Archaeology of the New Testament

[Into the Night]

Derp.
Derp.
Derp.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

Inversion fallacy.

Inversion fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

Thanks for proving my point....again.

 

[ZenMode]

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Inversion fallacy.

There certainly is. You just don't know what the word means.

There certainly is. You just don't know what the word means.

There certainly is.
https://www.amazon.com/Triple-XXX-ANTONIO-LONGNECKS-12-Ounce/dp/B001IW1VP2
There are also XXX sized shirts and other clothing.

Inversion fallacy.

Erp-a-derp.

 

[IBDaMann]

.

* Which humans do you believe have been on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years?

Do you want their names and locations?

That would be fine.

... that detail wasn't just pulled from the "internet".

* You did, in fact, pull that "detail" off the internet.

Correct and, as you already know, not all "Internet" was the same.

Too funny!

 

[IBDaMann]

99.99999 percent of the time, any discussion of humans on this forum is about our species homo sapiens, and it is so manifestly self evident nobody bothers to ask about it or play word games.

Why are you getting so defensive? Why are you pivoting? Instead, you should be explaining how you and he know, with certainty, about the unobserved past. Feel free to become defensive when your omniscience fallacies come under attack because you have nothing else.

Anyone who reads National Geographic, popular science articles, ...

... is in a world of hurt.

... has been aware for decades that the evidence is homo sapiens first evolved a few hundred thousand years ago.

You still haven't answered the question. Why should any rational adult adopt your conclusions about the unobserved past? ... because you read it on the internet? Is that why?

 

[ZenMode]

.

That would be fine.

Translation: I'm not attempting to have a serious conversation, I am only trolling.

 

[IBDaMann]

Translation: I'm not attempting to have a serious conversation, I am only trolling.

Too funny! I directly answered your question, leaving you stumped ... therefore I am trolling. Awesome. You can't make this shit up.

Have you yet figured out that you've been conned by the warmizombie congregation? Have you figured out that there never was any such thing as a global climate? Have you yet realized that the ocean isn't rising? Have you realized yet that Climate actually can't violate thermodynamics or Stefan-Boltzmann?

Have you yet figured out that the best that anyone can do regarding the unobserved past is to speculate wildly, and that claiming knowledge is an omniscience fallacy? Have you yet realized that speculation taken from Wikipedia, Reddit or elsewhere on the internet isn't any more accurate than simply pulling it out of your azz?

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

Explain precisely why religious belief requires the universe to be perfect and flawless, and why it has to accord specifically with your definition of perfection.

Also, explain exactly why your definition of 'perfection' is the correct one. You seemed to think black holes are a flaw in the universe. We don't know enough about black holes to jump to declarative statements like that. It's possible the gravitational energy of black holes play an integral role in the net energy balance of the universe.


Rational agency, an eternal logos, a universal spirit, et al. implies some kind of higher consciousness that is beyond human understanding.

None of that really has anything to do with fine tuning as cosmologists and astronomers discuss it. You're not operating at the deepest level of reality. That is where the curious convergence of the universal physical constants and the net energy balance of the universe is balanced on a razors edge to allow complex matter to exist.

As for life, anyone who had taken college level cellular biology and neuroscience classes is flabbergasted by the elegance and irreducible complexity of cells, neurons, and information-bearing molecules like DNA.

I need you to explain exactly why religious belief requires the human body to be perfect, ideal, and flawless, in accord with your definition of perfection.

I'm basing all my inferences on physics and abductive logic.

The only question is which inference is more reasonable:

That the material and rational universe somehow came from the immaterial, inanimate, and irrational.

Or that the rational universe could only be caused the rational.

Religious belief starts ,with the Spirit world in a mess ,from Satan and a third of the Angels in rebellion.