talks about actions and or thoughts that are immoral and the just punishment for those actions.; January 20, 2010 at 2:19 AM
BathTub said...: What? It was always about 'moral absolutes'

YOU BOUGHT THEM UP!

And I want you to give us some.

'Absolutes' are 'Absolutely Trivial', see what I did there?

It's quite common for religious people to refer to these moral absolutes (LIKE YOU DID) but then completely fail to point some out.; January 20, 2010 at 12:29 PM
Esly Carrero said...: As I stated earlier on my blog..

You asked
"What are absolute morals?"

To put it short & sweet..
and with some slang.

I'd have to say..
Absolute Morals means:
secure;
definite;
safe bounds
of FOUNDATION
that produce
"Loving"
"Caring"
"Peaceful"
OBEDIENCE to what is RIGHT.

Not,
"up in the air"
"free for anyone to decide"
"up for grabs"

Otherwise,
we'd have complete anarchy & chaos.; January 20, 2010 at 1:53 PM
BathTub said...: I certainly stand by my claim about the amazing tendancy for these 'absolute morals' to be wishy washy and nebulous.

Still not one example.

Esly's answer for an example, note her quote of me is NOT a quote, is just some sort of joke.; January 20, 2010 at 2:28 PM
ExPatMatt said...: Heath,

"Then you say that Cowardice is not a moral absolute, even though the Bible says that the punishment for being cowardly is in the lake of fire (that seems pretty absolute)."

To be fair, everything is punishable by firey-lake, unless you're saved, isn't it? So trying to claim something is 'absolute' based on the punishment is so broad-brushed it loses all meaning.

"This will always happen we you start with the world view of no ultimate Law giver therefore no absolute morals which was my point to start with. Cowardice has and always will be an immoral act."

Are you suggesting that cowards should always be put to death? Not just in battle?

Now, I totally understand that if you believe that morals come from God then, by definition, they're going to be 'absolutely' applicable to humans - that's just the way you believe things are set up. And that's fine.

What, I think, BathTub is after is something that anyone, Christian or heathen, can look at and objectively say that that is an absolute moral. Something like that, that is self-evident to everyone, would be a fairly compelling argument for the existence of a law-giver.

But you're not doing that. What you're doing is saying; 'here are some moral laws that are in the Bible and because they're in the Bible-and the Bible is the Word of God-they must be absolute morals'.

Can you understand why someone - who doesn't accept the authority of the Bible - would find that a less than convincing argument?

I hope you don't feel like I've quotemined you at all here (the meat of what I'm saying is the last bit).

But that Doggit business.....; January 20, 2010 at 2:34 PM
ExPatMatt said...: This;

"It's quite common for religious people to refer to these moral absolutes (LIKE YOU DID) but then completely fail to point some out."

followed by what Elsly wrote made me lol.

:); January 20, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: BathTub I gave you some and you said they weren't. I explained how they were and you still won't accept them. You have to realize you don't always get exactly what you want.
If you would like some more examples read Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. there some examples in there. You are right I did bring it up. But you are the one that wont accept any answer given to you, so you end up asking the same questions over and over and over and over. I don't expect anyone to change there answer just because you are not satisfied.; January 20, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: BathTub yes they can be saved by Repentance and Faith not just repentance alone. But this does not change the morals those things are still wrong. It is just now that the punishment has been paid by Jesus Christ so that the person can not only be forgiven but there slate can be wiped clean.
Did you read Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 there are some more morals in there.

ExPatMatt not everything is punishable by the lake of fire but one thing defiantly is and that is lake of faith in God. It breaks the first 2 commandments and possibly the 3rd. So it does not matter what else you do if you have broken these 2 the only hope you have is to receive the gift of salvation offered to you.
To your other point I can not give you an example like you are requesting because - Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

It is this reason I can not give you a moral absolute that Christians and none Christians can agree on, It is the tendency of man to go against what is right and make himself a God with rules that suit himself. But thank you for qualifying what you were asking for.; January 20, 2010 at 9:48 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: As for the Doggit tract this is how it misrepresents evolution.

-----------

The Doggit tract is lots of Facts scatted with little bits of made up things.

Evolution is lots of made up things scatted with little bits of Facts.

-----------

I hope this clears things up for you.; January 20, 2010 at 9:52 PM
BathTub said...: "yes they can be saved"

So the statement ""But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Is far from absolute then isn't it.

Simple as that.

I really didn't think it would be that hard. Esly isn't even trying.

dprjones has a series on objective morality and does it exist, and in it he presents a series of moral dilemmas.

The examples presented include. How to deal with the patients in a New Orleans hospital as the supplies/staff/power/etc ran out.

If you saw a runaway train about to kill 5 people, but you could switch the track so that it killed 1 person instead, what would you do?

None of your attempts at presenting to us an Absolute Moral would do anything to help answer a Moral Dilemma.; January 21, 2010 at 1:22 PM
ExPatMatt said...: Heath,

"not everything is punishable by the lake of fire but one thing defiantly is and that is lack of faith in God."

That's pretty much the point I was making.

"To your other point I can not give you an example like you are requesting because... I can not give you a moral absolute that Christians and none Christians can agree on,"

That's fine.

What it means though, is that you can't expect to use the existence of moral absolutes as evidence for the existence of God. Do you see why this is so?

"But thank you for qualifying what you were asking for."

No worries, I could see we weren't going to get anywhere unless things were out on the table!

"As for the Doggit tract this is how it misrepresents evolution."

Woohoo! Finally, an explanation as to why Trish won't clarify what's going on in that silly tract....

"The Doggit tract is lots of Facts scatted with little bits of made up things.

Evolution is lots of made up things scatted with little bits of Facts."

Oh.

I see you're not actually interested in arriving at some sort of understanding that involves intellectual honesty, integrity and a will to learn.

Still, it was cute little turn of phrase you used.

"I hope this clears things up for you."

It certainly didn't, but thanks for trying (it's more than Trish is willing to do, it seems).

Actually, I remember that last time we went through all this, I even promised to bend my knee and accept Jesus as my saviour if Trish provided some answers. Do I have to make the same promise again to get you to respond, Trish?

We'll see....; January 21, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: My final word on this just because it is a Moral Absolute does not mean that it can not be forgiven, but a payment must be made to do this.; January 21, 2010 at 4:30 PM
Heath The Blogless said...: ExPattMatt you should put a caveat on this statement.

"I even promised to bend my knee and accept Jesus as my saviour if Trish provided some answers."
caveat "Answers that I am satisfied with or I will just keep asking the questions until I get the answer that I want."; January 21, 2010 at 4:37 PM
BathTub said...: "My final word on this just because it is a Moral Absolute does not mean that it can not be forgiven, but a payment must be made to do this. "
caveat "Moral absolutes aren't"; January 25, 2010 at 9:14 PM
Term Papers said...: Interesting Question. I just find it interesting what questions people refuse to answer. I laughed pretty hard when I saw it so I put it up.

Term papers; January 25, 2010 at 10:27 PM
ExPatMatt said...: No Heath, I don't think there were any caveats involved at all - all she had to do was answer the questions. Whether I liked the answers or not was irrelevant.

But she never did answer the questions, and now she's refusing to answer very similar ones as well.

Makes you wonder.; January 26, 2010 at 8:19 AM
BathTub said...: I am reasonably sure 'term papers' is spam btw.; January 26, 2010 at 10:12 AM
ExPatMatt said...: From an article that Ray Comfort just posted;

"You can cross a cocker spaniel with poodle and get a cockapoo but if it looks like a dog, barks like a dog, a cockapoo is still a dog. If you want to prove The Theory of Evolution, then let’s see a frogapoo."

Would anyone like to comment on what Living Waters-affiliated evangelists think evolution is?

Cheers,; February 4, 2010 at 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Trish,
If you saw 'Planet of the Apes' you'd realize that Moses (who was fit and shaven) knew that man had faltered and the apes had succeeded over the earth.
Blessings n' Bananas.; February 6, 2010 at 6:08 PM