Part 9 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

If in all of the above you are asking if your arguments have compelled my mind to accept your arguments as 'true', then the answer is "NO". I am still of the same mind set as I had before this conversation started. You lose again.

Here is something else for further consideration:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Albert Einstein"

 

I never asked that nor was I intending to ask that. Man, you seriously on a roll with these inferences today.

Are opinions proof, or not, Incorporeal?

Do I have to define "time" and "half" for you in an irrefutable manner and in a way that all the people on the world will agree with the definitions for you to understand what "halftime" means in football? Because that's how stupid your argument is.

 

Why do you keep quoting Einstein? First, you claimed Einstein said that mathematics has NOTHING to do with reality, which obviously was a lie or you misspoke since in the above quote he clearly makes a connection between the two (not to mention, you know, that he friggin' used mathematics to describe reality in his theories). Secondly, just because Einstein said something doesn't make it correct.

 

Yeppir he makes a connection between the two .... their relationship is uncertain.... in other words they are doubtful.

 

Check out my signature for more wisdom from our hero.

 

Of course it is doubtful, just like everything in science is doubtful. Just like every causal relation, regardless of context, you could possibly think of is doubtful.

 

Then why bring into the discussion something that is 'doubtful'? Remember you and someone else was talking about the 'half life' of c14. Now it seems that you are saying that such 'half life' is doubtful. Such a statement as you have made above, would imply that you are agreeing with me in regards to my skepticism regarding that half life.

 

Please use your dictionary you love citing and look up the term. Its a scientific term not open to debate.

 

Show me a restriction that prevents the term "life" from being debated.

 

When it follows the word "half". To the rest of the readers let the record show the above poster flat out refuses to answer any questions at all that question his beliefs. I think we need to rename the thread. But hey thanks fot proving my point!!!!!

 

That is not a 'restriction' that is written in any law that I am aware of. It seems to be more of your personal opinion than anything else. So where is the official version of that alleged restriction? Have none? I didn't think so.

BTW: 'half life' can apply to biological units. See here:

"Noun 1. half life - the time required for something to fall to half its initial value (in particular, the time for half the atoms in a radioactive substance to disintegrate)
half-life
period, period of time, time period - an amount of time; "a time period of 30 years"; "hastened the period of time of his recovery"; "Picasso's blue period"

www.thefreedictionary.com/half life definition #3

 

To all reading, this is why I stopped responding to this thread over a year ago. Apparently everyone else stopped talking to them as well. That's why they started quoting me again. Everyone can view the above post and see those who are soliciting "tough questions" really aren't interested in answering questions at all. They are just interested in trolling and insulting just like all of the other religious fanatics I have ever crossed paths with. Guys in bathrobes, they follow blindly, no proof needed. Half life of C14, proven by every scientist on planet earth and well....read the pathetic avoidance above. I asked him what the half life of C14 was and he goes on a rant about the parsing of the word life. Pathetic.

 

You apparently didn't read my entire post. First, I'm not even convinced you know what a half-life is considering your attempt to connect biological life with the concept. Secondly, I said everything causal is doubtful. Mathematics' representation of reality is one of the more certain uncertainties.

And still refusing to admit that your claim that an opinion is not proof contradicts the definition you use for proof. Again, who would've predicted that?

 

That would be false teachings, blasphemous, going against the established tenets of the Christian faith. That would surely add more ridicule to a book that has already seen its overwhelming share of undeserving controversy throughout its history.

The critics, no doubt, would salivate uncontrollably at the chops to get a whack at this new revelation which of course won't be from God, Himself.

We surely don't need to give the critics false material to work with, to pursue further their never ending quest, trying so desperately hard to discredit the bible even though their attempts have been proven to be futile in the past, why add more controversy?

So needless to say...not ever going to happen! Besides another very important point to make is that evolution is just a theory. It is not a factual statement to say that man evolved from apes because it is just not the truth. Only evolutionists have accepted the theory that man evolved from apes.

Nope...sorry but the Christian religion will not be making any amendments/revisions/footnotes to what God has already told us in Scripture.

Basically, without quoting Scripture verbatim, He said, He created animals (which of course includes apes) and then He created humans to be in His image.

 

You cry and complain when your questions don't get answered and when they finally get answered you still cry and complain...lol

Your attitude reminds me of an unreasonable, spoiled rotten child, who wants everything their way because to them the whole world revolves around them...lol

These threads of mine, all 9 of them has had a total of 6,398 replies and so one can see immediately that thousands of questions have been generated/asked.

I am not answering questions 24/7...what do you think...I'm a machine or something?

When your easy questions come up as I continue answering these questions posed to me as I go through these threads of mine they will be answered, if in my view they are coherent enough. If not they will not be answered and will be thrown into the sewer...lol

So just shut your mouth but keep your eyes and ears open!

 

The dictionary I use for 'proof' says nothing about opinion. Keep the record straight.

The Encyclopedia I use for 'half-life' was the source for the connection with biological units.

You fail again.

 

See folks there you have it. Religious fanatics always reduce down to telling you to just shut your mouth. Sorry bub. If you want to shut my mouth you could always try and make me. I'm not in grade school anymore. And your 6938 replies are all people asking you repeatedly to answer the avoided questions. Go back and read them. (Everyone feel free to go back and read for yourselves)
Now how old is the Earth according to your faith exactly? You still have yet to answer. Please answer in years. Your buddy wont say exactly but he states ~7000 years. What is your answer? If you keep trolling I will report it. If you don't want to answer questions then don't solicit them.

 

A blatant lie on your part. I not only gave you my guess on the year quantity, but also gave you the months, days, hours and seconds. I also included the remark that "I don't know". So quit misrepresenting what is on the record. That action is one of deceitfulness... prevarication... Which tells the Christians who your father is.

 

WRONG! You asked me for proof, I explained radiocarbon dating to you. You then went on a rant on how that's not proof even though a nobel prize in chemistry was given for it in the 1940s and no one to this very moment has been able to prove that the science is incorrect. The entire planet agrees with this science. In other words, you simply refuse to accept fact. You said the earth was ~7000yrs old. Since we can calculate the C14 in every living creature and we know C14s half life, we can determine when living creatures lived on the Earth in a very accurate AND precise manner. If the calculation shows creatures living millions, even billions of years ago as the article I posted earlier (that you ignored) showed, then the Earth as a fact is not ~7000 years old. If you say it is you are simply incorrect even if you don't think so. If I am wrong you need to prove it with your science. Ive listed mine, if you think its incorrect, then disprove it and post your science like every other person who claims a scientific method is not correct has to. Until you do, you are simply WRONG.

 

MOD EDIT>>>INSULT<<<< I never said that the definition included the word opinion in it. I said that an opinion would be proof under the definition of proof you are relying on.

Please post the link, then.

 

Your answer was sarcastic and indicated you didn't know. I then asked you what your faith said it was and you refused to answer. Why would your sarcastic snarky remark be taken seriously? That's why I asked what your faith said it was. Also, I gotta ask, who is my father?
(Guys wait for it here it comes!!!!) This is where I am the devil for asking questions they solicited from me.

 

Well it might sound absurd to you but mainly because you don't understand the story. So let me explain it a little to be more accurate.

"Wilderness wandering" refers to the plight of the Israelites due to their disobedience and unbelief.

They were to take possession of the land God had promised their forefathers, a land "flowing with milk and honey" (See Exodus 3:8 for reference).

Prior to entering the land they convinced themselves they could not oust the current inhabitants of the land, even though God told them they could.

Their lack of belief in God’s word and promises brought forth the wrath of God. He cursed them with forty years of wilderness wandering until the unbelieving generation died off, never stepping foot in the Promised Land.

 

with friends like this, who needs satan.

 

MOD EDIT>>>INSULT<<<<

If an 'opinion' were a "proof" under that definition, then it would likely be listed as a synonym. It is not.

I'm sorry... the Encyclopedia mentions "biological half life" in a different sense of the term, however it is the dictionary that makes note of the half life being applicable to biological units. That link is www.thefreedictionary.com/half life .
The link to the Encyclopedia is: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/half+life

 

>>>MOD EDIT: REPLY TO DELETED SECTION<<<

That's like saying that a bluegill isn't a fish because it isn't listed as a synonym for "fish". Is a basketball not a ball because it isn't listed as a synonym for "ball"?

I see no mention of "biological units". I see a mention of biological half-life which doesn't talk about biological units, but of radiation inside an organism.