Fullfilled Bible prophecy

Almeyda, But hang on, you are supposed to be supplying extra-biblical confirmation that prophecy in the bible is fulfilled. Citations from the bible itself place you in a circular argument. You have to accept the conclusion that the bible is true in order to accept the bibles account of fulfilled prophecy.Circular arguments are logical fallacies & are inadmissible. It's always the same with you guys, I show you logically valid evidence of millions to one that the K-T tektites are 65 million years old, & get some logically invalid argument spooned up by yourself. Strange that you reject the logically valid & evidentially supported argument in favour of a logically fallacious & evidenceless one. But then what choice do you have? We all know you accept Christianity on faith & not evidence, anyway.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-08-2004 04:46 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

almeyda, If the age of the earth can't be "proven", why did you pretend you had evidence for a 6,000 year old earth? Hypocrite.As usual your diatribe is utterly unjustified, & again refuses to directly address the evidence within the logically consistent framework of science. Until you do so, you're pissing in the wind, denying the evidence without justifying why.The FACT remains that the hypothesis that the earth is millions of years old plus is supported by highly corroborated evidence within a scientific framework. It will take more than your unreasoned say-so to change. Your response is reduced to, "no it isn't, it's just numbers, ner ner ner, can't prove this, can't prove that". How childish, such self imposed ignorance is to be sneered at, despised, why do you shout it out like it's some sort of virtue? Aren't you embarrassed that you have no evidence whatsoever that the earth is the age you say it is, after claiming you had it? Aren't you embarrassed that you can't critically assess the evidence, or at the very least the underlying logic, & have to resort to pitiful "no-it-isn't" denials?I'd bet my bottom dollar if all the radiometric dating methods pointed to a young earth, you'd accept them like a shot.But that's neither here nor there, my last post showed that despite your bravado in claiming you had a biblical prophecy that passed all reasonable tests of verification, it boiled down to nothing more than a circular argument. Since this one's not exactly passing muster on the logically-constructed-argument standard, why don't you pick another?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

arachnophobia, I understand it can't be proven, which is why I put the word in inverted commas. Almeyda has displayed a juvenile inability to understand nothing in science is proven, only demonstrated to an ever decreasing level of tentativity. I am still waiting for a reply from him on this very subject. I won't hold my breath, though. Intellectual honesty & logical consistency are not almeydas strong points.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

almeyda, You must have yourself confused with someone else, because you also said that you had evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. When did you decide that it's impossible to know the age of anything? When you realised there wasn't a scrap of evidence in support of the bibles timeline? So are all methods of measuring anything. According to your logic we should abandon tape measures & watches because they are fallible. Haven't you ever measured something & got it wrong? I agree, radiocarbon dating gets a bit iffy at about 40-50 kiloyears, it's a function of its relatively low half life & the larger effect of potential impurities relative to the C14 level. The rest of the radiometric are valid to be used to date things millions of years old, however. If you want to say they are "irrelevant" then you'll have to present your evidence. I'm afraid your unsupported assertion isn't enough. You would save us all a lot of time if you abandoned this childish you-must-accept-it-because-I-say-so attitude. SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS FOR CHRISSAKES!!!! Good grief, do you have a cognitive problem? WHY IS IT MORE LOGICAL? SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS FOR CHRISSAKES!!!! All methods of measurement are based upon assumptions, every time you look at your watch you are making a series of them. Every time you check your watch with another timepiece you are making assumptions, every time you check your speed in a car you are making assumptions.That assumptions are made in radiometric dating is in & of itself not a reason to reject them unless you are going to be consistent & reject everything else. Be my guest.The assumptions madfe in radiometric dating are testable. Really, well thus far you have presented NONE of them, Eugenie Scott isn't even evidence against radiometric dating, perhaps you meant something else? That's like saying Bob Hope is evidence against an radiocarbon dating! Did they date Eugenie & get an age of several billion years, or what?So what is it, almeyda, do you reject all methods of measurement because they rely on "assumptions", or not? If you mean something specific, then say so.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-09-2004 08:56 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Almeyda, No, no, no. You are moving the goalposts. You are claiming that radiometric dating is invalid because of assumptions. All measuring methods rely on assumptions, so being consistent we have to reject them all, right?When you check your watch you assume it has kept the correct time. You've never looked at a slow or fast clock? How do you know your tachometer is accurate? Have you ever calibrated it?Please post your answer here, a new thread JonF started specifically for this purpose.Let me make it clear, if you reject one method because of unstated assumptions & accept another you are guilty of hypocricy.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't