Posted on 03/25/2009 9:29:08 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Then you have failed to prove that the Bible says the earth is billions of years old. I also draw your attention once again to the clear statements of 'evening and morning' that completely destroy your 1,000 year 'days' and the clear genealogies recorded therein."
"Only science tells us the earth is billions of years old. Of course, you may dispute that, based on your own personal interpretations of the Bible, but you cannot honestly claim that those interpretations amount to some form of "science.""
Again, you are personifying science. Science does not 'tell' you anything. People who accept philosophical naturalism 'a priori' tell you this, not science. Of course, you may dispute that, based on your own personal interpretations of science, but you cannot honestly claim that those interpretations amount to some form of 'science'.
"Nonsense. The Bible NEVER says each DAY of creation was exactly 24 hours long. It does clearly say that a day to God could be thousands of years. Indeed, until the end of the fourth day, light and darkness had NOTHING to do with a 24 hour solar cycle, because there was no sun. Those "days" could be any length whatever."
Nonsense. The Bible ALWAYS says EVENING AND MORNING for EACH DAY of creation. It also CLEARLY relates creation week to a week of SEVEN 24-HOUR DAYS in Ex 20:11. You simply ASSUME that light and darkness had nothing to do with a 24-hour day even when EVENING AND MORNING are clearly noted.
"Nonsense."
Nonsense
Yes true.
"Baloney."
Baloney
"And your evidence demonstrating your claim is what?"
Every scientific theory in existence.
"You have provided no evidence or explanation to support your claims."
Just every scientific theory in existence.
"Rubbish. You've explained or provided evidence of nothing. The definition of "methodological naturalism" does not require a theory be "observable." It only requires that a theory is based on natural causes for natural occurrances."
Rubbish. The definition of methodological naturalism does require a theory to be testable and observable. The Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution are neither.
"definitions of naturalism"
Support my position totally.
"No."
Yes
Ridiculous
"Not true."
Yes true.
"False."
True
"And your source for this particular definition is?"
Back to truth by definition I see.
"Nonsense."
Nonsense
"Nothing you've said sounds true to me."
Fallacy of appeal to personal opinion noted.
"Not true."
Yes true.
"False."
True
"Rubbish."
Rubbish
"Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented scientific evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. The only "evidence" comes from your particular interpretations of the Bible."
Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented scientific evidence of a billion year old earth. The only 'evidence' comes from your particular interpretation of nature.
"It's true that very few people take either you or your arguments seriously."
Fallacy of argumentum ad populum noted.
"That would not make you necessarily wrong, if you had serious arguments to make. But in all your posts, I've seen not even one."
Fallacy of appeal to personal opinion noted.
Your personal opinions you claim are somehow related to science, when in fact they are nothing more than one particular interpretation of certain Biblical passages, while ignoring others.
It is not my personal opinion that all scientific theories are based on philosophical naturalism. That is a fact.
You commit the burden of proof fallacy because you have your own particular interpretation of certain Biblical passages while ignoring others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.