- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
.zilch said:Do billions believe in something other than Christianity? [Yes, most of them in the supernatural, however] Do kangaroos or pandas appear in the bible? [Yes, all creatures were created, and also had the ability to adapt] Just because something is not in the bible does not mean it can't be true. [Not being mentioned there, or totally contradicting what was mentioned is 2 different things] Evolution along with other positions in science has evidence, something you have failed to provide for any of your delusions. [The evidence it has is flimsy, sometimes forged, assumptive, and at odds with the bible]
If there are people that claim to have seen leprechauns then that is further evidence that eyewitnesses cannot always be trusted. [ Neither is a total lack of them. If all witnesses to little people were false, then how would science know? If none were, again, how would it know? Since it then knows nothing of the matter, it best would shut up. So what does it know of what the first lifeform was, and how it was made-or 'appeared' Did a leprechaun deliver it?]
The evidence it has is flimsy, sometimes forged, assumptive, and at odds with the bible
The evidence of God's word itself, of course. Which is at odds only with evo beliefs.Douglaangu v2.0 said:Please, do tell what evidence there is of a 6000 year old earth that isn't flimsy, forged, assumptive, and at odds with reality.
Your evidence violated all of Douglaangus criteria.dad said:The evidence of God's word itself, of course. Which is at odds only with evo beliefs.
dad said:[Yes, most of them in the supernatural, however]
dad said:[The evidence it has is flimsy, sometimes forged, assumptive, and at odds with the bible]
dad said:[ Neither is a total lack of them. If all witnesses to little people were false, then how would science know? If none were, again, how would it know? Since it then knows nothing of the matter, it best would shut up. So what does it know of what the first lifeform was, and how it was made-or 'appeared' Did a leprechaun deliver it?]
'zilch said:But they do not believe in the biblical account of the supernatural. And many of them agree with science. [like me, until it drifts off into a never never land of dreams of what things would be like in the future or past if all there ever was was only the physical]
How do you know the evidence is flimsy since you don't seem know much (to say the least) about science?
[There is no evidence of things like granny and the creator speck! Thats pretty flimsy! Science has nothing to do with it, only old age dreams, based only on the physical.]
The burden would be on people who believe in leprechauns to provide credible evidence that they exist. [Same with granny] However like other fanciful stories it is the odds are against there being any evidence.
[Then maybe they shoould herald it as box science! A complete lack of evidence is a plus!]
dad said:[like me, until it drifts off into a never never land of dreams of what things would be like in the future or past if all there ever was was only the physical]
dad said:[There is no evidence of things like granny and the creator speck! Thats pretty flimsy! Science has nothing to do with it, only old age dreams, based only on the physical.]
dad said:[Same with granny]
dad said:[Then maybe they shoould herald it as box science! A complete lack of evidence is a plus!]
dad said:There is no evidence of things like granny
Nope.dad said:One of the few you admit to, or are able to admit to, perhaps.
It's a thread in which YOU made many claims and were unable to support virtually any of them.dad said:Besides, it's not my thread, but just someone's who wanted to explore the limitations of the box more. (or try to make fun of it, or whatever)
Yuppers.dad said:Since it was admitted that science is based on the physical only, this is the limits, physical only. Proof out of the mouths of it's own adherants.
Of course not. Sadly, you've claimed to be able to prove it DOES exist, but you've been remarkably reticent with actually providing that proof.dad said:In addition to that, it is admitted that no proof the spiritual does not exist can exist.
Science can, however, detect the effects of the spiritual...but, amazingly, you've been rather reticent about those, too.dad said:Also, it is admitted that science cannot detect proof of something that it cannot detect, the spiritual.
Argumentum ad populum.dad said:The spiritual is well known, however, by most of the people on earth! In whatever form they may understand.
Yeah, we've established you can't support your claims.dad said:So we covered a lot here.
There is evidence the biblical ones are just as true as Nostradamus', and Mother Shipley's, and Edgar Cayce's.dad said:There is evidence the biblical ones are truest (100%) of all.
What nonsense. This is simply blatantly false.dad said:Nations even named, predicted before they rose to power. Pretty well all major world powers as a matter of fact.
Ah, that's too funny. Now you think there's "something to" a charlatan like Cayce. No wonder you believe in the bible's prophetic record...you just have a very high tolerance for 'interpreting' prophecies and overlooking failures.dad said:Nostrodamus may have been bang on with some things as are many others, but not 100% of the time. Even prophets not of God may have had some success, like Edgar Cayce. He was one guy that first got me interested in the spiritual. I could see there was something to it.
And most of them believe christianity is false. There goes your argumentum ad populum.dad said:Yes, most of them in the supernatural, however
Neither kangaroos nor pandas appear in the bible.dad said:Do kangaroos or pandas appear in the bible? [Yes, all creatures were created, and also had the ability to adapt
"totally contradicting what was mentioned" and "totally contradicting YOUR interpretation" are 2 different things.dad said:Not being mentioned there, or totally contradicting what was mentioned is 2 different things
That's simply a blatant lie.dad said:The evidence it has is flimsy, sometimes forged, assumptive, and at odds with the bible
I've no idea what this is supposed to mean.dad said:like me, until it drifts off into a never never land of dreams of what things would be like in the future or past if all there ever was was only the physical
There is ample evidence of the only granny I know of; I went and visited her last week. Yes, at 90, I guess she has old age dreams. I don't know whether they're based on much that's physical - at her age I think she's probably past it.dad said:There is no evidence of things like granny and the creator speck! Thats pretty flimsy! Science has nothing to do with it, only old age dreams, based only on the physical.
I could post a few pictures online of her...dad said:The burden would be on people who believe in leprechauns to provide credible evidence that they exist. [Same with granny
Only in theology and creationism.dad said:Then maybe they shoould herald it as box science! A complete lack of evidence is a plus!
.zilch said:How do you know there is no evidence if you can't understand science?
[It is not what I do not understand about the onlyphysics portion of science that leads me to say there is no evidence, but the things that I do understand]
There is plenty of credible evidence for evolution. However you have not provided any for your fanciful stories.
[I have been asking, and digging for some of this credible evidence for evolution, and all I so far find is belief and philosophy, and an attitude]
If you were to bet on a horse in a race would you bet on the favorite (science) that has a method that has repeatedly won races and credible evidence to show that it will win again or would you bet on the one (young earth creation) that is a billion to one odds to win but the owner says it has won and will win, but instead of evidence gives quotes from an old book, which would you choose?
[You evos really know how to frame a question! But science and even the small physical only portion of science, has not won any races against the bible, or God, or the creation. I've never actually seen anyone with a tin hat, but have heard it mentioned a few times. I suppose it would be beggars of some kind?]
The evidence of God's word itself, of course. Which is at odds only with evo beliefs.
Actually, very little of the Bible is at odds with evolution - two chapters, to be exact. And then, only if one interprets those chapters literally.dad said:The evidence of God's word itself, of course. Which is at odds only with evo beliefs.
God is known as the creator of all things throughout the bible. The first chapters just graciously tell us how exactly it happened. Men who leave God out of their knowledge, and so called science of this day are warned about as well. Even in John, it tell us 'In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God, 'All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made, that was made'. And there are other places as well. The bible is a harmonious concert, where every note sings out the creation of God.nvxplorer said:Actually, very little of the Bible is at odds with evolution - two chapters, to be exact. And then, only if one interprets those chapters literally.
Forest for the trees, dad. Forest for the trees.
Proofs of some supernatural are worldwide. Proofs of the bible as well. It is all available for those who want to look at it. If you were interested, it is there. Plenty of it. If not, try finding the first lifeform that was said to have come from non life, for no known reason (granny). As far as the creator speck, and you not knowing what it is, it is refering to the early stages of the big bang. When all that is in our universe was in this teensy little speck sized (at one time) hot soup.Of course not. Sadly, you've claimed to be able to prove it DOES exist, but you've been remarkably reticent with actually providing that proof.
Now, now. We all know evolution has had it's little forgeries. It is rife with assumptions, at diametrical odds with the creator of the bible, and very flimsy in a plethora of ways, as to evidence. You should bite your toungue.The evidence it has is flimsy, sometimes forged, assumptive, and at odds with the bible
That's simply a blatant lie.
Want to bet?Nations even named, predicted before they rose to power. Pretty well all major world powers as a matter of fact.
What nonsense. This is simply blatantly false
dad said:Now, now. We all know evolution has had it's little forgeries.
Who cares? Long as they in those cases, at least, were caught, thats the main thing. It is no batant lie, as you said, to say there were some involved there. There were. Just because not officially sanctioned by the evo elite, doesn't mean evoists didn't do it.Edx said:And who discovered them, dad?
Oopsies...
Ed
Yeah, so you keep repeating. You keep talking about 'proof' and 'testable' and 'repeatable', but when it comes down to it, you can't show ANY of it.dad said:Proofs of some supernatural are worldwide. Proofs of the bible as well. It is all available for those who want to look at it. If you were interested, it is there. Plenty of it.
My granny wasn't the first lifeform...was yours?dad said:If not, try finding the first lifeform that was said to have come from non life, for no known reason (granny).
Then perhaps you should refer to it as such, instead of some infantile nickname.dad said:As far as the creator speck, and you not knowing what it is, it is refering to the early stages of the big bang. When all that is in our universe was in this teensy little speck sized (at one time) hot soup.
Which were all discovered and corrected by science.dad said:Now, now. We all know evolution has had it's little forgeries.
The same assumptions that govern all of our lives.dad said:It is rife with assumptions
Neither demonstrated nor demonstrable. It is 'at diametrical odds' with YOUR intrepretation of a couple of chapters of the bible. This does not equate to being 'at diametrical odds' with 'the creator of the bible'.dad said:at diametrical odds with the creator of the bible
Simply false.dad said:and very flimsy in a plethora of ways, as to evidence
Why? Don't want me identifying your lies?dad said:You should bite your toungue.
Yes. This, no doubt, will be yet another claim of yours you cannot support.dad said:Want to bet?
.Electric Sceptic said:Yeah, so you keep repeating. You keep talking about 'proof' and 'testable' and 'repeatable', but when it comes down to it, you can't show ANY of it.
[I can show it, you just can't see it! I offer healings of men through history. In real bodies. Haven't you heard? Cancers disappearing after doctors said it was impossible, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ?]
My granny wasn't the first lifeform...was yours?
[Granny Bacteria wasn't my relative]
Then perhaps you should refer to it as such, instead of some infantile nickname.
[ Creator speck is shorter than a condensed big bang lecture each time it is reffered to, get a grip!]
Which were all discovered and corrected by science.
[Yes, they were caught with their pants down there, and had to pull em up quick]
The same assumptions that govern all of our lives.
[ Assumptions that God did not create the universe, but that it was able to fit on the head of a pin at one time does not guide my life, or many others!]
Neither demonstrated nor demonstrable. It is 'at diametrical odds' with YOUR intrepretation of a couple of chapters of the bible. This does not equate to being 'at diametrical odds' with 'the creator of the bible'.
[No, more than a couple of chapters. And it is not my reading of it that needs interpretaion, only trying to explain away what it plainly says, is what requires mental gymnastics!]
Simply false.
[OK, for the first lifeform that came from non life, how did this happen? I say your answer, if you could muster the wherewithal to answer would be flimsy!]
Yes. This, no doubt, will be yet another claim of yours you cannot support.
[Well, how bout this baby?--
"
Isa 44:28 - That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
This mention of Cyrus in this place was shown to Cyrus when he came to the throne of Persia, according to the historian Josephus; and it was his seeing this passage in the Hebrew Bible and having it identified to him as a valid prophecy of Isaiah that caused him to take the lead in the restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem and in the laying of the foundation of their temple. Josephus' testimony here is independent of the Bible, and is also verified in the Bible. Now let the critics produce one line, or even a single word, of historical testimony about their imaginative "Deutero-Isaiah." Where is it? See our Introduction to Isaiah for further comment on this.
One of the most brilliant young scholars of our generation is Homer Hailey, and we are happy to join him in his affirmation concerning this genuine predictive prophecy:
"Without hesitation or apology, this writer stands with the older commentators who ascribed the whole prophecy, the entire Book of Isaiah, to but one man, the prophet Isaiah; and we believe that by the inspiration of Jehovah's Spirit, God foretold, through Isaiah, events far in the future."F14Rawlinson pointed out that the prophecy of so minute a thing as the name of man so long before he was born is not, by any means, a unique thing. "Three centuries before Josiah was born, God prophesied his birth, the name he would bear, and the fact that Josiah would burn the bones of men upon the altar at Bethel (1 Kings 13:2)." Not only so, did not the angel of God announce the name of Jesus before he was born; and to Almighty God is that anything different from announcing Cyrus a hundred fifty years before he was born? As Barnes said, "That this passage of Isaiah was seen by Cyrus is the testimony of Josephus; and it is morally certain from the nature of the case, since, otherwise it is incredible that Cyrus should have aided the Jews to return and rebuild their city and the temple." http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=44&verse=28#Isa44_28
No, you can't show it. Healings - undocumented. Cancers go into remission. You cannot demonstrate, show, or prove a single healing due to your god. And testability is a claim you now seem to have abandoned.dad said:I can show it, you just can't see it! I offer healings of men through history. In real bodies. Haven't you heard? Cancers disappearing after doctors said it was impossible, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ?
dad said:Granny Bacteria wasn't my relative
dad said:Creator speck is shorter than a condensed big bang lecture each time it is reffered to, get a grip!
Umm...no. As you said, every field has its 'bad' people. Science identifies its errors and frauds. Can the same be said for religion?dad said:Yes, they were caught with their pants down there, and had to pull em up quick
That's good, since those assumptions are no part o fscience.dad said:Assumptions that God did not create the universe, but that it was able to fit on the head of a pin at one time does not guide my life, or many others!
dad said:No, more than a couple of chapters. And it is not my reading of it that needs interpretaion, only trying to explain away what it plainly says, is what requires mental gymnastics!
dad said:OK, for the first lifeform that came from non life, how did this happen? I say your answer, if you could muster the wherewithal to answer would be flimsy!
All very interesting, but it's no support for your claim that the bible contains "Nations even named, predicted before they rose to power. Pretty well all major world powers as a matter of fact." In fact, as far as I can see, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your claim.dad said:Well, how bout this baby?--
"
Isa 44:28 - That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
This mention of Cyrus in this place was shown to Cyrus when he came to the throne of Persia, according to the historian Josephus; and it was his seeing this passage in the Hebrew Bible and having it identified to him as a valid prophecy of Isaiah that caused him to take the lead in the restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem and in the laying of the foundation of their temple. Josephus' testimony here is independent of the Bible, and is also verified in the Bible. Now let the critics produce one line, or even a single word, of historical testimony about their imaginative "Deutero-Isaiah." Where is it? See our Introduction to Isaiah for further comment on this.
One of the most brilliant young scholars of our generation is Homer Hailey, and we are happy to join him in his affirmation concerning this genuine predictive prophecy:
"Without hesitation or apology, this writer stands with the older commentators who ascribed the whole prophecy, the entire Book of Isaiah, to but one man, the prophet Isaiah; and we believe that by the inspiration of Jehovah's Spirit, God foretold, through Isaiah, events far in the future."F14Rawlinson pointed out that the prophecy of so minute a thing as the name of man so long before he was born is not, by any means, a unique thing. "Three centuries before Josiah was born, God prophesied his birth, the name he would bear, and the fact that Josiah would burn the bones of men upon the altar at Bethel (1 Kings 13:2)." Not only so, did not the angel of God announce the name of Jesus before he was born; and to Almighty God is that anything different from announcing Cyrus a hundred fifty years before he was born? As Barnes said, "That this passage of Isaiah was seen by Cyrus is the testimony of Josephus; and it is morally certain from the nature of the case, since, otherwise it is incredible that Cyrus should have aided the Jews to return and rebuild their city and the temple." http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/v...rse=28#Isa44_28
Many were well documented I had thought. The bible is good documentation, and is pregnant with them! Aimee Semple McPherson presided over thousands. Look into it, I think many are pretty well known there.No, you can't show it. Healings - undocumented. Cancers go into remission. You cannot demonstrate, show, or prove a single healing due to your god
I don't like religion, so I don't know. The people who killed the Son of God were religious. Did they rectify their errors? Don't think so.Umm...no. As you said, every field has its 'bad' people. Science identifies its errors and frauds. Can the same be said for religion?
The most accepted orgin theory for the universe is still the big bang. At one time, indeed the soup was tiny, that contained, they say all that is in our visible universe. So tiny it could not be seen by the eye at all. It easily could have fitted on the head of a pin! These are a real, and large part of science. Someone talk to this boy.That's good, since those assumptions are no part o fscience.
NopeNope, just a couple of chapters. And 'what it plainly says' means 'what i interpret it to mean'.
I assure you, it is flimsy. Since you do not know, try closing the pie hole.OK, for the first lifeform that came from non life, how did this happen? I say your answer, if you could muster the wherewithal to answer would be flimsy!
I don't know. If you want to see the latest scientific thinking on the matter, read some science
I must admit, I was thinking of the king of the nation there. But you gotta admit, it is something!All very interesting, but it's no support for your claim that the bible contains "Nations even named, predicted before they rose to power. Pretty well all major world powers as a matter of fact." In fact, as far as I can see, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your claim
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?