Originally posted by twhitehead
My point is that you have made the same ridiculous claim before and I pointed it out to you before, I pointed it out again in this thread and instead of simply admitting your error you pretended that it was a matter of opinion on my part.
You said:
[b]"You have stated your position before, which is not the same thing as correcting me, except maybe in yo u then wish to claim that since God has neither property he is safely in a different category.

[/b]I agreed with you that saying 'everyone' was a bad choice of words how
is that not admitting I'm wrong? Again, you stating your case does not
mean you've proved anything. I do dislike your use of the word lie
when what really occurred was a simple poor choice of words on my
part. You spend to much time looking for personal weaknesses instead
of points under discussion.
Kelly

Originally posted by SwissGambit
In that case, I see no reason why the universe could not be eternal. Perhaps it's just a series of big bangs and big crunches.

So if it is eternal, why do people date it as billions of years old?
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, you give me any proof that dinos even once were living in the same age as humans?

I dare you!

I say that there were no dinosaurs after 65 million of years:
"Dinosaurs (Greek δεινόσαυρος, deinosauros) were the dominant vertebrate animals of terrestrial ecosystems for over 160 million years, mans lived at the same time as humans? Also that dinos were invited by Noah in his ark. 😀

You ever see cave drawings of dinosaurs? It isn't like your going to
hear a story where someone ages ago wrote about a dino, they may
describe a creature; however, since the word dinosaur is relatively
new that term would not come up, neither would words such as
Tyrannosaurus Rex or other such creatures. I suggest you do your
own research on dinosaurs and man, here is a good place to start.
http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So if it is eternal, why do people date it as billions of years old?
Kelly

IIRC, the dating is based on radiometric analysis of rocks - which would not be rocks until some time after a big bang.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
IIRC, the dating is based on radiometric analysis of rocks - which would not be rocks until some time after a big bang.

Okay, so some parts of the universe reset radiometric readings after
each Big Bang we know this is true, how?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You ever see cave drawings of dinosaurs? It isn't like your going to
hear a story where someone ages ago wrote about a dino, they may
describe a creature; however, since the word dinosaur is relatively
new that term would not come up, neither would words such as
Tyrannosaurus Rex or other such creatures. I suggest you do your
own research on dinosaurs and man, here is a good place to start.
http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm
Kelly

"You ever see cave drawings of dinosaurs?" No, and I never will. My nephew draws dinosaurs fighting with men, but he's a child, doesn't know better. I would hope that you knwo better. In vain...

In your link I can read:
"Unfortunately, many creationists continued to promote the plesiosaur interpretation long after 1978"
So this link shows clearly that creationists are wrong. So thank you supporting my view, that creationists doesn't know what they're talking about.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, and the beginning of those are...

The answer has to be anything except God for some.
Kelly

Here it is KJ,
there are as I see it three scenarios:

1. The universe had a beginning, which can be explained naturally.
2. The universe had a beginning, which can be explained supernaturally, ie. a creator god.
3. The universe had no beginning, but has existed forever - this requires no explanation (although is very unsatisfactory to a human philosophical perspective).

You choose 2, I choose 1. Your explanation for your choice does not sway me. My explanation for my choice,does not sway you.
Is it not time to move on to something else?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So if it is eternal, why do people date it as billions of years old?
Kelly

So, are you now saying that you accept dating methods that give the universe a specific age?
I seem to recall many years of arguments on this forum where you refused to accept the validity of dating methods.
Have you changed your mind now?

If you haven't, then it seems that you're using an argument that you disagree with as the underpinning assumption for your argument against a natural creation of the universe.
Don't you find that a little ... bizarre?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, so some parts of the universe reset radiometric readings after
each Big Bang we know this is true, how?
Kelly

Oops, I did not recall correctly.

Rocks are formed by lava flow on earth:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

The age of the universe is estimated from measurements of background radiation and the expansion of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

So, if there was a cycle of big bangs and big cruches, we would only be able to measure back to the last big bang. We could only say that the universe is at least as old as the time since the last big bang. I'm not claiming to know this is true, mind you - just throwing it out as a possibility.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You ever see cave drawings of dinosaurs? It isn't like your going to
hear a story where someone ages ago wrote about a dino, they may
describe a creature; however, since the word dinosaur is relatively
new that term would not come up, neither would words such as
Tyrannosaurus Rex or other such creatures. I suggest you do your
own research on dinosaurs and man, here is a good place to start.
http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm
Kelly

Your own statement 'you ever see cave drawings of dinosaurs'... Is proof enogh for me, cave drawings inevitably shows mammels or snakes, maybe birds, but no dino's. Why do you think that is if there were dino's around at the same time? If cavemen saw an elephant and drew a cave drawing it would say they thought the elephant to be a big important creature, maybe even a god. So if they saw a T-Rex, something like 5 times bigger and nastier than any elephant or lion or tiger, don't you think they would have added such an important beast to their images? I think it would be certain they would. The fact there is no such thing is a stinging argument against your silly belief dino's and humans co-existed. I suppose for evidence you will point to the stupid footprints inside the dino prints as proof. Don't even try to pull that failed card.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Your own statement 'you ever see cave drawings of dinosaurs'... Is proof enogh for me, cave drawings inevitably shows mammels or snakes, maybe birds, but no dino's. Why do you think that is if there were dino's around at the same time? If cavemen saw an elephant and drew a cave drawing it would say they thought the elephant to be a big important creature, m ...[text shortened]... upid footprints inside the dino prints as proof. Don't even try to pull that failed card.

Perhaps he is defining mammoths as dinosaurs?
Then he is wrong. Mammoths are mammals.
He is desinformed by satan...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Perhaps he is defining mammoths as dinosaurs?
Then he is wrong. Mammoths are mammals.
He is desinformed by satan...

There are cave drawings of them, but I gave you a link, and you
didn't respond about that. Did you look at it?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agreed with you that saying 'everyone' was a bad choice of words how
is that not admitting I'm wrong?

That came later after I used the word liar.

Again, you stating your case does not mean you've proved anything. I do dislike your use of the word lie when what really occurred was a simple poor choice of words on my part.
It was not a 'poor choice of words' it was a totally incorrect statement. Even if you had toned it down with 'most' instead of 'everyone' you would have found it hard to justify the statement.

You spend to much time looking for personal weaknesses instead of points under discussion.
Kelly
I am not looking for personal weakness, I am pointing out that the claim is false and the conclusion must therefore be false too. I think that it is you that would like to turn it into a personal conflict and thus avoid dealing with the fact that God is not in a different category and thus the whole argument falls flat on its face.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are cave drawings of them, but I gave you a link, and you
didn't respond about that. Did you look at it?
Kelly

Because I didn't see any cave drawing of dinosaurs there. Can you specificly give the place, or quote directly from the link were you find a proof of a dino cave drawing? I think not.

I certainly don't read over 8 000 words in 21 pages in a foreign language just to please you...

[edit] I gave it another chance, I searched for the word "cave" and found nothing. I serch for the word "painting" and found nothing. Are you sure you gave me the right link?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You ever see cave drawings of dinosaurs? It isn't like your going to
hear a story where someone ages ago wrote about a dino, they may
describe a creature; however, since the word dinosaur is relatively
new that term would not come up, neither would words such as
Tyrannosaurus Rex or other such creatures. I suggest you do your
own research on dinosaurs and man, here is a good place to start.
http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm
Kelly

read it. did you? if you deduce from this article that dinosaurs are alive and living on earth, i could look up sites that show conclusive proof that aliens are visiting earth.