Real time or evo time?

[Kylie]

The bible was tested. You have never tested squat in the far past or future or spiritual, or distant universe.

People reading it and feeling very strongly that it is true is not a "test".

Perhaps you would care to support your claim? Show us how the Bible was tested. Explain how it could have been falsified (something tells me that you aren't going to understand the meaning of falsified here.)

 

[Kylie]

Do to.

Fine. If we have such verification, then put it up. All you have is wishful thinking.

 

[Kylie]

My claim is that science assumes and believes certain things and the thread illustrates that. Get with the plan.

I agree completely, you are absolutely right.

This thread DOES illustrate that you have claimed that science assumes and believes certain things.

Unfortunately, nothing you have posted in this thread or any other thread has shown that your claims and criticisms of science are valid in any way whatsoever.

 

[dad]

You are begging the question here. You are assuming that since science is "godless" then it's by nature limited... but quite the opposite seems to be true.

If science has Jesus in it. you should be able to show us where! You can't. It is devoid of Christ and truth! Of course it is limited. Ask any scientist. They all know that they do not know it all.

Since we developed better scientific framework, we have a lot more reliable means of navigating reality.

You have a means of empty blab and boasting. No connection to reality.

For example, all of your religious testing couldn't save millions of children who died prematurely simply because people didn't understand basics of medicine.

Name any aspect of medicine that depends on same state past belief? Otherwise what we have here is a dishonest attempt to claim glory for the religion of science.

So, you have claims that it was tested then and "fulfilled"? Do you have anything better we can use and test now?

History was tested. Nothing better exists in the little realm of demon science

 

[dad]

I agree completely, you are absolutely right.

This thread DOES illustrate that you have claimed that science assumes and believes certain things.

Unfortunately, nothing you have posted in this thread or any other thread has shown that your claims and criticisms of science are valid in any way whatsoever.

Try to post coherently.

 

[dad]

Fine. If we have such verification, then put it up. All you have is wishful thinking.

The verification of history and the record of God's people is far beyond the realm of little science. It is wishful thinking to think otherwise.

 

[dad]

There are "no numbers to prove" that you're a real human being on the other side of this Internet connection, and not just a very advanced learning robot undergoing a long training session to pass the Turing test.

Great. So who claims numbers? Focus.

Based off of experience and common sense, though, I'm able to figure out that you're almost definitely a person.

Well done.

Same thing for figuring out what happened in the past. Technically, it's possible that the laws of physics as they are now literally just kicked in a few seconds ago, or that absolutely nothing existed before then.

Try not to say anything until you know. Give us all a break.

We can't live in that world, though, and if we tried, it wouldn't be too healthy.

Newsflash: we do not live in the world of the former nature and Noah! Not now. We live in the present world.

It's perfectly reasonable for a person to ask for proof if you're going to assert that the Universe used to be radically different (to the point where a fully formed DNA molecule could easily just pop out of the void).

It's perfectly reasonable for a person to ask for proof if you're going to assert that the Universe used to be the same!

 

[AirPo]

You have a means of empty blab and boasting. No connection to reality.

The irony!

 

[dad]

The irony!

The so called science religion never sleeps.

"The processes that cause galaxies to "quench," that is, cease star formation, are not well understood, however, and constitute an outstanding problem in the study of the evolution of galaxies. ..

...In astronomy, much debate continues on whether it is only internal, external or a combination of both phenomena that makes a galaxy quench star formation. It is still not clear what processes are mostly responsible, and unclear, too, is the fractional role of different physical processes in shutting down the star-formation. It is also not fully understood when these processes come to play an important role in the evolutionary life of galaxies."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160708144907.htm

Of course in the article they offer articles of faith explanation attempts. Pitiful groping in the dark.

 

[Kylie]

Try to post coherently.

I do. Notice that no one else complains that my posts lack coherence.

 

[Kylie]

The verification of history and the record of God's people is far beyond the realm of little science. It is wishful thinking to think otherwise.

"I don't need no stinking verification!"

 

[dad]

"I don't need no stinking verification!"

Not a good attitude.

 

[dad]

I do. Notice that no one else complains that my posts lack coherence.

They need to read them first. Maybe if they did they could support your wild claims of a certain state in the past. You sure can't.

 

[Kylie]

Not a good attitude.

Notice the quote marks? I was summing up your point of view, not issuing a viewpoint of my own.

 

[Kylie]

They need to read them first. Maybe if they did they could support your wild claims of a certain state in the past. You sure can't.

Wow. So you think that you are the only person on here to read my posts? My goodness.

And my claims of a same state past have been supported, by both myself and others. The fact that you are 1) incapable of understanding the evidence, and 2) blinded by your beliefs does not change the fact that I have reality on my side and you do not.

(Now you are, no doubt, going to tell me that I'm not allowed to use the word reality, or that reality is your thing, or something like that, as you have done before - it seems that the only response to my arguments is to try to belittle science and rationality.)

 

[dad]

Notice the quote marks? I was summing up your point of view, not issuing a viewpoint of my own.

Misrepresentation is not cool.

 

[dad]

Wow. So you think that you are the only person on here to read my posts? My goodness.

No. But I suggest that more people would read them and get something out of them if they were pregnant with content.

And my claims of a same state past have been supported, by both myself and others.

Only by faith, and that doesn't count on a science forum.

The fact that you are 1) incapable of understanding the evidence,

You are incapable of producing any at all for your pagan dream state past.

and 2) blinded by your beliefs does not change the fact that I have reality on my side and you do not.

Misuse of the word reality does not help your empty posts.

(Now you are, no doubt, going to tell me that I'm not allowed to use the word reality, or that reality is your thing, or something like that, as you have done before - it seems that the only response to my arguments is to try to belittle science and rationality.)

No science or rationality supports that anti God anti creation anti Creator, anti Christ dream state you preach.

 

[AirPo]

Misrepresentation is not cool.

But the HI Theory is all about misrepresentation. The first law is "It's easy to make things up." I envy a dad who can embrace his uncoolness.

 

[dad]

But the HI Theory is all about misrepresentation. The first law is "It's easy to make things up." I envy a dad who can embrace his uncoolness.

Science is about the same thing on creation issues. No news there.

 

[AirPo]

Science is about the same thing on creation issues. No news there.

Only in The HI Theory, In reality, science doesn't really address "creation."