Age Correlations, step by step.

If you can demonstrate that in the past we had the same monetary laws we now have, and that we also will in the future, you might have a point. As it is, your arguments are at present based on conjectures only. Less than magic. The basic premise that your money originally belonged to us, and will again, trumps your claim it is yours. Your sole point is that it must follow today's monetary laws, yet you can provide no reasons at all it must be so bound. Just because everything you learned and think you know is wrapped up in that empty premise doesn't mean anyone has to accept it at your word. We need your money. So keep your beliefs to yourself, and hand over your money. Now!

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

But, honestly, Relative (by the way, whose relative are you? Anyone we know?), I don't understand how there can be such a fundamental boundary between two kinds of past: a recent past that science can tell us something about; and a more distant past where it can't, and principly so.Could you please tell us where the boundary lies, what caused it, and how you know all this?If I'm correct, you said yourself that no one has to accept anything from someone else at their word. So when you answer my questions, could you please provide some evidence?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

It's funny - or it would be, if it weren't actually so sad - how you mention precisely some prime examples of things that can be very easily forged, and of which there are countless known instances of forgeries. Any normal person would then conclude that what the Bible says cannot be true. One would have to be exceptionally screwed up to maintain that the laws of physics must have been different in the past, just to accomodate the silliness of one book. You even go so far as to sum up a number of impossible things in the Bible, only to conclude that it is not unreasonable to "admit a different past". In my book, it doesn't get anymore unreasonable than that.I don't care if that comes over as an insult. For me, it's just an observation. As far as I'm concerned, you're a certified fruit cake. There's no arguing with you, and I give up. You've won. Now go away.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.