The stumbling block for atheists.

[AV1611VET]

Who says the Bible is an accurate recording of nature?

David

 

[TLK Valentine]

David

And his opinion matters because...?

 

[JD16]

And his opinion matters because...?

Let me guess,....AV's signature? But meanwhile here in the real world.....

 

[AV1611VET]

And his opinion matters because...?

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.

 

[dad]

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.

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.

The fact I can see the whole galaxy is good enough reason.

Good enough reason for what?

The fact we have ice core samples going back 800,000 years is good enough reason to reject your claims.

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.

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

No, for not posting them if you have them. Sorry I can't take your word for it.

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.

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!

No Catholic does such a thing, nor do I.

Always trying to drive a wedge between bible believers and Catholics eh? Not cool.

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

If anyone was in doubt this state existed, then I guess you could help there.

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

That's a lot. Maybe try to get some of it into posts?

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

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.

 

[dad]

Who says the Bible is an accurate recording of nature?

Who says God is wrong?

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

You betcha!?

 

[Skreeper]

You betcha!?

You do know what logical fallacies are, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

You do know what logical fallacies are, right?

Affirmative.

I'm waiting for him to pull that the-bible-is-circular-logic on me.

 

[Skreeper]

Affirmative.

I'm waiting for him to pull that the-bible-is-circular-logic on me.

Well the argument you presented is circular. But you don't care about that, do you?

 

[bhsmte]

Well the argument you presented is circular. But you don't care about that, do you?

I don't think he is going to publically acknowledge that at this time, no.

 

[Michael]

You have no evidence it didn't, or did. Pretty lame eh?

What's pretty lame is your denial process. 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. 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.

If you ever get any we are here for ya though. Patient loving folks, most of us.

Denial isn't patience, it's just denial.

Good enough reason for what?

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.

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.

What's truly ridiculous is your pitiful understanding of that particular branch of science.

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.

No, for not posting them if you have them. Sorry I can't take your word for it.

I did post them dad. You just handwaved at them. I haven't really heard your explanation as to why we can see starlight from even our own galaxy in your bizarre sense of reality.

Forget dad.

FYI, you're relatively hard to simply "forget". I'll give you that much.

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!

Your "alternative facts" are also known as "falsehoods" dad. Be careful how you choose to misrepresent God's creation.

Always trying to drive a wedge between bible believers and Catholics eh? Not cool.

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.

You've driven a wedge between yourself and the entire empirical universe in terms of evidence.

If anyone was in doubt this state existed, then I guess you could help there.

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.

That's a lot. Maybe try to get some of it into posts?

Your little denial thing isn't going to help you dad. It's just blocking you from a clear understanding of reality.

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.

FYI, science cannot ever "prove" anything. In science, one can either present empirical evidence to support something like a "law" of physics, or one cannot present empirical evidence to support an idea, like YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

Better give it up, dad ... you're whipped.

800,000 years of ice cores; 8000 years of tree rings; SN1987A; the Grand Canyon, etched through solid rock over a period of 5 - 6 (or is it 17) million years by the mighty Mississippi Ohio Missouri Colorado River; peppered moths glued to trees; embryos depicting us as children fetuses fish in the womb ... what more does it take before you'll acknowledge that we're mutant copy-errors made in the image & likeness of God?

Good grief, Homo ... a glorified ape from two different lineages died on a cross to take your sins.

And let's be reasonable here.

You say you've got the Bible!?

So what? they've got the Preservation of Favoured Races on their side.

Checkmate, YEC.

 

[lesliedellow]

Good grief, Homo ... a glorified ape from two different lineages died on a cross to take your sins.

And that's the real problem. It hurts your pride to think we share a common ancestor with the other great apes.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

 

[lesliedellow]

Either that, or it's blasphemy.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

 

[lesliedellow]

Including our sin nature?

I am sure you know Hebrews 4.15, as well as I do.

 

[dad]

What's pretty lame is your denial process.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I did post them dad.

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.

Your "alternative facts" are also known as "falsehoods" dad. Be careful how you choose to misrepresent God's creation.

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.

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.

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

You've driven a wedge between yourself and the entire empirical universe in terms of evidence.

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

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.

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

FYI, science cannot ever "prove" anything. In science, one can either present empirical evidence to support something like a "law" of physics,

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