SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
That is why evolution and billions of years are false, You cannot defend them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh so wrong! I already have done that. I can do so again.
That is a rich accusation coming from a person that has not defended one claim he has made. Even at multiple requests to do so. Even when shown the failure of claiming without substance.
Is what you are doing a value?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
You have refuted nothing and are falsely accusing yet again.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my! More of the same. Like a broken record.
Metaphorically you have stamped your foot and certainly i, and othere have not made assumptions. The one making assumptions is you.
Heyo
Veteran Member
I think I have given you opportunity enough to enter a rational conversation. Even the other YEC have abandoned you and written you off as useless. It's time to say good bye.
*Plonk*
It would be pointless to discuss anything with a poster who's only purpose is feign being amenable to evidenced argument so that he can tell you that you failed. As for dictating, yes, he is powerless to do so, but that doesn't mean he isn't trying, and you can be certain how such a discussion will progress. YOU are not allowed to make assumptions, but he puts no such constraint on himself. Why would anyone other than a perennial doormat like Charlie Brown enter into such a discussion?
Yes, those are his rules, and they are intended to keep you "at a loss." YOU can make no assumptions. Just he can. Now go ahead and make an argument to him. Guess what? "You failed." How many times have you read that already?
I do.
You're assuming that there was a first living thing. NO ASSUMPTIONS. It's your rule. Or didn't you mean it to apply to you? You seem to be making a LOT of assumptions. Please allow me to help you see some:
You're assuming that a code came into being. NO ASSUMPTIONS. It's your rule.
You're assuming that it had proteins. NO ASSUMPTIONS. It's your rule.
You're assuming that there was an atmosphere. NO ASSUMPTIONS. It's your rule.
You're assuming it needed protection from UV rays. NO ASSUMPTIONS. It's your rule.
You're assuming this happened, and we know it didn't. NO ASSUMPTIONS. It's your rule.
What Christ? NO ASSUMPTIONS. Remember?
No, biblical myths are false. Science has shown those who will look at it that the biblical creation myth is false. So is the flood story. So is the Tower of Babel. So is the garden story. None of those happened. The earth is over five billion years old, and the universe almost triple that. The theory of evolution is correct beyond reasonable doubt.
That's false. The scientists simply don't need gods in their theories. Nor dragons. The dragonists make the same objection. "Why are the scientists dead set on excluding dragons from their science? Their no dragon assumption will just not allow dragons, period"
I already explained pious fraud to you. Can we assume that you never looked at the link? Creationism itself is fraud. Pushing it on the schools as science was declared fraud in American courts. ID is religion masking as something else. That's fraud. Creationist apologetics are fraud - specious argumentation.
Why try to conceal that? Some of your cohorts announce it proudly. This is the face of pious fraud:
- "If through my lying Jesus is advanced then why do you blame me?" Romans 3:7
- "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther
In that sense, they're like something we see play out in the news. The Democrats, who have two of their own in the crosshairs for their violation of humanist principles (breaking the law is considered immoral in humanism) - Hunter Biden and this senator Melendez from New Jersey. If they have committed the crimes it appears they did commit, send them to prison. No Democrat has said otherwise.
Contrast that with the Republicans, who have different "values" regarding the rule of law.
These two are analogous to the scientists and the creationists, who play by completely different rules while promoting unrelated agendas and conflicting values. One stands for honesty, the other is unprincipled. Look at this thread and the values, methods, and agendas of the two positions represented here, creationism and humanism.
You don't see that this comment is self-referential (applies to that comment itself)? What is it if not an accusation and a song and dance (substance-free deflection)?
You think the earth is 6000 years old based on stories refuted by science using reason applied to evidence. You're hardly a metric for either what is logical or what is good science.
Last edited:
Radio carbon dating
Examination of skull (palaeo-osteology / anthropology)
Examination/dating of the spoil layer in which the skull was found. Which also contained carbon and other organic and inorganic materials in common use at the time.
What you consider infallible proof is your belief that the Bible is literal. Unless you are a God and infallible yourself your belief is not what you think it is. And many have refuted literalist interpretations of the Bible, so you are wrong yet again.
No, you reject them because you assume your interpretation is correct.
Many have, you are not open to knowledge. That is your error.
You don't accept science, as we all see.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Just drabble.
If you had the truth you would be able to explain it, yet you fail. You have no evidence that the Bible is true at face value. Science shows its work, you don't. Why reject science but not your claims?
You haven't shown us any God exists. You haven't shown us that the Bible is inspired by this God. You don't explain how you have evidence versus an assumption. You can't explain how science is wrong in what it concludes about a universe that is 14 billion years old, and a planet that is about 5 billion years old. Why are things actually old when you claim they are only 6000 years old? Where is your evidence that isn't just your interpretation of the Bible?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I just refuted a whole bunch of evolution and billions of years.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
If all you've got are Twitter-level insults and handwaving, what did you bother starting this thread for?
Seriously, people around here like to have actual conversations and discussions. You should give it a real try sometime.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You've refuted nothing. You've offered nothing but Bible quotes and empty assertions. And ironically, a giant pile of assumptions you claim nobody else is allowed to make.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Absolutely false as evolution even stands to common sense: all material objects appear to change over time and genes are also material objects.
I left the fundamentalist church I grew up partially because of this issue because it defies massive evidence and even common sense. Also, the concept of "once saved, always saved" actually is not supported by scripture, such as in the Parable of the Seed & Sower and also Paul's statement that the flock needs to try and help the fallen return back to the fold.
Also, how can God be the God of all if throughout most of world history Jesus did not exist and one supposedly must believe in him in order to be "saved"?
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Since you are a self-proclaimed Christian, I assume that you've read the Bible, and in doing so, you've possibly read the scriptures about loving your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39), loving your enemies (Matthew 5:44), and treating others the way you would like to be treated (Luke 6:31). I assume that you're also familiar with 1 Peter 3:15, which instructs you to always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have, but do so with gentleness and respect. If you speak in the tongues of angels but have no love, you are only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If you have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if you have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, you are nothing. If you give all you possess to the poor and give over your body to hardship that you may boast, but do not have love, you gain nothing. Love is patient, and love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, and it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, and it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres. Love never fails. Perhaps it would do you some good to re-read 1 Corinthians, chapter 13. Speaking as a former evangelical Christian (evangelist leader and street preacher), I advise you to reconsider the sour disposition that you are displaying in your threads if you care about your Christian witness and personal reputation. You are not only tainting your personal reputation and Christian witness, but you are also tarnishing the public perception of Christianity. I think that the adage of "shooting yourself in the foot" applies to your replies to those who disagree with your beliefs.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
This false line of accusation is always tried.
Christ loved all yet He told them the truth.
I love you and all my friends here. But I am just telling you the truth.
Some do not like the truth so they do not like those that tell them the truth.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
I expected you to respond in this manner because your replies to others have demonstrated your pride and desire to win the debate. Therefore, I expected you to attempt to justify yourself. Right on cue. Despite your assertion, however, you are merely stating what you believe to be true, just as every Christian does, regardless of whether they agree with your preferred theology and interpretation of the Bible or not. I will just say that you are not fooling anyone.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, I agree. Your argument was just drabble. For the first time you got something right in this thread.