Nothing but assumptions with not a shred of evidence.
Why would a God want to forge mountains?
Describe the force it used in detail.
-
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!
The Big Bang Theory is dead.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Nothing but assumptions with not a shred of evidence.
Why would a God want to forge mountains?
Describe the force it used in detail.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Read Genesis 6-8 for the flood description
And yes evolution and billions of years is nothing but “assumptions with not a shred of evidence”.
Here are just 2 links to show the false circular reasoning you are trapped in.
Plate Tectonics: too weak to build mountains
I have, it mentions nothing about God making mountain ranges. Your trying to add to the story.
Why would a God want to forge mountains?
Describe the force it used in detail.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
To make the flood waters recede into the ocean basins which God also lowered..
Read Genesis 6-8 for the flood description
And yes evolution and billions of years is nothing but “assumptions with not a shred of evidence”.
Here are just 2 links to show the false circular reasoning you are trapped in.
Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
Plate Tectonics: too weak to build mountains
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Mountains are entirely explainable by Plate Tectonics. They are a normal, natural, part of the earth, not the result of God's intervention.
I have and there's nothing about God making mountains. Your bible knowledge is very poor. You're making stuff up.
Why would a God want to forge mountains?
Describe the force it used in detail.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Well, they did attack one of their own posts with the same nonsense once.
I got a screen shot of it and posted it when they falsely accused another member of moving the goal post.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
ROTFLMAO
You say "Back To Reality" then dive off the edge head first into your dream land.
ROTFLMAO
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Garbage circular reasoning,
Here are some articles .
Plate Tectonics: too weak to build mountains
newgeology.us
the Big Bang is dead.
The red shift theory is dead.
Evolution and billions have year is dead.
Abiogenesis is dead.
Atheism is dead.
The redshift theory has been disproved, even your guys know it,
So there is no expansion of the universe.
So no Big Bang,
But then there should just be ghostly neutrinos and nothing else.
The Hubble Tension Is Extremely Real—and Extremely Frustrating
We still don’t know why different measurements of the rate of the universe’s expansion don’t match. But at least we know we can’t blame the Hubble telescope.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Scientific method is not circular reasoning.
Try visiting valid scientific sites.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
But evolution and billions of years are not science, do not use the scientific method, have already been falsified.
I am for good science, but I am against false science like evolution and billions of years.
And your post was based on your circular reasoning.
Only among anti-science creationist holdouts. Out here in the real world, Genesis and Abrahamic creationism are dead. Science has falsified much of it.
And organized religion is dying in the West in the shadow of the rise of the nones and humanism. It's not important that you understand that or agree. In fact, it's probably important to you that you don't.
But do you want to know what's alive and well besides humanism? IANS prophecies, which you continue to fulfill as you have here again and will fulfill anew withing a few minutes or hours. Unfortunately, I can't give an exact time, but being correct within a day or two is still orders of magnitude more specific than what your scriptures offer as prophecy.
No, you reject any science that falsifies your faith-based religious beliefs about how reality is and how it works. Apparently, you've rejected some of its cosmology, or do you accept the biblical unmoving, flat, snow-globe earth model? Why not if you accept young earth theology. What's the difference? What you believe is false "science," which you disseminate in venues like this one. When's your next pseudo-science sermon? An hour? Three?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You saying this does not make it true.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour - Wikipedia
Only because you assume your interpretation of the Bible is correct. Your assumption ignores evidence that the universe is 14.8 billion years old, and that the earth is nearly 5 billion years old.
We trust experts in science, not religious folks with a motive to deceive. This is why you lose these debates.
Your "false science" is what your religious faction assumes. You have offered no evidence tht your religious veiw is based on evidence. This is why we accept science and its expertise, not religious belief. Science shows its work, your creationism doesn't.
Actual circular reasoning is:
1. The Bible is true at face value because the Bible says it's true. <<< This is circular reasoning: X is true because X says it's true.
2. Therefore evolution must be wrong because the Bible offers stories that differ from science.
3. Since the Bible is correct (because the Bible says so) then Satan must be behind the deception of science. Satan must exist because this is derived from reading the Bible, therefore true.
What is ignored is that it is the human believer who decided that the Bible IS true. What makes this assessment correct? They say because the Bible is the word of God. What makes that true? Where is there objective evidence that demonstrates these beliefs aren't assumptions? As we see in these debates, there is none. So the creationist/believer IS the ultimate authority who deems the self infallible like God, and that the Bible IS true as an absolute. This is laughable. As I hve noted even believers aare fallible humans prone to errors of judgment like anyone else. The true of judgmebt comes from evidence, and an objective reasoning process. Believers fail this test and their beliefs aren't recognized as true.
Creationists assume the Bible is true because the Bible says its true, and THAT is circular reasoning. Creationism is fraud because it has its conclusion, and then ignores evidencer to the contrary, and manipulates anything that makes the belief seem true.
Science makes observations, and follows the evidence and data to form conclusions about how nature works. That is NOT circular, it is linear and logical.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Nope, not even close.
Nope, not even close.
Nope, not even close.
Nope, not even close.
Nope, not even close.
Nope, not even close.
Nope, not even close.
Nope, not even close.
Nope, not even close.
Nope, not even close.
Nope, not even close.
Nope, not even close.
Do you get some sort of credit from Satan for overtime?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
So much bearing false witness in such a small space.
Are you going for a record?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So what do you think of this article.
Too many spiral galaxies in the early universe. That seems to be a problem for the redshift, expansion of the universe, the Big Bang, billions of years and evolution.
James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe.
James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You were already taken to task over this particular bit of nonsense.
Perhaps you should work on your memory?