Yes, i blame those who have revived religious bigotry as an acceptable tactic for human discourse. We have been drifting from the reformation concept of 'freedom of conscience,' for decades, and religious bigotry and homogeneity of belief is becoming the social norm. You should allow me to speak for myself, instead of projecting your motives onto me, or whatever reason you feel compelled to psychoanalyze me. You do not know, 'what i want the world to be..', and speculating or declaring MY opinions should be left to me. Too much psychobabble for me.. and i don't believe any of your analysis fits my psyche. I wonder if you would appreciate it if others analyzed your motives.. I carefully read and study opposing opinions, and address the logic in them, rather than resort to ad hom and address the poster. Can you not see the fallacy, here? Oh good.. others are under scrutiny for their emotional responses, instead of me. I am sure that the beliefs of others COULD be a source of mental anguish, for those who are either intolerant of other views, or were indoctrinated to believe that any alternate beliefs are 'The Enemy!' Here again, this is evidence of the drift away from Enlightenment values of religious freedom and tolerance. Religious bigotry has moved into our social consciousness.
You have not addressed my reasoning, but resorted to ad hom. It seems we do not have a basis for a discussion. If there is not the simple binary possibility of EITHER a natural or supernatural explanation of origins, what is there? You have not offered a rational explanation, just dismissed by assertion. I'll consider your posts if you want to chime in on this philosophical question, even though it is a drift for the thread. And if all you have is ad hom, I'll tire of that very quickly.
But I have addressed the fact that your reasoning and evidence for a premise you are assuming as true and trying to force others to assume as true is non-existent. You are not dismissed...in fact, you are invited to argue and present any argument and evidence you have that this dichotomy you insist upon is true. And none of that is ad hominem, so you either don't know what that term means or you do and, for whatever reason, are using it incorrectly. I am speaking right to one of your first premises, and your tap dance doesn't bear on that.
Back to the topic: The only real debate on the age of the Earth is about the 1% margin of uncertainty. The earth is 4.54 billion years old, give or take 40 million years. This is a known fact. There is no actual debate about this.
This is an unbased assertion or belief. It is NOT 'settled science!' as you imply, but is speculation, based on wild theories and assumptions. Show me. What credible evidence do you have for ANY of the dating assumptions made? A lot of evidence and arguments have been given that dispute the ancient earth theory.. what do you have to support it, other than glib assertions?
False. Evidence that actually challenges a fact that is supported by the overwhelming preponderance of mutually supportive evidence would come in the form of mountains of mutually supportive evidence, NOT in the form of blatant misrepresentations of existing science by uneducated people.
http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/current_scientific_clocks/lead_isotopes.html http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/current_scientific_clocks/accumulation_clocks.html http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/current_scientific_clocks/isochron_dating.html
Yes, really. And NO, not never mind. What in the bible do you want to teach? What class will you teach that in?
And there was 10 yrs of age difference. And a style of writers is no excuse for blatant misinformation.
Yam Suph From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Yam Suph (Hebrew: יַם-סוּף) has traditionally been understood to refer to the saltwater inlet located between Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, known in English as the Red Sea. More recently, alternative western scholarly understandings of the term have been proposed for those passages where it refers to the Israelite Crossing of the Sea as told in Exodus 13-15. These proposals would mean that Yam Suph is better translated in these passages as Sea of Reeds or Sea of Seaweed; see Egyptian reed fields, also described as the ka of the Nile Delta. In Jewish sources, 1 Kings 9:26 yam suph is translated as "Sea of Reeds" ("near Eloth" "in the land of Edom").[1] KJV was written centuries later and simply mistranslated. Error.
What an entirely pejorative view of the world. I'll just suggest that yours is a very small box. The "law" aren't the thing that perhaps drive what the perception of "supernatural" might encompass. And simply because you fail to understand that the potential always exist within the "laws", it clearly puts your assertion in an unsupportable position.
Its not that simple or straightforward. Nobody really knows what "suf" means. Yam or Yamm is the name of the Canaanite God of rivers and/or the Sea. He was the deity of primordal chaos. Deuteronomy 1:1 King James Bible These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab.
How would they not be? A condensed version of your post, minus the useless characterizations, would be that you disagree with the definition of "supernatural" that I delineated. Okay, then. You tell me how it should be defined. Tell us all. We await your wisdom.
Good. Then I am sure you are making an attempt right now to look this up for yourself. I'll repeat, so you can copy/paste into your search bar: "The earth is 4.54 billion years old".
Well...... hmmm..... how many exceptions to the laws are you aware of? Do you, for example, understand why things like dark matter have to be? Exercising you prerogative to be pejorative seems futile and dogmatic here.
Zero. Stop asking me questions, after dodging mine. And your last sentence is barely english and is irrelevant.
Translation, "you've reached my intellectual limit......stop......": Thanks for demonstrating the point. I would also point out that if you are only interested in the very few "natural laws" that the description of "supernatural" then also wouldn't limit or otherwise preclude things like ESP, or telekenisis, or other "supernatural" effects. I would also point out that just because our current version of science doesn't recognize an exception it also doesn't preclude one from being there. What you are putting a lot of faith in is called being presumptive.
There was a time in human history where humans thought thunder and lightening was by the supernatural.