Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[Valjean]

And of course he is using a false assumption.
So that is why he has a false conclusion.
He said that he determined it to be impossible because of the laws of physics.
While he is probably wrong in that too, it does not matter.
But God is Almighty so the laws of physics can be broken.
His theory is refuted.

What is the false assumption he depends on?

 

[Valjean]

I suppose I believe in parts of the Bible and other parts such as flat earth amoung others I definitely doubt.

What is your doubt based on?
Mine is based on reliable, tested, contrary evidence, multiple contradictions and factual errors, unknown authorship and extensive editing.

 

[Massimo2002]

What is your doubt based on?
Mine is based on reliable, tested, contrary evidence, multiple contradictions and factual errors, unknown authorship and extensive editing.

Mine would be based on some of the supernatural claims such as Jona and the Wale and humans living to be 900 years old.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course I can be and am wrong about some things.

You are demonstrably wrong about a lot of things.

If I am corrected and accept the correction then I can possibly benefit from the correction. If ever I have a question about something I hear or read, I would like to be able to learn from someone who really knows...I have found very few people like that. If I have to learn something, like if I were to learn about evolution as part of a science course and then take a test, even if I answer correctly according to the information being presented, it doesn't mean (1) that the current information is correct and accurate, and (2) that the answer is correct according to the truth of the matter.

You forgot to answer the question. If you are wrong, how could you find out?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I could ask you to figure out what problems scientists have with the dating procedures. But we've been through this before.

Why don't you just answer the question?

You made a claim. Explain it. What in your opinion is the problem with dating?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But God is Almighty so the laws of physics can be broken.

But AaronRa is the one with the assumptions, ey?

 

[Valjean]

Mine would be based on some of the supernatural claims such as Jona and the Wale and humans living to be 900 years old.

How about the New Testament stories of Jesus, his disciples, and his miracles?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

But AaronRa is the one with the assumptions, ey?

Who?

 

[Esteban X]

Who?

You should at least glance at the links I post before rejecting them out of hand

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You should at least glance at the links I post before rejecting them out of hand

I do up to a point where they make a fundamental error based on a false assumption.
But I do not pay attention to names.

Can you give a rational explanation for the existence of any gene?

Can you give a rational explanation for how any new gene comes into being with evolution?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do up to a point where they make a fundamental error based on a false assumption.
But I do not pay attention to names.

Can you give a rational explanation for the existence of any gene?

Can you give a rational explanation for how any new gene comes into being with evolution?

Evolution is not the source of novel genes. New genes arise from mutation.

It would be nice if you understood just some of the basics of this.

But understanding doesn't appear to be of any value to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My! I finally got something right...

That actually is a correction of your claim, so unfortunately, no.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I suppose I believe in parts of the Bible and other parts such as flat earth amoung others I definitely doubt.

Claims in the Bible that indicate the Earth is flat arise from a limited understanding and scope of the authors. They simply didn't have the knowledge of the wider world. So, those passages can be interpreted to mean "entire world" and not that it is actually flat as literally indicated.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who?

The guy from the video that you responded to but didn't watch.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do up to a point where they make a fundamental error based on a false assumption.

Just for kicks and giggles, what specifically in your opinion was the "fundamental error based on a false assumption" you encountered in said video?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Just for kicks and giggles, what specifically in your opinion was the "fundamental error based on a false assumption" you encountered in said video?

He claimed that he could disprove the flood because he claimed it violated physical laws.
I doubt he proved that but that is not the point.
God is Almighty and can and has violated physical laws.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He claimed that he could disprove the flood because he claimed it violated physical laws.

And that's where you stopped?
So you just decided before hand that his claim was wrong without actually hearing him out?
You think that's reasonable?

I doubt he proved that

Well, if you would have watched the rest, you wouldn't have to "guess".

but that is not the point.

Yeah, you in fact just acknowledged that you have no point except baseless assumptions and assumed conclusions.

Good job throwing bricks in a house of glass.

God is Almighty and can and has violated physical laws.

Ow.

Well, yeah, if you are going to simply allow for magic to occur, then "all is possible" I suppose.
Including that the universe and everything it contains, including your memories of this absurd conversation, was created 5 seconds ago.

Although if that is what you are going to believe, then what are you doing talking about evidence, proof, refutations... and whatnot?
No such thing matters in that case. You just rendered every one of your silly threads as absurd and obsolete.


You have just shown everybody here why there is no point at all in engaging with anything you say and how you should simply be ignored.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And that's where you stopped?
So you just decided before hand that his claim was wrong without actually hearing him out?
You think that's reasonable?



Well, if you would have watched the rest, you wouldn't have to "guess".



Yeah, you in fact just acknowledged that you have no point except baseless assumptions and assumed conclusions.

Good job throwing bricks in a house of glass.



Ow.

Well, yeah, if you are going to simply allow for magic to occur, then "all is possible" I suppose.
Including that the universe and everything it contains, including your memories of this absurd conversation, was created 5 seconds ago.

Although if that is what you are going to believe, then what are you doing talking about evidence, proof, refutations... and whatnot?
No such thing matters in that case. You just rendered every one of your silly threads as absurd and obsolete.


You have just shown everybody here why there is no point at all in engaging with anything you say and how you should simply be ignored.

The premise of his argument is based on a false assumption and circular reasoning.
That leads him to a false conclusion.

 

[ratiocinator]

The premise of his argument is based on a false assumption and circular reasoning.

Yet another baseless, unargued, unevidenced assertion. What premiss? Where was the circularity?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yet another baseless, unargued, unevidenced assertion. What premiss? Where was the circularity?

That just because the laws have nature are violated it is impossible.
That is just the no God assumption being used again and again.
Even atheists admit that they cannot prove that there is no God.
Why don't evolutionists admit the same and admit that the no God assumption is just an assumption.