Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

How does one explain polystrate trees?

Do you listen to either of the Hovinds? Comfort? Ham?

 

[shunyadragon]

And that shows they have no idea what they are talking about.

The age of the universe was supposed to be 13.787±0.020 billion years. and error rage of +- 20 million years.
Now that may double. So the error range should be +- 100%.
That now includes about 6000 years ago.

If they move it out far enough, then the lifetimes of some particles will prove them wrong. If they say infinite then the 2nd law proves that false.
If there is no expansion, the Big Bang did not happen/

Everything we know about the Big Bang could be wrong

A radical new theory developed by researchers in Egypt and Canada argues the universe has no single point of origin

www.salon.com

If you support this reference you are supporting the possibilities of alternate explanations of the science behind a universe and the evolution of life billions of years old.

Your dishonest selective failure at misusing scientific references you do not believe to justify your ancient tribal religious agenda without science.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If you support this reference you are supporting the possibilities of alternate explanations of the science behind a universe and the evolution of life billions of years old.

Your dishonest selective failure at misusing scientific references you do not believe to justify your ancient tribal religious agenda without science.

Not really. the universe had a beginning or not. That covers all possibilities. A or not A.
And both lead to a contradiction, so the universe must have greater cause than itself.

 

[Sargonski]

Not really. the universe had a beginning or not. That covers all possibilities. A or not A.
And both lead to a contradiction, so the universe must have greater cause than itself.

No ... neither leads to a contradiction .. the fact that one posibility contradicts the other does not lead to a contradiction ... so neither path leads to a contradiction .. unless you can show that Path A necessarily leads to Path Not A. and of course you have not done this because you don't support your claims.

 

[Colt]

And that shows they have no idea what they are talking about.

The age of the universe was supposed to be 13.787±0.020 billion years. and error rage of +- 20 million years.
Now that may double. So the error range should be +- 100%.
That now includes about 6000 years ago.

If they move it out far enough, then the lifetimes of some particles will prove them wrong. If they say infinite then the 2nd law proves that false.
If there is no expansion, the Big Bang did not happen/

Everything we know about the Big Bang could be wrong

A radical new theory developed by researchers in Egypt and Canada argues the universe has no single point of origin

www.salon.com

Guess you aren’t going to answer? How old is God?

6000 is just silly

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Big Bang is alive and well friend but, never mind this circular repetition fallacy you have going on. Do you know what a Thought Stopping exercize is ?

No he was actually right for once. Sad to say but the days of the Big Band are long beyond us. So in memory of those good old days here you go:

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Guess you aren’t going to answer? How old is God?

6000 is just silly

God always existed.

 

[Sargonski]

No he was actually right for once. Sad to say but the days of the Big Band are long beyond us. So in memory of those good old days here you go:

Please .. don't get him exited .... and there were many a Big Bang occured during the Big Band days ... don't be fooled the Snake Charmer drool !

 

[shunyadragon]

Not really. the universe had a beginning or not. That covers all possibilities. A or not A.
And both lead to a contradiction, so the universe must have greater cause than itself.

No, none of the above is necessary and your logic is so circular it bites you in the butt to justify your ancient tribal agenda. You have absolutely no evidence to support your selfish assertions.

The evidence demonstrates our universe exists based on Natural Laws and processes and did not create itself. As far as the present evidence we have our physical existence is potentially eternal, infinite, and has no beginning. Our universe itself is potentially infinite and possibly just one of an infinite number of universes.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, none of the above is necessary and your logic is so circular it bites you in the butt to justify your ancient tribal agenda. You have absolutely no evidence to support your selfish assertions.

The evidence demonstrates our universe exists based on Natural Laws and processes and did not create itself. As far as the present evidence we have our physical existence is potentially eternal, infinite, and has no beginning. Our universe itself is potentially infinite and possibly just one of an infinite number of universes.

And there is circular reasoning. Where did the Natural Laws come from?
You need to assume that they somehow exist to prove your assumption that evolution and billions of years happened through Natural Laws.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And there is circular reasoning. Where did the Natural Laws come from?
You need to assume that they somehow exist to prove your assumption that evolution and billions of years happened through Natural Laws.

It must be morning again. I heard the rooster crowing the same thing he crows every morning. And you are posting again.

The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And there is circular reasoning. Where did the Natural Laws come from?
You need to assume that they somehow exist to prove your assumption that evolution and billions of years happened through Natural Laws.

That isn't circular reasoning. You simply do not understand that concept.

And no, we do not need to assume that natural laws exist. They are discoverable. Newton didn't discover gravity on his own. He relied on the works of his predecessors that made the discoveries that led to his own discovery. None of the laws of science were revealed by God. Nor was circular reasoning involved. They were discovered through hard work and applying the scientific method.

 

[shunyadragon]

And there is circular reasoning. Where did the Natural Laws come from?
You need to assume that they somehow exist to prove your assumption that evolution and billions of years happened through Natural Laws.

". . . somehow exist prove . . ." Science does not prove anything. Of course, you cannot prove anything especially proving God exists as a cause of anything.

Not circular reasoning at all. ALL the history of science has determined that all known cause-and-effect outcomes are due to Natural Laws and natural processes. In fact, Quantum Mechanics has determined the foundation of all the cause-and-effect outcomes in Nature is potentially boundless at the smallest scale of rnety and matter.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

". . . somehow exist prove . . ." Science does not prove anything. Of course, you cannot prove anything especially proving God exists as a cause of anything.

Not circular reasoning at all. ALL the history of science has determined that all known cause-and-effect outcomes are due to Natural Laws and natural processes. In fact, Quantum Mechanics has determined the foundation of all the cause-and-effect outcomes in Nature is potentially boundless at the smallest scale of rnety and matter.

so what was the cause of the effects of natural laws, quantum mechanics, all energy, all particles, time and space?
They must have just happened because they have assumed that it must have happened.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Ans reincarnation is verifiably false.

So Jesus isn’t coming back?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?

What was the first living thing God created and how did He do it without a lick of specificity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

so what was the cause of the effects of natural laws, quantum mechanics, all energy, all particles, time and space?
They must have just happened because they have assumed that it must have happened.

You do not seem to understand that we can observe the effects of natural laws. They were discovered. They were not invented. And even if we do not know why they are the values that they are that only means that we have more unanswered questions. Unanswered questions do not refute anything.

The answer "We do not know yet" is not evidence for a god.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And how would you know that?

God told them

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Again you do not know about the Bible and the Bible says you do not. And again your truth denying is a fulfillment of the prophecies from the Bible thus you are proving the Bible by everything you think, say, do, and write.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ. 1 Cor 2:11-16

Paul, who I consider a heretic btw, is saying that he pulled out of his butt. You quote Paul a lot instead of anything from God.

 

[Esteban X]

Why are there living fossils? They should have evolved since their last record in the rock layers and they should have left fossils in intermediary layers since.

This just shows that you continue to refuse to understand evolution.