Search results

No it doesn't. Almost no atmosphere means that what was there would just BARELY be called an atmosphere. It was almost non-existent. And your entire 'challenge' is purely just "Either accept a literal Biblical narrative or accept what scientists say." Have you say, you've lost your touch with...

Foolproof way to get rid of AV, I see. Sadly.

If you could find a way to actually study miracles, you'd be lauded by all scientists for sure. And possibly made the enemy of many other religious groups. Not a win-win for you.

Okay, now you see, if you had started a thread and gone into some length on it about the Rapture and ended up doing the whole 'gravity is just a theory' thing, I'd be okay with that because it's a negative point: if you're talking about the Bible or something miraculous in the Bible, then yes...

Your persecution complex is showing again.

But a scientific theory is an explanation of things.

I've seen some that clearly show hints that, if they're wrong on one thing then they must be wrong on a host of other things too. Which I find sad really because being wrong on things is such a learning experience.

Is it wrong to be shown that something was wrong and replaced with something better and more accurate?

But you don't though. Just saying "It's just a theory!" does nothing. And evolution really isn't the only scientific theory that goes against a literal reading of the Bible.

Except that in science, a theory refers to something that has repeatedly been tested. In fact, even the Wikipedia article on scientific theory explains it simply and clearly: "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that...

This is the claim I see brought up a lot from people who do not accept evolution and Creationists (I am separating them because though there is an overlap there is a difference): that evolutionary theory is worthless or wrong or of less value because it is 'just a theory'? So why is evolution...

You're just as liable to found on the wrong end of the scale as I am. Either way, I am done now. I've got nothing else to ask or add so I shall bid you all a good night.

And again, not a single verse to support your extra-Biblical claim of embedded age. Apart from showing that you so love to cherry pick Bible verses (Think I wouldn't miss the 'a' in the Peter verse?) and your inability to separate allegory from attempted historicity in the Bible.

But the Bible says nothing about your embedded age claim, and it certainly is just your claim because... you've never once shown a single verse from the Bible to say "God made everything as it looks like today, just that it was made 6,000 years ago and was made to look billions of years old"...

In that specific example, I'd say it's an even tie.

I have another question: Why, on God's green earth and in the face of every single shred of evidence that is part of God's own creation, should we take the embedded age idea seriously? Why?

AV, I'm not gonna get drawn into this, especially on derailing your own thread, but suffice it say: you're wrong.

You really should check on the history before you spout claims like that.

Your opinion is noted and discarded.

Okay.