- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,997
- 52,622
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
DavidWho says the Bible is an accurate recording of nature?
David
And his opinion matters because...?
Because he was a man after God's own heart.And his opinion matters because...?
You have no evidence it didn't, or did. Pretty lame eh? If you ever get any we are here for ya though. Patient loving folks, most of us.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.
Good enough reason for what?The fact I can see the whole galaxy is good enough reason.
You need to discuss why the date is given. I already know why. Long story short it is belief based, and without support of any kind. It is about as valid as saying, 'we got 3 inches of snow yesterday, so at that rate, we will be buried in snow in 800 days!' Or 'we got 3" of snow today, so at that rate, Greenland tool so many years to cover!'The fact we have ice core samples going back 800,000 years is good enough reason to reject your claims.
No, for not posting them if you have them. Sorry I can't take your word for it.Exposed? Exposed for having many good reasons to believe in an ancient Earth?
Forget dad. Forget religions. Forget what anyone believes. Just prove your fake news so called science is not just a belief, or that you can prove the belief it is predicated upon!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.
Always trying to drive a wedge between bible believers and Catholics eh? Not cool.No Catholic does such a thing, nor do I.
If anyone was in doubt this state existed, then I guess you could help there.It can only demonstrate that *this* state exists, complete with 'laws' and such.
That's a lot. Maybe try to get some of it into posts?Unlike you dad, I have the whole universe worth of information to dispel my ignorance over time.
I wouldn't with you anyhow. What matters here is that science bases models on a belief in a same state past, and no one on earth can prove it! Hoo Ha.In other words, you cannot demonstrate that your "opinions" about the book of Genesis are valid based on religion or science.
Who says God is wrong?Who says the Bible is an accurate recording of nature?
Because he was a man after God's own heart.
1 Samuel 13:14 But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.
You betcha!?Sounds like he's a trustworthy man... because The Book says he's trustworthy.... and The Book is trustworthy.... because he said it was.... at least according to The Book.
That about right?
Affirmative.You do know what logical fallacies are, right?
You have no evidence it didn't, or did. Pretty lame eh?
If you ever get any we are here for ya though. Patient loving folks, most of us.
Good enough reason for what?
You need to discuss why the date is given. I already know why. Long story short it is belief based, and without support of any kind. It is about as valid as saying, 'we got 3 inches of snow yesterday, so at that rate, we will be buried in snow in 800 days!' Or 'we got 3" of snow today, so at that rate, Greenland tool so many years to cover!'
Truly ridiculous.
No, for not posting them if you have them. Sorry I can't take your word for it.
Forget dad.
Forget religions. Forget what anyone believes. Just prove your fake news so called science is not just a belief, or that you can prove the belief it is predicated upon!
Always trying to drive a wedge between bible believers and Catholics eh? Not cool.
If anyone was in doubt this state existed, then I guess you could help there.
That's a lot. Maybe try to get some of it into posts?
I wouldn't with you anyhow. What matters here is that science bases models on a belief in a same state past, and no one on earth can prove it! Hoo Ha.
Good grief, Homo ... a glorified ape from two different lineages died on a cross to take your sins.
Either that, or it's blasphemy.And that's the real problem. It hurts your pride to think we share a common ancestor with the other great apes.
Either that, or it's blasphemy.
Including our sin nature?Nothing blasphemous about saying that Jesus was fully man, and that, in his human nature, he therefore shared our biological ancestry.
Including our sin nature?
Not sure why you want to pretend you have anything to deny when you post nothing but bald faced belief based vague nonsense.What's pretty lame is your denial process.
Your dtrange denial is noted. You were told several times that you need to prove time exists in deep space for distances to have any value. Ignore it at your own peril.We would not even be able to see light from the core of our own galaxy if the YEC were true. There would not be 800,000 years of ice layers if YEC were true.
Prove there even was ANY decay at all in the former nature?? Try not to claim what you have no evidence for eh?There would be no validity to radiometric decay methods if YEC were true. I have *massive* amounts of evidence to support an ancient Earth, and exactly zero evidence to refute it.
Appeal to popularity. Most believers know little about the issues involving science and the basis for models of the past on earth. So what they believe has no relevance to God, or His word, or reality on these things.It's good enough reason to embrace the concept of an ancient Earth, and that's why most Christians do so, as well as most human beings in general.
Of course layers exist in this nature and also existed in the former nature. The problem for you is to try to use the times, processes, and causes for the layers laid down in this nature for the former nature that you know nothing about! You do nothing more than look at how it now is and try to bully us into believing that must be how it was...for NO apparent reason. Total religion.FYI, they actually observe real "layers", where seasonal dust particles are captured and remain in the layers. They are even able to correlate known volcanic events with the content of these various dust layers.
You did nothing of the sort. You rattled off a few items of belief with no effort or ability to defend or apparently comprehend the core issues at hand. Ridiculous.I did post them dad.
For those who have chosen to think that believing the record of Scripture, and the world that was are falsehoods, I say I really don't care what you think. Your quest is to prove the same state past on earth, and that time exists now in the far universe exactly as it does here near earth. Failing this, you are utterly defeated.Your "alternative facts" are also known as "falsehoods" dad. Be careful how you choose to misrepresent God's creation.
Huh? Nobody is driving a wedge between anyone other than you. What's "not cool" is the fact that you're in the *minority* of even "Christians" as it relates to your personal interpretations of the Bible.
try not to even mention evidence till you get some for your claimed nature in the past eh?You've driven a wedge between yourself and the entire empirical universe in terms of evidence.
?? Laws wrong?? That is foolishness. The laws in the present nature are great. The thing is they are here in this nature.Sure, anyone but you.Wake me up when you get around to showing that any laws of physics are wrong dad. Until you can do that, I have every reason to believe that those laws have applied forever.
So present empirical evidence for a same state past...or stay down.FYI, science cannot ever "prove" anything. In science, one can either present empirical evidence to support something like a "law" of physics,
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?