Hypothetical for Scientists

[monkeypsycho62]

I can:

[bible]Deuteronomy 5:7[/bible]

I am your God. None shall have any Gods before me, that is true. I am simply posting on a message board which praises me. This pleases me. I am looking for Christians which violate my Holy word so that I may smite them.

You fall into that category, as you have questioned my word. You shall be smitten within the week.
By a week, I ACTUALLY mean a decade. Time is measured differently in my point of view. And you will actually appear to have died by natural causes. It's impossible for me to reveal myself in the form of physical evidence.

 

[Tenka]

You shall be smitten within the week.

Smitten =/= Someone will smite them. ...It means something very different.

 

[tanzanos]

I am your God. None shall have any Gods before me, that is true. I am simply posting on a message board which praises me. This pleases me. I am looking for Christians which violate my Holy word so that I may smite them.

You fall into that category, as you have questioned my word. You shall be smitten within the week.

Praise be to monkeypsycho62;37151921.

 

[Tomk80]

And what? You're his disciple here to warn us?

yup

 

[Tomk80]

And you know exactly where I stand on this too. I don't need to justify myself.

Where the Bible differs with science --- science is wrong.

I suggest, if you have evidence of history beyond 6100 years, you re-evaluate said evidence.

If you'd rather go with said evidence, do so; but don't think you're going to convince me, et.al. to be as devoted to your god as you are.

Which shows that the hypothetical you posed us in the beginning is silly, even in your own line of reasoning. So why do you tire us with those hypotheticals time and time again, if you know they make no sense, not in your world or mine.

 

[FishFace]

I dare AV1611VET to prove his point without referring to the Bible or anything based upon the Bible.

If you can do that, I'll convert.

ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD #24:

Argument from faulty arithmetic:

1. 109 / 333 * 100 = 100
2. Therefore God exists.
3. Therefore creationism.

 

[cerad]

I dare AV1611VET to prove his point without referring to the Bible or anything based upon the Bible.

If you can do that, I'll convert.

Only if you can demonstrate evolution without using science.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Chris T. Ian claims that, according to The Book, this universe has only been in existence for 100 years, and the following converstion ensues:

YOU: Not so --- I have a Dalite rock with only 10 Dalons left. This is evidence that this rock is 999,990 years old.​

CHRIS: Not so --- when God created (keyword: created) Dalite, He must have created it with only 110 Dalons (embedded age); but when it forms, it forms with a process that embeds 100,000 Dalons into it.​

QUESTION​

Would you be willing to admit that your evidence is inconclusive?​

BETTER QUESTIONS​

Is there any reason that The Book is accurate about the age of the universe?

Is there any reason to accept Chris' arbitraty proclamations about what his pet God has or has not done?

Is it possible, just possible, that we might know just a wee bit more about Dalite than the anonymous 1st-century mythologists who wrote Chris' book?​

 

[Phred]

CHRIS: Not so --- when God created (keyword: created) Dalite, He must have created it with only 110 Dalons (embedded age); but when it forms, it forms with a process that embeds 100,000 Dalons into it.​

Where is the EVIDENCE that this "god" exists and created the Dalite?

 

[monkeypsycho62]

Smitten =/= Someone will smite them. ...It means something very different.

You shall not question me. I created the universe! Any inaccuracies in my word are a result of YOUR poor comprehension.

 

[FishFace]

Well, it looks like the consensus is conclusive: the evidence isn't inconclusive unless there is evidence for the God Chris claims exists, and for the other claims he makes based on The Book.

That is to say: the evidence is not inconclusive, since Chris did not provide any of those things. If he does, then perhaps that would change.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Where is the EVIDENCE that this "god" exists and created the Dalite?

Why it's in the Book, of course.

The Book that's supposedly written by the "god" who hasn't been proven to exist.

And the wheels on the logic go round and round...

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Why it's in the Book, of course.

The Book that's supposedly written by the "god" who hasn't been proven to exist.

And the wheels on the logic go round and round...

No, you see, the proof for God is in The Book. Therefore we know he wrote it.

 

[Loudmouth]

He wasn't born --- he was created. Also, it would serve as a powerful testimony to his progeny of who he was.

Ahh, so we should be able to look at the Earth and know it is created, and created recently. The Earth should not have signs of billions of years of geologic development, just as Adam did not have signs of developing in a womb.

 

[AV1611VET]

human civilization is older than 6100 years.

Think what you want to think --- the Bible says otherwise.

is that part of the "embedded age" too?

No.

So all of science and history is wrong in the face of a error laden book written by people living 5,000 years ago?

I don't know what book you're talking about; and believe me, it doesn't take a supernatural book for all of science to be wrong. It only takes time.

Give it time, and "new evidence" will be "discovered" that shows a theory wrong (it's called "progress").

Science changes with the tide --- the Scriptures, by contrast, are immutable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there any reason that The Book is accurate about the age of the universe?

The Book didn't say how old the universe was.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ahh, so we should be able to look at the Earth and know it is created,

Dunno --- I think that's Lucapsa's point: nature speaks for God.

Whereas my point is: nature is hostile to God, but against its intended purpose. (Thus it "groans" --- wanting to be back to the way it was in Genesis 1.)

The Earth should not have signs of billions of years of geologic development, just as Adam did not have signs of developing in a womb.

If it does, it does so against God's written revelation (the Bible).

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Give it time, and "new evidence" will be "discovered" that shows a theory wrong (it's called "progress").

Science changes with the tide --- the Scriptures, by contrast, are immutable.

yeah about that. The more solid a scientific idea is, the more evidence and more solid an alternative must be to replace it. This makes it not impossible, but highly improbable that Theories such as plate tectonics, atomic theory, and evolution are going away. indeed any replacement theory must be able to account for and explain all of the phenomena currently explained by these theories.
For example: Einstein's theories account for everything in newtonian physics and accounts for phenomena that newton was never able to observe.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Think what you want to think --- the Bible says otherwise.

Think what you want to think -- the Bible is wrong.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Book didn't say how old the universe was.

Then The Book has nothing useful or relevent to add on the subject.