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.
dad said:60154284]Just saw the spam link post now. Feel free to use your own words and make some point. ALL methods of dating are same state past methods.
It is not that simple. The problem isn't the missing evidence for a young earth... there is "evidence" for that, if you want to see it this way.I get more and more disapointed with biblical literalists every day. I can appreciate the Biblical literalists who just say "I believe in 6 day creation and the earth is 6000 years old [whatever]. I have no data to back it up and no way to prove it".
Personally, I don't have a problem with what you choose to believe. I just have a significant problem with the claims you make that indicate that the natural world supports your theory. To me THAT is what makes you guys look silly.
So I say to literalists: Come on guys! Let your freak flag fly! Just admit there is no direct natural evidence but you believe what you believe based on a Biblical interpretation alone..... I personally admire people who see the weaknesses in their opinions.
And yes, I know that you are trying to impress me. ;-)
I won't even comment on your unbelievably misguided understanding of what is considered "Biblical interpretation".
The present state in the past uses as the foundation of so called science...just admit there is no direct natural evidence but you believe what you believe based on nothing at all.Just admit there is no direct natural evidence but you believe what you believe based on a Biblical interpretation alone..
I deny it. You cannot show it.They are evidence of a same state past. If you deny this you are either lying or not using the same definition.
Not sure what visions of grandeur dance in your head, that you think someone is ignoring something important you said....but hey, defeat is not something you should even salivate over. It'll set you up for disappointment.Still ignoring my posts Dad?
You have definitely been defeatedif you've stopped even trying to back up your ideas.
Change your tag line.
The present state in the past uses as the foundation of so called science...just admit there is no direct natural evidence but you believe what you believe based on nothing at all.
Radiacive decay didn't get a top billing, and a name in lights in the bible. It is just a feature of the state that is slated to pass away. Does decay even sound to you like it is something in a forever state?Boy, talk about reading into the Bible! There's nothing in that passage that comes remotely close to talking about radioactive decay.
Yes I do. The bible and history as well as agreement with all physical evidence science has. Can't beat that. You have zilch for a same state past. Nothing whatsoever and it is opposed to reason, history and the revealed word of God.You don't have any evidence for your DIFFERENT state past. That's what I was asking you, dad. Surely you have basic English comprehension skills, don't you?
They have isotopes, that are now in a decay arrangement. Obviously our state and nature and forces and laws are required to make decay happen. Rocks are not old. No rock on earth is old, stop freaking.I've provided ample proof. You have NEVER been able to explain why rocks have millions of years of decay if the state that they can decay in has not been around that long.
Strange. If this world passes away, how is it that you think that the decay of this world won't? Not a bright point.And yet you have never provided a single shred of evidence to support your own position. Even the Bible quote you posted would seem to indicate the existence of radioactive decay, driving another nail into the already well-sealed coffin of your different state past.
I am trying to say, ...sorry but so called science hasn't a clue what state existed.Sorry, Rambot. Me neither. I haven't a clue what he's trying to say.
Well what is the same definition?? To me a same state past means that the past was...well, the same! The same in nature, forces, and laws.Then please tell me, are you not using the same definition or are you lying?
You're avoiding, I was asking for if you were lying or not using the same definition of evidence.Well what is the same definition?? To me a same state past means that the past was...well, the same! The same in nature, forces, and laws.
Evidence for a same state past? Define any! Show any! ..for our amusement.You're avoiding, I was asking for if you were lying or not using the same definition of evidence.
So for the third time:
Are you lying or are you not using the same definiton?
(I even switched it up for your amusement)
No. I think evidence is honky dory. Got some? Or do you prefer to just repeat the word a lot?Fourth try:
Are you lying or are you not using the same definition of evidence?
I wasn't asking what you thought of evidence.No. I think evidence is honky dory. Got some? Or do you prefer to just repeat the word a lot?
Yawn.. Bring evidence for a same state past. You have not done so. Ask a lurker.I wasn't asking what you thought of evidence.
I have offered evidence earlier.
I prefer to repeat my question until I get an answer:
Fifth try:
Are you lying or are you not using the same definition of evidence?
Same as...what? Now my turn..Sixth try:
Are you lying or are you not using the same definition of evidence?
Answer to your question:Same as...what? Now my turn..
Are you lying or are you not have evidence for a same state past?
Then please tell me, are you not using the same definition or are you lying?
I'm curious over the source of this claim, could you post a reference to this?
Oh, I noticed you avoided http://www.christianforums.com/t7639776-44/#post60140831
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?