How do we know?

@mchill said
Please go back and read what I wrote to you in this thread.

Why do I need to do that? You’re the one who’s confused by my “rearranging of the words”.

Maybe it would be helpful if you went back and re-read some of my posts.

Let me know if I can be of more help with your dodging of my (so simple a child could understand it) question.

@divegeester said
Why do I need to do that? You’re the one who’s confused by my “rearranging of the words”.

Maybe it would be helpful if you went back and re-read some of my posts.

Let me know if I can be of more help with your dodging of my (so simple a child could understand it) question.

Let me know if I can be of more help with your dodging of my (so simple a child could understand it) question.


Thanks, I might do that sometime. Right now, this simple-minded guy is looking forward to a productive workday. 🙂

@KellyJay said
Believe it or not, something can be true and completely unscientific. It's reality, not what conforms to your idea of what is and isn't scientific that matters.

Reality can always be scientifically verified. If something 'you' believe (for example, that the Earth is only a few thousand years old) is shown to be unscientific, then it is categorically 'not' true.

Believing that something can be simultaneously true and unscientific is probably where you are going wrong.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
Reality can always be scientifically verified. If something 'you' believe (for example, that the Earth is only a few thousand years old) is shown to be unscientific, then it is categorically 'not' true.

Believing that something can be simultaneously true and unscientific is probably where you are going wrong.

Your statement about everything can be confirmed by science, is that a statement about science or a scientific statement?

You cannot give a hard factual age to the Earth that would not be subject to change if suddenly something new became the accepted age. The thing you are doing is confusing categories, we know truth will not contradict itself, but science can have conflicting points of view accepted by different groups of people.

You are simply making assumptions you have about the distance past dogmatic, and are attempting to reject disagreement claiming anyone who doesn’t agree with you is anti science, so you don’t have to defend your views, because by your definition you have rejected contrary views as anti science without addressing them.

@mchill said
Let me know if I can be of more help with your dodging of my (so simple a child could understand it) question.


Thanks, I might do that sometime. Right now, this simple-minded guy is looking forward to a productive workday. 🙂

Thanks for once again not contributing anything whatsoever to the topic, and then ducking out with your usual “I’ve got to go to work” riff.

@KellyJay said
Your statement about everything can be confirmed by science, is that a statement about science or a scientific statement?

You cannot give a hard factual age to the Earth that would not be subject to change if suddenly something new became the accepted age. The thing you are doing is confusing categories, we know truth will not contradict itself, but science can have con ...[text shortened]... because by your definition you have rejected contrary views as anti science without addressing them.

Any response from you about the question in the OP KellyJay?

@divegeester said
Thanks for once again not contributing anything whatsoever to the topic, and then ducking out with your usual “I’ve got to go to work” riff.

I'm sorry you feel this way, but unlike a few others here (who will go unnamed) I don't spend large amounts of time and effort in the forums section. Work, exercise, and chess are my priorities (yes...in that order) Dreaming up discussions about scripture, abstract hypotheticals, philosophical trivia and other less than productive activities are not things I care to spend much time on. So please pardon me if I don't go too deeply into your topics. We all have our priorities. Productivity and getting to 1800 are mine.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
Reality can always be scientifically verified. If something 'you' believe (for example, that the Earth is only a few thousand years old) is shown to be unscientific, then it is categorically 'not' true.

Believing that something can be simultaneously true and unscientific is probably where you are going wrong.

Let me ask you a question about reality and the universe's age. Why is the sky dark at night? If the sky is eternal and light is coming at us from every direction why is there not light instead of darkness? It isn't like we would need to wait on all of the star's light in the universe to get here, it would have had an eternity to travel from anywhere to here.

Unscientific is a term I don't believe you grasp in my opinion, if something cannot be known by science, that doesn't mean it cannot be true, it only means utilizing science it cannot be explained.

@mchill said
I'm sorry you feel this way, but unlike a few others here (who will go unnamed) I don't spend large amounts of time and effort in the forums section. Work, exercise, and chess are my priorities (yes...in that order) Dreaming up discussions about scripture, abstract hypotheticals, philosophical trivia and other less than productive activities are not things I care to spend much ...[text shortened]... too deeply into your topics. We all have our priorities. Productivity and getting to 1800 are mine.

Thinking up debating topics and debating in those threads is what this forum is for Mchill.

Seeing as how you are always too busy doing something else then I suggest not wasting your precious time making posts telling me that you find my question too confusing for you because you saw it written with some of the words changed around.

Until your next post telling me your don’t have time to post something insightful in one of my threads I’ll just say good luck with the work the exercise and the chess.