MoonLancer
The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
I suppose you have tested evidence to show and demonstrate these mistakes?
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.
You're taught two major mistakes:
- Processes take longer than 6100 years.
- Processes occur only by nature.
I've got Something better than that:I suppose you have tested evidence to show and demonstrate these mistakes?
I've got Something better than that:
Of course I do --- why do you think I take It on faith?
You do realize that your trusted source contains talking snakes and donkeys, a flood that never happened, miracles that nobody can prove, and a promise of a glorious second-coming that is overdue by about 1,970 years, don't you?
And that's OK with you? I don't know what to say. If my deity of choice promised that he'd do something and 2,000 years passed without it happening, I'd be suspicious.Of course I do --- why do you think I take It on faith?
And that's OK with you? I don't know what to say. If my deity of choice promised that he'd do something and 2,000 years passed without it happening, I'd be suspicious.
So, back on topic: do I understand what you're saying is that the Earth is 6,100 years old and any evidence we find of history or age that defies that 6,100 years has been designed into the Earth to make it appear that way?
Well-stated!Thus, he applies age as a trait instead of as the effect of the passing of time.
QV the Anthropic Principle.Of course, this doesn't explain why God would chose to cretate the universe in this fashion.
Or the right thing to do.It seems to be a fairly deceptive thing to do.
Perhaps He can. But why would He? It's clear we humans don't have the capacity to understand the mind of God, so why would He toy with us like that? It's intentionally misleading and mean.Yes --- age is a trait of the universe --- not an effect.
Can God create a dress tomorrow so old, it falls apart with age?
Either that, or He did it for anthropic reasons.Perhaps He can. But why would He? It's clear we humans don't have the capacity to understand the mind of God, so why would He toy with us like that? It's intentionally misleading and mean.
I have stated many times over the past three years that the universe looks old because the universe is old.Another question is what purpose does it serve? If God created an Earth that looked 6,100 years old because it was 6,100 years old, wouldn't that testify more to His creation than if He made it appear older? What does that do, aside from spur division and dissent? Is God benevolent, or is He not?
No, we would not --- we would be discussing Omphalism --- and you guys would be accusing God of yet another form of deception.Look at the debate we're having right now. Would this debate even be happening if God had created the Earth with all of the traits and history of its real age?
So, He made the Earth appear deceptively old because it helps humans or lends more credibility to our existence here? I'm not sure I understand.Either that, or He did it for anthropic reasons.
Not the universe; the Earth. I understand you're saying the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Let's not debate that, and just stick to the Earth. You're saying the Earth is 6,100 years old but it appears to be several billion years old. I'm asking why? What purpose does that serve? Why would a loving God intentionally mislead the people He loves? You can tell strictly from this discussion that it only breeds confusion and disbelief.I have stated many times over the past three years that the universe looks old because the universe is old.
Don't you think it would be one step closer to reaching agreement? You say 6,100 and others say 4.6 billion. If we all knew definitively that the Earth were 6,100 years old then we could reconcile some of the Bible that escapes us and realize that there may be something to it. As it stands right now, we only have apologists to make assumptions and postulate how they think the Bible could be right. But they don't know, because they're not God. So who do we believe?No, we would not --- we would be discussing Omphalism --- and you guys would be accusing God of yet another form of deception.
For not understanding, you seem to be acting like you do.So, He made the Earth appear deceptively old because it helps humans or lends more credibility to our existence here? I'm not sure I understand.
Now I'm beginning to suspect you're just here to pull my chain.Not the universe; the Earth. I understand you're saying the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Let's not debate that, and just stick to the Earth.
For the third time --- He did it for anthropic reasons.You're saying the Earth is 6,100 years old but it appears to be several billion years old. I'm asking why? What purpose does that serve? Why would a loving God intentionally mislead the people He loves? You can tell strictly from this discussion that it only breeds confusion and disbelief.
No.Don't you think it would be one step closer to reaching agreement?
I actually say 'both' --- (but you know that, don't you)?You say 6,100 and others say 4.6 billion.
I'm taking that as a compliment. Because as confused as I am right now, if I can manage to make it seem like I know what you're talking about, I must be doing something right.For not understanding, you seem to be acting like you do.
I call it deception because you're saying that God created a 4.6 billion-year-old Earth 6,100 years ago. Right?If you truly don't understand, why then are you calling it deception?
I understand the words that you're typing. I just don't understand how you reconcile them. I see what you're saying, but it doesn't make any sense to me.Personally I think you do understand, and you just made a faux pas --- but that's just my opinion.
Not at all. I'm trying to figure out how you put all of this together. I'm past the point of, "oh, you're just a religious nutjob" and well into, "I wonder how the heck he comes up with this and whether or not he can explain it well enough to be understood."Now I'm beginning to suspect you're just here to pull my chain.
Please assume I have no clue what you're talking about an explain "anthropic reasons." I truly don't understand what you mean.The earth is 4.57 billiion years old --- in my opinion.For the third time --- He did it for anthropic reasons.
Coherent to you, maybe. I'm still struggling to catch up to where you are. Is the core of what you're saying that when God created the Earth 6,100 years ago, he created it 4.6 billion years old? If so, my brain is overloading right now. That just doesn't compute.I'm neither --- I'm Embedded Age --- combining both YEC and OEC into one coherent explanation.
Have a good day, sir ---Coherent to you, maybe. I'm still struggling to catch up to where you are. Is the core of what you're saying that when God created the Earth 6,100 years ago, he created it 4.6 billion years old? If so, my brain is overloading right now. That just doesn't compute.
You have a good day too ---Calling upon the anthropic principle in this case seems less like a genuine attempt at explanation, and more like a serious case of intellectual laziness.
You have a good day, sir. You're no better than David Enjay.You're taught two major mistakes:
- Processes take longer than 6100 years.
- Processes occur only by nature.
No doubt.You have a good day, sir. You're no better than David Enjay.
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?