- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,101
- 52,639
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
As I said, you're more than welcome to answer her challenge too.
Let's see you roll.
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.
As I said, you're more than welcome to answer her challenge too.Oh that human body starts decomposing after death...yes, divine knowledge there again. You are rolling AV.
As I said, you're more than welcome to answer her challenge too.
She took the time to ask it; can't you take the time to answer it?I can spare few minutes to dispute ridiculous claims but have neither time or inclination to conjure up more of them since they serve no purpose whatsoever.
And the time you waste with me, you could have given her five or six answers by now, eh?
Well so far the score is:Fundamentalists have far more amusing replies than atheists.
By the way, Dawn, it was an atheist who made the challenge.Fundamentalists have far more amusing replies than atheists.
I don't consider a challenge to have someone show science in the Bible as 'largely rhetorical.'I think your problem here is that you feel the need to have an answer to a question that was largely rhetorical.
That's their mistake.Dawnhammer said:Atheist doesn’t expect there to be any technological ideas that were beyond what could be reasonably expected on being common knowledge during those times. Nor do I.
Except the rules came from God.Dawnhammer said:Like basic sanitation rules. Nothing divine about those.
I knew it.Dawnhammer said:Your interpretations of random passages being applied as proofs of scientific knowledge are ridiculous.
If I miss a question then feel free to ask again. There are times when I get a lot of questions and other times not so many.Wouldn't that imply that you aren't reading those comments that you "can't keep up with"?
It says more about how your education works than mine.
Are you demonstrating this yourself?Yes, I have internet broadband and pay monthly fee for it.
Your education makes you figure you are giving monthly donations to God through your internet provider after which God proceeds to give you talking lightning.
Fundamentalists have far more amusing replies than atheists.
A typo. Just 2 million. Thanks for the correction.
If you are classifying Ia supernovae by their brightness how does that create a standard? And if your going to explain that certain fireCrackers make a particular noise and flash, I'll tell you that one particular brand might have a narrow range of flash and pop, and another brand another spread, but that's becasue they are made that way. And the age of the cracker is going to make a difference. Younger, more distant supernovae are made from stars of a younger age and composition than older supernovae that are closer.
So being that all stars lacked quality control standards during their manufacture, no stars were sent back becasue they were out of spec, and the age of your products is unknown, I don't see how you have a "standard candle" as a baseline measure. What two stars in the sky are identical in composition? Zero. What two orbiting stars crash into each other and create a standard explosion? Also zero. Who has measured the effect of large distance of space, and time, and dark matter, and dark energy on our observations? Who has the time to test our observations by actually creating a "standard star",spreading them across time and space, and whacking them into each other to test our observation theories?
Without a standard to use to test your theories and the time needed to do experiments, you don't have science.
Are you demonstrating this yourself?
Is that why you won't answer her challenge?Well your amusement value is getting more secular so someone has to take up the slack.
Thankfully it is not too hard especially seeing you get rated funny once around every 7200 postings which is still pretty charitable but this is CF so I guess bit of charity is in order.
You're afraid someone will rate your answer FUNNY?
Have you asked google?
Feel free to drop off an answer to her challenge on your way out.Dreadful indeed, but you are starting to repeat yourself a bit so I will exit this thread.
I've been struggling to figure out the applications for creationism. Besides theme parks and merchandising, there doesn't appear to be anything else.
Why no biological applications? Or any other areas of applied science?
I mean, if creationism was true, wouldn't they have figured out a way to use it with respect to applied biology, geology, etc, by now? What's the hold up?
Only if you deny the evidence (much more extensive) that shows there was a flood as described in the BIBLE (which has never been proven wrong).The evidence indicates what we would call a local flood. So we have to question how accurate our translation is of the Bible.
XD counter: lightning is too strong and too brief to use as a means of electronic communications or to be in any way related to how we utilize electronics to communicate. It's another version of the burning bush. As for hygiene in the bible, come on, you know it has better guidelines to it than just "don't wallow in your own feces". For example, stating that sick people must keep away from healthy people until they haven't shown symptoms for a while. Not a perfect method of preventing the spread of disease, but one that would have helped some.Fundamentalists have far more amusing replies than atheists. Those poor people go by logic and sense.
Talking lightning means electronic commutations.
Not crapping on your bed is Bible science hygiene.
Tremendous. Keep it coming.
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?