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.
It is best to start with some evidence. Something that doesn't exist for our state in the far past. Explanations are not based on evidence, but in so called science they merely use evidence as a convenient dump for their godless biased world view. The evidence itself is consistent with a different state!Please do. Here's a good place to start: Which are more reliable - explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations that are contradicted by evidence?
Lurker
Our reality is here and now. The reality of science is here and now. The reality of God is forever, and covers the past and future...I tell you there was no split in our reality,...
Which produces results. That's why so many companies (such as oil companies) use it.
None that science can check. Bottom line is that they work with and in the present state. How it got here has nothing to do with a same state in the past, and nothing we use depends on that.It is easy to falsify theories that are based on incorrect assumptions. They produce meaningless results and/or results that do not match with what we find in reality. As far as I know, none of these apply to geology or evolution.
Our reality is here and now. The reality of science is here and now. The reality of God is forever, and covers the past and future.
It is best to start with some evidence.
I don't. I assume they apply in man's part of the universe. Where are you from?Maybe in your reality, why do you assume that the same laws and assumptions apply where I am?
No evidence contradicts a different state past. Noo evidence supports a same state past. If you think you have something consistent with evidence that a different state past does not also have with the same evidence...let's see it now. Otherwise you are alluding to things that don't matter or apply... Which are more reliable - explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations that are contradicted by evidence? Thanks.
When one compares the universe before the Fall, to the universe after the Fall, it is not hard to see that they are operating in two different states of existence.
Even the animals act differently.
You think there was no split, but the fact is, your myopic instruments cannot see past the Fall from here to Adam & Eve; and so you simply assume it didn't happen.
It's like that barrier at the edge of the galaxy in Star Trek, only worse.
It would be like someone saying, "We can't see what's beyond that barrier, and we don't need to because there's nothing there."
In other words, you guys can't see the barrier, let alone what was on the other side of it.
It is best to start with some evidence. Something that doesn't exist for our state in the far past. Explanations are not based on evidence, but in so called science they merely use evidence as a convenient dump for their godless biased world view. The evidence itself is consistent with a different state!
False. The thing they use is the patterns of deposits, and layers, etc. None of which has a thing to do with a same state past.
None that science can check. Bottom line is that they work with and in the present state. How it got here has nothing to do with a same state in the past, and nothing we use depends on that.
No evidence contradicts a different state past. Noo evidence supports a same state past. If you think you have something consistent with evidence that a different state past does not also have with the same evidence...let's see it now. Otherwise you are alluding to things that don't matter or apply.
Please show me a Bible verse that describes how the animals acted before the fall.
Except that the Enterprise went past that barrier three times. Where No Man Has Gone Before, By any other Name and Is There In Truth No Beauty.
I know you have no evidence for a same state past. I know that you don't seem to regard history of the pre flood records of the bible in high regards as the evidence they are.First of all, what do you knkow about evidence. Since the beginning of this thread I have been asking you to provide evidence to support your position, and you've fluctuated between ignoring me, saying there is no evidence, and presenting vague claims as evidence, such as "History".
False. It must fit in with the present state! The evidence is colored and tainted by that belief and bias.Now you say that explanations are not based on evidence, despite the fact that any scientific theory which explains something must fit in with evidence or it is discarded.
And now you say that the evidence supports a different state in the far past again. So I challenge you once and for all: Provide specific evidence of something in the past which can not exist in the state the universe is in now.
And how do they determine which layers and deposits are likely to be where? By using a geological model of the earth that treats the earth as billions of years old.
Easy. Coal did what coal does in the state it did it when it did what it done.How do you think coal formed if the world is only a few thousand years old?
In any case, I challenge you to name one geologist who gets valid results who bases his research on a few thousand year old Earth.
They use the same state check and balance system. It actually checks nothing. All that they care about is that it meet up in the magic puff balls of their pipe dreams.See, here we go again. In the very post you are quoting, I told you how science has built in mechanisms for checking its results. And here you are ignoring them. Do you read selectively? I always knew it was typical for creationists to ignore things that they don't like, but you take it to a whole new level.
Show us here and now one valid result!!! Country? Date? ...As I have mentioned countless times, radio dating assumes a same past state and gets valid results.
It would not produce valid results if the past was different.
No evidence contradicts a different state past.
Explanations that are consistent with evidence.Which are more reliable - explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations that are contradicted by evidence?
Explanations that are consistent with evidence.
That's one of the reasons science can take a hike.
Good one.Explanations that are consistent with evidence.
That's one of the reasons science can take a hike.
We walk by faith, not by sight; meaning we keep on keeping on, even when scientific evidence says otherwise.
Explanations that are consistent with evidence.
That's one of the reasons science can take a hike.
We walk by faith, not by sight; meaning we keep on keeping on, even when scientific evidence says otherwise.
Curiously, this is not at all the question I've asked. Why is this so hard? Which is more reliable - explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations which are contradicted by evidence?
Presenting evidence is useless in a discussion with someone who cannot/will not answer the above question. Thanks.
Aren't you glad?You walk by your preconceptions and interpretations of the Bible.
Aren't you glad?
Otherwise, if I walked by someone of you guys' interpretations, I just might be out hunting witches, trying heretics, or marching off to liberate Jerusalem, eh?
Explanations that are consistent with evidence.
That's one of the reasons science can take a hike.
We walk by faith, not by sight; meaning we keep on keeping on, even when scientific evidence says otherwise.
Boolean standards would emerge?Now just imagine what would happen if you actually tried to apply such drivel to every aspect of your life?
Boolean standards would emerge?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?