The stumbling block for atheists.

[dad]

It is pointless trying to argue with Dad. He doesn't allow himself to be constrained by mere facts, and he makes up hypotheses as he goes along.

You have no facts that are posted.

 

[Kylie]

Great, so show evidence that it was the same (or is) in deep space. Simple. Walk the walk.

If you did physics at school, as MissRowy asked, you already have the answer to that.

But I'm not going to bother explaining it to you when you are going to ignore it anyway.

 

[dad]

If you did physics at school, as MissRowy asked, you already have the answer to that.

But I'm not going to bother explaining it to you when you are going to ignore it anyway.

I am ready to answer...you don't know as your posts show.

 

[Michael]

If the answer to that question is indistingsuishable from the answer of "what properties would naturally evolving living systems with a natural origin have?", then your "criteria" for detecting design in living systems would be entirely useless to actually detect design.

If the designed and the natural looks exactly alike, then what is the actual difference?

It could be something rather subtle, like programming on the DNA itself.

 

[Kylie]

I am ready to answer...

Then what are you waiting for? Present your proof.

 

[dad]

Then what are you waiting for? Present your proof.

The proof is that science cannot prove or support the foundational belief in a same nature and laws in the past. That proves beyond any doubt they have just a belief.

No one needs to prove a belief. Those folks in willful denial will reject the proofs of Scripture God gave. So I don't ask for proof in that dept, because they can never ever ever have any till they are willing to repent and believe.

To recap...science has no proof, and nothing else matters here. Hahaha

 

[lesliedellow]

The proof is that science cannot prove or support the foundational belief in a same nature and laws in the past. That proves beyond any doubt they have just a belief.

No one needs to prove a belief. Those folks in willful denial will reject the proofs of Scripture God gave. So I don't ask for proof in that dept, because they can never ever ever have any till they are willing to repent and believe.

To recap...science has no proof, and nothing else matters here. Hahaha

According to YECs, the universe is only 6,000 years old, and that is well within recorded history. So, if the laws of nature were different in the past, might we not have heard about people floating off into space because gravity was too weak to hold them on the Earth's surface? or about the oceans freezing overnight, because the latent heat and specific heat of water was so much lower then?

 

[dad]

According to YECs, the universe is only 6,000 years old, and that is well within recorded history.

STOP right there! NO. Recorded history started after the flood which was more like about 4500 years ago. Your dates are based on your assumption that nature was the same. The dates are wrong! That is the problem. Prove there was a same past nature or you have no dates possible. Not only is recorded history post flood but I surmise that all fossils of man are post flood! That is a taste of how wrong your faith based dates are.

So, if the laws of nature were different in the past, might we not have heard about people floating off into space because gravity was too weak to hold them on the Earth's surface?

Whatever combination of forces and laws were in place were just perfect and fine. We don't know what they were but we know the Lawmaker! Now a change in nature may have resulted in planets being where they are, and a change in the distance of the moon from earth or etc etc. So many exciting new ways to interpret evidences if only fake news science would get out of the stuck in the mud rut they are in.

 

[lesliedellow]

Whatever combination of forces and laws were in place were just perfect and fine. We don't know what they were but we know the Lawmaker!

Oh, I get it. It was God's very first universe, and he didn't quite get it right the first time, so he thought he had better adjust the laws of nature, and have another go.

I take it that comes from chapter 10 of the Book of Dad.

Is there no end to the contortions YECs will go through, to try and defend their position?

 

[Freodin]

Oh, I get it. It was God's very first universe, and he didn't quite get it right the first time, so he thought he had better adjust the laws of nature, and have another go.

I take it that comes from chapter 10 of the Book of Dad.

Is there no end to the contortions YECs will go through, to try and defend their position?

Interestingly, there is a creationist argument that shows dad to be wrong... and he never even tries to adress it: The Fine-Tuning-Argument.

One can disagree with the theistic conclusion from this argument: that it all fits together so perfectly that it had to be designed. But the premise of the argument is valid: everything is interconnected, and every single thing is the way it is because of the way everything else is.

You cannot simply change parts of the laws of nature and expect to get the same result. Or even similar results. Or even any result at all.

This is dad's very weird version of "the different past": everything he wants different was different, but exactly in a way that everything he wants the same was the same.

Reality simply doesn't work this way.

 

[dad]

Oh, I get it. It was God's very first universe, and he didn't quite get it right the first time, so he thought he had better adjust the laws of nature, and have another go.

No. The earth needed some changes after the fall. Then at the flood. Like a prison that was minimum security converted to maximum security for proven dangerous sinners. Man needed maybe to live less time to do less damage etc. We will see changes in the coming millennium. That is the modus operandi of the Almighty.

 

[Kylie]

The proof is that science cannot prove or support the foundational belief in a same nature and laws in the past. That proves beyond any doubt they have just a belief.

No one needs to prove a belief. Those folks in willful denial will reject the proofs of Scripture God gave. So I don't ask for proof in that dept, because they can never ever ever have any till they are willing to repent and believe.

To recap...science has no proof, and nothing else matters here. Hahaha

No.

You cannot say that your proof is an alleged inability of something else. Putting down an opposing viewpoint is not support for your own viewpoint.

By that logic, I can claim I can fly by flapping my arms, and my proof is that you haven't shown that I can't.

So, provide support for your point of view. Don't just try to make fun of other points of view.

 

[dad]

No.

You cannot say that your proof is an alleged inability of something else.

You can when all you are trying to show is that they don't know what they are talking about! I just want to show that science had no authority to overrule God after all.

Putting down an opposing viewpoint is not support for your own viewpoint.

No need to get my belief accepted right now and here. Once we see science is fake news in the creation dept, then the battle is over.
We are not talking point of view here, but what is taught as truth and fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It could be something rather subtle, like programming on the DNA itself.

That didn't answer nore acknowledge the point I made.

 

[Kylie]

You can when all you are trying to show is that they don't know what they are talking about! I just want to show that science had no authority to overrule God after all.

Do you understand how evidence works?

No need to get my belief accepted right now and here. Once we see science is fake news in the creation dept, then the battle is over.

Yeah, good luck with that.

We are not talking point of view here, but what is taught as truth and fact.

There is not a single observation that supports your position.

And I'm still waiting for you to provide supporting evidence.

 

[dad]

Do you understand how evidence works?

Yes. You make science claims and provide no evidence. You also pretend you did somewhere, and that you can't show us where. How evidence of science claims on origin issues work is that they have no evidence!

There is not a single observation that supports your position.

Not one that doesn't actually!

And I'm still waiting for you to provide supporting evidence.

If science doesn't know why would you ask for support? What, you want bible?

 

[Kylie]

Yes. You make science claims and provide no evidence. You also pretend you did somewhere, and that you can't show us where. How evidence of science claims on origin issues work is that they have no evidence!

I have provided a ton of evidence. You seem to be incapable of recognising it.

On the other hand, you CAN'T make evidence, because you have none.

Not one that doesn't actually!

There is not a single observation that supports your position.

If science doesn't know why would you ask for support? What, you want bible?

I prefer reality. You got any of that?

 

[dad]

I have provided a ton of evidence. You seem to be incapable of recognising it.

Sure sure, we know...but you can't post it or the link to a post where you presented it. You wonder why people can't 'recognize it? Cause we can't FIND it!

On the other hand, you CAN'T make evidence, because you have none.

NO ONE can with science. It is too small to be able to cover such issues save in the religious belief based way we see done.

There is not a single observation that supports your position.

All do, including history and bible.

I prefer reality. You got any of that?

Congrats, at least you use the word reality. Impressive.

 

[Kylie]

Sure sure, we know...but you can't post it or the link to a post where you presented it. You wonder why people can't 'recognize it? Cause we can't FIND it!
NO ONE can with science. It is too small to be able to cover such issues save in the religious belief based way we see done.

All do, including history and bible.

Congrats, at least you use the word reality. Impressive.

I have posted it. The fact you ignore it does not mean it never happened.

 

[Michael]

That didn't answer nore acknowledge the point I made.

I'm not sure I understand what point you were trying to make let alone agree with whatever point you think you're trying to make.

DNA seems to be the ultimate enigma. To suggest we can "assume" that a 'natural" origin of DNA somehow precludes "intelligent design" is simply empirically unsupportable.