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.

[Subduction Zone]

You are running away.

How so? I already explained to you how questions that you cannot justify do not need to be answered.

What was the first living creature? How many amino acids did it have?
The smallest living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs.
Pick a number.
No number will work.
How about 50,000 or 10,000 or 5000 or 2500?

You have to meet your burden of proof first. I asked you questions first , you do not get to shift the burden of proof.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

How so? I already explained to you how questions that you cannot justify do not need to be answered.


You have to meet your burden of proof first. I asked you questions first , you do not get to shift the burden of proof.

I have met the burden of proof,
You err because you have circular reasoning.
That is why you have no answer.

 

[F1fan]

Come back in 6 minutes and I will give you the proof.

We have all seen your idea of proof and it is only your belief based on fringe Christian beliefs. You offer no facts that shows us that your interpretation is true and valid. That's what you should be doing, showing us your interprtation is factually true. But you avoid that and try to ask gotcha questions. You need to show us your view is factually correct. You haven't done that. Facts tell us you can't. And you haven't. You can't win without facts, and you don't have them on your side.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

We have all seen your idea of proof and it is only your belief based on fringe Christian beliefs. You offer no facts that shows us that your interpretation is true and valid. That's what you should be doing, showing us your interprtation is factually true. But you avoid that and try to ask gotcha questions. You need to show us your view is factually correct. You haven't done that. Facts tell us you can't. And you haven't. You can't win without facts, and you don't have them on your side.

Now you see. You did not wait billions of minutes when I said 6 minutes.
What was the cause of the Big bang?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have met the burden of proof,
You err because you have circular reasoning.
That is why you have no answer.

Not even close. You only made cliams.

I have answers. I have shown time and time again in this thread that I am not afraid. But you continually run away when cornered.

 

[F1fan]

Now you see. You did not wait billions of minutes when I said 6 minutes.

You said you would give me the proof. How deceptive you are. Is that you following God?

What was the cause of the Big bang?

The correct answer is: unsure.

What is certain is that you have no answer either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said you would give me the proof. How deceptive you are. Is that you following God?

The correct answer is: unsure.

What is certain is that you have no answer either.

A lot of his questions have that answer. But that makes no difference. He only asks because he has no answer the the evidence that shows that he is wrong in his beliefs.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You said you would give me the proof. How deceptive you are. Is that you following God?

The correct answer is: unsure.

What is certain is that you have no answer either.

I did. I said “Come back in 6 minutes and I will give you the proof.”
Did you wait billions of minutes? No
Because it is never the cape that an amount of time preceded by an ordinal number is other than what it says and no figurative speech.
So Genesis 1 means God created everything in 6 days without evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did. I said “Come back in 6 minutes and I will give you the proof.”
Did you wait billions of minutes? No
Because it is never the cape that an amount of time preceded by an ordinal number is other than what it says and no figurative speech.
So Genesis 1 means God created everything in 6 days without evolution.

I can see that figures of speech are another concept that you do not understand.

 

[ratiocinator]

The Bible is crystal clear that God did not use evolution or billions of years.

Interpreting the bible creation story as literal is the same as calling god a lair.

And BTW you never did get back to me about "old light" (#1,576). If you dismiss billions of years, you have to explain how we can directly observe events that happened billions of years ago due to the finite speed of light and the size of the universe.

When you look up, how far back in time do you see?

When you look up at the vastness of space you can see hundreds, thousands and even millions of years into the past.

theconversation.com

Without really trying, you can see years into the past. And with the aid of a telescope you can see millions or even billions of years into the past with your very own eyes.​

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Interpreting the bible creation story as literal is the same as calling god a lair.

And BTW you never did get back to me about "old light" (#1,576). If you dismiss billions of years, you have to explain how we can directly observe events that happened billions of years ago due to the finite speed of light and the size of the universe.

When you look up, how far back in time do you see?

When you look up at the vastness of space you can see hundreds, thousands and even millions of years into the past.

theconversation.com

Without really trying, you can see years into the past. And with the aid of a telescope you can see millions or even billions of years into the past with your very own eyes.​

Just false assumptions based on circular reasoning.
God made the light reach the Earth the moment God created the stars and the galaxies.
Read Genesis 1. It is obvious.

 

[ratiocinator]

Just false assumptions based on circular reasoning.

You obviously don't know what "circular reasoning" even means.

God made the light reach the Earth the moment God created the stars and the galaxies.

So your god is a liar. We can see actual events happening. If the light was just created at one moment, those events are fiction (lies from god).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just false assumptions based on circular reasoning.
God made the light reach the Earth the moment God created the stars and the galaxies.
Read Genesis 1. It is obvious.

Now you are openly calling God a liar.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Now you are openly calling God a liar.

Again with debate 101 false techniques born out of your circular Reasoning.
An unbeliever cannot understand the scriptures.

What was the first living thing and many base pairs did it have?

 

[ratiocinator]

Again with debate 101 false techniques born out of your circular Reasoning.

Yet more evidence that you have no idea what "circular reasoning" means.

What was the first living thing and many base pairs did it have?

More running away....

 

[Mock Turtle]

An unbeliever cannot understand the scriptures.

Whereas a gullible believer most certainly will - but get them wrong just the same?

 

[F1fan]

I did. I said “Come back in 6 minutes and I will give you the proof.”
Did you wait billions of minutes? No

More deception. You said you'd give the proof and you didn't. Tricky word games is not what you promised. Very Satan of you.

Because it is never the cape that an amount of time preceded by an ordinal number is other than what it says and no figurative speech.
So Genesis 1 means God created everything in 6 days without evolution.

If you are going to interpret the Bible literally then you had better show how it's true in fact and nature. You can't. Science follows the evidence and it is not consistent with a literal interpretation as you have done. The fraud and deception of creationism is what you have fallen for. Someone told you to interpret the Bible literally and you did. Someone told you to believe creationist claims, and you have. And now you ignore facts about the universe to protect the deception you accepted. The funny thing is you warn others about how Satan is deceptive yet you have adopted a deceptive interpretation. And now you are acting deceptively. Most of your fellow Christians haven't fallen for it, and you are part of the minority of Christians that have.

Is it possible you have been duped and are mistaken in your religious beliefs? Remember, you aren't a God, just a fallen sinner who is prone to error like anyone else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again with debate 101 false techniques born out of your circular Reasoning.

Oh that is what irritates you. It is not my fault that you refuse to take up people on their offers to help you to understand the basics of science. When you run away you have only yourself to blame. As I pointed out you do not know how you do that since you have no understanding of the sciences or evidence at all, but you do call your own God a liar. That is not a debate 101 fail. Your refusal to learn is a debate 101 fail.

An unbeliever cannot understand the scriptures.

That is clearly false as well. In fact unbelievers usually have a superior understanding of the scriptures. They have a much more rational explanation for the thousands upon thousands of different sects of Christianity. You don't. You have to rely on myth for your explanations.

What was the first living thing and many base pairs did it have?

I am only going to answer one question:

Stanley.

If you want a real answer ask real questions.

 

[F1fan]

An unbeliever cannot understand the scriptures.

So are you saying that believers like Muslims understand the Bible? Hindus are believers, so they understand the Bible? How do you explain that many Christians don't interpret the Bible literally? They are believers, so must understand the Bible too? In essence your statement here suggests that any believer can understand the Bible in their own way (since they aren't unbelievers).

Your dispute seems to be that atheists won't assume that a God exists, and won't assume the Bible (in whatever version you present) is true at face value, and won't assume the stories tell the truth about the past and the present. Atheists will approach the Bible like any other human work and examine it historically and understand how it came to be what the many versions are. We have great explanations how the world ended up with many versions, some through coy errors, some through different translations, some through political adjustments and cultural interpretations.

In science and logic we can't make unnecessary assumptions. Even you have required it, even though you violate your own rule from the start by assuming a God exists. Critical thinkers don't make the assumption that any of the many thousands of gods exist. Not assuming any gods exist abllows criical thinkers to stay focused on evidence and look for what is demonstrably true about how things are. Your religious faith and belief taints any conclusion since you assume God exists. No believer has shown any evidence that a God exists, including you. Thus far you have been asked to show any god exists, and you failed. You've also failed to explain why assuming a God is necessary (except to hold religious belief as you have).

So I assert that unbelievers have an advantage in understanding the Bible since they don't assume the magic that comes along with assuming a God. Still, we have seen some believers able to set their religious beliefs aside and understand the reality of how the Bible, and other religious texts, were written and adjusted over time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

He only asks because he has no answer

I think his questions are deflection. Every post is a very brief unsupported claim followed immediately by unrelated questions.

You are running away.

What was the first living creature?
How many amino acids did it have?
The smallest living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs.
Pick a number.
No number will work.
How about 50,000 or 10,000 or 5000 or 2500?

No, this is you running away. Rather than elaborate on your claim by explaining how his posting constitutes running away and perhaps what he could or should have done instead, you just make your empty, unsupported assertion and then run away by changing the subject. Of course, you also fulfill IANS prophecy every time you do that.

Now you see. You did not wait billions of minutes when I said 6 minutes.
What was the cause of the Big bang?

Here you go again.

An unbeliever cannot understand the scriptures.
What was the first living thing and many base pairs did it have?

And again.

Perseveration: "when someone “gets stuck” on a topic or an idea. People who perseverate often say the same thing or behave in the same way over and over again."

False consensus is the cognitive bias that we are all essentially the same at a fundamental level. We may vary about how we feel about the taste of Brussels sprouts, for example, but we agree that we want foods that taste good. The term false consensus refers to how often this is wrong, and how radically different from us so many people are, which comes as a surprise when we discover it. "How can he sleep at night?" implies that he has a conscience like you do, but he doesn't. He sleeps just fine. "They seem to vote against their own interest" suggests an assumption that people wouldn't do that so they must not understand the ramifications of their choices, but they do. They're just not like somebody who votes for a better life and society. The antivaxxers shocked many people with their antisocial comments and behavior, their sense of entitlement to jobs where they were no longer welcome, their cries of tyranny at not getting their way, and their indifference to the fears and needs of others. "How could they be that way?" other kinds of people with a social conscience ask, aware that one in a hundred might lack a conscience or sense of community, but not that half his neighbors fit that description.

I confess that I have fallen victim to this bias myself. I cannot shake the idea that at some level, you and I have common beliefs and values, and that if I can reach you at that level, we can finally have a conversation, and maybe even develop a level of trust and mutual respect. I have trouble understanding that we may be so different that communication cannot occur between us and that we might have nothing more in common than 23 pairs of chromosomes and a need for water and oxygen. Is there nothing you want to say to that? If not, why not? I sure would love to connect with you - to hold an authentic discussion where we each pay attention to what the other writes and addresses it responsively, saying where we agree, and when we don't explaining why we consider the other position flawed. That's dialectic.

You err because you have circular reasoning.

You don't know what circular reasoning is. You seem to be unfamiliar with the names and descriptions of any of the logical fallacies given your consistent misapplication of them.

I have met the burden of proof

You have proved nothing to anybody. You've never written a compelling, sound, evidenced argument, which is what it takes to do that. The evidence for that is that you have changed no minds. How could you with these drive by unsupported single-sentence claims followed immediately by deflection to questions you can't answer.