- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
If you thought that ancestry was something other than being created Personally by God Almighty, then there is a problem.
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.
If you thought that ancestry was something other than being created Personally by God Almighty, then there is a problem.Nothing blasphemous about saying that Jesus was fully man, and that, in his human nature, he therefore shared our biological ancestry.
Hey David, it's been a while since you've posted your split / merge hypothesis. Why don't you post it again?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?
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.
Seeing is believing that time exists there exactly as here? Ha. No. Not even relative.There's nothing "vague" about being able to see the core of our own galaxy, as well as distant galaxies.
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.There's nothing vague about radiometric decay rates. They're "reliable".
Then stop! You cannot talk about anything far out of our solar system.I'm not even talking about "deep" space, I'm talking about our local galaxy.
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.I'll bite. What evidence do you have for a "former nature"?
Fishbowl physics. Well and good n the fishbowl.It's more like appeal to logic and common sense, not to mention empirical physics.
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.I suppose that's lucky for you.The models of Earth's past paint a very consistent picture of an ancient Earth.
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.But what you believe somehow does matter?
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.What "former nature"? You keep alleging this "former nature" thing as fact, when you've actually demonstrated nothing of the sort.
All that is in the bible was demoed when Christ rose actually. Signed, sealed delivered. Done deal. Certain. Absolute. Tested. Proven.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?
Your so called empirical evidences are tainted with beliefs through and through. Soaked. Permeated. Soiled. Sullied.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.
I will ask which way up and down is to the man that knows the difference, thanks.You have logic standing on it's head again.
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.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?
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.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.
I agree, but not the same laws that we know, or that the bible states! Example...heaven! You think that us under our rules???The past and future are dictated by natural scientific *laws*
Outside our solar system even a few light years. Need that repeated? Just ask.What "far universe"? I'm just talking about our *own* galaxy for now, and you seem to be failing to address it.
Good point, we won't need the sun in the future. The evidence mounts.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.
Only here?? Only now? Ha. Real open minded and fact based posting there.There is only "here" in the first place.
That would be none at all.I don't have to provide any evidence for a "same state" past that I haven't already provided.
Yes they now do. So? How would that even relate to Noah's day? Or do you think Noah was a monkey or something?Trees show annual growth rings,
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.just like snow layers show annual dust layers.
Repeat that a few hundred times, maybe that will make it come true? Might as well wish on a star!!Stars in our own galaxy have been shinning for millions and billions of years.
Why state a baseless belief with not even a surface effort to defend the blusterous, preposterous religious claims??That's how light has enough time to reach Earth dad.
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.There is only a "same state" as it relates to natural laws.
Seeing is believing that time exists there exactly as here? Ha. No. Not even relative.
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.Every distant galaxy in the heavens refutes your beliefs dad.
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.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.
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.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.
What lead you to write this paper, Enjay?
Why not tell us?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.
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.But there's no evidence in your paper whatsoever.
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.What you did was quote mine some disparate verses and came up with some cockamamie scenario to stroke your pet fantasy. Voila.
If you're going to fabricate theology wholecloth, you're better off going with "embedded age," it's more plausible.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.
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.If you're going to fabricate theology wholecloth, you're better off going with "embedded age," it's more plausible.
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?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.
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?
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?