Young Earthers (RJ) Look at this: Grand Canyon:

Originally posted by RJHinds
...blah blah blah...

I am have no interest whatsoever in your opinions.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well there is this thing called salt, and its in the water, making it salt water.
Kelly

I'm thinking if there was a world wide flood the salt would have all been dissolved and when it receded it would have been only a bit salty not even as salty as the ocean since all of it would have mixed together.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is what scientist believe and have proved through observation:

The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by sponta ...[text shortened]... s Gaia could make life arise spontaneously from stones – a process known as Generatio spontanea.

Well we have advanced a bit scientifically speaking, perhaps you didn't notice we are actually out of the 19th century now and so what if the ancient Greeks believed their god could make life out of bare stone.

I would love to see the look on your face when scientists create indisputable life from organic chemicals, although that might be 100 years from now. A lot of creationists are going to have their world crushed, and that day cannot come soon enough for me.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I'm thinking if there was a world wide flood the salt would have all been dissolved and when it receded it would have been only a bit salty not even as salty as the ocean since all of it would have mixed together.

Your thinking is obviously wrong, old man. 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
I'm thinking if there was a world wide flood the salt would have all been dissolved and when it receded it would have been only a bit salty not even as salty as the ocean since all of it would have mixed together.

It is my understanding they don't mix well, and what salt did get left behind
when the water left would have been mixed with everything else that normally
goes on through time. Inaddition simply being having rain would have filtered
much of the salt as well.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you admit that sometimes you can get the math right AND grasp the issue?

Yes, never denied that. You have a point?
Kelly

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i am guessing you are complaining that i don't support my claims, to which i answer: logic doesn't work with you.

you do not listen, you do not understand, you do not care. you have a world view set in stone and we tried in the past to alter it patiently through reason. and science. it did not work.

right now, i will merely point and laugh whenever y ...[text shortened]... is yours to learn anything you wish.

step 2: knowledge doesn't make one a bad Christian.

You can support your claims all you want any way you want, if you cannot
be shown wrong....well it falls into the "this is what I think happen" world of
ideas nothing more.
Kelly

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I'm not making any assumptions. To date, every process ever examined by science has been shown to be mundane in the sense that no miracle or magic has been demonstrated to be in evidence. All supposedly miraculous or magical events or processes which have been subjected to rigorous examination have eventually been shown to be non-miraculous or non-ma ...[text shortened]... n say that the scriptural explanation is more likely is by willfully ignoring everything else.

So tell me how everything got here! Seriously, the beginning of all things was
due to...., what? If you cannot answer that you are just spewing off ideas and
asking others to accept what you think occured on faith in your IMAGINATION.

It is a simple question if you cannot show me how it started how do I know
all the things you think is occuring and why are valid? If you don't know what
the starting point looked like, how can you judge by looking at things how to
judge how old everything is? If the universe began looking like it does now,
what distance and rate of light speed will show you the true age of things?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So tell me how everything got here! Seriously, the beginning of all things was
due to...., what? If you cannot answer that you are just spewing off ideas and
asking others to accept what you think occured on faith in your IMAGINATION.

It is a simple question if you cannot show me how it started how do I know
all the things you think is occuring and wh ...[text shortened]... t does now,
what distance and rate of light speed will show you the true age of things?
Kelly

You are making the argument of hard solipsism.

You don't want to do that.

If you accept hard solipsism then I can show that you can't possibly know anything other than your
own existence (and the rules of logic and maths... but only if you yourself are capable of comprehending
them)



So do you really want to go down the road of claiming that the universe might have been created recently
but made to LOOK like it's old?

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are making the argument of hard solipsism.

You don't want to do that.

If you accept hard solipsism then I can show that you can't possibly know anything other than your
own existence (and the rules of logic and maths... but only if you yourself are capable of comprehending
them)



So do you really want to go down the road of claiming that the universe might have been created recently
but made to LOOK like it's old?

I acknowledge what we have in front of us; I think when you suggest you know
something about the beginning and it does not require God you've stepped in
a place that requires you to put up or shut up to put it bluntly. There isn't a
person alive today among us that knows how everything came into being, not
one, we all have our beliefs. The Big Bang doesn't address it, it starts after the
singularity it doesn’t address where the singularity comes from.

So no one knows how, why, what it took to make all things. It is not possible to
be honest and say you can tell how old it is by looking at it or measuring any
part of it. You've no idea what it looked like when it started, you just have an
opinion nothing more. To claim your opinion is somehow above human error,
because of science it is rather arrogant.
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are making the argument of hard solipsism.

You don't want to do that.

If you accept hard solipsism then I can show that you can't possibly know anything other than your
own existence (and the rules of logic and maths... but only if you yourself are capable of comprehending
them)



So do you really want to go down the road of claiming that the universe might have been created recently
but made to LOOK like it's old?

The universe was not made to look old. You have been listening to false rumors. Perhaps your imagination is playing tricks on you. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The universe was not made to look old. You have been listening to false rumors. Perhaps your imagination is playing tricks on you. 😏

Yep, missed that point, the universe looks like it looks someone saying it is old
is based upon limited knowledge they have since it is after all the only one we have
to look at. We don't know what a very young looks like, so how can say this is a
old one?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can support your claims all you want any way you want, if you cannot
be shown wrong....well it falls into the "this is what I think happen" world of
ideas nothing more.
Kelly

now is the time where i normally try to explain again my stance, how everything you just said applies to your views, and not mine. but we both know that is futile, don't we? you do not wish to learn, you are happy with your world view. a child is happy thinking santa claus is real even though his parents told him countless times the presents come from them.


so really, i don't need to pursue this discussion further. it accomplishes nothing. you are and will be still stuck in your ignorance (and happy about it), and i don't gain deeper knowledge or happiness trying to teach someone who doesn't want to be thought.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
now is the time where i normally try to explain again my stance, how everything you just said applies to your views, and not mine. but we both know that is futile, don't we? you do not wish to learn, you are happy with your world view. a child is happy thinking santa claus is real even though his parents told him countless times the presents come from them. ...[text shortened]... t gain deeper knowledge or happiness trying to teach someone who doesn't want to be thought.

If you cannot refrain from being insulting we are done.
You do NOT know what the universe looked liked when it started.
You do NOT know what it took to have everything begin.
You assume a great deal about all of your beliefs, if you believe you do know how
it began and where everything came from please enlighten me I'll read your post.
Beyond you putting up or shutting up I think you better run away least you be
forced to admit your views about the start of this universe are all based upon
some man made story.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yep, missed that point, the universe looks like it looks someone saying it is old
is based upon limited knowledge they have since it is after all the only one we have
to look at. We don't know what a very young looks like, so how can say this is a
old one?
Kelly

Actually, we DO know what the universe looked like when it was young. You should take a course in astronomy before giving unfounded opinions like that.

What do you think a telescope is anyway? Something that just makes stuff look closer?

It's a LOT more than that simplistic assumption. The deeper you look into the universe, the earlier epoch you are looking at. You look at something 1 billion light years away, you are by definition, looking at something from 1 billion years in the past. A telescope is both an optical amplifier AND a time machine. It looks DIRECTLY at the past and the further away it sees, the further back in time it looks.

Right now we see stuff with double digit red shifts, at a time when the very first stars were being born. So you look at the deep past, then slightly less deep, and so forth, you can build up a picture of the evolution (don't you hate that word?🙂 of stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters and so forth.

We have learned a LOT since Galileo. As much as young earthers like RJ likes to poo poo it.

If an alien spacecraft came to earth and discussed the universe with us they would agree that we have sussed out quite a bit of how the universe works. And we freely admit we have a long way to go to figure it all out. In that gap lays the creationist.