Just remember guys, that you are conversing with a person who thinks that goddidit is a valid scientific theory.

There is no basis for rational discussion with such an individual.

(October 8, 2013 at 9:02 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Just remember guys, that you are conversing with a person who thinks that goddidit is a valid scientific theory.

There is no basis for rational discussion with such an individual.

Gracie should change his user name to InsulatedFromRealityByFaith.

DivorcedFromReasonByFaith?

ExorcisedFromReasonThroughFaith?

(October 8, 2013 at 8:18 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I think that you do not understand that with God all things are possible.

Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit! Goddidit!

Seriously, that's what you sound like to me. I've said it once and I'll say it again, the more you have to invoke magic as an explanation for something, the more likely that something is to be false. And all you're doing is invoking magic. You've not once offered any explanation of why you are right, you just keep using Goddidit.

All I can say is that this thread has been about a very hovindish Christian.

(October 8, 2013 at 8:47 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 8:44 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I presented my proof.

Listen very carefully SBGTF, since you don't get it, I'm going to spell it out for you.

I've been using your method (bold assertion with no evidence) against you in order to demonstrate to you that it's useless. The fact that you don't accept my bold assertions means that you understand the uselessness of the method therefore proving me correct and highlighting your incredible ignorance & lack of self-awareness.

Thus the humour arises.

Fixed that for you.

(October 8, 2013 at 9:33 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 8:47 am)Esquilax Wrote: Listen very carefully SBGTF, since you don't get it, I'm going to spell it out for you.

I've been using your method (bold assertion with no evidence) against you in order to demonstrate to you that it's useless. The fact that you don't accept my bold assertions means that you understand the uselessness of the method therefore proving me correct and highlighting your incredible ignorance & lack of self-awareness.

Thus the humour arises.

Fixed that for you.

Much obliged.

(October 8, 2013 at 7:15 am)Esquilax Wrote: I assure you, you have not. You are simply too blinded by your faith in Religioustastic Originationatory Faithism. Your assumptions lead you away from the truth, which is that I have proved you wrong on every point you have ever made, now and in future.

She should join the Religioustastic Originationatory Faith League (ROFL).

---

(October 8, 2013 at 7:31 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 7:27 am)Esquilax Wrote: There's no need to provide more proof, Max. I have already proved Grace wrong: her god does not exist. It has been proven false forever.

Here is a link to the article

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum...07_1.shtml

There are many more on the Internet.

You need to be specific about your supposed tree ring proof.

1. you have not proven the "no God" assumption true. It is impossible.
2. The topics I have posted prove the "no God" assumption false.
3. The "no God" assumption cannot be used beyond recorded history

"long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values."

500 million years ago, sweetie. The useful range of carbon dating is 40,000 years. Can you even read?

(October 8, 2013 at 8:09 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 7:59 am)max-greece Wrote: Except that if you accept the size of the universe you are accepting the age.

Andromeda, the nearest spiral galaxy to us and the only one we can see with the naked eye (ignoring dwarf galaxies - yes Stimbo - I know) is 2.5 million light years away from us.

That means it took light 2.5 million years to get here.

That we can see it (without a telescope no less) means, immediately, that the universe is at a minimum 2.5 million years old.

This leaves you in something of a quandary. You will now have to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity to get to your own age estimate to pass. Good luck with that.

The theory of relativity holds, but there are different possibilities depending on initial conditions.

You are assuming the shape of space over large distances and the speed of light over large distances.

Those assumptions are based on the already proven false assumption of "no God"

Well I am sure we are all glad that relativity holds- phew, what a relief.

As to the rest:

We are not talking about large distances 2.5 million light years is nothing in terms of the vastness of space - where we can "see" about 13.5 billion light years.

The issue of the shape of space doesn't come into it on such a small scale.

I know you didn't mean to refer to the speed of light over large distances as being a problem - you already accepted Einstein, remember?

So between us we have PROVEN that the universe is at least 2.5 million years old - good for us.

There's a long way to go, of course, as we have to get to 13.72 billion years but its a start and hey, Rome wasn't built in a day.

In the meantime I am going to ask you a question that a fellow theist of yours on the forum brought up a while ago.

How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden?

You don't know. It could have been a week, it could have been a year, it could have been 13.72 billion years - something your 6,000 year time-line doesn't help with....does it?

Now don't go quoting Adam's age at me from Genesis 6(?). That was from the day he left the garden. It had to be because there were no calendars in the garden.