Atheos canadensis
Well-Known Member
so the King James 1611 Version got the translation wrong?
Uh oh. AV, cover your ears!
Upvote
0
so the King James 1611 Version got the translation wrong?
Uh oh. AV, cover your ears!
I expected it.
Can God create pumice ex nihilo tomorrow without deception?
Most "educated" people here will conclude that a literal Genesis 1 would constitute deception on God's part.
Even though He put what He did in Writing.
Can God create pumice ex nihilo tomorrow without deception?
Why don't we establish if He can first,* before we try and establish why, scientist?The real question should be, "Why did he manufacture pumice in the first place."
Why don't we establish if He can first,* before we try and establish why, scientist?
* Without being accused of deception by the clipboard clique, that is.
Why don't we establish if He can first,* before we try and establish why, scientist?
* Without being accused of deception by the clipboard clique, that is.
Why don't we establish if He can first,* before we try and establish why, scientist?
* Without being accused of deception by the clipboard clique, that is.
Who is the "clipboard clique?" Is that anything like the "bible thumper crew?" Maybe we can do without insults all around.
But then, the big questions. We have answers here about the universe. We can determine its age for instance. But the Bible disagrees. So what are we to do? Why, the Bible must be right. So how do we account for readings that show one thing while the Bible says another. The simple answer is, "the Bible is wrong." The complicated and ridiculous answer is that God created everything 6,000 years ago as if it had been around for billions of years. You can't tell. Every reading, every examination will tell you billions. But it's really 6,000.
Those readings rely on beginning assumptions. So it's man's assumptions of how old everything is. It's not fact.
If I could create something by speaking and created a 1969 Mustang, you would conclude it was made by Ford. On the assembly line in 1969. So I tell you "No, I just created it today".
Then you tell me, "All tests and appearances show it was created by Ford in 1969. It even has the assembly line tag on it".
How am I being deceptive if I explained the creation to you and made the car exactly as it should appear? This of course is a philosophical question and can't be proven either way, by either of us. Aside from the fact that I have something supposedly written by God that explains my position.
Again, I need to point out that E.D. does not know what an assumption is.
Scientist do no assume those things E.D.. Far from it.
Again, I need to point out that E.D. does not know what an assumption is.
Scientist do no assume those things E.D.. Far from it.
Then show me the readings as to the levels of isotopes in the
supposed year of 3.5 billion years ago. I want the paper and the
exact readings.
If you can't provide the evidence then it is an assumption.
I want exact readings of helium levels in the sun. If you can't provide
the evidence then it is an assumption.
Show me the readings 6,000 years ago that prove isotope dating wrong.
Really? I thought you would have a better response. Like in actual evidence.
Where is your "actual evidence"? If you don't have any, then admit it, and I will show you my evidence. Btw, the bible doesn't count as actual evidence.
Are you admitting the dates are assumptions?
Those readings rely on beginning assumptions. So it's man's assumptions of how old everything is. It's not fact.
If I could create something by speaking and created a 1969 Mustang. . .