The stumbling block for atheists.

[quatona]

.....Argument from ignorance... because actually Im not ignorant at all. If I do say so myself Im quite smart.

You may be very smart, but you don´t seem to be familiar with the technical term "argument from ignorance". It is not an insult.
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[Zoii]

You may be very smart, but you don´t seem to be familiar with the technical term "argument from ignorance". It is not an insult.
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

I cant stop you calling me ignorant but you cant justify it though you'll probably try. By all means go back through my posts and show the room what elements in my posts highlight what an ignorant person I am.

 

[quatona]

I cant stop you calling me ignorant but you cant justify it though you'll probably try.

I haven´t called you ignorant, and neither has anybody else. Someone has pointed out that you committed the informal fallacy "Argument from ignorance" which is explained in the link I provided.

 

[dad]

Even if that was true (it's not), you still have not posted a single shred of evidence supporting your views.

Post evidence for your views or you have nothing.

That is like saying...'even if there are the Himalayan mountains in front of you, you can build a railway straight through it'! No, you ain't going anywhere till you get rid of the mountains in the way. If I tell you one day the mountains will all be made level, that won't help you now in what you claim about building the rail line.

The issue here is the rail line science claims it is working on that requires a same nature in the past to get through.

 

[Kylie]

That is like saying...'even if there are the Himalayan mountains in front of you, you can build a railway straight through it'! No, you ain't going anywhere till you get rid of the mountains in the way. If I tell you one day the mountains will all be made level, that won't help you now in what you claim about building the rail line.

The issue here is the rail line science claims it is working on that requires a same nature in the past to get through.

No, it's not like that at all.

And you still haven't posted any evidence for your views. Post some evidence or you have nothing.

 

[dad]

No, it's not like that at all.

And you still haven't posted any evidence for your views. Post some evidence or you have nothing.

The evidence stands that science cannot prove a same nature in the past. I need no other evidence...ever. It doesn't matter what really happened as far as the creation debate goes, all that matters is that the creation stories of science are all founded on belief in nature being the same always for no apparent reason. Hoo ha

 

[TLK Valentine]

The evidence stands that science cannot prove a same nature in the past. I need no other evidence...ever. It doesn't matter what really happened as far as the creation debate goes, all that matters is that the creation stories of science are all founded on belief in nature being the same always for no apparent reason. Hoo ha

You can't prove anywhere you're not is in the same state that you're in.... so why should anyone appease you?

 

[dad]

You can't prove anywhere you're not is in the same state that you're in.... so why should anyone appease you?

Forget me. Focus on showing us the real proof the state or nature you claim existed did exist. That is your quest. The impossible dream.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Forget me.

If only...

Focus on showing us the real proof the state or nature you claim existed did exist. That is your quest. The impossible dream.

Looked out your window lately?

 

[dad]

If only...



Looked out your window lately?

Yes, the nature outside exists...now. 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.

 

[Michael]

Yes, the nature outside exists...now. 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.

It's only "hopeless" in your case because you reject the concept of continuity based on your belief that your personal interpretation of the book of Genesis is 'infallible'. As long as you hold *yourself* up as the only authority on this topic, it's going to remain 'hopeless' alright, but it's not hopeless for any Catholic.

 

[dad]

It's only "hopeless" in your case because you reject the concept of continuity based on your belief that your personal interpretation of the book of Genesis is 'infallible'. As long as you hold *yourself* up as the only authority on this topic, it's going to remain 'hopeless' alright, but it's not hopeless for any Catholic.

If you have something against simple belief in creation, make the bible case. The vague innuendos don't cut it.

 

[Michael]

If you have something against simple belief in creation, make the bible case. The vague innuendos don't cut it.

There's been nothing vague about my argument, you've just avoided it like the plague. You're in a minority of 'Christians' who choose to interpret the book of Genesis "literally". You've set *yourself* as being 'infallible", so you're stuck in a circular feedback loop. Nothing "scientific" can be used to shake your faith in your infallible reading skills.

 

[dad]

There's been nothing vague about my argument, you've just avoided it like the plague. You're in a minority of 'Christians' who choose to interpret the book of Genesis "literally". You've set *yourself* as being 'infallible", so you're stuck in a circular feedback loop. Nothing "scientific" can be used to shake your faith in your infallible reading skills.

You can use anything scientific that you like to prove nature was the same as you claim. In fact please do. Jesus and Peter and the prophets believed in a real creation. So do I. I have seen nothing from you that even makes a semi decent bible case for man not being created but coming from an animal womb as you claim, right?

Maybe you better stick to talking about an electric universe or something?

 

[Kylie]

The evidence stands that science cannot prove a same nature in the past. I need no other evidence...ever. It doesn't matter what really happened as far as the creation debate goes, all that matters is that the creation stories of science are all founded on belief in nature being the same always for no apparent reason. Hoo ha

So you have no evidence.

Wow. It's like you are claiming victory in a pistol duel when you turned up without any ammunition.

Just wow.

Once again, provide evidence to support your position, or you have nothing.

(Since you seem to be incapable of a proper discussion, that will be my only response to you until you do provide evidence.)

 

[Michael]

You can use anything scientific that you like to prove nature was the same as you claim. In fact please do. Jesus and Peter and the prophets believed in a real creation. So do I. I have seen nothing from you that even makes a semi decent bible case for man not being created but coming from an animal womb as you claim, right?

Maybe you better stick to talking about an electric universe or something?

I've already pointed out that radiometric decay studies blow your "young Earth" claims out of the water.

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Ice core samples allow us to study the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere going back over *800 hundred thousand* years.

Starlight from regions of our own galaxy require more than 10,000 years to reach Earth.

There's literally no empirical scientific evidence to support YEC.

 

[Michael]

So you have no evidence.

Wow. It's like you are claiming victory in a pistol duel when you turned up without any ammunition.

Just wow.

And he showed up without a pistol too.

Once again, provide evidence to support your position, or you have nothing.

(Since you seem to be incapable of a proper discussion, that will be my only response to you until you do provide evidence.)

That's the key problem. He doesn't do the whole "evidence" thing.

 

[Freodin]

And he showed up without a pistol too.

He didn't show up at all. That's why he can claim victory, because you did not shoot him.

 

[Michael]

He didn't show up at all. That's why he can claim victory, because you did not shoot him.

LOL!

 

[dad]

I've already pointed out that radiometric decay studies blow your "young Earth" claims out of the water.

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html I already pointed out believing in the same nature as today in the far past cannot be done. You need to prove it was so, not just believe it.

Ice core samples allow us to study the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere going back over *800 hundred thousand* years.

Your dates are belief based. Prove the same state past first or there are no dates, just a religious interpretation of isotopes.

Starlight from regions of our own galaxy require more than 10,000 years to reach Earth.

Only if time exists the same there. Prove it or there can be no years or distances claimed.

There's literally no empirical scientific evidence to support YEC.

Or Old ages and your Adam came from a womb of animals thing.