Explaining the God particle

[Tiberius]

The answer was that science does not cover it, period. For any state of the past. So asking for what "scientific evidence do you have for this change " is a silly notion. That is like asking 'what evidence does Santa have for the tooth fairy?'

This has nothing to do with what I was saying. Please don't try to change the subject.

Someone asks you, "What evidence do you have that X happened?"

Instead of providing that evidence, you just say, "Prove that X didn't happen."

That is not providing evidence in support of X. You must learn this.

The evidence is from God and history, not from science.

Your evidence is unreliable.

I explained that you would need to know what space was far away, and what laws existed, and how time was a art of it. Until then you cannot know distance, composition, time involved, or size. Oh, and evos, size does matter.

I've already explained to you how we know.

Your only 'mechanism' is to sit on or near earth, and dream.

False.

 

[dad]

[/URL]

Home - A Journey of Discovery​

Yes.

Genesis and the Antediluvians​

No. I probably quoted something in this site, doesn't look familiar.

I find your evidence lacking (few and highly subjective sources) and many others have demanded additional evidence as well.

God. Bible. That is the way I caught on to the scam of si called science.

Often you come across as if you think of yourself as someone without fault, I think you might benefit from toning that down.

Possibly.

If the outliers were mistakes from my part and the closer ones approximations I'll agree. Then I'll retract my previous statement.

OK.

 

[dad]

If you are taking the bible literally I would say that it's a faulty interpretation, a non-literal approach is more reasonable and ethical in my experience.

Literal where meant to be literal. But it cannot be relegated to a myth or fable. It is God's communique to mankind.

Science is the best way (that I know of) so far to explain how the world works in an objective and secular way, it has made much progress in millions of ways to improve our lives. How would it be able to do that if it's wrong?

It works in this present world. The stories it tells of some future or past are a different story.

 

[Tiberius]

Dad, lemme ask you a question...

Should you trust a particular source of evidence if that source assures you that it is correct?

 

[dad]

This has nothing to do with what I was saying. Please don't try to change the subject.

Science doesn't tell us what state different or same. Not sure what else is needed there.

Someone asks you, "What evidence do you have that X happened?"

Instead of providing that evidence, you just say, "Prove that X didn't happen."

That is not providing evidence in support of X. You must learn this.

You claim a same state past happened. No evidence. So I go with God's claims thanks, evidenced or not. The rest of His word is proven, so it is good stuff.

False.

Then show us how you know the laws and space and fabric including time for the past or deep space?

 

[dad]

Dad, lemme ask you a question...

Should you trust a particular source of evidence if that source assures you that it is correct?

How would I know?

 

[Tiberius]

*sigh*

 

[Elendur]

Yes. No. I probably quoted something in this site, doesn't look familiar.

I had asked for a source for the claim that people in ancient Sumer lived longer.

God. Bible. That is the way I caught on to the scam of si called science.

Have you observed the evidence while putting the bible aside?

Literal where meant to be literal. But it cannot be relegated to a myth or fable. It is God's communique to mankind.

But how can you determine what's literal and what's not?

It works in this present world. The stories it tells of some future or past are a different story.

I find it kind of weird that you accept it wholeheartedly when it's not in conflict with your belief but completely deny it, and try to debate it on scientific grounds, when it does.
Why not accept that your belief and science is at odds and leave it at that?

 

[dad]

I had asked for a source for the claim that people in ancient Sumer lived longer.

Here is something..


"Ruler Epithet Length of reign Approx. dates Comments "After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kish." Jushur
1200 years historicity uncertain names before Etana do not appear in any other known source, and their existence is archaeologically unverified Kullassina-bel
960 years

Nangishlishma
670 years

En-tarah-ana
420 years

Babum
300 years

Puannum
840 years

Kalibum
960 years

Kalumum
840 years

Zuqaqip
900 years

Atab (or A-ba)
600 years

Mashda "the son of Atab" 840 years

Arwium "the son of Mashda" 720 years

Etana "the shepherd, who ascended to heaven and consolidated all the foreign countries" 1500 years

Balih "the son of Etana" 400 years

En-me-nuna
660 years

Melem-Kish "the son of En-me-nuna" 900 years

Barsal-nuna ("the son of En-me-nuna")* 1200 years

Zamug "the son of Barsal-nuna" 140 years "

Sumerian King List - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course pagan records are not accurate, but they do show that long lives were normal.

Have you observed the evidence while putting the bible aside?

Mostly while not putting it aside.

But how can you determine what's literal and what's not?

Easy. Name something...

I find it kind of weird that you accept it wholeheartedly when it's not in conflict with your belief but completely deny it, and try to debate it on scientific grounds, when it does.
Why not accept that your belief and science is at odds and leave it at that?

Present state stuff must be kept in perspective.

 

[Elendur]

Here is something..


"Ruler Epithet Length of reign Approx. dates Comments "After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kish." Jushur
1200 years historicity uncertain names before Etana do not appear in any other known source, and their existence is archaeologically unverified Kullassina-bel
960 years

Nangishlishma
670 years

En-tarah-ana
420 years

Babum
300 years

Puannum
840 years

Kalibum
960 years

Kalumum
840 years

Zuqaqip
900 years

Atab (or A-ba)
600 years

Mashda "the son of Atab" 840 years

Arwium "the son of Mashda" 720 years

Etana "the shepherd, who ascended to heaven and consolidated all the foreign countries" 1500 years

Balih "the son of Etana" 400 years

En-me-nuna
660 years

Melem-Kish "the son of En-me-nuna" 900 years

Barsal-nuna ("the son of En-me-nuna")* 1200 years

Zamug "the son of Barsal-nuna" 140 years "

Sumerian King List - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course pagan records are not accurate, but they do show that long lives were normal.

Cool, thanks for the links, it brought me to some interesting reads.

Mostly while not putting it aside.

Try it some more

Easy. Name something...

I think it would be better if I could know your criteria, can't go running to you every time I have to determine literacy or not

Present state stuff must be kept in perspective.

Agreed, like everything.

 

[dad]

Cool, thanks for the links, it brought me to some interesting reads.

Welcome.

Agreed, like everything.

OK

 

[AndrewRyan]

Yes. No. I probably quoted something in this site, doesn't look familiar.




God. Bible. That is the way I caught on to the scam of si called science.

Possibly.

OK.

Your calling science a scam and you say that your "Undefeated"? your funny.

 

[dad]

Your calling science a scam and you say that your "Undefeated"? your funny.

Thanks. Yes I am undefeated. And yes the parts of 'science' that claim to speak of the future and the far past are utterly false.

 

[Tiberius]

How would I know?

So then if you don't know if you should trust a source that says it is correct, why do you trust the Bible?

 

[Tiberius]

Thanks. Yes I am undefeated.

I have defeated you. See the link in my signature.

And yes the parts of 'science' that claim to speak of the future and the far past are utterly false.

Utterly false? I thought you said you didn't know! See the other link in my signature. Defeated again, dad!

 

[dad]

So then if you don't know if you should trust a source that says it is correct, why do you trust the Bible?

The bible I do know.

 

[dad]

I have defeated you. See the link in my signature.

You were not even a contender. Barely an also ran.

Utterly false? I thought you said you didn't know!

No, I never said I did not know that science doesn't know. You asked how some 'source' could be determined correct, or some such. That I do not know unless you name the source!

Come on over to the winnin side kid.

 

[Tiberius]

The bible I do know.

How? What is it about the Bible that shows that you can trust it so completely?

 

[Tiberius]

You were not even a contender. Barely an also ran.

Your like the guy who walks into the wall and tries to save face by claiming he meant to do it.

No, I never said I did not know that science doesn't know. You asked how some 'source' could be determined correct, or some such. That I do not know unless you name the source!

You really are incapable of following even the most basic conversation.

You said that the parts of science that talk of a same state past are false.

Yet, you have, on many occasions, stated that you don't know if it is false or not. See the link in my signature.

So, you used to say that you didn't know. Now you are claiming that you do know.

Come on over to the winnin side kid.

Your condescension is offensive.

 

[dad]

How? What is it about the Bible that shows that you can trust it so completely?

I tried it, it works.

Fulfilled prophesy is a seal of the Almighty too.