- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ April 12 2012,06:58) Hi WIT, 1) It's same as those who say 6,000 years instead;
which is: an estimate based on assumptions.2) You reject the well established “Science of Gematria”,
where our study should begin; as I offer “Proof of God”!3) You haven't been able to do that yet!
But you are welcome to keep trying.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Name me one verifiable assumption that supports the idea of a 6000 year old universe.As for the “science of gematria”, you yourself say that “two or three witnesses” are necessary, which is your way of acknowledging that it is an easily manipulated “science”. In other words, it's useless in terms of separating truth from lies.
You still haven't answered my question.
If I showed you verifiable evidence that the bible got something wrong, would you question the bible or the evidence?
Whether or not such evidence exists is a separate question. The point is what you would do with such information.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 12 2012,14:26) Quote (Ed J @ April 12 2012,06:58) Hi WIT, 1) It's same as those who say 6,000 years instead;
which is: an estimate based on assumptions.2) You reject the well established “Science of Gematria”,
where our study should begin; as I offer “Proof of God”!3) You haven't been able to do that yet!
But you are welcome to keep trying.God bless
Ed J
(1)Name me one verifiable assumption that supports the idea of a 6000 year old universe.(2)As for the “science of gematria”, you yourself say that “two or three witnesses” are necessary, which is your way of acknowledging that it is an easily manipulated “science”. In other words, it's useless in terms of separating truth from lies.
You still haven't answered my question.
(3)If I showed you verifiable evidence that the bible got something wrong, would you question the bible or the evidence?
Whether or not such evidence exists is a separate question.
(4) The point is what you would do with such information.
Hi WIT,1) I didn't use the word verifiable?
2) Associated ideas contribute to suggest the truth of design.
Associated theological ideas linked together with “The God Numbers”
provide evidence that there is an intelligent source originating outside of time.
Scientifically speaking: “The Effect”(The Bible=63) PROVES “The Cause”(YHVH=63)!3) Variations in eyewitness testimony is hardly a cause to disregard the testimony as a whole.
4) Debunk it: because I can illustrate that it is your understanding that is in error, rather than the text.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ April 12 2012,13:58) Quote (Stu @ April 12 2012,12:15) Quote (Ed J @ April 12 2012,11:58) 1) It's same as those who say 6,000 years instead;
which is: an estimate based on assumptions.
These are the morons who take the nuclear option of assuming that none of the evidence is reliable. They should give back their modern medicines and their cars, and pray and walk instead.The scale of these YEC idiots' error is the same as claiming that the distance from New York to Los Angeles is a little under two metres.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong.
My point is: they are both making estimations based on assumptions.
You are the one assuming which one is right and which one wrong. Not I, for I don't know?
Well I do know, actually. People who claim the universe is 6000 years old are morons. The number of assumptions required to get to the real figure of 13.7 billion years is only two, and they are unavoidable. The researchers must assume that they exist, and that what you see is what you get, in other words that the universe is not an illusion. Do you feel those are the kind of assumptions that should be questioned?To get 6000 years, you have to add the assumptions that the annual layers in ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland are an illusion and the dedrochronological record (where you count annual tree rings and correlate thickness patterns between samples) that goes back 10,000 years is also illusory. You have to assume that in the past continental drift happened at speeds up to 20 kilometres per hour instead of a few centimetres per year. There is a long list of similar absurdities that would also have to be assumed, and that's just the ones we can see easily on the earth.
But EdLogic says that the universe could be 100 billion years old, we really don't know. You're wrong, we do know how old the universe is, and the assumptions used are minimised as much as possible, as per the scientific method. You are hypocritical to accuse science of dealing in assumptions; science is very careful about the problem of the assumptions that can't be avoided but it is the religious who let the assumptions pile up out of control. And we know from our experiences that the more assumptions you posit the worse the quality of the knowledge you construct. Religious revelation has so many assumptions that the quality of that knowledge is a joke.
I have explained all this to you before in regards to your mindless numerology (which has never told you anything you could verify independently) but you seem resistant to education.
Stuart
Ed J,
I wrote:
Quote If I showed you verifiable evidence that the bible got something wrong, would you question the bible or the evidence?
…
The point is what you would do with such information.You responded with:
Quote Debunk it: because I can illustrate that it is your understanding that is in error, rather than the text. This demonstrates quite clearly that there is nothing that anyone can present to you that would change your mind about the bible. Therefore, it is truly a waste of time to do so. You will always believe, regardless of what the evidence suggests.
Quote (Stu @ April 12 2012,22:38) Quote (Ed J @ April 12 2012,13:58) Quote (Stu @ April 12 2012,12:15) Quote (Ed J @ April 12 2012,11:58) 1) It's same as those who say 6,000 years instead;
which is: an estimate based on assumptions.
These are the morons who take the nuclear option of assuming that none of the evidence is reliable. They should give back their modern medicines and their cars, and pray and walk instead.The scale of these YEC idiots' error is the same as claiming that the distance from New York to Los Angeles is a little under two metres.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong.
My point is: they are both making estimations based on assumptions.
You are the one assuming which one is right and which one wrong. Not I, for I don't know?
Well I do know, actually. People who claim the universe is 6000 years old are morons. The number of assumptions required to get to the real figure of 13.7 billion years is only two, and they are unavoidable. The researchers must assume that they exist, and that what you see is what you get, in other words that the universe is not an illusion. Do you feel those are the kind of assumptions that should be questioned?To get 6000 years, you have to add the assumptions that the annual layers in ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland are an illusion and the dedrochronological record (where you count annual tree rings and correlate thickness patterns between samples) that goes back 10,000 years is also illusory. You have to assume that in the past continental drift happened at speeds up to 20 kilometres per hour instead of a few centimetres per year. There is a long list of similar absurdities that would also have to be assumed, and that's just the ones we can see easily on the earth.
But EdLogic says that the universe could be 100 billion years old, we really don't know. You're wrong, we do know how old the universe is, and the assumptions used are minimised as much as possible, as per the scientific method. You are hypocritical to accuse science of dealing in assumptions; science is very careful about the problem of the assumptions that can't be avoided but it is the religious who let the assumptions pile up out of control. And we know from our experiences that the more assumptions you posit the worse the quality of the knowledge you construct. Religious revelation has so many assumptions that the quality of that knowledge is a joke.
I have explained all this to you before in regards to your mindless numerology (which has never told you anything you could verify independently) but you seem resistant to education.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,You still haven't told me “WHY” you believe this universe is the age you suggest?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WhatIsTrue @ April 13 2012,02:19) Ed J, I wrote:
Quote If I showed you verifiable evidence that the bible got something wrong, would you question the bible or the evidence?
…
The point is what you would do with such information.You responded with:
Quote Debunk it: because I can illustrate that it is your understanding that is in error, rather than the text. This demonstrates quite clearly that there is nothing that anyone can present to you that would change your mind about the bible. Therefore, it is truly a waste of time to do so. You will always believe, regardless of what the evidence suggests.
Hi WIT,Hey, that's a quite accurate description of yourself concerning
the rock sold Theomatic evidence I have for the “Proof of God”!Too bad you are hypocrite unwilling to even look at the evidence.
At least I said I would look at all the evidence you would provide.
(not counting you 'cut and pasting' large volumes from others)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ April 13 2012,10:16) Hi Stuart, You still haven't told me “WHY” you believe this universe is the age you suggest?
Can you afford the tuition?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 13 2012,10:27) Quote (Ed J @ April 13 2012,10:16) Hi Stuart, You still haven't told me “WHY” you believe this universe is the age you suggest?
Can you afford the tuition?Stuart
HA Ha ha ha ha!!!Quote (Ed J @ April 13 2012,05:23) Hi WIT, Hey, that's a quite accurate description of yourself concerning
the rock sold Theomatic evidence I have for the “Proof of God”!Too bad you are hypocrite unwilling to even look at the evidence.
At least I said I would look at all the evidence you would provide.
(not counting you 'cut and pasting' large volumes from others)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
What's ironic is that you think people haven't accepted your “proof” because they refuse to look at it, when in reality, countless people, including fellow believers, have looked at your evidence and found it completely underwhelming.I don't think you have a solid grasp of what evidence is.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 14 2012,08:18) Quote (Ed J @ April 13 2012,05:23) Hi WIT, Hey, that's a quite accurate description of yourself concerning
the rock sold Theomatic evidence I have for the “Proof of God”!Too bad you are hypocrite unwilling to even look at the evidence.
At least I said I would look at all the evidence you would provide.
(not counting you 'cut and pasting' large volumes from others)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
What's ironic is that you think people haven't accepted your “proof” because they refuse to look at it, when in reality, countless people, including fellow believers, have looked at your evidence and found it completely underwhelming.I don't think you have a solid grasp of what evidence is.
LikewiseTo Atheists.
Having faith in nothing is not the same as having no faith.
Faith that believes that everything came from Nothing is a belief and trust that this is the case even in the absence of proof.
No Atheist in the world has no faith.
Rather a person who doesn't know whether God exists or not is the person who has no faith.
Quote (princess @ April 15 2012,19:27) What is the profound reasoning to know the age of the earth?
Hi princessIs there one profound ……………
What if you know that's will bring you ?
It only will be close to a billion anyway so
To me it is a distraction ,it like looking for a pin in a hay stack,I would ask my self how long it would take me ,and if it even is worthed to look for or just buy an new one,many people are turning in circles in their lives and it is late in there lives that they realize that it was all a waist,
And those are the wise ones ,some never stop dreaming on something
Quote (t8 @ April 16 2012,13:41) To Atheists. Having faith in nothing is not the same as having no faith.
Faith that believes that everything came from Nothing is a belief and trust that this is the case even in the absence of proof.
No Atheist in the world has no faith.
Rather a person who doesn't know whether God exists or not is the person who has no faith.
No one can know with any certainty whether gods exist or not. That's why there is such a thing as faith. We are all agnostics. No god believer can distinguish which gods actually exist and which don't. Atheists just take that extra scientific step of dismissing all god claims as equally bald. The bizarre thing to do is to dismiss all gods except one.Religious faith is defined as a “firm” belief in things that “cannot be proved”, for example celestial conspiracy theories of Imaginary Friends running the universe. There isn't even any unambiguous evidence to support that claim, let alone what you could call “proof”.
I recommend the dictionary, t8. I will open new horizons for you.
Stuart
Quote (princess @ April 15 2012,12:27) What is the profound reasoning to know the age of the earth?
In the 19th Century calculations were done on estimates of the cooling rate of the earth, which gave values in the order of at least millions of years old. But those scientists didn't know about the reason why the mantle of the earth remains molten today, the radioactivity which keeps it heated.Today the evidence for the age of the earth comes mainly from radioisotope dating, including a new method called nucleocosmochronology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleocosmochronology
We can also tell how far through its lifecycle our sun is,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle
and we know that the sun arose from a shockwave from a supernova explosion (which also caused other stars to form) that caused a cloud of gas and dust to collapse under gravity and begin nuclear fusion. A disc of dust and gas from the supernova, that was in orbit around the new sun, spun faster and faster, like a ballet dancer spinning faster by pulling her legs inwards, and the tiny particles accreted into planets over about 50 million years.
So the earth is a little younger than the sun, with the earth around 4.55 billion years old.
Hope that helps.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 17 2012,01:36) So the earth is a little younger than the sun, with the earth around 4.55 billion years old.
Stuart
Is that close to 6,000 years?Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ April 17 2012,06:50) Quote (Stu @ April 17 2012,01:36) So the earth is a little younger than the sun, with the earth around 4.55 billion years old.
Stuart
Is that close to 6,000 years?Tim
That'd be like saying that Adam only lived to the age of about 11 hours when as we know, Tim, Adam lived a full 930 years, not hours.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 17 2012,08:15) Quote (TimothyVI @ April 17 2012,06:50) Quote (Stu @ April 17 2012,01:36) So the earth is a little younger than the sun, with the earth around 4.55 billion years old.
Stuart
Is that close to 6,000 years?Tim
That'd be like saying that Adam only lived to the age of about 11 hours when as we know, Tim, Adam lived a full 930 years, not hours.Stuart
Is there any other creatures on earth that managed to live as long as Adam? Or did they whiteout a few obnoxious generations…perhaps children children that might turn up looking like them an wanting for some inheritance…I mean to say…the latter flooding of the earth reveals a total rejection, aborting the beginning…you would think being the first man, an having 900 years on earth might have been enough to do the job?Quote (TimothyVI @ April 17 2012,13:50) Quote (Stu @ April 17 2012,01:36) So the earth is a little younger than the sun, with the earth around 4.55 billion years old.
Stuart
Is that close to 6,000 years?Tim
the creation of the earth is one thing ,the creation of man is another ,man is here no longer than 6000 years
all
you know ,I have watched many documentaries about the earth ,animals ,mammals ,insects ,birds,fish and the invisible ones ,and the solar systems our 's and the others ,
it start to make me thinking,if the universe is so big and that there are billions of solar systems out there ,this would mean that there would be a slimmer than slim chance that there would be live on our planet ,but wen I have seen all the kinds of fish there are and other shell kind by the thousandths and so are the birds,and the ground animals by thousandths this also make it slimmer than slim that it all pop up and so beautifully came to be harmoniously coordinated that all those animals do and eat what they have been train to eat for their kind,
but wen it came to see the invisible to the eye, this was amazing ,bacteria,viruses, plankton,and hundreds more names I can't remember but all needed to sustain live on the planet , this again would make it slimmer than slim the chance that it all ad come by pure chance,
now all those invisible living things are needed for our own survival ,this shows that men was not the first creature on earth but more likely the last ,if we consider what men needs to survive ,so the harmony in nature is a testimony to a intelligent being , that as made creation, rather than an evolution out of no intelligence
and we haven yet talked about plant and the variety of their kind within all the other living things ,
I am amazed at the beauty of it ,
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
