Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
IOW, you claim god exists, but do not wish to be asked for proof on your claim? Got it.
No, I don't mid you asking. But you will need to get up to the point, to where you realize science will not be part of the reply. Until then, take it or leave it.
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
No, "dad." You asked us to prove a negative. Show us you can prove a negative, first then we will do it too. Got it now, Mr "undefeated?" Tell you what... I will give you an example to prove isn't true. There is an invisible pink unicorn living under my bed. She likes eating grapes. I am her favorite, as she created everything in the universe last Thursday, but likes me best. Prove she doesn't exist, or admit Defeat. In fact, if you cannot prove she doesn't exist, that means your God is a fraud, since the Univisible Pink Unicorn is the true Creator. Take your time.
No need, Mr defeated. This is a science forum. Almost everything is negative to physical only knowledge.
God is a given. A known. A tested. A tried. I have no false expectations that science can deal in God. All it can test, and try, and touch is physical only. If that body of knowledge declares all else negative, but what it can see, that is meaningless.
Your unicorn is not known, or tested, or tried, or science, even.
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
Quite true, AVET. The dentist can claim he can find no cavities in Joe's mouth, but cannot really claim it is proof that Joe has no cavities. For example, Joe could have a very small cavity, that the dentist cannot see.
So Joe indeed can have a cavity, but the dentist's tools aren't sensitive enough to detect it yet?
In other words, dentistry is too myopic to be able to declare Joe 'cavity-free'?
Or, put another way, when a dentist declares Joe 'cavity free', what he is really saying, is that his [myopic] instruments are not detecting any cavities?
No need, Mr defeated. This is a science forum. Almost everything is negative to physical only knowledge.
God is a given. A known. A tested. A tried. I have no false expectations that science can deal in God. All it can test, and try, and touch is physical only. If that body of knowledge declares all else negative, but what it can see, that is meaningless.
Your unicorn is not known, or tested, or tried, or science, even.
Which god do you speak of here?
__________________ "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." -Albert Einstein
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - Buddha
* Reps frozen at 132956 "real" reps, back when they meant something.
So Joe indeed can have a cavity, but the dentist's tools aren't sensitive enough to detect it yet?
Correct. This is one of many examples.
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
In other words, dentistry is too myopic to be able to declare Joe 'cavity-free'?
Why do you keep using that word, "myopic?" I don't think it means what you think it means. Myopic means either "narrow-minded" or "short-sighted." Which do you think applies to dentistry?
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
Or, put another way, when a dentist declares Joe 'cavity free', what he is really saying, is that his [myopic] instruments are not detecting any cavities?
He is basically saying that he cannot find any cavities.
__________________ "We must abandon the prevalent belief in the superior wisdom of the ignorant." – Daniel Boorstin
"Ignorance should NOT be tolerated just because it's cloaked in religion."
-Phred
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
No need, Mr defeated. This is a science forum. Almost everything is negative to physical only knowledge.
God is a given. A known. A tested. A tried. I have no false expectations that science can deal in God. All it can test, and try, and touch is physical only. If that body of knowledge declares all else negative, but what it can see, that is meaningless.
Your unicorn is not known, or tested, or tried, or science, even.
Sorry, Mr "Undefeated," you have failed to prove the Univisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. You get this: F. Therefore, your god is a fraud and I win! Yeah, for dad logic!
__________________ "We must abandon the prevalent belief in the superior wisdom of the ignorant." – Daniel Boorstin
"Ignorance should NOT be tolerated just because it's cloaked in religion."
-Phred
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
Sorry, Mr "Undefeated," you have failed to prove the Univisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. You get this: F. Therefore, your god is a fraud and I win! Yeah, for dad logic!
Not caring about your imaginary friends does not prove anything, or disprove God. Here's one for you, I don't care about your claims that the comet wafted in stuff from somewhere other than earth as the starting point.
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
The one that your computer time is set to, and the calender that counts.
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
Not caring about your imaginary friends does not prove anything, or disprove God. Here's one for you, I don't care about your claims that the comet wafted in stuff from somewhere other than earth as the starting point.
What's wrong, dad? Don't like your own (ha, ha) "logic" applied to you?? Guess what... no one here cares about your "different past state" claims either.
__________________ "We must abandon the prevalent belief in the superior wisdom of the ignorant." – Daniel Boorstin
"Ignorance should NOT be tolerated just because it's cloaked in religion."
-Phred
"Creationists can't all be right but they can all be wrong."
-Frumious Bandersnatch
What's wrong, dad? Don't like your own (ha, ha) "logic" applied to you?? Guess what... no one here cares about your "different past state" claims either.
Except that your imaginary creatures are not on the same level as the bible. Besides, you might be surprised, that Christians do think on things that deal with creation, and science. If I hear an idea, I do not usually accept it right away. I consider it, and see how things weigh out with other things. And I include God, and the bible in my things. So do other Christians.
Therefore the illustration on a science forum, of science folks being completely unable to defend the very biggest singular principle upon which all past and future scenarioa are based, is of import. Unlike creatures you think are suave to dream up.
__________________ If the flood happened when laws were different than this present state we know, all bets are off for present state science being able to extrapolate backwards in any meaningful or accurate way.
Linear Mode
