Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Questions for Young Earth Creationists

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 8:54:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://sagansbrain.blogspot.com...

1. Do you believe that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second? If you don't, how fast is it? And how do you know that?
The actual speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second, we just round it off to make basic calculations easier. But we need to know exactly how fast it is for a variety of reasons. For instance, our GPS systems wouldn't work if we didn't know precisely how fast light travels, since the technology requires very exact calculations of signal transmission times to determine your position. Our understanding of light is essential to our use of radios, computers, and communications satellites (to name just a few). The speed of light was first measured in the 1600s, and by the 20th century we were able to measure it with astonishing accuracy. Meanwhile, independent evidence supporting our calculation of light speed is abundant. The communications delay with the Apollo astronauts, and our robotic interplanetary spacecraft, is consistent with our understanding of the speed of light, and we have even used it to measure the precise distance to the Moon using a laser and a mirror left on the surface in 1969.

2. If you believe in the speed of light, then, do you believe that the stars and galaxies are very far away, or are they much closer than scientists maintain?
Measuring the distances to the stars is a complicated problem, but astronomers have come up with a number of clever ways to do it. The stars have been found to be many light years away, and observations have demonstrated that our Milky Way Galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter. But if we are to believe in the Young-Earth cosmology, we would only be able to see a small number of nearby stars. For anything farther than 6,000 light years, there would not have been enough time in the age of the Universe for the light to reach us. We would not be able to see even a single galaxy outside of our own (the closest of which is 25,000 light years away). As it turns out, though, we can see very many galaxies. Most of them are millions or even billions of light years away.

3. If you believe the stars and galaxies are much closer, do you believe in gravity?
Let's imagine for a moment our calculations of the distances to the stars are way off, so that they are much closer than typical estimates. What are the implications? Well, the Universe would be a much more crowded place. Let's say the Milky Way galaxy is a mere 5,000 light years across, instead of 100,000 light years as we have said. Astronomers have calculated the number of stars in the Milky Way to be in the hundreds of billions. With a hypothetical Milky Way 1/20th the size, the volume is only about 0.0124% that of the original, meaning the stars would have to be a whole lot closer together. And such a crowded galaxy would certainly complicate things as the mutual gravity of the stars would be much stronger. In this model, using the current star count, stars are on average only 0.2 light years apart, so we could say that Alpha Centauri, the closest star system to the Sun at 4.37 light years away, might now only be about 1/5th of a light year away, much closer to the Sun than the theoretical Oort Cloud of Comets.* It's easy to see how such a situation would radically alter the dynamics of our otherwise peaceful solar system. But it could not be reconciled with observation. Parallax would show that Alpha Centauri is clearly not this close, and the same would go for all of the other nearby stars, so we would have to say that the stars in our immediate vicinity are far apart as we have observed, but they are incredibly bunched up everywhere else. Of course, there is no good reason why this should be the case. The observed stellar motions about the galactic center just cannot be squared with this cosmology. Our current star count would have to be wildly inaccurate, or our measurement of stellar masses would have to be way off. But based on what we know about stellar mechanics, we cannot just reduce the masses of the stars without noticeable consequences, so this doesn't explain it. Otherwise, we would have to be living in an incredibly dense little galaxy. But this just does not match observations. In addition, this sort of hypothesis cannot come close to accounting for the enormous number of galaxies we have observed, which would all have to be within our 6,000 year light horizon if we are to see them. If everything we see beyond the Milky Way is within 6,000 light years, the galaxies would have to be incredibly small (much too small to be considered galaxies), dangerously close together, and their measured redshift could not be explained.++

4. Do you believe in radioactive decay? If not, why not?
One key way scientists have been able to determine the age of the Earth is through the use of radiometric dating. Remarkably, every elemental isotope has a predictable rate of radioactive decay, which means we can look at any material and determine its age based on the decay of its constituent nuclides. Using this method, scientists have found the oldest rocks on Earth to be over 4 billion years old. Radiometric dating has also been used on rocks from the Moon, and meteorites recovered on Earth, and the results have consistently pointed to a Solar System in the vicinity of 4.5 billion years old. Studies of orbital mechanics and the evolution of our Sun also corroborate this estimate. Meanwhile, our understanding of radioactivity is central to modern chemistry and critical to the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, so it's unlikely that we would be able to pull off such complex feats without a clear sense of radioactivity's basic mechanism.

5. In short, do you believe in science?
After just a brief exploration of some of the problems with a Young-Earth cosmology, it's easy to see just how many backflips are required to square such assertions with the facts. In order to prove a Young-Earth hypothesis, we couldn't just disprove one of the aforementioned scientific findings; we'd really have to disprove them all. And unfortunately for the creationists, this is really a tall order (you'll notice, I haven't even addressed perhaps the most elegant evidence of Earth's ancient history -- evolution -- which they dismiss out of hand). What science deniers don't seem to understand is that every single assertion in science has to be tested if it is to be counted as fact. We didn't simply take Newton's word on it that gravity works the way he said it does. It was tested, and it has been demonstrated to be correct. The same is true of Einstein's mind-boggling prediction that time dilates at relativistic speeds: it's been demonstrated. And down the line we go... every minor scientific detail, down to the most esoteric and obscure, has been worked out -- proposed, tested, and critiqued. And there is extra scrutiny reserved for the explanations of phenomena that we cannot actually see with our own eyes, whether we're talking about quantum mechanics, astronomy, cosmology or geology. Creationists like to insinuate that scientists are just making up their facts as they go along, but that accusation really betrays them; they are the ones with the unsubstantiated claims, and they are clearly unaware of the rigor with which ideas must be tested before they become mainstream theory. Scientists don't have the luxury of simply inventing their own version of history, so it has taken centuries, and the life's work of countless scientists, to reach our present understanding of the world.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 8:54:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Note, I thought those questions from that blog were good so i copied it over to here for YEC to answer
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 9:51:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. Do you believe that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second? If you don't, how fast is it? And how do you know that?

I do not know and really do not care because all I need to really know is in the Bible. A Bible believer and ultimarely a person who believes in God does not require need of such knowledge. I would rely on scientist to make them claims.

2. If you believe in the speed of light, then, do you believe that the stars and galaxies are very far away, or are they much closer than scientists maintain:

I do not believe in the speed of light. I do not disagree with the speed of light. It is not a coencern.

3. If you believe the stars and galaxies are much closer, do you believe in gravity?

Ypou used a word I do not like when someone tells me it is true, calculation, that word tells me 'made up stories'. I believe the gravity exist but I do not believe in it. I think the stars are as far away as the far away.

4. Do you believe in radioactive decay? If not, why not?

No I do not. You cant not ever know ages of things that you could not ever possibly been there to personally see yourself.

5. In short, do you believe in science?

I believe alot of science and then sometimes science just over steps its bounds and enters prediction and specualtions-these are not science-sceince is suppose to be emperical-if you are using speculation and prediction is steps out of emperical.
TheAsylum
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 11:08:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. Yes
2. The stars are very far away, where scientists say they are.
3. N/A, but yes I believe in gravity.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.

None of these are detrimental to my belief in a young Earth, because I believe that God created the universe with the appearance of age.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 11:11:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 11:08:55 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
1. Yes
2. The stars are very far away, where scientists say they are.
3. N/A, but yes I believe in gravity.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.

None of these are detrimental to my belief in a young Earth, because I believe that God created the universe with the appearance of age.

Do you believe that radioactive decay dating is reliable? There are some problems with the idea that God created the universe with age.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 11:17:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 11:08:55 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
1. Yes
2. The stars are very far away, where scientists say they are.
3. N/A, but yes I believe in gravity.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.

None of these are detrimental to my belief in a young Earth, because I believe that God created the universe with the appearance of age.

Interesting. You see, if God created the light in situ, then said light never originated from any object, it was placed their by God. Since the light never originated from any actual object, we have no basis on which we can even say there is an object to begin with!

So, you concede that these stars exist, yet the basis for their existence is the light we see and assume came from those stars. Why accept this, but not other conclusions? It seems inconsistent.

If you are going to say that the light we see is not an accurate representation of what is actually out there, then this necessarily extends to the mere existence of those objects, not just their apparent age.

So, why do you even believe the light we see corresponds to actual objects rather than being pure illusion?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 6:51:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 11:08:55 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
1. Yes
2. The stars are very far away, where scientists say they are.
3. N/A, but yes I believe in gravity.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.

None of these are detrimental to my belief in a young Earth, because I believe that God created the universe with the appearance of age.

So there is zero empirical means for a scientist to distinguish between whether YEC or "billions of years" is correct because all evidence for the latter can be said to also be evidence for the former. Basically your claim is YEC is 100% non-falsifiable.

Cute.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2012 11:32:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First, God created the stars billions of light years away, with all the light travelling from the stars in transit, so that he could maintain an epistemic distance between Himself and man. See, that's what you do when you love someone. What loving father doesn't give his children the occasional hint that he might not exist? Besides, the choice of whether to come to Christ is the most important choice anyone will ever have to make. So it obviously wouldn't be fair to give people all the information they need to make that decision. If someone was absolutely certain that God existed, they would have no choice but to follow him. Unless they were Satan. Cause Satan has these special epistemic powers to live as though God did not exist and did not expect certain things from him. But he's the only one.

Second, there is enough evidence in the universe that God's existence is obvious. And no, that doesn't contradict the last paragraph. This book says that only fools don't believe in God. And God wrote it -- that's how we know it's true. It also says that there is enough evidence that those who don't believe are without excuse. Except for infants. I mean, the book doesn't actually exclude infants; I'm just assuming that, because otherwise the whole God thing wouldn't make sense.

So in summary, the universe makes God's existence obvious, but the universe doesn't make God's existence obvious. And you have to admit that it was pretty nice of God to arrange the universe so that those who chose to disregard the evidence and turn instead to the evidence could live intellectual fulfilling lives before dying and going to eternal Hell. Wasn't it? I mean, not that such people exist. They know they're wrong, and so they're probably uncomfortable, but that's their choice. They have no good reason to turn away from God. What, you think God would arrange the universe so that those who chose to disregard the evidence and turn instead to the evidence could live intellectually fulfilling lives before dying and going to eternal Hell? What kind of sense does that make? No loving God would do that! Next thing you'll be telling me that God ordered the death of millions of people!

What?

Well, they had it coming.

So, God has arranged things so that it LOOKS like the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and he has also arranged things so that anyone who actually BELIEVES it will not be saved. It makes perfect sense to me. Because the alternative would be that I'm wrong, and that's . . . that's just . . . come on, don't make me laugh. I'm not wrong. I'm never wrong. More importantly God's never wrong -- he's the one who told me these things. And I'm not wrong about THAT, either!

Next post: why fools believe in the existence of North Dakota.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 12:08:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 9:51:19 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
1. Do you believe that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second? If you don't, how fast is it? And how do you know that?

I do not know and really do not care because all I need to really know is in the Bible. A Bible believer and ultimarely a person who believes in God does not require need of such knowledge. I would rely on scientist to make them claims.

2. If you believe in the speed of light, then, do you believe that the stars and galaxies are very far away, or are they much closer than scientists maintain:

I do not believe in the speed of light. I do not disagree with the speed of light. It is not a coencern.

3. If you believe the stars and galaxies are much closer, do you believe in gravity?

Ypou used a word I do not like when someone tells me it is true, calculation, that word tells me 'made up stories'. I believe the gravity exist but I do not believe in it. I think the stars are as far away as the far away.

4. Do you believe in radioactive decay? If not, why not?

No I do not. You cant not ever know ages of things that you could not ever possibly been there to personally see yourself.

5. In short, do you believe in science?

I believe alot of science and then sometimes science just over steps its bounds and enters prediction and specualtions-these are not science-sceince is suppose to be emperical-if you are using speculation and prediction is steps out of emperical.

I could have sig'ed so many quotes from there.

"I do not believe in the speed of light."
LMAO!

"Ypou used a word I do not like when someone tells me it is true, calculation, that word tells me 'made up stories'."
Even better.

"I believe the gravity exist but I do not believe in it."
HAHA!

"You cant not ever know ages of things that you could not ever possibly been there to personally see yourself."
This is too good.

"sometimes science just over steps its bounds and enters prediction"
I'm dying of laughter.
Sapere Aude!
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 12:16:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 12:08:59 AM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 6/6/2012 9:51:19 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
1. Do you believe that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second? If you don't, how fast is it? And how do you know that?

I do not know and really do not care because all I need to really know is in the Bible. A Bible believer and ultimarely a person who believes in God does not require need of such knowledge. I would rely on scientist to make them claims.

2. If you believe in the speed of light, then, do you believe that the stars and galaxies are very far away, or are they much closer than scientists maintain:

I do not believe in the speed of light. I do not disagree with the speed of light. It is not a coencern.

3. If you believe the stars and galaxies are much closer, do you believe in gravity?

Ypou used a word I do not like when someone tells me it is true, calculation, that word tells me 'made up stories'. I believe the gravity exist but I do not believe in it. I think the stars are as far away as the far away.

4. Do you believe in radioactive decay? If not, why not?

No I do not. You cant not ever know ages of things that you could not ever possibly been there to personally see yourself.

5. In short, do you believe in science?

I believe alot of science and then sometimes science just over steps its bounds and enters prediction and specualtions-these are not science-sceince is suppose to be emperical-if you are using speculation and prediction is steps out of emperical.

I could have sig'ed so many quotes from there.

"I do not believe in the speed of light."
LMAO!

"Ypou used a word I do not like when someone tells me it is true, calculation, that word tells me 'made up stories'."
Even better.

"I believe the gravity exist but I do not believe in it."
HAHA!

"You cant not ever know ages of things that you could not ever possibly been there to personally see yourself."
This is too good.

"sometimes science just over steps its bounds and enters prediction"
I'm dying of laughter.

No your dying of no-rebuttal.
TheAsylum
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 12:19:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 12:08:59 AM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 6/6/2012 9:51:19 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
1. Do you believe that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second? If you don't, how fast is it? And how do you know that?

I do not know and really do not care because all I need to really know is in the Bible. A Bible believer and ultimarely a person who believes in God does not require need of such knowledge. I would rely on scientist to make them claims.

2. If you believe in the speed of light, then, do you believe that the stars and galaxies are very far away, or are they much closer than scientists maintain:

I do not believe in the speed of light. I do not disagree with the speed of light. It is not a coencern.

3. If you believe the stars and galaxies are much closer, do you believe in gravity?

Ypou used a word I do not like when someone tells me it is true, calculation, that word tells me 'made up stories'. I believe the gravity exist but I do not believe in it. I think the stars are as far away as the far away.

4. Do you believe in radioactive decay? If not, why not?

No I do not. You cant not ever know ages of things that you could not ever possibly been there to personally see yourself.

5. In short, do you believe in science?

I believe alot of science and then sometimes science just over steps its bounds and enters prediction and specualtions-these are not science-sceince is suppose to be emperical-if you are using speculation and prediction is steps out of emperical.

I could have sig'ed so many quotes from there.

"I do not believe in the speed of light."
LMAO!

"Ypou used a word I do not like when someone tells me it is true, calculation, that word tells me 'made up stories'."
Even better.

"I believe the gravity exist but I do not believe in it."
HAHA!

"You cant not ever know ages of things that you could not ever possibly been there to personally see yourself."
This is too good.

"sometimes science just over steps its bounds and enters prediction"
I'm dying of laughter.

I see your not constructive and can't refute him without ad homeneim.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 12:05:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/6/2012 9:51:19 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
I do not know and really do not care because all I need to really know is in the Bible. A Bible believer and ultimarely a person who believes in God does not require need of such knowledge. I would rely on scientist to make them claims.

So would you be OK with your children being taught standard scientific thought in their classes?

4. Do you believe in radioactive decay? If not, why not?

No I do not. You cant not ever know ages of things that you could not ever possibly been there to personally see yourself.

This then eliminates any age of the earth older than you are, or more properly, older than your first memory.

I believe alot of science and then sometimes science just over steps its bounds and enters prediction and specualtions-these are not science-sceince is suppose to be emperical-if you are using speculation and prediction is steps out of emperical.

So you don't care to question the science as you said in the first sentence that you would rely on the scientists to make the estimates, but now you are going to tell us all what science is and isn't? I understand you are not a scientist (from your statements), so I'm curious how you feel free to tell us what science is and isn't?

For example: "speculation" could reasonably be "inference" and/or "hypothesis" which are almost as important to science as observation. Without inference or hypothesis science would be little more than stamp collecting of "observations". The point of observing is to attempt to make sense of the observations.

Yes science is empirical, but that isn't the sum total of science.

If you don't care about science then why would you feel you are able to tell us what is and isn't science? You are free to be completely divorced from science but in abrogating your input or your need to learn the details of it, you kind of give up any right to "preach" to scientists about what is and what isn't science, don't you?
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 11:37:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 12:16:01 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/7/2012 12:08:59 AM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 6/6/2012 9:51:19 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
1. Do you believe that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second? If you don't, how fast is it? And how do you know that?

I do not know and really do not care because all I need to really know is in the Bible. A Bible believer and ultimarely a person who believes in God does not require need of such knowledge. I would rely on scientist to make them claims.

2. If you believe in the speed of light, then, do you believe that the stars and galaxies are very far away, or are they much closer than scientists maintain:

I do not believe in the speed of light. I do not disagree with the speed of light. It is not a coencern.

3. If you believe the stars and galaxies are much closer, do you believe in gravity?

Ypou used a word I do not like when someone tells me it is true, calculation, that word tells me 'made up stories'. I believe the gravity exist but I do not believe in it. I think the stars are as far away as the far away.

4. Do you believe in radioactive decay? If not, why not?

No I do not. You cant not ever know ages of things that you could not ever possibly been there to personally see yourself.

5. In short, do you believe in science?

I believe alot of science and then sometimes science just over steps its bounds and enters prediction and specualtions-these are not science-sceince is suppose to be emperical-if you are using speculation and prediction is steps out of emperical.

I could have sig'ed so many quotes from there.

"I do not believe in the speed of light."
LMAO!

"Ypou used a word I do not like when someone tells me it is true, calculation, that word tells me 'made up stories'."
Even better.

"I believe the gravity exist but I do not believe in it."
HAHA!

"You cant not ever know ages of things that you could not ever possibly been there to personally see yourself."
This is too good.

"sometimes science just over steps its bounds and enters prediction"
I'm dying of laughter.

No your dying of no-rebuttal.

There is absolutely nothing to rebut. Why should refute "arguments" that are so baseless they insult the very existence of logic? You justified nothing. There wasn't even any reasoning given behind any of those statements.

And in addition to not substantiating a word of it, your ridiculous statements are so self-evidently fallacious to any free-thinking person, there isn't even a need to rebut them. But at least try to back up your nonsense.
Sapere Aude!
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2012 11:57:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is absolutely nothing to rebut. Why should refute "arguments" that are so baseless they insult the very existence of logic? You justified nothing. There wasn't even any reasoning given behind any of those statements.

And in addition to not substantiating a word of it, your ridiculous statements are so self-evidently fallacious to any free-thinking person, there isn't even a need to rebut them. But at least try to back up your nonsense.

Why do you need to rebut? Why does it need base(is it defning)? Why do I need your brand of logic? I have my own. Why do I need to justify myself? I only need my own justification. I have reasoning. God in my life and our realtionship and my Bible.
My Bible substantiats itself and my fellows Believers have also did the same. If there is a God why should I be a free thinker? I agree interpreatations should very, but why should I refuse God?I did make sense of my logic.
TheAsylum
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 12:01:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/7/2012 11:57:42 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
There is absolutely nothing to rebut. Why should refute "arguments" that are so baseless they insult the very existence of logic? You justified nothing. There wasn't even any reasoning given behind any of those statements.

And in addition to not substantiating a word of it, your ridiculous statements are so self-evidently fallacious to any free-thinking person, there isn't even a need to rebut them. But at least try to back up your nonsense.

Why do you need to rebut? Why does it need base(is it defning)? Why do I need your brand of logic? I have my own. Why do I need to justify myself? I only need my own justification. I have reasoning. God in my life and our realtionship and my Bible.
My Bible substantiats itself and my fellows Believers have also did the same. If there is a God why should I be a free thinker? I agree interpreatations should very, but why should I refuse God?I did make sense of my logic.

Don't act like you have a basis or reasoning for your beliefs.

You deny the speed of light, gravity, claim science has nothing to do with predicting future phenomena, and deny the very logic of mathematics itself.
No. There is no logic nor reasoning nor sense behind any of those beliefs. "But...but....I believe in god so I'm right, and fact, logic, and reason is wrong."
You don't get to make up your own "sense of logic" and claim it to be true.
Sapere Aude!
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 12:09:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

You deny the speed of light, gravity, claim science has nothing to do with predicting future phenomena, and deny the very logic of mathematics itself.
No. There is no logic nor reasoning nor sense behind any of those beliefs. "But...but....I believe in god so I'm right, and fact, logic, and reason is wrong."
You don't get to make up your own "sense of logic" and claim it to be true.

I did not make up this logic, God did through the Bible. And I can claim it true. I do not deny gravity, light, or science. I deny thier ability to know everything and alot of the things they do claim they do. I will always stick to my Bible when foreshadowing is envolved. Thats my right. You act as if I owe reason for that. Lol . If you can not hold it in your hands, Physically see, or can know everything needed to apply to the calculation, then it is forshadowing. And when it comes to scientist foreshadowing and the Bible, the Bible it correct. Prove it isnt. There is a topic in religion about doing just that-Bible is right! Prove why anyone should rely on scientific guessing over God.
TheAsylum
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 12:23:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 12:09:39 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

You deny the speed of light, gravity, claim science has nothing to do with predicting future phenomena, and deny the very logic of mathematics itself.
No. There is no logic nor reasoning nor sense behind any of those beliefs. "But...but....I believe in god so I'm right, and fact, logic, and reason is wrong."
You don't get to make up your own "sense of logic" and claim it to be true.

I did not make up this logic, God did through the Bible.
Anyone can write BS on a piece of paper/stone tablet. To prove something's veracity is something else entirely.
And I can claim it true.
You can, but you would be a fool to do so without any reasonable justification.
I do not deny gravity, light, or science. I deny thier ability to know everything and alot of the things they do claim they do.
Which is what? Gravity exists. You can't just "not believe in it."
I will always stick to my Bible when foreshadowing is envolved.
Science does not foreshadow.
Thats my right. You act as if I owe reason for that. Lol.
Yes, you do owe a justification to pure nonsense. If you can't provide any, you have no basis upon which to hold said beliefs.
If you can not hold it in your hands, Physically see, or can know everything needed to apply to the calculation, then it is forshadowing.
So...the existence of your god is unjustified. That is what you are saying.
And when it comes to scientist foreshadowing and the Bible, the Bible it correct.
WHY?!?!?!
Prove it isnt.
Look up "Burden of Proof."
There is a topic in religion about doing just that-Bible is right! Prove why anyone should rely on scientific guessing over God.
God and the bible are two different things. One has a logical basis for its existence. The bible is BS. God exists =/= the bible is 100% truth. There is no reason to believe a single word in the bible.

Science is based on empiricism. The bible is the fictitious work of man. The better choice is obvious.
Sapere Aude!
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 12:36:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anyone can write BS on a piece of paper/stone tablet. To prove something's veracity is something else entirely.

Anyone can claim its BS. doesnt mean it true.

You can, but you would be a fool to do so without any reasonable justification.

First you insult me then you deny my thousands of years of evidence. Not logical.

Which is what? Gravity exists. You can't just "not believe in it."

Yes I can. What we call gravity mite be something else and we do not have that info yet.(hence why its still a theory)

Science does not foreshadow.

So science knows everything? Knows everything to know to know everything? Knows everything it takes to make precise calcualtions?

Yes, you do owe a justification to pure nonsense. If you can't provide any, you have no basis upon which to hold said beliefs.

Bible. Endless amounts of bleievers. ENDLESS accounts of God.(not to mention my own)

If you can not hold it in your hands, Physically see, or can know everything needed to apply to the calculation, then it is forshadowing.

I have continued to show justification. ENDLESS believers.

And when it comes to scientist foreshadowing and the Bible, the Bible it correct.
WHY?!?!?!
Cause God is always right!
Proof is enough for me.

God and the bible are two different things. One has a logical basis for its existence. The bible is BS. God exists =/= the bible is 100% truth. There is no reason to believe a single word in the bible.

Even not one word has ever been false. That unlogical.

Science is based on empiricism. The bible is the fictitious work of man. The better choice is obvious.

Lol. some science is emperical. Thats a matter of what you call science. Lol .(`;')
TheAsylum