- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,652
- 52,517
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Let's stop playing games.
Is it meticulous, or isn't it?
I don't think you know the difference.
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.
Let's stop playing games.I have read it. It's not "meticulous documentation." It's a narrative written in the literary form of a legendary story.
I would conclude there is one different way for hidden evidence to go unnoticed which is unrelated to having a person con everyone. Yes I agree, it can be similar but that's not what I'm arguing for. It's more about what is known and unknown about how science is used to calculate things like the Big Bang.Evidence doesn't wander off, particularly when there's an (apparently) all-powerful god involved. Evidence being removed, hidden, or disguised - whichever deception you want to pick the conclusion is still dishonesty. You may not want to attribute character traits, but if the perpetrator displays such traits what should you conclude?
"Evolving," or "growing"?I'll go with the evolutionary process, that mankind is also evolving in intelligence and not merely about having two opposable thumbs.
Perhaps they know the difference between divine cleanup and "wise-men" cleanup?
So is it safe to say that we just don't know?In essence the Big Bang theory is about the evolution of the universe not its creation so there is no overlap between the two.
This is beside the point as I was describing the disingenuous nature of the poster of once again trying to turn the thread into a science and scientist bashing post (which I should take personally if I took him very seriously).
If the poster did a bit of research he would know cosmologists have very little understanding of what happened at the original Big Bang (as opposed to the Hot Big Bang which occurred after the inflation era) as the laws of physics breakdown at the Planck scale which they are honest enough to admit contrary to the accusations.
It's called "clean up."
Do you know now why we [allegedly] have nothing?
Or do you need it further explained?
You wouldn't know how to grade their papers, would you?Perhaps... but probably not.
Take my word for it: it's priceless.Nah... I see what you're peddling -- now I'm waiting to hear the price.
Question: Would you rather have God clean up after Katrina, or let us do it ourselves?
I have a feeling that, had God cleaned up after Katrina like He did the Flood, you guys wouldn't be so quick to label Him "deceptive."
So why would a world-wide flood be deceptive, whereas a city-wide flood would be an improvement?It would be an improvement to see Him clean up the mess He made... for a change.
The fact that you keep equating me with God as an attempt to rile me into stop making points you can't understand isn't working.Because you wouldn't deign to worship anything you thought was smarter than yourself?
Another thing I think stunts you guys' perception of the Bible, is the fact that you deny (or question) the tripartite nature of man.The fact that you keep equating me with God as an attempt to rile me into stop making points you can't understand isn't working.
They mistook Paul and Barnabas for gods, but they didn't do it on purpose.
Their ignorance was genuine -- yours, I think, is fake.
(And that's giving you credit, as I'm getting the impression you seriously can't tell the difference between genuine and fake, when it comes to things in the Bible.)
Meticulous: showing great attention to detail; very careful and precise.Let's stop playing games.
Is it meticulous, or isn't it?
I don't think
you know the difference.
Fair enough.Meticulous: showing great attention to detail; very careful and precise.
The flood story is certainly not that. As for documentation, there isn't any. All we have is the narrative.
... can take a hike then.And there God apparently made a mistake, because He did not meticulously document it.
What documentation supports the narrative? By itself, it's just a vague and unsubstantiated story.Fair enough.
This:
... can take a hike then.
I submit you wouldn't know it if He did.
What more should He have added to the narrative to add meticulousity to it? time of day?
There are sixty-five other books of the Bible that support Genesis in one way or another.What documentation supports the narrative? By itself, it's just a vague and unsubstantiated story.
Adding more unsupported assumptions doesn't help your case.There are sixty-five other books of the Bible that support Genesis in one way or another.
That's more than twice the thirty-two volume set of the Encyclopædia Britannica that cross-references itself.
In addition, Jesus supports the narratives of Genesis as well.
(He should -- since He wrote it.)
I do. But you don't appear to see the difference between creating a world and cleaning up after a flood. That explains a lot.NOW do you see the difference between God cleaning up something, and mankind doing it?
Irrelevant when we're talking about creation ex-nihilo.Question: Would you rather have God clean up after Katrina, or let us do it ourselves?
I have a feeling that, had God cleaned up after Katrina like He did the Flood, you guys wouldn't be so quick to label Him "deceptive."
How would you know if they were supported or not?Adding more unsupported assumptions doesn't help your case.
The absence of the cat demonstrates either dishonesty on the part of the person making the claim or a lack of care on their part that they didn't notice somebody removing the cat. So, to finish your analogy, is God dishonest or is he careless and not omniscient, and therefore dishonest in making claims that he is omniscient?I would conclude there is one different way for hidden evidence to go unnoticed which is unrelated to having a person con everyone. Yes I agree, it can be similar but that's not what I'm arguing for. It's more about what is known and unknown about how science is used to calculate things like the Big Bang.
Seems physicists are aware that using present technologies for experiments to determine the age of the universe have limitations. They're missing the first few nano seconds before the event. It's absent, nothing is showing itself.
To use a cat in the box analogy. You're told there is a cat in a box but that is all. You don't know if it's alive or dead. You decide to open the box and discover it's empty. Most people would jump to the conclusion that someone took it or it was a con, however it's also possible that it was actually never there for the person to observe. It's absence is evidence that the knowledge of what happened to it is so far unattainable. So what am I arguing for and where am I going with this?
I'll go with the evolutionary process, that mankind is also evolving in intelligence and not merely about having two opposable thumbs.
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?