Evolutionists Appropriating ID?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I am ashamed. I am a sinner just like you. Only Christ can save me from my evil ways. I believe Christ is my only hope, for otherwise I am fit only to be thrown in the lake of fire.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
(Revelation 21:8 NKJV)

well take note then.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
(Revelation 21:8 NKJV)"

you're heading to hell. but since you're an imposter, you're not really worried about that.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
well take note then.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, [b]and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
(Revelation 21:8 NKJV)"

you're heading to hell. but since you're an imposter, you're not really worried about that.[/b]

You forget the fact that I believe Christ and put my faith and trust in His promises.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is simply not true. It is not required to know the start of something in order to know something about its later years.
I do not need to know when or how a city started for me to know that the city existed and even when it existed based on the rubble left behind.

[b]With respect to basing your beliefs on evidence, that is like saying a movie base ...[text shortened]... th an argument as to why I cannot know.

[b]Of course you cannot be shown wrong,
Why not?[/b]

Oh please, if the unverse were created as a fully functional clock with all the
parts in place doing what it takes to support life at its very start NOTHING you
have been saying about the distant past would hardly be true.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
You forget the fact that I believe Christ and put my faith and trust in His promises.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
(Revelation 21:8 NKJV)"

Originally posted by KellyJay
Oh please, if the unverse were created as a fully functional clock with all the
parts in place doing what it takes to support life at its very start NOTHING you
have been saying about the distant past would hardly be true.
Kelly

So would you accept 'Last Thursdayism' as a valid possibility?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

A fully functioning clock does not record a history of its past. If it did, and it is created fully functioning including a history of an imaginary past then I say that as far as the clock is concerned the past it has recorded is real.
So I readily admit that the universe may have been created last thursday, but within this created universe there exists a historical record that shows over 4 billion years of history all recorded in exquisite detail.

[edit]
As we have discussed before, either the universe is billions of years old, or most of the stars and galaxies we see are illusions of objects that do not actually exist. Does that not come within your definition of personally witnessing something?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So would you accept 'Last Thursdayism' as a valid possibility?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

A fully functioning clock does not record a history of its past. If it did, and it is created fully functioning including a history of an imaginary past then I say that as far as the clock is concerned the past it has recorded is real.
So I re ...[text shortened]... actually exist. Does that not come within your definition of personally witnessing something?

The distance between the stars and the earth tells us nothing about the age of the universe or the age of the Earth. Man has to make too many assumptions just to begin any type of calculations. The assumptions are no more than opinions and not science so nothing is proved to be fact.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The distance between the stars and the earth tells us nothing about the age of the universe or the age of the Earth. Man has to make too many assumptions just to begin any type of calculations. The assumptions are no more than opinions and not science so nothing is proved to be fact.

of course not. we all know biblegod hung the stars on the glass ceiling of heaven, like christmas ornaments.

that's clearly a lot more logical, no assumptions or opinions involved there.


[and if you ever find a brain, you'll realize this is sarcasm.]

Originally posted by RJHinds
The distance between the stars and the earth tells us nothing about the age of the universe.

If a star is 1 million light years away then the star we are seeing existed 1 million years ago. Its as simple as that. It does, emphatically tell us something about the age of the universe.
You are free to dispute the basic physics we used to figure out how far away the star is, but if you dispute basic physics then you might as well dispute that it is really a star after all, if we are all wrong about astronomy then there is always the possibility that stars are just images on a vast tv screen around the solar system. But whoever is transmitting the image onto the screen clearly has put a lot of trouble into making it look like there are whole galaxies out there and intends us to believe that the universe is billions of years old.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If a star is 1 million light years away then the star we are seeing existed 1 million years ago. Its as simple as that. It does, emphatically tell us something about the age of the universe.
You are free to dispute the basic physics we used to figure out how far away the star is, but if you dispute basic physics then you might as well dispute that it is ...[text shortened]... e whole galaxies out there and intends us to believe that the universe is billions of years old.

No. That's not the way it works. There is no problem with Physics. It is the assumptions that cause the problem.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So would you accept 'Last Thursdayism' as a valid possibility?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

A fully functioning clock does not record a history of its past. If it did, and it is created fully functioning including a history of an imaginary past then I say that as far as the clock is concerned the past it has recorded is real.
So I re ...[text shortened]... actually exist. Does that not come within your definition of personally witnessing something?

No I don't except Thursdayism, why would that be needed if there was some
plan and purpose to life and you where powerful enough to create the universe
why would creating a lie be meaningful when you have said lying is wrong?

I don't call you looking at the universe and making a mistake on how old it is
a creating a lie, that is simply you going off on your own and taking it upon
yourself to say this means that and if it does not its a lie.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't call you looking at the universe and making a mistake on how old it is
a creating a lie, that is simply you going off on your own and taking it upon
yourself to say this means that and if it does not its a lie.
Kelly

There is simply too much evidence for an ancient universe for it to be a mistake.

Lets take a particular scenario. A scientist discovers a fossilised skeleton of a dinosaur. He analyses the fossil and the chemical composition of the fossil and everything else about it indicates that they are the fossilized bones of an animal that lived in the past.
The scientist claims that he knows without doubt that an animal with that bone structure lived at some time in the past and that the fossil is the fossilized remains of that animals bones.

Now you have essentially said that the scientist is just making up fairy tales and can not possibly know any of this and that any story he makes up is equivalent. So you claim that the following explanation are all equally valid:
1. There existed an animal that died and its bones were fossilized.
2. Chemicals in the rocks just happened by chance to arrange themselves into bone shapes.
3. The fossils were planted there by someone (aliens, the mischievous god Lokki, Satan ?).
4. They are part of a fully functioning clock that God created complete with fossils.

Now I believe in the past you have admitted that there is only one rational explanation for fossils (point number 1.) but this contradicts your claims in this thread. So what is wrong with your argument?

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is simply too much evidence for an ancient universe for it to be a mistake.

Lets take a particular scenario. A scientist discovers a fossilised skeleton of a dinosaur. He analyses the fossil and the chemical composition of the fossil and everything else about it indicates that they are the fossilized bones of an animal that lived in the past.
Th ...[text shortened]... number 1.) but this contradicts your claims in this thread. So what is wrong with your argument?

You still want to hang on to your belief that you KNOW how the universe was
formed, okay I get that, but be honest. You do not know how it started so all
the pieces of the puzzle you imagine you have to put together how the universe
got here may not actually be showing you what you think they are! If the
universe was created intact to support life at its beginning than NOTHING you
are claiming is true about the distant past could be or would be true. Nothing
you have as far as evidence goes could possibly show you the universe was not
created.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is simply too much evidence for an ancient universe for it to be a mistake.

Lets take a particular scenario. A scientist discovers a fossilised skeleton of a dinosaur. He analyses the fossil and the chemical composition of the fossil and everything else about it indicates that they are the fossilized bones of an animal that lived in the past.
Th ...[text shortened]... number 1.) but this contradicts your claims in this thread. So what is wrong with your argument?

I believe that fossils were created when the conditions were right to create
them. I believe what you are doing is simply again saying that something
occured one way and could not occur another as if you knew.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You still want to hang on to your belief that you KNOW how the universe was
formed, okay I get that, but be honest.

I have never claimed to know how the universe was formed.

You do not know how it started so all the pieces of the puzzle you imagine you have to put together how the universe got here may not actually be showing you what you think they are!
Now its your turn to be honest. Answer this honestly: are dinosaur fossils undeniable solid proof that animals with that bone structure once lived on the earth? If your answer to that is 'yes' then you do not follow your own line of reasoning ie how can you possibly know this if you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle?

If the universe was created intact to support life at its beginning than NOTHING you
are claiming is true about the distant past could be or would be true.
So you are saying it is entirely possible that I could be wrong that dinosaurs once existed and there is some other reason why fossils exist? Can you suggest another rational explanation for fossils?

Nothing you have as far as evidence goes could possibly show you the universe was not
created.
And I have never claimed otherwise.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have never claimed to know how the universe was formed.

[b]You do not know how it started so all the pieces of the puzzle you imagine you have to put together how the universe got here may not actually be showing you what you think they are!
Now its your turn to be honest. Answer this honestly: are dinosaur fossils undeniable solid proof that an ...[text shortened]... uld possibly show you the universe was not
created.[/b]
And I have never claimed otherwise.[/b]

"Now its your turn to be honest. Answer this honestly: are dinosaur fossils undeniable solid proof that animals with that bone structure once lived on the earth? If your answer to that is 'yes' then you do not follow your own line of reasoning ie how can you possibly know this if you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle? "

Yes they lived on the earth. What pieces are missing that would make you or
myself think there is some other reason for them being here?
Kelly