The Da Vinci Code

[Zaac]

You know that -

This really works!

I asked God for proof of what the truth was. And he told me. He said, "Zaac is wrong."

There. Absolute proof you are wrong, and I have it!

Ahhh, but the faultiness in your little spoof is that you have been given nothing by me but truth as God's Word defines it . So in accordance with the absolute truth of God's Word which I do have, you are wrong because you're saying what God says in His Word is wrong.

 

[Zaac]

Wrong.

If it can be proven that the earth is not 6000 years old, then you cannot claim it is 6000 years old, with or without any other answer that does give an exact age.


This is like your previous example. If I prove that 2+2 is not equal to six, but don't prove what it is equal to, that does not validate your statement 2+2=6 just because there is an absence of any other answer.

But I never claimed that the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[Belk]

Ahhh, but the faultiness in your little spoof is that you have been given nothing by me but truth as God's Word defines it . So in accordance with the absolute truth of God's Word which I do have, you are wrong because you're saying what God says in His Word is wrong.

I call Poe's law.

 

[RealityCheck]

I call Poe's law.

Seconded. And very dedicated at that.

 

[OdwinOddball]

And we encounter the same problem with this statement as we do with the statements earlier. Unless you have got the absolute truth that there is no such thing as absolute truth, your statement is merely your opinion. For if your statement was correct, it would prove your statement incorrect.

This is why I never calim to have absolute anything. Truth is only truth as far as it can be agreed upon and/or is evidenced by reality.

Math and science are simply approximations for consistency. When developing scientific principles and experiments are repeated over and over, scientist don't have to get the EXACT same conclusion. They look for trends of things that happen to be true the majority of the time. That's a best estimate of what may indeed be the truth. But it's still an estimate.

This is the bulk of my point. There are no absolutes, only that which can be observed, evidenced, and agreed upon as true.

And there is just as much evidence that carbon dating is a faulty science.

I call upon you to substantiate this claim. THe only people who ever say this are people who have little to no understanding of what radiometric dating is, carbon dating in specific. Carbon dating however has nothing to do with establishing the age of the earth or the universe, and this is what tells me you do not understand it.
Carbon dating has been confirmed time and time again as a reliable method of dating up to about 45,000 years old. Beyond that age it is not a usable method of dating materials.

For an explanation of radiometric datign, from a devout Christian who happens to hold a PhD in Physics please visit:
Radiometric Dating-A Christian Perspective

For further discussion on this topic, come by the Crevo forum.

Sweet Jesus. Are you sure that you don't have Christians confused with nonChristians? Ya'll the ones who keep talking about prove this or prove that or science says this or that. I've said repeatedly that Christians aren't tasked by God to prove anything to the nonChristian.

I do not persoanlly care one whit what you think your god is telling you to do or not to do. But if you want to hold discourse with non-Christians, then you need to be able to substantiate your claims. Providing evidence for the existence of dieties, and yours in particular has always seemed like a good starting point, though one whcih as so far not been possible for anyone to do.

=Zaac]
And to this, I say look back at the first response. Cause unless there is absolute truth, I have no reason to believe what you just said. And if what you just said is true, then it refutes what you just said.

See above.