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.
If mine was the science claim, your plagiarized claim might apply.
Claim smaim. Support the so called science you advocate. Better still, continue to fail to do so, as we know you can't anyhow. No use pretending you did somewhere, sometime somehow either. That game wore thin log ago.You are making a claim about reality. You are unable to support your claim. So I dismiss your claim. There is no good reason to believe for a second that there was a DSP. For all the noise you make about it, you are always utterly incapable of showing any good reason why anyone would believe in it.
Claim smaim. Support the so called science you advocate. Better still, continue to fail to do so, as we know you can't anyhow. No use pretending you did somewhere, sometime somehow either. That game wore thin log ago.
You are making a claim about reality. You are unable to support your claim. So I dismiss your claim. There is no good reason to believe for a second that there was a DSP. For all the noise you make about it, you are always utterly incapable of showing any good reason why anyone would believe in it.
Numerous past posts by your goodself have demonstrated that one or other of the following likely holds true:Claim smaim. Support the so called science you advocate. Better still, continue to fail to do so, as we know you can't anyhow. No use pretending you did somewhere, sometime somehow either. That game wore thin log ago.
Winning has nothing to do with impressing people of your religion actually. It has to do with how well the support for your claims fares here.Claiming magic (as you do) to explain why your argument is correcet is an auto-loss in a scientific debate.
You have nothing and have lost each and every debate on this forum just by your own posts.
Or you the wherewithal to post, explain, or defend the same.Numerous past posts by your goodself have demonstrated that one or other of the following likely holds true:
1. You lack the education or intellect to understand the scientific arguments.
In others words believing like all folks in the bible, that there actually was a creation. Gong!2. Your commitment to a singular interpretation of Scripture has blinded you to the facts.
Try to understand that rejecting belief based godless fairy tales labeled wrong has nothing to do with not being familiar with what they blather on about.3. You are too lazy to invest the time in studying the material to which you have been repeatedly directed.
Not only has it not been supported it cannot be. You betray your religion even calling it science, when talking about origin fables.You are best placed to know which of these it is: all are equally sad. Regardless, faslely asserting that you science has not been supported by the contributions of numerous members is unseemly. I encourage you to reflect on that.
My scientific education is sound. Feel free to ask for an explanation of any aspect of geology or evolutionary biology and I shall be happy to demonstrate this. Can you do the same? Time to put up, or shut up.Or you the wherewithal to post, explain, or defend the same.
Do you really need to be reminded that there are numerous Christians (globally a majority) who have no trouble accepting evolution? You are entitled to hold your distinctive, specific faith based view. You are not entitled to ignorantly deny the findings of a science you do not understand and apparently are unwilling to understand.In others words believing like all folks in the bible, that there actually was a creation. Gong!
I have no beliefs. Beliefs are for those lacking the confidence to accept the world as it is. They are an important crutch for many and I do not begrudge them their support. I find them unnecessary.Try to understand that rejecting belief based godless fairy tales labeled wrong has nothing to do with not being familiar with what they blather on about..
Lying is unseemly. Please desist.Not only has it not been supported it cannot be.
I don't have a religion. Religion has an important function in society, but it is surplus to my requirements. Science is a methodology and that methodlogy has amassed a body of evidence that leaves little doubt as to the reality of evolution. Only someone determined to close their eyes and ears could fail to recognise this. Convince me otherwise. Put up or shut up.You betray your religion even calling it science, when talking about origin fables.
My scientific education is sound. Feel free to ask for an explanation of any aspect of geology or evolutionary biology and I shall be happy to demonstrate this. Can you do the same? Time to put up, or shut up.
Not my problem.Do you really need to be reminded that there are numerous Christians (globally a majority) who have no trouble accepting evolution?
It is not any findings of science I deny, but that science has any findings on the key issues of the origins debate. It has belief based fables.You are entitled to hold your distinctive, specific faith based view. You are not entitled to ignorantly deny the findings of a science you do not understand and apparently are unwilling to understand.
Science has beliefs, you have science.I have no beliefs..
The theory of life evolving from simple life forms is God opposing, God absent, and god awful.Evolution is god-neutral.
Why pretend simple life form common ancestors are rocket science? They are religion and a belief based interpretation of evidences.You claim to be familiar with evolutionary theory. As I proposed in my opening paragraph, prove it. Put up, or shut up.
Whether you can see truth or accept it is not the issue.Lying is unseemly. Please desist.
There you go, denial is a trademark and signature of your religion.I don't have a religion.
A belief based methodology! They religiously apply a godless method of interpreting evidences as well as selecting what criteria can be called evidences.Religion has an important function in society, but it is surplus to my requirements. Science is a methodology and that methodlogy has amassed a body of evidence that leaves little doubt as to the reality of evolution.
Do you also write in English?Great, so what is time like in the far universe, and what nature existed along with it's forces and laws in the early days of life on earth?
Distances to stars and to anything else in the far universe are based on time being the same.I have no idea as to what time is like in the far universe.
I have no practical interest in what time is like in the far universe.
No, if we want to get back down on earth what is important here, is that science claims a same nature in the past, and has used the present nature to model the past..including evolution.Specifically, I see no meaningful connection between the scientific theory of evolution and what time is or is not like in the far universe.
Forces like the strong and weak nuclear forces, and etc etc etc.What does the clause "what nature existed along with it's (sic) forces and laws in the early days of life on earth?" mean?
No. I have pointed out that what nature IS like now doesn't matter when talking about nature in the past. That is, unless you first prove it was the same.Since nature is "the forces and laws" and the emergent properties thereof, you have essentially asked "what nature existed along with its nature?": self-referential woo-woo disappearing up its own fundament.
Prove it.Base upon what you may have meant, but failed utterly to state clearly, I make these points:
1. The laws and forces present in the early days of life were no different from those present today.
2. The specific character of the planet differed significantly -
Each of these points can be supported by abundant evidence.
- The atmosphere contained little or no oxygen.
- Total continental mass was less than present
- Asthenosphere temperature was higher and consequently mantle derived magmas differed in composition.
- Tectonic activity was almost certainly not plate tectonic in character
- The moon was considerably closer to the Earth and so tides were higher (and days were shorter)
As is origin science.Religion is faith based
That is what science does.. I respect those who choose their worldview based upon faith. I do not respect those who are so self indulgent as to believe that others must follow a similar path to establish their worldview
Support the so called science you advocate. Better still, continue to fail to do so, as we know you can't anyhow. No use pretending you did somewhere, sometime somehow either. That game wore thin log ago.
What I support here is the claim science doesn't know. Yet they pretend. Your quest was to support your belief based so called science claims. You failed.Support the so called different state past you advocate. Better still, continue to fail to do so, as we know you can't anyhow. No use pretending you did somewhere, sometime somehow either. That game wore thin log ago.
What I support here is the claim science doesn't know. Yet they pretend. Your quest was to support your belief based so called science claims. You failed.
I am not asking other religions to support their beliefs, people can believe what they wish. Science may NOT believe anything without support. It claims not to be a belief. You can't have it both ways. Support so called science or admit is is just another belief.
That is what history and the bible describe it is not a scientific claim. Now if you have more than belief, we should see that.No, the claim you make is that the laws of the universe were different in the past and are still different far away. You need to support your claim. And you have failed to do so.
No it is because I understand what it claims and why. If you understood we might bet more than would be clever banter.As for your claim that science doesn't know, you only say that because you don't understand how science works.
That is what history and the bible describe it is not a scientific claim.
Now if you have more than belief, we should see that.
No it is because I understand what it claims and why. If you understood we might bet more than would be clever banter.
Can you, for example, start by showing us why you think you know any radioactivity existed in the far past on earth? Ha.
All history and the bible is cast off by your narrow minded religion. OK.Agreed. What the Bible describes is not a scientific claim. And what you claim is "history" ios nothing more than a collection of old myths. You don't seem to be bothered by pesky details such as verify what they say is true. You seem to only care that they support your preconceived ideas, so of course they MUST be true simply because it is convenient to you for them to be true.
Actually I have the silver bullet that shoots through the heart of so called science. I know their weakness and claims and what they can bring to the field of battle to support it. Diddly squat.Yet you have nothing more than belief.
Much more than I'd like to actually. I only plunged into their cultish depths of madness and evil in order to defeat them.You understand little to nothing of science.
Stop kidding yourself about the weak religion you posted in the name of science. It was a duck shoot for me.Already done it. And I'm not doing it again because every single other time I have tried explaining it to you, you've ignored it or claimed it is wrong because your ideas say otherwise.
No one can produce evidence fairy tales and baseless beliefs are wrong. All that needs to be done is show they are but beliefs.Of course, you never produce any evidence to support your claims that my explanations are wrong.
Honestly, I've got better things to do than waste my time trying to explain something to you that you have no interest in learning about and will likely ignore anyway.
In science time, no. They place the time of the flood at 70 million years ago! Of course they have no clue there even was a flood, but the geologic area where the flood probably was (KT) is dated something like 65 or 70 million years.
They place the time that the KT layer was formed at 65 or 70 million years ago. I currently accept that the flood was about that time.Why say they place a time of the flood, since they "have no clue there even was a flood"?
All history
and the bible is cast off by your narrow minded religion. OK.
Actually I have the silver bullet that shoots through the heart of so called science. I know their weakness and claims and what they can bring to the field of battle to support it. Diddly squat.
Much more than I'd like to actually. I only plunged into their cultish depths of madness and evil in order to defeat them.
Stop kidding yourself about the weak religion you posted in the name of science. It was a duck shoot for me.
No one can produce evidence fairy tales and baseless beliefs are wrong. All that needs to be done is show they are but beliefs.
I understand you have some need to pretend you could. Not my problem. Not like you ask for help.
I declare absolute unconditional victory.
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?