DP, "with this concept in mind...add time to being a created thing". Do these studies suggest 'adding time' to a 'creating thing' is possible? No, didn't think so. Besides, it's not even 'created out of no where' as your religion describes, matter is converted into energy & vice versa. "Therefore, water doesn't have to age rocks." There's certainly no evidence it does, or can, or has a...more

DP,

"with this concept in mind...add time to being a created thing".

Do these studies suggest 'adding time' to a 'creating thing' is possible? No, didn't think so. Besides, it's not even 'created out of no where' as your religion describes, matter is converted into energy & vice versa.

"Therefore, water doesn't have to age rocks."

There's certainly no evidence it does, or can, or has aged it. Water making rocks 'look older' is what believer stated.

"Creation could be done with not only height, width, depth and also age."

And again I stress, objects are NOT created out of no where from nothing and from no where. The First law of thermodynamics requires an equal exchange between the conversion of matter to energy & vice versa. If you assert something can be created out of no where, from nothing, & 'aged', then you show the evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

"He didn't create Adam as a newborn now did He? God can create age."

I already covered this objection. Just b/c said deity supposedly created a human 'aged' it does not follow it would create the earth or universe 'aged'. Besides, a god can hypothetically 'just make it look' what ever age science says it is, & that's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.less

"They don't believe in God. So, it's kind of a moot point." Correction. I haven't read Baty comment on his theistic beliefs, & prophet my being on Christian post for ~ 2 years, just about every ought to know that I am agnostic. However hours ago it was noted that the premises Baty' has put forth aren't contingent on the theistic beliefs of the one proposing the premises, they're valid no matter...more

"They don't believe in God. So, it's kind of a moot point."

Correction. I haven't read Baty comment on his theistic beliefs, & prophet my being on Christian post for ~ 2 years, just about every ought to know that I am agnostic. However hours ago it was noted that the premises Baty' has put forth aren't contingent on the theistic beliefs of the one proposing the premises, they're valid no matter where or whom they come from.

my reply...Belief in your god, literalistic interpretation or not, is a red herring with regards to the premises’ he’s put forth. The premises’ are valid no matter where or from whom the premises come from.less

Careful. Creationists here don't tend to understand logical fallacies all that well.

"Yes it does..."And God said...."" No, this is a statement. It doesn't say the mechanisms or processes (the HOW) that this god supposedly used to create. Saying 'my god created' is merely an assertion bound by no evidence, it's no more evidence than any of the other creation myths which assert a god or gods created anything. Again, such a statement devoid of evidence isn't testable either so...more

"Yes it does..."And God said....""

No, this is a statement. It doesn't say the mechanisms or processes (the HOW) that this god supposedly used to create. Saying 'my god created' is merely an assertion bound by no evidence, it's no more evidence than any of the other creation myths which assert a god or gods created anything.

Again, such a statement devoid of evidence isn't testable either so it utterly fails on falsifiability, & that prophet is why it's not science.

"Simple geneology shows how long ago it was created. No interpretation needed"

That's not empirically testable.less

Believer, “I use to have a lot of respect for you but now that it is obvious you are willing to support trolls like mickey who support your point of view, I don't know!!” Oh that’s too bad, I am not really interested in supporting him; I am mostly concerned with representing myself. I don’t even know who this ‘mickey’ you’re referring to, you’ll recall that I was away from CP...more

Believer,

“I use to have a lot of respect for you but now that it is obvious you are willing to support trolls like mickey who support your point of view, I don't know!!”

Oh that’s too bad, I am not really interested in supporting him; I am mostly concerned with representing myself. I don’t even know who this ‘mickey’ you’re referring to, you’ll recall that I was away from CP for over a year since roughly 2-2009 till now.

Regardless if it is this 'mickey' character or not, the ideal approach would have been to honestly responded to his premises in kind. Being obstinate proves nothing.

I too held you I guess in a higher respect formerly, for now I can’t accept your negative comments of him (troll) & the rest. Also, it was quite disrespectful in stating that he’s not he for a legit dialog & then no answer his or my questions.

As for Baty, I don’t think it’s fair to qualify his sentiments as ‘trollish’. For one he’s outlined, quite explicitly and in detail, all the premises and has asked on numerous occasions for a ‘david’ to answer thoroughly.

Regrettably, like the utter obstinate behavior that Baty is getting mirrors that of my own questions. I have asked you how many times how water ages or makes rocks ‘look older’? Honestly, I am surprised you have any dignity to bother to show yourself after continually avoiding to answer and provide actual evidence.

Still no david that I can see.less

Feel the Burrrrrrnn!

Way to not directly answer Baty's premises'. Prophet, why do you think others ought to be obligated to answer your questions when you do not extend the courtesy of thoroughly addressing theirs? As you stated earlier to Baty prophet, “you're the one who doesn't believe in God” my reply...Belief in your god, literalistic interpretation or not, is a red herring with regards to the premis...more

Way to not directly answer Baty's premises'. Prophet, why do you think others ought to be obligated to answer your questions when you do not extend the courtesy of thoroughly addressing theirs?

As you stated earlier to Baty prophet,

“you're the one who doesn't believe in God”

my reply...Belief in your god, literalistic interpretation or not, is a red herring with regards to the premises’ he’s put forth. The premises’ are valid no matter where or from whom the premises come from.less

As you stated earlier to Baty prophet, “you're the one who doesn't believe in God” my reply... Belief in your god, literalistic interpretation or not, is a red herring with regards to the premises’ he’s put forth. The premises’ are valid no matter where or from whom the premises come from.

Way to not directly answer Baty's premises'. Prophet, why do you think others ought to be obligated to answer your questions when you do not extend the courtesy of thoroughly addressing theirs?

“My opposition here appears to have a continuing problem not only answering the question but in even discussing any problems they have in dealing with it.” That’s b/c they don’t comprehend basic logic principles like laws of non-contradiction or first principles! I doubt they understand the first principles, or if they did that they would understand what the implications are to interpre...more

“My opposition here appears to have a continuing problem not only answering the question but in even discussing any problems they have in dealing with it.”

That’s b/c they don’t comprehend basic logic principles like laws of non-contradiction or first principles! I doubt they understand the first principles, or if they did that they would understand what the implications are to interpretation of anything outside of there own mind.

Really, I am not that confident you'll get a thorough well reasoned response when they find circular reasoning fallacies convincing.less

“you're the one who doesn't believe in God” Belief in your god, literalistic interpretation or not, is a red herring with regards to the premises’ he’s put forth. The premises’ are valid no matter where or from whom the premises come from.

This absence of a ‘david’ or cases in the absence of positive testable evidence for claims made earlier by creationists (6 day creation, few thousand year old universe/earth, water ages rocks/makes them ‘look older’), we’re left with only one conclusion. That of the Null result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Null_result

‘proof that people are born homosexual’ I am not sure you’d change your view in how they ought to be treated by society were it found conclusively to be the case. If you’re not open to changing your view based on evidence, then all you’re demonstrating is your irrational dogmatic homophobia.

waiting for 'david' to answer the premises' you put forth is like waiting for the second coming.

Clover, “black Americans who's ancestors fought and died to make this nation great. They would soundly disagree with your biased logic. “ Oh you like logic do ya? Well, you’ve committed the irrelevant conclusion fallacy. The fact they/some died for this country & believed in it in principel despite the hate, persecution, & death they were exposed to doesn’t mean they wouldn’t if...more

Clover,

“black Americans who's ancestors fought and died to make this nation great. They would soundly disagree with your biased logic. “

Oh you like logic do ya? Well, you’ve committed the irrelevant conclusion fallacy.

The fact they/some died for this country & believed in it in principel despite the hate, persecution, & death they were exposed to doesn’t mean they wouldn’t if given the opportunity to be white wouldn’t have. If being black was merely a choice, then many I suspect would have opted to be white rather than to be persecuted for no legit reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

“according to you if homosexuals could all be Christians to escape persecution, they would.”

I never said or implied any such thing. Not all chrisitans chastise and persecute gays, just like not all muslims are fanatics.less

“the SCOTUS granted corporate personhood,” Right and it did so under the leading of conservative Chief justice Roberts, you can thank Bush jr on that one. So much for the canard of ‘liberal activist judges’ being the sole problem

‘The right to privacy does not trump the right to life’ Normally I would agree, but this is under the context of ‘personhood’ which again means that you’re saying a zygote effectively is the equivalent as a person, whereas the judges ruled otherwise. As far as right to privacy goes, it was people like you who thought illegal wiretapping was A-OK. It was people like you who have rep...more

‘The right to privacy does not trump the right to life’

Normally I would agree, but this is under the context of ‘personhood’ which again means that you’re saying a zygote effectively is the equivalent as a person, whereas the judges ruled otherwise.

As far as right to privacy goes, it was people like you who thought illegal wiretapping was A-OK. It was people like you who have repeatedly stated that if cops illegally search & seize drugs on a person or their home that they ought to be held liable for those drugs.

I am not talking about being searched under ‘reasonable suspicion’ or ‘probable cause’ but just out of the blue for no justification or (search) warrant.

So much for privacy.less

Reply section works just fine for you prophet, "create life out of nothing" Evidence? Oh yeah, you don't need any. "can you prove that God caused eggs to fail to implant?" You're not very good with logical principles, are you prophet? One cannot prove a negative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Not even close. No one has responded to Baty's premise. No one has supplied evidence that water makes rocks 'look older', & no one has supplied testable evidence that the earth isn't 4.57 billion years old like science says it is.

“there's no such thing as moderation with drugs,” Sure there is. Though different drugs have a different propensity for the level of addiction, some are physically addictive, others are physiologically addictive. Some drugs like meth or heroine are far more addictive than, say, cannabis or caffeine. “you do drugs, you'll get addicted.” No, it’s not quite so black & white. This ...more

“there's no such thing as moderation with drugs,”

Sure there is. Though different drugs have a different propensity for the level of addiction, some are physically addictive, others are physiologically addictive. Some drugs like meth or heroine are far more addictive than, say, cannabis or caffeine.

“you do drugs, you'll get addicted.”

No, it’s not quite so black & white. This is contingent on various factors, like genetics, it’s not a given.less