Each creationist is gifted with a different infallible reading of ye good book.We are talking about valid reason since that book can be interpreted in many different ways. Your argument here is a Flat Earth argument.
I don't believe that.
I'll withdraw the question, Sub; since you and honesty are strangers.Tell me your version of the Flood story and I will explain how. If I remember right you believe that false evidence was planted, so perhaps not so much for your version. Of course the lack of geological evidence refutes your version. It is also refuted by biology, for example you do not have to worry about waking up in a seedy hotel bathroom filled with ice missing a kidney. If the Flood of Noah happened this could be a daily event.
I seriously doubt a valid answer would be recognizable among the more educated here.We are talking about valid reason since that book can be interpreted in many different ways. Your argument here is a Flat Earth argument.
5781I don't believe that.
That would be an amazing coincidence.
When did that "common era" start?
Without the birth of Jesus, there wouldn't be a consensus, would there?
Is it 2021 CE? 6025 CE? 300,000 CE?
I mean, some use Metric and some use Imperial?
So I'll ask:
What year would it be right now, if Jesus had never been born?
And since I doubt very seriously I'll get an honest straightforward answer, I'd say honest answers would include a variety of answers, based on the event being used for 1 CE.
Then let's see Who breaks the tie, shall we?We have a whole planet that tells a completely different story.
Given that you said this:I would submit the calendar as a noticeable difference.
When it comes to what the Earth is telling us, the Earth can not lie.Then let's see Who breaks the tie, shall we?
Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Thank you. I wish I could make it a challenge question here, but I'm afraid it would get moved.5781
The calender is based on the birth of a prophet. That you consider Him to the be the son of God is irrelevant. What practical difference would it make to the date if He was or wasn't? What practical difference would it be if we used Socrates instead. Or Ceasar Augustus?
To save you typing, I'll answer that myself. None.
So let's look at more concrete examples. Like gravity. Or the speed of light. Or the Hubble constant. Or the spin of an electron. You decide. Let me know what practical difference there'd be if they were natural v designed?
Actually, I'm going to save you some more typing yet again. You can get yourself a coffee instead. The answer is 'None'. Which doesn't prove or disprove anything. It makes no difference to what you believe or what I believe.
In case you hadn't realised, I'm only asking the question to indicate that you want there to be a difference. Hence your need to find something as opposed to giving the quite reasonable answer, which is 'There would be no practical difference at all.'
You could be an atheist and ask 'What would the world look like if it were designed by God?'
Or you could be a Christian and ask 'What would the world look like if it were entirely natural'.
And the answer to both questions would be 'exactly the same'.
Whose valid answer should we listen to? There are so many to choose from. I'll go with the Christians and those who espouse a very old changing Earth that shows no sign of a Noah's flood.I seriously doubt a valid answer would be recognizable among the more educated here.
I'm gonna stop right here, Brad.The calender is based on the birth of a prophet. That you consider Him to the be the son of God is irrelevant. What practical difference would it make to the date if He was or wasn't? What practical difference would it be if we used Socrates instead. Or Ceasar Augustus?
To save you typing, I'll answer that myself. None.
So let's look at more concrete examples. Like gravity.
Why?Yes the post flood ice age.
Maybe something like deep canyons that could not have formed gradually?
Like how the Grand Canyon developed through a major uplift. The river should have flowed around it, but it didn’t.
Then why will she run like a coward when her Creator shows up?When it comes to what the Earth is telling us, the Earth can not lie.
But they are based on various deities or supernatural events, are they not?As if different cultures didn't have different calendars.
The 'framework' there, (ie: of 'incompleteness'), is flawed by inconsistency and so is ultimately philosophically incompatable with the scientific method. This is a commonly held misconceived philosophy of science.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. ID people do seem to be saying that methodological naturalism is incomplete. From anything I've seen, their statements aren't flawed by inconsistency (unless one assumes methodological naturalism) and not necessarily incompatible with scientific methods (there is no 'one' agreed upon scientific method, as Scientific American discussed a few years ago).
However, I see several major problems for ID people. Their ideas seem to have problems not sounding a lot like god of the gaps arguments, designing experiments and getting evidence that would decisively support an explanation of intelligence, and following many of the non-methodological naturalist assumptions of scientific theories. The current way science is done using a conservative approach by applying methodological naturalism and the different types of scientific methods seems to work fine. I followed the ID movement closely for years and they produced very little useful science and a lot of philosophical musings, political activism and noise - not much more.
'Statements of nature' are statements for informing ourselves (collectively) of the meaning of the term: 'nature', in that sense, we are informing ourselves about our own perceptions/observations. There is no need to say 'what exists beyond' those perceptions/observations - they are our reality. This interpretation restores the consistent basis for the establishment of knowledge of what 'nature' means, in science.
I wouldn't agree here - perceptions are faulty. In science you talk about third person perspective, as first person perspective are unreliable. Observations that are too closely related to first person perspectives introduce all kinds of biases. The value of science is that, when done correctly, can lead to observations and information that is independent of the observer. This is what establishes a consistent framework for understanding what we mean by reality (or nature)
The other interpretation (ie: 'incompleteness'), is an artefact of philosophically held beliefs in Realism - which should be ignorable in properly conducted science .. (and it is).
Then geologists would announce that they had found a global flood layer.And what if it was found tomorrow? what then?
Your opinion and $1.50 will buy a cup of takeout coffeeIn my opinion, it would just widen the gap between science and the Bible; making things worse, not better.
How would Satan use a global flood layer to his advantage?There are some things I don't think were meant to be found, else Satan would use it to his advantage.
Of?Moses' body is a prime example:
Deuteronomy 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
???6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
So why did God bury Moses, and not Joshua or Caleb? guess who went looking for it?
Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
You won't hear a thing if you can't accept the validity of the one speaking, will you?Whose valid answer should we listen to?
I'm gonna stop right here, Brad.
I think I've adequately answered your enigma, but you don't want to admit it.
So you just say "none."
Bringing up "the birth of a prophet" after wanting to know how things would be different without God shows desperation.
No God would mean no prophets.
Ya ... blame the logic.Then geologists would announce that they had found a global flood layer.
They would announce that this layer was deposited world wide, even as whole civilizations were experiencing golden ages of progress, culture, art, and law.
They would declare that the evidence baffles them, since it contradicts all the other evidence.
And they would agree that logic itself no longer works.
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?