Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No -- calculating embedded age requires taking the age that scientists say the earth is, then subtracting "Bible time" (I go with Ussher's figures).So ALL of your knowledge comes from the Bible? Is that where you got the idea of embedded age? I never remember reading anything about that in Genesis.
Really?
Suppose He creates a loaf of raisin bread on your counter top, ex nihilo?
Since raisins are grapes dried in the sun, was He being deceptive?
In other words, "I don't know" -- as I said before.
It's comments like this that I disdain answering questions with, "I don't know."
I'd rather make something up, than answer with, "I don't know."
This gets back to a point I've made before:
You guys won't ask questions about what is in the Bible, you'll ask questions that you know aren't covered in Scripture, just to elicit an "I don't know from us."
Look, "newbie", I've got well over two million posts.
Do you really want to stick with this accusation and make yourself look bad? or would you rather I give you a list of QVs and make you look bad, myself?
(Please make sure that you explain why the mess couldn't have been left behind.)
And likewise deceptive, right?My point is that if we were to date those raisins, they would date to being just as old as the bread, not older.
The raisins are going to be older then the bread. I could throw a five year old box of raisins in my bread dough in the bread machine. It would be a new loaf of bread with 5 year old raisins. That is exactly what I would tell people and see if they wanted any.My point is that if we were to date those raisins, they would date to being just as old as the bread, not older.
Just don't do it ex nihilo, or they'll either accuse you of being deceptive, or they'll say you don't exist!The raisins are going to be older then the bread. I could throw a five year old box of raisins in my bread dough in the bread machine. It would be a new loaf of bread with 5 year old raisins. That is exactly what I would tell people and see if they wanted any.
1Okay then. Say God creates something, maybe a lamp, ex nihilo. A few years later, he tells someone, "I made that lamp." That person moves to another country, and tells everyone he meets that God made the lamp. After a few hundred years, his descendants move to yet another country, and try to tell their friends that God made the lamp. Their friends say, "Can you prove it?"
What now?
You indeed understood correctly.You were saying that there is no evidence for creation, that you accept what God said by faith, if I understood correctly.
Here's why I don't buy this explanation, Aryn:However, there is a lot of evidence for the biblical account being inaccurate.
No, that's not correct.Your view is that all of that evidence was planted to make the Earth look older than it is, correct?
I have what I call Boolean standards* that allow me to agree with 95% of science, while at the same time maintain a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.Then what is your basis for saying the Earth is both 4.57 billion years old and 6000 years old at the same time?
And likewise deceptive, right?
If not, then please show me raisin bread where the raisins are just as old as the bread.
The raisins are going to be older then the bread. I could throw a five year old box of raisins in my bread dough in the bread machine. It would be a new loaf of bread with 5 year old raisins. That is exactly what I would tell people and see if they wanted any.
When I first came here over five years ago, people were saying that there was no evidence for the Flood being worldwide.
When I came on the scene -- agreeing with them -- they switched tactics and went from saying there was 'no evidence', to saying 'evidence says there was no Flood'.
If what you say is correct -- that 'there is a lot of evidence for the biblical [sic] account being inaccurate', then why are Internet scientists here asking for evidence of Biblical creation?
In other words, Aryn, what would happen to all this evidence that says the Biblical account is 'inaccurate', should someone actually produce evidence for Biblical creation?
In my opinion, it's not going to change their mind.
All it will do, again in my opinion, is cause them to say: "Ya, okay, there is some evidence of a Biblical creation, but we have all this evidence that says otherwise."
Why on earth, they are asking/demanding evidence, when in my opinion, they will dismiss it anyway, is beyond me; unless it's just to yank our chains.
No, that's not correct.
No ... evidence ... exists.
I have probably said this a hundred times here, and I shall continue to do so.
Even seasoned debaters here cannot grasp that simple fact.
Split Rock is the only one I can recall right now that understands this.
He disagrees with it, but he understands it.
"Sufficient" being the key word, right?QV please. This shows very clearly that every single atheist who has posted (at least at the time of this post) would change their mind given sufficient evidence. Your opinion seems to be wrong.
From another perspective, the authors of the bible wisely included statements that effectively said "don't look behind the curtain. You don't need evidence. If you do look, disregard whatever you find there that contradicts what we write here in the bible. Oh, and we want your money."Yes, sufficient evidence. Or do you think it's a good idea to change your mind based on insufficioent evidence?
And what does it tell you that for every piece in favour of a Biblical creation there is a mountain against it?
Ah, AV, so predictable. Out of that whole post you were quoting, you respond only to a tiny part of it.
And you fail - AGAIN - to answer the pressing question! Why did God use a method that left no evidence?
From another perspective, the authors of the bible wisely included statements that effectively said "don't look behind the curtain. You don't need evidence. If you do look, disregard whatever you find there that contradicts what we write here in the bible. Oh, and we want your money."
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?