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, sorry ... I misunderstood you.
I would assume you're more than welcome to exist in a universe that grew old ... assuming one existed.
Then I don't know what it is you want.Show me something that can only exist in a young universe and can not exist in an old universe.
Then I don't know what it is you want.
I don't believe we live in a young universe, so I don't know what a young universe looks like.
So how can I answer your question?
By embedding age into it.How can you have an old universe without deep time?
to beAnd it is this embedded age that allows the earth to look much older than the time it has actually existed for, right?
Have a nice day.In any case, it is what allows the Earth to have the evidence of billions of years when it has only existed for a few thousand years, correct?
Have a nice day.
Even the Inquisition had to take a break at times.
Let's see a light bulb come on.
Because I get tired of talking to an empty light socket.Why do you always do this when you are faced with questions you don't want to answer?
Adam Clarke said it best:Did God give us any clue as to the purpose of this phenomenon?
Adam Clarke's Commentary said:It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.
Because I get tired of talking to an empty light socket.
The first time was when I pointed out that your boolean standards would mean that you would have to conclude that the moon is female. And now when I point out that the same process which can give the Earth billions of years of history can also allow for macroevolution (after all, it's just another indication of great age).
You're a gentleman and a scholar!Kylie, he's going by his interpretation of the Bible. It's not a hyper-literalist interpretation. His Boolean standards apply to his interpretation, not to an excessively literalist interpretation.
A lot of Christians look at the six "days" of creation in the Bible and concluded that a day for God could be billions of years for humans. It's a lot harder for many of them to get past the part where humans and other animals are created. It's harder to spin a poetic meaning to that part. Many Christians do, many Christians don't. AV believes God created a mature universe, not unlike creating a mature human. So the universe doesn't just look ancient, it is ancient.
You're trying to show that he has a double standard when it comes to Biblical interpretations. If he's flexible on age, he should be flexible on macroevolution. But flexibility can have its limits. You've discovered his limits. There's no point in badgering him about it.
Citation required.
Here you can see that you can have a protein that can be encoded in several different ways.
I lean in this direction... I guess I accept that the geological and cosmological age estimates can’t be all wrong. But, mostly I interpret it that way from the Genesis account, since there wasn’t a sun to establish the 24/hour day as we know it, for the first four days.A lot of Christians look at the six "days" of creation in the Bible and concluded that a day for God could be billions of years for humans.
I can see where Day 5 & 6 can become a problem with my reasoning when you consider the ages of animal and early human (and I mean human here) evidence found, especially with the 24/hour day having been established on Day 4. I believe the Bible though, and that is why I believe there was Divine intervention and maybe even gaps, which I don’t begin to understand. But, when it says God created man, I believe that’s what it means, therefore no macroevolution happens, and no gradual appearances or common descent... only variations.It's a lot harder for many of them to get past the part where humans and other animals are created.
True, creatures and plants of all kinds must have come in bursts through Divine intervention and for varying periods of time. I know, that’s not scientific, and I understand evolutionists will discount it because they hold to a uniform, linear time continuum (not to mention disregard for Divine intervention).It's harder to spin a poetic meaning to that part. Many Christians do, many Christians don't.
That sounds suspiciously like a false dichotomy, unless you find it necessary to believe that God created man de novo.But, when it says God created man, I believe that’s what it means, therefore no macroevolution happens, and no gradual appearances or common descent... only variations.
It depends on which evolutionists you are talking to and what form divine intervention might take. I suspect that the issue here is not the divine authorship of our being but the Bible and how it is to be read....not to mention disregard for Divine intervention.
True, creatures and plants of all kinds must have come in bursts through Divine intervention and for varying periods of time. I know, that’s not scientific, and I understand evolutionists will discount it because they hold to a uniform, linear time continuum (not to mention disregard for Divine intervention).
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?