Evidences given for a young-earth

[PruePhillip]

Good language and smart words are not specific.

Tis true.
That's what makes them so wonderful - their ambiguity.
My friends and spouse are not word people - that's sad
because even words like ethics, function, totality etc
confuse them. Uh... how can you talk to such people?
I say I "have to talk like a television", that is, to the
standard of a 12 year old - then dumb that down a bit.
Have you read Under Milkwood? Love to read Shakespeare
too - he's the ultimate.

 

[PruePhillip]

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

Religious agendas are not science, true.
But according to the bible, RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
MUST BE PROVEN AT A PERSONAL LEVEL, OTHER
WISE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

 

[shunyadragon]

Religious agendas are not science, true.
But according to the bible, RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
MUST BE PROVEN AT A PERSONAL LEVEL, OTHER
WISE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

I do not consider anything proven except one's personal fulfillment of what one believes, and there are far to many diverse conflicting claims as what the claim is to be proven on the personal level. This is by definitions a subjective anecdotal claim of belief.

 

[PruePhillip]

I do not consider anything proven except one's personal fulfillment of what one believes, and there are far to many diverse conflicting claims as what the claim is to be proven on the personal level. This is by definitions a subjective anecdotal claim of belief.

Yes, super subjective, and deeply personal.

 

[dad]

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

Repetitious spam to avoid facing the defeat you encountered?

 

[dad]

All it would take for you to earn some respect is to try to justify your beliefs some day.

Wisdom is justified of her children. In your case we would need the links!

 

[shunyadragon]

Repetitious spam to avoid facing the defeat you encountered?

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, super subjective, and deeply personal.

Which would be out of context of what anyone else believes.

 

[dad]

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

If you have nothing to say, just repeat any nonsense. Others come to a debate forum to..well debate. To do that you need a position that you know enough about to support. Work on that.

 

[dad]

Religious agendas are not science, true.
But according to the bible, RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
MUST BE PROVEN AT A PERSONAL LEVEL, OTHER
WISE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Right, and the types of proofs God offers are way above the abilities of science to detect or observe or test. So they deny and whine and make up alternate creation stories, hoping weak sheep and clueless heathen will buy into their dark tales from the crypt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you have nothing to say, just repeat any nonsense. Others come to a debate forum to..well debate. To do that you need a position that you know enough about to support. Work on that.

dad, one cannot debate when one does not understand evidence. All that one will be able to do is to repeat unsupported nonsense.

By the way, when are you ever going to support one of your claims?

 

[PruePhillip]

Right, and the types of proofs God offers are way above the abilities of science to detect or observe or test. So they deny and whine and make up alternate creation stories, hoping weak sheep and clueless heathen will buy into their dark tales from the crypt.

No, you can't "prove for yourself" creation stories.
(I just matched the accounts in Genesis to accounts in science,
and the Bronze Age accounts to what is known in archaeology.)

Not sure what "alternate creation stories" means, unless you are
casting a wide net over Hindus, Buddhists, animists etc..

 

[PruePhillip]

Which would be out of context of what anyone else believes.

Sure, says that in the bible. Moses and Joshua both complained that
their own people did not believe them. When the people objected to
Joshua's skeptism about them he said something like, "Nethertheless
me and my family will obey the Lord."

 

[tas8831]

Not answering for the 20th time something that was already answered 19 times doesn’t count as run-off.

What about never answering claims that you repeated over and over? I think you are confused.

Feel free to provide your favorite claim (that I supposedly ran off) and I would be happy to answer

Do you still think this claim has merit:

"You don’t have to speculate much, we know that at least a big portion of non-codingn DNA has a function…. For example they control gene expression …………this represents more problems for Darwinist, since in order to have an advantage you have to shuffle a gene + you have to shuffle the non coding DNA that controls the expression of that gene, if you don’t have both you don’t have an advantage."​

You later tried to claim that you meant "My original point was that sometimes you need to change both the gene and the regulator in other to change a trait. (Making the problem harder to solve).", but that is just a BS move to try to save face, because you couldn't provide any support for that, either.

 

[tas8831]

Not answering for the 20th time something that was already answered 19 times doesn’t count as run-off.

Feel free to provide your favorite claim (that I supposedly ran off) and I would be happy to answer

This whole post (which I will not reproduce here) was a great one that you bailed from - I point out a number of your false claims.

You know - just claiming that you addressed something doesn't really mean you did!

 

[tas8831]

Not answering for the 20th time something that was already answered 19 times doesn’t count as run-off.

Feel free to provide your favorite claim (that I supposedly ran off) and I would be happy to answer

Heck, I will just resurrect THIS THREAD, since you made a TON of false claims and never justified them, and then scampered off - and I won't even mention the times you tried to put words in people's mouths, re-write easily documented history of your posts, etc.

 

[sooda]

Repetitious spam to avoid facing the defeat you encountered?

I know you are claiming that Sumer was post flood. Here's some history on ancient Sumer.

The region of Sumer was long thought to have been first inhabited around 4500 BCE. This date has been contested in recent years, however, and it now thought that human activity in the area began much earlier. The first settlers were not Sumerians but a people of unknown origin whom archaeologists have termed the Ubaid people - from the excavated mound of al-Ubaid where the artifacts were uncovered which first attested to their existence - or the Proto-Euphrateans which designates them as earlier inhabitants of the region of the Euphrates River.

Mesopotamians generally, and the Sumerians specifically, believed that civilization was the result of the gods’ triumph of order over chaos.
Whoever these people were, they had already moved from a hunter-gatherer society to an agrarian one prior to 5000 BCE.

Sumer

 

[dad]

No, you can't "prove for yourself" creation stories.

We can prove that prophesy came true, and that the God apostles died to verify was real and true is actually there and will affect our hearts and lives. Knowing this, we would realize the aspects of His word that are above man's ability to confirm or deny are also true.

(I just matched the accounts in Genesis to accounts in science,
and the Bronze Age accounts to what is known in archaeology.)

Since I suspect that the flood was actually somewhere around 65 million years ago (science time) you matched nothing remotely related to the flood.

Not sure what "alternate creation stories" means,

Well, just look at God's record in Genesis, and the garden of Eden, days of creation etc. Now look at other accounts science puts out about where we came from. Those are alternate stories of creation.

 

[sooda]

We can prove that prophesy came true, and that the God apostles died to verify was real and true is actually there and will affect our hearts and lives. Knowing this, we would realize the aspects of His word that are above man's ability to confirm or deny are also true.
Since I suspect that the flood was actually somewhere around 65 million years ago (science time) you matched nothing remotely related to the flood.
Well, just look at God's record in Genesis, and the garden of Eden, days of creation etc. Now look at other accounts science puts out about where we came from. Those are alternate stories of creation.

Sumer was established for 2,000 years BEFORE Adam and Eve.

The Rise of Cities
Whenever the Sumerian civilization was first established in the region, by 3600 BCE they had invented the wheel, writing, the sail boat, agricultural processes such as irrigation, and the concept of the city (though China and India also lay claim to `the first cities’ in the world). It is generally accepted that the first cities in the world rose in Sumer and, among the most important, were Eridu, Uruk, Ur, Larsa, Isin, Adab, Kullah, Lagash, Nippur, and Kish.

The city of Uruk is held to be the first true city in the world. It has been noted, again by Kramer, that these names are not Sumerian but come from the Ubaid people and so were founded, at least as villages, much earlier than c. 5000 BCE. Other cities in Sumer were Sippar, Shuruppak, Bad-tibira, Girsu, Umma, Urukag, Nina, and Kissura. All were of varying size and scope with Uruk the largest and most powerful at its prime.

Sumer

Lack of education is a real handicap.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lack of education is a real handicap.

Not if one wants to keep believing in a myth. Then it is a great asset.