So wait, we dice the bible and we have the earth? Somehow it's not adding up to me. Also, I doubt chopping up books will get us anywhere.
Upvote
0
How would you reconcile these two statements w/o being disrespectful to either one:
- This rock has been in existence for 6100 years.
- This rock is 4.57 billion years old.
What's the second item? Maybe a tricorder...?
I think it is called a veg-o-matic
How would you reconcile these two statements w/o being disrespectful to either one:
- This rock has been in existence for 6100 years.
- This rock is 4.57 billion years old.
Absolutely not --- it is 4.57 billion years old --- period.
<Queeny>Well then it isn't 6100 years old, is it!</Queeny>
What does "queeny" mean? Or do I really want to know?
I don't know much about theology but have you looked into the Kabbalah and the interpretation of genesis within it? I don't know if it's all bruhaha but it's definately interesting.
In that case, I'll stick with the fact that even from a Christian perspective the Big Bang can be traced to ex nihilo creation.
Although I notice you've not responded to anyone who told you that if the earth is 4.5 billion years old it ain't 6100 years old, except for hand-waving and saying that it's "illogical." I mean, "supralogical" - but they mean the same thing.
When I first read the title of this thread, I thought that you were going to attempt to reconcile your view with ours, or something of that nature. I thought, wow such an attempt would be a welcome change from your usual posture. Instead, you have just re-wrapped your "Apple Challenge" with different paper. Now you are playing the martyr again. How disappointing.Well, I did think of a good point and went and hunted up some words that started with supra-, with the intent of saying something like, "So these aren't real, either?" But all I could find is medical words like supraventricular and stuff like that, so I just abandoned the cause. I always find it interesting when I get accused of twisting the English language, only to later read something like "illogical and supralogical" mean the same thing; and no one contests them.
But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.
And you guys have proven that time and time again.
But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.
When I first read the title of this thread, I thought that you were going to attempt to reconcile your view with ours, or something of that nature. I thought, wow such an attempt would be a welcome change from your usual posture. Instead, you have just re-wrapped your "Apple Challenge" with different paper. Now you are playing the martyr again. How disappointing.
Well, I did think of a good point and went and hunted up some words that started with supra-, with the intent of saying something like, "So these aren't real, either?" But all I could find is medical words like supraventricular and stuff like that, so I just abandoned the cause. I always find it interesting when I get accused of twisting the English language, only to later read something like "illogical and supralogical" mean the same thing; and no one contests them.
But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.
And you guys have proven that time and time again.
But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.
And you guys have proven that time and time again.
Well, I did think of a good point and went and hunted up some words that started with supra-, with the intent of saying something like, "So these aren't real, either?" But all I could find is medical words like supraventricular and stuff like that, so I just abandoned the cause. I always find it interesting when I get accused of twisting the English language, only to later read something like "illogical and supralogical" mean the same thing; and no one contests them.
But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.
And you guys have proven that time and time again.
Yes, we see the "I am being persecuted" complex here very often among creationists. There are two aspects to this claim that I think appeal to creationists:Playing the martyr often makes some people feel more holy. Here in the U.S. we have to hear ad nauseam how hard the Christians here have it, despite the fact that 9 state constitutions are or were openly prejudicial towards atheists and recent polls found atheists to be the least trusted minority in the U.S.
Then when they can't bother to robustly defend their stances they claim they are being persecuted.
Go figure.
I wonder if Chalnoth would publish a paper called "Insane in the M-brane" if I paid him.It can? I wasn't aware that anyone had come to the conclusion that there was nothing before the Big Bang. In fact, most current theories state that there was something (M-branes) that caused the Big Bang inflation.