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 you are basing your argument on one variable out of many that effects only a minority of the global population and consider only a few centuries of history. I don't believe that merits being taken seriously.
Please note - the assertion may be correct. I would be interested to know either way, but these data do little to clarify the matter.
Good . Adding more variables. Thank you.In the aggregate, global lifespan and caloric intake have been increasing for a while.
Life Expectancy
Food per Person
Good . Adding more variables. Thank you.
Education at its best.... various creation stories are mentioned.
Right Jesus. Do you know better than Jesus?Do I know better than a noteworthy preacher from 2,000 years ago,
And monkeys may fly out of your behind.who may be a composite of multiple characters
Jesus was 2000 years closer to the events in question and was quoting reliable sources predating (1500 years?) his existence on Earth. But you know better than all that. Yeah sure.and whose secular knowledge was immensely limited in comparison with today's,
So you assert you do know more than Jesus yet you do not know if Jesus was a composite or based on a single historical figure?then in regard to the matter of the age of the Earth . . yes.
Not the subject.In regard to my moral compass,
Don't know what you mean here but it is not that important nor is it relevant.since much of its nature was acquired through his teachings . . . not especially.
I've already answered that.Right Jesus. Do you know better than Jesus?
Please don't be vulgar.And monkeys may fly out of your behind.
2,000 years in a time span of more than 4,500,000,000 is incidental. And I do not acknowledge any passage in the NT where Jesus asserts, or supports the literal interpretation of Genesis. So, thinking on it, your original question was a strawman.Jesus was 2000 years closer to the events in question and was quoting reliable sources predating (1500 years?) his existence on Earth.
If the historical Jesus actually insisted upon a 4,000 +/- year old Earth then, yes , I do know better. However, as I have just noted. I don't accept that he did so.But you know better than all that. Yeah sure.
I am comfortable that I know more than any person, group, entity, or other personage (single or multiple) that asserts the Earth is young.So you assert you do know more than Jesus yet you do not know if Jesus was a composite or based on a single historical figure?
My mistake. I did not mean to imply any further than the science class: Creationism in a Home Ec class is perfectly acceptableLOL
The "problem" used to be teaching it in science class.
Now it's teaching it 'outside of a theology class.'
Faux pas?
Let's make a cake!My mistake. I did not mean to imply any further than the science class: Creationism in a Home Ec class is perfectly acceptable
It's possible to use scientific methods to reach a different conclusion. That should be accepted in the scientific community. It's not less scientific because it involves the belief of a God. Most of the science done in world history has been done with a Creator God in mind.Which is part of AiG who specifically state that their faith comes before any physical evidence.
Do you understand the implications of this? This means that they do not follow the body of evidence: they only follow the evidence that supports what they already believe.
They are free to do so but that ain’t science and does not belong in a science class.
And much of it still is, when you consider the number of scientists who are believers and how little science has to say about the existence of God one way or the other..It's possible to use scientific methods to reach a different conclusion. That should be accepted in the scientific community. It's not less scientific because it involves the belief of a God. Most of the science done in world history has been done with a Creator God in mind.
Did you mean to say that? Are you unaware of the Chicxulub crater?For example they assert Dino extinction was caused by a meteor or a series absent any supporting evidence.
May this and may that does not mean anything. It is an insinuation. That is why I responded with the monkey quote. You do not present any evidential basis for your insinuations. How bout this, you may kill your wife.I've already answered that.
Please don't be vulgar.
Garbage. If that is true then all of recorded history is incidental since it is all recent relative to 4.5 bil years. Is that your reasoning? Lets be consistent with your thinking and trash all of human history. But you are not consistent but selective and therefore anti-academic.2,000 years in a time span of more than 4,500,000,000 is incidental.
Yeah that is called cherry picking and ignoring based not on a detached view of all the available. Was it history to them? You got your mind made up before the fact and facts exist to be ignored or dismissed if they do not jibe with your front loaded preferences. Do you have ancient precedent? No.And I do not acknowledge any passage in the NT where Jesus asserts, or supports the literal interpretation of Genesis.
Where explicitly did Jesus insist 4,000 years? Why are you inventing these bogus claims? Do you think you can get away with it?So, thinking on it, your original question was a strawman.
If the historical Jesus actually insisted upon a 4,000 +/- year old Earth then, yes , I do know better.
That Jesus did what? It was you who bought up 4,000 years, not anyone else. He referenced Adam and Eve, Moses and Noah. Treated these as historical.However, as I have just noted. I don't accept that he did so.
Right you are comfortable submitting Jesus, as depicted in Scripture, was wrong and you are right. That you have a common ancestor with a banana and humans are nothing more than big-brained apes. 98% similar (?) even though brain and skull size contains far more than a 2% difference.I am comfortable that I know more than any person, group, entity, or other personage (single or multiple) that asserts the Earth is young.
Actually it does since it is about creationism and Jesus was a Creationist.Now, none of this relates to the OP,
What choice do you have?so if you wish to continue a specific discussion of these points either open a new thread, or send me a pm. Further posts from you in relation to these points in this thread will be ignored.
That is true. But that is not what AiG is doing.It's possible to use scientific methods to reach a different conclusion.
That is true. But that is not what AiG is doing.
What they are doing is say “if the scientific method yields results incompatible with our beliefs we stop using the scientific method”.
If he was incorrect about being a deity, then probably.Right Jesus. Do you know better than Jesus?
Would have to be pretty small to fit in there to begin withAnd monkeys may fly out of your behind.
I don't consider the bible to be a reliable source. Also, what would he need to quote the Old Testament for? He's supposed to have been there himself, right?Jesus was 2000 years closer to the events in question and was quoting reliable sources predating (1500 years?) his existence on Earth.
The claim that Jesus was the son of a god and did have access to reliable information on the history of this planet needs to be substantiated before I consider Jesus to be a reliable source himself.But you know better than all that. Yeah sure.
Can appreciate your sense of humor.Would have to be pretty small to fit in there to begin with
I certainly am glad I've retained a sense of humor, though this one is a bit harsh for my taste:Can appreciate your sense of humor.
Don't get me wrong, I love me some dark jokes, this just sounds more like a cruel suggestion, though. But here are some nice, somewhat offensive jokes you might enjoy:May this and may that does not mean anything. It is an insinuation. That is why I responded with the monkey quote. You do not present any evidential basis for your insinuations. How bout this, you may kill your wife.
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?