A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

So does anyone have proof that ancient scripture is purely based on man's imagination, and not on something that was observed or not?

There you go.

Yeah, see the difference?

a reply to: Ruiner1978

No. Care to point it out? Hope it wasn't what I added in parentheses.

I never said it was a quote.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

No. Care to point it out? Hope it wasn't what I added in parentheses.

I never said it was a quote.

Then I suggest quoting in future.

I didn't ask for this "OR" that to be proved. Like you said I did.
I asked for proof of a specific claim.


I know how a lot of members here love their proof.
It's funny how proof is only applicable when it serves their own bias though.
If it doesn't serve their bias it's met with "you can't prove a negative" even though I wasn't asking for a negative to be proved.
It's funny how others jump in, not even knowing what the point is, frothing at the mouth, slinging their poo.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

I'm not debating the topic either. It was just an example of something people are passionate about but obviously everyone can't be right.

But you can! Yeah? Right?

You know!
I mean, you KNOW, right!

a reply to: Ruiner1978

While asking for proof isn't necessarily asking for something to be proven, that would only be valid if it was black or white.

Who said I was right about the shape of the world? I didn't even argue either position

That question has lots of answers..."Principle of sufficient reason" For everything that is There is a reason why It should be as it is Rather than otherwise. if there is no cause that makes something happen, then nothing will happen
that's the best I could come up with.
lot of philosophers have been righting books on that one question.
Kudos to your thread...

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
If it doesn't serve their bias it's met with "you can't prove a negative" even though I wasn't asking for a negative to be proved.
It's funny how others jump in, not even knowing what the point is, frothing at the mouth, slinging their poo.

Actually you did. The idea seems to be new to you. It doesn't matter if you asked if "there was proof" or if someone "could prove" it means the same thing. If there was proof it would be proven.

Also, I'm not frothing at the mouth or slinging poo. You are the one tossing expletives out there.

originally posted by: Puppylove
"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather it can only be transformed from one form or another."

Basically the universe always was in one form or another, and based on the observable world around us has always been in a state of flux, with energy changing forms throughout the universe.

The universe doesn't have a beginning, only the things within it do, the things which are naught more than different states that energy can take the form of.

We're all the universe, the universe is all us, we are both immortal and mortal, we both always existed and never have, we are nothing and everything, I am you and you are me, and we both are neither. Nothing has a beginning or end, there is simply change. Beginning and end is only an illusion caused by categorization within a limited, rather than broad perspective and context. Expand the context and perspective out far enough and the concept of a beginning or end becomes ludicrous as all things merge together and lose any real form, shape or purpose amidst the flux and change of eternity as one.

At least that's all my best educated guess.

Sure. This statement or axiom is true at a certain level. But at the quantum level, it's no longer true.

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather it can only be transformed from one form or another."

As regards to the Universe, the physical/corporeal universe had a beginning based on background radiation. But outside of this material universe, there lies the infinite, unbound space from which the material universe emanates.

hence the question.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
If it doesn't serve their bias it's met with "you can't prove a negative" even though I wasn't asking for a negative to be proved.
It's funny how others jump in, not even knowing what the point is, frothing at the mouth, slinging their poo.

Actually you did. The idea seems to be new to you. It doesn't matter if you asked if "there was proof" or if someone "could prove" it means the same thing. If there was proof it would be proven.

Holy shifting definitions Batman! Lol

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
If it doesn't serve their bias it's met with "you can't prove a negative" even though I wasn't asking for a negative to be proved.
It's funny how others jump in, not even knowing what the point is, frothing at the mouth, slinging their poo.

Also, I'm not frothing at the mouth or slinging poo. You are the one tossing expletives out there.

That was a reference to Puppyloves brilliant metaphoric description of us throwing opinions about.

Keep up...

a reply to: Ruiner1978

No dimensional shifts are needed. It is semantics. You asked the same thing using a different set of words.

You still have not answered what you think it would prove (or what kind of proof it would be, since you seem to be stuck on that) if, for example, Noah did get caught up in a flood but it didn't last 40 days and nights and he didn't really take a pair of each animal with him.

In other words, a sliver of truth in a fairy tale does what?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

While asking for proof isn't necessarily asking for something to be proven, that would only be valid if it was black or white.

Who said I was right about the shape of the world? I didn't even argue either position

Yes you did.
It's there in black and white.

I already told you that I'm not interested in that topic.
Please stop trying to drag me into a flat earth debate.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

No dimensional shifts are needed. It is semantics. You asked the same thing using a different set of words.

You still have not answered what you think it would prove (or what kind of proof it would be, since you seem to be stuck on that) if, for example, Noah did get caught up in a flood but it didn't last 40 days and nights and he didn't really take a pair of each animal with him.

In other words, a sliver of truth in a fairy tale does what?

Dimensional shifts now??

Where did that come from? Lol
I don't what to debate the Mandela Effect either.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Yes you did.
It's there in black and white.

I paraphrased. There is nothing wrong with that.

I already told you that I'm not interested in that topic.
Please stop trying to drag me into a flat earth debate.

Neither am I. It was an example of something being true despite what people might believe. Why are you not making a big deal about the other example I posted, being pregnant?

Women can't be a little pregnant. It is black or white. Either they are or they are not. The point was that not everything has a gray area, and not that I wanted to discuss flat earth theory.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Dimensional shifts now??

Where did that come from? Lol
I don't what to debate the Mandela Effect either.

I misread, my bad.

The definitions didn't shift, they are words that share the same root.

ETA: If you want someone to "prove" something you don't ask the for "prove" or "proves" you ask them for "proof", like you did.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

You still have not answered what you think it would prove (or what kind of proof it would be, since you seem to be stuck on that) if, for example, Noah did get caught up in a flood but it didn't last 40 days and nights and he didn't really take a pair of each animal with him.

In other words, a sliver of truth in a fairy tale does what?

It would mean that these stories are not based purely on imagination as claimed.

A sliver of truth makes it BASED ON OBSERVATIONS AND / OR EVENTS, by definition.

I suppose you still disagree...

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Dimensional shifts now??

Where did that come from? Lol
I don't what to debate the Mandela Effect either.

I misread, my bad.

The definitions didn't shift, they are words that share the same root.

You appeared to be redefining "proving a negative" in that post.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Sure, like "based on a true story" in hollywood films means that there is a whole bunch of BS surrounding the tiny sliver of truth. It makes it worthless as a basis for getting at what actually happened.

a reply to: daskakik

ETA: If you want someone to "prove" something you don't ask the for "prove" or "proves" you ask them for "proof", like you did.

You seem confused again...

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Sure, like "based on a true story" in hollywood films means that there is a whole bunch of BS surrounding the tiny sliver of truth. It makes it worthless as a basis for getting at what actually happened.

Well they do say "based on a true story" and not "based on imagination".