Search results

Here's the problem. There would be no reason for people to create "fancy footwork" in physics principles if there had never been those who propose a young earth or universe. And even if I have to say it a forth time, I will. When various areas of study agree on an ancient earth and universe...

All you're saying here is, "it doesn't make sense, so god did it". And I am hardly stating what I do with an "almighty word". That is a silly accusation. What I state is logical. It doesn't matter IF there was some magical way it was done. The bottom line is, it could only have been done...

Sparrowhawke, I've already addressed this. . . . . and it has NOTHING to do with me and everything to do with a god who would create something WITHOUT PURPOSE. . . . except to eventually deceive people. There is absolutely NO reason to have anything beyond 10,000 light years [if this god knew...

It has nothing to do with "having a hard time with the power of god". It is an untruth!! Plain and simple. If it isn't true, . . . it is a lie. The remnance of a supernova greater than 10,000 light years [and there are] would indicate a false past . . . for the purpose of deceiving future...

The problem is, . . . it makes your god a trickster. It is the promotion of [basically] a lie. Something said to be real, but never was. For example, . . . any supernova remenant beyond 10,000 years old [in other words, further than 10,000 light years away], would be a false reality. There would...

When all sciences agree on an age, why try to resist it? I will post more. . . . gotta get to work.

I really don't think that christian doctrines are on the minds of scientists in the search for facts. :confused:

So, . . . "made with the appearance of age".

Please expound on what you mean here. This still sounds like an "appearance of age" thing.

Not to get technical, but if something is in fact testable [with repeatability], it must move beyond mere "belief" to knowledge. For example, I don't believe that gravity will affect this pen when I drop it. I know it will. As for belief/faith, it is fine for a person to have such things, but...

Yes, . . . very possible. :yes Thanks for this post. ;)

Because it is the truth of what I know, I would say the same thing as I did before. :shrug

My post [posted this morning] may have been removed, . . . so I must have said something against the TOS. For what it's worth, . . . . . . well, I guess I have nothing to say here.

What is definite IS people's actions. Dinosaur bones as well. I choose to only consider that which has testable. I also must disregard the statement "____ can't be disproven . . . ". There are MANY things that can't be disproven, . . . and most of those you would agree that they are not...

True. And since we are quite able to DO "bad" all by ourselves, there is no reason to add an unnecessary and unprovable input into the mix.

Well, let's not give him the credit for everything now.

Does anyone else think that the OP originator was just punking us? I mean, . . . really?? :confused: Anyway, . . . absolutely NO . . . to the OP question.

In other words, . . . they ALWAYS will win. Evidence that runs contrary to their religious beliefs will be "their misunderstanding of events, since they are blinded by the world and are not open to spiritual discernment". I don't mean that derogatively. This is what they are saying. The...

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin Rhea beat me too it. We seem to be insinuating a "trickster god" here. Hiding evidence, and even planting false "evidence" to trick scientists into believing the world to be "FAR older than it actually is"...

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin So, it seems that you are saying that IF you believe in the supernatural, then it had a play in events, . . . though no evidence is found. So, basically, it is just a huge assumption that often flies in the...