Would sharks and T Rex buried together lean toward the flood?

[Subduction Zone]

Ah - I get you now
You are the only one who is saying “the beliefs of others are false”.

We are very alike - I will believe God no mater what
You will not - no matter what.

The difference between us:
I don’t care about you, not to be rude - I don’t know you ... and it seems you care slot about me

Please. That is your sin. This is why you need to learn the basics of science. It is not because I said so or because some author said so. There was no flood because that fact can be verified again and again and again.

Your beliefs can be shown to be false. I started to try to give you a basic education and you ran away. Running away form knowledge is the only way that creationists can maintain plausible deniability. But it is also why they always lose in debates.

 

[Lee Hays]

But people who believe in God are. And they do, quite often enough to force me realize that,
Christianity has nothing to do with the Creator.
Tom

Your funny dude.
You ditch God because (he lies - about the flood)
But you still believe people - who your self admired are liars .

Are you a student of hypocrisy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence it did - is in the Bible
Last time I checked that was wrote before the book of erosion (your make believe friend wrote - not to say that guy is not real - I just don’t think you have friends - not to be rude - your just over critical)

The Bible is not evidence. The Bible is a book written by man. We are testing the Bible to see if it can be interpreted literally or not. As I said, you do not understand the concept of evidence.

And I have plenty of friends. I simply do not like dishonest people. Now you are probably honest in most aspects of your life. You cannot be honest in your belief in the flood myth. So when it comes to those defending this myth, and harming others by trying to spread it I do tend to dislike those people.

Or you could shock me and demonstrate that you can be. Of course you would have to learn at least some science first so that you can understand why you are wrong.

 

[Lee Hays]

Please. That is your sin. This is why you need to learn the basics of science. It is not because I said so or because some author said so. There was no flood because that fact can be verified again and again and again.

Your beliefs can be shown to be false. I started to try to give you a basic education and you ran away. Running away form knowledge is the only way that creationists can maintain plausible deniability. But it is also why they always lose in debates.

I’m not running away
I’m here homeboy

 

[Lee Hays]

The Bible is not evidence. The Bible is a book written by man. We are testing the Bible to see if it can be interpreted literally or not. As I said, you do not understand the concept of evidence.

And I have plenty of friends. I simply do not like dishonest people. Now you are probably honest in most aspects of your life. You cannot be honest in your belief in the flood myth. So when it comes to those defending this myth, and harming others by trying to spread it I do tend to dislike those people.

Or you could shock me and demonstrate that you can be. Of course you would have to learn at least some science first so that you can understand why you are wrong.

Ok devils advocate —-
Science are written in books too

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, just no.

What makes you think that is the case?

You don't know?!! That cracks me up!
"first multicellular animals...appear[ed]....about 600 million years ago."

NASA Astrobiology

Even that is debatable!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m not running away
I’m here homeboy

Good. Since this is a scientific debate let's start with the concept of scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is well respected because it removes superstitious and emotional beliefs:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I can find other sources that say the same thing but this is a rather well written article:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

 

[Lee Hays]

Good. Since this is a scientific debate let's start with the concept of scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is well respected because it removes superstitious and emotional beliefs:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I can find other sources that say the same thing but this is a rather well written article:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Wait - this is a religious forum -
Not a scientific debate...

I think your in the wrong discussion....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok devils advocate —-
Science are written in books too

Yes, but the science that they are based upon is observable and testable. If refuted the idea "goes away". One can go out and test these claims themselves if one cares enough. The Bible, not so much.

 

[Lee Hays]

Yes, but the science that they are based upon is observable and testable. If refuted the idea "goes away". One can go out and test these claims themselves if one cares enough. The Bible, not so much.

The Bible is observable and testable
- if refuted the believe goes away. You can go and test - if you care enough

Just use your science against itself —
Hmmm

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't know?!! That cracks me up!
"first multicellular animals...appear[ed]....about 600 million years ago."

NASA Astrobiology

Even that is debatable!

And that site refuted your claim. The Cambrian began about 540 million years ago. Fossils of multi-cellular life appeared in the Ediacaran, before the Cambrian:

Ediacaran - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is observable and testable
- if refuted the believe goes away. You can go and test - if you care enough

Just use your science against itself —
Hmmm

And the Bible fails test after test. But sadly many people do not think rationally. The belief does not go away.

 

[Lee Hays]

And the Bible fails test after test. But sadly many people do not think rationally. The belief does not go away.

Source your tests
Prove your statement

As you want me to

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait - this is a religious forum -
Not a scientific debate...

I think your in the wrong discussion....

When a person makes a scientific claim then that moves the discussion into the world of science. And if you deny science why use scientific devices? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Source your tests
Prove your statement

As you want me to

That is what we are doing right now. We are discussing the Flood myth.

 

[Lee Hays]

That is what we are doing right now. We are discussing the Flood myth.

I think we can both agree that one doesn’t count (in our discussion)
What other tests?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And the Bible fails test after test. But sadly many people do not think rationally. The belief does not go away.

Yeah, it's rational to believe all life had a common ancestor! As if accidental mutations can account for it all! And the interactions between them. And the fine-tuned nuclear forces working together... all fortunate accidents.

That is delusion, lol.

 

[Lee Hays]

When a person makes a scientific claim then that moves the discussion into the world of science. And if you deny science why use scientific devices? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Ok - but still you say God, and people lie - yet you chose to believe people.

Your not going to convince me - as much as I’m not going to convince you...

 

[Lee Hays]

Yeah, it's rational to believe all life had a common ancestor! As if accidental mutations can account for it all! And the interactions between them. And the fine-tuned nuclear forces working together... all fortunate accidents.

That is delusion, lol.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?
Is the chicken an accidental mutation?
Or did the egg fall from the sky?

That is delusional - and what is the scietific answer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think we can both agree that one doesn’t count (in our discussion)
What other tests?

Why not? But we could discuss failed prophecies. Since you are uncomfortable with that. How do you deal with the failed prophecies of the Bible?