Old age earth based prophets jailed

[dad]

It is a simple question. Saying "I am like Paul" is not saying "yes, I sin". How about you? Do you sin?

Hehe. You really are on about nothing here. Get back on track.

 

[Tiberius]

It boggles my mind how people can just refuse to answer "yes" or "no" to a question and instead insist on dancing around the issue.

 

[dad]

It boggles my mind how people can just refuse to answer "yes" or "no" to a question and instead insist on dancing around the issue.

I think we have established that all men are sinners. Moving on....

It is also clear that old ages and the belief in present state laws existing in the past, are involved in the 'sciences' that are involved in supposedly knowing about quakes. What a con job.

 

[CabVet]

It is also clear that old ages and the belief in present state laws existing in the past, are involved in the 'sciences' that are involved in supposedly knowing about quakes.

Burden of proof: when debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.

Claim: "present state laws" were invalid in the "past".

Everyone: dad, please provide evidence for your claim.

dad's response: critics of my unfounded ideas have to prove that I am wrong.

Logical Fallacy: If the responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.

Moving on...

 

[dad]

Burden of proof: when debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.

The claim was that old ages are part of the science so called that are involved in the study of tectonics and earthquakes.

Do you really need me to prove that is true?

Claim: "present state laws" were invalid in the "past".

The claim from science is that the present is the key to the past. They cannot validate that. The bible indicates otherwise and I can prove that. Science bears it's own burdens, and God bore His.

dad's response: critics of my unfounded ideas have to prove that I am wrong.

It is crystal clear that science uses physical laws for models of the past. It is clear the bible is anything but unfounded. Get a grip.

Logical Fallacy: If the responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.

When we look to science one automatically appeals to ignorance! In fact the words are interchangeable...ignorance --science.

 

[CabVet]

The claim was that old ages are part of the science so called that are involved in the study of tectonics and earthquakes.

Do you really need me to prove that is true?
The claim from science is that the present is the key to the past. They cannot validate that. The bible indicates otherwise and I can prove that. Science bears it's own burdens, and God bore His.

It is crystal clear that science uses physical laws for models of the past. It is clear the bible is anything but unfounded. Get a grip.

When we look to science one automatically appeals to ignorance! In fact the words are interchangeable...ignorance --science.

Burden of proof: when debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.

Claim: "present state laws" were invalid in the "past".

Everyone: dad, please provide evidence for your claim.

dad's response(see above): critics of my unfounded ideas have to prove that I am wrong.

Logical Fallacy: If the responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.

Moving on...

 

[dad]

Burden of proof: when debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.

Claim: "present state laws" were invalid in the "past".

Everyone: dad, please provide evidence for your claim.

dad's response(see above): critics of my unfounded ideas have to prove that I am wrong.

Logical Fallacy: If the responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.

Moving on...

Burden of proof: when debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.

The claim was that old ages are part of the science so called that are involved in the study of tectonics and earthquakes.

Do you really need me to prove that is true?

Claim: "present state laws" were invalid in the "past".

The claim from science is that the present is the key to the past. They cannot validate that. The bible indicates otherwise and I can prove that. Science bears it's own burdens, and God bore His.

dad's response: critics of my unfounded ideas have to prove that I am wrong.

It is crystal clear that science uses physical laws for models of the past. It is clear the bible is anything but unfounded. Get a grip.

Logical Fallacy: If the responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.

When we look to science one automatically appeals to ignorance! In fact the words are interchangeable...ignorance --science.

 

[CabVet]

The claim was that old ages are part of the science so called that are involved in the study of tectonics and earthquakes.

Do you really need me to prove that is true?
The claim from science is that the present is the key to the past. They cannot validate that. The bible indicates otherwise and I can prove that. Science bears it's own burdens, and God bore His.

It is crystal clear that science uses physical laws for models of the past. It is clear the bible is anything but unfounded. Get a grip.
When we look to science one automatically appeals to ignorance! In fact the words are interchangeable...ignorance --science.

The claim is and continues to be that the past is different, no matter how much you try to change it. Yet you offer zero support for it.

 

[dad]

The claim is and continues to be that the past is different, no matter how much you try to change it. Yet you offer zero support for it.

Try to keep up cabbie, this thread deals with the old age prophets of death.

 

[Tiberius]

Try to keep up cabbie, this thread deals with the old age prophets of death.

No it deals with you thinking that scientists deserve to go to jail when they are unable to predict an event that cannot really be predicted.

Of course, I'm not surprised that you hold them to an impossible standard so as to give yourself an excuse to discredit them when they fail to live up to that impossible standard. Typical creationist strategy, in my experience, demand the impossible, then when it is not delivered, denounce it as worthless, thinking that somehow this proves your point by default.

 

[dad]

No it deals with you thinking that scientists deserve to go to jail when they are unable to predict an event that cannot really be predicted.

Absurd. If what I thought mattered jail would be the least of your worries:

Of course, I'm not surprised that you hold them to an impossible standard so as to give yourself an excuse to discredit them when they fail to live up to that impossible standard.

Hey the con is exposed, don't blame me.

Typical creationist strategy, in my experience, demand the impossible, then when it is not delivered, denounce it as worthless, thinking that somehow this proves your point by default.

Pretend you delivered the impossible...typical evo delusional tact.

 

[verysincere]

It boggles my mind how people can just refuse to answer "yes" or "no" to a question and instead insist on dancing around the issue.

I usually can affirm what you write. But on this tired-agenda issue you've entered a pointless "dad"/AV type of territory of your own. You are barking up a very lame tree and are on the fast-track to nowhere. Pick a new issue to harp on.

 

[AV1611VET]

No it deals with you thinking that scientists deserve to go to jail when they are unable to predict an event that cannot really be predicted.

Being unable to predict an event that cannot really be predicted is one thing; telling others that it's safe to stay put is another.

That's like Internet scientists saying, "We don't see evidence of God/Flood/angels, therefore God/Flood/angels don't exist."

No wonder those people were misled.

How many scientists said (or confirmed) it was safe to stay in the towers on 9/11? (just asking)

 

[AV1611VET]

I usually can affirm what you write. But on this tired-agenda issue you've entered a pointless "dad"/AV type of territory of your own. You are barking up a very lame tree and are on the fast-track to nowhere. Pick a new issue to harp on.

I take it you think we aren't born with a sin nature?

 

[Split Rock]

Being unable to predict an event that cannot really be predicted is one thing; telling others that it's safe to stay put is another.

That's like Internet scientists saying, "We don't see evidence of God/Flood/angels, therefore God/Flood/angels don't exist."

This is an atheistic position, not a scientist position (except for the flood, which was supposed to be a physical occurrance).

No wonder those people were misled.

How many scientists said (or confirmed) it was safe to stay in the towers on 9/11? (just asking)

None that I know of. How many Christians in the towers prayed to God while trapped and died anyway? (just asking)

 

[verysincere]

How many scientists said (or confirmed) it was safe to stay in the towers on 9/11? (just asking)

Huh??? It sounds like you are confusing scientists with "prophets"? No scientist or theologian or engineer or creationist can predict anyone's absolute safety anywhere on any particular day. So why do you presume to put "scientists" into question concerning a particular event?

No physical law or scientific theory was defied or overturned on 9/11. But I suppose the same flawed thinking that lies behind your Challenger O-ring disaster analogy is lurking behind this non-sequitar. Or does AV think the 9/11 disaster challenged uniformitarianism?

At least you replaced your "Science can take a hike" nonsense. But even without reposting it, your claim that the Hebrew text of Genesis was based upon the 1611 King James English text will not soon be forgotten. You elevate anachronistic fallacies and pseudo-logic to the level of art form.

 

[Paul Finch]

This is exactly what happened during the Civil War.

The South was pro-slavery.
The North was anti-slavery.
God broke the tie.

But Gods word was on the side of the south he condoned slavery, according to the Christian God owning another human being was the right thing to do you could even pass them on to your children.

 

[Paul Finch]

None that I know of. How many Christians in the towers prayed to God while trapped and died anyway? (just asking)

If they lived God said yes if they died God said no it's a win win situation for believers and proves to them that prayers are always answered.
That's how damaged their thinking is.

 

[AV1611VET]

But Gods word was on the side of the south he condoned slavery, according to the Christian God owning another human being was the right thing to do you could even pass them on to your children.

Then will you be willing to volunteer to be a slave if we should go back to doing your 'right thing'?

 

[Paul Finch]

Then will you be willing to volunteer to be a slave if we should go back to doing your 'right thing'?

Denial seems to play a bigger part in your life than I thought, it must cloud everything you think and do, it reminds me of that poem by Walter Scott, "Oh! what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!", fooling yourself must get more and more complicated every day.
Your God sanctioned slavery and there's no way you can squirm your way out of it,
but you will try.