RL4

You just simply missed the whole point; seems like you wanted to say this, but the point was that you're clearly ignorant about what supports us Christians in our confidence in the Bible and God, as opposed to holding out, as you put it; you frankly just took this whole post to dance around what I said and broke the posts up and then responded in such a way that missed the whole point; simply go educate yourself on the different evidences that support the Bible and Christianity and then try to address those points based on any flaws. And what you say doesn't demonstrate the level of understanding my science in these points as you claimed; sure I understand what I said, because of scientist; while you spout out things that we know about these events, you don't appear to understand them really as in why they're flawed. Basically, I was trying to lead you into educating yourself about a topic; clearly, by this approach that you took, you clearly want to spread propaganda and avoid educating yourself.

Case and point, you broke up a whole paragraph that advised you to go educate yourself about the evidence that supports Christianity, missed that entire point, and then proceeded to shift that simple request and change that simple subject to then create the following four points that have nothing to do with educating yourself about Christianity before you commit to carrying on with you're ignorance without simply educating yourself and then coming from a more informed position about the evidence that supports Christianity: “Well thanks for being frank about it. The burden of proof is on those who wish to prove a god's existence. You're operating under the assumption that by default the universe has a god, and you're acting as if it's possible to prove a negative. I only accept scientific forms of validation. That was a paragraph spent being dismissive, not correct. If you want to convince me of your Diety's validity, focus on the latter.”, when I'd originally wrote 'Frankly, it's you who wont look past your very limited scope of reality; seemingly, you believe that science has disproven God to only a few points;however, notwithstanding the total exaggeration in your mind, you don't purport to realize the other forms of evidence other than scientific evidence;having a wide understanding, anyone of that group can see that you either don't know what you're talking about or simply spreading propaganda; for one, all one would need to do is start viewing the YouTube videos just before you made your post; essentially, to stop looking so clueless, just go and educate yourself; for one, you just glossed over this poster's reply.'While you only want to accept scientific evidence, there's also other forms of evidence for you to learn; I accept all forms of evidence,where there is other evidence to know, besides a specific type of evidence, so I don't take something on a flawed understanding which would be little better than accepting something on blind faith.Actually, the burden of truth is on you, as virtually a single individual, so it is you who needs to persuade so many Christians that we should abandon our belief, faith, or confidently held position to accept another position and that there is no God because, number one quite frankly and simply, we came first and you came second, and secondly, you purported to not understand why we're holding out and as such, we're morons, as you put it, as the only available explanation.I simply invited you to go and gain some understanding so that you wouldn't only be able to conclude that the only available explanation is to consider us morons; this is basically the only point to make here rather then allowing myself to get shifted all over the place and on a tangent simply arguing with you, rather than leading you to a productive conversation, where you're adamant on just spewing out propaganda that could affect someone genuinely confused about what information is available to be learned, rather than gaining an actual understanding about something that you purport to not understand and so only conclude that so many of us are morons while the few of you somehow have things all understood, which, being familiar with the topics that you raised, you don't fully understand.

Next, I made a second attempt to invite you to go educate yourself, when you attempting to shift the topic in many different directions, again preferring a position for which you're adamant about holding and, thus, creating a bunch of separate arguments rather then holding a productive discussion, after receiving the invitation to simply become informed about a topic: “An objective conclusion is all I can ever ask from you. This isn't a trail, it's a philosophical conversation aimed at finding the truth in things. Don't idealize it as a game to be won or lost. No, I have. I'm not sure why you think you're an authority on what I have or have not considered. It's presumptuous, and silly to think in such a way, I haven't read earlier arguments from theists on this thread for several reasons. Chiefly among them, they're silly, but seconarily, I know them to be rooted in subjective reality. Well if you think it, prove it, don't just say it.”; you attempted to shift us to all of these separate red herrings when i'd said 'I'm sorry, but the last sentence here sounds like you and what you're doing; we're holding out, as you put it, because the evidence points in our direction by preponderance of the available evidence, at a minimum, and could even meet an even higher burden of proof to some; in order to use an evidentary standard, you must examine all available evidence and then draw an objective conclusion; you can't properly rate the evidence of anything only evaluating what the prosecutor wants to say or only what the defendant wants to say; you can understand or see us as holdouts simply because you haven't considered all of the information; clearly, given that there are clips available going back more then about 50 pages inside this thread that presents the evidence from our side, after considering the way that evidence is presented from a point of view that science has solved the big questions, you've demonstrated that it is actually you who is willfully ignorant of the complete picture of the available information;you can't understand simply because you can't understand due to your self limited scope.';again, a different way to express to you that you could just simply go and get informed about our position so that your only conclusion to make, as a single individual, is that over 2 and a half billion people and individuals are morons, simply because we haven't drawn the same conclusions as you have about our position, where you refuse to even get informed on the evidence that supports our position. There are many objective conclusions to be found and one place that you can find them is within those YouTube clips in my posts just above, where they extend back more than 50 pages in this very thread. I can be an authority on what you appeared to be saying about our position and, frankly, I clearly expressed the reasons for that; for one, you're not even taking any of the points and trying to dispute them as evidenced by quoting a comment about a topic discussed from our prospective of evidence such as the age of the earth, as about the only topic that you raised that could be objective as a point of separation between the two viewpoints. The vast bulk of the clips that I presented on this page and extending back more than 50 pages are in fact by scientists and not theists, which shows you plain as day that I'm able to “I'm not sure why you think you're an authority on what I have or have not considered.”, as you want to put it; here, you're clearly on the assumption that all we're using are theological arguments to support our position, when, in fact, we're using a number of different arguments to support out position, including scientific arguments advanced by people with the necessary backgrounds to present those scientific arguments. My assumption clearly demonstrates me to be correct, where my assumption is largely rooted in the position that you're commenting on something that you know nothing to very little about; that something is that evidence that Christians have available for them to make them feel confident about their position. And, along with that, you're adamant about spewing propaganda against the evidence that Christians have available to themselves.

“No, please don't say unintelligent things like that. Hurricanes are the result of tropical storms in the right conditions, warm wet air, to increase in power. It's thanks to unequal heating of the Earth's surface.”

Well, what I said there is that science has some understanding of hurricanes and God being able to cause them cannot be ruled out,simply because science has some understanding about how they occur; that isn't an unintelligent statement, if you actually think about it. What makes you think that I didn't already know what you're saying from my statement? Additionally, these conditions exist continually and perpetually in the right season, called hurricane season, but hurricanes aren't a perpetual occurrence for the entire season (e.g. most years, a hurricane wont form at all); just from this factual observation, I can tell that the science is limited in its understanding of this phenomenon; however, with my scientific background, I know that this topic doesn't have such a one size fits all argument, even though I'm not a meteorologist. As an example, I can create a polymer as a chemist with the right conditions all of the time, under those conditions, but a weather event such as a hurricane is significantly more complicated than just having the right conditions available; this just simply means that the potential for a hurricane to develop are present; but God, the creator of everything, with full understanding of these weather events could clearly substitute me, as a chemist, and spark a hurricane, if he so desired; however, this doesn't change the fact that the potential for a hurricane to develop is present for weeks at a time, but a hurricane may never form; by extension, I mean a tropical storm, also. However, Satan understands the weather too, even though not to the same extent as God; but, he knows tall of the necessary steps to form said weather events; simply understand the key ingredients for a hurricane to form wouldn't rule out Satan existing and producing said weather event.

“No you don't. Read your own scripture. The god of the old testament is a vengeful being who brought suffering to the human race. And you're sidetracking. This isn't relevant.”

We do believe Satan is behind the ills in the world and I know this after having read my Scriptures; I covered the topic of God being vengeful, but, at the same time,Satan was also shown to be behind the ills of the world; experience shows us that Satan and his demons are behind the vast bulk of human suffering; the reason being this is because Satan does it out of hatred and delight, while God did it as a teaching lesson and discipline for the individuals who are with Him and under His tent.

“No it can't. Not unless you consider time and entropy to be a pathogen. Don't be ridiculous.”

These aren't the only factors involved in biological aging, so I'm not being ridiculous in the least; in fact, they are only basic factors that do not even begin to help one's understanding of biological aging; it's a complicated mechanism and I'm only quoting a popular quote/slogan that is available in the science of anti-aging, which I also study very well; but, I already knew that you could not have just understood this as something that could be common knowledge.

“Except how Moses purportedly lived to the ripe old age of 900. And he's not alone. There are accounts of numerous historical figures living to unrealistic ages of 500, 900, 1000+. All of it likely due to translation problems with ancient languages, and different day/month/year cycles for primitive cultures. And in 1997, a woman died at the age of 122. None of what you're saying holds water.”

No, this is just simply incorrect and shows me something that I already knew: you're speaking out of near complete ignorance and, despite that, you're simply adamant of spewing your propaganda about what you prefer to believe. The Bible actually explains the order of events in this area very well. The Bible describes people living close to 1000 years old, but not quit making it to that magic number; losing His patience with humanity, God then limited the human lifespan to 120 years; this happened at some point during Noah's life or shortly before it; as such, Noah's offspring's life was cut short as compared to his immediate ancestors such as his parents; thus, Sham lived just a bit more than 600 years old, a significant decrease from the oldest recorded age of 987; but, the Flood took place shortly after God made the decision to limit the maximum lifespan to 120 years. As recorded in the Bible, Moses lived only lived to 120 years old, the age promised by God, and the ages of other Biblical figures right after Noah is recorded, and right after Moses, as having a similar lifespan. What I said seems to hold no water in your mind, simply due to your refusal to go educate yourself on the evidence that supports our position.

“ Cancer is caused by a variety of known factors, none of them supernatural. Your usual culprits are Ionizing radiation, carcinogens, free radicals, and random mutation.”

Here, again, you split up my paragraph or point to create yet another red herring; I didn't intend to give an exhaustive list,as the point was that science is limited in it's understanding of cancer while it is you who is implying that science has complete understanding of cancer;and the other point was that we are not how God originally intended us to be and the fall caused God to alter human physiology (e.g. the propensity for developing cancer is likely one of these adjustments or side effects); again, both conditions could be true and then some, mostly on the side of science having much to learn to fully understand cancer, obviously, since they seem helpless to save a life a lot of times;however, a supernatural factor is likely one of the root causes and a supernatural factor could certainly hasten things; again, both things could be true, and my point point actually was that God was not the cause of all ills, while science also has some bit of understanding of things, although, clearly, not exhaustive.

“I say this because there are thousands of cancer patients who instead of receiving empirically proven medical treatments, have been duped and bilked of their money into pseudoscience and spiritual remedies. Faith doesn't destroy tumors. Targeted radiation bursts to.”

No, this is pretty silly, as the implication is all or most people who ultimately die of cancer, died because they instead tried to rely on prayers; however, cancer patients die when they fully rely on science, and usually so; at the same time, there have been many reported miracles of people with cancer getting healed supernaturally, following prayers; the fact that you don't know this is both a testament to your ignorance as well as the built in ignorance that this associated with the propaganda that you're so clearly trying to spread.

“What you see as a miracle is just a happy coincidence. Some people call it luck.”

Again, this is just pure ignorance of the facts associated with my point; even though we can't say with fully scientific certainty that prayers are directly proportional to a miracle taking place, it's certainty a lot closer to such being a case then attributing such to a mere coincidence or fluke; and this is prayers been sent toward someone in a number of other contexts, as well; what it proves is that God is intelligent and isn't a tool for our pleasure and experimentation; and Jesus even warns of this this, specifically where He was being tempted by Satan after fasting in the desert.

“No. Good grief, the lack of self awareness from you is astonishing. Radiometric and Relative dating set the age of the Earth in billions of years.”

No, this isn't a conclusion from my point at all that one could reasonable make; I suggested that out of about 7 known ways of trying to measure the age of the earth, only one contradicts the Bible; this could very well encompass what you just wrote; there are even more known ways of trying to date the earth, but, again, most of them back the Bible, by in large; additionally, our side has addressed and covered the flaws in the dating method that you mention;you made this mistake, as you're clearly more adamant about spreading propaganda instead of having a constructive conversation about a topic that you're both ignorant of and more interested in spewing misinformed propaganda about, even knowing that the information is misinformed, while instead being ignorant of a position that you're opposing, all at the same time; stated another way, you want your position to be right and you want my position to fit with your claim, which is the answer to your earlier mystery as to your believing that Christians are holding out to be as you described.

"Just some feedback for you. You come off are arrogant, and condescending. You espouse the need for others to learn, yet you're scientifically illiterate yourself, and you don't even seem to pick up on the irony of that."

You reached this now demonstrated mistaken position, simply because you simply didn't know what you were talking about and because you were trying to direct me to red herrings as opposed to trying to actually discuss the points that I actually made; you created this situation by breaking up my paragraphs, with the purpose of trying to make it seems as if your misinformed propaganda is educated, when, it fact, such couldn't be further from the truth; built within is the misinformation that science's understanding of the points raised is nearly exhaustive, when it isn't and that Christianity is at best supported by theology, when such isn't the case; that's just simply something that you want and need to be true to support your inside reality. In otherwards, in trying to get me off on many tangents, you merely lost yourself.