George Will on Huckabee

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

lol! I like it. But hey- why don't you play gotcha with me? I feel like the straight guy who wonders why the gay guy doesn't find him attractive.

Perhaps I am a bit slow here, but you may need to help me out with the water thing again.

Tell me where you jump off of the argument below:

1. Science can prove that no person can walk on water
2. Peter was a man
3. Peter did not walk on water

1 is wrong. Saying we don't know how it is done is not the same as saying we can show it to be impossible. I can't disprove the possibility. The most I can say is I don't know how it could be done.

Science can, however, prove that the earth is not 6 thousand years old (and yes we can fuss at the margins about what proof consists of, but concede for the sake of argument that the proof is sufficient). Yes you can say that God can do anything and trick me in myriad ways, but if you come out of the ivory tower this is a stretch.

Suddenly I've convinced you, right?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

1. Science can prove that no person can walk on water

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

1 is wrong. Saying we don't know how it is done is not the same as saying we can show it to be impossible. I can't disprove the possibility. The most I can say is I don't know how it could be done.

Science can, however, prove that the earth is not 6 thousand years old (and yes we can fuss at the margins about what proof consists of, but concede for the sake of argument that the proof is sufficient). Yes you can say that God can do anything and trick me in myriad ways, but if you come out of the ivory tower this is a stretch.

Suddenly I've convinced you, right?

How is 1 wrong? We can easily calculate the surface tension of water, we know the general weight to water distributions of a person, we know that the weight to water distributions of a person require the person to sink in water, so we know mankind cannot walk on water. You saying that Peter could have walked on water (we weren't there, how could we know) strikes me as the equivalent of saying the earth may have been formed 6,000 years ago (we weren't there, how could we know).

I think you may realize that there isn't much of a difference between the two, except that one FEELS more correct than the other to you and, therefore, less crazy.

[Cali Coug]

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Touche.

PS. Chris Angel is a pretty big douche, and not nearly as talented as a bunch of other magicians/illusionists, but I respect him for being among those who acknowledge that every he does is trickery.

Does anyone else hate it when they make a long post that ends up as the last post on a page? It seems like it goes unnoticed a lot when that happens.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

And BTW George Will is a dick. And most of his columns are unreadable.

Coming from someone that supports Hillary, this is not surprising. Is the sky red in your world also?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

1 is wrong. Saying we don't know how it is done is not the same as saying we can show it to be impossible. I can't disprove the possibility. The most I can say is I don't know how it could be done.

Science can, however, prove that the earth is not 6 thousand years old (and yes we can fuss at the margins about what proof consists of, but concede for the sake of argument that the proof is sufficient). Yes you can say that God can do anything and trick me in myriad ways, but if you come out of the ivory tower this is a stretch.

Suddenly I've convinced you, right?

I'm sorry, Dan, but I got a real chuckle out of this. Insisting that one can't prove the impossibility of Peter walking on water, while at the same time insisting that the age of the earth is conclusively older than 6,000 years seems like cherry-picking to me.

Forgive me for psycho-analyzing, but it almost seems like you're so emotionally invested in the age of the earth arguments that you're pushing yourself into the absurd. If you can't acknowledge the impossibility of man walking across water, why are we even having this discussion at all? Yes, it is impossible to confirm that specific event, but we can easily confirm the impossibility of the thesis. No?