I've repeatedly said that I don't care, especially what you believe, what anybody believes generally, and that I have no issue with anyone having faith. I created a separate thread in response to you deleting posts in Origins--i.e, turning it into an echo chamber. You'[re the one who popped the lid on that.
Nope, you set up your own thread because you and James were failing miserably in our discussion and you needed a safe haven. Which is why you banned me from it.
The only posts I ever removed were mindless abuse from James, nothing to do with any debate. James was drunk and spamming
Again, I've heard it all before. It's all just the same tired theological tropes and talking points. I'm sure it's all interesting to you, having just discovered it all--but some of us have already had to sit through it all before Tiger. It's also the same MO, which always reduces to: "You can't demonstrably prove everything that is hypothesized in evolutionary biology, therefore my belief consisting of nothing more than totally unverifiable magical explanations of existence and consciousness is entirely valid". Mud men, rib women. Talking snakes. The apple of power. What can the Bible, or any holy text, actually explain about the mechanics of life on a technical level? Absolutely nothing. Nothing at all.
Your dismissal, laced with weary condescension, is less an argument and more a defense mechanism. Saying “I’ve heard it all before” isn’t a rebuttal—it’s a way of shielding yourself from engagement. And yet, ironically
, your complete inability to answer even basic challenges shows you clearly haven’t heard it before—or at least, never understood it. What you have “heard” are caricatures filtered through the echo chamber of materialist apologetics, not serious arguments demanding serious response.
You mock “mud men” and “rib women” while faithfully adhering to your own creation myth: that a cosmos burst from nothing without cause, that inorganic matter sprang to life without intention, and that consciousness is a biochemical accident. You accuse others of magical thinking while invoking a liturgy of unobservable, unrepeatable events you accept on institutional authority. That’s not science—it’s scientism. And your “technical explanations” never seem to touch the core: why anything exists, why order emerges, or why truth matters at all.
You reject metaphysics and then smuggle it in through the back door under names like “emergence” or “natural selection.” The Bible speaks in symbols of eternal truths you cannot measure but which govern all that is—meanwhile, your worldview is a ghost town of unaccountable abstractions.
When pressed, you return to sneers, not substance. Because at bottom, this isn’t about evidence. It’s about allegiance—to a system that cannot tolerate contradiction, and to a narrative that needs the protection of scorn to survive scrutiny.
in this regard.
