Ashendant Wrote:Because the Universe is a fact and facts can't contradict themselves, unless one of the facts is either fake or misinterpreted, and we do act in similar way to universe, because we're part of it, it's called life and our morals evolve with our evolution both social and biological
How do you know facts can’t contradict themselves? You are not giving me justification for this belief. You are just saying things can’t contradict themselves because things can’t contradict themselves. Morals evolve? Then how are they determined?
Quote: Because 7 of the 10 Commandments are exactly the same just worded differently and even so, the Egyptian had these rules set before Abrahamic god gave the ten commandments, meaning that the Egyptian had already these rules and these rules are independent of him, if you think the rules is a moral code of divine providence, boy your barking at the wrong god.
Similarities do not equate to intellectual theft. I am older than you and I have similar moral beliefs as you do, does that mean I stole my morals from you? Nope. Non-sequitur.
Quote: I was explaining your faults besides the pope has rejected creationism some time ago, so it's unchristian to believe in creationism as nothing more than allegory, of course you can just refuse it or be part of one of the many sects that is not part of the mainstream catholic
The Pope is not infallible and does not speak for Christianity, hence why we had a reformation. The Pope could believe that God didn’t exist and it would not change my beliefs on the matter. Telling a Reformed Christian, “Well the Pope believes it therefore you should too!” is actually a bit humorous.
Welsh cake;113272 Wrote:Stick to interpreting the Bible Statler, keep making excuses for it, that's what you excel at.
Understanding the methodology behind the scientific body of techniques we use for investigating, inquiring, and predicting phenomena through observing and collecting empirical evidence to formulate rigorously-tested hypotheses to provide explanations of reality that are reliable, are currently beyond your grasp.
Everything you said here is operational science, very good. Try to do all of this with the past (observe, test, repeat, predict). You just proved my point my friend. Thanks.
Quote: Define "natural" and its scope or limits first. Until you do, "super-natural" is a meaningless word.
Natural events are the way that God consistently upholds His creation; we describe these events by formulating “Laws of Nature”. These laws help us to make predictions in the future. When God acts in a way that is contrary to his usual way of upholding his creation we call this a super-natural event. To suggest that supernatural events cannot happen is completely inappropriate.
Quote: Likewise, you have apply your own convoluted logic and live 248 Earth years to directly witness Pluto make one complete orbit around the sun, maybe if we pray sincerely to your infallible-brand-of-god and hope he'll let us live that long? Maybe we'll fail miserably and die without knowing, and all because you couldn't be bothered to use your brain and apply the laws of physics to calculate the mechanics of any given celestial bodies' orbital motion through space-time.
What does Pluto’s orbit have to do with observing the age of the earth?
Quote: NO. We have the math. We have radiometric methods. They're not always as accurate as we'd like, but science doesn't stop working therefore it cannot fail in anything outright, the learning process doesn't stop, we are constantly developing calibration methods to refine their dating accuracy all the time.
We can test our calculations about Pluto’s orbit with direct observation and we can repeat these observations. However, when we test radiometric methods with actual known observed ages they are never even close to being right. If you want to have the blind faith that these methods are all of the sudden valid when dating materials without known ages, be my guess but it’s not scientific to me.
Quote: Okay. Creationist magazines are NOT peer-reviewed scientific journals. You really should proof-read your posts BEFORE the stupidity leaps off the webpage and burrows into my skull.
By definition they actually are. They are written by scientists conducting science and reviewed by scientists (their peers).
Quote:ENOUGH ALREADY. Creationist magazines are NOT peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Enough already with the baseless assertions, back it up or shut it up.
orogenicman Wrote:I suspect that Statler doesn't understand that the Vatican observatory doesn't actually exist in order to verify creationism. The fact is that the Vatican observatory understands as well as every other astronomical organization that the universe is very, very old.I was beginning to think maybe you had fallen into a tar pit or something somewhere. The Vatican is not infallible. Actually several creationists have worked at some of the most prestigious labs and observatories in the world. After all, the Apollo space program was headed by a YEC. As to your other posts, actually all three of those models work perfectly fine; we are just waiting to see which one presents itself as the best explanation. Distant starlight is not a problem to a biblical creation. Good to see you again though OGM, I like the avatar.
