- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 31,422
- Reaction score
- 20,011
- Location
- East Coast - USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The Bible does not say that and that is their problem, not mine...
You are moving the goal posts and deflecting like a professional here.
I asked you simple question based on your very own posts.
The fact that you won't answer is quite telling.
I don't agree with your deduction because the Bible does not tell us how old the earth is...how much plainer can I make it? And I cannot help what other people accept as truth anymore than you can...
Okay, forget the age of the Earth part.
Adam and Eve. How long ago was that? How many years?
Also, how many years did Adam live?
I believe what the Bible confirms...Adam was created in approximately 4026 BCE...Adam lived to be 930 years old...Genesis 5:1-29...
So you're consistent.
Modern man is roughly 6000 years old per your biblical analogy.
And Adam lived for 930 years.
Now, compare that to actual fossils any of us can go physically see in Museums around the world that show without question modern man dates back almost 200,000 years.
So why can't you see how many people have a great deal of trouble believing what you believe???
Words in a book, vs actual physical evidence.
Man is fallible, history has proven that...God is infallible, history has proven that...
Man is fallible, history has proven that...God is infallible, history has proven that...
Which god are you talking about?
Vertually all of them have come and gone.
What's "fallible" when it comes to actual fossil evidence?
There are mummies almost as old as you claim all of human life to be.
And again, your tragically huge irony is that the bible, every single word of it, was written by fallible men.
You can not claim the bible is infallible if you also claim man is fallible.
Fallible men inspired by God's holy spirit...Ezra 7:6; 2 Timothy 3:16...
So you're using a verse FROM the bible to support the accuracy and infallibility of.......the bible?
At the same time you're doing the above, you're denying/ignoring verifiable physical evidence scattered across the entire planet that proves without any question that human life has been alive and thriving for far longer than what you believe. Even if "science" is off by magnitudes, it's not possible it's THAT far off.
And you STILL can't understand why some people have trouble not believing your side of this?
I mean, the scientific fossil record is so deep it's truly undeniable. It's out there in museums across the globe.
Millions of people view it every year. School children learn about it and go on field trips to view it.
Denying fossils is almost like saying the Earth is flat.
There's no reason to even touch on the "Adam lived for 960 years" thing.
Again, this isn't about whether or not you're right or wrong to believe what you believe.
All I'm asking is if you can understand why others don't agree with you. Especially about this one specific aspect of your belief.
Can you understand why millions and millions think that science has it right when it comes to how long modern humans have existed on this planet?
Science is also fallible...,,,oh, and your argument is moot because it doesn't matter to me one way or ther other who agrees with me and who doesn't...
Deflection.
I didn't ask about the fallibility of science.
You talk as though science is fact...it is not...now, you are deflecting...
Again, this isn't about whether or not you're right or wrong to believe what you believe.
All I'm asking is if you can understand why others don't agree with you. Especially about this one specific aspect of your belief.
Can you understand why millions and millions think that science has it right when it comes to how long modern humans have existed on this planet?
No. I asked you the below. Read it all, but focus your answer on the bold sentence at the end.
Simple and straightforward.
Sure I can.
Wow.
Why do you insist on making it so difficult to get something so simple from you??????
I'm answering truthfully...would you rather I lie?
Of course not.
What I'd like to see is "your truth" without having to work for hours to get it.
That's precisely what she's doing because that's precisely what religion is by definition. It is an initial circular argument with other arguments extending from it.So you're using a verse FROM the bible to support the accuracy and infallibility of.......the bible?
She has her evidence (The JW Bible), and you have your evidence (various dating methods).At the same time you're doing the above, you're denying/ignoring verifiable physical evidence scattered across the entire planet that proves without any question that human life has been alive and thriving for far longer than what you believe.
As I said above, I would argue that this isn't even within the realm of science, and that this is purely a religious discussion...Even if "science" is off by magnitudes, it's not possible it's THAT far off.
I can... This is a religious discussion... Religion makes use of supporting evidence. Some people find certain evidence to be more convincing to them than other evidence, for various reasons...And you STILL can't understand why some people have trouble not believing your side of this?
I would argue that it is very easily deniable... We simply don't know for sure how old those fossils are... We weren't there at the time to observe the life forms which became fossilized... Various dating methods all make various assumptions regarding various 'constants', and we simply don't know for sure...I mean, the scientific fossil record is so deep it's truly undeniable.
True... Doesn't mean that the info being presented is accurate, though. We simply don't know whether those various dating methods are accurate or not; we weren't there to observe the things which we are assuming...It's out there in museums across the globe.
Millions of people view it every year. School children learn about it and go on field trips to view it.
I don't think Elvira is denying that fossils exist; neither am I. They definitely do exist.Denying fossils is almost like saying the Earth is flat.
For all we know, he very well could have. It's a religious belief, of course, and can't be proven or disproven... It's very possible that conditions could have been different back then, which prolonged lifespan... Again, we simply don't know for sure...There's no reason to even touch on the "Adam lived for 960 years" thing.
Agreed.Again, this isn't about whether or not you're right or wrong to believe what you believe.
Not sure if she understands or not, but I understand why others don't agree with her. I also understand why others don't agree with you, either.All I'm asking is if you can understand why others don't agree with you. Especially about this one specific aspect of your belief.
I would argue that science has nothing to say about the matter... Science has no theories about past unobserved events, such as the beginning of mankind (or "modern humanity").Can you understand why millions and millions think that science has it right when it comes to how long modern humans have existed on this planet?
Do you not think there is absolute truth somewhere, somehow, someway?
Correct... Truth definitely exists... To deny that would be self-refuting...
Sure I can...because they put their faith in science rather than God...can you understand why millions put their faith in God and cannot understand those who put their faith in science when it is so fallible?
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?