- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
The ones that had a case they wanted to teach as science would need to defend it as such.
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.
The ones that had a case they wanted to teach as science would need to defend it as such.dad:
Good luck with that.
You do realise that you'd be the one putting forward a case for a different state past, don't you? You don't, do you? And that is precisely why it would be fun to watch.
The ones that had a case they wanted to teach as science would need to defend it as such.
I don't claim it is all that. I merely point out that it records spirits as real things, right here among men. The details of fates, and order of succession, etc, I don't use.Then why do you claim that is it an accurate portrayal of ancient kings? If the list is not accurate for dates of reign, what makes it accurate for mentioning "spirit" kings?
We do not know. It is an old list. Some think certain kinds are really other kings..maybe. Others think the fragments are arranged wrong. Others think that the years are not years of reign, etc etc. However, what we can glean from it, is that spirits were part of the early record.So if you think the list is lying about the reign of Thoth then what makes it accurate about "gods" as kings? All it shows is humanity's capability to deify ancient rulers. Just because some of it is exaggerated does not mean the whole thing is.
Unknown. You can't wave it away like that. Sure we need a grain of salt, with pagan records, a large grain, but some basics of life can be gleaned from the records.Humanity's capability to ascribe great deeds and feats to ancient people.
That depends on whether you want accurate dates for the spirit kings or just the info that there were such things!If it is so untrustworthy as a source of dates, what makes it any different about ancient spirit kings?
But it is not just the one list, or even country that records spirits. That is just one piece of evidence in many.Conversely, an unknown scribbler is hardly a reliable source for the reliability of "spirit" kings. I still haven't heard a counter for 3,000 years of Egyptian history being fit into a 2,000 year time span.
What's a naga? If there was some spirits helping, why would that bother me? If they didn't confess that Jesus is the Christ, and come in the flesh, they are not good spirits, however.So you believe that Mohammad ascended into heaven by angels? You believe that Buddha walked on water and was protected by a naga as he sat under the Bodhi tree to reach enlightenment?
Speculation. They also recorded actual people!All I have claimed is that later Egyptian culture deified pharaohs so it is no surprise that they did the same with the earliest rulers.
So now you are claiming they are ridiculous? In earlier posts you mentioned how the Turin list mentions "spirits" as rulers and how it proves your "different state" past nonsense. Now you are claiming they are "ridiculous records made by some insane scribbler". Funny, funny, funny...
Spirits can do that...so?? They can and do inhabit living creatures. However, they are not actual spirit beings, that man sees now. We merely see the body they live in. Before, it was a different degree of presence, where the sons of god actually married women, etc. They had kids, even. Maybe some of those were deified..?! After all, they became men of renown.They are animistic, they believe that spirits live everywhere. Spirits can take the form of animals or people. To animistic cultures the spirit world and physical world are inseparable.
Well, even if a different state rock had a much lower melt point, or some such, I see no reason to assume that magma could not be produced? But do show us, if you have some evidence that would require a tweak in that little dept..I thought there was no heat in the "different state" past? To me that sounds like heat caused by friction and pressure, the same as today in the present state. Ergo, the past was the same as the present.
No. Look at the curse, after the fall. We had the ground, or earth where man lived, the surface, in other words, that was affected. Do you have some reason to say that the eternal foundations of the earth were also cursed?? That would be news to me. So, what it would appear to me, is that man's world, the surface area was changed. Why do I assume that the stars, and inner earth, and fabric and laws and forces and light were not changed at the time of the fall, you ask? Because there were still clear differences till after the flood! In fact, even at the time of the split, which was the time of Babel as well, if I calculate right, spirits were right nearby, in the sky level! They tried to build up to this 'heaven'!! Why do you think they were stopped? If you look at the time just before the flood, when the Almighty God Himself, Personally announced some big change was coming down the pipes in 120 years...we still see the angels marrying gals in the VERY verse before!So if the core is spiritual also, then that means the "split" never happened since the spiritual is still connected to the physical.
We need to ask when the heat came to be, and how much there was! If it was right at the tail end of the continental separation, for example, when the laws were then present state, we would get a lot of heat! Enough, I wager, to remain under there for thousands of years!! Sometime I may look into a possible connection there, with how the stuff that makes geysers at Yellowstone has been cooling over time..So heat being created from movement is no different than today. Heat is being created by the earth in this state that does not kill life, unless you jump into the lava.
I think they could have flipped like pancakes in the different state. Why would that be any problem at all??So are you claiming that the magnetic poles have changed several dozen times in the past few thousand years?
Well, all you have done is make a point at last, that is semi clear. Easy as pie to address, though. You say that "we know" that pillow lava "IS formed" in water. How would you know that ancient pre flood pillow lava needed to also be formed that way? You haven't even showed us any yet! You mention one site in Australia, and failed to reply when asked of details about it! Do your homework.You have consistently claimed that the physical laws of the past were different from the physical laws of the present. We know that pillow lava is formed in aquatic environments. If we find pillow lava in the geologic record, no matter how old it is, whether it is on top of a mountain or in the middle of the desert, we know that it was formed underwater. You have also claimed that you can explain ANY event in the past state. Since you have consistently been unable to explain how pillow lava would form differently in the "past state", I now claim victory.
In talking about suing the false teachers, and system, the focus is on what they claim..You don't get it. You're the one making a claim, therefore you have to back it up. You haven't. You never even try. You don't even seem to understand that this a problem.
Nope. They never shoved science, and it's claims, up against the ropes, and pounded till it fell down! They never put IT on trial, and forced it to defend the claimed present state universe and laws in the past and future! That would finish em, cause it can't be done. They are founded on a lie.Already tried by members of your creationist apologetics ilk... and failed. It was called: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). You wouldn't even have gotten as far as they did.
So, are you claiming He was right?! Or are you playing games, and not being forthright? Is He right or not, be honest?We are not claiming God was wrong, ..
So if I think that temporal laws like gravity apply, I am a prophet if I jump off a building? One needs to be a 'prophet' to know certain things now?? The records of man, and God, combined with the actual limits of man's real and actual knowledge are something we can work with with some confidence. Quit blowing smoke.Only a Prophet of God should be so very sure of his particular interpretation of scripture equals God's Inerrant Word. Therefore, in your twisted little mind, you must be a prophet. Still claim I am "patronizing" you?
In talking about suing the false teachers, and system, the focus is on what they claim.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that the future will be this state/. Therefore, right there, we can sue for all the stinking lies they teach on the death of the universe!
Prove that this present state will exist for trillions of years, to kill all stars, etc! They would have zero hope of that!
Then, the same goes for the far past, long before science existed!
They have built a house of cards on the foundation that the present IS THE KEY to that past. It is a lie, and impossible to prove. They can't win.
dad:
There we are, a complete waste of time talking to you. Science's claims are backed up by the evidence we have. All of it.
Testible science doesn't extend beyond the fishbowl of this state. To even suggest it can go back, or forward in time, and test the fabric of the universe is truly absurd. Science isn't about that. It is about making demonic, lying, godless stuff up!No observable anomolies at all. Your claims aren't based on testable science.
Your claims are based on stories from an old book of myths.
We can dismiss your evidence out of hand as worthless, because it doesn't fit the observable, measurable, testable evidence from the real world that we live in.
Tough!! I have a problem with baseless dream worlds that oppose the records, and God.That is why you have a problem with it.
The real world and you are at odds.
Go on then. The courts could do with a good laugh.
You have no evidence it will stay the same. So it can't be taught as knowledge. You can believe what you want, you cannot prove it, or evidence it. I have my own beliefs, thank you very much. They don't happen to include the universe in a speck, or Granny Bacteria.Science works from the evidence we have. Unless we have evidence that present state conditions are likely to change then we're not interested. And guess what, we have no evidence that it will change. Onus is on you.
No more than the tooth fairy! If you want to use her as the foundation of all science claims about the past, you will need to prove her too! Gotcha.It doesn't need to be proved, It needs to be disproved.
That is how science works. One bit of evidence contradicting a scientific theory changes everything. You need to provide that evidence. Onus on you.
You can make all the claims you want, but unless you have evidence that is testable or measurable and backs up your claims you will just be laughed at. Got it? Do you understand that?
It has to know what it is talking about. It has to use a foundation that is known, or science is not science, it is fables. It has to get used to the idea it's time is almost up, and it is fated to become an eternal laughing stock.Just give some indication that any of it registered in your brain. Just give a glimmer of a flicker of a suggestion that you comprehend why science doesn't have to do anything; you do.
Wow. You are truly off your meds now, dad... you're just shouting at the rain with delusions of grandeur.In talking about suing the false teachers, and system, the focus is on what they claim..It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that the future will be this state/. Therefore, right there, we can sue for all the stinking lies they teach on the death of the universe!
Let's see you prove that "the future is the key to the past." It is a lie, and impossible to prove. You can't win.Prove that this present state will exist for trillions of years, to kill all stars, etc! They would have zero hope of that! Then, the same goes foor the far past, long before science existed! They have built a house of cards on the foundation that the present IS THE KEY to that past. It is a lie, and impossible to prove. They can't win.
Yes, they did try. They tried to convince a judge that science should be re-defined to include their religious philosophy. Sound familiar? The trial would have been much shorter if you were the defendent, however.Nope. They never shoved science, and it's claims, up against the ropes, and pounded till it fell down! They never put IT on trial, and forced it to defend the claimed present state universe and laws in the past and future! That would finish em, cause it can't be done. They are founded on a lie.
We are discussing YOU, not Him. We are discussing your interpretation of scripture and your split/merge fantasy. You really can't tell God and You apart anymore... can you dad?So, are you claiming He was right?! Or are you playing games, and not being forthright? Is He right or not, be honest?
How about the actual limits of dad's real and actual knowledge.. can we discuss that? Or are you so far gone that you can no longer acknowledge your own limitations and fallability?So if I think that temporal laws like gravity apply, I am a prophet if I jump off a building? One needs to be a 'prophet' to know certain things now?? The records of man, and God, combined with the actual limits of man's real and actual knowledge are something we can work with with some confidence. Quit blowing smoke.
That would only be needed if I had the material presented to be taught as science. All I need to do is show that they also don't. Then, as it fell into the belief dept, I could pull out the big guns of the bible and history, and how those records tell of differences. Force the lying little science guy out from the cover of hiding behind pretending it was real science and knowledge.Let's see you prove that "the future is the key to the past." It is a lie, and impossible to prove. You can't win. ..
That is a losing proposition in a world of evil men, I would think. All I want to do is redefine it to EXCLUDE THEIR religious philosophy. That would free up the future, and far past of falsely called science, and leave the field to the big boys of faith. Those that can really fight in that arena.Yes, they did try. They tried to convince a judge that science should be re-defined to include their religious philosophy. Sound familiar? The trial would have been much shorter if you were the defendent, however.
Well, I was asking you to come clean, and let us know if you thing God was wrong, or even real? If you do not accept any god, then you are hardly in a position to weigh the various expositions of the bible. Don't think I am one to fall for the old divide and conquer routine. 'Oh, you don't all agree, so God can't be right about anything...'We are discussing YOU, not Him. We are discussing your interpretation of scripture and your split/merge fantasy. You really can't tell God and You apart anymore... can you dad?
How about the actual limits of dad's real and actual knowledge.. can we discuss that? Or are you so far gone that you can no longer acknowledge your own limitations and fallability?
You don't get it at all, dad. Science is what scientists do for a living. Period. If you don't like it, tough. We have nothing to prove to you... just look around at everthing you take for granted. It is all due to science. But we don't ask for your gratitude, dad. We don't need it.That would only be needed if I had the material presented to be taught as science. All I need to do is show that they also don't. Then, as it fell into the belief dept, I could pull out the big guns of the bible and history, and how those records tell of differences. Force the lying little science guy out from the cover of hiding behind pretending it was real science and knowledge.
Faith and Science have nothing to do with each other. When faith replaces science, we will all go back to living in caves. You can start, dad. Why not go find a cave on an unihabited island where there is no evil science to disturb your faith? I will tell you why... you do not have the courage to match your convinctions.That is a losing proposition in a world of evil men, I would think. All I want to do is redefine it to EXCLUDE THEIR religious philosophy. That would free up the future, and far past of falsely called science, and leave the field to the big boys of faith. Those that can really fight in that arena.
Sorry, I'm not letting you dodge and weave your way out of this one. We are discussing YOU and YOUR ideas. Not God. You really cannot separate yourself from God, can you? I guess that's why you are his "Little Echo."Well, I was asking you to come clean, and let us know if you thing God was wrong, or even real? If you do not accept any god, then you are hardly in a position to weigh the various expositions of the bible. Don't think I am one to fall for the old divide and conquer routine. 'Oh, you don't all agree, so God can't be right about anything...'
You will continue to play it all alone. (sniff)I can play a little divide and conquer myself...on the evos.
So your answer is No. You cannot discuss your limits and fallibility. A sad, sad case. Your Holy book says "The meek shall inherit the earth." I guess that leaves you out, dad.My limits are not so great as not to include a small knowledge of what God said, and history says, and what men actually know. It isn't what I don't know that exposes the Achilles heel of so called science, it is what I do know.
Just give some indication that any of it registered in your brain. Just give a glimmer of a flicker of a suggestion that you comprehend why science doesn't have to do anything; you do.
It has to know what it is talking about. It has to use a foundation that is known, or science is not science, it is fables. It has to get used to the idea it's time is almost up, and it is fated to become an eternal laughing stock.
You don't get it at all, dad. Science is what scientists do for a living. Period.
So I look, and see stars, and sun, and trees, and pretty women, and beaches. Science gave us none of that. It gave us pollution, and abortion, and womd, and clear cut logging!If you don't like it, tough. We have nothing to prove to you... just look around at everthing you take for granted. It is all due to science. But we don't ask for your gratitude, dad. We don't need it.
Science already has been replaced by faith based foolish fables. The horse is already out of the barn.Faith and Science have nothing to do with each other. When faith replaces science, we will all go back to living in caves. You can start, dad. Why not go find a cave on an unihabited island where there is no evil science to disturb your faith? I will tell you why... you do not have the courage to match your convinctions.
Sorry, I'm not letting you dodge and weave your way out of this one. We are discussing YOU and YOUR ideas. Not God....
Observations:
1. You don't know what science is.
Reality in no way includes a present state dying future universe, whether you are able to comprehend that basic truth at the moment or not. Neither does it include a creation week that was in this present state. Just learn to live with the limits of man's actual knowledge. The jigs up.2. Your faith, if it is genuine and not a made up joke for your own amusement, has been twisted into a reality-denying, fairytale-fulfilling fantasy that can justifiably be called perverted.
3. You're not well.
Why, would that help me learn what it cannot know or teach?Questions:
1. Did you study any science beyond the age of 13 in school?
Old enough to know that I am not old enough to know the state of the universe 4400 years ago. Old enough to read what God says it was like.4. How old are you anyway?
Yes. I am working on the patent..4. Do you really genuinely believe you have somehow stumbled across a revelation that the rest of humanity has overlooked?
Who cares? Either it is true or not. That is what you should focus on. The rest will all come in due time.6. How many people have you persuaded of this revelation?
7. Why do you think the answer to question 6 is zero?
I prefer to deal in actual threats, rather than suck my thumb, and worry about what others may think. If they think it, they must be prepared to debate it, and put it on the table. They can't seem to get it up there. Funny, that.8. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong and everybody else right?
Guff? What's that, British?And if not, why not. Genuine reasons please, not 'I'm right because I'm right' guff.
I suppose many are so used to being slapped around by evos, they will take a while to grow a little courage, when they see that you guys really are unable to get back up. Besides, how many Christians much care about the creation debate??9. Why do even other christians ignore your claims in these threads? Do you think it might be because they think you are embarrassing them?
10. Are you allowed out in the community alone?
No problem, I tried to tone it down for you.Wow, dad, I confess I didn't expect you to score such a massive own goal as you have with your answers to my questions. Just wow.
Guff? What's that, British?
Also, I don't know if the soccer term 'own goal' is familiar to all Americans.guff
"empty talk, nonsense," 1888, from earlier sense of "puff of air" (1825), of imitative origin.
So, if this limey inadvertantly uses unfamiliar British phrases, don't hesitate to tell me. I love differences between American-English and British-English. (I was reading a story the other day about how for some Americans the word English is more immediately associated with the language they speak in America than with a nation of people living on the other side of the Atlantic. That gave me pause for thought.)own goal
noun(soccer) a goal that results when a player inadvertently knocks the ball into the goal he is defending; "the own goal cost them the game"
Sorry, but it doesn't. I was hoping you would gain some perspective, but that was a vain hope. A closed mind cannot gain new information.Oh, but I do, and I assure you, they do not go to the future for a living, any more than they go to creation week. They commute to work right here and now. Hope that puts some perspective on it for you.
I guess you don't see the computer you are using, the light fixtures, the heating/cooling system, your refrigerator, stove, car, etc., etc. All the things you take for granted in your save and easy life, as you rail against the provider of it all.So I look, and see stars, and sun, and trees, and pretty women, and beaches. Science gave us none of that. It gave us pollution, and abortion, and womd, and clear cut logging!
With you running science, it would be a case of the patients running the insane asylum.Science already has been replaced by faith based foolish fables. The horse is already out of the barn.
How about you first admitting you do not speak for God. How about first admitting you are fallible. I asked first, afterall. Instead, you dodge, dodge and dodge...Well my idea is that science can't prove the same state past they use. I notice you haven't come clean in making a stance on God here. Rather than accuse me of not having the perfect bible case, why not just admit you reject God and the bible? Save us all time. While you are at it, admit that science is unable to prove the state of the past or future! Not like you have any choice, I am exposing stuff here.
I am ready for the evo Inquisition to be terminated! The forced worship, and mandatory teaching of lying fables, and doctrines of devils, that is science so called, falsely. I am ready for the dawn to break, and end the greatest dark ages in the history of mankind! I am eager for the day when the truth of God will cover the world like the waters cover the sea.Are you all tooled up, ready for the new Inquisition?
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?