Did you hear the one about the disappearing planet?

[oldbadger]

Explain how any of these things you see today would requite a same nature in the distant past? Ha.

What?
Requite?
...... is English your first language?

 

[dad]

What?
Requite?
...... is English your first language?

If there were a different nature in the past, we would not see the things you cited because...? We require a same state past to have any of these things exist now, because...?

 

[blü 2]

So when faced with gaping errors in what was expected in science you talk of other religions. OK.

Your habit of using 'religion' as an insult word suggests you don't even notice when you shoot off another of your toes.

Continuing your religious hate fest

This thread is about your hatefest.

we see you repeat false slander about what Scripture says on slaves.

We established in our previous conversation that you don't read your bible or know what it actually says. Should you ever get round to reading it, you can read the rules for slavery, bonking those you own, selling your daughter, and so on, for yourself. Even you may have noticed that Jesus says not a word against slavery, and that the author of Ephesians (Ephesians 6:5) tells slaves to be good little slaves, not to throw off their bondage. If you know history then you know that the movements in the latter 18th century and throughout the 19th that put an end to slavery in England and the US and elsewhere were opposed by churchmen in both places who drew heavily and constantly and accurately on the bible to defend slavery.

Now you want to pretend that bylaws for ancient Israel should represent what God says for secular societies of modern times. Dishonest.

The Jesus of the author of Matthew (Matthew 5:18) says "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." And I see no sign that 'all is accomplished'. So you say either Matthew's Jesus is wrong, or the present state of the world accords with God's intention.

Whereas your attack on science here is based on a total misrepresentation of what science is. Religion didn't discover there was no astronomical body where one had previously been thought to be ─ science discovered that, because science checks and rechecks its conclusions, looking for errors, making no secret about them and setting out to correct them.

And many religions understand that and seek for ways to work with science.

That, as this thread shows, is not your way. You understand that science is inimical to fundamentalism, which is to say, science demonstrates that fundamentalism involves embracing a great many untrue statements about reality.

Thus, contrary to what the bible says, the earth is not flat. The sun does not go round it. The sky is not a hard dome to which the stars are attached. The present evidence says the universe is some 14 bn years old and that the sun and the earth are some 4.5 bn years old and that life on earth appeared a bit over 3.5 bn years ago. We are not presently aware of any exceptions to the observation that all life on earth evolved from a single beginning back then.

Science is the approach to truth that will set you free.

 

[dad]

Your habit of using 'religion' as an insult word suggests you don't even notice when you shoot off another of your toes.

Only religion dressed as science is offensive.

We established in our previous conversation that you don't read your bible or know what it actually says. Should you ever get round to reading it, you can read the rules for slavery, bonking those you own, selling your daughter, and so on, for yourself.

It told how they built the tower up also and how some sacrificed children, did you think that means God supported that? Speaking of sacrificing children modern science facilitates that. As for God getting His new nation to try and survive in the wicked world they lived in, slavery was a part of life and needed to be dealt with.

At least they knew the difference between a daughter and son back then, unlike today!!

Even you may have noticed that Jesus says not a word against slavery, and that the author of Ephesians (Ephesians 6:5) tells slaves to be good little slaves, not to throw off their bondage. If you know history then you know that the movements in the latter 18th century and throughout the 19th that put an end to slavery in England and the US and elsewhere were opposed by churchmen in both places who drew heavily and constantly and accurately on the bible to defend slavery.

He said ALL are slaves and died to do something about it. You ignore the slavery that exists and pontificate about it at the same time. Hypocritical.

The Jesus of the author of Matthew (Matthew 5:18) says "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." And I see no sign that 'all is accomplished'. So you say either Matthew's Jesus is wrong, or the present state of the world accords with God's intention.

I don't see heaven and earth passed away yet either!

Whereas your attack on science here is based on a total misrepresentation of what science is.

My admiration and support for science is big. I think a lot of good came of it. Now as for your two-bit fable manufacturing so-called science that you think people are dumb enough to include in what science is actually about, that is a religious con job.

Religion didn't discover there was no astronomical body where one had previously been thought to be ─ science discovered that, because science checks and rechecks its conclusions, looking for errors, making no secret about them and setting out to correct them.

False! If they wanted to correct having a belief based faulty system of interpreting the universe they would not merely scramble to come up with plausible explanations that are also based on the same wrong foundation.

And many religions understand that and seek for ways to work with science.

Many religions are clueless and embrace whatever you shove under their nose and call science. (since their own beliefs were a joke anyhow)

That, as this thread shows, is not your way. You understand that science is inimical to fundamentalism, which is to say, science demonstrates that fundamentalism involves embracing a great many untrue statements about reality.

Fable manufacturers using a faulty system to model reality would not know reality if it bit their nose.

Thus, contrary to what the bible says, the earth is not flat.

Dishonest fallacy that the bible says it is.

The sun does not go round it. The sky is not a hard dome to which the stars are attached.

The sun does whatever it is told actually. If God tells it to stop in the heavens, boom, it stops. If He tells it to go dark, like a lamp, poof off it goes. If He tells it to operate as it does for the moment in the present nature...kaboom, it does just that! Like a little lap dog that jumps when He snaps His finger. He doesn't even need to snap He just speaks and it is so!
Your little observations of the sun have all been in the present and recent. You basically are noting how it now works. Whooopee doo.

The present evidence says the universe is some 14 bn years old and that the sun and the earth are some 4.5 bn years old and that life on earth appeared a bit over 3.5 bn years ago. We are not presently aware of any exceptions to the observation that all life on earth evolved from a single beginning back then.

Your beliefs say that and you fanatically insist on labeling those beliefs evidence. Sorry, the jigs really is up.

Science is the approach to truth that will set you free.

The Satanic darkness of so-called science is part of what He died to set us former slaves free from.

 

[oldbadger]

If there were a different nature in the past, we would not see the things you cited because...? We require a same state past to have any of these things exist now, because...?

Exactly what are you trying to prove with this obtuse questioning?

In the time of Jesus we know that ships sailed from Palestine to distant places like Cornwall, England. We know that folks knew about Iron, steel, forging, alloys, silver and gold purity..................... etc etc ...... Sciences.

You use and rely on the discoveries of science by the minute and hour yet you clearly delight in trying to rubbish science at every turn. But your strange beliefs need you to deny science as often as you can. I expect that you deny evolution, the wonders of this Universe, global warming, etc because of your very strange beliefs. That's ok as long as you never get to control any human beings at all..... ever.

 

[Left Coast]

Name anything we see today that depends on nature you believe was the same in the past!?

Literally this conversation. How do you know the post you're replying to wasn't posted 20,000 years ago?

 

[Left Coast]

No. We do not know what time is like in the far universe. Despite the claims of science that are based on assuming it is the same.

How far is far? Does our moon operate according to the same time we do?

 

[blü 2]

Only religion dressed as science is offensive.

Just so. And that's why fundamentalism is the most offensive and objectionable face of any religion.

It told how they built the tower up also and how some sacrificed children, did you think that means God supported that?

Yahweh demanded the sacrifice of Isaac, then called it off; arranged the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, kept [his] side of the deal, and accepted the sacrifice; required and accepted the sacrifice of the seven sons of Saul; called off the sacrifice of Jonah; and of course set up and accepted the sacrifice of Jesus. I don't recall any clearly stated connection with the Babel builders, but who can be sure?

Speaking of sacrificing children modern science facilitates that. As for God getting His new nation to try and survive in the wicked world they lived in, slavery was a part of life and needed to be dealt with.

It wasn't "dealt with", it was actively sanctioned.

At least they knew the difference between a daughter and son back then, unlike today!!

Yup. You could sell a daughter. You couldn't sell a son.

He said ALL are slaves

He said nothing against being a slave or owning a slave. He had no trouble with slavery.[/quote]

and died to do something about it.

What, exactly?

You ignore the slavery that exists and pontificate about it at the same time. Hypocritical.

Specify the slavery you're talking about, Otherwise you're just deliberately confusing metaphors with specific references.

I don't see heaven and earth passed away yet either!

So you mustn't trim your beard, associate with menstruating women, suffer a witch to live, and so on. The Law is still in place.

My admiration and support for science is big. I think a lot of good came of it. Now as for your two-bit fable manufacturing

Be specific. I recall in our previous conversation you went to water when asked to be specific, so let's hope you can explain yourself clearly this time.

False! If they wanted to correct having a belief based faulty system of interpreting the universe they would not merely scramble to come up with plausible explanations that are also based on the same wrong foundation.

What wrong foundation? Be specific.

Many religions are clueless and embrace whatever you shove under their nose and call science. (since their own beliefs were a joke anyhow)

You mean fundamentalism again. Yes, you're spot on. Fundamentalism has no concept of objective truth ─ to a fundy, anything can be true if you want it to be, no matter what the facts are.

The sun does whatever it is told actually. If God tells it to stop in the heavens, boom, it stops.

No, for the sun to appear to stop in heaven, the earth must stop rotating; and the consequences of that, considering the enormous momentum in earth and sea, would be instantly catastrophic. That tale is just another instance of the imperfect cosmology of the ancients.

Incidentally, what real entity do you intend to denote when you say 'God' there?

 

[dad]

Just so. And that's why fundamentalism is the most offensive and objectionable face of any religion.

I think religiousforums is a place that acknowledges all religions. I don't think the idea here would be to fixate on some religion you have a hate obsession with and blaspheme as much as possible.
I am not discussing religions here. The issue was that so-called science is also a religion but pretends not to be.

Yahweh demanded the sacrifice of Isaac, then called it off;

He decided He would be the sacrifice. That was a lesson. You try to turn it into something in your own image...ugly. This is the way you view all holy Scripture as your incessant blaspheme/spam posts demonstrate.
To the pure God shows Himself pure. To the wicked, He shows Himself wicked. We can see ho He seems to you. I know why.

I don't recall any clearly stated connection with the Babel builders, but who can be sure?

The connection was that most men after the flood here had rejected the One True Living God. They had set up many other gods and forms of worship. God had to step in and change things on earth so that they would no longer have such an ability to form a united rebellion. What is directly mentioned is that the changes God Himself caused resulted in many different tongues and no longer one language in all the world.

From other parts of the bible we also see that life spans at this time dropped by some 90%. It is around this very time that I suspect that the change of nature occurred. This change in nature would have also resulted in the rapid separation of continents, explaining how man and animals actually got around the world. It explains the similarities in flood legends around the world. It explains similarities in culture and buildings. Etc.

The final wicked world government is actually referred to and compared to this ancient time and city. Babylon.
So yes, there is a big connection.

It wasn't "dealt with", it was actively sanctioned.

It was dealt with as the part of life that it was in that wicked world.

What, exactly?
Specify the slavery you're talking about, Otherwise you're just deliberately confusing metaphors with specific references.

He died to set us free from sin and death, exactly. It is sin that causes death and all the slavery and wickedness in the world.

So you mustn't trim your beard, associate with menstruating women, suffer a witch to live, and so on. The Law is still in place.

Where you been? Get serious.

Be specific. I recall in our previous conversation you went to water when asked to be specific, so let's hope you can explain yourself clearly this time.

Do you have problems understanding that some good things resulted from scientific knowledge? Seriously?

What wrong foundation? Be specific.

The mistake that so-called science makes in modeling the past is that they use a belief that nature was the same on earth. You need to ask yet again?

You mean fundamentalism again. Yes, you're spot on. Fundamentalism has no concept of objective truth ─ to a fundy, anything can be true if you want it to be, no matter what the facts are.

What was meant was those belief systems (such as apostate non-bible believing christianity) that reject the creation by God have no real foundation on a rock. So when storms blow, and winds of doctrines blow by, their house falls. They are blown about by every false doctrine and cunning sleight of hand of so-called science and accept whatever is put before them.

No, for the sun to appear to stop in heaven, the earth must stop rotating;

Says...who? How would we know what is actually involved? In the battle mentioned in the bible where the sun stood still, I don't think that was the case. You see, we have other nations in the world that never observed this happening! So it seems to me the event may have been localized. D=So perhaps in some way God sort of transported the little area around this battle into the future!? Ha. In the future, it could be the case that the sun will not be doing what it now does. So there is a very broad bag of tricks the Almighty has that do not need to fit into your tiny dirty little pouch of so-called science tricks!

God comes right out and says plainly that the wisdom of this world is foolishness to Him!

Incidentally, what real entity do you intend to denote when you say 'God' there?

Jesus.

 

[blü 2]

I think religiousforums is a place that acknowledges all religions. I don't think the idea here would be to fixate on some religion you have a hate obsession with and blaspheme as much as possible.

I accept that fundamentalists will choose to believe what they choose to believe. But I object in strongest terms when they teach their anti-science to children.

I am not discussing religions here. The issue was that so-called science is also a religion but pretends not to be.

Of course you're discussing religion here. You try to make science look stupid so that your own religious views may shine by comparison. So it's too bad your critique is based on a lack of understanding as to how science works.

He decided He would be the sacrifice.

In all versions, he knew his mission was to die; but also that he was sent on that mission, as eg the scenes in the Garden, 'let this cup pass from me', show.

But I'm curious to know what you say changed as a result of the crucifixion.

That was a lesson. You try to turn it into something in your own image...ugly. This is the way you view all holy Scripture as your incessant blaspheme/spam posts demonstrate.

You blaspheme, in Jewish and Islamic terms, every time you say Jesus is God and every time you say God is a Trinity. The idea of 'blasphemy' is to bypass reason and move straight to revenge.

To the pure God shows Himself pure. To the wicked, He shows Himself wicked.

So [he]'s a god each person invents in their own image, you say? That only partially fits the evidence, but it's a good start.

The connection was that most men after the flood here had rejected the One True Living God.

The flood didn't happen in reality, only in folktale. But you know that because you have NONE of the evidence that MUST be there if a real flood had occurred.

They had set up many other gods and forms of worship.

Historically that's untenable too. We have clear records of gods going back to Çatal Hüyük and the sixth millennium BCE. We also have records of various languages in ancient Egypt and Sumer from not later than the third millennium BCE. Yahweh doesn't exist till about 1500 BCE.

From other parts of the bible we also see that life spans at this time dropped by some 90%.

The King Lists of Sumer, and later of Babylon, attribute reigns of, in some cases, thousands of years to past kings; but archaeology shows unambiguously that there were no such enduring earlier civilizations, and that the years express (deemed) importance, not time.

It is around this very time that I suspect that the change of nature occurred.

You appear to require that change in order to reconcile folktale with evidence, a kind of magic wand to impose pretended sense. That isn't going to happen.

He died to set us free from sin and death, exactly. It is sin that causes death and all the slavery and wickedness in the world.

Considering that the death rate remained the same before and after, say, 30 CE, and considering that bad things happen in the world like right now, his death can't be shown to have made even the tiniest difference, can it?

Where you been? Get serious.

I'm quoting your own rules to you. My examples are from the Law, as set out in the Tanakh, Jesus was a circumcised and practicing Jew, Matthew's Jesus declared that not a jot of the Law would change till all was done, which you agree has not happened to this time, so those examples are still in force whether you think they're silly or not.

The mistake that so-called science makes in modeling the past is that they use a belief that nature was the same on earth.

You have absolutely no examinable evidence to contradict the reasoning and the findings of science. You once again have nothing but folktale.

[...] those belief systems (such as apostate non-bible believing christianity) that reject the creation by God have no real foundation on a rock.

I'm unable to regard folktale as a rock. I'm surprised you are, now you're over 21.

How would we know what is actually involved?

Because we distinguish folktale from fact and they didn't. And they had only the primitive cosmology of their day, and we have a vastly more developed understanding. And if you want the sun to stand still in the sky, then in folktale it will do what you tell it, but in reality the sun appears to move because the earth rotates. You're saying you didn't know that?

 

[dad]

I accept that fundamentalists will choose to believe what they choose to believe. But I object in strongest terms when they teach their anti-science to children.

Just as honest people object when so-called science is taught as anything other than a religion. You thought you knew how science worked when all you knew was a bit about how so-called science works.

In all versions, he knew his mission was to die; but also that he was sent on that mission, as eg the scenes in the Garden, 'let this cup pass from me', show.

As God in heaven, Jesus decided to send Himself here. He did not say let the cup pass from Him. He said, if it was possible if it was the will of God in heaven (Jesus was God on earth in the body of a man)

But I'm curious to know what you say changed as a result of the crucifixion.

What changed was that a way was made for man to get close to God and have eternal life again.

You blaspheme, in Jewish and Islamic terms, every time you say Jesus is God and every time you say God is a Trinity. The idea of 'blasphemy' is to bypass reason and move straight to revenge.

Jesus said He was God long before there was any Islam. That means they set themselves up in a way that made truth blasphemy. As for Jews, lots of them believe and believed and will believe.In the end, I think it is something like four-fifths of Israel will be killed. The rest will all convert and repent. He uses a remnant.

The flood didn't happen in reality,

The flkood really happened. Your religion forces it to appear as folklore. Don't blame others for that.

But you know that because you have NONE of the evidence that MUST be there if a real flood had occurred.

No evidence exists that there was no flood and all evidence agrees there was actually.

We have clear records of gods going back to Çatal Hüyük and the sixth millennium BCE

. You have wrong belief based dates that you misapply to post-flood peoples. Period.

We also have records of various languages in ancient Egypt and Sumer from not later than the third millennium BCE. Yahweh doesn't exist till about 1500 BCE.

Your misdated languages have nothing to do with God existing. I kid you not.

The King Lists of Sumer, and later of Babylon, attribute reigns of, in some
cases, thousands of years to past kings; but archaeology shows unambiguously that there were no such enduring earlier civilizations, and that the years express (deemed) importance, not time.

In other words, you wave away pagan records of antiquity as you also wave away God's record. All in the name of your religion, that has precious little connection to fact or reality.

You appear to require that change in order to reconcile folktale with evidence, a kind of magic wand to impose pretended sense.

Don't worry about your conspiracy theories as to why the past may have been as recorded. Just worry about your belief that nature was the same and supporting it. Try to remember you are pretending it is scientific fact.

Considering that the death rate remained the same before and after, say, 30 CE,

I assume you mean 30AD or BC? If so, of course, our nature existed by this time and had existed for thousands of years. Now if you have some longer period in mind, forget about it. Your dream dates are exposed as a fraud.

and considering that bad things happen in the world like right now, his death can't be shown to have made even the tiniest difference, can it?

Billions of people over the last few thousand years would disagree. But of course, your religion requires you to wave that away too. Pathetic.

My examples are from the Law, as set out in the Tanakh, Jesus was a circumcised and practicing Jew, Matthew's Jesus declared that not a jot of the Law would change till all was done, which you agree has not happened to this time, so those examples are still in force whether you think they're silly or not.

He was talking about prophecies written in the laws about Him. Later His apostles made it clear we were not under the law.

You have absolutely no examinable evidence to contradict the reasoning and the findings of science.

Your religion is not science. Real science has nothing to do with this debate. Only your fable mongering false so-called science religion is being roasted.

I'm unable to regard folktale as a rock.

We know. You would need to be able to recognize truth from lie and fact from fiction first.

Because we distinguish folktale from fact and they didn't. And they had only the primitive cosmology of their day, and we have a vastly more developed understanding.

No. I suspect that before the nature change science or knowledge and abilities of man was more advanced than today. The thing is when physics change..laws and forces, it is kinda like...back to the drawing board! They even had the added handicap of not speaking the same language anymore (as well as starting to drop dead like flies compared to short years before) (as well as being wafted far away on rapidly moving continents so climate was different. As well as plants now taking a horribly long time to grow compared to the former times)

And if you want the sun to stand still in the sky, then in folktale it will do what you tell it, but in reality the sun appears to move because the earth rotates. You're saying you didn't know that?

Whether in the present, the past, or the future, if we wanted the sun to stand still, it would be doing so for reasons far far far far far far far beyond fishbowl science's grasp.

 

[blü 2]

Just as honest people object when so-called science is taught as anything other than a religion.

Define "religion". What test will tell us if something is a "religion" or not?

You thought you knew how science worked when all you knew was a bit about how so-called science works.

What test do you use to distinguish science from so-called science?

As God in heaven, Jesus decided to send Himself here.

That version is expressly denied in the NT. That doesn't mean you can't believe it if you want to, but it means you can't pretend the NT agrees with you. For a small sample, which you've seen before but ignored because you find it inconvenient ─

Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

Luke 18:18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me ...

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “[...] I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.​

He did not say let the cup pass from Him. He said, if it was possible if it was the will of God in heaven (Jesus was God on earth in the body of a man)

Again, believe that if you will, but don't pretend the NT says anything of the kind.

You keep refusing to look at the fact that the Trinity doctrine didn't exist till the 4th century CE.

What changed was that a way was made for man to get close to God and have eternal life again.

1. Didn't work, did it. People still do bad things, everyone dies, social progress is tied to economic progress, not religion.

2. If it was going to work, why do people have to believe in Jesus before their sins are forgiven? Why wasn't everyone given access to eternal life at the crucifixion? Why do you have to buy God's mercy, why isn't it freely given to the world.

Because God hates non-Christians? Sure looks that way.

Jesus said He was God long before there was any Islam.

Jesus in scripture never ever, not even once, says he's God, and as you've seen and as I've in small part requoted above, all five NT versions of him expressly deny they're God.

The flkood really happened.

No. If the Flood really happened, we'd all be over our elbows in evidence of the event. Instead, of all the evidence that MUST be there if you're right, NONE is there. Your claim is unambiguously wrong, not an accurate statement about reality, pure folktale or worse.

No evidence exists that there was no flood

Wrong way round. The total lack of evidence for the Flood means there was no Flood, since if there had been a Flood the evidence would be real and unescapable.

You have wrong belief based dates that you misapply to post-flood peoples. Period.

Demonstrate that the Çatal Hüyük civilization didn't exist in 7000 BCE. Make a real case, one argued from examinable evidence.

Your misdated languages have nothing to do with God existing.

Different languages can be unambiguously shown to have existed in the third millennium BCE and earlier. Yahweh doesn't exist till about 1500 BCE. Then later than that [he] petulantly creates multiple languages? No, that won't work.

In other words, you wave away pagan records of antiquity

I don't wave them away. Show me a civilization that can be dated to 30,000 years ago and you'll have the beginnings of a case. Meanwhile you have nothing.

Just worry about your belief that nature was the same and supporting it.

Not my problem. You don't even know what you mean by saying nature was different. There's nothing to refute. And if you did come up with a claim, it'd be your job to demonstrate its correctness, not my job to show you're wrong. You've yet to produce proof that Jesus was not a Chinese robot, for example.

Now if you have some longer period in mind, forget about it. Your dream dates are exposed as a fraud.

Now now. You haven't produced even the teensiest bit of examinable evidence to back that claim, and until you do, it remains just more of your self-serving nonsense.

 

[dad]

Define "religion". What test will tell us if something is a "religion" or not?
What test do you use to distinguish science from so-called science?

The same test we do on fairy tales. Can you distinguish between Little Red Riding Hood and gravity? We can test gravity. We cannot test some claimed same nature on earth in the far past.

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

Definition of religion | Dictionary.com

That version is expressly denied in the NT.

False. Jesus said He and the Father were One and the same.

Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”​

He limited Himself is some things while on earth.

Luke 18:18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me ...

God was in heaven when the plan was made before the creation or the earth.
​

You keep refusing to look at the fact that the Trinity doctrine didn't exist till the 4th century CE.

Scripture was here long before that.

1. Didn't work, did it. People still do bad things, everyone dies, social progress is tied to economic progress, not religion.

Yes we now have eternal life if we believe in Jesus. Right now. His kingdom is slated to come soon, and at that time everyone on earth will be under His (and our) dominion forever. The window of opportunity is now to accept His gift. It will be closing one day.

2. If it was going to work, why do people have to believe in Jesus before their sins are forgiven? Why wasn't everyone given access to eternal life at the crucifixion? Why do you have to buy God's mercy, why isn't it freely given to the world.

Whoseoever will, let him come. Whsoever will not let him go.

No. If the Flood really happened, we'd all be over our elbows in evidence of the event.

Such as?

Instead, of all the evidence that MUST be there if you're right, NONE is there.

None that you see, but you deny history and Scripture and cannot view any evidence honestly without your beliefs welded to it.

Demonstrate that the Çatal Hüyük civilization didn't exist in 7000 BCE. Make a real case, one argued from examinable evidence.

Many civilization existed. Your dates are belief based and wrong. Stop trying to splatter your beliefs on actual ancient civilizations.

Different languages can be unambiguously shown to have existed in the third millennium BCE and earlier. Yahweh doesn't exist till about 1500 BCE. Then later than that [he] petulantly creates multiple languages?

Your problem is apparent. You lack the ability to separate your belief based so-called dates from any event in ancient history. Your dates are wrong and belief based and absolutely totally forever rejected. Get over it.

No, that won't work.
I don't wave them away. Show me a civilization that can be dated to 30,000 years ago and you'll have the beginnings of a case. Meanwhile you have nothing.

Now you ask for me to provide something based on your religious dating scheme. Sad.

You don't even know what you mean by saying nature was different.

We do know what it would mean if it was the same. Science claims it was yet you cannot prove it. So all we have is belief belief belief.
The bible and even history to a lesser extent record key differences in the nature of life on earth such as very long lifespans.
You have belief and denial, I have the records.

The only proof you seek is circular inbred belief based nonsense that conforms to your weak religion. Those who find truth need to actually seek, not demand that truth conform to their preconceived little notions.

 

[blü 2]

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

And what superhuman agency does science believe in, do you say?

And what devotional and ritual observances does science offer to that superhuman agency, do you say?

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

No, that's too broad. It makes sports and ideas like sportsmanship into a religion, it makes Scouting and Rotary religions, it makes each educational institution that has a code of conduct and a set of aspirations a religion. Fail.

ritual observance of faith.

What part of science do you say is ritual observance?

False. Jesus said He and the Father were One and the same.

The Jesus of the author of John explains the idea of being one with God in John 17:20-23. It's not a special state unique to Jesus ─ instead Jesus wants everyone to be one with God, meaning, 'united with God'.

And contrary to your claim above, Jesus never once says the Father and he are the same entity.

It really is time you read your own book.

He limited Himself is some things while on earth.

The Jesuses of Paul and the author of John, the only two Jesuses to pre-exist with God in heaven, both state explicitly that they were subject to God when in heaven. For example ─

1 Corinthian 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, [...], and one Lord, Jesus Christ [...]

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me [...]

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “[...] I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
​

You have no idea what your own book says, do you. It's very largely irrelevant to what you choose to believe.

Scripture was here long before that.

And scripture never once says that Jesus is God, and all five versions of Jesus in the NT expressly state they're not God, as I've shown you repeatedly.

Yes we now have eternal life if we believe in Jesus.

Why must you believe in Jesus to receive eternal life?

Is it your view that the God of the Jews will deny eternal life to [his] own chosen people for adhering to the covenant?

Right now. His kingdom is slated to come soon

It's running some 2000 years late. It's expressly stated in the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke that the kingdom will come in the lifetime of some of the hearers of Jesus alive around 30 CE.

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Matthew 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”​

So I suggest you don't hold your breath, but that's a matter for you.

Whoseoever will, let him come. Whsoever will not let him go.

You haven't answered my question. Why wasn't eternal life given unconditionally to everyone in the world in 30 CE or so?

Such as?

You know the answer to that already.

Such as a single universal flood layer all over all continents. islands and the floor, and dated to some time in the last ten thousand years? (No, the K-T boundary layer is 60m years old and not a flood layer.)

Such as a genetic bottleneck in the genes of every species of land animal, every bottleneck dating to the same date in the last ten thousand years.

Such as an extra 1.1 bn cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth? (No, there are no magic gates for shifting water from somewhere you don't know and back there after.)

And that's only a tiny sample.

None that you see

Because it isn't there. And were your story true, it MUST be there. A very simple, direct and unanswerable demonstration that there was no flood.

you deny history and Scripture

I don't deny history established by historical method. I deny folktales except to the extent they may contain history established by historical method.

and cannot view any evidence honestly without your beliefs welded to it.

But you have NO evidence.

Many civilization existed.

Now you're trying to hide in imaginary claims. If you say there are civilizations out there which existed 30,000 years ago, locate them and provide evidence of archaelogical standard that they existed when you say they did.

Your dates are wrong

You've failed to show that any date I've mentioned is wrong. You've simply asserted that it's wrong. Not a scrap of real evidence supports your stories.

We do know what it would mean if it was the same.

You have no evidence acceptable to reasoned enquiry that it was different. you can't even say how it was different or when it changed. You just make up whatever you like, without regard to facts.

You're free to believe what you like. But the facts won't change to oblige your folktales.

 

[dad]

And what superhuman agency does science believe in, do you say?

In the case of fishbowl so-called science we would look at what was bolded.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

The nature of the universe and it's cause are part of the set of beliefs science agrees on and teaches and follows devotedly!

And what devotional and ritual observances does science offer to that superhuman agency, do you say?

I would say religious observance to the godless scientific method in areas where our nature and laws are not known to apply are ritually observed. To say the least. They call all extra-human happening natural, rather than supernatural, in an effort to avoid appearing religious. For example the big bang and where it came from. They have no clue. Yet they say it was all quite natural!!!

No, that's too broad. It makes sports and ideas like sportsmanship into a religion, it makes Scouting and Rotary religions, it makes each educational institution that has a code of conduct and a set of aspirations a religion.

A lot of the education system is hitched to science as is the government. So they push their religion there while protesting to the heavens that it is a religion! No other beliefs are allowed in science class for example except the beliefs of so called science.

The Jesus of the author of John explains the idea of being one with God in John 17:20-23. It's not a special state unique to Jesus ─ instead Jesus wants everyone to be one with God, meaning, 'united with God'.

And contrary to your claim above, Jesus never once says the Father and he are the same entity.

It really is time you read your own book.
The Jesuses of Paul and the author of John, the only two Jesuses to pre-exist with God in heaven, both state explicitly that they were subject to God when in heaven. For example ─

1 Corinthian 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, [...], and one Lord, Jesus Christ [...]

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me [...]

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “[...] I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
​

You have no idea what your own book says, do you. It's very largely irrelevant to what you choose to believe.
And scripture never once says that Jesus is God, and all five versions of Jesus in the NT expressly state they're not God, as I've shown you repeatedly.
Why must you believe in Jesus to receive eternal life?

Is it your view that the God of the Jews will deny eternal life to [his] own chosen people for adhering to the covenant?
It's running some 2000 years late. It's expressly stated in the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke that the kingdom will come in the lifetime of some of the hearers of Jesus alive around 30 CE.

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Matthew 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”​

So I suggest you don't hold your breath, but that's a matter for you.
You haven't answered my question. Why wasn't eternal life given unconditionally to everyone in the world in 30 CE or so?
You know the answer to that already.

Such as a single universal flood layer all over all continents. islands and the floor, and dated to some time in the last ten thousand years? (No, the K-T boundary layer is 60m years old and not a flood layer.)

Such as a genetic bottleneck in the genes of every species of land animal, every bottleneck dating to the same date in the last ten thousand years.

Your opinions of God and His word are not of any merit. Nor are they needed in a science thread.

Such as an extra 1.1 bn cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth? (No, there are no magic gates for shifting water from somewhere you don't know and back there after.)

Show us where the basis for that amount of water needed comes from. Ha.

Because it isn't there.

?? How foolish. The windows of heaven are not here either. The fountains of the deep are not here now. It is not raining so much mountains are covered now. The bible says God arranged for the waters to both get here and be taken away from off the earth.

I don't deny history established by historical method. I deny folktales except to the extent they may contain history established by historical method.

History as recorded is what is the story of man. History reinvented by your methods of belief is wholly made up.

Now you're trying to hide in imaginary claims. If you say there are civilizations out there which existed 30,000 years ago, locate them and provide evidence of archaelogical standard that they existed when you say they did.

Nothing existed before the universe was created. The old civilizations were found and dated incorrectly.

You've failed to show that any date I've mentioned is wrong.

It is not my job to show the easter bunny never pooped on your couch.
If you make a science claim though, you better pony up big time and provide the evidence. Your so-called dates all depend on the ratios being formed in the present nature and you have not provided any evidence whatsoever for this claim. No one needs to assert they are wrong until you do support them.

You have no evidence acceptable to reasoned enquiry that it was different.

Science has no evidence acceptable to reasoned enquiry thatit was the same. I accept ancient records as evidence of what life was like in some basic ways.
You reject evidence and will not call your beliefs anything but 'evidence'.

 

[blü 2]

In the case of fishbowl so-called science we would look at what was bolded.

So none of those supernatural imaginings then. Instead a system based on empiricism, induction, experiment, honest, open and transparent reasoning, constant checking of past results, the seeking out and correction of errors, the maximizing of objectivity, the enlargement of our understanding of what's real.

I can live with that.

The nature of the universe and it's cause are part of the set of beliefs science agrees on and teaches and follows devotedly!

Apparently unlike you, when they talk about origins, they know what they know, what they reasonably suspect and will check, and what they don't know. When they say the present evidence leads to the conclusion that the universe is about 13.8 bn years old, they speak whereof they know; and if that needs adjustment, it will be because they've done more checking work, not because a story from the bronze age or earlier says so.

A lot of the education system is hitched to science as is the government. So they push their religion there while protesting to the heavens that it is a religion! No other beliefs are allowed in science class for example except the beliefs of so called science.

You'll have observed that the fundies want access to the science classes but won't hear of the scientists having access to the pulpits. Yet even I know more about what the bible actually says than you do.

Your opinions of God and His word are not of any merit. Nor are they needed in a science thread.

You're running from the plain words of your own book, and this is a thread you started for purely religious reasons. The least courtesy you can show is some honesty.

Show us where the basis for that amount of water needed comes from. Ha.

Work it out for yourself. You have to add enough water to the water presently on the earth to cover the top of Mt Everest. In round figures, a bit over 1.1 bn cubic miles of water.

The windows of heaven are not here either. The fountains of the deep are not here now. It is not raining so much mountains are covered now.

And there's not the slightest reason to think they ever were.

The bible says God arranged for the waters to both get here and be taken away from off the earth.

The bible says the earth is flat and immovably fixed and the sun goes round it and the sky is a hard dome to which the stars are affixed and you can walk on it, and so on. The bible has the science of 3,000 years ago. Why would you expect it to have anything else? It's not the science of the 21 st century.

Nothing existed before the universe was created. The old civilizations were found and dated incorrectly.

Nope. You're just making self-serving statements, wishful thinking, without the slightest real evidence.

If you make a science claim though, you better pony up big time and provide the evidence.

You've made science claim, that Mt Everest was under water in the recent past at a time when the technology existed to built very large wooden rafts that could stay at sea for a year.

And you've backed it with start motherless nothing, just a great big void where the evidence that MUST be there if you're right, isn't.

 

[dad]

So none of those supernatural imaginings then. Instead a system based on empiricism, induction, experiment, honest, open and transparent reasoning, constant checking of past results, the seeking out and correction of errors, the maximizing of objectivity, the enlargement of our understanding of what's real.

No. We are not talking about actual science here only so called science. Your beliefs have no 'empiricism, induction, experiment, honest, open and transparent reasoning, constant checking of past results, the seeking out and correction of errors, the maximizing of objectivity, the enlargement of our understanding of what's real'

In fact, they cannot and have not been supported in the least little way.

Apparently unlike you, when they talk about origins, they know what they know, what they reasonably suspect and will check, and what they don't know.

Then show us how you check the same nature in the past? They know squat.

When they say the present evidence leads to the conclusion that the universe is about 13.8 bn years old, they speak whereof they know;

They actually base that on absolutely unsupportable belief only. In case lurkers doubt this, watch.

Prove time itself is the same in all the universe? Otherwise no distances or sizes of any stars are known.

Haha.

and if that needs adjustment, it will be because they've done more checking work, not because a story from the bronze age or earlier says so.

Truth needs no adjustment. Your ever changing fables need constant reinventing.

You'll have observed that the fundies want access to the science classes but won't hear of the scientists having access to the pulpits.

You'll notice the so-called science fundies want their religion presented as actual science in schools and no one else to have access to pupils!

You're running from the plain words of your own book, and this is a thread you started for purely religious reasons. The least courtesy you can show is some honesty.

The only religion being discussed here is yours. I won't ask you to admit it because I realize that is above your abilities,

Work it out for yourself. You have to add enough water to the water presently on the earth to cover the top of Mt Everest. In round figures, a bit over 1.1 bn cubic miles of water.

Mountain building and uplift were after the flood. Your Everest claim is a con.

The bible says the earth is flat and immovably fixed and the sun goes round it and the sky is a hard dome to which the stars are affixed and you can walk on it, and so on.

Utter foolishness and deceitful mischaraterization of what the bible says.

The bible has the science of 3,000 years ago. Why would you expect it to have anything else? It's not the science of the 21 st century.

The bible records the nature of the past which pre dates the so called science of the foolish 21 century.

You've made science claim, that Mt Everest was under water in the recent past at a time when the technology existed to built very large wooden rafts that could stay at sea for a year.

Total falsehood. I say there were no high mountains like Everest before the flood.

Good demo of how so-called science is built in falsehood and belief piled on falsehood and belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A guy walks into a bar....

well, actually science declared a planet (or exoplanet as it is called when it is really far away) existed.

The funny thing is that is up and disappeared. Not there

It didn't disappear because it was never there in the first place.

So, do we get an apology? No.

Honest mistakes require no apology. Now if the original scientists that thought it was a planet knew it wasn't actually a planet, then apologies would in order for publishing knowingly false conclusions. You know, like creationists do all the time (without apology ... ever, not even when the cdesign proponentsists are caught with their pants on their ankles)

"What scientists thought was a planet beyond our solar system has 'vanished.' Though this happens to sci-fi worlds, scientists seek a more plausible explanation."

Exoplanet apparently disappears in latest Hubble observations

We get the usual scramble to find some 'plausible' (fishbowl) explanation. In other words they are busted and scrambling to cook up another whopper.

They are "busted"? Because new data brings more evidence, and they are intellectually honest enough to correct their previous incorrect views?

Strange meaning of the word "busted" you got there.

The term cdesign proponentsists is what I would call "busted"...
When an honest mistake is discovered, you are not "busted". Then you're just "corrected".

Kids, this is how cosmology works.

No, this is how science works. You come up with the best possible conclusion for the data at your disposal. And when later on more additional data shows your conclusion was incorrect, you have the intellectual honesty to correct your mistake and draw a new conclusion that best suits the data.

This is why science makes progress.

It's also why religion is stuck in the iron age. Because religion is a dogmatic mess that doesn't allow any corrections. In fact, in many denominations it is even blasphemy, a crime, to even only hint that there might be something that is incorrect.

Thank goodness science doesn't work like that.

 

[blü 2]

No. We are not talking about actual science here only so called science. Your beliefs have no 'empiricism, induction, experiment, honest, open and transparent reasoning, constant checking of past results, the seeking out and correction of errors, the maximizing of objectivity, the enlargement of our understanding of what's real'

Your claims are false, as is easily demonstrate by your total inability to be specific about what you're actually objecting to, let alone support your objection with examinable evidence.

You object to them for the same reason you object (by avoidance) to those many biblical quotes of Jesus denying he's God, and denying he has any authority in heaven, and why you want nature to have changed in some unspecified way at some unspecified time in the past ─ because they contradict a story that only exists in your mind.

Then show us how you check the same nature in the past? They know squat.

If you say they know squat that means you're familiar with and have understood the case they make and the evidence on which it's based ─ but of course that's not true either, you have no idea what they actually say or why they might have said it, you're simply disagreeing to protect your story.

Prove time itself is the same in all the universe?

If I directed you to the experiments and the reasoning that support this conclusion, you wouldn't read it, or wish to understand it, you'd only want to badmouth it. So you can look it up for yourself. Start by googling, say, "cosmic background radiation" and go from there.

You'll notice the so-called science fundies want their religion presented as actual science in schools and no one else to have access to pupils!

As I've pointed out before, how funny, and rather sad, that you denigrate science by calling it a religion, trying to drag it down to your own level. The believers I know are all smarter than that.

Mountain building and uplift were after the flood.

There you go again, just making stuff up.

Your Everest claim is a con.

No it's not a con. Your bible says the flood covered Mt Everest abot 25 feet deep. So look up the height of Mt Everest and do the maths. Don't take my word for it.

Utter foolishness and deceitful mischaraterization of what the bible says.

There you go again, not knowing what your own book says and trying to impose your own imaginings on it instead.

Total falsehood. I say there were no high mountains like Everest before the flood.

Yet ANOTHER fiction you've invented for your own purposes, yet another claim backed by zero evidence,.

Your flood story doesn't hold water. Get over it. Join the adult world. Who knows, you might enjoy thinking.

 

[dad]

It didn't disappear because it was never there in the first place.

This one they had to admit to. The mistake would have been to believe them in the first place I guess.

Honest mistakes require no apology. Now if the original scientists that thought it was a planet knew it wasn't actually a planet, then apologies would in order for publishing knowingly false conclusions.

The issue is not about what they know and publish. The issue is about what they publish that they know and don't know.

You know, like creationists do all the time (without apology ... ever, not even when the cdesign proponentsists are caught with their pants on their ankles)

I don't follow them so I wouldn't really know.

They are "busted"? Because new data brings more evidence, and they are intellectually honest enough to correct their previous incorrect views?

There are constant examples of their views being incorrect. The idea is that they scramble to try and explain things using their belief system. Then as it is discovered they were wrong on some point, they simply scramble again to cook up some 'plausible' explanation that will fit their belief system.

If someone went to court and it was found they were saying things that were shown to be false, I doubt they could just sit there and keep doing so for any great length of time. Science predicted things that did not pan out. They never predicted big things that did show up, such as the rings in SN1987a. When the huge rings showed up they scrambled to try and explain them in their belief system terms. They needed some stars to have done stuff there too. Easy, all they need to do is claim there 'golly gee just must have been a few stars collide here of a certain type' Just what the doctor ordered. The darn thing is they make it up.

Looking at the OP here we see they again claim some cosmic smash-up 'just must have happened, and it just must have been objects of a certain kind and constitution'

"The interpretation is that Fomalhaut b is slowly expanding from the smashup that blasted a dissipating dust cloud into space."

!!! Ha ha ha.

Apparently, before this 'planet' was 'observed' in 2008 and it was big news that this was not just 'indirectly' observed, but directly seen!! Ha.

"The object, called Fomalhaut b, was first announced in 2008, based on data taken in 2004 and 2006. It was clearly visible in several years of Hubble observations that revealed it was a moving dot. Until then, evidence for exoplanets had mostly been inferred through indirect detection methods, such as subtle back-and-forth stellar wobbles, and shadows from planets passing in front of their stars."

Now the darn planet doesn't actually exist after all. But cheer up, they cook up new explanations every time as needed. (all based on the same hooey belief set, of course)
So yes, busted is a good term for the ever-flowing claims that get shot down in flames.

No, this is how science works. You come up with the best possible conclusion for the data at your disposal.

Except I think the best possible conclusion would be to flush their whole belief set and start over.

And when later on more additional data shows your conclusion was incorrect, you have the intellectual honesty to correct your mistake and draw a new conclusion that best suits the data.

When we stop using the fanatical, narrow-minded, wrong, and godless fishbowl philosophy and belief system, such mistakes would not occur! The mistakes are just evidence that are barking up the wrong tree.

This is why science makes progress.

There is no progress made on explaining how the universe came to be or what it is truly like. There is only more confused and advanced models cooked up based on a wrong belief basis.

It's also why religion is stuck in the iron age. Because religion is a dogmatic mess that doesn't allow any corrections. In fact, in many denominations it is even blasphemy, a crime, to even only hint that there might be something that is incorrect.

Maybe if people hinting were doing more than mouthing baseless doubts that problem would not have been a big concern.

In science, or fields that involve scientific disciplines like the medical fields, I notice some folks that say things that are not in agreement with the 'borg' are fired or silenced. No? Your religion seems to silence dissenters as much as other religions!

Pot...meet kettle.