Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 64, 65, 66

Reply to topic
dad
First Post
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:48 pm  The different nature in the past allows literal Genesis Reply with quote

Science today is based on the nature and laws of today. If the nature was not the same, then things like people living 1000 years could be natural in the former nature. The question is does science know it was this same nature that existed or not? The anser is no. It only assumed it was.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 651: Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:47 pm
Reply
Re: The different nature in the past allows literal Genesis

Like this post
DrNoGods wrote:

[Replying to post 648 by dad]

Quote:
Anything with millions or billions of years is totally cooked up, religious nonsense.


OK ... I'm done wasting time on this never-ending stream of drivel. Good luck with your science bashing mission.

No problem, you helped show that science is not authoritative. Certainly in no position to question the proven authority of the bible. (not on this forum of course where the bible is not allowed to be considered, but the beliefs of science are sacred). But that is OK, cause all that is needed is to show science doesn't know, and to expose it as belief based.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 652: Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:07 am
Reply
Re: The different nature in the past allows literal Genesis

Like this post
Quote:
No changes in time on earth are involved, or needed. Unless you now claim that things like gravity, the strong nuclear force and other forces operate on some time basis??
Actually according to your claim to be true there would need to be changes on the Earth. You claim people used to live to be hundreds of years old, we know that such is an impossibility with the current conditions on Earth. Since this is the science subforum be specific as to what the different conditions were on the Earth to allow for such extreme lifespans.


Quote:
"I suspect the flood was about 70,000,000 imaginary science years ago."
That is a year science claims of course. Anything with millions or billions of years is totally cooked up, religious nonsense. The way they arrive at that imaginary time is by assuming radioactive decay (this nature) EXISTED FOR ALL TIME![/quote]Please explain why you think radioactive decay has not existed for all time. Also of course provide the scientific evidence which led you to this conclusion.

Quote:
In their imaginary timescales, the flood was likely somewhere around 65-70 million years ago. In actual real time it was only about 4500 years ago. Their same state past based dating goes wildly wildly wrong very very fast as we near the time when this state started.
Please show any evidence from any science website that makes a claim that the biblical flood happened at all.

Quote:
Let's say this nature began, for example, 4267 years ago. Dates that are gotten by radioactive decay would be wrong probably, for even dates that are several hundred years BEFORE that. Why? Because they use collaborating evidences such as coral growth, or tree rings etc. A tree that was full grown on the day of the nature change may have been fully grown, but only took a month to grow. Science would look at the rings of that tree as if the rings were grown slowly, seasonally, as now.
Please provide the evidence you have for a tree growing to full size within a month. Are you trying to say that in this imaginary past of yours a month was a year? If so then your claim of people living to be a thousand years is not such an amazing claim and turns your argument into a simple one where you call months years.


Quote:
Today life processes operate under OUR laws. Atoms and molecules and cells must do what they do here and now. That does not tell us how the cells and atoms used to behave and act in the former nature! All you do is assume it was the same, that is religion, not science.
What different nature? You have already claimed that nothing has changed since creation. Are you saying there was something here before god created everything?

Please provide any scientific evidence you have to show that conditions were different in the distant past. Without any evidence to lead one to think conditions were different at some point it is rational to assume nothing has changed.
[quote]


Quote:
Quote:

Since there is zero evidence that natural laws were somehow different in the past,
Or the same, that is your problem! They don't have a clue either way.
Exactly, without evidence either way why do you jump to the conclusion things were different?


Quote:
Science doesn't know, and the record of the nature in the past is different than today. The default is different. You need a reason to claim it was the same! You must admit science doesn't know.
Actually YOU are making the claim so the burden is on YOU to provide evidence for your claims.


Quote:
The bible is evidence. Science has no evidence for a same state past. You may chose to deny and disallow evidence from the bible, but that just shows us about you and your beliefs and choices.
Yes your bias is well known but you need to understand that the bible is no more authoritative than any of the other hundreds of holy books that exist.

Quote:
You don't get to wave away the record of people's lives in the bible just because you have some weird belief in a same nature in the past.
Strange that you think the idea that the past conditions are the same as they are now is weird.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 653: Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:11 pm
Reply
Re: The different nature in the past allows literal Genesis

Like this post
Wyvern wrote:
Actually according to your claim to be true there would need to be changes on the Earth. You claim people used to live to be hundreds of years old, we know that such is an impossibility with the current conditions on Earth. Since this is the science subforum be specific as to what the different conditions were on the Earth to allow for such extreme lifespans.
Since this is a science forum, you need to prove that the present nature existed then, IF you want to claim the limits existed.

Quote:
Please explain why you think radioactive decay has not existed for all time.
Please explain why you think radioactive decay has existed for all time? Also of course provide the scientific evidence which led you to this conclusion.

Since you will not be able to do that, we can believe anything at all.


Quote:
Please show any evidence from any science website that makes a claim that the biblical flood happened at all.

Well, as far as science goes, they have no idea. So no one is going to use science here or anywhere on earth to say there was or was not the recorded flood in Noah's day.

You are welcome to restrict your beliefs to the limits of what science can deal with and assume and believe in. That will leave you ignorant of course. Long as you do not claim knowledge or science, that is fine, be as ignorant as you desire to be. I want truth and knowledge.
Quote:

Please provide the evidence you have for a tree growing to full size within a month.

Please provide the evidence you have for a tree growing to full size in the time of Noah at present rates!!??


Quote:

Are you trying to say that in this imaginary past of yours a month was a year?

No. No. No. A day was a day. Now if the earth was a little closer to the sun or whatever, then there may have been a small difference in a year, as far as orbits and etc. We don't know.

Quote:

If so then your claim of people living to be a thousand years is not such an amazing claim and turns your argument into a simple one where you call months years.
No, they are recorded to live real years. It is amazing, and would require something different in nature I deduce.

Quote:

What different nature?
What same nature??
Quote:

You have already claimed that nothing has changed since creation.
No. Plenty is different according to the bible.
Quote:

Are you saying there was something here before god created everything?
No. Nothing. But as far as science goes, they have no idea whatsoever either way. Please provide any scientific evidence you have to show that conditions were the same in the distant past. Without any evidence to lead one to think conditions were the same at some point it is rational to assume something has changed. That is, unless one wishes to wave off history and Scripture records for no reason.
Quote:


Exactly, without evidence either way why do you jump to the conclusion things were different?
You cannot, by science conclude either! So, you admit not knowing, or you look outside of the box. No other option.
Quote:

Actually YOU are making the claim
Actually my claim is that science doesn't know, so they cannot claim any particular nature existed. If they do (as they do) the burden is on their shoulders. I simply admit believing God's word. They believe something else, but have pretended it was more than a belief.
Quote:

Yes your bias is well known
Beliefs mean bias, and science illustrates that well. Their beliefs are as biased as ever bias could be.

Quote:

but you need to understand that the bible is no more authoritative than any of the other hundreds of holy books that exist.
In your mind, but so what? I am not here asking whether God is real or His word is true. You believe whatever you like, and erect a statue god to a cockroach if you wish, or whatever. Do not call it science though.
Quote:

Strange that you think the idea that the past conditions are the same as they are now is weird.
What you or I think is of no great value in determining the far past. So what do you KNOW? Ha[/quote]

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 654: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:47 pm
Reply

Like this post (1): H.sapiens
Thank you for your reply dad and thank you for confirming that you have no intention of debating. In one post you have demonstrated that all you are doing is being evasive and are merely trying to shift the burden of proof. You made the claim and as such the burden is yours to provide the proof of your claims. No one has to prove your claims are wrong until you actually make an evidenced argument in your favor, something which you have yet to do. In effect all you have done is make a fantastic claim and then told everyone to prove you wrong.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 655: Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:12 am
Reply

Like this post
Wyvern wrote:

Thank you for your reply dad and thank you for confirming that you have no intention of debating. In one post you have demonstrated that all you are doing is being evasive and are merely trying to shift the burden of proof. You made the claim and as such the burden is yours to provide the proof of your claims. No one has to prove your claims are wrong until you actually make an evidenced argument in your favor, something which you have yet to do. In effect all you have done is make a fantastic claim and then told everyone to prove you wrong.
And thank you for showing that you do not comprehend that science makes claims and models based on beliefs and that you are unable to defend or discuss them. They DO have to support their claims and basis for models. Until they do, we can lean toward the historic default position on creation if we like.

Not sure like you talk like you are some little judge, when you have not even contributed anything but self righteous smug ignorant babble?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 656: Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:59 am
Reply

Like this post
dad wrote:

Until they do, we can lean toward the historic default position on creation if we like.


Worthless assertion. You've once again asserted without providing evidence. And once again, you'll act as if this is the rational position to take. Substantiate your argument.

"Science is fake, therefore my religion is right," is an argument chock full of holes. So find a better argument.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 657: Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:20 am
Reply

Like this post
dad wrote:
And thank you for showing that you do not comprehend that science makes claims and models based on beliefs and that you are unable to defend or discuss them. They DO have to support their claims and basis for models. Until they do, we can lean toward the historic default position on creation if we like.

Not sure like you talk like you are some little judge, when you have not even contributed anything but self righteous smug ignorant babble?


Warning Moderator Final Warning

Please do not make uncivil comments towards others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 658: Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:15 pm
Reply

Like this post
Neatras wrote:


Worthless assertion. You've once again asserted without providing evidence. And once again, you'll act as if this is the rational position to take. Substantiate your argument.
Your opinion of what is of worth is not relevant. Anyone asking that Scripture and historical records need to be 'substantiated' should say how they would like this done? What needs to be substantiated here is claims that are supposed to be science when they really are just beliefs. Since they are unsubstantiated, by your standards you would call them worthless.
Quote:

"Science is fake, therefore my religion is right," is an argument chock full of holes. So find a better argument.

Trying to attach beliefs to actual science and have them considered also science is an argument chock full of holes. So find a better argument.

Note to self: it is ok to call posts worthless and beliefs science, and insult the bible on forum. It is not OK to tell the truth.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 659: Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:24 pm
Reply

Like this post
The theory of evolution is much more credible than the mythical creation tale in the Bible. Science may one day explain exactly how the universe came into being, and when/if it does I am willing to bet it will have absolutely nothing to do with any god.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 660: Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:47 pm
Reply

Like this post
JJ50 wrote:

The theory of evolution is much more credible than the mythical creation tale in the Bible.
Says who??
Quote:

Science may one day explain exactly how the universe came into being


Meanwhile, they can't.
Quote:

, and when/if it does I am willing to bet it will have absolutely nothing to do with any god.


Prophesy based on nothing.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 64, 65, 66

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version