07 Jun 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobThat is because they are believing in false data. They just
Here are some Christian scientists who accept the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the flood wasn't global.
http://www.reasons.org/testing-flood-geology
don't know any better. They don't realize they are being lied to,
like I do.
08 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, I know about the global flood. It was the same flood that created the Norwegian Fjords and the English Channel.
This was about the global flood of he Holy Bible. You are not even
reading what he is saying. If you have any questions for him,
just click on the Q & A and ask.
08 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI am asking you why. You claim he has proof. You claim this even though you have not seen said proof. You take him at his word because you share the same religion and because you think his proof is to your advantage in this discussion.
Click on the Q & A and ask him why? Or ask anything else you don't
understand.
I am pointing out that is it foolish to believe someone who claims to have proof but will not present said proof especially when presenting said proof would not harm the person in question but would rather make them famous. If he was just being modest, he would not claim to have proof.
08 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71I guess you didn't light my version of the creation of the
The one issue Young Earthers can't over come though so far at least is the "light/travel time issue" Or Starlight issue. I believe in the creator but I don't believe the universe or earth is as young as 7-10,000 years.
Manny
starlight on the thread "Atheism and morality" then.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
08 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat would suffice as proof to you?
I am asking you why. You claim he has proof. You claim this even though you have not seen said proof. You take him at his word because you share the same religion and because you think his proof is to your advantage in this discussion.
I am pointing out that is it foolish to believe someone who claims to have proof but will not present said proof especia ...[text shortened]... ut would rather make them famous. If he was just being modest, he would not claim to have proof.
Here is some evidence. http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
08 Jun 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI said all you have to do is ask him your detailed questions
I am asking you why. You claim he has proof. You claim this even though you have not seen said proof. You take him at his word because you share the same religion and because you think his proof is to your advantage in this discussion.
I am pointing out that is it foolish to believe someone who claims to have proof but will not present said proof especia ...[text shortened]... ut would rather make them famous. If he was just being modest, he would not claim to have proof.
and let him explain. He should be able to do it much
better than I. I would not want to make an error and
misrepresent his proof.
08 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI am not asking for his proof. I am asking why he keeps his proof secret.
I said all you have to do is ask him your detailed questions
and let him explain. He should be able to do it much
better than I.
I would not want to make an error and misrepresent his proof.
How could you make an error an misrepresent his proof? You don't know his proof. He has not told it to you.
If I am mistaken and he has secretly told you his proof, then either you didn't understand it, or you should not make any errors when explaining it to us. If you do make such errors, how can you know that his proof is valid?
08 Jun 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerIf he is a typical evolutionist, he will glance over this evidence
What would suffice as proof to you?
Here is some evidence. http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
then decide not to read the rest for fear he might have to
change his mind. The atheist will not believe anything that
hints at the possiblity that God exists. That is why he does not
want to ask an expert questions, but directs them at people
he considers ignorant.
08 Jun 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerProof is proof. Pieces of evidence is not proof. If what you are asking is "what would convince me that a global flood actually happened" then the answer is "sufficient evidence". Remember that I am unlikely to believe evidence presented by you unless it has at least passed some basic sanity checks. eg has it passed the peer review process?
What would suffice as proof to you?
As I already stated, if someone had significant evidence of a global flood they could win the Nobel prize. Why are they instead writing on obscure religious websites?
08 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsActually it is much simpler than that. I won't bother because I know that you yourself do not understand the so called 'evidence' and if I explained it all to you, you would admit that it is not sufficient (or outright wrong) but it would not change your views anyway - or, more likely in your case, you would pretend to be stupid and just keep on repeating the same old nonsense like you did with the case of a 50,000 year old sample that you kept wanting to ignore in another thread.
If he is a typical evolutionist, he will glance over this evidence
then decide not to read the rest for fear he might have to
change his mind.
Do you remember that thread? There were three samples, two dated 5000 years and one over 50,000 years. You kept trying to ignore one third of the samples because it didn't fit with your conclusions. Hilarious.
That is why he does not want to ask an expert questions, but directs them at people
he considers ignorant.
The question was never addressed to the expert. It was addressed to you. You want me to ask the expert something I didn't ask for. You want me to ask the expert because you know you cannot answer my question without admitting you are wrong.
08 Jun 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadSee what I mean, he ignores the majority samples and concentrates
Actually it is much simpler than that. I won't bother because I know that you yourself do not understand the so called 'evidence' and if I explained it all to you, you would admit that it is not sufficient (or outright wrong) but it would not change your views anyway - or, more likely in your case, you would pretend to be stupid and just keep on repeating ...[text shortened]... the expert because you know you cannot answer my question without admitting you are wrong.
on the one doubtful sample that conforms to his world view. Then
he accuses me of ignoring this one sample, as if it were more
important than the others. Even the scientist himself ignored it
as being unimportant to his finding because of the doubtful dating.
Why then don't you ask the expert, that I gave you the link to, if
you think I am wrong? I believe you don't want to know the truth.