Young Earthers (RJ) Look at this: Grand Canyon:

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is wrong and I have proved it to you before. Admiting ignorance of the origin of the universe does not imply blind faith about everything else. I showed you before that this is not the case and you got so upset you called me a liar and refused to speak to me ever again. Interestingly you could not point out what you thought I lied about.

You stating your opinion is not proving anything to me. You not knowing how
something was done, not knowing why it was done, not knowing the timing, or
the cause, or anything else sort of leaves your opinion about what is more
likely and unlikely to be nothing more than you stating your beliefs as if they
were facts and calling them so.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You stating your opinion is not proving anything to me.

I did a lot more than state my opinion. I showed that your argument was wrong. I also showed that you yourself were inconsistent in applying it.

You not knowing how something was done, not knowing why it was done, not knowing the timing, or
the cause, or anything else sort of leaves your opinion about what is more likely and unlikely to be nothing more than you stating your beliefs as if they were facts and calling them so.
Kelly
But what I know nothing about (the cause of the big bang) is totally different from what is being discussed in this thread (the Grand Canyon). Your claim that because I don't know anything about the cause of the big bang I can know nothing about anything is not only illogical but you don't apply that claim consistently. You are quite ready to admit the Second World War took place and that I can know it took place despite not knowing the cause of the big bang. I spent a very long thread going into the details of this and in the end, you didn't even have the honesty to admit you were wrong, but instead called me a liar and decided never to speak to me again.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You stating your opinion is not proving anything to me. You not knowing how
something was done, not knowing why it was done, not knowing the timing, or
the cause, or anything else sort of leaves your opinion about what is more
likely and unlikely to be nothing more than you stating your beliefs as if they
were facts and calling them so.
Kelly

he did explain everything before. the problem is that you and others like you constantly ignore(or do not understand) any scientific explanation we show you. and then you act as if we are stating opinions just like you.

in your mind i am sure you believe we are on the same level of debating. we are not. we proved our stance, you didn't.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You stating your opinion is not proving anything to me. You not knowing how
something was done, not knowing why it was done, not knowing the timing, or
the cause, or anything else sort of leaves your opinion about what is more
likely and unlikely to be nothing more than you stating your beliefs as if they
were facts and calling them so.
Kelly

So for you 300 years of solid scientific and mathematical advances are now relegated to mere opinion?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
he did explain everything before. the problem is that you and others like you constantly ignore(or do not understand) any scientific explanation we show you. and then you act as if we are stating opinions just like you.

in your mind i am sure you believe we are on the same level of debating. we are not. we proved our stance, you didn't.

Yea, yea, yea...Like I said with you it is express your point of view and call
yourself the winner...what could go wrong there?
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
So for you 300 years of solid scientific and mathematical advances are now relegated to mere opinion?

I do not debate against anything solid, mere opinion yea. You can sometimes
get your math right and not grasp the issue.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not debate against anything solid, mere opinion yea. You can sometimes
get your math right and not grasp the issue.
Kelly

So you admit that sometimes you can get the math right AND grasp the issue?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yea, yea, yea...Like I said with you it is express your point of view and call
yourself the winner...what could go wrong there?
Kelly

i am guessing you are complaining that i don't support my claims, to which i answer: logic doesn't work with you.

you do not listen, you do not understand, you do not care. you have a world view set in stone and we tried in the past to alter it patiently through reason. and science. it did not work.

right now, i will merely point and laugh whenever you and others like you mumble something stupid. like a global flood, or a young earth.

if you genuinely wish to learn, you must let of go of the stupid notion that scientists everywhere are in a conspiracy to ... something. you must understand there is no secret society of scientists that wish to sell you big bang t-shirts. that i believe would be the first step. after that, the internet is yours to learn anything you wish.

step 2: knowledge doesn't make one a bad Christian.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are making a bold statement it is the most likely, you really don' t know
what is likely or not! So suggesting one is more likely is very close to you
having blind faith and just running with it. You don't know you assume, you
assume more than a few things with it comes to life from non life, you assume
a lot of things on how everything got here, an ...[text shortened]... ou assuming your beliefs about the past are true so you can
call them the most likely.
Kelly

I'm not making any assumptions. To date, every process ever examined by science has been shown to be mundane in the sense that no miracle or magic has been demonstrated to be in evidence. All supposedly miraculous or magical events or processes which have been subjected to rigorous examination have eventually been shown to be non-miraculous or non-magical. In the complete absence of evidence supporting the miraculous or magical, and the almost suffocating preponderance of evidence to the contrary, likelihood clearly favours the latter. One can only judge on the evidence - on the one hand we have a collection of ancient stories, allegedly inspired by god (according to the scriptures themselves) but written by people, edited by people, curated by people and translated by people. On the other hand there's all of the other evidence. The only way you can say that the scriptural explanation is more likely is by willfully ignoring everything else.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So for you 300 years of solid scientific and mathematical advances are now relegated to mere opinion?

Your mistake is in trying to lump the theory of evolution in with scientific advancement. Ye old man. 😏

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I'm not making any assumptions. To date, every process ever examined by science has been shown to be mundane in the sense that no miracle or magic has been demonstrated to be in evidence. All supposedly miraculous or magical events or processes which have been subjected to rigorous examination have eventually been shown to be non-miraculous or non-ma ...[text shortened]... n say that the scriptural explanation is more likely is by willfully ignoring everything else.

You are betting your soul on your belief that nothing Jesus is reported to have done is miraculous. It is true that many magic tricks could be done in the time of Moses. However, I am inclined to believe that what Moses and Jesus did were not merely magic tricks. I am still waiting for the scientific community to reproduce a Shroud of Turin with all the features it exhibits. Perhapes one day they will be able to, but I don't see why I should think scientist will ever be able to offer me eternal life. You can have your religion in science and technology, perhaps one day it may offer you salvation.

Why does it matter what the age of the grand canyon or the earth is?

Originally posted by dunetwo
Why does it matter what the age of the grand canyon or the earth is?

maybe because humans are sentient curious beings who seek knowledge, not lumps of bacterias looking to eat and screw. that alone would be reason enough.

to be more practical though: all knowledge will lead to some practical use in the near or distant future. we didn't have a use for chemistry when we first started dabbling in it, until we figured out how to make plastics and medicine and fuel. physics gave us airplanes and electricity. and so on. who knows what use we might get from understanding black holes for example. maybe a cheap, renewable energy source. maybe we would be able to save ourselves from a rogue black hole in the future.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your mistake is in trying to lump the theory of evolution in with scientific advancement. Ye old man. 😏

Your mistake is not opening your mind to reality but instead continue to be duped just as your christian masters wanted it 2000 years ago.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Your mistake is not opening your mind to reality but instead continue to be duped just as your christian masters wanted it 2000 years ago.

You are still being duped by the fairy tale that begins, "Billions of years ago, a big bang ..."