If God's Flood was only a regional flood...

[ding]

I doubt that is a thought one would have when they meet him.

Him? Not her?

I suspect God has both male and female nature contained within the mystery which we simplistically call God.

So god is a he-she? WoW!

That’s just another example proving you aren’t agnostic.

Because I didn't know that your god is a he-she?

You still don’t. But then again you don’t know you are a militant atheist either.

 

[james bond]

Jesus said that John the baptist was the expected reincarnation of Elijah.

Taz isn't Elijah.

taz is living proof that the progressive militant atheists have no intellectual capacity to think about how man lived his life thousands of years ago. taz is a wonderful example of the CSI effect, they think that everything that happened in the past, happened instantly. There was no learning required, man was just born smart, and knew everything. In other words, like most progressives, he is an intellectual cripple.

You couldn't have gotten more wrong if you tried. Not surprisingly.

PS I'm agnostic.

Pfft. Today's agnostic is the same as atheist in my book. The difference is they are just too afraid or ignorant to admit it.

This is the S & T section, so I provided the creation science while you provided practically nothing. Not only are you ignorant about religion being an agnostic, you are ignorant about science.

What I've discovered is the atheist scientists were extremely frustrated by the fine tuning facts and had to resort to implausible ideas. They couldn't explain how uniform temperatures could exist in an big bang "explosion." (You've been avoid that question for pages now!) However, they found a couple of stories and went with it. Yesterday's questionable science has become today's bad science. They've become flat earthers.

Just look at your main argument that creation science isn't real science. Nothing can be further from the truth. It's observational science and modern science. It has been demonstrated throughout history and many are some of the greatest scientists of all time..

Creation science isn't backed up by real facts and real science. Are you one of those who think that the Grand canyon was carved all at once by god's floodwaters? Because the geologic facts don't bear that out.

>>Creation science isn't backed up by real facts and real science.<<

You may as well admit to atheism and being WRONG. Atheists are usually wrong.

As for the Grand Canyon, are you going to take the damned atheist tour A, B or C or the Christian one ?

Here's mine
Grand Canyon—Nine Days Below the Rim

 

[westwall]

You couldn't have gotten more wrong if you tried. Not surprisingly.

PS I'm agnostic.

Pfft. Today's agnostic is the same as atheist in my book. The difference is they are just too afraid or ignorant to admit it.

This is the S & T section, so I provided the creation science while you provided practically nothing. Not only are you ignorant about religion being an agnostic, you are ignorant about science.

What I've discovered is the atheist scientists were extremely frustrated by the fine tuning facts and had to resort to implausible ideas. They couldn't explain how uniform temperatures could exist in an big bang "explosion." (You've been avoid that question for pages now!) However, they found a couple of stories and went with it. Yesterday's questionable science has become today's bad science. They've become flat earthers.

Just look at your main argument that creation science isn't real science. Nothing can be further from the truth. It's observational science and modern science. It has been demonstrated throughout history and many are some of the greatest scientists of all time..

No, I'm a scientist, and an agnostic because of that. I am not anti God. I merely acknowledge that there is no evidence for a God. That doesn't mean that no evidence will ever be found. That's the difference between me and an atheist. An atheist believes that because God doesn't exist, no evidence for his or her existence will ever be found, nor, if evidence is found, will it be believed.

That's the difference. An atheist is closed to learning. An agnostic is not.

What kind of evidence would you expect to find?

Some sort of miracle that can not be explained by any other method would be a starter.

Like what was recorded in the New Testament?

Nope. Those are the writings of men, done decades after the fact. They describe something that only they witnessed. Furthermore, they are a biased witness, and as such, are not credible.

 

[idb]

...Then why would god order Noah to take 2 of every animal, if all the animals weren't going to drown because the flood wasn't worldwide as many posters here contend?

It's actually impossible to argue with logic like that.
Well done.

 

[hobelim]

...Then why would god order Noah to take 2 of every animal, if all the animals weren't going to drown because the flood wasn't worldwide as many posters here contend?

It's actually impossible to argue with logic like that.
Well done.

Yes, with logic like that he has built an impressive maximum security prison for himself that no one can penetrate.

Neither will he ever see the light of day until it has been demolished, timbers, and stones, and all.

The decree has been issued by the Watchers.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Did the flying spaghetti monster create that also?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[harmonica]

the bible is fiction --like the MSM

 

[ding]

Pfft. Today's agnostic is the same as atheist in my book. The difference is they are just too afraid or ignorant to admit it.

This is the S & T section, so I provided the creation science while you provided practically nothing. Not only are you ignorant about religion being an agnostic, you are ignorant about science.

What I've discovered is the atheist scientists were extremely frustrated by the fine tuning facts and had to resort to implausible ideas. They couldn't explain how uniform temperatures could exist in an big bang "explosion." (You've been avoid that question for pages now!) However, they found a couple of stories and went with it. Yesterday's questionable science has become today's bad science. They've become flat earthers.

Just look at your main argument that creation science isn't real science. Nothing can be further from the truth. It's observational science and modern science. It has been demonstrated throughout history and many are some of the greatest scientists of all time..

No, I'm a scientist, and an agnostic because of that. I am not anti God. I merely acknowledge that there is no evidence for a God. That doesn't mean that no evidence will ever be found. That's the difference between me and an atheist. An atheist believes that because God doesn't exist, no evidence for his or her existence will ever be found, nor, if evidence is found, will it be believed.

That's the difference. An atheist is closed to learning. An agnostic is not.

What kind of evidence would you expect to find?

Some sort of miracle that can not be explained by any other method would be a starter.

Like what was recorded in the New Testament?

Nope. Those are the writings of men, done decades after the fact. They describe something that only they witnessed. Furthermore, they are a biased witness, and as such, are not credible.

No different than any other historical event in antiquity and you accept those.

 

[Taz]

Taz isn't Elijah.

taz is living proof that the progressive militant atheists have no intellectual capacity to think about how man lived his life thousands of years ago. taz is a wonderful example of the CSI effect, they think that everything that happened in the past, happened instantly. There was no learning required, man was just born smart, and knew everything. In other words, like most progressives, he is an intellectual cripple.

You couldn't have gotten more wrong if you tried. Not surprisingly.

PS I'm agnostic.

Pfft. Today's agnostic is the same as atheist in my book. The difference is they are just too afraid or ignorant to admit it.

This is the S & T section, so I provided the creation science while you provided practically nothing. Not only are you ignorant about religion being an agnostic, you are ignorant about science.

What I've discovered is the atheist scientists were extremely frustrated by the fine tuning facts and had to resort to implausible ideas. They couldn't explain how uniform temperatures could exist in an big bang "explosion." (You've been avoid that question for pages now!) However, they found a couple of stories and went with it. Yesterday's questionable science has become today's bad science. They've become flat earthers.

Just look at your main argument that creation science isn't real science. Nothing can be further from the truth. It's observational science and modern science. It has been demonstrated throughout history and many are some of the greatest scientists of all time..

Creation science isn't backed up by real facts and real science. Are you one of those who think that the Grand canyon was carved all at once by god's floodwaters? Because the geologic facts don't bear that out.

>>Creation science isn't backed up by real facts and real science.<<

You may as well admit to atheism and being WRONG. Atheists are usually wrong.

As for the Grand Canyon, are you going to take the damned atheist tour A, B or C or the Christian one ?

Here's mine
Grand Canyon—Nine Days Below the Rim

Your link isn't a scientific one, so you fail EPICALLY!

 

[Taz]

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Did the flying spaghetti monster create that also?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

 

[BreezeWood]

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

that would not have a bearing on lite coming from a different universe - that light would be coming towards us and if older than 14B years would be seen. and certainly whatever is has been forever - the Everlasting in the metaphysical sense is quite possible and is both energy and matter combined. another universe makes no difference.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Maybe.

 

[ding]

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Maybe.

What do you think it could be?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Maybe.

What do you think it could be?

I don't know! But we all know that you do.

 

[ding]

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Did the flying spaghetti monster create that also?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

CERN does.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[ding]

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Maybe.

What do you think it could be?

I don't know! But we all know that you do.

Why would you say that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Did the flying spaghetti monster create that also?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

CERN does.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

CERN does not.

The "boundary" is merely a fake surface defined by the age of the universe, meaning we cannot observe anything beyond it. And it is merely defined as the "boundary" of the observable universe, not the "entire universe", proper.

 

[ding]

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Did the flying spaghetti monster create that also?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

CERN does.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

CERN does not.

The "boundary" is merely a fake surface defined by the age of the universe, meaning we cannot observe anything beyond it. And it is merely defined as the "boundary" of the observable universe, not the "entire universe", proper.

Friedman's solutions to Einstein's field equations say otherwise.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Did the flying spaghetti monster create that also?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

CERN does.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

CERN does not.

The "boundary" is merely a fake surface defined by the age of the universe, meaning we cannot observe anything beyond it. And it is merely defined as the "boundary" of the observable universe, not the "entire universe", proper.

Friedman's solutions to Einstein's field equations say otherwise.

Not accurate For one, they are used to describe a completely smooth, homogeneous universe, so saying they hold always in our universe is like saying that you can describe a sphere using math, therefore you know the shapes of (non-spherical) planets. they have their uses, but they are not always useful in describing how our universe actually behaves, especially near the very begiinning (and possibly near the very end).

Furthermore, even though they are limited in their descriptions, they absolutely do allow for a universe that is larger than the observable universe. so, even if they were always valid, you would still be wrong.

 

[ding]

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Did the flying spaghetti monster create that also?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

CERN does.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

CERN does not.

The "boundary" is merely a fake surface defined by the age of the universe, meaning we cannot observe anything beyond it. And it is merely defined as the "boundary" of the observable universe, not the "entire universe", proper.

Friedman's solutions to Einstein's field equations say otherwise.

Not accurate For one, they are used to describe a completely smooth, homogeneous universe, so saying they hold always in our universe is like saying that you can describe a sphere using math, therefore you know the shapes of (non-spherical) planets. they have their uses, but they are not always useful in describing how our universe actually behaves, especially near the very begiinning (and possibly near the very end).

Furthermore, even though they are limited in their descriptions, they absolutely do allow for a universe that is larger than the observable universe. so, even if they were always valid, you would still be wrong.

100% accurate as the equations work equally well in reverse. Try as you might you cannot get around that our universe is not infinite into the past. ~14 billion years ago all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom.