Why, if you have such a problem with the scientific institution stating that the world was "big bang" formed, (to the point, void of a creator, doesn't matter what theory you want to forward) do you have such an easy time accepting what they say about the age of the earth itself? I'm a creationist myself, I just am puzzled by the double standard.Actually, I go by faith in science that this earth is as old as they say it is. I'll gladly acquiesce though if shown otherwise.
It's not a double standard, it's a paradox; one that's easily cleared up when one realizes that Big Bang contradicts a literal rendering of Genesis One, whereas the actual age of the earth does not.Why, if you have such a problem with the scientific institution stating that the world was "big bang" formed, (to the point, void of a creator, doesn't matter what theory you want to forward) do you have such an easy time accepting what they say about the age of the earth itself? I'm a creationist myself, I just am puzzled by the double standard.
The next three statements are true.The reason we're "having trouble" answering it is because it is incredibly vague.
Let me give you my own apple challenge. I have a piece of fruit on my desk. Demonstrate that it is an apple, why it is an apple, and don't be wrong.
This is of course, you think the world looks millions of years old to begin with, right?
nah. 10,000 years is pretty old too... so it would look old to me either way. I'm not even up to a century yet.Hey Uphill Battle.. long time no see.
Even professional YECs admit that the Earth looks very old... they just claim the Bible says otherwise. Do you think the Earth looks young?
No, I haven't.
Since you guys are such "experts" on showing God to be a deceiver, and my Embedded Age explanation to be wrong, I thought this little challenge would be a snap for you to answer.
Apparently you guys aren't half the "experts" you think you are.
Anyone can simply say my Embedded Age is wrong because that would make God a deceiver; but proving it is something else though --- isn't it?
Well perhaps there's your problem.No, I haven't.
Since you guys are such "experts" on showing God to be a deceiver, and my Embedded Age explanation to be wrong, I thought this little challenge would be a snap for you to answer.
Apparently you guys aren't half the "experts" you think you are.
Anyone can simply say my Embedded Age is wrong because that would make God a deceiver; but proving it is something else though --- isn't it?
How is anything I wrote a non sequitur? There is no deception involved in the OP - do you want only people with the wrong answer to post?Please respect the OP as I wrote it. If you can't show deception and intent to deceive, without being wrong, then please don't clutter up this thread with non sequitur responses --- thanks.
Agreeing with your point, as irrelevant it may be, is a non sequitur?Please respect the OP as I wrote it. If you can't show deception and intent to deceive, without being wrong, then please don't clutter up this thread with non sequitur responses --- thanks.
I speak this man into existence ex nihilo on 11 Jul 08 with a note in his pocket saying I spoke this man into existence ex nihilo on 11 Jul 08.
Show this to be an act of deception, and show the intent to deceive, without being wrong.
I read this entire thread, but still don't know the correct answer.
Is there one?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?