You don't want the evidence or you would use your lazy ignorant fingers and do a little googling of "science against the big bang and billions of years of time".
I want evidence, which is why I asked for it. If I didn't want it, I wouldn't have asked for it, and also why you never ask for evidence. Because you have no intention of reading any material that might challenge your dogmatic view point which you've delicately balanced your sense of meaning, self-worth, and existential purpose on which is why you will never think critically about it. You claimed to have scientific evidence that the Universe cannot be more than a million years old, and you claimed that it was easy to find. So from where comes you hesitation?
If you want to talk about that start another debate, or unban me from the one you already started and I'd be happy to discuss it. I'm asking for evidence for a specific claim you made in this thread. You either have evidence for that claim or you don't.
As far as Saint. I think you are selling him short on his science knowledge.
His 'disproof' of evolution was the absence of eyewitness testimonies of people morphing into monkeys. I'll let that speak for itself.
And as far as providing sources, not more than 4 minutes ago, he made a claim and then insisted that it is my burden to disprove because "Your rejection of truth does not make [it] my burden of proof".
Most of his "arguments" are him telling people they are going to hell. He does not belong anyway in a top debtors list.
Yes. The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. I've been in real moderated debates between two debate teams in academic settings, and that is always how it goes. The person making the claim has the burden of proof; Not the side that claims to be the surest. That's not how debates work. Claiming to have evidence, and then refusing after being requested to provide that evidence will cause you to lose any real debate or at the very least cripple your argument beyond repair.
Is that the order?
Yes
Notice the sun is older than the earth, which makes a great deal of sense if you understand Galilean cosmology, unfortunately the authors of the Bible did not. They were long before Galileo, before even Ptolemy. The biblical authors were working from pre-ptolemic Jewish Cosmology. From that perspective the order of creation as written in Genesis makes perfect sense. It only stops making sense when you impose Galilean cosmology onto ancient writers.
And at what years in evolution did they have their mark?
I don't know what you're asking.
https://m.youtube.com/
The order as presented in this video is not at all what contemporary science says, not even remotely. Birds before land animals? The first land animals appears in the fossil record some 200+ million years before the earliest bird. Photosynthetic plants before the sun? Again, not at all what contemporary science says, and indeed not even what common sense would say. This video is so riddled with factual errors, I don't have the time or patience to address them all.
The day woke them to care for all their things, their livelihood, their families, their flocks, their food sources, and especially their vegitation! Yet the author has the sun after vegitation filling the earth.
Yes, because the author is wrong.
I'm sorry but how exactly does the 'order of days' demonstrate advanced knowledge of anything when you have to suppose a different order of the days than what is expressly written? This is like declaring you have the winning lottery ticket but claiming the ticket must have a typo because the numbers are in the wrong order.
For some reason every other civilised country has less to no mass shooting- correlation?
Well, as long as we are drawing correlations, allow me to draw one. Nearly all other civilised countries have been ruled by a dictator, some of them multiple times.
.
.
.
António de Oliveira Salazar - Portugal
Francisco Franco - Spain
Georgios Papadopoulos - Greece
Benito Mussolini - Italy
Wojciech Jaruzelski - Poland
Adolf Hitler - Germany
Mao Zedong - China
Napolean Bonaparte - France
Oliver Cromwell - England
Erdogan - Turkey
Engelbert Dollfuss - Austria
Joseph Stalin - Russia
Vidkun Quisling - Norway
Alexander Lukashenko - Belarus
Óscar Carmona - Portugal
Todor Zhivkov - Bulgaria
Hirohito - Japan
Ioannis Metaxas - Greece
Miguel Primo de Rivera - Spain
Marcelo Caetano - Portugal
.
.
Most of these countries have a history of authoritarianism that runs through the blood of their political systems, the state of freedom of speech is worrisome to say the least. Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Denmark and various other civilised countries have anti-blasphemy laws. Gun prohibitions, confiscations and other similar laws are symptomatic of that vein of authoritarianism.
Ohhhh I'm sorry but you seem to have missed the whole point point
The video was cited as your supporting evidence, so he got at least one of your points, whether or not there are other points you think he should have also addressed.
How come every other well developed country in The world combined (Europe and Australia) don't have the same amount of mass shootings in the last five years as the great USA has in the last 6 months?
How come mass shootings have spiked in recent years, despite two decades of consistent overall decline in gun violence? The simple answer is that we don't know but it is probably a combination of factors.
You don't need guns at all
I don't need a 42" HD television, or a couch, or a Kayak, but that is hardly an argument for prohibition. There is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.
and there inclusion in everyday life leads to death and misery
I'm going out on a limb and guessing that your experience with firearms is very limited. I personally know of at least a dozen or more people with firearm collections and in the entirety of my life none have died from any of them less maybe deer or rabbit. This speaks more to the point. Where someone lives is a good predictor of their attitudes on firearms.
Those who live in urban centers and mentally associate firearms with crime tend to have more restrictive attitudes towards firearms, and those from rural areas who associate firearms with hunting and sport shooting tend to have less restrictive attitudes.
Because these weapons aren't shields they require special threat assessment training to anticipated a threat and act before it happens.
Like a CPL course perhaps?
Someone who already has a gun drawn will always kill these "good guys" your not goddamm cowboys of the west
Well, no, not always. The perpetrator may be breaking into a house, in which case a home owner might have enough forewarning to retrieve their own firearm. The perpetrator might only be armed with a knife, or the "good guy" might not be the target of a crime but rather a capable bystander or good Samaritan coming to the aid of another person. The "good guy" might be going into a dangerous situation prepared -- a walk home at night, a midnight train, etc.. all of which are things that have actually happened at some point or another.
which disporortiontaely happens in favor of law enforcement officers in this context.
This is because of the legal metric involved. In these kind of cases, the mens rea rests upon the perceptions of the officer accused. More precisely the proceedings of the court will follow not whether an officer acted unjustly, but whether the officer believed he/she was in danger. Emphasis placed on "believed". In court cases police officers are generally treated as credible witnesses, unless they have a proven record of deception (and most don't), and given that danger is not an unusual part of an officer's duty the jury will nearly always find plausible an officer's claim that he FELT he was in danger (whether or not he actually was). This is why it is extremely difficult to prosecute police officers.
Prior to Isaac Newton we didn't really understand planetary motion.
This is what Ptolemy said about Planetary motion, “I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia”
For Ptolemy, having lived over a millennia before Newton, the movement of the planets was an unknowable mystery only understood by the gods. History is replete with things that we will never be know, that with time were eventually known, and when you resign God or gods to such gaps in human knowledge they dwell in increasingly small gaps. The temptation to assign the cause of things we do not currently understand to the supernatural is an ever present one, and an intellectually perilous one at that.
Even if you do change Hell to sheol in that passage, there's still a fire burning there from God's wrath implying sinner there will feel the heat of God's wrath
No, the verse states "...and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains". The earth is not consumed with fire. The verse is prophetic, it is saying This will happen someday. Sheol was a place that both righteous and unrighteous went upon death (Isaiah 38:10, Genesis 37:35, Job 14:13).
