You want me to understand that I affirmed my daughter's belief in Santa, even though I didn't?
If you taught your child that it was a lie, great.
I suspect that the actual basis of science is of a great deal of interest to, you know, SCIENTISTS. And funnily enough, they don't use the Bible as a source.
False. The basis of all claims about the future, and far past is the present state and it's laws. While conjuring images of a deceitful past world and universe may be of interest to scientists to some degree, who cares!?
Yeah, you keep trotting that out. I don't think you actually understand what last thursdayism means, because it certainly doesn't apply here.
In the sense that you seem to want to deny Jesus lived and the apostles and that Scripture really exists and was fulfilled, that is denial.
I am saying that we cannot verify WHO they were passed down from. We do not know the original source of the texts.
We know Peter and Paul and John actually. Scripture was passed down and written by actual folk.
If this was Last Thursdayism, I would instead be claiming that the records were created last week with the appearance that they had been around for thousands of years, and all of our memories were altered.
You might as well be.
Something which you have never been able to do to my arguments. Your arguments, on the other hand, are intentionally kept vague because any specific information you provide would quickly be shown false.
Not true. Introducing some intellectual honesty to the debate is a good thing. Pretending to know when we do not, is --science!
Actually, I take that back. You have claimed something specific: that the rate of radioactive decay in the DSP was zero.
Nope. I asked if you could prove there was any decay. I suspect there may not have been decay as we know it...that is not a claim. That is exposing your claim that there was as being a joke.
And I showed that was false because it could not produce the ratios of parent to daughter to granddaughter material we see.
Your response to that was to invoke a MASSIVE coincidence that ALL the rocks we date just so happen to have gotten EXACTLY the right amount of daughter material in relation to parent material so as to APPEAR to have been formed by radioactive decay, even though you've never been able to explain why ALL the rocks all around the world got exactly the right ratios.
You are not comprehending the basic issues here. Creation is responsible I assume for most of what existed before this nature started to exist. Therefore it is no coincidence that things like daughter material existed. The ratios of creation then, would have existed, and, upon coming to exist under our laws and nature, would react accordingly, and assume the decay relationship.
Oh rubbish. If God wants me to believe, I'm sure he could deliver something to convince me.
He did, about 2014 years ago. Incidentally, I accept that year as the actual year of our Lord. Having looked at the revised claims of what year Jesus was born, it occurs to me that the basis is pathetic. I also agree with Sir Robert Anderson's calculations about when Jesus was killed. (If there is disagreement between the year 2014 (?) and Bob's calculations, I would lean toward Robbie being correct). The reason is that the crux of the issue on dates seems to come down to a few things like the eclipses, and darkness at the time of His death, etc. There could have been something supernatural at work, that changed time to some degree, throwing off our ability to pinpoint it!?
But I digress.
