And likewise deceptive, right?
How would it be deceptive if the dating used on the bread revealed the truth? How is it deceptive if the dating technique reveals that the raisins are the same age as the bread if the raisins and the rest of the bread were made at the same time?
If not, then please show me raisin bread where the raisins are just as old as the bread.
You are asking me to provide you with an example of something created ex nihilo? Please don't tell me you are really that naive...
The raisins are going to be older then the bread. I could throw a five year old box of raisins in my bread dough in the bread machine. It would be a new loaf of bread with 5 year old raisins. That is exactly what I would tell people and see if they wanted any.
You are missing my point...
When I first came here over five years ago, people were saying that there was no evidence for the Flood being worldwide.
When I came on the scene -- agreeing with them -- they switched tactics and went from saying there was 'no evidence', to saying 'evidence says there was no Flood'.
I find this hard to believe. You can't see that there can both be a lack of evidence for a thing AS WELL AS evidence against that same thing?
For example, there is not a single shred of evidence to support a claim that there is an elephant sitting on my head. (No elephant smells, noises, elephant-sized holes in the wall where he entered my house, etc)
There is also evidence that says there is no elephant sitting on my head. For example, the fact I am still alive and not squashed under an elephant.
If what you say is correct -- that 'there is a lot of evidence for the biblical [sic] account being inaccurate', then why are Internet scientists here asking for evidence of Biblical creation?
To try to make creationists realise that there is no evidence.
In other words, Aryn, what would happen to all this evidence that says the Biblical account is 'inaccurate', should someone actually produce evidence for Biblical creation?
Then one of those sources would be wrong, and we'd have to determine which one, and then find an explanation for why that evidence is there when it is wrong.
In my opinion, it's not going to change their mind.
QV please. This shows very clearly that every single atheist who has posted (at least at the time of this post) would change their mind given sufficient evidence. Your opinion seems to be wrong.
All it will do, again in my opinion, is cause them to say: "Ya, okay, there is some evidence of a Biblical creation, but we have all this evidence that says otherwise."
Hence my above-mentioned investigation in order to determine which of the two groups of evidence is correct.
Why on earth, they are asking/demanding evidence, when in my opinion, they will dismiss it anyway, is beyond me; unless it's just to yank our chains.
I've already shown you that your opinion is wrong, and the vast majority of atheists will change their mind provided that they are given sufficient reason to.
And we ask for evidence because, like I said, we are hoping to get you creationists thinking, "Well, there is no evidence. I wonder why that is?" Because we find that critical thinking and rational investigation is the best way to learn about the world, and those techniques have proven their usefulness. And creationism does not stand up to such critical thinking.
No, that's not correct.
No ... evidence ... exists.
I have probably said this a hundred times here, and I shall continue to do so.
Even seasoned debaters here cannot grasp that simple fact.
Split Rock is the only one I can recall right now that understands this.
He disagrees with it, but he understands it.
Oh, AV, we understand what you are saying.
But you have yet to answer my question regarding this. "Why does no evidence for it exist? Why did God intentionally use a technique that leaves no evidence when he could easily have used a technique that DOES provide evidence?"
