GoingGoldenWCU
New member
If God is God and created everything - which would include time, yes? - then why is God not removed from time? Perhaps a better way to say this is God is not constrained by time.
toldailytopic: How old is the earth?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
If God is God and created everything - which would include time, yes? - then why is God not removed from time? Perhaps a better way to say this is God is not constrained by time.
No, actually I didn't, Knight did. I am only vocal about it when it is relevant. Other people, like Knight, seem to be more vocal about it, even in discussions that have nothing to do with it, like this one.
Oh no... it's Sozo
New member
God did not create time. Time exists because God exists. It is not a thing. Movement exists because God moved. Time exists because God exists.
Not to continue this hijack for much longer but I think, to them, this aspect of you completely defines you as a person in their mind.
Then it's not divinely inspired. Perhaps you're saying it once was and is no more? I don't understand how you're confused here. Is the bible as we know it today divinely inspired or not? Is it trustworthy or not? You seem very clearly to be saying it is not divinely inspired nor trustworthy.
You can't have it both ways. If it is the divinely inspired word of God then your attempts to reconcile it with science (or anything else) make no sense. You should be reconciling science and everything else with it instead, if anything at all.
If it is not the word of God...then your attempts to reconcile it with science still don't make any sense. Why bother?
As I've said, if you accept the bible as the word of God then it simply trumps science. What science says about the age of the earth is notable, certainly, but still suspect when it so clearly is contradicted by the plain language of scripture. Comparing the two the best you can do is make a reasonable supposition that perhaps the "days" in the Genesis account might mean something other than the standard "day". But I would think you'd expect science to have established the age of the earth beyond any argument at all before you feel compelled to bend scripture to fit it.
I'm not understanding your need to have the bible be the divinely inspired, trustworthy word of God and simultaneously so filled with human error that it must be bent to fit what science tells us. Science that, if you'll recall the very nature of science, is likely to change completely what it tells us at any time.
No, not completely. There's far more to Persephone66 than all that.
Persephone66's character came into question when he rejected AIG as an acceptable source because it in turn assumes the bible to be a reliable source. Knight then argued that Persephone66's opinion on that points is itself completely unreliable. Presumably because he can't seem to figure out which clothing to wear, what gender his boyfriend is and has every personal reason in the world to reject both God and the bible.
It's a fair point, I think. Can we take Persephone66's assessment of AIG as objective or are we safe in assuming he rejects it as a reliable source because the bible condemns him? :idunno:
It simply makes Stripe and others here feel like a better person than you. Tougher now to discriminate against blacks or Jews. Although Muslims and illegal aliens seem OK to discriminate against. You as well.
I'm thinking of a number. Can you guess?
Come on, now. Put them psychic powers to work...
I am a heterosexual male, married to the same woman for 40+ years. I wear male clothes. I drink good beer and good single malt. I have 4 kids. Best I can tell the Bible does not condemn me for any of that.
AIG is lousy science.
That's true. :thumb:
I rejected what it says on AIG as it contradicts with what I have studied in science. What I said about radiometric dating is accurate and can be easily verified if one wants to look it up. If you don't want to believe me, do a google search. Yes I brought up that AIG assumes the Bible is correct, which is a pretty big assumption when science tells you otherwise.
And I guess it needs to be said, though I seem to recall saying it before, I rejected the Bible long before I was aware of being something it condemned. I started questioning the validity of the bible when I noticed that what I was reading in science books (that were far too advanced for me according to several of my elementary school teachers) didn't match up.
Well I reject AIG as well but I guess since I'm a hetero guy you'd have to take a different tack in dealing with why I do so...but I don't see the wisdom in dismissing Persephone's commentary on this thread considering he's better educated than anyone else here. To claim his comments are somehow "unreliable" is completely ridiculous.
Anyway, considering how thoroughly sidetracked this thread's become, I don't see much discussion vis a vis the planet's age, which is unfortunate.
there actually ought not be any "discussion" about the planet's age other than is it 4.5, 4.6, 4.4 etc billion years old. Any discussion which suggests that it is 6 or 10 thousand years old might as well be a discussion about alchemy or astrology. Interesting perhaps from a historical standpoint but of no use in the real world.
Oh no... it's Sozo
New member
You must also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Anyone who thinks the world is much older than 6000 years is living in fantasyland with fairies and trolls.
It is unfortunate. I guess I'm kind of to blame for that as I felt the need to defend myself and point out how ridiculous people were being.
If you really want to have an intelligent, rational, discussion on the age of the planet, then have one. If you want to debate on how one chooses to dress or the gender of the mature adult they consensually are having sex with somehow effects the reliability of their knowledge on a totally unrelated subject that they are quite educated in, then I suggest you start a new thread. Maybe we can make it another daily topic.
Fixed it for you.
Oh no... it's Sozo
New member
There's a laptop and a Warhammer 40K novel in that picture. It's obvious that I'm a geek, of course I should be taken seriously.
I was thinking something a bit more generalized like "Does one's style of dress or the mature adult they are having consensual sex with have any bearing on their knowledge of a subject they are educated in?"
That's kinda long though. Besides I'm pretty full of myself as it is and I don't think making me a daily topic so directly would be a good idea.
But don't I look great in that picture?
- Status