Human Population

[Steve Petersen]

Why do you constantly see yourself as being "ridiculed?"

Because for some twisted reason Christians believe that persecution is proof that they are correct.

They never seem to stop and think that sometimes they are persecuted for other reasons.

 

[dad]

Wrong. It's the only proof we have. You don't have any evidence that states were different.. and if they were, as you assert, they would have been all scaled together in a manner which would make the different state irrelevant and undetected, observed by no one and nothing in this universe, ever.

You haven't even bothered to explain HOW the state was different. What forces? What dimensions? By how much? And most importantly: Where is the evidence?

Hey don't worry about historical and biblical differences in the past and future from now. Just concentrate on doing more than assuming it was a certain way, and kidding yourself into thinking it is known, or science.

The fast reproduction and long life spans etc are all a matter of record. We do not need to know all the specifics of how. If land and water masses moved without producing or retaining the heat they would now, so be it. Once again, all we know is that people exist, and how we come to be born. We know that mountains uplifted, and continents moved, etc. We do not know that it all happened in imaginary same state conditions and uniformitarianist timeframes.

 

[dad]

Because for some twisted reason Christians believe that persecution is proof that they are correct.

They never seem to stop and think that sometimes they are persecuted for other reasons.

Maybe evos better realize that intellectually, their beliefs are being justly persecuted here.

 

[rockaction]

Maybe evos better realize that intellectually, their beliefs are being justly persecuted here.

And in your mind, the Christian Forums Creation & Evolution forum is where theories are put to the test. No wonder you don't understand science!

 

[dad]

Where did you hear the claim that life had started multiple times (in regards to the NASA discovery)?

Can't remember, but this site touches on it..

"
It also has implications for the way life arose on Earth - and how many times it may have done so."

BBC News - Arsenic-loving bacteria may help in hunt for alien life

 

[dad]

And in your mind, the Christian Forums Creation & Evolution forum is where theories are put to the test. No wonder you don't understand science!

No. Any idea worth it's salt can stand up in a street fight. Baseless anti bible claims can't.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The same state past is fallen flat as a flounder. It has no proof. It has no intelligence. It is just a satnic assumption that has run amok, with no one to stop it for too long. It doesn't really rate debunked. It is a never really was more than an assumption type of thing. It has to reach up to scratch a worm's ankle.

When does something go from a "historical event" to a "satanic assumption"? Does it have to be written records? Or do you not trust those as any sort of evidence either?

For example, ancient Greeks, Mayans and Mesopotamians (Old Testament contemporaries) talked about and calculated things like the motions of stars, the circumference of the Earth (Erastothenes, 240 BC, got within 1% of current value), future lunar and solar eclipses, etc. All these measurements and predictions depend on static state forces and laws of nature! If Newtons Laws of Motion were different at that time, then their predictions would have been way "off" what we would predict now. Are these written records by humans also completely fabricated, wrong or do you just disregard them as useful?

Also, you weren't alive in 1776 so I would say that the United States didn't gain independence then. In fact, the United States has been around since 1912, and the government just fabricated all the history books and all world history that claims that the United States was independent prior to 1912 is a lie.

The above argument is ridiculous because all EVIDENCE points to the contrary. Ignoring the evidence is ignorance.

I don't understand how you live your life. If you see an apple, do you think its an apple? Or do you disregard the evidence and decide that the red you're seeing is actually yellow, and the spherical shape is actually oblong and you're actually looking at a banana?

 

[Delphiki]

imaginary same state

I'm just going to ignore you now. You're impossibly stupid.

 

[dad]

When does something go from a "historical event" to a "satanic assumption"? Does it have to be written records? Or do you not trust those as any sort of evidence either?

No idea. You tell me? You have a wire crossed somewhere.

For example, ancient Greeks, Mayans and Mesopotamians (Old Testament contemporaries) talked about and calculated things like the motions of stars, the circumference of the Earth (Erastothenes, 240 BC, got within 1% of current value), future lunar and solar eclipses, etc. All these measurements and predictions depend on static state forces and laws of nature! If Newtons Laws of Motion were different at that time, then their predictions would have been way "off" what we would predict now. Are these written records by humans also completely fabricated, wrong or do you just disregard them as useful?

Irrelevant. The state change would have likely been after the flood. That was before Newton. Even the Mayans...etc.

Also, you weren't alive in 1776 so I would say that the United States didn't gain independence then. In fact, the United States has been around since 1912, and the government just fabricated all the history books and all world history that claims that the United States was independent prior to 1912 is a lie.

O come on. Get serious.

I don't understand how you live your life. If you see an apple, do you think its an apple? Or do you disregard the evidence and decide that the red you're seeing is actually yellow, and the spherical shape is actually oblong and you're actually looking at a banana?

Try to focus. Get some sort of a grip here. Heaven and the new heaven state is not here turning things yellow. Neither is Eden. Do you really think the issue here is color??

 

[rockaction]

No. Any idea worth it's salt can stand up in a street fight. Baseless anti bible claims can't.

But it's not like you give it a fair fight. Science loses in your mind because you perceive it to be "anti-bible" in the first place. That's called bias.

 

[dad]

But it's not like you give it a fair fight. Science loses in your mind because you perceive it to be "anti-bible" in the first place. That's called bias.

You have every opportunity here to make a solid case. The bible claims a flood and Adam and Eve, and a new heavens and earth in the future. Science uses only the present to base all models of these things on. The results are in direct opposition to the truth of God. Their fantasy lands have no relation to the truth whatsoever.

 

[rockaction]

You have every opportunity here to make a solid case. The bible claims a flood and Adam and Eve, and a new heavens and earth in the future. Science uses only the present to base all models of these things on. The results are in direct opposition to the truth of God. Their fantasy lands have no relation to the truth whatsoever.

There is no reason to believe the past was any different than it is now, except for your book. I'm not going to argue science with you because you don't even accept the philosophical basis of the scientific method, so it's useless.

If you applied the standards of skepticism you have towards science on the Bible, you'd be an atheist in 5 seconds

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

There is no reason to believe the past was any different than it is now, except for your book. I'm not going to argue science with you because you don't even accept the philosophical basis of the scientific method, so it's useless.

If you applied the standards of skepticism you have towards science on the Bible, you'd be an atheist in 5 seconds

QFT!

 

[dad]

There is no reason to believe the past was any different than it is now, except for your book.

The bible isn't my book. It contains plenty of reasons why this present state was not around as is. The spirits in Egypt and Sumer also indicate that the spiritual was much closer at hand than now. You do believe in the spiritual don't you? I saw a little cross on your profile.

I'm not going to argue science with you because you don't even accept the philosophical basis of the scientific method, so it's useless.

So all your science depends on some ' philosophical basis'. OK. I do accept science for what it is and where it belongs and applies. When someone uses a philosophical basis to propel them into bible a opposing fantasy future, I have to draw the line.

If you applied the standards of skepticism you have towards science on the Bible, you'd be an atheist in 5 seconds

False. I only practice healthy skepticism. Skepticism within reason, and for very good reasons...that the claims are baseless.

The resurrection of Christ is known. The miracles, and events of the bible are recorded, and do not need guessing at. It would be unhealthy to doubt what millions died to verify and attest for no reason.

 

[Delphiki]

I think some people would only believe their science text books and science journals if they all began with "Everything in this document is the word of God. God's word is infallible truth. This document proves everything in it is true, according to this document."

Maybe that's what science needs -- circular reasoning and the word "God".

 

[ug333]

False. I only practice healthy skepticism. Skepticism within reason, and for very good reasons...that the claims are baseless.

The resurrection of Christ is known. The miracles, and events of the bible are recorded, and do not need guessing at. It would be unhealthy to doubt what millions died to verify and attest for no reason.

You can't seriously believe both of those statements, unless you simply define "healthy skepticism" to be skepticism toward anything non-Christian.

 

[ug333]

I think some people would only believe their science text books and science journals if they all began with "Everything in this document is the word of God. God's word is infallible truth. This document proves everything in it is true, according to this document."

Maybe that's what science needs -- circular reasoning and the word "God".

http://www.christianforums.com/t7511996-35/#post56122542

I forgot to add the word God in it ..... that is why it failed to convert anyone.

 

[rockaction]

The bible isn't my book. It contains plenty of reasons why this present state was not around as is. The spirits in Egypt and Sumer also indicate that the spiritual was much closer at hand than now. You do believe in the spiritual don't you? I saw a little cross on your profile.

I see no crosses on my profile. I am agnostic towards the supernatural and have found all positive claims of it that I have encountered to be non-persuasive (including the ones I experienced when I was an Christian).

So all your science depends on some ' philosophical basis'. OK. I do accept science for what it is and where it belongs and applies. When someone uses a philosophical basis to propel them into bible a opposing fantasy future, I have to draw the line.

All modern science is built on methodological naturalism, which is a view of epistemology. We operate on the assumption that things are measurable and have natural causes. Operating on this assumption has given us physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, computer science, skyscrapers, waffle irons, cell phones, toaster ovens, cars, Sharper Image, molecular biology, biochemistry, proteomics, the internet, roller coasters, and the Magic Bullet. So, I would say that the track record for methodological naturalism is pretty good.

False. I only practice healthy skepticism. Skepticism within reason, and for very good reasons...that the claims are baseless.

How do you treat the Koran? Are you highly skeptical of Mohammad's claims? How about the Iliad? Why do you think the Iliad is not an accurate description of reality? We all know that the Greeks existed and the Trojan War was real.

The resurrection of Christ is known. The miracles, and events of the bible are recorded, and do not need guessing at. It would be unhealthy to doubt what millions died to verify and attest for no reason.

Hey man, millions have died for Islam. Millions have died for Buddhism (and they even set themselves on fire!) Being willing to die for something does not make it true. And there really isn't a piece of evidence for Christ's resurrection outside of the depiction in the Bible.

So let me reiterate: you have completely different standards of evidence for the Bible vs. everything else. Even if we ignore science for a second (which stringently requires data to back up every claim), you have different standards of evidence for differing religions. Islam has just as much evidence as Christianity does for being right. It has tons of followers, tons of historicity for its main players, and I doubt you could come up with any reason outside of "the Bible says so" for why Christianity is true and Islam isn't.

 

[dad]

I think some people would only believe their science text books and science journals if they all began with "Everything in this document is the word of God. God's word is infallible truth. This document proves everything in it is true, according to this document."

Maybe that's what science needs -- circular reasoning and the word "God".

They would be a fool to do that. You see it takes more than saying something to make it true. Millennia of fulfilled prophesy for example. Anyone believibg a science book from the days of the Beatles would would find it is pretty well all out the window.

 

[dad]

I see no crosses on my profile. I am agnostic towards the supernatural and have found all positive claims of it that I have encountered to be non-persuasive (including the ones I experienced when I was an Christian).

Ah, OK, must've been the donate blessing thing, or another poster.

All modern science is built on methodological naturalism, which is a view of epistemology. We operate on the assumption that things are measurable and have natural causes.

Right, and that is your problem.

Operating on this assumption has given us physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, computer science, skyscrapers, waffle irons, cell phones, toaster ovens, cars, Sharper Image, molecular biology, biochemistry, proteomics, the internet, roller coasters, and the Magic Bullet. So, I would say that the track record for methodological naturalism is pretty good.

Not really. It has also given us nukes, womd, etc. But all that it has led to is right here, and nothing to do with the future, or the far past or creation.

How do you treat the Koran? Are you highly skeptical of Mohammad's claims? How about the Iliad? Why do you think the Iliad is not an accurate description of reality? We all know that the Greeks existed and the Trojan War was real.

I don't know much about it.

Hey man, millions have died for Islam. Millions have died for Buddhism (and they even set themselves on fire!)

Millions died in fire bombings and wars, and atomic blasts too, lots of fire involved. But if a Muslim dies for something that he claims was real, like some miracle, or whatever, who am I to question it?

Being willing to die for something does not make it true. And there really isn't a piece of evidence for Christ's resurrection outside of the depiction in the Bible.

Being willing to die to verify a record seals it in credibility, whether they taught you that in school or not. Paul saw Jesus as did Peter, and all the disciples. They didn't die for something vague or religious notions.

So let me reiterate: you have completely different standards of evidence for the Bible vs. everything else. Even if we ignore science for a second (which stringently requires data to back up every claim), you have different standards of evidence for differing religions. Islam has just as much evidence as Christianity does for being right. It has tons of followers, tons of historicity for its main players, and I doubt you could come up with any reason outside of "the Bible says so" for why Christianity is true and Islam isn't.

Islam is right about some things. No one could be all wrong. Science comes darn close, though!