Obliquinaut
Сделайте Америку прекрасной
- Jun 30, 2017
- 2,091
- 1,635
- 60
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Here's how it went down (with my added commentary)
(At this point you have indicated that are playing coy. You could have simply pointed out that you are not a YEC which means you have no problem correlating the Bible to the reality of the data. Now, of course, it is CLEAR to anyone that Larnievic was discussing the literalist interpretation not lining up with the data.
Now, of course, later on I noted that indeed the Bible is silent on the actual age, but the Bible is NOT silent on the order of which certain living things came into being. I noted that here:
But you responded to only part of it (the part the BIble is silent on.) Your excuse for ignoring my point?
Which of course is pretty much exactly what I described. You choose only to address those points which allow you to drive to the specific point you want to make while ignoring any points that might speak to other aspects of the discussion.
So by all means, respond with one sentence or no real information. Meanwhile I'll support my position. I understand if you don't want to bother to support your statements. Don't worry, I'm used to intellectual laziness here on CF.
Even when he leaves evidence in the Bible that contradicts evidence in the earth?
Like what?
(At this point you have indicated that are playing coy. You could have simply pointed out that you are not a YEC which means you have no problem correlating the Bible to the reality of the data. Now, of course, it is CLEAR to anyone that Larnievic was discussing the literalist interpretation not lining up with the data.
Now, of course, later on I noted that indeed the Bible is silent on the actual age, but the Bible is NOT silent on the order of which certain living things came into being. I noted that here:
Even if one wishes to ignore Bishop Ussher's calculation, the BIble literally read, has mankind showing up near the beginning. AND it also indicates an order of creation in direct opposition to what we see preserved in the rock record.
But you responded to only part of it (the part the BIble is silent on.) Your excuse for ignoring my point?
No, I just answered as I saw fit.
Which of course is pretty much exactly what I described. You choose only to address those points which allow you to drive to the specific point you want to make while ignoring any points that might speak to other aspects of the discussion.
So by all means, respond with one sentence or no real information. Meanwhile I'll support my position. I understand if you don't want to bother to support your statements. Don't worry, I'm used to intellectual laziness here on CF.
Upvote
0