- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,330
- 52,690
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
Oh look!!! It's "My Challenge" thread time!!!
Let's get starting those new threads, folks! Remember, the title has to be in the "My Challenge" format, or you're out.
i'm confused, do you even know what omphalos really says? i'm questioning whether you do reallyShow me how the Omphalos Hypothesis is deceptive without disrespecting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.
- The intent of this thread is to show that one would have to deny a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 in order to claim Omphalism.
Just about everything you use in your daily life - quite possibly the reason why you are still alive - is thanks to science.I don't need to look around. I have you guys right here telling me the Egyptian Empire - (which came from Noah's grandson) - predated the Flood.
I don't need your junk interpretations of what went on long ago.
i'm confused, do you even know what omphalos really says?
i'm questioning whether you do really
considering omphalos is about the genesis story how can it conflict with it?
all omphalos says is that the earth appears older than it really is.
genesis itself never states how old the earth is...
...so i don't know why you think there is a problem there
now claiming that the earth is somehow both old and young at the same time, while a majority of people analyzing the earth, using gods creations finds its older than what religious people claims it is, makes god into a lier
why does god make it seem older than it is?
theres no point, it just makes god look deceitful
by the way AV, if you insist on complaining that people keep bringing up everything past genesis 1, then you are being a hypocrite by bringing up the 6000 date, since genesis 1 doesn't say how old the earth is
it does say the earth was created in six days, but not how long ago that was.
Just about everything you use in your daily life - quite possibly the reason why you are still alive - is thanks to science.
Yet you reject some of it in favour of a bronze age view of creation. Inconsistent, is it not?
Peer review IS science - without it you get pseudoscience, so it's a fundamental misunderstanding to say scientists 'reject' science through peer review.To take it a step further --- thanks to God, Who gives us those scientists.
No --- scientists reject science as well. (I think it's called peer review?)
1) The Universe looks 12-13 billion years old.Show me how the Omphalos Hypothesis is deceptive without disrespecting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.
- The intent of this thread is to show that one would have to deny a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 in order to claim Omphalism.
Peer review IS science - without it you get pseudoscience, so it's a fundamental misunderstanding to say scientists 'reject' science through peer review.
For instance: God's intention could have been to promote Atheism. After all, He probably doesn't believe that He himself was created.
One final note: AV, I've assumed that a) 'a literal interpretation of Genesis 1' equates to your interpreation of Genesis 1...
No! The scientific method can refute a hypothesis, idea, experimental data etc. - that's not rejecting science, it's upholding the scientific method.Oh, I don't know --- I submit some scientific tome for peer review, and it comes back REJECTED, I'd say that's science rejecting science. How can something be pseudoscience without being science first?
According to the Trinity doctrine, Father and Son are of the same essence, but they are not identical. God could be an Atheist and His son could be a Jew.God's Son says otherwise ---
That's why I stipulated without history.
Is it deceptive to say I baked a cake without sugar?See the correlation?
- Maturity without history.
- Cake without sugar.
Oh, I know what you said. But something you said has to be wrong, logically speaking.
Here's a simpler way of looking at it without getting into all your redefining of age, and non-defining of embedded age.
Claim 1:
If something looks old, then that indicates that it has existed, more or less, for the same amount of time as it appears to have.
There is one exception that you have brought up so far,
and that is the bicycle. So, I reject claim 1 and present Claim 2:
If something looks old, then that indicates that it, or all the parts of it that look old, have existed, more or less, for the same amount of time as it, or they, appear to have.
So, since parts of the earth look old, that is indicative of their time in existence. Notice that we're not bringing age into it, so it doesn't matter what you do with English over there. You either have to deny that appearance of age is indicative of existence - something that you probably don't want to do since it's rather handy for all sorts of things - or you have to admit that God is a deceiver.
Oh really? You remember what happened last time you want with "standard dictionary definitions?" That's right - you got pwned and abandoned thread.
Maturity without history is, upon examining the definitions, just the same as looking old without being old.
Oh, I know what you said. But something you said has to be wrong, logically speaking.
Here's a simpler way of looking at it without getting into all your redefining of age, and non-defining of embedded age.
Claim 1:
If something looks old, then that indicates that it has existed, more or less, for the same amount of time as it appears to have.
There is one exception that you have brought up so far,
and that is the bicycle. So, I reject claim 1 and present Claim 2:
If something looks old, then that indicates that it, or all the parts of it that look old, have existed, more or less, for the same amount of time as it, or they, appear to have.
So, since parts of the earth look old, that is indicative of their time in existence. Notice that we're not bringing age into it, so it doesn't matter what you do with English over there. You either have to deny that appearance of age is indicative of existence - something that you probably don't want to do since it's rather handy for all sorts of things - or you have to admit that God is a deceiver.
Something wrong, AV?
Not proud of what did happen last time, AV?
Well, I did say equates. The beauty of an equation is that it works both ways. 'A = B' is the same as 'B = A'. I do like how you reduced my post down to that one sentence though.It's the other way around.
I do like how you reduced my post down to that one sentence though.
I'm going to ignore the past five pages, because I'm an arrogant git
1) The Universe looks 12-13 billion years old.
2) Your interpretation of the Bible implies that the universe is 6100 years old.
3) Therefore, God created/altered the universe to look far older than it is.
Well, I did say equates. The beauty of an equation is that it works both ways. 'A = B' is the same as 'B = A'. I do like how you reduced my post down to that one sentence though.
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?