• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Original Ratios at Creation and Radioactive Decay dating

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Boring spam, defeated one. Try defending your religion.

Why don't you try defending yours. You've been completely incapable of doing it so far, and you are the only one who thinks that science has not been defended.

Shall I take it by your disagreement that you consent to putting it to a vote, or are you going to hide from it again, the same way you refused to show your face in the thread where I asked you to provide a defense of your DSP nonsense?
 

dad

Undefeated
Why don't you try defending yours. You've been completely incapable of doing it so far, and you are the only one who thinks that science has not been defended.

Shall I take it by your disagreement that you consent to putting it to a vote, or are you going to hide from it again, the same way you refused to show your face in the thread where I asked you to provide a defense of your DSP nonsense?
So you unconditionally surrender and cannot defend the so called science beliefs you cherish. Fine. I knew you couldn't already.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
So you unconditionally surrender and cannot defend the so called science beliefs you cherish. Fine. I knew you couldn't already.

I don't know how you got that idea. You're like an annoying toddler demanding a grand master chess player competes in a game of tic-tac-toe and then declaring victory when the grandmaster doesn't want to play a child's game with an annoying brat.

Not to mention the fact that I have already defended science and you just lacked the intellect to understand it AND the fact that you have never once in all the years I've known you presented a single shred of real evidence for anything you've claimed.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
@dad I notice that once again you have avoided the entire conversation when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is. Your failure is apparent for all to see.
 

dad

Undefeated
I don't know how you got that idea. You're like an annoying toddler demanding a grand master chess player competes in a game of tic-tac-toe and then declaring victory when the grandmaster doesn't want to play a child's game with an annoying brat.

Not to mention the fact that I have already defended science and you just lacked the intellect to understand it AND the fact that you have never once in all the years I've known you presented a single shred of real evidence for anything you've claimed.
You cannot defend a belief that nature (and therefore decay) was the same in the past. Why pretend you did or could?
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
You cannot defend a belief that nature (and therefore decay) was the same in the past. Why pretend you did or could?

I'm not trying to defend my position, because I know you'll just ignore it.

I'm asking you to defend yours.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
You cannot defend a belief that nature (and therefore decay) was the same in the past. Why pretend you did or could?
You cannot defend a belief that nature (and therefore decay) was the not same in the past. Why pretend you did or could?
 

dad

Undefeated
You cannot defend a belief that nature (and therefore decay) was the not same in the past. Why pretend you did or could?
I have no need to defend what an unknown different nature was like. Science claims it was the same so they need to prove it, or remain the godless and evil religion that they have been shown to be here. Ha ha
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
I have no need to defend what an unknown different nature was like. Science claims it was the same so they need to prove it, or remain the godless and evil religion that they have been shown to be here. Ha ha

I have no need to defend what a same state nature was like. You claim it was different so you need to prove it, or remain the godless and evil religion that you have been shown to be here. Ha ha
 

dad

Undefeated
I have no need to defend what a same state nature was like.
And no one else has any need to listen to you tell us what it was like either, or to believe any claims about it. You would need evidence.
I do not consider God to be a liar, so I have no problem with accepting the record of the past He provided. Since you seem to assume that is a lie, you would need to support your position. You failed. Obviously. Repeatedly. totally. Comically.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
And no one else has any need to listen to you tell us what it was like either, or to believe any claims about it. You would need evidence.

Okay.

If I need evidence for my claims, then you also need evidence for your claims. Go ahead, provide the evidence for your claims.

I do not consider God to be a liar, so I have no problem with accepting the record of the past He provided. Since you seem to assume that is a lie, you would need to support your position. You failed. Obviously. Repeatedly. totally. Comically.

I do not consider reality to be a liar, so I have no problem with accepting the record of the past reality provided. Since you seem to assume that is a lie, you would need to support your position. You failed. Obviously. Repeatedly. totally. Comically.
 
Last edited:

dad

Undefeated
Okay.

If I need evidence for my claims, then you also need evidence for your claims. Go ahead, provide the evidence for your claims.



I do not consider reality to be a liar, so I have no problem with accepting the record of the past reality provided. Since you seem to assume that is a lie, you would need to support your position. You failed. Obviously. Repeatedly. totally. Comically.
I do not consider reality to be related to your spam and pretensions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top