The stumbling block for atheists.

[dad]

There you go dad. I just showed you three specific areas of "science" (pure empirical physics) which support an ancient Earth, and you simply handwaved at all of them based upon your belief in your own personal infallibility as it relates to interpreting *one chapter/book* of the Bible.

You showed belief based nonsense. You cannot prove your basis for the areas of so called science. You expect people to just blindly swallow?

There's no way anyone can deal with pure denial

Your denial that you have just belief is glaringly obvious by your lack of support for your claimed nature in the past, or evidence time even exists in the far universe the same way we know it here. Don't base anything on either premise. Evermore.

, and you can't even fully explain why you're in a minority on this topic, *even among Christians*.

I am not here to explain why people do or do not believe in the truth. There is no reason I would expect a majority of mankind to accept Christ as creator...or savior.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, the nature outside exists...now.

Good -- you've accepted that nature exists even when you're not around to see it.

Your duty to God and man and posters here and lurkers is to prove it was the same in the early days of the geo column! No matter how hopeless, this is your quest.

Now you're saying that nature didn't exist when you weren't around to see it.

 

[dad]

Good -- you've accepted that nature exists even when you're not around to see it.

Several billion witnesses agree, it doesn't depend on me.

Now you're saying that nature didn't exist when you weren't around to see it.

I am saying you don't know what nature existed, obviously some sort of nature existed. The problem is that fake news science makes stories up based on claiming present state ature in the past. Horrible, sinister, chilling, frightening, bible opposing stories.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Several billion witnesses agree, it doesn't depend on me.

I am saying --

You were saying... it doesn't depend on you.

 

[JD16]

Zoii, I could be wrong, but what I just heard you say amounts to this: SCIENCE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

But just like my THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT slogan, it doesn't reconcile science with religion.

So I posted a list of standards I use to reconcile them.

Remember what you said?

You said, "I actually think atheists mock Christians because a lot of Christians cannot reconcile science with belief;"

Well as far as I know, I am the only one here who has done that.

I even get ridiculed for it, but that's fine, because those that ridicule it don't have standards themselves [that reconcile science with religion].

So in a sense, you're right, atheists mock us because we can't (or haven't) reconcile science with belief.

But when someone (like I) does, it would be nice if you recognized it as such.

Your Boolean standard does not reconcile science with faith, in fact it rejects science in favor or your faith whenever there is a contradiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your Boolean standard does not reconcile science with faith,

I disagree.

Without them, I wouldn't claim the Earth is as old as it is.

In fact, I would be a YEC.

... in fact it rejects science in favor or your faith whenever there is a contradiction.

It separates true faith from true science; then my Prime Directive does the rest.

 

[JD16]

I disagree.

Without them, I wouldn't claim the Earth is as old as it is.

In fact, I would be a YEC.It separates true faith from true science; then my Prime Directive does the rest.

IOWs, science can take a hike if it contradicts the bible,.... un-huh, reconciliation indeed lolz

 

[dad]

You were saying... it doesn't depend on you.

Gravity and the nuclear forces and electromagnetism do not depend on me. No. Glad you got that straight.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Gravity and the nuclear forces and electromagnetism do not depend on me. No. Glad you got that straight.

So when you say they must've been different in the past, nobody needs to care.

 

[dad]

So when you say they must've been different in the past, nobody needs to care.

Better yet, rather than even ask me, they can ask if science knows. They will see it doesn't. If any claimed it did they would be forced to try and show us. They would fail.

Now to the question of what it must have been like...science does not know, so any opinion of what it was like resides outside the realm of science.

Outside that realm, I would put my money on the bible in any fight of beliefs.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I disagree.

Without them, I wouldn't claim the Earth is as old as it is.

In fact, I would be a YEC.It separates true faith from true science; then my Prime Directive does the rest.

Huh, all this time I thought you were a YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

Huh, all this time I thought you were a YEC.

Negative.

I'm an Embedded Ager.

That's sort of a belief in Apparent Age:

"This idea suggests that the things God made during the Creation week were formed complete and fully functional. For instance, how old were Adam and Eve two seconds after God created them? They were two seconds old! Yet they walked, talked, and looked like adult human beings, and even had the ability to reproduce (which was one of the commands God gave them—Genesis 1:28). If a tree were cut down in the Garden of Eden one day after the Creation week, how many rings would it have had? Possibly hundreds, yet it would have been only five days old (trees and other plants, remember, were created on day three of the Creation week). So, the real age of the tree and the apparent age of the tree would have been quite different. Just because this Earth may appear older than 6,000 years, that does not mean it is older than that."

SOURCE

... but with a twist.

 

[Michael]

You showed belief based nonsense. You cannot prove your basis for the areas of so called science. You expect people to just blindly swallow?

No, I expect people to either accept the evidence presented, or present some of their own. You do neither.

Your denial that you have just belief is glaringly obvious by your lack of support for your claimed nature in the past, or evidence time even exists in the far universe the same way we know it here. Don't base anything on either premise. Evermore.

Everything I mentioned, from ice core samples to light from our own galaxy demonstrate that the Earth is ancient. It's glaringly obvious that you have no evidence to support your beliefs, so you just handwave at any evidence that is contrary to your own personal opinions.

I am not here to explain why people do or do not believe in the truth. There is no reason I would expect a majority of mankind to accept Christ as creator...or savior.

That's never been in question and you know it. Catholics accept Christ as their savior and accept the belief that the universe was "created". I'm simply pointing out that you hold minority viewpoints even among 'Christians'.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Better yet, rather than even ask me, they can ask if science knows. They will see it doesn't. If any claimed it did they would be forced to try and show us. They would fail.

They have no reason to assume otherwise. You say they should, but as we both agree, nothing depends on you.

 

[dad]

No, I expect people to either accept the evidence presented, or present some of their own. You do neither.

The evidence presented is that you believe without any reason in a same state past. Period. If any evidence does not depend on that tell us now or remain exposed.

Everything I mentioned, from ice core samples to light from our own galaxy demonstrate that the Earth is ancient.

False. The old ages are purely based on a belief. Nothing else. Focus on supporting the belief, not the pile on nonsense predicated upon that belief.

It's glaringly obvious that you have no evidence to support your beliefs,

If you reject the bible record of the past, fine. Science cannot prove any state existed, so what is left for you but ignorance?

That's never been in question and you know it. Catholics accept Christ as their savior and accept the belief that the universe was "created". I'm simply pointing out that you hold minority viewpoints even among 'Christians'.

No comment on your religious babble. Jesus is creator. I do not seek a vote on the issue.

 

[dad]

They have no reason to assume otherwise.

Or to assume the past was not the nature recorded in the bible. They have no reason to believe what they do. No one cares what they assume, for whatever reasons.

 

[Michael]

The evidence presented is that you believe without any reason in a same state past. Period.

Sure dad, the sun might not rise tomorrow, but the odds are pretty good. When you say "without any reason", you stand logic on it's head. I have no evidence that the laws of physics have *ever* changed, and neither do you.

The fact I can see the whole galaxy is good enough reason. The fact we have ice core samples going back 800,000 years is good enough reason to reject your claims.

If any evidence does not depend on that tell us now or remain exposed.

Exposed? Exposed for having many good reasons to believe in an ancient Earth?

False. The old ages are purely based on a belief. Nothing else. Focus on supporting the belief, not the pile on nonsense predicated upon that belief.

This is just your last line of rationalization dad. You have no evidence to support the claim that there was a "different state past". You made that up in your head, and you expect others to "disprove" you denial mechanism. That's not how science even works dad.

If you reject the bible record of the past, fine.

No Catholic does such a thing, nor do I.

Science cannot prove any state existed,

It can only demonstrate that *this* state exists, complete with 'laws' and such.

so what is left for you but ignorance?

Unlike you dad, I have the whole universe worth of information to dispel my ignorance over time.

No comment on your religious babble. Jesus is creator. I do not seek a vote on the issue.

In other words, you cannot demonstrate that your "opinions" about the book of Genesis are valid based on religion or science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure dad, the sun might not rise tomorrow, but the odds are pretty good.

Sure the sun will rise tomorrow.

But the point is, did it always rise in the past?

And to that, I would say YES, but I hope you get the point he is making.

You can't read the Bible and deny that things were different back then: much different.

 

[Michael]

Sure the sun will rise tomorrow.

But the point is, did it always rise in the past?

Based on ice core samples, radiometric dating techniques, and starlight from distant galaxies, I'd say that there is plenty of evidence to suggest it's risen for billions of years.

And to that, I would say YES, but I hope you get the point he is making.

I get the point, I just don't see any evidence to suggest the past or the future is likely to be much different in terms of how the Earth moves around the sun.

You can't read the Bible and deny that things were different back then: much different.

Different when? I've never personally tried to interpret the book of Genesis literally, and I've never tried to mix science and religion with the possible exception of Panentheism.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Or to assume the past was not the nature recorded in the bible. They have no reason to believe what they do. No one cares what they assume, for whatever reasons.

Who says the Bible is an accurate recording of nature?