Our Websites

Fairytale Land and Theorytale Land

Dora The Explorer

My son was watching Dora the explorer this morning and they went to fairytale land. The magic words you had to say to get there were “once upon a time.”  Once inside fairytale land, just about any [. [...]


Leave52 Responses to testFairytale Land and Theorytale Land

  1. Geno Castagnoli May 9, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    Anthony Keeton claims:
    Eric, I found something fantastic to refute the claims of the theological evolutionists. It has to do with Genesis 1:3. Check it out on my blog:

    Geno answers:
    “Let there be light.” Really, that disproves theistic evolution? Your kidding, right?

    From a theistic evolutionist, here’s my response:
    “Let there be light” = the Big Bang.

    It is my position that light is the worst problem for Genesis literalism. In a universe only 6000 years old, we should not be able to see objects billions of light years from Earth.

  2. Duane Hamish May 9, 2011 at 9:57 pm #

    Todd Thomas May 4th at 6:57 pm

    Respectfully Duane,

    Do you have a rational or scientific argument to put forth for your position or just all question begging epithets and name calling?

    If you decide to put forth an argument, please include your foundational basis for how you account in a naturalistic universe.for the existence of immaterial, universal, and unchanging laws of logic that you must use to formulate your argument.


    First, I would like to apologize for an accusation I made to Eric. I feel that this blog is more inciting than usual but I made a rather rude accusation. I still believe he should respond to questions before bringing out the ban stick. I’m not trying to be trollish, I’m trying to make you think. I believe that Christianity, and this brand taught in here in particular, thinks it has a license to tell people to turn their brains off. How else does one explain a post accusing naturalism of being a “fairy tale” all the while knowing that it presents a story that involves magic and talking animals? Why has no one else caught this? This is far more egregious than the post accusing atheists of namecalling then following it up with post over post of just that. This is up there with presenting lies the text books tell without presenting a text book that tells the lie.

    Anyway, to respond to this question from Todd.

    Logic is an abstract concept. Calling it “God” does not make it God. The presupposition argument is not an argument for the existence of God. Actually, it backfires into being more evidence of the non-existence of God. What it says is that the argument for the existence of God is so weak that the only way it can be justified is by insisting that it need not be proved. What this is based upon is the idea that God can reveal Himself in such a way that the person is certain it is true. Of course the problem with this is that there is no difference between this absolute revelation and a delusion.