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.
So if I believe God embedded 4.47 billion years of age into the earth, I made that number up?
Or am I agreeing with the conclusion of science?
Because I'm a literalist, and that means my default position is literal, unless I have reason to believe otherwise.
As I said, unless otherwise convinced, I'll take the view that they were real events.
I won't.
There's no reason to have to say it.
Until you can demonstrate that you understand it, I'll take that comment with a grain of salt.
And if you do demonstrate that you understand it, I'll take that comment as blasphemy.
Since science never concluded that anything was "embedded," then yes, you're making that number up.
For someone that supposedly is a fan of logic you do not seem to know how to use it. TLK made no false accusation.Interesting how you can justify a false accusation.
And for making that number up, don't you think it's a little coincidental that it just happens to agree with what scientists say?
Interesting how you can justify a false accusation.
And for making that number up, don't you think it's a little coincidental that it just happens to agree with what scientists say?
Scientists never said anything about embedded numbers...
Good.
All they have to do is supply me with the number I should use, and I'll take care of explaining the rest.
HOWEVER, that's why I came up with the formula for determining the amount of embedded age.
You know -- for inquiring minds?
Now you don't need me to calculate it for you anymore.
Just use the formula yourself.
For you, maybe.Very well.
4.7 billion real years + 0 "embedded" years = 4.7 billion years.
There now -- wasn't that easier?
For you, maybe.
It's hard to understand, isn't it?
So not only is it hard for you to understand, but you can't tell me it's hard for you to understand?It's always difficult to justify adding made up information where it's not needed. The mental contortions that many Christians -- present company included -- put themselves through would be impressive if they were only necessary.
So not only is it hard for you to understand, but you can't tell me it's hard for you to understand?
Help me out here.
I'm trying to understand.
A simple formula is hard to understand?It's hard for you to understand because you're making up facts in order to justify a conclusion.
A simple formula is hard to understand?
And why do you keep turning this around on to me?
The formula is easy -- the need to add made up "embedded" numbers is the difficult part.
Because you're having difficulty understanding the simple concept -- made up numbers are not necessary for the formula.
I've already shown this: 4.7 billion real years + 0 embedded years = 4.7 billion years.
Why make it more complicated than the truth? What do you gain?
the truth?If only you were interested in truth, the facts would be easy for you to understand.
Hmmm.
The formula is easy, yet you misquote it (as usual).
I'm not familiar with a plus sign in my formula, that now you seem to think is "easy."
LOL
I'm the one having difficulty here?
That's your formula -- not mine.
Mine is hard for you to understand ... remember?
What do I gain?
The chance to expose you as someone so desperate to make me look wrong, he ends up hoisting himself by his own petard.
the truth?
what do you make of the following truth:
"there is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and no empirical evidence that they do so."
Physical Age - Existential Age = Embedded AgeRepost it, and I'll point out the problems.
well?Half-truth, you mean.
I think the quote is a lot more interesting when it's not mined.
"There is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and no empirical evidence that they do so. Nevertheless, eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotic ones, animals and plants are more complex than protists, and so on. This increase in complexity may have been achieved as a result of a series of major evolutionary transitions. These involved changes in the way information is stored and transmitted."
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?