- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,700
- 52,520
- 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.
So back to the OP then.
Do you believe them ?
Now wasn't that so much easer than trying to add to the OP
Now wasn't that so much easer than trying to add to the OP
av, if you look at the remaining cards you are otherwise determining the 5 cards dealt. As such it wouldn't work.
That's cool --- no problem there. At one time the book existed, and without repetition, it's just a one-time unprovable stunt - (and a waste of cards).
Ok, so if we shouldn't believe in unverifiable poker hands why should we believe in unverifiable embedded age?
If you wanna say that Christians use circular logic and base their belief system on subjective unrealistic claims than freaking say it. Stop using retarded analogies to try and trick Creationists into proving your point for you. Your cleverly crafted web is not clever. It's just annoying and eats up 45 seconds of my time reading some stupid hypothetical metaphor. Say what you're trying to say and stop wasting other peoples time.A guy deals out 5 cards face down. He tells you that he knows it's a royal flush of spades. He then places the cards back in the deck and throws them into an incinerator. When asked how he knows, he says he read in a book that everytime 5 cards aren't looked at or otherwise determined, they are a royal flush of spades.
You realize there is no way to prove they are not.
Do you believe him?
Let me deal & I just might have to take ya up on itMy question is how did the guy who wrote the book determine this in the first place. As worded it says that it will always be the royal flush if the cards are not looked at or determined in anyway. That says to me that he just made it up and never actually witnessed such a thing at all.
As I see it the best evidence he could possess would be that he dealt the cards numerous times and when he looked at them it was never a royal flush in spades so he errantly assumed that it must be onyl if you do not look.
Again I would like to play poker with him and I would certianly call his hand almost every time, odds are I would take all his money in short order.
Ok, so if we shouldn't believe in unverifiable poker hands why should we believe in unverifiable embedded age?
bump for answer
actually, the parallel I was getting at was every time anyone disproves young earth to you it's written off as "embedded age" or "pre fall was different"
People see all your "challenge" threads as just as silly as the spoofed ones like this.
The KJV does not mention playing cards, therefore royal flushes of spades do not exist. If you continue to insist they exist, you are calling God a liar.A guy deals out 5 cards face down. He tells you that he knows it's a royal flush of spades. He then places the cards back in the deck and throws them into an incinerator. When asked how he knows, he says he read in a book that everytime 5 cards aren't looked at or otherwise determined, they are a royal flush of spades.
You realize there is no way to prove they are not.
Do you believe him?
I respect the Bible as poetic. But I don't see it as something that can be taken literally. But, with the a prior assumption that the Bible is 100% literal truth, yes, you do have a major conflict. One of them is not right.Fair enough, then let's see you explain how a person can hold a rock in one hand that's 10 million years old, and a Bible in the other that shows this earth as having been in existence for only 6100.
I'll welcome any explanation that doesn't disrespect a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and if you say that it's the literal interpretation that's the problem, then please have the courtesy to tell me that you would expect me to adhere to embedded-age creation. Wouldn't you, if you took the Bible literally?
I don't think the problem is that we are unable to understand a literal reading, it's that many of us can't hold a literal reading along with accepting that the world is billions of years old.That's fine --- I'm already on recording as saying I hate them myself (I think I used the word "hate"). It's too bad I have to use them at all. I should just be able to say I take Genesis 1 literally, and it should be understood what I'm talking about.
How about in the future, when asked how God created the earth, I just say He spake it into existence? Would that make it clearer to you than saying He created it ex nihilo?
I don't think the problem is that we are unable to understand a literal reading, it's that many of us can't hold a literal reading along with accepting that the world is billions of years old.
You seem to assume that I was never faithful. Guess what, Genesis didn't make a bit of sense then either. And judging from some other Christians here it looks like there are many who can't accept the Bible as literal either.I can, though --- it's a condition of being born again.
[bible]2 Corinthians 5:18[/bible]
And since I can expect that an unregenerate wouldn't understand ---
[bible]1 Corinthians 2:14[/bible]
--- you guys' reactions and lacks of understanding really shouldn't be bothering me this much - (but it's just that I've said it over and over so many times).
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?