The Flood (2)

[MoonLancer]

So the age of Damascus will never change?

The age of Damascus will never get younger. It will always get older. In fact tomorrow it will be one day older.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If we weren't so close to the Rapture, it would be just a matter of time before someone 'discovers' that Damascus isn't really that old -- in my opinion.

Ah yes, the Rapture, predicted as being 'just round the corner' for about 2000 years now - and you criticise us for revising our dates...

 

[AV1611VET]

The age of Damascus will never get younger. It will always get older.

I totally disagree.

The universe at one time was estimated to be 40 billion years old.

The moon at one time was considered much older.

 

[MoonLancer]

I totally disagree.

The universe at one time was estimated to be 40 billion years old.

The moon at one time was considered much older.

well unless you have evidence to support your belief your out of luck.

also provide evidence for this 40 billion number. Hubble at one time dated the universe far to young but still much older then 8000.

 

[AV1611VET]

well unless you have evidence to support your belief your out of luck.

I don't run on 'luck' -- I walk by faith.

You might be the one out of luck, but not I.

 

[MoonLancer]

I don't run on 'luck' -- I walk by faith.

You might be the one out of luck, but not I.

and that's why no one takes people who put faith before facts seriously. No one who is intellectually honest puts faith first...

 

[AV1611VET]

and that's why no one takes people who put faith before facts seriously.

Maybe that's why they're 'no one' ?

 

[MoonLancer]

Maybe that's why they're 'no one' ?

Its sad you try and wedge faith in places where fact already has dominion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its sad you try and wedge faith in places where fact already has dominion.

Whose facts were here first? the Bible's or Internet scientists' ?

 

[MoonLancer]

Whose facts were here first? the Bible's or Internet scientists' ?

well the facts always existed. The bibles has some facts but really only the name of cities and a few tribes. But many mythologies have a small gain of truth ;p

It took a while though for people to honestly explore and discover facts as the truth is a threat to creationism. In the bible much was not known because the facts that exist threaten whats made up in the bible.

 

[MoonLancer]

You will find the the facts started to be honestly explored without bias when Christianity began to fall as a theocracy. When it no longer was a theocracy it could not punish people exploring the truth.

Or maybe it was the other way around?

 

[AV1611VET]

You will find the the facts started to be honestly explored without bias when Christianity began to fall as a theocracy.

Christianity has never been a true theocracy -- yet.

It will be soon, though; and will run for a thousand years.

You'd know that, if history was taught properly,* though.

* That is, honestly -- not scientifically.

 

[Skaloop]

* That is, honestly -- not scientifically.

You make it sound like the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[MoonLancer]

Christianity has never been a true theocracy -- yet.

It will be soon, though; and will run for a thousand years.

You'd know that, if history was taught properly,* though.

* That is, honestly -- not scientifically.

sorry your fallacy doesn't help your position at all (no true Scotsmen)

Also give an example of science teaching history dishonestly. (if you stop for one second and reread what you posted you will realize how absurd your post is.)

 

[AV1611VET]

You make it sound like the two are mutually exclusive.

When it comes to the Bible ...

 

[AV1611VET]

sorry your fallacy doesn't help your position at all (no true Scotsmen)

That's why I don't rely on fallacy.

Also give an example of science teaching history dishonestly.

Historical revisionism.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Christianity has never been a true theocracy -- yet.

It will be soon, though; and will run for a thousand years.

You'd know that, if history was taught properly,* though.

* That is, honestly -- not scientifically.

Not quite: if it's taught from the a priori assumption that Christianity (specifically, you're interpretation of the eschatology of your particular denomination of Christianity) is right. That's not honest.

 

[MoonLancer]

When it comes to the Bible ...

All you need is evidence. Is not that hard. But if you want to make up your own version of young earth creationism where the you butcher language and definitions and make assertions that lack of evidence for creation somehow demonstrates creation, your pretty boned to begin with. No amount of intellectual dishonestly is going to help you on this uphill battle.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not honest.

The only reason -- (or maybe you have more, I don't know) -- but the only reason you think it's dishonest, is because you don't understand it.

In my opinion.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

That's why I don't rely on fallacy.

Historical revisionism.

You mean like, this is a "christian nation?" Revisionism at it's best!