Age

[Rev. Rye]

Answersingenesis has never yet produced anything worth reading.


The biggest bunch of phony fucks on the internet.

Well, they did do a series of articles about arguments even they think are flawed.

Granted, Talk.Origins and Rationalwiki are still much better sources.

[Zen Badger]

And you can't see the flaws with your argument Theo.

And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

LOL

[theophilus]

So your assumption is that the Bible is true, and then your argument works fine. However, unless you can prove the Bible is true, it is an assumption, and is thus subject to error.

Yes, that is just an assumption, but the point of my post is that the belief that the natural processes we see in the universe have always been the same and God has never intervened is also an assumption. If you have no other source of information it is a reasonable assumption to make but there is no way to prove that it is true.

Actually there is evidence to support the truth of the Bible. I have showed some of it in another post:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3988.html

And I included some links in my post that show that there is scientific evidence against the theory of evolution.

[Minimalist]

Now that is a great trick, Theo. You say something incredibly stupid in one post and then point to another post of equal stupidity to support it.

Are you sure you are not a preacher? You wouldn't want to miss your calling.

[chasm]

So your assumption is that the Bible is true, and then your argument works fine. However, unless you can prove the Bible is true, it is an assumption, and is thus subject to error.

Yes, that is just an assumption, but the point of my post is that the belief that the natural processes we see in the universe have always been the same and God has never intervened is also an assumption. If you have no other source of information it is a reasonable assumption to make but there is no way to prove that it is true.

Actually there is evidence to support the truth of the Bible. I have showed some of it in another post:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3988.html

And I included some links in my post that show that there is scientific evidence against the theory of evolution.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-4036.html

Go there, Theo.

[downbeatplumb]

A physician who has made a complete examination of a person without having been told his age could probably make an accurate estimate of it because of his knowledge of how the aging process works. But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam and Eve before the fall and was then asked to guess their age?

...

Dumbest


post


Ever

[Violet]

So since we are all in accordance with the understanding that everything all of us knows comes from assumptions... how about someone evaluate theophilus's post under the assumptions noted?

[Zen Badger]

@ Theo.....

I will assume that you believe that the universe is only 6000 years old.

Since all of the evidence collected by science shows the it is much, much older, how do you explain the apparent discrepancy.

And in the absence of evidence to the contrary the only assumption you can make is that universal constants( lightspeed etc) are constant.

[The Omnissiunt One]

@ Theo.....

I will assume that you believe that the universe is only 6000 years old.

Since all of the evidence collected by science shows the it is much, much older, how do you explain the apparent discrepancy.

And in the absence of evidence to the contrary the only assumption you can make is that universal constants( lightspeed etc) are constant.

Actually, Hume's problem of inference would seem to suggest that we can't infer the uniformity of nature. Every law we now have in place might suddenly cease to exist tomorrow. There's no necessary reason for thinking that, just because the universe has remained the same thus far, it will do so in the future.

Having said this, the OP is still talking a pile of bull plop. Presumably creationists all count on the fact that the air pressure on Earth won't suddenly increase, causing their heads to explode and ooze the few drops of cerebral matter therein onto the floor. Therefore, we're all probably equally justified in thinking that the laws of nature will and have always remained the same.

[Minimalist]

So since we are all in accordance with the understanding that everything all of us knows comes from assumptions... how about someone evaluate theophilus's post under the assumptions noted?

DBP already did it.