Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Kylie]

Me too. Believing in science does not mean accepting that their natural only based creation stories are valid.

And yet you have rejected science multiple times in this thread.

I'm talking about people who accept the science and hold it alongside their religious belief.

You do not do this. You reject science.

The evidence in the rock example on day two of creation would say to you and your science believing husband that the rock was billions of years old and came to exist some other way than creation by God. Right? Yet that rock would only have been created the day before. Is that science working to you?

You don't get it.

Your question depends on there having actually been a creation event as described in the Bible.

If you want me to accept that, then you must provide evidence for it. Otherwise any answer has no connection to the real world.

And you can't prove there is no more than the natural world. Here is a little secret though, God proves to those who sincerely seek and accept Jesus that there certainly is! That does not mean He proves it to science or doubters.

No I can't.

And if you COULD provide evidence that there was more than the natural world, I'd be happy to look at it and accept it if it withstood scrutiny.

But, despite the fact I've asked you countless times for such evidence, you've provided absolute squat.

As if that was in some doubt?? I think we could have asked a toddler of Adam's if the world existed and they would know. No brownie points for science there.

And yet you reject what the natural world tells us in favour of you literal young earth interpretation of the Bible.

If you reject the support God gave us, then don't be surprised if your problem of unbelief is not met by God

What support?

I've asked you more times than I can count to provide evidence to support your position and you've given me nothing.

There is nothing random about how rocks were the day after creation. If they had isotope ratios, those ratios would be similar to what we see today. Why? Because how many changes in long half lived isotopes could there be in 6000 years?

Yeah, you absolutely do not have any idea what you are talking about here.

He did that. If some did not receive it, that changes nothing for the billions of us to whom He revealed and proved Himself over and over. It just means that such people cannot prove anything! Neither that there is or is not a God. Therefore if they model the creation of man and universe on one or the other position, it is baseless. And they do base it on one position and that is the naturalonlydunnit

No, personal revelation is not evidence.

Evidence can be tested independently.

He said all those things, and each of the writes recorded some of it.

And yet none of them recorded all of it. Funny that. It's exactly what we'd expect to see if it never happened at all.

Combined though we are shown! Notice God used four gospels? Did you think that was because it would all be told in one?

Why couldn't it?

As far as creation goes, it is useless at best. Look at that day after creation rock and see!

Yeah, once again you are assuming there was a creation in order to argue that there was a creation.

You need to learn that is a logical fallacy and proves nothing.

You think being written in a book makes something unreliable? What does that say for science books?

No, I think that if the only place you can get it is in a book, that makes it unreliable.

Science is not just in books. Science is an investigation of the real world.

Ans so it would on day two after creation! You get why that would be wrong?

Yeah, once again you are assuming there was a creation in order to argue that there was a creation.

You need to learn that is a logical fallacy and proves nothing.

If those numbers were applied to a rock 2 days old, what does this say for your methods and numbers?

Yeah, once again you are assuming there was a creation in order to argue that there was a creation.

You need to learn that is a logical fallacy and proves nothing.

The issue with the 2 day old rock is not whether several teams of dissenting scientists agreed or not. The issue is why are they wrongly dating a 2 day old rock!

Yeah, once again you are assuming there was a creation in order to argue that there was a creation.

You need to learn that is a logical fallacy and proves nothing.

It all depends who scrutinizes what. Since the bible says the god of this world blinds the minds of unbelievers, how would we expect them to be able to scrutinize things like fulfilled prophesy?

Come on. Every faith includes something to say that there are going to be some people who don't believe it. That way they can say, "Look, this person doesn't believe, just as the book says they wouldn't! That proves the book is right!"

Every.

Single.

Faith.

Assertion based on ignorance. No one knows when Jesus will return to take believers away. Christians are told to be ready as if it were today. We were not told it was some certain day. As for the general lateness of the times, well, that is a topic for another thread.

Yeah, you said it was going to be "soon."

How do you know it will be "soon" if no one knows when it will be? It could be in a bazillion years for all you know.

Once again, you claim that there is no more than the natural world, yet you are completely unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to support your claims.

I've never claimed that I know for a fact there is no supernatural world.

It's just that you are claiming that the supernatural is real, and I'm saying, "Okay then, prove it."

I'd be happy to believe it, but you have to prove it first.

No one is going to prove scientifically anything about this topic. Certainly not that there in no more than the physical and natural. Just admit the science uses that belief that this natural world is sufficient to know how we were created or came to exist. There can be no denying that science uses this premise.

You have absolutely no idea what science is or how it works, do you?

So? There is nothing the proves the natural world can tell us about the reality of God and creation either. You are in a lose/lose situation

The fact that your position is unfalsifiable is not the victory you seem to think it is.

To who? God proves that to those who come to Him. Science cannot prove or disprove or even comprehend that!

People of all faiths have claimed that their God has proved himself to them. You've got nothing special here.

Not if God uses them. Do you think a pen can be wrong about what is written?

Sure it can.

What point do you think you are making here?

You holding a belief that it does not exist is not evidence that it does not exist.

Ah, but I never claimed to believe it does not exist.

I simply claimed that I see no reason to believe that it DOES exist. The difference is subtle, and I don't expect you to understand it.

Proof?

Because the claims presented in the Bible, if interpreted literally, contradict things we know to be true about the real world.

If you are arguing against there being more than the natural, why do we see no evidence?

Why do we not see evidence of there not being nothing more than the physical world?

Do you even read what you write?

 

[Kylie]

And that's what God gave Adam ... existence.

Existence in the way of maturity without history.

He came into existence as a twenty or thirty year old.

Can God create a block of aged cheese tomorrow?

Yeah, that's not how it works.

If Adam had the age of, say, 35, then he had to have existed for 35 years old. And that means he had 35 years of history.

If he came into existence a second ago, then he has an age of one second. He had existed for one second, and therefore he had a history that has lasted one second.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

?

Why fake the age of the Earth by imbedding it?

 

[truthpls]

And yet you have rejected science multiple times in this thread.

Only when it comes against God. Then we can dance all over it and laugh.

I'm talking about people who accept the science and hold it alongside their religious belief.

You do not do this. You reject science.

No, I accept some science as it deals with the real world. Not the fanciful fables about ages or creation based on their one horse belief.

You don't get it.

Your question depends on there having actually been a creation event as described in the Bible.

Right. As would embedded age. So the way to find out if God created or not is not to gawk at creation after it is done and finished and claim that this tells us how old or where it came from

If you want me to accept that, then you must provide evidence for it. Otherwise any answer has no connection to the real world.

Once you admit that you have used just the natural the rest falls in line. All scenarios based on just the natural say nothing more than 'IF there were no God, then...blah blah' That has no connection except humour in the real world.

No I can't.

And if you COULD provide evidence that there was more than the natural world, I'd be happy to look at it and accept it if it withstood scrutiny.

If you could provide evidence that most men in most places on earth in all times have accepted for millions of reasons that there was more are all wrong we could look at it. I will scrutinize it then. Meanwhile at best you must admit that you have no idea if there is or is not more. That means your whole foundation for telling us about the past is solely based on what you do not know.

But, despite the fact I've asked you countless times for such evidence, you've provided absolute squat.

Until you provide evidence there is nothing more than the natural, why ask anyone to provide evidence there is? Science does not know or care. It uses the natural only premise come hell or high water.

And yet you reject what the natural world tells us in favour of you literal young earth interpretation of the Bible.

The natural world tells us that there is a creator. The bushes, beasts and if it were not so, the rocks would cry out!

What support?

I've asked you more times than I can count to provide evidence to support your position and you've given me nothing.My position is that the reality of the situation is that science uses only the natural and does not know if there is more or not. Why would anyone believe their results?

Yeah, you absolutely do not have any idea what you are talking about here.

No, personal revelation is not evidence.

You do not even have that to evidence that only the natural is responsible for creation.

Evidence can be tested independently.

Says who? You HAVE no evidence to test that there is nothing but the natural!

And yet none of them recorded all of it. Funny that. It's exactly what we'd expect to see if it never happened at all.

Guess God gave them each something to be special and individuals.

Why couldn't it?

Yeah, once again you are assuming there was a creation in order to argue that there was a creation.

It is not an argument, creation is a recorded fact verified by Scripture and Jesus. As AV might say 'that settles it'

You need to learn that is a logical fallacy and proves nothing.

You need to learn that your absolute lack of evidence for there being nothing more than the physical is not logic, truth, or valid.

No, I think that if the only place you can get it is in a book, that makes it unreliable.

Jesus got His knowledge of creation and Adam in a book? So tell me, where do you get your acumen in naturalonlydunnit belief?

Science is not just in books. Science is an investigation of the real world.

Belief in Jesus is not just in books either. It is an experience and part of the real world. Naturalonlydunnit is not an experience, it is a premise for which there can be no support and is no support and never will be any support. It is not investigating either. It is preaching that God is not part of the 'real world' without any proof.

Yeah, once again you are assuming there was a creation in order to argue that there was a creation.

You need to learn that is a logical fallacy and proves nothing.

Yeah, once again you are assuming there was a creation in order to argue that there was a creation.

You need to learn that is a logical fallacy and proves nothing.

Yeah, once again you are assuming there was a creation in order to argue that there was a creation.

You need to learn that is a logical fallacy and proves nothing.

Maybe you will repent of your parroting after you read this post that deals handily with that inverted word salad.

Come on. Every faith includes something to say that there are going to be some people who don't believe it. That way they can say, "Look, this person doesn't believe, just as the book says they wouldn't! That proves the book is right!"

Have you read the book for every faith? Name three such books that say that?

Yeah, you said it was going to be "soon."

I think He is coming soon. If not, I hope I can act as if He will. In any case I will see Him soon, even if the world continues on for a bit after I die.

How do you know it will be "soon" if no one knows when it will be? It could be in a bazillion years for all you know.

When certain signs happen it is soon. Signs never seen before in the world as of yet. The battles involving specific nations that will happen in the end also clue us in. Turkey, Iran and Russia and others will invade Israel in the end. Many people see that that war seems to be shaping up. There will also be a mark needed for buying and selling in the end, and that seems to be ready to go whenever now as well. Etc etc

I've never claimed that I know for a fact there is no supernatural world.

But will you admit it is a fact that science uses only the natural world and processes in formulating all scenarios of the past and where and we came from?

It's just that you are claiming that the supernatural is real, and I'm saying, "Okay then, prove it."

There are 2 views. One is that there is just the natural, and the other is that there is more. Science bets the farm on only one scenario, and it cannot be proven or supported, only believed.

I'd be happy to believe it, but you have to prove it first.

You have absolutely no idea what science is or how it works, do you?

Yes, by looking at this physical world and nothin but

The fact that your position is unfalsifiable is not the victory you seem to think it is.

Both positions are unfalsifiable. Any claim that there is no supernatural component to creation and nothing but the natural in existence cannot be falsified. I think that the world of history and experiences of men and women and miracles and fulfilled prophesy etc prove that there is more. But since you will not allow those as evidence, let's be generous and just say your position is unfalsifiable

People of all faiths have claimed that their God has proved himself to them. You've got nothing special here.

Then they all agree ans science is the odd man out!

I simply claimed that I see no reason to believe that it DOES exist.

So? I see no reason to believe there is nothing but the natural. For the supernatural we have all faiths on earth of all time agreeing

The difference is subtle, and I don't expect you to understand it.

Because the claims presented in the Bible, if interpreted literally, contradict things we know to be true about the real world.

The things you thought you knew were only based on ignorance and a faith that could never be supported, that there is only the natural. A house is only as good as the foundation.

Why do we not see evidence of there not being nothing more than the physical world?

Because there is no evidence that there is nothing more? On the contrary!

Do you even read what you write?

Yes. I even read what you write.

 

[truthpls]

Yeah, that's not how it works.

If Adam had the age of, say, 35, then he had to have existed for 35 years old. And that means he had 35 years of history.

If he came into existence a second ago, then he has an age of one second. He had existed for one second, and therefore he had a history that has lasted one second.

? If Adam existed as a man for 5 seconds, how would he 'had to have 35 years of history'?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, that's not how it works.

Actually it does.

If Adam had the age of, say, 35, then he had to have existed for 35 years old. And that means he had 35 years of history.

If he came into existence a second ago, then he has an age of one second. He had existed for one second, and therefore he had a history that has lasted one second.

Adam would be both.

35 years old physically.

1 second old existentially.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why fake the age of the Earth by imbedding it?

As I have pointed out, age was a requirement for existence.

Some trees had to be older than others.

Some rocks had to be older than others.

Etc and so on.

 

[BCP1928]

Well, it denies that man came from the earth and was formed by God etc. One cannot say that Adam or creation is a 'shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation'. It is a bible wide truth.

Are you a Dispensationalist?

 

[truthpls]

Are you a Dispensationalist?

I'd have to look that up

 

[BCP1928]

I'd have to look that up

I should think somebody at your church would have told you.

Dispensationalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The reason I ask is that some of your eccentric notions about the Bible are the same as AV's which in his case seem to come from Dispensationalist theology. Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?

 

[truthpls]

I should think somebody at your church would have told you.

Dispensationalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The reason I ask is that some of your eccentric notions about the Bible are the same as AV's which in his case seem to come from Dispensationalist theology. Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?

Yes

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

As I have pointed out, age was a requirement for existence.

Some trees had to be older than others.

Some rocks had to be older than others.

Etc and so on.

But rocks don't have to appear billions of years old.

 

[Aaron112]

I've never seen anything, no rock, no ocean, no star, no sun, no earth

But rocks don't have to appear billions of years old.

, never anything that
appears to be over a few thousand years old, never anywhere, not even any picture of something more than a few thousand years old. Really simple.

The claims of sinful men that something is older than it is, do not impress me at all , nor can they be correct when they are wrong

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I've never seen anything, no rock, no ocean, no star, no sun, no earth


, never anything that
appears to be over a few thousand years old, never anywhere, not even any picture of something more than a few thousand years old. Really simple.

The claims of sinful men that something is older than it is, do not impress me at all , nor can they be correct when they are wrong

Nor do your claims impress me, especially when even the Bible does not support them.

 

[Kylie]

Only when it comes against God. Then we can dance all over it and laugh.

And there's the problem.

You start with what you've already decided must be true and then judge things based on that.

You'll never find the truth by starting with your conclusion.

No, I accept some science as it deals with the real world. Not the fanciful fables about ages or creation based on their one horse belief.

Again, you are starting with what you've already decided is true.

Right. As would embedded age. So the way to find out if God created or not is not to gawk at creation after it is done and finished and claim that this tells us how old or where it came from

So you claim the real world can't give us reliable information about the real world?

Once you admit that you have used just the natural the rest falls in line. All scenarios based on just the natural say nothing more than 'IF there were no God, then...blah blah' That has no connection except humour in the real world.

The natural world is the only thing we can actually demonstrate exists.

And no, you can't use your predetermined conclusions as evidence.

If you could provide evidence that most men in most places on earth in all times have accepted for millions of reasons that there was more are all wrong we could look at it. I will scrutinize it then. Meanwhile at best you must admit that you have no idea if there is or is not more. That means your whole foundation for telling us about the past is solely based on what you do not know.

The fact that there are countless different views on what the supernatural is, the fact that these views often contradict each other, and the fact that NONE of these views can be tested in any meaningful way is more than enough.

Until you provide evidence there is nothing more than the natural, why ask anyone to provide evidence there is? Science does not know or care. It uses the natural only premise come hell or high water.

Why should we start with the assumption that there is something su8pernatural when there's literally zero verifiable evidence for it?

The natural world tells us that there is a creator. The bushes, beasts and if it were not so, the rocks would cry out!

No, your argument from incredulity does that.

BTW, you missed a response to one of my points here.

You do not even have that to evidence that only the natural is responsible for creation.

Your personal revelation is not evidence.

Says who? You HAVE no evidence to test that there is nothing but the natural!

Says everyone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Guess God gave them each something to be special and individuals.

Do you really expect that to be a good argument for your position?

It is not an argument, creation is a recorded fact verified by Scripture and Jesus. As AV might say 'that settles it'

There is no verification just because it's in a book. It's simply a claim made in a book that you've decided ahead of time is infallible. Your belief that the Bible is infallible does not make it infallible, and there's zero reason for you to expect others to hold the same view.

You need to learn that your absolute lack of evidence for there being nothing more than the physical is not logic, truth, or valid.

Your absolute lack of evidence for the supernatural is not logic, truth, or valid.

Jesus got His knowledge of creation and Adam in a book? So tell me, where do you get your acumen in naturalonlydunnit belief?

The scientists who study reality get their knowledge by studying reality.

Belief in Jesus is not just in books either. It is an experience and part of the real world. Naturalonlydunnit is not an experience, it is a premise for which there can be no support and is no support and never will be any support. It is not investigating either. It is preaching that God is not part of the 'real world' without any proof.

The fact that people believe in God and Jesus is not evidence that this belief is correct.

Maybe you will repent of your parroting after you read this post that deals handily with that inverted word salad.

You haven't dealt with anything. Your posts are full of logical fallacies and an inability to actually understand the science I am trying to show you.

Have you read the book for every faith? Name three such books that say that?

In Islam, the Quran says it in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:6-7):
Surely those who disbelieve, alike is it to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe

In Hinduism, the Bhagavad Gita says it in Chapter 9, Verse 3
People who have no faith in this dharma are unable to attain Me, O conqueror of enemies. They repeatedly come back to this world in the cycle of birth and death.

In Buddhism, the Dhammapada says it in verse 174:
This world is blind-become few are here who see within as few the birds break free from net so those who go to heavens.

In Sikhism, the Guru Granth Sahib says it on Ang 508:
They do not think of the Naam, the Name of the Lord, and they do not contemplate the Word of the Shabad. This is the conduct of the self-willed manmukhs.

There's FOUR books, not including the Bible.

I think He is coming soon. If not, I hope I can act as if He will. In any case I will see Him soon, even if the world continues on for a bit after I die.

You'll find that I won't put much stock in what you believe, since you've never provided any evidence to support your beliefs.

When certain signs happen it is soon. Signs never seen before in the world as of yet. The battles involving specific nations that will happen in the end also clue us in. Turkey, Iran and Russia and others will invade Israel in the end. Many people see that that war seems to be shaping up. There will also be a mark needed for buying and selling in the end, and that seems to be ready to go whenever now as well. Etc etc

Oh, there are always battles and fighting. People have literally been making these claims for 2000 years.

Face it: It's not gonna happen!

But will you admit it is a fact that science uses only the natural world and processes in formulating all scenarios of the past and where and we came from?

Science only uses that which can be verified.

If it can't be verified, we can't be sure it is real, and if it is not real, why should we think it can provide us with accurate information?

There are 2 views. One is that there is just the natural, and the other is that there is more. Science bets the farm on only one scenario, and it cannot be proven or supported, only believed.

Once again, you simply don't understand what you are talking about.

Science bets only on what can be shown. So far, the only thing that can be shown is the natural world. That is why science just sticks with that.

Anything more than the natural world can NOT be shown. That's why there are so many different ideas about the supernatural. If we can't say for sure what something is, then we have no reason to think that any particular interpretation of it is accurate.

Yes, by looking at this physical world and nothin but

That does not demonstrate understanding.

Both positions are unfalsifiable. Any claim that there is no supernatural component to creation and nothing but the natural in existence cannot be falsified. I think that the world of history and experiences of men and women and miracles and fulfilled prophesy etc prove that there is more. But since you will not allow those as evidence, let's be generous and just say your position is unfalsifiable

You seem to be under the impression that science says there is no such thing as the supernatural. That is not the case. It says that the supernatural can't be verified, so we can't use it as a reliable means of finding out the truth.

Then they all agree ans science is the odd man out!

Really?

Given that people of all faiths think that all other faiths have it wrong, this isn't the victory you think it is.

Yet have you noticed that ALL faiths are happy to use the products of science? Such as the computer you are using right now?

So? I see no reason to believe there is nothing but the natural. For the supernatural we have all faiths on earth of all time agreeing

Agreement? Different faiths contradict each other, that's hardly agreement!

The things you thought you knew were only based on ignorance and a faith that could never be supported, that there is only the natural. A house is only as good as the foundation.

I've never claimed that there is only the natural. I've only claimed that we have no evidence for the supernatural, so we can't claim to know what the supernatural is.

Because there is no evidence that there is nothing more? On the contrary!

Then how about you get off your rear and provide some, like I've been repeatedly asking you to?

Yes. I even read what you write.

You don't seem to understand what I write.

 

[Kylie]

? If Adam existed as a man for 5 seconds, how would he 'had to have 35 years of history'?

He couldn't! That's my point!

 

[Kylie]

Actually it does.

Prove it.

Adam would be both.

35 years old physically.

1 second old existentially.

So Adam would be 35 years old physically, even though he hadn't been physical for 35 years.

And you don't see the inherent violation of logic there?

 

[AV1611VET]

So Adam would be 35 years old physically, even though he hadn't been physical for 35 years.

Correct.

And you don't see the inherent violation of logic there?

Those "violations of logic" are called "miracles."

 

[truthpls]

And there's the problem.

You start with what you've already decided must be true and then judge things based on that.

In this thread actually we started with a rock that was 2 days old with men who had already decided it was older

You'll never find the truth by starting with your conclusion.

If we conclude that God is true, we already found the truth

So you claim the real world can't give us reliable information about the real world?

The real world is heaven. This temporal world is also real. But you don't get to limit reality to this present world. You take part of the equation, just the natural part, and form conclusions with that.

The natural world is the only thing we can actually demonstrate exists.

Who needs to demonstrate that it exists? We live in it. If you stub your toe you know it exists. But we also know that God exists and angels and spirits. That has been demonstrated to mankind since time immemorial. WE can say science does not even know that much though (or not)

And no, you can't use your predetermined conclusions as evidence.

Science predetermined that only the natural tells us how man and the universe got here.

The fact that there are countless different views on what the supernatural is, the fact that these views often contradict each other,

Great, the evidence seems to be universal. We would not expect all men to agree about what they don't know anything about, of course. But most know that there is more than the natural.

and the fact that NONE of these views can be tested in any meaningful way is more than enough.

Chiefly the view of science that the naturalonlydunnit

Why should we start with the assumption that there is something su8pernatural when there's literally zero verifiable evidence for it?

Why should we start with the assumption that there is nothing supernatural when there's literally zero verifiable evidence for the claim? The world abounds in evidence that there is more. Whether you accept that into your little naturalonly clique or not doesn't change anything

BTW, you missed a response to one of my points here.

Your personal revelation is not evidence.

The bible is not personal revelation. Your personal revelation that nothing but the natural exists is not evidence

There is no verification just because it's in a book. It's simply a claim made in a book that you've decided ahead of time is infallible. Your belief that the Bible is infallible does not make it infallible, and there's zero reason for you to expect others to hold the same view.

The book actually came about after millennia of experiences and contact with God. Then they made it into a book.

Your absolute lack of evidence for the supernatural is not logic, truth, or valid.

Your absolute lack of evidence for JUST the natural is not logic, truth, or valid.

The scientists who study reality get their knowledge by studying reality.

Using the word reality does not make a bogus, natural only patchwork of hunches and guesses of the naturalonlists 'knowledge' or reality.

The fact that people believe in God and Jesus is not evidence that this belief is correct.

Or not

You haven't dealt with anything. Your posts are full of logical fallacies and an inability to actually understand the science I am trying to show you.

We all understand the principle of insisting there is nothing beyond the natural and cooking up universe origins based on that.

In Islam, the Quran says it in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:6-7):
Surely those who disbelieve, alike is it to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe

In Hinduism, the Bhagavad Gita says it in Chapter 9, Verse 3
People who have no faith in this dharma are unable to attain Me, O conqueror of enemies. They repeatedly come back to this world in the cycle of birth and death.

In Buddhism, the Dhammapada says it in verse 174:
This world is blind-become few are here who see within as few the birds break free from net so those who go to heavens.

In Sikhism, the Guru Granth Sahib says it on Ang 508:
They do not think of the Naam, the Name of the Lord, and they do not contemplate the Word of the Shabad. This is the conduct of the self-willed manmukhs.

There's FOUR books, not including the Bible.

I agree, that is four books, not including the bible! I suppose you could add some gangs that say that anyone who leaves must die. Or nations that say that any state that tries to succeed must not be allowed...etc

Maybe even science, and how they treat scientists that try to include more than the natural!

Oh, there are always battles and fighting. People have literally been making these claims for 2000 years.

I suppose some claimed they were the opposite sex or cats as well. So?

Face it: It's not gonna happen!

Science only uses that which can be verified.

Verified by itself. Comparing itself with itself. Incestuous little philosophy. God is verified in our lives and history and fulfilled prophesy etc. Not in some stuffy lab where they fiddle around with nothing more than their natural only ideas and things.

Science bets only on what can be shown.

They can bet on whatever horse they like. When they try to use their little natural only mind games to replace God and creation, all bets are off.

So far, the only thing that can be shown is the natural world. That is why science just sticks with that.

I was shown more. Speak for yourself.

Anything more than the natural world can NOT be shown.

To who? Those who demand to operate only in it?

That's why there are so many different ideas about the supernatural. If we can't say for sure what something is, then we have no reason to think that any particular interpretation of it is accurate.

No, there are a lot of spirits, good and bad. So naturally people the world over will not be in sync with all that. But most know there is spirits of some sort.

That does not demonstrate understanding.

Using the word understanding does not mean your natural only philosophy has any.

You seem to be under the impression that science says there is no such thing as the supernatural. That is not the case. It says that the supernatural can't be verified, so we can't use it as a reliable means of finding out the truth.

So you claim it admits there is supernatural, but just admits it is too small and dumb to be able to prove it? I disagree. I think they do not admit anything exists out of their airtight, dark little box.

Really?

Given that people of all faiths think that all other faiths have it wrong, this isn't the victory you think it is.

Yes it is total victory. They all agree there is more than the natural! Why would we expect them all to arrive at the same guesses as to what it is exactly?

Yet have you noticed that ALL faiths are happy to use the products of science? Such as the computer you are using right now?

I have noticed many countries would be happy to get the bomb and other goodies science provides. So? People would want to use whatever is in the world that they need and that makes life a little better etc.

Agreement? Different faiths contradict each other, that's hardly agreement!

It is perfect agreement that there is more. Not what that more is. That is all that is needed for this argument.

I've never claimed that there is only the natural. I've only claimed that we have no evidence for the supernatural, so we can't claim to know what the supernatural is.

We can know that it is. Not what it is. Science proceeds alone, content with it's choice of being religiously limited to only the natural. This thread deals with how that disqualifies them from any creation discussion.

 

[dlamberth]

Too bad. The flesh profits nothing. Here today, gone tomorrow as is written (of humans).

In the case of the Earth, it shows us a history that is many billions of years in age. True, someday it will all be gone. But for today, it 's here for us to walk on and understand.