Bohemian's Waterfall
So at least you admit you are irritated. That's good
If your goal is to be irritating, then I have great news.
because maybe you will wake up and see the danger you are in and get saved from Hell before it's too late
You seem to confuse irritation for persuasion.
at least I don't see you cussing
When it comes to debate I find that cooler heads prevail.
but it still seems like you are bitter and grumpy
You confuse my irritation at you specifically as a general attitude about life. On the contrary, I am quite content with my station in life. I have done quite well for myself. I've had the distinct opportunity to learn from those smarter than myself, to help those less fortunate than myself. I've crossed oceans and continents, run half marathons, and hiked at least one mountain. Not bad for a poor boy raised by a widowed mother. I can sit in my reclining chair, feet on my coffee table, and read my books about history. That is bliss.
What is not blissful is listening to some pigheaded old man cocksure of his own rightness, launching torrents of indignities and vitriol at any unfortunate enough to cross his path that do not share his narrow dogmatic views. You do more to slander Christianity than anyone else here could ever hope to do. I come to createdebate because I see debate as a competition of wits and intellect, and as a competitive person I enjoy it, but there is no sport in "debating" with you because you don't debate. It's like playing chess with someone who doesn't understand the rules, and just knocks the pieces about.
I don't much read your stuff anymore
And yet you continue to reply. Sometimes multiple times. Sometimes to posts that are several days old.
You don't want evidence
If I don't want evidence then why am I asking for it and why are you refusing to provide it?
you want to believe you have the right to exist outside of Hell
As much as you appear to want me to agonize over my rejection of Christianity, I don't, no more than you agonize over your rejection of Hinduism.
As Jace so aptly put "For not being your problem, you seem much more concerned about it than I am."
Hell wasn't the point of my contention, so you can insist all you like, but I'm going to need you to present evidence for your claim, which you said was so easy to find. Your inability to present it, tells a very different story.
You don't want the evidence or you would use your lazy ignorant fingers and do a little googling of "science against the big bang and billions of years of time".
I want evidence, which is why I asked for it. If I didn't want it, I wouldn't have asked for it, and also why you never ask for evidence. Because you have no intention of reading any material that might challenge your dogmatic view point which you've delicately balanced your sense of meaning, self-worth, and existential purpose on which is why you will never think critically about it. You claimed to have scientific evidence that the Universe cannot be more than a million years old, and you claimed that it was easy to find. So from where comes you hesitation?
If you want to talk about that start another debate, or unban me from the one you already started and I'd be happy to discuss it. I'm asking for evidence for a specific claim you made in this thread. You either have evidence for that claim or you don't.
Yes. The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. I've been in real moderated debates between two debate teams in academic settings, and that is always how it goes. The person making the claim has the burden of proof; Not the side that claims to be the surest. That's not how debates work. Claiming to have evidence, and then refusing after being requested to provide that evidence will cause you to lose any real debate or at the very least cripple your argument beyond repair.
Is that the order?
Yes
Notice the sun is older than the earth, which makes a great deal of sense if you understand Galilean cosmology, unfortunately the authors of the Bible did not. They were long before Galileo, before even Ptolemy. The biblical authors were working from pre-ptolemic Jewish Cosmology. From that perspective the order of creation as written in Genesis makes perfect sense. It only stops making sense when you impose Galilean cosmology onto ancient writers.
And at what years in evolution did they have their mark?
I don't know what you're asking.
https://m.youtube.com/
The order as presented in this video is not at all what contemporary science says, not even remotely. Birds before land animals? The first land animals appears in the fossil record some 200+ million years before the earliest bird. Photosynthetic plants before the sun? Again, not at all what contemporary science says, and indeed not even what common sense would say. This video is so riddled with factual errors, I don't have the time or patience to address them all.
The day woke them to care for all their things, their livelihood, their families, their flocks, their food sources, and especially their vegitation! Yet the author has the sun after vegitation filling the earth.
Yes, because the author is wrong.
I'm sorry but how exactly does the 'order of days' demonstrate advanced knowledge of anything when you have to suppose a different order of the days than what is expressly written? This is like declaring you have the winning lottery ticket but claiming the ticket must have a typo because the numbers are in the wrong order.
Prior to Isaac Newton we didn't really understand planetary motion.
This is what Ptolemy said about Planetary motion, “I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia”
For Ptolemy, having lived over a millennia before Newton, the movement of the planets was an unknowable mystery only understood by the gods. History is replete with things that we will never be know, that with time were eventually known, and when you resign God or gods to such gaps in human knowledge they dwell in increasingly small gaps. The temptation to assign the cause of things we do not currently understand to the supernatural is an ever present one, and an intellectually perilous one at that.
