[_ Old Earth _] Trees poofed or planted?

[dad]

From what I can see of Genesis, they were planted. God planted a garden.

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


The different past allowed them to grow fast. We ate the fruit days later from trees. Even after the flood, it seems trees could still grow in a week. Amazing. How hard was it to feed all the animals with growth like that?

Seems to make more sense than God digging huge holes to plant trees, having just planted the seeds.

 

[Dunzo]

This does not belong in Christianity & Science.

 

[YehwehPaladin]

This does not belong in Christianity & Science.

What right do you have to say that? I believe Creation is the very essance of science and talking about trees growing faster is certainly something scientists would study.

TO: DAD

It is amazing if you think about it. I'm someone who has experienced God in a personal way so I don't have to prove every doubt wrong in my mind in order to believe the Bible. God has shown me that He's real and that the Bible is His word. I'll take His word as just that.

That being said, it is truly amazing some of the things He's done for our benefit. I really wish I could have been around to see these cool things.

 

[dad]

This does not belong in Christianity & Science.

Does to. So there.

 

[dad]

TO: DAD

It is amazing if you think about it. I'm someone who has experienced God in a personal way so I don't have to prove every doubt wrong in my mind in order to believe the Bible. God has shown me that He's real and that the Bible is His word. I'll take His word as just that.

That being said, it is truly amazing some of the things He's done for our benefit. I really wish I could have been around to see these cool things.

I think we will be able to go back and see the things we are interested in, from heaven. It is better to believe Him, I have to agree. I only delved a little deep into the waters of origins, because I wanted to know where they went wrong in disbelieving the bible. I can now speak with absolute authority, and utter confidence. Science cannot hold a candle to God.

 

[Dunzo]

This does not belong in Christianity & Science.

What right do you have to say that? I believe Creation is the very essance of science and talking about trees growing faster is certainly something scientists would study.

Are you saying that I don't have a right to advise that an off-topic post be moved? I realize that quoting scriptures is the very essence of ignoring the scientific method, and this thread has nothing to do with science at all. Thus, the thread does not belong in the Science forum.

It is amazing if you think about it. I'm someone who has experienced God in a personal way so I don't have to prove every doubt wrong in my mind in order to believe the Bible. God has shown me that He's real and that the Bible is His word. I'll take His word as just that.

Can you not see the insanity of this statement?
I might as well tell you that I hear George Washington in my head, and he tells me he's alive and well. I believe he is because he's telling me, in my head, right now.

 

[dad]

Are you saying that I don't have a right to advise that an off-topic post be moved? I realize that quoting scriptures is the very essence of ignoring the scientific method, and this thread has nothing to do with science at all. Thus, the thread does not belong in the Science forum.

As much as you would like to exclude God and the bible, you can't do that. See, this is not just a science forum, it deals in creation. That means your science of the present cannot be demonstrated to apply. Can it? Therefore you have no right whatsoever to push your own myths and beliefs, where science does not apply. Your only other option is to prove it did apply! Good luck with that!

 

[Guest]

As much as you would like to exclude God and the bible, you can't do that. See, this is not just a science forum, it deals in creation.

Uhm... I can exclude the bible and God... I am doing it right now. As a matter of fact, I can exclude and include anything I want: I can include Aliens, Man-bear-pig, a monkey, 3 flying giraffes, a tooth fairy, Peter Pan, Santa, and even the Little Red Riding Hood . If I believe any of those exist based on faith, and we can't see them, but they still exist, then how can you prove me wrong?

That means your science of the present cannot be demonstrated to apply. Can it? Therefore you have no right whatsoever to push your own myths and beliefs, where science does not apply. Your only other option is to prove it did apply! Good luck with that!

I have marked some of your words in bold and underlined them, I can't read your comment and not laugh about it! To answer your question: Yes! Today's science can be both demonstrated and applied. If you doubt my statement then just look around the world you live in: due to science we have hospitals, rockets, cars, cell phones, computers, super-geeky computers , satellites, Kevlar vests, plastics, even printers and glossy paper to print the Bible on - all of which are demonstrations and applications of science. But for the simplest of simple I will tell you this, if you don't believe that science can be applied then just drop a hammer on your toe; this will be applying science on many levels: physics (gravity, kinetic energy, potential energy, collisions, inertia, etc.), then the hammer hitting the toe will involve some biology (hemorrhage, possibly some broken bones, cut skin, etc.) and even some medical science (x-ray, stitches with modern day needles and bio-degradable strings, etc.) and the list goes on!

 

[wavy]

^^ you don't frequent teh vesti, do you?

 

[dad]

^^ you don't frequent teh vesti, do you?

Teh whatsi??

 

[dad]

Uhm... I can exclude the bible and God... I am doing it right now. As a matter of fact, I can exclude and include anything I want: I can include Aliens, Man-bear-pig, a monkey, 3 flying giraffes, a tooth fairy, Peter Pan, Santa, and even the Little Red Riding Hood . If I believe any of those exist based on faith, and we can't see them, but they still exist, then how can you prove me wrong?

If you don't pretend it is science, who would care enough to want to????

I have marked some of your words in bold and underlined them, I can't read your comment and not laugh about it! To answer your question: Yes! Today's science can be both demonstrated and applied. If you doubt my statement then just look around the world you live in: due to science we have hospitals, rockets, cars, cell phones, computers, super-geeky computers , satellites, Kevlar vests, plastics, even printers and glossy paper to print the Bible on - all of which are demonstrations and applications of science.

I'll try to be gentle on you here. I meant that science of the present cannot be applied to the created universe state. There were no cell phones then,..remember???

But for the simplest of simple I will tell you this, if you don't believe that science can be applied then just drop a hammer on your toe; this will be applying science on many levels: physics (gravity, kinetic energy, potential energy, collisions, inertia, etc.), then the hammer hitting the toe will involve some biology (hemorrhage, possibly some broken bones, cut skin, etc.) and even some medical science (x-ray, stitches with modern day needles and bio-degradable strings, etc.) and the list goes on!

Thanks for the demo, again, you have no idea what we were talking about. NO ONE QUESTIONS that present laws NOW apply!! Focus.

 

[Guest]

If you don't pretend it is science, who would care enough to want to????

Science can't create things, but it does explain how things are , so I don't even know what you're point is? My point is that if you exclude science from the creation of the universe, you are on the right track, but if you try to exclude science from the creation of earth then you are on the wrong track. Your claim is that the universe and the earth were created at about the same time, give or take a couple of days .

Now one would care to, and want to, dismiss the Bible as a source of the creation of the Universe because the bible did not exist until about 2000 years ago, or portions of it as early as 3300 years ago. Earth, and the Universe, are much older than 3300 years, it solely relies on interpretation and it is not universal for all people, thus you can't include the bible not only for practical reasons, but for the same reasons that you chose to exclude science: because I can .

I'll try to be gentle on you here. I meant that science of the present cannot be applied to the created universe state. There were no cell phones then,..remember???

OK... the "created universe state" is exactly where we can apply science,if the Universe exists then the laws exist- prove it otherwise. If nothing existed prior to the creation of the universe then nothing can be applied.

You speak of "science" as if it is some kind of a belief which is relative to an invariant state of the Universe, but it is exactly the opposite: science accounts for the changes in the Universe not only for it's current state.

Thanks for the demo, again, you have no idea what we were talking about. NO ONE QUESTIONS that present laws NOW apply!! Focus.

Indeed, they do apply now! So tell us exactly when they didn't apply?

 

[dad]

If you don't pretend it is science, who would care enough to want to????

Science can't create things, but it does explain how things are , so I don't even know what you're point is?

Of course not, but why pretend a claim of a same state past is science? It should be taught as the myth it is! Teach real present physics, and science in science books, not myth.

My point is that if you exclude science from the creation of the universe, you are on the right track, but if you try to exclude science from the creation of earth then you are on the wrong track. Your claim is that the universe and the earth were created at about the same time, give or take a couple of days .

They were. Science has nothing to say about it. They have simply wrongly extrapolated backwards using the present as a basis. Decay, light, redshift, deposition rates, etc etc.

Now one would care to, and want to, dismiss the Bible as a source of the creation of the Universe because the bible did not exist until about 2000 years ago, or portions of it as early as 3300 years ago. Earth, and the Universe, are much older than 3300 years,

Not that much older.

it solely relies on interpretation and it is not universal for all people,

No. Jesus died for all men. It doesn't get more universal than that. He made the universe for us, the stars in the heavens. The ability to comprehend deeper things, about the past or future does require spiritual help, yes, hence different interpretations are possible on many thing. I try to look at the basics, like what is commonly accepted, such as the fact there was a flood. Much of the so called interpretations involve assuming the bible is not really to, and going from there. For example, on lifespans. Generally, we either believe it or not. So called interpreting them is a joke.

thus you can't include the bible not only for practical reasons, but for the same reasons that you chose to exclude science: because I can .

Yes I can, and do. I can exclude myths that are falsely called science as well.
[/quote]

OK... the "created universe state" is exactly where we can apply science,if the Universe exists then the laws exist- prove it otherwise. If nothing existed prior to the creation of the universe then nothing can be applied.

Right, and you cannot apply science to say when this state started or will finish. Check, and mate.

You speak of "science" as if it is some kind of a belief which is relative to an invariant state of the Universe, but it is exactly the opposite: science accounts for the changes in the Universe not only for it's current state.

No, if you think about it, that is patently false.The starting point for all changes is present laws, and how it now works. None of that matters a hoot if it was not the same!

Indeed, they do apply now! So tell us exactly when they didn't apply?

The point is that

science cannot do that! It cannot say when they did apply, or not. I can tell you, but not by science, I am honest enough to admit it can't go there. Are you??

 

[Guest]

Science can't create things, but it does explain how things are , so I don't even know what you're point is?

Of course not, but why pretend a claim of a same state past is science? It should be taught as the myth it is! Teach real present physics, and science in science books, not myth.

Listen, you're really confused: Science doesn't claim that God didn't create the Universe or Earth, but it proves that whenever the Universe/Earth was created, it didn't happen in 7 days (6 if you want to be technical), and it didn't happen in the past 10k years- see below why.

They were. Science has nothing to say about it. They have simply wrongly extrapolated backwards using the present as a basis. Decay, light, redshift, deposition rates, etc etc.

Your opinion is really irrelevant in this matter. If you have prove that the scientific methods are wrong and the conclusions from those methods are wrong, then show your proof. You would be arguing that 2+2 does not equal 4, but please do tell us how you prove it wrong.

Earth, and the Universe, are much older than 3300 years,

Not that much older.

You are right! Some people have different perceptions as to what "old" means, but I hope you don't think that 4.5 Billion years is about the same age as 6-10k years. By the way, the Earth is estimated to be over 4.5 Billion years old, the Universe is estimated to be about 20 billion years old.

No. Jesus died for all men. It doesn't get more universal than that. He made the universe for us, the stars in the heavens. The ability to comprehend deeper things, about the past or future does require spiritual help, yes, hence different interpretations are possible on many thing. I try to look at the basics, like what is commonly accepted, such as the fact there was a flood. Much of the so called interpretations involve assuming the bible is not really to, and going from there. For example, on lifespans. Generally, we either believe it or not. So called interpreting them is a joke.

No. It's not Universal, because for one- Muslims don't believe in Jesus or the Bible. Two, if a person is born in isolation, then they will NEVER learn about Jesus, God, the 10 commandments, sin, Heaven, Hell, etc. Therefore Jesus and the Bible are not Universal, because people are not born with an awareness of God, and if they believe in something else then you can't prove them wrong. On the other hand, Science is universal: people throughout the world, going back even to the ancient Chinese, Babylonians, and Egyptians agree that 2+2=4. Now-days everybody agrees that the earth is round, physics exist, and that 2+2=4.

[quote:43b64]thus you can't include the bible not only for practical reasons, but for the same reasons that you chose to exclude science: because I can .

Yes I can, and do. I can exclude myths that are falsely called science as well.
[/quote:43b64]
So we have two things:
1. The Biblical accounts of the creation of the Universe/Earth are in direct contradiction with scientific discoveries (which were made with valid scientific methods).
2. The Bible is not Universal.
And I'll add a 3rd one:
3. The Bible was not written by God, and there is no claim within the Bible for divine authorship.

[quote:43b64]OK... the "created universe state" is exactly where we can apply science,if the Universe exists then the laws exist- prove it otherwise. If nothing existed prior to the creation of the universe then nothing can be applied.

Right, and you cannot apply science to say when this state started or will finish. Check, and mate.
[/quote:43b64]
You really don't know what you're saying... I don't know if I can put it in simpler terms, but here we go:
The Universe exists, therefore science can be applied.

Yes we can apply science to approximate when the Universe started and perhaps even approximate when will it end. Check, and mate.

You speak of "science" as if it is some kind of a belief which is relative to an invariant state of the Universe, but it is exactly the opposite: science accounts for the changes in the Universe not only for it's current state.

No, if you think about it, that is patently false.The starting point for all changes is present laws, and how it now works. None of that matters a hoot if it was not the same!

1. The laws in the universe changed over the time which it existed: and if you can prove that the laws of the universe were different at some point in it's existence then do so, but until then we are sure that they haven't.
2. You claim that the Universe is static (along the topic if this post), but then you also claim that the accounts of change within the universe don't apply because the Universe was different at a certain moment in time, thus we can't apply the same laws to figure out what the Universe was at the time. That's not only wrong because you are contradicting yourself, but because the Universe is changing constantly (the Universe can't be static and changing at the same time). The fact that the trees outside are growing is proof enough that the Universe is changing.

Indeed, they do apply now! So tell us exactly when they didn't apply?

The point is that science cannot do that! It cannot say when they did apply, or not. I can tell you, but not by science, I am honest enough to admit it can't go there. Are you??

OK, I'm going to help you here... your original claim was that Science couldn't apply before the Universe is created (by God), thus all you had to do is repeat your original claim, but I guess you forgot about it. And as I have pointed out earlier, no human logic (including Science) can be applied prior to the existence of the Universe, but since the Universe was formed it is pretty evident that the laws of physics have not changed.

To answer your second question:
For as long as physics have existed (since the existence of the Universe), then we are convinced that the same laws applied.

 

[dad]

Listen, you're really confused: Science doesn't claim that God didn't create the Universe or Earth, but it proves that whenever the Universe/Earth was created, it didn't happen in 7 days (6 if you want to be technical), and it didn't happen in the past 10k years- see below why.

No I am not confused in the least, and am well aware of science, and it's claims. The claims like you just made are solely based on myth. The reasons, you 'forgot' to mention phony science (cause real science can't go there) are ALL same past myth based. A L L. That would A...L....L, in case you missed that! And I can prove it here and now with a demo that we all can test and repeat as often as needed for any that still don't get it. -That is...You cannot prove and support the same past foundational assumption ALL claims of alternate creations are based on . Lurkers, take not, he WILL not do it, or be ABLE to do that. This is check, and mate. I kid you not.

You are right! Some people have different perceptions as to what "old" means, but I hope you don't think that 4.5 Billion years is about the same age as 6-10k years. By the way, the Earth is estimated to be over 4.5 Billion years old, the Universe is estimated to be about 20 billion years old.

Prove it. That is unmitigated balderdash.

No. It's not Universal, because for one- Muslims don't believe in Jesus or the Bible.

Doesn't matter!! He came to save all men. Other beliefs that still exist can't change that. I never said He came to do it by 2007. We're working on it.

Two, if a person is born in isolation, then they will NEVER learn about Jesus, God, the 10 commandments, sin, Heaven, Hell, etc.

Yes they certainly will, after they die, if not before. That is the thing that the true light does, eventually, light every man that cometh into the world.

Therefore Jesus and the Bible are not Universal, because people are not born with an awareness of God, and if they believe in something else then you can't prove them wrong. On the other hand, Science is universal: people throughout the world, going back even to the ancient Chinese, Babylonians, and Egyptians agree that 2+2=4. Now-days everybody agrees that the earth is round, physics exist, and that 2+2=4.

You seem to assume that this birth is all that exists. That is a myth. Starting to seem like a pattern with you, and myths.

So we have two things:
1. The Biblical accounts of the creation of the Universe/Earth are in direct contradiction with scientific discoveries (which were made with valid scientific methods).

Not at all, ONLY with falsely called portions of science that are mere assumption based.

2. The Bible is not Universal.

Yes it is, because it will also be here in the new universe forever, long after this tempoporary state you call normal is gone. It also has universal truths, and connects us better than wifi to the creator of the universe!

And I'll add a 3rd one:
3. The Bible was not written by God, and there is no claim within the Bible for divine authorship.

Really? Another silly claim that is false. All scripture is given by inspiration of GOD, says the bible.

You really don't know what you're saying... I don't know if I can put it in simpler terms, but here we go:
The Universe exists, therefore science can be applied.

I agree, it can be applied now. Not in another state universe! All you can do is wish, hope, believe, and assume this temporary state is the be all end all. That ain't science.

Yes we can apply science to approximate when the Universe started and perhaps even approximate when will it end. Check, and mate.

Newsflash, you certainly can't. All you do is assume that the past laws were as the present, and calculate a dream past that has no reality, no proof, NO evidence, no squat. It never was!

1. The laws in the universe changed over the time which it existed: and if you can prove that the laws of the universe were different at some point in it's existence then do so, but until then we are sure that they haven't.

Ha, so now you claim to be sure they haven't. Get a grip, man. That is preposterous. You have no idea. Your claim there is that if we can't prove it did not change, it has to be the same, for no reason other than no one knows. Think about it. That is the ultimate argument based on pure ignorance!!!

2. You claim that the Universe is static (along the topic if this post), but then you also claim that the accounts of change within the universe don't apply because the Universe was different at a certain moment in time, thus we can't apply the same laws to figure out what the Universe was at the time. That's not only wrong because you are contradicting yourself, but because the Universe is changing constantly (the Universe can't be static and changing at the same time). The fact that the trees outside are growing is proof enough that the Universe is changing.

No one says that this physical only state universe is not changing. That is silly. What I am saying, and you are proving, is that you have no clue if the universe was in this state at all.

OK, I'm going to help you here... your original claim was that Science couldn't apply before the Universe is created (by God), thus all you had to do is repeat your original claim, but I guess you forgot about it. And as I have pointed out earlier, no human logic (including Science) can be applied prior to the existence of the Universe, but since the Universe was formed it is pretty evident that the laws of physics have not changed.

False, you mean that the laws were the same since this universe as is came to be.

To answer your second question:
For as long as physics have existed (since the existence of the Universe), then we are convinced that the same laws applied.

I know. So??? How long was that, is the question!!!

 

[Guest]

No I am not confused in the least, and am well aware of science, and it's claims. The claims like you just made are solely based on myth. The reasons, you 'forgot' to mention phony science (cause real science can't go there) are ALL same past myth based. A L L. That would A...L....L, in case you missed that! And I can prove it here and now with a demo that we all can test and repeat as often as needed for any that still don't get it. -That is...You cannot prove and support the same past foundational assumption ALL claims of alternate creations are based on . Lurkers, take not, he WILL not do it, or be ABLE to do that. This is check, and mate. I kid you not.

We don't have to! That's the great thing about science!
Science is never 100% confident in an answer, it may be 99.99% confident with 0.01% chance of error. Having a negligent chance of error is no merit for dismissal of the answers, but it DOES account for the chance of error, and if that error turns out to be true, then the answer is not correct. So far it hasn't, and until it does, then science will continue to be correct.

You are right! Some people have different perceptions as to what "old" means, but I hope you don't think that 4.5 Billion years is about the same age as 6-10k years. By the way, the Earth is estimated to be over 4.5 Billion years old, the Universe is estimated to be about 20 billion years old.

Prove it. That is unmitigated balderdash.

Dad... you prove that it's wrong . If I had to go through all of the scientific evidence to prove this, I will have to spend a lot of time here... if you think that you have proof that the scientific methods used to estimate the age of the Universe/Earth, then please bring your claim forth.

No. It's not Universal, because for one- Muslims don't believe in Jesus or the Bible.

Doesn't matter!! He came to save all men. Other beliefs that still exist can't change that. I never said He came to do it by 2007. We're working on it.

It does matter- the lack of beliefs due to no exposure to Christianity DO change that. If a person was never aware that Christianity exists, then they can't be Christians, Believe in God, pray, repent their sins, etc. so that's a HUGE issue!

Two, if a person is born in isolation, then they will NEVER learn about Jesus, God, the 10 commandments, sin, Heaven, Hell, etc.

Yes they certainly will, after they die, if not before. That is the thing that the true light does, eventually, light every man that cometh into the world.

When they die it will be too late to repent their sins, be good Christians, accept God, etc. God created all people, thus Christianity should be equally "available" to all, not just those who hear about it.

Therefore Jesus and the Bible are not Universal, because people are not born with an awareness of God, and if they believe in something else then you can't prove them wrong. On the other hand, Science is universal: people throughout the world, going back even to the ancient Chinese, Babylonians, and Egyptians agree that 2+2=4. Now-days everybody agrees that the earth is round, physics exist, and that 2+2=4.

You seem to assume that this birth is all that exists. That is a myth. Starting to seem like a pattern with you, and myths.

Dad, you provide no logical and/or factual explanation of your claims:
Me- "People are not born with the knowledge of God."
Dad- "Myth!"
I have explained my position with a reasonable amount of proof, you have not explained how you came to yours... please do.

Not at all, ONLY with falsely called portions of science that are mere assumption based.

Prove that they're based on incorrect assumptions... You have been talking about it in every post that you write, but you NEVER prove that the assumptions are wrong.

2. The Bible is not Universal.

Yes it is, because it will also be here in the new universe forever, long after this tempoporary state you call normal is gone. It also has universal truths, and connects us better than wifi to the creator of the universe!

Prove it! This is a claim without merit. The Bible is a book, thus after the Universe is gone, the book will be gone too. Again, prove that what the Bible is saying is true:
Christianity existed 350 years without the Bible. It didn't need the Bible to confirm the existence of God, I don't see why it's needed now.

And I'll add a 3rd one:
3. The Bible was not written by God, and there is no claim within the Bible for divine authorship.

Really? Another silly claim that is false. All scripture is given by inspiration of GOD, says the bible.

Really: inspiration by God does not mean God wrote it. Christianity existed for 350 years without the Bible, God had no problem with Christians without the bible, and I'm pretty sure he won't have a problem with it now.

You really don't know what you're saying... I don't know if I can put it in simpler terms, but here we go:
The Universe exists, therefore science can be applied.

I agree, it can be applied now. Not in another state universe! All you can do is wish, hope, believe, and assume this temporary state is the be all end all. That ain't science.

See below...

1. The laws in the universe changed over the time which it existed: and if you can prove that the laws of the universe were different at some point in it's existence then do so, but until then we are sure that they haven't.

Ha, so now you claim to be sure they haven't. Get a grip, man. That is preposterous. You have no idea. Your claim there is that if we can't prove it did not change, it has to be the same, for no reason other than no one knows. Think about it. That is the ultimate argument based on pure ignorance!!!

Not ignorance- it's just based on the fact that something is VERY unlikely to be true: that something being that the laws of the Universe are/were not constant throughout its existence.

No one says that this physical only state universe is not changing. That is silly. What I am saying, and you are proving, is that you have no clue if the universe was in this state at all.

You prove yourself right ... you have been making this claim all over the place, the burden of proof lies on you.

False, you mean that the laws were the same since this universe as is came to be.

Exactly! Thank you! That's all that Science is saying: since the time the Universe came to be the laws haven't changed. BINGO, Done, FIN! Check, and mate?!

To answer your second question:
For as long as physics have existed (since the existence of the Universe), then we are convinced that the same laws applied.

I know. So??? How long was that, is the question!!!

So I am right and you are wrong ! LOL
It doesn't matter how long has the Universe existed, but for as long as it has the laws within it were not changed.

 

[Free]

Really: inspiration by God does not mean God wrote it

Inspiration means, among other things, that what is written is what God wanted written.

 

[Guest]

Really: inspiration by God does not mean God wrote it

Inspiration means, among other things, that what is written is what God wanted written.

We're discussing this in another forum, but my point about the expanding universe still stands.
I have shown sufficient proof that the Universe is expanding, the possibility of error is negligent. I don't think that the Expanding Universe contradicts God in any way... I don't see why it would.

 

[dad]

We don't have to! That's the great thing about science!
Science is never 100% confident in an answer, it may be 99.99% confident with 0.01% chance of error. Having a negligent chance of error is no merit for dismissal of the answers, but it DOES account for the chance of error, and if that error turns out to be true, then the answer is not correct. So far it hasn't, and until it does, then science will continue to be correct.

You speak as if there WAS any science that addressed the state of the universe in the past! There isn't. There is only an assumption. ALL CLAIMS ABOUT THE PAST ARE SET TO THE PRESENT STATE CLOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dad... you prove that it's wrong . If I had to go through all of the scientific evidence to prove this, I will have to spend a lot of time here... if you think that you have proof that the scientific methods used to estimate the age of the Universe/Earth, then please bring your claim forth.

All I need to do is show that they are all based on the present state universe. If you think modern science is NOT based only on this present natural physical universe, now is the time to show us!!

It does matter- the lack of beliefs due to no exposure to Christianity DO change that. If a person was never aware that Christianity exists, then they can't be Christians, Believe in God, pray, repent their sins, etc. so that's a HUGE issue!

Yes they can! They can get a chance in the next life. Your limited scope of this present life as the be all end all resembles your impression of present science.

When they die it will be too late to repent their sins, be good Christians, accept God, etc. God created all people, thus Christianity should be equally "available" to all, not just those who hear about it.

How would you know??? If they never had a chance here to reject or accept the great spirit of Love, who are you to say they will never see that true light??

Dad, you provide no logical and/or factual explanation of your claims:
Me- "People are not born with the knowledge of God."
Dad- "Myth!"
I have explained my position with a reasonable amount of proof, you have not explained how you came to yours... please do.

My position on what? My science ideas are science based. My bible ideas are bible based. How bad is that?

Prove that they're based on incorrect assumptions... You have been talking about it in every post that you write, but you NEVER prove that the assumptions are wrong.

No need to prove assumptions are incorrect if they are not first proved to BE correct!

Prove it! This is a claim without merit. The Bible is a book, thus after the Universe is gone, the book will be gone too. Again, prove that what the Bible is saying is true:
Christianity existed 350 years without the Bible. It didn't need the Bible to confirm the existence of God, I don't see why it's needed now.

No, there is copies in the spiritual hard drives of heaven, that can't pass away. Paper copies don't matter.

Really: inspiration by God does not mean God wrote it. Christianity existed for 350 years without the Bible, God had no problem with Christians without the bible, and I'm pretty sure he won't have a problem with it now.

False. Jesus quoted scripture, and we always had the records! Slapping them together in a book and calling it the bible was not the start of the word of God!

Not ignorance- it's just based on the fact that something is VERY unlikely to be true: that something being that the laws of the Universe are/were not constant throughout its existence.

Who made YOU the judge of what was likely in the realms that science can't even set foot? You must be kidding. Truly an argument based on pure ignorance. Work on that.

You prove yourself right ... you have been making this claim all over the place, the burden of proof lies on you.

My claim is that science does and cannot know that. You prove it, and others, by showing how true it is. Thanks for that.

Exactly! Thank you! That's all that Science is saying: since the time the Universe came to be the laws haven't changed. BINGO, Done, FIN! Check, and mate?!

So if science says that, let's see science prove it!!!

So I am right and you are wrong ! LOL
It doesn't matter how long has the Universe existed, but for as long as it has the laws within it were not changed.

Yes it does, IF one is going to claim that we come equipped with the creation state laws. If we had other laws, we cannot use these ones to set the clocks. If you want to set the clock with them, show that they applied. Really.

 

[Guest]

When they die it will be too late to repent their sins, be good Christians, accept God, etc. God created all people, thus Christianity should be equally "available" to all, not just those who hear about it.

How would you know??? If they never had a chance here to reject or accept the great spirit of Love, who are you to say they will never see that true light??

You tell me , are you to say that they will?

[quote:2e547]
Dad, you provide no logical and/or factual explanation of your claims:
Me- "People are not born with the knowledge of God."
Dad- "Myth!"
I have explained my position with a reasonable amount of proof, you have not explained how you came to yours... please do.

My position on what? My science ideas are science based. My bible ideas are bible based. How bad is that?
[/quote:2e547]
Read my comment and answer the question... your position on what you quoted me on.

[quote:2e547]Prove that they're based on incorrect assumptions... You have been talking about it in every post that you write, but you NEVER prove that the assumptions are wrong.

No need to prove assumptions are incorrect if they are not first proved to BE correct!
[/quote:2e547]
Thus I don't need to prove it either . No need to prove that these assumptions are correct because they haven't been proven to be wrong!

[quote:2e547]Not ignorance- it's just based on the fact that something is VERY unlikely to be true: that something being that the laws of the Universe are/were not constant throughout its existence.

Who made YOU the judge of what was likely in the realms that science can't even set foot? You must be kidding. Truly an argument based on pure ignorance. Work on that.
[/quote:2e547]
But I'm not making judgments about things that science can't set foot on- that's the fundamental error in your argument. In this case I'm saying that it is unlikely that the Universe had different laws in the past (no judgment there), thus our conclusion about the Universe expanding is correct within a certain degree of error. In science we always account for errors, unlike in Religion .

[quote:2e547]
You prove yourself right ... you have been making this claim all over the place, the burden of proof lies on you.

My claim is that science does and cannot know that. You prove it, and others, by showing how true it is. Thanks for that.
[/quote:2e547]
HAHAHAH- Prove me wrong I'll use your logic: I don't need to prove it's right because it hasn't been proven wrong HAHAHA

[quote:2e547]Exactly! Thank you! That's all that Science is saying: since the time the Universe came to be the laws haven't changed. BINGO, Done, FIN! Check, and mate?!

So if science says that, let's see science prove it!!!
[/quote:2e547]
I quoted you saying that this was the case (see my previous post)...

[quote:2e547]So I am right and you are wrong ! LOL
It doesn't matter how long has the Universe existed, but for as long as it has the laws within it were not changed.

Yes it does, IF one is going to claim that we come equipped with the creation state laws. If we had other laws, we cannot use these ones to set the clocks. If you want to set the clock with them, show that they applied. Really.[/quote:2e547]
Show that there WERE other laws... you are making a claim which is completely useless. You claim that there is a possibility that there were other laws at some point in time of the Universes existence, prove that it was so. If at some point and time after the Universe was created the laws within it were different then now, I will gladly shake your hand and admit defeat.