4004 Bc

[Nathan Poe]

My interpretation of the bible on many things is absolute!

meaning you sincerely and absolutely believe your own blather. So?

Depends on what you mean. Science accomplishes stuff, largely wicked, I might add, only in this present state.

And you've accomplished nothing but blather in this present state.

Considering you offer nothing of value in this universe, why should anyone take your word on other 'verses?

Creation simply was not accomplished here, or by them. Fancy that.

Wasn't accomplished by you or anyone you know, either. Fancy that.

 

[Nathan Poe]

God never keeps anyone ignorant.

Then the fundies do it to themselves.

Notice He isn't IN the public education system!

Never was.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Sorry you seem to believe that. I can tell you, the ones that led you to believe that were mistaken.

That would be you and AV -- you've led by example.

 

[Hespera]

AV sez Originally Posted by Hespera

In what way does "science lend accreditation to abortion"? Kind of a weird thing to say.
​

Many ways --- from building better tools to do the job, to changing the vocabulary --- like from the more conscientious term "child" to the less-convicting term "fetus".

After all, an abortion is no longer "removal of a child" --- it's "elimination of unwanted tissue" --- right?


hespera sez. so you will say than that Christianity leads accreditation to the spanish inquisition and the pope speaks for all christians at all times..

 

[Hespera]

Forgot to mention Av, the rest of whatyou said in that post is bogus too and i notice you dont even pretned it wasnt.

 

[AV1611VET]

Forgot to mention Av, the rest of whatyou said in that post is bogus too and i notice you dont even pretned it wasnt.

Then I'll pretend not to answer ---

 

[Split Rock]

My interpretation of the bible on many things is absolute!

Really?? Wow... you must think you are Moses... or John the Baptist... of maybe Jesus?

 

[dad]

meaning you sincerely and absolutely believe your own blather. So?

No. Meaning that many things in the bible are beyond interpretation. And I like to stay close to those things. So?

And you've accomplished nothing but blather in this present state.

Actually, that is false. I knocked the teeth out of evo thought. The debate is won! Your only comfort is in the fact that almost no one yet knows.

Considering you offer nothing of value in this universe, why should anyone take your word on other 'verses?

I offer truth of God's word. It is not my job to convince people anything. The fact that the future is different and the bible and historic past different as well, is a solid truth, and if you notice, not much challenged. Your insulting little lies have no place in a debate forum.

 

[dad]

Then the fundies do it to themselves.



Never was.

Nonsense! The education systems of Canada, and the US in the earlier times had a lot of God and prayer.

 

[MoonLancer]

Actually, that is false. I knocked the teeth out of evo thought. The debate is won! Your only comfort is in the fact that almost no one yet knows.

lol i win but no one knows it!!! oh my... your not quite right in the head are you. All you have managed to do is convince yourself of your lies. that's hardly destroying the foundation of naturalistic science. science was here before your were born and it will thrive well after your dead.

I offer truth of God's word.

the language of silence?

 

[Gracchus]

Christians say life starts at conception --- science says it starts at birth --- who ya gonna believe?

Some Christians say life starts at conception, and science says life started, perhaps only once, way back in the Archaean.

Trust AV1611VET to get it mostly wrong.

 

[Hespera]

Some Christians say life starts at conception, and science says life started, perhaps only once, way back in the Archaean.

Trust AV1611VET to get it mostly wrong.

And to make up "facts" to support his ideas.

Of course anyone with a notion of biology knows life has been continuous up to including fertilization of the egg, and on from there.

Id think I didnt have much going for my views if I had to make things up.

Wonder if that bit of insight will ever occur to those who do constantly make up their facts.

 

[Hespera]

Then I'll pretend not to answer ---

Definitely would not just take responsibility for make a false statement, take it back and acknowledge that you were wrong. i wonder about the mental processes involved when a person cant admit they are wrong, or take responsibility. I was taught those values, but maybe its not part of "christianity".

 

[dad]

lol i win but no one knows it!!! oh my... your not quite right in the head are you. All you have managed to do is convince yourself of your lies. that's hardly destroying the foundation of naturalistic science. science was here before your were born and it will thrive well after your dead.


the language of silence?

Actually, I have looked into it for a long time now. I have looked at what evidence we have, and the basis for so called science creating the imagined past. There is no science to support it, in actual real fact. None. The debate is won. They have an impossible position. How long it takes the corpse to rot doesn't really matter. I don't expect me to get rid of their dark fables, and lies, and demented dream state past scenarios because they grow integrity all of a sudden. They will lose present science soon as God takes over forever by force, and the truth has free course, and lies are melted away under the pleasant light of God with men.

You cannot prophesy with any authority at all, and cannot have any science for it. What is right in the head is what can stand the tests of evidence, and time, and big picture reality. Not what seems cool one day in the box!

 

[MoonLancer]

The debate is won.

Call the newspapers, call the blogs, call the television crews. the debate is won!!! dad has bested science. By writing a book? no. By giving talks around the world? no. By simply proclaiming it so on a internet forum. YES! hes done it! Its over, science is done!

I hate to break it to you, But science is the one that argued against the idea that the universe has always been as it is, we realize that the galaxy is ever changing. Your about 100 years too late and science got their first.

If your not afraid of criticism of your idea, write a book. Explain how science is wrong in a science journal. Your only here to satisfy your own doubt.

Your position fails because you assume the universes laws must have changed because you realize that the current evidence against your literal interpretation of the bible is in question. Your smart enough to understand its wrong, but not strong enough to admit it.

What you should be doing now is show through evidence, that the state of the world changed accounting for all the reasons why the earth seems old. The state of the universe would have to change in so many ways and in such specific ways as to all collaboratively validate that the earth is old. That's rather suspicious if you ask me. heck you don't even have the bible to back you up on this one.

 

[atomweaver]

[deleted]

 

[MoonLancer]

nothing draws my attention more then a [deleted] post...

 

[Toclafane]

nothing draws my attention more then a [deleted] post...

Ya just wish you saw the thread a few seconds before to at least know what was deleted

 

[dad]

Call the newspapers, call the blogs, call the television crews. the debate is won!!! dad has bested science. By writing a book? no. By giving talks around the world? no. By simply proclaiming it so on a internet forum. YES! hes done it! Its over, science is done!

I hate to break it to you, But science is the one that argued against the idea that the universe has always been as it is, we realize that the galaxy is ever changing. Your about 100 years too late and science got their first.

If your not afraid of criticism of your idea, write a book. Explain how science is wrong in a science journal. Your only here to satisfy your own doubt.

Your position fails because you assume the universes laws must have changed because you realize that the current evidence against your literal interpretation of the bible is in question. Your smart enough to understand its wrong, but not strong enough to admit it.

What you should be doing now is show through evidence, that the state of the world changed accounting for all the reasons why the earth seems old. The state of the universe would have to change in so many ways and in such specific ways as to all collaboratively validate that the earth is old. That's rather suspicious if you ask me. heck you don't even have the bible to back you up on this one.

No. It would simply need to be a different universe state. Not this one changing in 'many ways.

 

[MoonLancer]

No. It would simply need to be a different universe state. Not this one changing in 'many ways.

oh? and how did it change? do you have any evidence for this, or did you simply claim this when you realized your interpretation of the bible was wrong?