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.
No it is far more folly to not understand science. The scriptures don't tell you much useful stuff. Maybe some "human behavior" stuff.
Then I don't accept the charge of being fallacious --- especially since you've got it backwards.
[bible]Proverbs 1:7[/bible]
What about the opening of the Red Sea to allow Moses to pass- could this have been another example of plate tectonic activity in action?
So is there an atmospheric scientist out there that could confirm or deny that wind alone could cause such an opening of the Red Sea waters- or do we need to invoke a miracle to accomplish this?
That doesn't wash with me, because it doesn't wash with the Bible; and even though I may not know the intricacies of India's geology, I don't need to.
If it contradicts the Bible's chronology, it is because it didn't happen.
I'd say God was in the miracle-working business back then; wouldn't you?
Well, here is what all the geologic evidence tells us:I know why it's wrong, and that's all I need to know.
Example: Thaumaturgy says that India is shoving itself up into the Asian continent. Fine, no problem - so far.
But then, he shows a chart showing that India started out miles south of the Asian continent, moving north at only centimeters per year, and when I ask how long it took to collide; I get an answer of 250 million years.
It is at this point that I disagree. That 250 million years is based on India starting out miles south of Asia.
It's like you guys think you can place India anywhere on the map you want, have it move as slowly as you want, then claim time will cover the difference.
That doesn't wash with me, because it doesn't wash with the Bible; and even though I may not know the intricacies of India's geology, I don't need to.
If it contradicts the Bible's chronology, it is because it didn't happen.
So there is no conflict here- unless you interpret the Bible to state that the Earth is only 6100 years old.
What could be more absurd and illogical than this? If the earth has only existed 6100 years it is 6100 years old. A planet that has only existed 6,100 years can not be 4.57 billion years old. Why do you keep spouting this total nonsense over and over? You can't seriously expect that anyone else could accept such an illogical idea can you?I have never said this earth is 6100 years old. I always give it an age of 4.57 billion. It has only existed for 6100 years, though.
It can't. You have just run into the massive illogic of AV. You should see from this that rational discussion with AV is not really possible.I stand corrected- I think. But how can the earth have an age of 4.57 billion years, but have only existed for 6100 years?
I stand corrected- I think. But how can the earth have an age of 4.57 billion years, but have only existed for 6100 years?
If you are going to go with that argument, stick with #1. #2 doesn't make sense.There are two ways I can think of that this can happen:I support #1 above, which would explain why Adam was created as a mature adult, etc.
- God creates the universe with age embedded in it.
- God creates the universe then, using only a 2nd dimension of time, ages the universe to perfection, then returns it to its current dimension. Thus no time would pass from the perspective of the 1st dimension.
#2 above, although easier to explain scientifically, cannot be supported by Scripture, and is, in fact, a sort of modified Gap Theory. There's just no reason I can think of for God doing it this way, since embedded age (defined as maturity w/o history) would be much "easier." In addition, Adam would have had to have spent the first 30 years of his life in the 2nd dimension of time, as well as all the trees, animals, etc.
If you are going to go with that argument, stick with #1. #2 doesn't make sense.
There are two ways I can think of that this can happen:I support #1 above, which would explain why Adam was created as a mature adult, etc.
- God creates the universe with age embedded in it.
- God creates the universe then, using only a 2nd dimension of time, ages the universe to perfection, then returns it to its current dimension. Thus no time would pass from the perspective of the 1st dimension.
I thought you weren't down with Omphalos, yet you subscribe to #1, which is practically the definition of Omphalos.
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?