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.

[SavedByTheLord]

In your dreams, perhaps.

What caused the Big Bang?

 

[ratiocinator]

What caused the Big Bang?

Why do you think there was a cause?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Why do you think there was a cause?

Cause there is always a cause.
So was there nothing or something before the Big Bang?

 

[ratiocinator]

Cause there is always a cause.

No even true within the universe. For example, there is no reason at all why one particular radioactive atom decays at exactly the time it does. You cannot have a cause without time, so if time terminates in the past direction at the big bang, asking for a cause is nonsensical.

Time is not an unchanging background that just keeps going. It's a direction through the space-time manifold. This has been known since Einstein.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No even true within the universe. For example, there is no reason at all why one particular radioactive atom decays at exactly the time it does. You cannot have a cause without time, so if time terminates in the past direction at the big bang, asking for a cause is nonsensical.

Time is not an unchanging background that just keeps going. It's a direction through the space-time manifold. This has been known since Einstein.

While statistics does not deal with actual atoms, there actually is a cause.

 

[ratiocinator]

While statistics does not deal with actual atoms, there actually is a cause.

Not according to the very well tested theory.

And you ignored the important point about time, causation, and the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But he makes a fundamental mistake in reasoning.
He assumed that God cannot violate physical law.

No. He assumed that God cannot be a liar. There is a difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not me.
All the archaeology proves the Biblical account.

Nope, ask archaeologists about the Exodus. You do not get to cheer science on when it agrees with you and deny it when it refutes you and then claim that it all agrees with your book of myths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When might you actually produce any evidence?

I need to remind you that you don't even understand the concept of evidence and are too afraid to learn. That means that you cannot legitimately demand any evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What caused the Big Bang?

That is not a refutation. You do not know how to refute an argument. That is why you always lose here.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not me.
All the archaeology proves the Biblical account.

Just a message in passing -- remember Jesus did have followers. They were persecuted. Jesus did not "win" in the major opinions of the clergy class at the time, and Pilate had doubts about his guilt but decided to put him to death anyway, giving the crowd the approval or disapproval button. Jesus "won" beyond some people's understanding. Take care.
While you and I disagree over a few things (probably) I give you the credit for posing reasonable and interesting questions. I see the results. May you be well. Take care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just a message in passing -- remember Jesus did have followers. They were persecuted. Jesus did not "win" in the major opinions of the clergy class at the time, and Pilate had doubts about his guilt but decided to put him to death anyway, giving the crowd the approval or disapproval button. Jesus "won" beyond some people's understanding. Take care.
While you and I disagree over a few things (probably) I give you the credit for posing reasonable and interesting questions. I see the results. May you be well. Take care.

You really don't know any details of the trial. You only have the gospel accounts to go by and they tend to contradict each other a bit.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You really don't know any details of the trial. You only have the gospel accounts to go by and they tend to contradict each other a bit.

There are no contradictions in the gospel accounts.

 

[Kenny]

What?

What happens to time at the speed of light?

Examples....?

Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf

a lot of possibilities, potentials, probabilities but no one is for sure and no one can actually explain what pushed it other that “evolution”.

It can and does.

"Taken individually and collectively, population genomics studies strongly suggest that our lineage has not experienced an extreme population bottleneck in the last nine million years or more (and thus not in any hominid, nor even an australopithecine species), and that any bottlenecks our lineage did experience were a reduction only to a population of several thousand breeding individuals. As such, the hypothesis that humans are genetically derived from a single ancestral pair in the recent past has no support from a genomics perspective, and, indeed, is counter to a large body of evidence."

-- Genesis and the Genome (pdf).​

Please note: “strongly suggest” and not “we know” or “it is empirically verified”.

I certainly am not the expert but can only offer “other viewpoints"

What does science tell us about Adam and Eve?

Washington University Professor S. Joshua Swamidass, MD, uses science to show that Adam and Eve could have existed.

source.wustl.edu

An atheist, a Christian, and a Jew start talking about science and faith. This might seem like it is either the lead up to a joke or the beginning of a fight. Instead, it was the setting of a meeting convened by S. Joshua Swamidass, MD, associate professor of Pathology & Immunology in the School of Medicine and of Biomedical Engineering in the McKelvey School of Engineering. This meeting gathered scientists and theologians of nearly every stripe to discuss his new book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve (Intervarsity Press). Its argument: that there is no intrinsic contradiction between conventional evolutionary theory and belief in Adam and Eve as a couple specially created six thousand years ago.

This was posted by somebody else a while back and it neatly explains why a worldwide flood, as described in Genesis, couldn't have happened:

Yes… there are always two sides to every coin and two differing viewpoints to what we see

Evidence for a Flood

Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea

www.smithsonianmag.com

This isn’t a “for or against” site but rather it shows how people are still trying to understand and how little we know of history.\\

Live science also gives credence to the fact that we really don’t know.

What do we know? Everywhere, there is a story of a flood or epic proportions. Do we know if there was an unregistered catastrophic event that cause it to happen? We don’t know.

So, basically, to solve the problem, science relegate the massive evidences of a catastrophic flood (like the Mediterranean and Black Seas) as regional.

but what if all the floods weren’t regional?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are no contradictions in the gospel accounts.

I see that you have never studied your Bible.

 

[Kenny]

The same knowledge that can be applied to benefit can be applied to detriment. What we learn is not inherently good or evil of its own accord.

That was another way of what I was trying to say

Knowledge of sticks and stones did not require formal science to see it applied to building homes and killing others.

agreed

There is no wisdom in hiding from knowledge out of some perceived fear of it. The wisdom is in how we apply it. Any good or evil is in the application.

Again… that is what I was saying

Is there wisdom in resisting knowledge, because it does not fit with an individual or particular group world view? Or is it wisdom to try and understand that knowledge and its context in a view of the world? By world view, I mean not only what is believed, but how it is believed.

There is what I call “earthly wisdom” that resist knowledge. And, yes, how what and how we believe is important

Is it wise to reject knowledge for our own purposes, rather than accept it and come to understand it?

No, it is not wise. Of course, then we come to the argument of who is really rejecting knowledge and not trying to understand it. If we come to a place where we think we know all things and therefore reject the possibility of God and miracles, we would go round and round as to who is rejecting knowledge.

We are conversing on a thread that is titled as a challenge. It is one of a series of such threads, each making much the same claim in the same fashion. Is it an expression of wisdom considering that the very title is a logical fallacy attempting to apply the burden of proof for its central claims onto others? Is it wisdom to make a claim, demand others support their position and consider that failure as support of the initial claim or claims? What happens when the answers do come or they already exist and have been delivered? Is it wisdom to ignore valid responses and keep repeating the original motif as if it were unassailed?

This is what I was trying to say in the above paragraph. One goes round and round on who is giving a valid response, who is speaking with wisdom.

I consider the possibility that people can be wise in their own eyes. My position is that two people can actually look at the same thing and come to two completely different conclusions and each convinced they are right.

Is the method of this thread a sound and wise application or is it merely an extension of personal pride run amok?

It could be and, I would add, probably is. I don’t think that eliminates all the positions that one may present. The example of carbon14 dating. Just one adjustment that the levels of today vs 4000 years ago can alter all calculations. Do I throw out the possibility just because someone presented it? Can a donkey teach us something? Can an ant?

I think that our quest for knowledge is a product of the very spirit of humanity of which you speak. I personally do not see that spirit reflected in demands that the only true path to wisdom is to ignore knowledge we don't find comfort in and accept only that which we do. What is liked varies and others may not be of such a mind.

I agree. I hope I didn’t come across as ignoring knowledge… when I fractured my ankle I went to a doctor who had knowledge.

There is a difference between pride and confidence. Confidence builds and pride can destroy. Pride might tell us to ignore what man has learned as easily as it can demand to consider only what we have learned. Pride can tell us that we can discern things that we really cannot or that some do so with personal bias and willful blindness.

compeltely agree

I do not see wisdom in locking ourselves onto a single way and rejecting the many paths that lead to the same destination by pridefully declaring ours the only way there.

To some degree I would agree. Personally, I would say that Jesus is the truth, the way and the life and that no one goes to the Father but through him.

I think God gave us minds to think, reason and draw the best conclusions we can. It is a fact that I do not often see that happen everywhere and often to the point that it is rejected as having no value. That interests me.

No problem here

Again, thanks for the clarification and expansion of your thoughts on these things. I pray both our paths continue forward to greater knowledge and with the increasing wisdom to apply that knowledge justly.

Hope so too!

 

[Valjean]

Not me.
All the archaeology proves the Biblical account.

Where did you get that information? Not from any scientist, I'd wager.

I have refuted evolution and billions of years many times.

And yet those most versed in related discipline fail to see your refutations.
Why do you think that is?

What caused the Big Bang?

Unknown. Maybe it wasn't caused at all.
You're attempting to insert God into one of the last remaining gaps. Since when does "unknown" = Goddidit?

Cause there is always a cause.
So was there nothing or something before the Big Bang?

Why do you say there's always a cause? I think you're about a century behind in your physics.
Reality doesn't resemble the familiar, human, cause-and-effect world we experience in everyday life.
First, there was no "before" the BB. 2nd, Science doesn't claim there was nothing "before" the BB.

While statistics does not deal with actual atoms, there actually is a cause.

Please stop. This is the old Kalam cosmological argument. It is not modern physics.

 

[YoursTrue]

What happens to time at the speed of light?

Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf

a lot of possibilities, potentials, probabilities but no one is for sure and no one can actually explain what pushed it other that “evolution”.


Please note: “strongly suggest” and not “we know” or “it is empirically verified”.

I certainly am not the expert but can only offer “other viewpoints"

What does science tell us about Adam and Eve?

Washington University Professor S. Joshua Swamidass, MD, uses science to show that Adam and Eve could have existed.

source.wustl.edu

An atheist, a Christian, and a Jew start talking about science and faith. This might seem like it is either the lead up to a joke or the beginning of a fight. Instead, it was the setting of a meeting convened by S. Joshua Swamidass, MD, associate professor of Pathology & Immunology in the School of Medicine and of Biomedical Engineering in the McKelvey School of Engineering. This meeting gathered scientists and theologians of nearly every stripe to discuss his new book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve (Intervarsity Press). Its argument: that there is no intrinsic contradiction between conventional evolutionary theory and belief in Adam and Eve as a couple specially created six thousand years ago.

I will look for that book to see the discussions. Should be interesting.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Where did you get that information? Not from any scientist, I'd wager.

And yet those most versed in related discipline fail to see your refutations.
Why do you think that is?

Unknown. Maybe it wasn't caused at all.
You're attempting to insert God into one of the last remaining gaps. Since when does "unknown" = Goddidit?

Where are all the calendars, buildings, cities, artifacts, writings, etc from people before 6000 years ago?
They just spring up out of no where but are quite sophisticated right away.

 

[Eddi]

Where are all the calendars, buildings, cities, artifacts, writings, etc from people before 6000 years ago?
They just spring up out of no where but are quite sophisticated right away.

You asked a question and then gave an answer to your own question

There would be no point in people explaining it to you you would only ignore it

Your mind is closed