sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
"The Fall" and "God," eh? Well, on that note, forgive us if we take your claims about the universe with a saltshaker or two, then.
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.
Yes -- God set this planet to spinning, before He created the sun.
Here's a question for you:
What color was the sun before the Fall?
In 4003BC, the Sun was more or less the same color it is now. It was, however, extremely slightly redder then, because the Sun has been gradually heating up over the last few billion years. The difference you could observe over a span of thousands of years, however, would require the most sensitive of instruments. Certainly by eye, it would have appeared the exact same temperature then as now. Heck, I'm not that confident that you could tell the difference by eye over a hundred million years.Davian, what color do you think the sun was prior to 4003 BC?
I'll rephrase it then, since atheists can ask us about the Fall, but we can't ask them:
Davian, what color do you think the sun was prior to 4003 BC?
I'll rephrase it then, since atheists can ask us about the Fall, but we can't ask them:
Yes. That is the way of the present.Dad, do you believe the Earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun?
Sorry you missed the wind being knocked of of that bag. Decay requires our present state. Decay does not prove our state existed beyond where it is known to have existed.I've explained countless times that we do know it is the same.
You say that there is radioactive decay today, yes? Well, we understand the process, and we are able to determine how long that process of decay has been going on for.
They do not show old ages. They show a presence of materials, which you assume got here by decay. That isn't known. All that is known is that daughter materials are now repeat NOW produced by decay. Not sure what you are missing.I;ve given you links to examples of rocks that have millions of years of decay. And you have NEVER been able to explain how these rocks can show millions of years of decay when the process has been going on for a few thousand years.
My view is that the state in the past is not known by science. That is supported to the hilt. You are part of that demo.I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you were the one who dictated proper debate procedure. Although I'm not surprised that you have a different view of it, as you don't seem to think that you need to provide any evidence to support your view.
I see none in this post? Or anywhere else, except maybe some spammed links, that you don't seem to comprehend enough to squeeze a point out of!I simply present evidence that supports my position. if you take exception to it because I didn't write it myself, that's not my problem. The evidence speaks for itself, it doesn't matter who wrote it.
Behaviour of distant stars. Their temperature when viewed in conjunction with their elemental make up matches precisely what we would expect.
Nope! Strip away the many belief based assumptions, and you are left with a naked lack of knowledge.(That means that we can look at a spectroscope of a star to figure out what elements are inside it, and figure out how hot it should be. Then we can measure it's temperature, and the temperature we get is exactly what we expected it to be.)
I thought you would be too embarrassed to! It is bogus.I'm sorry, did I mention dark matter at all?
Same dif.Did God tell you this personally, or did you read it in the Bible?
I am hoping same state believers will react more reasonably to the news that they actually do not know.Branch Davidians, Heaven's Temple, Solar temple... These are just three examples of a group of people who chose to kill themselves because they had flawed and incorrect belioefs that they genuinely thought were true.
Vague nonsense. The bible is the epitome of reality, and no reality can or does oppose it.And I can have a reason to doubt it. I can compare what the scriptual record says with reality. Now, if scripture and reality disagree, then one of them must be wrong. And, considering that it would be quite reasonable to assume that reality is, well, real, that would lead to the conclusion that if reality and scripture disagree, then it is scripture that is wrong.
Considering that we change days far more often than we change years, isn't that a bit backwards?
The temple did not collapse. It was ripped apart. Roman soldiers.I'm sorry, I thought that was stones left on top of one another, which you said was impossible. In any case, all buildings collapse sooner or later.
I suppose we would have no way to verify you really looked anything up either. Guess we just have to look at what you say on it's own merits.Sure, I could look it up, but I'd have no way to verify what I look up, would I?
Then please show me ten of these written eye witness accounts.
Story telling.In 4003BC, the Sun was more or less the same color it is now. It was, however, extremely slightly redder then, because the Sun has been gradually heating up over the last few billion years. The difference you could observe over a span of thousands of years, however, would require the most sensitive of instruments. Certainly by eye, it would have appeared the exact same temperature then as now. Heck, I'm not that confident that you could tell the difference by eye over a hundred million years.
Story telling.
Bullcorn. You claim the distant past and deep space have different laws than here on Earth, in the present. So, put up them apples and show us the evidence for your claims, tiger.
I do not claim that billions of years ago anything happened in the universe. That is different. I do not claim a whole insane scenario based on things we do not know, and time we do not know, and laws and space and etc etc we do not know, and call it known science. That is fraud.How is anything you say any different? You've provided even less evidence.
I do not claim that billions of years ago anything happened in the universe. That is different. I do not claim a whole insane scenario based on things we do not know, and time we do not know, and laws and space and etc etc we do not know, and call it known science. That is fraud.
Are you Dad? Dad knows, since I had to educate him on the subject, that I am an ignostic atheist, and that your answer is nonsense. Until shown otherwise, "God" is just a character in a book. Movies too.Yes -- God set this planet to spinning, before He created the sun.
The movie or the bible story?Here's a question for you:
What color was the sun before the Fall?
Yes. That is the way of the present.
Who called the bible known science?? Get a grip.Yes you do. You call it the Bible. Are you saying that the Bible is fraudulent?
Can you prove that to me? With all of your experience debating and discussing astronomy, you shouldn't even have to google it.
I would appreciate it if everyone would let dad take a run at it.
Unless AV wants to get his other foot into his mouth.
So you thought someone made a call for beliefs on who created stuff?? No.I believe that giant invisible walruses created the universe. Anyone care to give evidence against that belief? I also believe that god gave instruction to write the Bible as a joke to punk christians. I would like evidence against this please. That's right, you can't disprove it.
Inventing names like a dwarf for our sun seems hardly appropriate. It does seem pretty big. As for what color the sky was before it was in our nature, who would know? Why would anyone want to pretend they knew stuff that they did not?A yellow dwarf - same as it is now...
Why wouldn't it be?
Sorry you missed the wind being knocked of of that bag. Decay requires our present state. Decay does not prove our state existed beyond where it is known to have existed.
False. You merely choose to assume that all the (now) daughter material got here by decay.
They do not show old ages. They show a presence of materials, which you assume got here by decay. That isn't known. All that is known is that daughter materials are now repeat NOW produced by decay. Not sure what you are missing.
My view is that the state in the past is not known by science. That is supported to the hilt. You are part of that demo.
I see none in this post? Or anywhere else, except maybe some spammed links, that you don't seem to comprehend enough to squeeze a point out of!
They are not that distant, most likely or big. Now, without distance or size, or a knowledge of the state of space, praytell, how do you think you can determine temperature!!??
Nope! Strip away the many belief based assumptions, and you are left with a naked lack of knowledge.
I thought you would be too embarrassed to! It is bogus.
Same dif.
I am hoping same state believers will react more reasonably to the news that they actually do not know.
Vague nonsense. The bible is the epitome of reality, and no reality can or does oppose it.
No. The years all point to Jesus, BC, or AD.
besides, what about the other kinds of calendar out there?
The temple did not collapse. It was ripped apart. Roman soldiers.
I suppose we would have no way to verify you really looked anything up either. Guess we just have to look at what you say on it's own merits.
Name ten books of the New Testament. That was easy.
Actually space is unknown. The past was different, that is pretty well a given.
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?