The stumbling block for atheists.

[dad]

Nothing blasphemous about saying that Jesus was fully man, and that, in his human nature, he therefore shared our biological ancestry.

If you thought that ancestry was something other than being created Personally by God Almighty, then there is a problem.

 

[HitchSlap]

Not sure why you want to pretend you have anything to deny when you post nothing but bald faced belief based vague nonsense.

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.

Prove there even was ANY decay at all in the former nature?? Try not to claim what you have no evidence for eh?
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.

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.


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.

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.




There you go again trying to divide people and appeal to ignorant popular vote on issues too deep for the average Joe church sixpack.
try not to even mention evidence till you get some for your claimed nature in the past eh?


?? Laws wrong?? That is foolishness. The laws in the present nature are great. The thing is they are here in this nature.

So present empirical evidence for a same state past...or stay down.

Hey David, it's been a while since you've posted your split / merge hypothesis. Why don't you post it again?

 

[dad]

Hey David, it's been a while since you've posted your split / merge hypothesis. Why don't you post it again?

Home

http://splitmerge.webs.com/split.pdf

cheers

 

[Michael]

Not sure why you want to pretend you have anything to deny when you post nothing but bald faced belief based vague nonsense.

There's nothing "vague" about being able to see the core of our own galaxy, as well as distant galaxies. There's nothing vague about radiometric decay rates. They're "reliable".

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.

I'm not even talking about "deep" space, I'm talking about our local galaxy.

Prove there even was ANY decay at all in the former nature?? Try not to claim what you have no evidence for eh?

I'll bite. What evidence do you have for a "former nature"?

Appeal to popularity.

It's more like appeal to logic and common sense, not to mention empirical physics.

Most believers know little about the issues involving science and the basis for models of the past on earth.

I suppose that's lucky for you. The models of Earth's past paint a very consistent picture of an ancient Earth.

So what they believe has no relevance to God, or His word, or reality on these things.

But what you believe somehow does matter?

Of course layers exist in this nature and also existed in the former nature.

What "former nature"? You keep alleging this "former nature" thing as fact, when you've actually demonstrated nothing of the sort.

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!

There you go again talking about something you've yet to demonstrate ever existed. What' "former nature"? How could I possibly known something about something that exists only in your mind?

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.

You're living in a universe of "alternative facts", aka falsehoods. I have empirical reasons *galore* to embrace the concept of an ancient Earth. Your entire basis for rejecting that evidence is based *exclusively* upon religion, specifically *your own* religion.

You have logic standing on it's head again.

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.

What's the "core issue" at hand when it relates to being able to see the core of our own galaxy some 27 thousand light years away?

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.

Likewise most "Christians" don't agree with YEC, or care what you think about it. The difference is that none of them have any conflict between their belief in Scripture and science.

Your quest is to prove the same state past on earth,

The past and future are dictated by natural scientific *laws* that have and/or will apply eternally AFAIK. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it. Otherwise you seem to have created a whole belief system based on zero evidence.

and that time exists now in the far universe exactly as it does here near earth.

What "far universe"? I'm just talking about our *own* galaxy for now, and you seem to be failing to address it.

Failing this, you are utterly defeated.

You defeated yourself the moment you "assumed" yourself to be "infallible" when it comes to biblical interpretation. That's why you've painted yourself into a corner over a "different state past" claim for which you can provide *zero* evidence.

There you go again trying to divide people and appeal to ignorant popular vote on issues too deep for the average Joe church sixpack.

Is that spiritual ego perhaps?

try not to even mention evidence till you get some for your claimed nature in the past eh?

Dad, the sun is going to be their tomorrow as the world turns. It's been there in the past too. If you have any evidence to support any of your claims about nature "changing" in any drastic way, show it. Otherwise you're just living in pure denial of pretty much *all* scientific forms of evidence.

?? Laws wrong?? That is foolishness. The laws in the present nature are great. The thing is they are here in this nature.

There is only "here" in the first place.

So present empirical evidence for a same state past...or stay down.

I don't have to provide any evidence for a "same state" past that I haven't already provided. Trees show annual growth rings, just like snow layers show annual dust layers. Stars in our own galaxy have been shinning for millions and billions of years. That's how light has enough time to reach Earth dad. There is only a "same state" as it relates to natural laws.

You have *utterly failed* to provide any evidence to support your erroneous claim about the past being any 'different' as it relates to any laws of physics. Ditto for the future.

 

[dad]

There's nothing "vague" about being able to see the core of our own galaxy, as well as distant galaxies.

Seeing is believing that time exists there exactly as here? Ha. No. Not even relative.

There's nothing vague about radiometric decay rates. They're "reliable".

Only as long as this nature existed (not even that long if we use calibrations). So you need to prove this nature existed in the far past if you want to claim processes and features of this nature were at work, like radioactive decay.

I'm not even talking about "deep" space, I'm talking about our local galaxy.

Then stop! You cannot talk about anything far out of our solar system.

I'll bite. What evidence do you have for a "former nature"?

I have absolute proof you don't know, and science doesn't know. Just read the posts over years. Since they do not know, the last person believers in the bible as a real letter from a real Living God would believe would be someone claiming man came from an animal womb.

It's more like appeal to logic and common sense, not to mention empirical physics.

Fishbowl physics. Well and good n the fishbowl.

I suppose that's lucky for you. The models of Earth's past paint a very consistent picture of an ancient Earth.

The same way a painting painted with only red paint would consistently appear red. Newsflash to the artists (con artists of fake news science) - You may no longer restrict us from using other paints.

But what you believe somehow does matter?

If it is solidly based on God's word, to me it matters. If it cannot be supported and opposes Scripture, then we may trash it.

What "former nature"? You keep alleging this "former nature" thing as fact, when you've actually demonstrated nothing of the sort.

What nature can you prove existed in the far past with science? If you had one we could talk. Until then, I am too busy to hear things made up whole of the cloth.

There you go again talking about something you've yet to demonstrate ever existed. What' "former nature"? How could I possibly known something about something that exists only in your mind?

All that is in the bible was demoed when Christ rose actually. Signed, sealed delivered. Done deal. Certain. Absolute. Tested. Proven.

You're living in a universe of "alternative facts", aka falsehoods. I have empirical reasons *galore* to embrace the concept of an ancient Earth. Your entire basis for rejecting that evidence is based *exclusively* upon religion, specifically *your own* religion.

Your so called empirical evidences are tainted with beliefs through and through. Soaked. Permeated. Soiled. Sullied.

You have logic standing on it's head again.

I will ask which way up and down is to the man that knows the difference, thanks.

What's the "core issue" at hand when it relates to being able to see the core of our own galaxy some 27 thousand light years away?

Whether there is time there as it is here. Otherwise light does not take time to move as we know it. Your measures of time from earth have no value if not applicable elsewhere. That means, for those savvy with the actual issues..no distances or sizes of anything in far space can be known.

Likewise most "Christians" don't agree with YEC, or care what you think about it. The difference is that none of them have any conflict between their belief in Scripture and science.

Do most believe in Santa too? The only issue is what Jesus has in Scripture, and that is resoundingly clear about the past. It was not like today in key ways.

The past and future are dictated by natural scientific *laws*

I agree, but not the same laws that we know, or that the bible states! Example...heaven! You think that us under our rules???
Until you have proof nature was and will be the same, claiming it is really foolishness.

What "far universe"? I'm just talking about our *own* galaxy for now, and you seem to be failing to address it.

Outside our solar system even a few light years. Need that repeated? Just ask.

Dad, the sun is going to be their tomorrow as the world turns. It's been there in the past too. If you have any evidence to support any of your claims about nature "changing" in any drastic way, show it. Otherwise you're just living in pure denial of pretty much *all* scientific forms of evidence.

Good point, we won't need the sun in the future. The evidence mounts.

There is only "here" in the first place.

Only here?? Only now? Ha. Real open minded and fact based posting there.

I don't have to provide any evidence for a "same state" past that I haven't already provided.

That would be none at all.

Trees show annual growth rings,

Yes they now do. So? How would that even relate to Noah's day? Or do you think Noah was a monkey or something?

just like snow layers show annual dust layers.

Show me some in the KT layer? Show us that nature was the same since the dawn of time on earth? Otherwise whatever dust and snow does now is of little value. To model the past on that is obviously obtuse narrow minded religion.

Stars in our own galaxy have been shinning for millions and billions of years.

Repeat that a few hundred times, maybe that will make it come true? Might as well wish on a star!!

That's how light has enough time to reach Earth dad.

Why state a baseless belief with not even a surface effort to defend the blusterous, preposterous religious claims??

There is only a "same state" as it relates to natural laws.

When? Now? Then? In the far future? Get the head out of the box. You have *utterly failed* to provide any evidence to support your erroneous claim about the past being the same as it relates to any laws of physics or the bible. Ditto for the future.

 

[Michael]

Seeing is believing that time exists there exactly as here? Ha. No. Not even relative.

Round and round you go on your denial-go-round.

Every distant galaxy in the heavens refutes your beliefs dad. Billions of stars in our own galaxy refute your beliefs too. You've provided no evidence whatsoever that the laws of physics have ever changed, or that those laws will ever change.

As long as you see yourself as "infallible" as it relates to Biblical interpretation, you're simply caught in a catch 22 of your own making.

 

[dad]

Every distant galaxy in the heavens refutes your beliefs dad.

It would be asinine to claim that time exists the same as on earth out there just because it seems distant. All that says is you have made up your mind to believe stubbornly for NO reason that time exists out there the same as here. Worthless conjecture.

Billions of stars in our own galaxy refute your beliefs too.

No more than billions of atoms do. Why would I care how many stars there are? How would that even relate to anything discussed here? You would need to know that time exists there so we could have distances and sizes to even assign meaning to the lights we see there.

You've provided no evidence whatsoever that the laws of physics have ever changed, or that those laws will ever change.

You've provided no evidence whatsoever that the laws of physics were always the same as now, or that those laws will always be. Gong.

 

[HitchSlap]

Home

http://splitmerge.webs.com/split.pdf

cheers

What lead you to write this paper, Enjay?

 

[Speedwell]

You've provided no evidence whatsoever that the laws of physics were always the same as now, or that those laws will always be. Gong.

You've provided no evidence whatever that you understand what the consequences would be in the present if the laws of nature had been very different in the past.

 

[dad]

What lead you to write this paper, Enjay?

That's a pen name Hitchy. I looked at the evidences...and voila.

 

[dad]

You've provided no evidence whatever that you understand what the consequences would be in the present if the laws of nature had been very different in the past.

Why not tell us?

 

[HitchSlap]

That's a pen name Hitchy. I looked at the evidences...and voila.

But there's no evidence in your paper whatsoever. What you did was quote mine some disparate verses and came up with some cockamamie scenario to stroke your pet fantasy. Voila.

 

[dad]

But there's no evidence in your paper whatsoever.

The ONLY thing needed to make the bible record valid is a different nature in the past. The only question that matters, therefore, is whether science knows what nature and forces and laws existed. They don't.
It is not that I do not have scientific evidence it is that no one does for any state. That means we have only belief left.

Jesus proved the bible was right. In the belief dept, we rule.

What you did was quote mine some disparate verses and came up with some cockamamie scenario to stroke your pet fantasy. Voila.

I think you are suggesting that you think the bible does not indicate basic differences in nature in the future and far past. If so...good luck with that. The evidence is overwhelming from Scripture. No worries there whatsoever.

 

[HitchSlap]

The ONLY thing needed to make the bible record valid is a different nature in the past. The only question that matters, therefore, is whether science knows what nature and forces and laws existed. They don't.
It is not that I do not have scientific evidence it is that no one does for any state. That means we have only belief left.

Jesus proved the bible was right. In the belief dept, we rule.

I think you are suggesting that you think the bible does not indicate basic differences in nature in the future and far past. If so...good luck with that. The evidence is overwhelming from Scripture. No worries there whatsoever.

If you're going to fabricate theology wholecloth, you're better off going with "embedded age," it's more plausible.

 

[Michael]

If you're going to fabricate theology wholecloth, you're better off going with "embedded age," it's more plausible.

I don't think plausibility is high on his priority list.

 

[dad]

If you're going to fabricate theology wholecloth, you're better off going with "embedded age," it's more plausible.

You forgot to show how believing that men lived long ages and plants grew fast, and the realities of the flood and creation -- just as the bible says--is fabricating anything. Work on that. It is actually a matter of believe it or not.

Since science doesn't know and you cannot support the same nature in the past that is the bedrock upon which models and interpretations of the past are built on, that leaves your belief floundering and unsupported and opposing the revealed truth of God's word.

 

[HitchSlap]

You forgot to show how believing that men lived long ages and plants grew fast, and the realities of the flood and creation -- just as the bible says--is fabricating anything. Work on that. It is actually a matter of believe it or not.

Since science doesn't know and you cannot support the same nature in the past that is the bedrock upon which models and interpretations of the past are built on, that leaves your belief floundering and unsupported and opposing the revealed truth of God's word.

Pump the brakes Enjay, you have no formal training in science, no experience in science, no demonstrated understanding of science, and a perfunctory knowledge of the bible, and you would have us believe that over two-hundred years of solid science should be ignored because you wrote a four page essay for your personal reasoning of having to square that circle? How is this anything less than delusion?

As I said, you're better off going with "embedded age," it's slightly less crazy.

 

[JD16]

Pump the brakes Enjay, you have no formal training in science, no experience in science, no demonstrated understanding of science, and a perfunctory knowledge of the bible, and you would have us believe that over two-hundred years of solid science should be ignored because you wrote a four page essay for your personal reasoning of having to square that circle? How is this anything less than delusion?

As I said, you're better off going with "embedded age," it's slightly less crazy.

The perfect formula to be a fundie creationist!

 

[Michael]

Jesus proved the bible was right. In the belief dept, we rule.

Except for the fact that you're in the minority even among "Christians" on this topic. Who's we?

 

[JD16]

Except for the fact that you're in the minority even among "Christians" on this topic. Who's we?

Even if every Christian believes that, it does not make it any more true....insanity does not suddenly become sane just because there was a sudden outbreak of mass hysteria...