Right Divider
Body part
You are such a gracious loser.I'll let you have the last word since I can see it is so very important to yo
You are such a gracious loser.I'll let you have the last word since I can see it is so very important to yo
That's awesome. Thanks.I'll let you have the last word since I can see it is so very important to you.
You are such a gracious loser.
OP stands as unrefuted Truth.
Science is science... The Bible is the Bible... They mix like Oil and Vinegar.
You are a dreamer. Young and arrogant and unable to understand the plain teaching of scripture.I wasn't talking to you, scriptural illiterate. When it comes to you, I am always the winner, and you are always the loser.
Dittos to your sidekick Stripe.
Expected retort from TG: "You don't know nothin'... I know everything... so there".But just to make doubly certain that we are on the right side here, let's go through some of the science in the Bible:![]()
This reminds me of the football analogy that proves the point of impossibility. How far away can a field goal kicker score a field goal? We don't really know the farthest for sure beyond which it becomes impossible. Let's say the longest is 64 yards. Will 65 ever be possible? If that is achieved then how about 66? No? Impossible? Hmmmm... I don't think you could prove 66 is impossible.You're wrong of course. I just got through proving it.
Of course they say whatever they want but, as I seem to never stop telling people, saying it doesn't make it so.
So you allow an argument that you openly admit that you don't really understand to defeat the single most tested idea in all of human thought?
Do you believe in perpetual motion machines? Do you believe that they are at all possible? Do you believe that if a machine is sufficiently complex that it might somehow be able to function in the opposite direction, away from entropy? Isn't it true that the more complex a system, the higher the rate of entropy?
No! That is not the argument. It is not about how unlikely it is. It is not unlikely it is impossible. "Unlikely" implies that it is possible. It is not possible - period. The "likelihood" is ZERO. It cannot have happened. Let me repeat - It CANNOT have happened.
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the batteries in your favorite flashlight are going to maintain their charge while the light is on. It isn't just unlikely that such a thing will happen, it CANNOT happen at all. Your car will run out of gas, the Earth will not spin on its axis forever, the Sun will eventually burn itself out. It DOES NOT happen the other way around - ever!
That is not my opinion nor is it a theory. It is not only the most tested and repeatedly proven fact of existence, it happens to be one of the foundatonal laws of the whole of science.
Clete
Also, most evolutionists do not seem to understand that common descent works in the creationist model as well. The difference is that creationists believe that the common descent is NOT from a SINGLE common ancestor, but the created kinds.This reminds me of the football analogy that proves the point of impossibility. How far away can a field goal kicker score a field goal? We don't really know the farthest for sure beyond which it becomes impossible. Let's say the longest is 64 yards. Will 65 ever be possible? If that is achieved then how about 66? No? Impossible? Hmmmm... I don't think you could prove 66 is impossible.
The problem is... the length of the field goal is not the point. The point is to win the game. Same with Common Descent. The point is not if a particular succession of mutations over generations is possible, but whether that is the best way to get the detailed information we see in life today. Just like a coach will not try a 75 yard field goal over just about any other play, Common Descent will have to abandon the argument of mutation+natural selection because what was always true it will be known to be, even by their own admission when they don't have complete control of the narrative, impossible.
Will that be warmer than it is now? I'm freezing.You boys be careful. Pope's Gurl will want to see you burned alive for your scientifical heresy. Wouldn't be the first time.
Well, true enough but any discussion about common descent or any other aspect of evolution jumps well past the point of how life began in the first place. When asked how life could have arrisen from lifelessness, the best answer you get from any evolutionists is "I don't know." and they think that such a response ends the debate. When confronted with the implications that come from the most basic laws of science they simply squeeze their eyes as tightly shut as they can and pretend that its a problem that some future generation will solve.This reminds me of the football analogy that proves the point of impossibility. How far away can a field goal kicker score a field goal? We don't really know the farthest for sure beyond which it becomes impossible. Let's say the longest is 64 yards. Will 65 ever be possible? If that is achieved then how about 66? No? Impossible? Hmmmm... I don't think you could prove 66 is impossible.
The problem is... the length of the field goal is not the point. The point is to win the game. Same with Common Descent. The point is not if a particular succession of mutations over generations is possible, but whether that is the best way to get the detailed information we see in life today. Just like a coach will not try a 75 yard field goal over just about any other play, Common Descent will have to abandon the argument of mutation+natural selection because what was always true it will be known to be, even by their own admission when they don't have complete control of the narrative, impossible.
Which is why they avoid that topic like the plague.Well, true enough but any discussion about common descent or any other aspect of evolution jumps well past the point of how life began in the first place.
Sad for them, isn't it?When asked how life could have arrisen from lifelessness, the best answer you get from any evolutionists is "I don't know." and they think that such a response ends the debate.
The typical atheist scientist is of the mind that "someday we'll figure it all out on our own".When confronted with the implications that come from the most basic laws of science they simply squeeze their eyes as tightly shut as they can and pretend that its a problem that some future generation will solve.
Correctamundo, and I also subscribe to the other verses in 2nd Peter chapter three as well, like verses 10 and 12, we all Catholics believe in those verses, so I don't understand the position where Genesis chapter one and two are other than 2nd Peter 3:10 and 12. But, at the same time, I'm told to not worry about it, so I don't.@Idolater -- You subscribe to a global flood, right?
Course there isn't. That was my whole point. And so, the conclusion is, that, since we know what fertile soil is, that it's made from sand and silt and clay (all rock), and from organic matter . . .This question you asked completely undermines your own position. There is no reason to think that the soil in the garden was anything other than fertile soil.
There's no scripture licensing you or anybody else to consider yourself a Christian without being under the pastoral authority of your own bishop. You're adding to Scripture, reading something into Scripture that just into there to begin with. And the irony is that all the bishops say, that you are a Christian anyway, even though you add to Scripture, reading something into Scripture that just isn't there to begin with.So why insist that there were also fossils in the ground?
It's simply adding to scripture, reading something into scripture that just isn't there to begin with. Eisegesis, rather than exegesis.
Can you please be more precise. What is the issue?Correctamundo, and I also subscribe to the other verses in 2nd Peter chapter three as well, like verses 10 and 12, we all Catholics believe in those verses, so I don't understand the position where Genesis chapter one and two are other than 2nd Peter 3:10 and 12. But, at the same time, I'm told to not worry about it, so I don't.
They were willfully ignoring the flood, much like most of the world today.2Pe 3:4 KJV And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
Notice that Peter talks about wisdom given to PAUL. He does NOT say wisdom given to US (i.e., all apostles).2Pe 3:15-16 KJV And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
It's not. It's specifically correcting a notion where one's ecclesiology is thought to determine his or her or neither his nor her status with regard to God.Sounds like a platitude. Is there some takeaway?
That was my point. But in the Garden there was no life-container that had to die and get boiled in order for its soil to be fertile.You do know that soil can be fertile even after having all of the life boiled out of it, right?
OK.It's not important. I read your explanation of what you believe a bit more and my response doesn't really apply.![]()
Because I don't believe that all the dating methods used to calculate "billions of years" are wrong, even though I don't believe in "billions of years". So that means that our instruments and methods are telling us a story, a story that's written in the rocks. And so I'm just saying that the story written in the rocks is a fairy tale. God never explained why He wrote that story, so I could only guess.Why do you believe this?
The biggest problem I'm having is getting people to agree that almost all of the PhDs who are PhDs in relevant fields or domains, say that the fossils themselves are "millions of years" old. It's like, we can't even agree on that? We're never going to agree if we can't even agree on that.There doesn't seem to be much point if Idolater is simply going to say that God made the fossils in situ. He's a smart fella. I reckon he knows the mainstream explanation for why we see fossils. The Darwinist explanation is more scientifically satisfying than his.
The best explanation for his posts in this thread that I can come up with is that he's trolling us.![]()
It does not matter how many PhD's believe something. That does NOT make it true.The biggest problem I'm having is getting people to agree that almost all of the PhDs who are PhDs in relevant fields or domains, say that the fossils themselves are "millions of years" old. It's like, we can't even agree on that? We're never going to agree if we can't even agree on that.
The issue is that we're told the fate of this earth in 2nd Peter 3:10 and 12, we hear it read to us in Mass. It sounds just as fantastical as Genesis one does, but I've never heard Catholics try and say that 2nd Peter 3:10 and 12 aren't science, is all. We believe this is all going to be burned up! Somehow. But that it will all be burned up, we are all in agreement. It just seems arbitrary to me to take 2nd Peter 3:10 and 12 literally but not Genesis one and two. But I'm still told not to worry about, so I don't worry about it. I just go to Mass like I'm told.Can you please be more precise. What is the issue?
In 2nd Peter, Peter is explaining why the Lord is delaying His coming and the associated judgement. They (those that Peter is responding to) were ignore the great judgement of the FLOOD.
They were willfully ignoring the flood, much like most of the world today.
Peter also defers to Paul to help explain the delay in the Lord's return.
Notice that Peter talks about wisdom given to PAUL. He does NOT say wisdom given to US (i.e., all apostles).
Why does Peter say that some of Paul's epistles contain things that are hard to understand? I can explain, but not many will listen to sound reason regarding that.
I'm not claiming that they're really that old! I'm only claiming that all the relevant PhDs (with a small minority of exceptions) say that all of their methods and instruments calculate that the dinosaur fossils are "millions of years" old.It does not matter how many PhD's believe something. That does NOT make it true.
You just cling to logical fallacies. You're not alone.