Jerusalem pre flood remains

[Assyrian]

A very revealing reply this. Of course you don't show where Jesus or the apostles taught a six day creation or a global flood, you can't it is simply not there. Instead you give your reasoning and your interpretation and assume Jesus must have thought the same. This is how you ended up making the strange claim if we disagree with you we are disbelieving Jesus. But we are supposed to learn from Jesus, be his disciples, not simply project our own opinions on Jesus and claim they are his.

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fact two: What does God's word say about Noah and the world-wide flood? Jesus mentioned it as a fact (Matt. 24:37-39). Both the ark and Noah are mentioned as true historical facts by the Apostle Paul in Hebrews 11:7. Paul was a learned man - a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee. Notice, there are other Scriptures mentioning the flood (2 Peter 2:5; Luke 6:48). The Apostle Peter said that only Noah and seven others were spared when God brought a flood upon the world. King David also talked about the flood (Psalm 29:10). Either Genesis 7:20-24 is correct, or the whole world is in trouble. God spoke to Isaiah the prophet about the flood of Noah that covered the earth (Is. 54:9). Noah is mentioned in Ezekiel as a historical person. Noah existed after the flood that destroyed the entire world and all life that was on the face of the earth. Why would God have Noah collect certain animals and birds if it was only going to be a local flood? [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fact three: Adam is referred to as a historical person by Jesus' brother Jude, the Apostle Paul, and by Job (Jude 14; 1 Tim. 2:13-14; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; Rom. 5:14; Job 31:33; Hosea 6:7). Melchizedek was mentioned as a true historical character in Genesis 14:18 and again by the Apostle Paul in Hebrews 7:1. Abel and Enoch were mentioned in the book of Hebrews as real people (Heb. 11:4-5). Are these great men of the Bible wrong?"[/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT]http://www.biblestudysite.org/proof.htm

Still no attempt to show Jesus and the apostles believed the flood was worldwide, just a cut and past from a creationist site claiming they did. Interestingly the site is caught in the same mind game you are, reading their idea of a global flood into a passage talking about the flood and thinking it means the flood is global.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fact two: What does God's word say about Noah and the world-wide flood? Jesus mentioned it as a fact (Matt. 24:37-39).[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
​

No, he mentioned the flood, he never mentioned that it was global.

The deeper meanings of what the sabbath were are not in question. Straw man.

Actually you were the one arguing against a metaphorical meaning of the Sabbath saying: "Where do they teach that Jews need to rest a million years each week on Sabbath? " I am glad you do recognise there are deeper meaning there, Creationist hatred of biblical metaphor is really inconsistent.

Yet, I think any school kid would know that the Jews did have a day they rested.

I never suggested they didn't.

No excuse to wave away deeper meanings.

This is bizarre. How do you switch from arguing passionately against metaphorical interpretation to claiming I am the one waving away deeper meanings? Do you ever listen to yourself?

When we look also at science, and history, and the other changes of the creation era bible, we see that my interpretation fits oh so well.

First you make up the changes you see in the bible then your description of how the universe changed is so vague anything could be made fit. It is meaningless especially when there isn't a hint of you supposed change in anywhere in science or scripture.

Nonsense. The rest that He gave man, and allowed us to partake in can still be had. In no way does it mean God is snoozing in a post creation rest still. That is ridiculous. I wonder if you actually want to understand. You seem to be doing all you can to keep from any possible arriving at a knowledge.

You know, you are right. It really is nonsense and completely ridiculous. You just haven't thought it through. It not just ridiculous that God would be snoozing for thousands of years, the idea of God Almighty snoozing at all is ridiculous. Psalm 121:4 The protector of Israel doesn't doze or ever get drowsy. Was the Almighty and eternal God with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change James 1:17, refreshed after a day's rest?

No, you are making the same mistake you made with your "Jews need to rest a million years each week on Sabbath", going for the cheap laugh and thinking that disproves a proper metaphorical interpretation. Yet you are very familiar with the real meaning of the metaphor. Salvation by grace means we stop trying to work for our salvation. In Hebrews entering God rest means coming to that place in God where we cease working for our own righteousness and rest in God, not joining in a million year snooze or going back in time to join God on the seventh day of creation for our snooze. The seventh day of Creation is a metaphorical picture of the gospel

That rest that He made available to us. In fact He commanded the Jews to rest. These things are shadows of the true, like the sacrificing of lambs. Yet they were real as real can be also.

Nice illustration. We have Jesus describe like a the lamb without spot or blemish destined before the foundation of the world 2Pet 2:19&20. In Revelation it describes people as having their names written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world Rev 13:8. With both the lamb and the Sabbath we have imagery set in the creation, we have the Israelites being commanded to perform an enactment of the imagery, rest every seventh day, sacrifice lambs. And we see the fulfilment of the imagery in Christ's death on the cross with it's fullness still to come in Christ.

But while the fulfilment of the metaphor is very real, and the Israelites were really were commanded to enact the imagery, Jesus never was a literal sheep and God never went for a snooze either for one day or thousands of years.

Did you know that the Jews never really understood most of the bible till Jesus came? He fulfilled so many scriptures, and explained how they actually spoke of Him all the while!

So how do you think Jesus interpreted the passover lamb for his disciples? Did it speak about Jesus literally or was it metaphor? What about the manna? Did Jesus interpret it literally or metaphorically when he said he was the bread from heaven? Or that bit in Genesis about the redeemer stepping on the Eden snake's head, what do you think that tells us about Jesus, did he fulfil it literally or metaphorically? You are right, we have all these scripture in the OT speaking about Jesus when we understand the metaphorical meaning. We even have Jesus teaching his disciple how to interpret these OT metaphors and see how they speak to us of Jesus. Do you think literalists might be missing something here?

We can't go by what hot shot religionists of the day think.

You mean like all the hot shot creationists?

Obviously, they were unaware of the split at the time when the church tried to supress knowledge of this present state.

Yep the church tried to suppress scientific knowledge in Galileo's day just like Creationists do today. We certainly can't go by what these hot shots think. Anti science preachers have such a terrible track record from the flat earthers like Cosmas, Galileo's inquisition and modern creationists. They are all very sincere, all thinking that because their literal interpretation of scripture contradicts science that science must be wrong, all trying to defend scripture by attacking science and all bringing scripture into disrepute as a result.

..As if that opposed the bible.

Exactly. Creationists take heed. If sceince contradicts your interpretation of the bible it is probably your interpretation that is the problem. Science does not oppose the bible it just discovers more about the wonderful universe God created

No. Even Jesus said He had many things to teach us, but that they were not ready, then, to learn all of them. That means new stuff was in the pipes. Treasures new and old in the bible.

I agree, we learned so much more about how God speaks to us when Copernicus overthrew the old literal interpretation of the geocentric passages. I have come to a much deeper understanding of scripture since becoming a TE, it is like sitting at Jesus feet and learning how God speaks in metaphor and parables. You really shouldn't be so afraid.

 

[laconicstudent]

There is NO empirical data for a same state universe in the future. None. Same with the far past. If you can't provide some here and now, there is no need for you to continue.

Your absolutely right. It is a theory that follows the rules of logic. We also have no proof against it. Since we don't have proof either way we discard your insane alternate universe states via parsimony. Please give it up. I accept your concession.

Evolution was a created trait, plenty went on. The so called evolutionary theory of pagans, trying to make sense of it, is a godless belief system, with no merit, or proof whatsoever.

Except for Lenski's E. coli study, transition fossils, radiometric dating, genome studies among others, right? Do you honestly believe everyone is so ignorant about this as you are?



From now on I'm going to disregard:

1. All your ad hominem blathering about how science is a "godless belief system"

2. All your straw men about there being no proof. If you want to be deliberately ignorant about the news in modern science, please do it in private. In public, it is as embarrassing as watching a 4 year old scream for candy in a grocery store.

3. Your alternate universe states. We have told you repeatedly how it violates scientific parsimony, and is therefore discarded, but you insist on ignoring us and continuing to repeat it as if we haven't refuted it a thousand times.


Every time you insist on making one of the above points, without introducing new evidence for your alternate universe states, I will regard as a tired rehash of the same and consider it a concession on your part. Thank you. I win.

 

[dad]

Still no attempt to show Jesus and the apostles believed the flood was worldwide, just a cut and past from a creationist site claiming they did. Interestingly the site is caught in the same mind game you are, reading their idea of a global flood into a passage talking about the flood and thinking it means the flood is global.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fact two: What does God's word say about Noah and the world-wide flood? Jesus mentioned it as a fact (Matt. 24:37-39).[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
​

No, he mentioned the flood, he never mentioned that it was global.

Heb 11 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world..

Actually you were the one arguing against a metaphorical meaning of the Sabbath saying: "Where do they teach that Jews need to rest a million years each week on Sabbath? " I am glad you do recognise there are deeper meaning there, Creationist hatred of biblical metaphor is really inconsistent.

The day set aside to rest was a day. Not anything else. That day still exists each week. But it is still a day. A morning is still a morning. An evening is still an evening.

This is bizarre. How do you switch from arguing passionately against metaphorical interpretation to claiming I am the one waving away deeper meanings? Do you ever listen to yourself?

I simply point out that a day was a day in creation week. Plants made on the third day, could not last millions of years till the sun was created later that week. The only 'deeper' meanings I oppose are those you make up.

First you make up the changes you see in the bible then your description of how the universe changed is so vague anything could be made fit. It is meaningless especially when there isn't a hint of you supposed change in anywhere in science or scripture.

Not at all, we are only given so many details about how it will be after this temporary state ceases to exist, or about the creation era, either one. No need to make anything up, there are many real differences, in life spans, light, properties of matter, life processes, spirits living among men, etc etc.

Yet you are very familiar with the real meaning of the metaphor. Salvation by grace means we stop trying to work for our salvation. In Hebrews entering God rest means coming to that place in God where we cease working for our own righteousness and rest in God, not joining in a million year snooze or going back in time to join God on the seventh day of creation for our snooze. The seventh day of Creation is a metaphorical picture of the gospel

Oh. No. WE could never limit it to that. We might tack that on, but it could never take away from the historical aspect. Like sacrificing a lamb. That had great great meaning. Yet, they really did kill the little things. Having a deeper meaning does not wave away the recorded facts on the ground.

Nice illustration. We have Jesus describe like a the lamb without spot or blemish destined before the foundation of the world 2Pet 2:19&20. In Revelation it describes people as having their names written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world Rev 13:8. With both the lamb and the Sabbath we have imagery set in the creation, we have the Israelites being commanded to perform an enactment of the imagery, rest every seventh day, sacrifice lambs. And we see the fulfilment of the imagery in Christ's death on the cross with it's fullness still to come in Christ.

But while the fulfilment of the metaphor is very real, and the Israelites were really were commanded to enact the imagery, Jesus never was a literal sheep and God never went for a snooze either for one day or thousands of years.

There was a real animal sacxrificed by Abel. The son of Adam. Do you wave him away too?

So how do you think Jesus interpreted the passover lamb for his disciples? Did it speak about Jesus literally or was it metaphor? What about the manna? Did Jesus interpret it literally or metaphorically when he said he was the bread from heaven?

Manna was angel's food. It fed real people in a real place, and was placed in a real ark. No way round it.

Or that bit in Genesis about the redeemer stepping on the Eden snake's head, what do you think that tells us about Jesus, did he fulfil it literally or metaphorically?

Does it matter? I have some ideas, but it is a diversion from the topic.

You are right, we have all these scripture in the OT speaking about Jesus when we understand the metaphorical meaning. We even have Jesus teaching his disciple how to interpret these OT metaphors and see how they speak to us of Jesus. Do you think literalists might be missing something here?

Not if they actually believe that manna fell, and there was a flood that, as Jesus said, 'took them all away' and that Adam was the first man, etc. They may miss some of the deeper meanings, but a science forum mostly deals with the facts on the ground. You can't wave them away, no matter how 'special' you think your deeper meanings may be!

Yep the church tried to suppress scientific knowledge in Galileo's day just like Creationists do today. We certainly can't go by what these hot shots think. Anti science preachers have such a terrible track record from the flat earthers like Cosmas, Galileo's inquisition and modern creationists. They are all very sincere, all thinking that because their literal interpretation of scripture contradicts science that science must be wrong, all trying to defend scripture by attacking science and all bringing scripture into disrepute as a result.

No science exists for a same state past. No need to attack any. The ancients were right, I believe. This present arrangement is a temporary state thing!

Exactly. Creationists take heed. If sceince contradicts your interpretation of the bible it is probably your interpretation that is the problem. Science does not oppose the bible it just discovers more about the wonderful universe God created

No science CAN contradict my interpretation of the bible, or the evidence or history!

So, with a different state past, Eden indeed could have been in the area of Israel.

 

[laconicstudent]

No science exists for a same state past.

No, but science follows this thing called "Logic"

No need to attack any. The ancients were right, I believe. This present arrangement is a temporary state thing!

Yes. Logic and scientific evidence is totally overturned by the overwhelming credibility of the folklore by primitives.

No science CAN contradict my interpretation of the bible, or the evidence or history!

Which is precisely why science ignores the first.

You are lying about the evidence and the only history you can provide are the myth cycles of primitives.

So, with a different state past, Eden indeed could have been in the area of Israel.

Yes. It could have. It is also possible that invisible pink unicorns exist and five seconds after you finish reading this post, one will gore you, puncture your pulmonary artery, and you will bleed to death in about 1 minute. Then you will end up in Tartarus, where you will be punished by the Olympian Gods for your impiety towards them.

Fortunately for our sanity, we realize that both possibilities have no basis in fact, are not supported by evidence, and we discard them both via parsimony.

 

[dad]

No, but science follows this thing called "Logic"

Only as far as that logic can go using the flesh, or physical only. That ain't very far.

Yes. Logic and scientific evidence is totally overturned by the overwhelming credibility of the folklore by primitives.

No, the so called science fables are present state folklore. The primitives were right.

Which is precisely why science ignores the first.

Science has no choice. It has to ignore everything but the same state nose on it's face. So? One thing it can't ignore, is that the foundational premise it rests on for all old age claims is present state only. What else matters?

You are lying about the evidence and the only history you can provide are the myth cycles of primitives.

What evidence precisely do you claim I am lying about? Or does casting false charges around like firebrands just appeal to you?



[/quote]Yes. It could have. It is also possible that invisible pink unicorns exist and five seconds after you finish reading this post, one will gore you, puncture your pulmonary artery, and you will bleed to death in about 1 minute. Then you will end up in Tartarus, where you will be punished by the Olympian Gods for your impiety towards them.

Fortunately for our sanity, we realize that both possibilities have no basis in fact, are not supported by evidence, and we discard them both via parsimony.[/quote] I agree, but since there is no basis for them, who cares? They really are no any challenge to anyone's sanity. But the fact that there is no demonstrable same state future is a challenge to the insane fables of falsely so called science. Stick to what is known. Science really is supposed to be about knowing. Not guessing, assuming, believing, and having strong baseless hunches.

 

[laconicstudent]

Only as far as that logic can go using the flesh, or physical only. That ain't very far.

Yes that is correct. That is why we have this thing called "Religion". It deals with matters of the spirit and morality that science cannot address.

No, the so called science fables are present state folklore. The primitives were right.

If you've really descended to this level, I think no one will disagree when I say you've lost and should just give up.

Science has no choice. It has to ignore everything but the same state nose on it's face. So? One thing it can't ignore, is that the foundational premise it rests on for all old age claims is present state only. What else matters?

The same state premise is considered more likely, because there isn't any reason for there to have ever been an alternate state.

What evidence precisely do you claim I am lying about? Or does casting false charges around like firebrands just appeal to you?

You are claiming there is none, when there are literally thousands of studies covering astrophysics, radiometric dating, genome analysis, archaeology, paleontology and geology ALL SUPPORTING and directly contradicting your position.

I agree, but since there is no basis for them, who cares?

Sane people care, when you ignore logic and start making up crap like that.

They really are no any challenge to anyone's sanity. But the fact that there is no demonstrable same state future is a challenge to the insane fables of falsely so called science. Stick to what is known. Science really is supposed to be about knowing. Not guessing, assuming, believing, and having strong baseless hunches.

See my bolded statement. Stick to what is known, and don't go inventing lunatic theories that the universe had different fundamental laws in the past.

 

[dad]

Yes that is correct. That is why we have this thing called "Religion". It deals with matters of the spirit and morality that science cannot address.

Thank you. Therefore since the spiritual is involved in the bible future and past, clearly, by your own admission, science can't cover it.

If you've really descended to this level, I think no one will disagree when I say you've lost and should just give up.

The ancients were right. The earth did not revolve around the sun, far as we know, neither of course will it in the future.

The same state premise is considered more likely, because there isn't any reason for there to have ever been an alternate state.

No reason you can see from a temporary state only vantage point. Meaningless.

You are claiming there is none, when there are literally thousands of studies covering astrophysics, radiometric dating, genome analysis, archaeology, paleontology and geology ALL SUPPORTING and directly contradicting your position.

Nope, not a one! No study exists on a different state past. They all proceed from a present state standpoint only.

See my bolded statement. Stick to what is known, and don't go inventing lunatic theories that the universe had different fundamental laws in the past.

I do. That is my forte. And the Achilles heel of so called science, it doesn't.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Stick to what is known, and don't go inventing lunatic theories that the universe had different fundamental laws in the past.

I do. That is my forte. And the Achilles heel of so called science, it doesn't.

Lying for Christ, dad?

 

[dad]

Lying for Christ, dad?

If you think you can prove the state of the future nre heaven s universe, now is a good time. Or, if you would like to prove a same state past. Otherwise, of course, it will remain unknown..to science. I would suggest that you study to try and build a case, rather than waste our time with snippets of false charges, and acid and lemon sour grapes.

 

[laconicstudent]

Thank you. Therefore since the spiritual is involved in the bible future and past, clearly, by your own admission, science can't cover it.

Since the spiritual is involved, in cannot really be considered science.

The ancients were right. The earth did not revolve around the sun, far as we know, neither of course will it in the future.

If gravity existed back then, the earth most definitely orbited around the sun.

No reason you can see from a temporary state only vantage point. Meaningless.

I fail to see the refutation to my own statement in this. You miss the point. There is no reason NOT to. That is parsimony.

Nope, not a one! No study exists on a different state past. They all proceed from a present state standpoint only.

This is an argument from ignorance. Just because a different state past hasn't been disproven doesn't mean it has any validity. The invisible pink unicorns also haven't been disproven.

The burden of proof is on you. If you expect anyone to take this seriously, you are the one who has to do a study and prove your suggestion has any value.

I do. That is my forte. And the Achilles heel of so called science, it doesn't.

Your Achilles heel is arguably that you don't understand formal logic. You don't KNOW that there was a different past universe state. Science doesn't KNOW there wasn't.

But since we have PARSIMONY, we accept the SIMPLEST explanation that covers all observed phenomena. Your alternate universe idea fails this rule.

 

[laconicstudent]

If you think you can prove the state of the future nre heaven s universe, now is a good time. Or, if you would like to prove a same state past. Otherwise, of course, it will remain unknown..to science. I would suggest that you study to try and build a case, rather than waste our time with snippets of false charges, and acid and lemon sour grapes.

Dad. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. Since you are the one presenting a new idea, one not supported by any evidence, violates logic and parsimony, you are the one who has to show proof.

If you cannot, there is no reason to even bother considering it, and it is dismissed.

A same past universe state is consistent with our current body of knowledge, experimentation and all observable phenomena. If you want us to dismiss that theory, you have to provide a reason for doing so.

 

[dad]

Dad. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. Since you are the one presenting a new idea, one not supported by any evidence, violates logic and parsimony, you are the one who has to show proof.

Not at all. The one making a clain needs to support it in a way appropriate to the nature of the claim. The nature of my claim is spiritual, biblical, and beyond present science's ability to know. Therefore, of course, the support is in agreement with the evidences we do see, as well as in the observations of men of the deep past. As well as the bible.

All this I do, and do well.

Now, so called science claims that the universe will go dark, our sun, and stars, etc, and prophesies universal death! Let's see you prove a present state will exist in the far future, otherwise, the claims are rubbish. So called science uses uniformity in the unknown past as well. It assumes this present universe fabric was in place. Prove it or that is rubbish.

If you cannot, there is no reason to even bother considering it, and it is dismissed.

A same past universe state is consistent with our current body of knowledge, experimentation and all observable phenomena. If you want us to dismiss that theory, you have to provide a reason for doing so.

The reason it is somewhat consistent, is because that is all you used in the mix! It was designed around a present state, built up only on the belief there was a present state, and nothing else was ever used, or thought of. It is also consistent with a different state universe in the past. We should try not to be ridiculously short sighted and dishonest in looking at what is known. Especially if we are Christians, and believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[dad]

Since the spiritual is involved, in cannot really be considered science.

Of course not, if we limit ourselves to physical only, temporary state science.

If gravity existed back then, the earth most definitely orbited around the sun.

I do not see how you can determine that gravity as we know it existed. Can you? If not, forget about it. The key to the past is the future. Look at the new heaven state, and see that the earth will be the HQ of God. I see no reason to expect it to revolve around anything?

I fail to see the refutation to my own statement in this. You miss the point. There is no reason NOT to. That is parsimony.

Parsimony is null and void, if the observer is in a box! Unless one limits what he observes to the box. You cannot sit in the boxed confines of a temporal physical only state, and second guess eternity, or impose in box rules on it. Parsimony can no more go there, than Buzz Lightyear.

This is an argument from ignorance. Just because a different state past hasn't been disproven doesn't mean it has any validity. The invisible pink unicorns also haven't been disproven.

Not in any way. Since you do not know what state it was or will be, it is you that are in ignorance. In box science can't get one out of ignorance concerning things outside the box.

My position is not based on in box science, but agrees with it. My position is based on historical evidences, and God's word. No other position can peek outside the box.

The burden of proof is on you. If you expect anyone to take this seriously, you are the one who has to do a study and prove your suggestion has any value.

The proofs of things outside the box, can not lie in the box. Wisdom is justified of her children, and wisdom about things outside man's temporary physical only prison state involve more than in temporary state assumptions, and beliefs, and guesses.

Your Achilles heel is arguably that you don't understand formal logic. You don't KNOW that there was a different past universe state. Science doesn't KNOW there wasn't.

The fact that you admit that science doesn't know eliminates it as a player. It should stick to what it does know! I do not know, BY SCIENCE, that there will be a new heavens. But I know there will be. Like the law of gravity, if we drop it it falls. Everything the bible 'dropped' so far fell, so I can expect the rest will!

 

[laconicstudent]

Dad. Get back to me when you've reviewed the rules of formal logic and the scientific method.

I'm tired of repeating myself.

Your arguments are not scientifically valid because they violate the rules of science.

Therefore, your ideas are religious in nature.

 

[dad]

Dad. Get back to me when you've reviewed the rules of formal logic and the scientific method.

I'm tired of repeating myself.

Your arguments are not scientifically valid because they violate the rules of science.

Therefore, your ideas are religious in nature.

The same state past is religious in nature. People are better off looking for beliefs that fit with God, and history. No rule of science extends beyond this universe state. Get over it. You ain't tired, you're beat.

 

[laconicstudent]

The same state past is religious in nature.

Thank you for finally admitting that. In light of that admission, kindly stop trying to use your religious belief in a scientific discussion.

People are better off looking for beliefs that fit with God, and history.

mmm... that is of course, completely antithetical to modern science.

No rule of science extends beyond this universe state. Get over it. You ain't tired, you're beat.

Lol. I'm really glad your finally getting it, and admitting that your belief is religious, and therefore not a scientific or historical fact, and therefore science can continue to hold a same state past universe, old universe and evolution to all be scientifically and historically correct.


although I don't understand how, given that, you seem to think you've won.

Its like someone in a tournament saying "Ok, I lose. Now give me the first place medal."

 

[dad]

Thank you for finally admitting that. In light of that admission, kindly stop trying to use your religious belief in a scientific discussion.

No problem. Yet, it is the foundation of ALL science claims regarding origins. Sweet victory.

mmm... that is of course, completely antithetical to modern science.

Unless science can go there, who really cares what it thinks? It isn't in the game any more, just on the sidelines.

Lol. I'm really glad your finally getting it, and admitting that your belief is religious, and therefore not a scientific or historical fact, and therefore science can continue to hold a same state past universe, old universe and evolution to all be scientifically and historically correct.

They can continue to believe, so? They will remain opposed to the records we do have, the bible, the spiritual, and unable to prove the foundatioanl premise for all there claims. If you are happy with that, fine. The dead end is as far as you go.

although I don't understand how, given that, you seem to think you've won.

Its like someone in a tournament saying "Ok, I lose. Now give me the first place medal."

If the bible is right, and the future and past universe laws and fabric and state is different, that relegates science to absolute insignificance in the creation debate! You missed that? All it has is an unproven, unknown, untested, unobserved, and godless state of the universe in a time where it can't deal with.

 

[laconicstudent]

No problem. Yet, it is the foundation of ALL science claims regarding origins. Sweet victory.

Oh no, observation and parsimony is, but thank you.

Unless science can go there, who really cares what it thinks? It isn't in the game any more, just on the sidelines.

Oh dear, your a little behind the times, science is unlocking more and more for us. We have modern medicine, the internet, the space programs, modern farming, computers, vaccinations, water purification, smallpox eradicated, sanitation, psychology, modern mining and modern manufacturing techniques all thanks to science.

If you think that science is on the "sidelines" you'd be very, very wrong. The world is moving forward.

They can continue to believe, so? They will remain opposed to the records we do have, the bible, the spiritual,

Of course not. Science doesn't even acknowledge they exist, and historians consider the Bible and those mythologies to be just that: Mythologies.

and unable to prove the foundatioanl premise for all there claims.

We observe the physical phenomena, and select the simplest explanation that works. Parsimony. It isn't proved, which you seem to be rather hung up on, but that doesn't matter. For the current intent and purposes of science, it may as well be.

If you are happy with that, fine. The dead end is as far as you go.

A dead-end?

But I am the one being progressive, learning new things, adapting my worldview in the light of new evidence and data discovered month by month and year by year by science. I read it. I find it fascinating. I learn.

You, on the other hand, insist on interpreting the world through the lens of a religious text.

If the bible is right, and the future and past universe laws and fabric and state is different, that relegates science to absolute insignificance in the creation debate! You missed that? All it has is an unproven, unknown, untested, unobserved, and godless state of the universe in a time where it can't deal with.

If you had any proof that this was actually true, this discussion would be more interesting.

You see, that is the problem. You don't have any proof. Science doesn't believe the Bible is any more true then Hesiod's Theogeny. If you can't offer support for the statement I've bolded, then your whole argument collapses.

This is the problem, you are entering a scientific debate and proclaiming that the Bible is true, without any proof. Do you really expect your argument to be met by anything but derision when it is literally built upon nothing?

 

[dad]

Oh no, observation and parsimony is, but thank you.

When you observe a present state future, get back to us. Or creation week, if that is easier.

Oh dear, your a little behind the times, science is unlocking more and more for us. We have modern medicine, the internet, the space programs, modern farming, computers, vaccinations, water purification, smallpox eradicated, sanitation, psychology, modern mining and modern manufacturing techniques all thanks to science.

None of that in box stuff has anything whatsoever to do with so called science and the same state past cult.

If you think that science is on the "sidelines" you'd be very, very wrong. The world is moving forward.

No, how we move here in this temporary state is not part of the creation debate even.

Of course not. Science doesn't even acknowledge they exist, and historians consider the Bible and those mythologies to be just that: Mythologies.

Which historians? Only ignoramuses would hold such views.

We observe the physical phenomena, and select the simplest explanation that works. Parsimony. It isn't proved, which you seem to be rather hung up on, but that doesn't matter. For the current intent and purposes of science, it may as well be.

How it works now is not an issue. Try to focus.

A dead-end?

Yes, that place where you can't proceed from knowledge, that involves a universe long before science existed.

But I am the one being progressive, learning new things, adapting my worldview in the light of new evidence and data discovered month by month and year by year by science. I read it. I find it fascinating. I learn.

We all learn. But you cannot learn what you don't know, and science doesn't know. You dream.

You, on the other hand, insist on interpreting the world through the lens of a religious text.

And if I include the experience and records of man that you ignore, that is a good thing. I first arrive at the honest dead end of so called science, and decide that history and the bible can give me clues, where you have failed.

If you had any proof that this was actually true, this discussion would be more interesting.

There is a lot more proofs of the bible, than so called science. No same state future or past is known, or proved.

This is the problem, you are entering a scientific debate and proclaiming that the Bible is true, without any proof. Do you really expect your argument to be met by anything but derision when it is literally built upon nothing?

The bible is already a known quantity. I have no need to prove it. The basis of so called science claims of the past is also known, it is a present state universe and nothing else at all, and that is as you admit NOT known.

 

[laconicstudent]

When you observe a present state future, get back to us. Or creation week, if that is easier.

You fail to refute my point. I win. Thanks.

None of that in box stuff has anything whatsoever to do with so called science and the same state past cult.

Ad hominem against science. I am going to assume that your inability to do anything but insult the discipline is your concession. I win. Thank you.

No, how we move here in this temporary state is not part of the creation debate even.

I accept your inability to refute my point as a concession. I win. Thank you.

Which historians? Only ignoramuses would hold such views.

An Atheist.

How it works now is not an issue. Try to focus.

How things work is the paramount interest of science. I accept your reiteration of your straw man as your concession. I win. Thank you.

We all learn. But you cannot learn what you don't know, and science doesn't know. You dream.

Science has a theory. Your alternate theory is discarded as non-parsimonious. I accept your repetition of the exact same refuted statement you've been repeating for the past 10 pages as your concession. I win. Thank you.

And if I include the experience and records of man that you ignore, that is a good thing.

The Bible and ancient myths aren't records. For the intents and purposes of science and historians, they are considered fairy tales.

I shall consider your inability to refute this point and prove why we should include mythology as proof to be your concession. I win. Thank you.

I first arrive at the honest dead end of so called science, and decide that history and the bible can give me clues, where you have failed.

It is a dead end. The mistake you make is then going beyond it through the use of logical fallacy. I shall consider your failure to provide a reason for why drawing "clues" from scripture justified to be your concession. I win. Thank you.

There is a lot more proofs of the bible

No. For the intent and purposes of this discussion, the Bible is only as valid as the next book of religion. I shall regard your failure to explain why I should take the Bible more seriously then, say, Hesiod's Theogeny to be your concession. I win. Thank you.

, than so called science. No same state future or past is known, or proved.

I accept your ad hominem, and your continued chanting of the same old refuted point to be your concession. I win. Thank you.

The bible is already a known quantity.

Yes. Historians and scientists generally consider it to be a book of silly fairy-tales. Since that is the nature of our discussion, we must disregard it.

I accept your inability to dispute this as your concession. I win. Thank you.

I have no need to prove it.

For the 1085th time, the Burden of Proof is on you. I accept your inability to provide proof that the Bible has scientific and historical value as your concession. I win. Thank you.

The basis of so called science claims of the past is also known, it is a present state universe and nothing else at all

Justified by observation and confirmed as the accepted theory via parsimony. I shall consider your inability to address this fact and your continued repetition of the same refuted point as your concession. I win. Thank you.

, and that is as you admit NOT known.

I would like to thank you. This discussion was entertaining, but even if you do not admit you have lost, when you keep repeating the same point over and over and over again, despite the fact that they have been refuted ad naseum, your defeat becomes apparent.

You have, for pages now.

1. Not addressed any of my points

2. Not addressed any of my refutations

3. Misunderstood the boundaries of science and religion

4. Continued making appeals to authority by attempting to use the Bible as historical and scientific evidence and without justification

5. You have failed to address the fact that if we admit the Bible, we must also admit the Qur'an, the Bhagavad gita, the Avesta, the Tripitika, the Eddas, the Kojiki and the Nihon-gi, the Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Homer's Iliad, Hesiod's Theogeny or the Tao-te-ching.

6. You have failed burden of proof

7. You have failed parsimony

8. You have used the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy, repeatedly

9. You have insisted in almost every post that 6, 7,8 and all other rules of logic do not apply to you.

well... it was fun.