- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,755
- 52,545
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
Keep looking.Don't you ever get tired of this useless response?
I think the "historians" have already done that under the name of "historical reconstruction", or some such garbage.
And there is that true proclamation of outright insanity again. Truly, if one is not willing to change his viewpoint on the basis of the evidence, one cannot simultaneously claim to be interested in the truth.p.s. Incidentally, give it time, you "scientists" will re-write your own, under the guise of "new evidence".
Only in every thread where you have sufficiently backed yourself into a corner.Have I used it before???
Incidentally, give it time, you "scientists" will re-write your own, under the guise of "new evidence".
Dunno --- why would He put zinc in copper [brass] --- or tin in copper [bronze]?
Keep looking.
I take offense to newbies coming on here and treating me like I haven't been explaining this stuff over and over and over and over and over.
You have proven that you are unable to explain your pet hypothesis. We understand it and we see that it's impossible. Your childish denial of reality and rejection of opinions beside your own doesn't change that.No --- I have already proven --- via my Apple Challenge --- that it cannot be explained.
Explain what? You asked if there can be evidence for the ex-nihilo creation of an apple. Several people replied that creating another apple in front of skeptics would certainly suffice, at which point you claimed that "God doesn't do that".I even gave you guys a chance to explain it, and you couldn't.
??? My theory doesn't require any change in the speed of light!! Just that a little patch of ground was moving that fast for a while....And good food, too, Pan! That's a very good explanation.
But what I don't like about it, is that is shows God using nature as a tool to bring about His Creation --- something I don't think He did.
In my opinion, the speed of light is just as fast today as it was yesteryear.
And there is that true proclamation of outright insanity again. Truly, if one is not willing to change his viewpoint on the basis of the evidence, one cannot simultaneously claim to be interested in the truth.
AV1 Has finally uttered something TRUE!! AMAZING!!! WAYTO GO AV1.
Yes it is true that scientists rewrite their own every time new evidence comes to light. It is called SCIENCE!
Yes it is true that scientists rewrite their own every time new evidence comes to light.
Explain what? You asked if there can be evidence for the ex-nihilo creation of an apple. Several people replied that creating another apple in front of skeptics would certainly suffice, at which point you claimed that "God doesn't do that".
I haven't noticed anything we couldn't explain, really.
??? My theory doesn't require any change in the speed of light!! Just that a little patch of ground was moving that fast for a while....
How about this, God creates the Universe and lets evolution take its course.... at the same time, God carries out a creation in just one tiny patch which is moving at near light speed.... when humans have evolved independently in the Universe (specifically on Earth) God introduces to Earth that little patch that contains the humans he made himself (which were just sort of ethereal forms) -- they've only existed for a day or a few days, but the Universe is 13+ billion years old.... then God puts their ethereal (spiritual) form in the physical bodies of existing humans (or maybe clones some) and introduces them to interbreed (hence the mysterious appearance of people in the next kingdom)!!
You got that viewpoint in the first place, based on evidence. Then you changed it, based on evidence. Then you changed that, based on evidence; and so it goes, ad infinitum.
Of course, it's D. But if the police couldn't change their minds as often as necessary, we'd still be stuck with A. Or possibly E.
It's not that there isn't any evidence. It's that there should be evidence of such a massive catastrophe, given what we know of floods and geology, but it's nowhere to be found. Then there's tons of evidence against it even being possible as described in the Bible.Well, if that's your example of how science works, what gives "scientists" the right to proclaim that the Flood doesn't exist, based on zero evidence?
It's not that there isn't any evidence. It's that there should be evidence of such a massive catastrophe, given what we know of floods and geology, but it's nowhere to be found. Then there's tons of evidence against it even being possible as described in the Bible.
Well, if that's your example of how science works, what gives "scientists" the right to proclaim that the Flood doesn't exist, based on zero evidence?
When I hear stuff like, "There's no evidence for [whatever]", I automatically think to myself, "Keep looking until you find it."
If, in fact, there's no evidence because no evidence exists, then that's a different story; and I have to change my question to: "How will you ever know?"
Since there's no evidence for them, we should keep looking until we find it.
Yes. But then your God would be a deceiver, and you couldn't trust anything you believe this God did or said.Did it ever occur to you that God cleaned it up?
As I have said before, He could have sent five times the amount of water He did, and we still wouldn't find it.
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?