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.

[Sgt. Pepper]

Nobody has yet answered satisfactory.
And will they agree to stop the personal attacks like name calling.
Better yet the evolutionist can only have 1 person posting, at a time.

The truth is, as anyone with the slightest sense of honesty can see, your arguments have been repeatedly refuted. You don't like the answers, so you choose to ignore them and pretend that no one has countered your arguments successfully. You're not fooling anyone with your pompous declarations of victory.

Any evolutionist that break the rules is removed from this discussion unless they admit that they did wrong.

Rubbish. You don't have the authority to remove anyone or tell others that they can't participate in this thread.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The truth is, as anyone with the slightest sense of honesty can see, your arguments have been repeatedly refuted. You don't like the answers, so you choose to ignore them and pretend that no one has countered your arguments successfully. You're not fooling anyone with your pompous declarations of victory.



Rubbish. You don't have the authority to remove anyone or tell others that they can't participate in this thread.

You were the one that was proposing something, I was just trying to keep things simple.
I knew it was nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody has yet answered satisfactory.
And will they agree to stop the personal attacks like name calling.
Better yet the evolutionist can only have 1 person posting, at a time.

Any evolutionist that break the rules is removed from this discussion unless they admit that they did wrong.

You are not qualified to be a judge. You refuse to learn even the basics of science or logic.

By the way, those are just facts, not name calling. Not false accusations.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You are not qualified to be a judge. You refuse to learn even the basics of science or logic.

By the way, those are just facts, not name calling. Not false accusations.

What are your credentials?

 

[Secret Chief]

removed from this discussion

I must have missed the memo saying that there's been an insurrection, the staff have been sacked and subsequently replaced by a dictator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are your credentials?

I already told you. We all know that you do not have any.

But what my credentials are does not even matter. What matters is if one can properly support one's claims or not. I can do so. So far you have failed at doing that.

For example, you do not get to assume that the Bible is true or even reliable. You have to be able to support that claim, preferably by using reliable sources.

When it comes to my science claims I can easily support them. You can always ask questions and I will gladly give you answers.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I must have missed the memo saying that there's been an insurrection, the staff have been sacked and they've been replaced by a dictator.

How am I a dictator?

 

[Alien826]

"Can you explain X?"
"Yes. [provides explanation for X]"
"Oh, so you're ASSUMING your explanation for X actually explains X?"

Why ask a question when all you're going to do is literally reject any answer?

Because that's the method that this poster uses to "prove" that any contrary position is false. It's ingenious (I considered saying "clever", then changed my mind) in that it does function to avoid having to actually address anything difficult, but that's about all it has going for it.

I read these threads (remember the Flat Earth guy?) not because I expect to learn anything about the subject being discussed, but because I find the eccentricities of the human mind fascinating. What drives someone to reject one huge body of belief and swallow whole another? How can someone be perfectly reasonable in 95% of their thinking and seemingly deranged in 5%? I can only conclude that it's inevitable that something as complex as the human brain will malfunction at times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How am I a dictator?

You are trying to claim power that you do not have. This is an open forum. Anyone can reply to any thread.

Now if you went to the DIR Christian section you would only have to worry about other Christians. But posting in an echo chamber can be boring. And there is a good chance that many of the Christians would still disagree with you. Most Christians are not YEC's. Most Christians in fact accept the theory of evolution.

 

[Secret Chief]

How am I a dictator?

You think you can dictate who can and cannot partake in this thread. You cannot "remove" anybody. The pedestal you are standing on is made of ego.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You think you can dictate who can and cannot partake in this thread. You cannot "remove" anybody. The pedestal you are standing on is made of ego.

I was being offered new rules for the discussion but they were nit fair, so I asked for fairer rules. oh well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All of them.

Wrong.

I offer you no more than you offer others - just a bare claim, because any more than that would be useless to both of us and the rest of the thread participants as well.

Instead, I offer this: Whatever your reply to this other than. "You're correct," apply the same principles to your own answer.

Nobody has yet answered satisfactory.

That's not a problem for any of them. Your conditions are absurd by design so that they may invoked protect you from argument that you can't rebut by simply claiming that nothing is good enough for you - that somebody made an assumption somewhere as if you don't do that exclusively. Once again, that's not a problem for anybody else.

And will they agree to stop the personal attacks like name calling. Better yet the evolutionist can only have 1 person posting, at a time. Any evolutionist that break the rules is removed from this discussion unless they admit that they did wrong.

You have an odd notion of your power and leverage here. Regarding personal attacks, you can do your part by not making it so tempting. I've resisted, but not because I think you're comments aren't worthy of overt ridicule. It simply isn't necessary to editorialize on them, just to refute them if you ever make an argument, and disregard the empty claims or simply write, "That is incorrect" without argument, because once again, why bother?

God created all things, the universe and the earth in 6 days, about 6000 years – the Bible and real science prove this is true

Science has shown that it is false.

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

None of this ever happened.

See how that works: you get what you give. Make empty claims and get unsupported contradictory claims back. Play see-if-you-can-make-me-think-critically, and the entire answer was, "No." What else do you have?

The Bible is true and I believe what it says.

More assumption. The Bible is rife with error and contradiction.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

W

And the challenge is unmet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was being offered new rules for the discussion but they were nit fair, so I asked for fairer rules. oh well.

Your rules were less fair.

By the way, there are rules about just preaching. That means if one goes into the debate sections just quoting from the Bible is not good enough. Once again, unless you are in a DIR you do not get to assume that the Bible is reliable. But guess what? I do not get to assume that it is pure hogwash either. I have to be ready to support my claims.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Your rules were less fair.

By the way, there are rules about just preaching. That means if one goes into the debate sections just quoting from the Bible is not good enough. Once again, unless you are in a DIR you do not get to assume that the Bible is reliable. But guess what? I do not get to assume that it is pure hogwash either. I have to be ready to support my claims.

I do quote it now and then. Is that against the rules?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the challenge is unmet.

No, the challenge was rejected and refuted.

You should be asking how we know that the Earth is many millions of years old. Why don't you try that?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, the challenge was rejected and refuted.

You should be asking how we know that the Earth is many millions of years old. Why don't you try that?

You failed the challenge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do quote it now and then. Is that against the rules?

To claim that it is "proof" would be. You need to be ready to go beyond that. By the way, if the Bible is true then why does science, history, archaeology, morals, just about every aspect of life refute a literal interpretation of it?

Okay, you do not understand science. That is fine. Not everyone does. But you probably do not understand history either. For example Luke has the Nativity in 6 CE. He specifically refers to Quirinius and the census that he ran when he took over Judea. The Gospel of Matthew has Jesus born before Herod the Great died, and that was in 4 BCE. That is at least a ten year difference. To refute that claim you need historical sources, since it is based upon historical sources. If you use sources from apologists that would be a loss on your part.

Biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous in agreeing that the two dates disagree with each other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You failed the challenge.

Nope. The challenge was a failed challenge. It was not presented properly. Don't blame others for what you did wrong.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

To claim that it is "proof" would be. You need to be ready to go beyond that. By the way, if the Bible is true then why does science, history, archaeology, morals, just about every aspect of life refute a literal interpretation of it?

Okay, you do not understand science. That is fine. Not everyone does. But you probably do not understand history either. For example Luke has the Nativity in 6 CE. He specifically refers to Quirinius and the census that he ran when he took over Judea. The Gospel of Matthew has Jesus born before Herod the Great died, and that was in 4 BCE. That is at least a ten year difference. To refute that claim you need historical sources, since it is based upon historical sources. If you use sources from apologists that would be a loss on your part.

Biblical scholars are pretty much unanimous in agreeing that the two dates disagree with each other.

Beware Bible scholars who do not get things right. The infallible history is a ruse that have been used many times.