I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you

[truthpls]

I'm sorry you don't understand.

It may have been answered already, but what exactly is your current position regarding the age of earth? I think you put it at something like 6100 years old. I assume that the embedded age portion of your belief is an attempt to explain why is looks older to science?

 

[Bradskii]

Yawn...

 

[AV1611VET]

Age is a measure of how long something has existed for.

Dictionary.com has 14 definitions for "age."

Which one are you referring to, to make it look like I'm wrong?

So either God is rewriting history (in which case you can't be sure of your own memories), or there's some shoddy workmanship going on.

Either that, or you're using the wrong definitions.

 

[AV1611VET]

It may have been answered already, but what exactly is your current position regarding the age of earth? I think you put it at something like 6100 years old. I assume that the embedded age portion of your belief is an attempt to explain why is looks older to science?

I used to side with science and claim the earth is 4.543 billion years old.

But given science's track record of being wrong viz-a-viz the Bible, I now claim the earth is "as old as God willed it."

So indeed, it could be 4.543 billion, or it could be 100 million, or whatever.

Only God knows.

However, no matter how old it is, it has only been in existence for 6000 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yawn...

Stay awake!

And learn something!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Age is a measure of how long something has existed for. So either God is rewriting history (in which case you can't be sure of your own memories), or there's some shoddy workmanship going on.

I don't think we have to reduce the possibilities about what God may be doing in human history down to this either/or dichotomy.

It could instead be that, fairly lately in human history, God has broken into the human level domain during the Bronze and Classical Ages and inspired certain people to "revise" the meaning of what has been assumed about the past and about elementary aspects of reality.

The process for this has been, obviously, messy.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you.

Be careful.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Be careful.

View attachment 364803

 

[AV1611VET]

View attachment 364809

What's with the irony meter and laugh track?

I've been saying scientists have been wrong for years.

And I've been saying all they do, when they're not out looking for something new, is correcting their errors.

And I've been saying I've never seen one admit he's wrong, even in the face of scientific disasters.

So what's the deal?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What's with the irony meter and laugh track?

I've been saying scientists have been wrong for years.

And I've been saying all they do, when they're not out looking for something new, is correcting their errors.

And I've been saying I've never seen one admit he's wrong, even in the face of scientific disasters.

So what's the deal?

There was zero indication that you were talking about scientists in that post at all.

And you can say all you want about scientists but that doesn't mean anything you're saying is right or correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I've been saying I've never seen one admit he's wrong, even in the face of scientific disasters.

And you can say all you want about scientists but that doesn't mean anything you're saying is right or correct.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for the QED.

The use of 'scientific disasters', which anyone who's seen your commentary on such things knows to be fully and demonstrably incorrect in you using the phrase 'scientific', says more about you than anything else.

So you QED is worthless.

 

[AV1611VET]

The use of 'scientific disasters', which anyone who's seen your commentary on such things knows to be fully and demonstrably incorrect in you using the phrase 'scientific', says more about you than anything else.

Here's an example from AI Overview, which I believe, according to you, can [conveniently] take a hike:

The collapse of the Florida International University (FIU) pedestrian bridge was a consequence of design errors and can be considered a scientific disaster. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the bridge's collapse was due to load and capacity calculation errors made by the design firm, FIGG Bridge Engineers, Inc.. These errors led to a critical section of the bridge failing, resulting in its collapse.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here's an example from AI Overview, which I believe, according to you, can [conveniently] take a hike:

The collapse of the Florida International University (FIU) pedestrian bridge was a consequence of design errors and can be considered a scientific disaster. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the bridge's collapse was due to load and capacity calculation errors made by the design firm, FIGG Bridge Engineers, Inc.. These errors led to a critical section of the bridge failing, resulting in its collapse.

Oh it can definitely take a hike because I know that the question you'd put in would be a leading one.

Your commentary on what passes as 'scientific' can be demonstrably shown to be incorrect and wrong, and speaks of nothing but arrogance and willful ignorance in the same breath.

 

[truthpls]

I used to side with science and claim the earth is 4.543 billion years old.

But given science's track record of being wrong viz-a-viz the Bible, I now claim the earth is "as old as God willed it."

I see. That is pretty clear

So indeed, it could be 4.543 billion, or it could be 100 million, or whatever.

Only God knows.

However, no matter how old it is, it has only been in existence for 6000 years.

Right, so that any other age would not be a true age, (since it never existed before 6100 yrs ago or so) but only something that appears to be age for godless, physical only musta dunnit 'science'. That same science that added billions of years to the age of the earth in the last 100 years or so and demoted Pluto to no longer being a planet, etc Basically, then, science has misused the word age and replaced the meaning of the word to mean 'imaginary time required for the universe to have made itself with no God involved or required'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh it can definitely take a hike because I know that the question you'd put in would be a leading one.

Your commentary on what passes as 'scientific' can be demonstrably shown to be incorrect and wrong, and speaks of nothing but arrogance and willful ignorance in the same breath.

From the same site:

The thalidomide tragedy is widely considered a scientific and medical disaster. It resulted in the birth of thousands of children with severe birth defects due to the use of the drug in pregnant women. The tragedy highlighted the importance of thorough drug testing, especially in vulnerable populations like pregnant women, and led to significant changes in drug regulation and safety protocols.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From the same site:

The thalidomide tragedy is widely considered a scientific and medical disaster. It resulted in the birth of thousands of children with severe birth defects due to the use of the drug in pregnant women. The tragedy highlighted the importance of thorough drug testing, especially in vulnerable populations like pregnant women, and led to significant changes in drug regulation and safety protocols.

Exception that proves the rule.

What are you actually even typing to get the answers?

 

[AV1611VET]

Exception that proves the rule.

Here's another "exception":

The Challenger disaster can be considered a scientific disaster, as it involved a failure of a key scientific and engineering element, the O-ring seal in the solid rocket booster, due to cold temperatures. The disaster highlighted significant flaws in NASA's decision-making process, management, and engineering practices, ultimately leading to the loss of seven lives.

What are you actually even typing to get the answers?

Simply go to Google and type:

"Was the Challenger disaster a scientific disaster?"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here's another "exception":

The Challenger disaster can be considered a scientific disaster, as it involved a failure of a key scientific and engineering element, the O-ring seal in the solid rocket booster, due to cold temperatures. The disaster highlighted significant flaws in NASA's decision-making process, management, and engineering practices, ultimately leading to the loss of seven lives.

'Considered' is not the same as 'was', and you've been told repeatedly about how your perception of the Challenger disaster is incorrect.

So what's next? Hindenburg? L'Aquila?

Simply go to Google and type:

"Was the Challenger disaster a scientific disaster?"

I see.

 

[AV1611VET]

So what's next? Hindenburg? L'Aquila?

QV please:

The Hindenburg disaster can be considered a scientific disaster due to the involvement of flammable hydrogen gas, static electricity, and potentially a lightning strike or other electrical discharge. The event highlights the dangers of using flammable gases in large, moving vehicles, especially in combination with inclement weather and the potential for electrical discharges.

While the L'Aquila earthquake was a tragic natural disaster that caused significant loss of life and damage, it's not accurately described as a "scientific disaster" in the sense of a failure of scientific understanding or prediction. The earthquake itself was a natural event, and the scientific community has learned valuable lessons from it, leading to improved seismic hazard assessments and building practices. However, the earthquake did highlight some challenges in communication and risk assessment, and the convictions of scientists for manslaughter have sparked controversy and ongoing debate.