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 bible presents both a future and a past with such pronounced differences, it seems the state of the universe had to be different than the present.
Your logic is PO based. It must revolve around that.
No, I just like to deal with an issue that makes sense in a post I am in. I figure if I can't figure out what you are refering to, how is anyone else going to??
You never supported your short sentence claim you call an anaylasis, no. Show us the case. What were the materials other than stone that were so duifferent in each example? How do you know? What is the basis for your claims, if any? Stick to the facts, either you have a case, or not.
You say your god is the horned one. Maybe you should stick to quoting it.
The afterlife is a part of the spiritual. All is is irelevant to is your present box of the physical only universe.
Some may even have believed him. So?
You are welcone to present evidence that space was the same, and the universe here. You are talking too much about nothing. Present your scientific case if you claim you have one.
We have so. We were around then. We were around since the beginning.
Just try and be understood. Hopefully others will do the same.
You have been long in the tooth in part of the thread, yes. But it is not just you here.
Who says that some trickle of evolution still does not occur? Cut the strawman act.
Being consise, and trying to make sense is very relevant.
Hint: If there was a thought, or point in the above words of yours, someone could respond to it. Sounds like you are talking to yourself or something. Hocus pocus, get in focus.
No, you haven't. Bottom line is that it is only assumption. No reason exists to assume a same past or future.
No sense fine tuning our beliefs here, you are a witch, and I a bible believer.
How can you claim something will work where it has never been observed???? I thought you claimed to be a "scientist"?
So, you can't be more clear than a vogue representation of reality. Fine. I guess we should be thankful you have some grip at all there.
Hey, don't worry about that any more. I was kind of being light hearted saying, when you seemed unsure of reality, something like, 'follow me, then'. Now, I can see you best have professional help. Don't worry about it.
Ask Jesus. Here is a prayer you could pray to get saved. Just say it, and mean it.
That is right, your inability to make a science case for the kind of past you claim is that.
PO methodology.
Natural as we now know it, in other words.
No. It simply means that the pitiful limits of science only encompass so many arguements.
[/QUOTE] I have. Guess you figure no one else reads this stuff.
-It took time for Eden's creatures to start showing up in the fossil record.
That is absurd. If we use an example of fast plant growth, what does that have God doing? Running around like a faiery waving a tiny wand over each tree evey day?? Or, for eternal life Adam would have had, God, what, sends little spirits with nothing better to do to each cell in our body to make it live long?? Then, what, spirits off to each star to quickly usher the light here fast???? Think about it. The simple thing is to assume a different natural. Ask the monk.
Of course they do. But, if you notice we are seperate now. Have you married an angel? No, I don't mean she is always up in the air about something, or harping on something either. Or never has an earthly thing to wear.
They took a deathly detour from the original road of life. We will, though, thanks to the saviour.
Actually, the hard fact of the matter is that all that the scoffers so called debunked it with is same past assumption based imaginations of the past!!!!! Nothing more at all. And it is now that, that has been exposed, and defrocked, and debunked.
We neede a temporary prison, where lifespans were not too long, I think, for one reason.
Because if heaven was here now, we would still be dying, and the sun still burning out, and the 1500 mile high gold city as big as our moon would have some gravity concerns landing here, and trees do not grow a different fruit each month of the year here. The lions could not eat straw, and gold would still be nontransparent. Etc etc etc etc etc.
The one that had Eve, the mother of all living. You cannot prove your tales that all life came from the crack of a rock.
Known in billions of different ways, by billions of people since ever there was a man.
[/QUOTE]
No, God is not absurd. The silly little lying fairy that flutters around to every living cell, and plant on earth, and radioactive isotope, waving a fairy wand to do sextillions of hourly miracles is!
As I said, they are seperate, so you can't see em.
The bible had the sons of god in our past doing that, as you know.
It did happen!!! Adam is alive forever, as are all the olt testament believers, as are we, and as we will forever be!!! So, the answer is yes.
No, we needed the shorter lifespans to limit the wickedness of man.
Nonsense. Demonstrate that my logic is flawed in your 'non-PO' universe.
Why? We are not discussing my beliefs. We are discussing your beliefs. If this upsets you, we can stop. But until then...
So you condone the cannibalisation of our children?
I have not interprited, I have simply quoted. You deny literalism?
1) Throughout recorded history, the physical laws have remained the same.
We? I take it you are referring to your fellow Christians. It may come as news to you that Christianity was not around since 'the beginning'.
You are the only one who seems to be unable to understand me. You don't even know basic conventions. I think it is you who needs to try harder.
That was not the point and you know it.
I give up. You clearly are unable to engage in a simple dialogue, even when the previous posts have been clearly laid out to you.
Yes! Finally, you understand! It is an assumption! Just as yours (different physical laws) is. The only thing that can tell us which assumption to prefer (since one must be picked, and both are mutually exclusive) is the probabilities of each being true. Occam's Razor posits that the assumption with the least entites is the most probable, i.e., mine. Thus, it is logical to make my assumption. QED!
Indeed.
And you have nothing but assumptions of a different past. Your point?
Indeed it is. Probability is the only thing that distinguishes mine over yours.
Nonsense. Do you even know what science is?
Because there is no reason to assume otherwise.
And I thought you had a scientific argument.
No, I said at least; 'I assume my sensory input is at least a vague representation of the true reality' . It is, at most, an entirely accurate representation of reality.
Because the unseen is not necessarily unobservable. Another case of asynonymous terminology, I'm afraid.
No, I accepted that my sensory input is at least a vague representation, and at most an entirely accurate one.
That is not what I said and you know it. Do not put words into my mouth. I accepted the possibility that what we observe is open to external manipulation. I assume that this is not the case, but I am nonetheless aware of alternate possibilities. You, however, are so close-minded that you do not even question fundamental concepts.
I think not. This is an appeal to your messiah to forgive me of sins that I did not commit. Why do I need forgiveness? I cannot lie; I do not believe that Jesus is the son of your god, nor that Jesus died for me.
A science case? I think you mean a hypothesis.
If you reject science, then there is nothing more I can say to you.
Unless you can explain to me why we should assume an alternate natural, then yes (don't go all 'Where is your scientific evidence for a same past???????!!!'. It gets old real fast).
Care to show me an argument that is both logical and unscientific?
I am not blind. I am aware of the posts of others. What is your point? We were on a half-hearted conversation about dollars and pounds.
And this means something??,
That does not prove you right, it is not evidence for your cause
Can you demonstrate that there is such a thing??? If not, how would you assume your ideas even matter on what it may be like??? If you can demonstrate it, then we will see how well your logic applies there!
We are discussing the utter lack of science and evidence you have for your falsely so called science claim that the past was the same state as the present universe! And, guess whose belief that is? Not mine, that's for sure!
No. Do you? You don't have to speak fror your god, the bible gives us the goods on him. We know all about what he inspires. God let them know how bad a state their rebellion would end them up in. A real disgusting place. As disgusting as those that claim God is in the same evil rebellious place as the sinners in question here.
Depends how it is defined. I advocate getting savedism, so we can understand what it isism, that God was talking about all alongism.
Nope. The bible records history from day 1!
No, no one needs to do squat just because you make baseless claims from assumptions. Many of us look at the evidence, not just what you feel like assuming for no apparent reason!
It may surprise you that it was. Jesus was walking in Eden, and Jesus created the universe. All things that were made were made by Him. And without Him was not anything made that was made.
What I may understand, and what I may tolerate from you may sometimes depend on a few variables. If you use the E word we have to look at the connotation in each instance.
Evolution is a created trait, as I said. That is not what I mean can't be demonstrated. I mean the worm to elephant baloney in the dream past that never was. Where is the lab work there? No one is talking of the ability to evolve and adapt, only the claimed rock crack birthing of all life on earth.
Look again, the mumbo jumbo, hocus pocus, murky and substance lacking phrases might mean something to you, but do not form a complete thought on paper. At least not in the instance you just refered to.
Hey, take your pick of beliefs, just don't call them science, and we're cool.
And, if I recall, you think that that is the highest law in heaven or hell! We had that chat, and I pointed out your old age samepast concepts takes many years to comprehend, and even then, I wonder how many are on the same page! The creation, and new heavens coming is so simple, that a child can get it over breakfast! In the simple war, the primordial rock crack , and the universe in a pepper sized speck of hot sweet nothings, is not even a contender. It is the ultimate complcated mess to avoid.
I have plenty more, you have nothing more! Since yours is a science claim it ought to hang it's head in shame.
Not a study of spooks and the supernatural, I assure you. It is stuck in the natural. That is it's fishbowl.
There is if you get your head out of your assumption.
Only as much as you do.
So, you aren't really sure of reality. I get it already. You hope for the best.
Right, like people see observe the unseen, then? Specifically the spiritual?
Let us know when you pick one some day, eh?
Reality is a concept that best remains solid, I contend.
So you are perfect then, OK. He came not to save the righteous but the sinners who know they need saving.
I mean backed to the hilt with material proofs, and solid evidences, and observations, and repeated actual testings, etc. A case based on good hard science.
I don't reject PO methodology! I simply put it where it belongs, in it's little pace.
If you can't prove the present natural was in the past, why would you expect someone to prove some other natural was??? Just say "I don't know, science does not know". If ever you do know, do tell, now, eh?
Love.
Right. Better to drop that.
In your mind, the crack that gives life was a rock crack. Not everyone finds that as plausible as you.
Known well, and long by billlions and billions! Funny it is 'not known' to you.
How would I know, you just made it up, you tell us???
The gift of God is eternal life, even though the wages of sin is death. Only our bodies die, we will get new ones.
Look around, you think this is natural, as God would make it, or a result of sin?
It means we expect a fossil record where man and mammals, and many plants are absent in the early record.
But it knocks you out of the ring.
It invalidates your dates.
Show me anyoneone that 'knows' the spiritual is always seperate! What a weak claim! Name anyone that believes in the bible heaven that thinks we won't live with aggels and God Himself one day!!!!?
Creation happened in the past, as rockcrackism was claimed to have done. Your total inability to prove it was a past that was the same state as the present is the crux of the matter.
No!!!! That is only true for a short time. We come back with Jesus to get our physical bodies raised from the dead, so that we will, like Jesus, have our complete immortal bodies, not JUST spiritual!!!! Why else would we need the our old bodies, or atoms or dna, or whatever from them?
I gave a link with lots of bible evidences.
