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.
dad said:You show me it was the same. The bible tells us it was different back then in a lot of key ways. We cannot assume it to be the same, with any support whatsoever except belief.
Well, you are the one who claimed it was first of all, and built a pile of assumptions on top of that house of cards, don't blame me they all fall down. Like Humpty Dumpty! And no one will ever be able to put old ageism together again.funyun said:You are the one making the claim it was not the same,
Not in the far past, though, and that's the kicker.therefore the burden of proof is on you. All evidence shows that physical constants remain the same,
The monk's with me.and Occam's Razor gives us the most reasonable methodological framework in this kind of situation.
No, the bible is not baseless, it's foundation stones are set with blood, and it's power switch is flipped on a million times a day all over the world, and gets results. Only your claim is baseless.It takes more baseless assumptions to say what you're saying than it does to say what I'm saying.
dad said:No evidence says a thing about okd ages, ONLY their preferred interpretations, and underlying assumptions do that, not the evidence, which is open! If the universe was different then, all bets are off for dating, pure and simple, and no one can say it wasn't, while the bible indicates it was.
Any more than saying it was the same, on their say so.perplexed said:I don't have a problem with someone saying this as long as you realise other people should not be convinced by the statement the universe was different just on your say so.
My point is that some people say the Bible was true so the universe was different as well as saying you can still find a dating method to get the age of the earth quoted by the Bible.
The statement the "universe was always the same" is indeed unprovable.dad said:Any more than saying it was the same, on their say so.
Ha. Amazing, really, when you think of it. Upon this sole unprovable assumption ALL old ageism firmly rests.perplexed said:The statement the "universe was always the same" is indeed unprovable.
No, the best way ti understand how it now is might be to assume a universal constant in the present, not that the future, or far past that is the same. WE have no evidence for or against this as far as science goes.However the best way to understand the universe we are currently in you assume that it was always the same. It does not matter if it this is true or not.
The ages are not wrong, whether you discuss it or not. Messing with brains of those who oppose your ideas is not the answere either.Opethian said:Come on people, I wouldn't even waste my time discussing clear facts like this. The bible obviously gets the age wrong, if you cannot accept that then I would advise you to have brain surgery.
as you pointed out they are trying to say that one should be able to develop a scientific model based on the facts of the universe that show the universe is young. The streange thing is, that even though they are trying to produce a scientific model, they consistently require miracles to do things differently, for example altering decay rates through miraculous means and so on.
True. Not a very productive discussion when one's position is held as a matter of faith and any falsifying data is either ignored or dismissed out of hand.Opethian said:Come on people, I wouldn't even waste my time discussing clear facts like this. The bible obviously gets the age wrong, if you cannot accept that then I would advise you to have brain surgery.
dad said:Well, you are the one who claimed it was first of all, and built a pile of assumptions on top of that house of cards, don't blame me they all fall down. Like Humpty Dumpty! And no one will ever be able to put old ageism together again.
dad said:Not in the far past, though, and that's the kicker.
dad said:The monk's with me.
dad said:No, the bible is not baseless, it's foundation stones are set with blood, and it's power switch is flipped on a million times a day all over the world, and gets results. Only your claim is baseless.
care to show why that is? what you know that the entire scientific community doesn't?
dad said:If it seems that it need be taken literally or not, and if it fits with the rest of the document.
dad said:Jesus refered to the time of the garden, and the flood. So it was settled long before the 19th century.
dad said:That was about as valid as a communist show trial. The freemason star of the show, who was to give his rebuttal, or comeback a while after the trial, strangely dide before he ever got the chance. It was supposededly natural, but I have a suspicious mind.
I make no difference in Cats or Prots. They were Christians. Just as today, despite the state they got into.
Default is meaningless if not evidenced, and supported. As it is it is merely de faulty position! Observations of the present do not tell the future or far past. Remember that.funyun said:This is the default position, and it is also based on observations.
Old agedy Dumpty sat on a wallProve it, Humpty Dumpty.
This Humpty Evo, he had a great fall
And all PO horses, and all PO men
Couldn't put old ages together again
Thats why he's with me.No, lol, he isn't. The monk was a Christian, but he also was a reasonable person.
What else would God write, via possesing and inspiring men, chopped liver?If it's so rock-solid then do as I've asked you to do and prove that it is the historical and scientific all-purpose book you claim it is.
He did, He does, and He will. I am.See, there's this idea that if you make a claim, it's worthless unless you back it up.
You invent a problem for me, then set yourself up as hlier than thou. Good move, kid.I know logic doesn't hold much water with you, but that's your problem not mine.
No, the correct interpretation of the latter is only possible with the former.Lucretius said:Who is to say that your interpretation is correct? Would you agree that the correct interpretation of the Bible cannot be one that conflicts with science and reason?
Where did He say that if they killed His earthly temple, He would raise it up in 3 billion years? Nowhere, He said days. The bible says the world was made in 6 days. He did say that the flood took them all away, the unbelievers, though.Where did Jesus say the time was literal?
Yes, that was when he was supposed to give his rebuttal. Look into it.William Jennings Bryan died after the trial, not before…
If people are involved, eventually we will find divisions, and rifts, and sects, and isms, and whatnots, comes with the territory.There's a fairly large difference in the theologies of the Catholics and Protestants. Of course they are both Christians, but Church tradition (one example) created a large rift that has been repaired for half a millenium.
dad said:They do if they travel a long time. Present observations of the fossil record tell us about the past thousands and millions of years ago. Present observations of galaxies millions (or even billions) of light years away tell us about the past millions (or even billions) of years ago.Default is meaningless if not evidenced, and supported. As it is it is merely de faulty position! Observations of the present do not tell the future or far past. Remember that.
Thats what you just said in the 2nd law of TD thread, then it died. Mr excitement strikes again.Frumious Bandersnatch said:Once again we see that once dad hoc has entered a thread rational discussion become virtually impossible. Maybe we should just leave dad alone in his little fantasy world.
F.B.
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?