08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarTheir point of view is not like mine. They don't believe and have no faith.
I ask because their point of view is like yours, when God created everything, everything is fresh and starts aging from there.
I believe this is a faulty assumption.
If you think Adam began to age after he was created, then you are mistaken. Adam began to age after he sinned.
08 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @josephwTheir point of view of if God did create the world, is like yours who does believe.
Their point of view is not like mine. They don't believe and have no faith.
If you think Adam began to age after he was created, then you are mistaken. Adam began to age after he sinned.
You have no clue what I am asking. Perhaps you are just the other side of the same coin.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemYou're out of context. Learn to read and follow the thread.
The OP asked us to assume the creation account is true. Then you come to bash the people willing to play ball?
Ever heard of arguing from hypothesis? You can follow premises to a conclusion even if you don't agree with the premises.
This is basic stuff in logical argumentation.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladar"Their point of view of if God did create the world, is like yours who does believe."
Their point of view of if God did create the world, is like yours who does believe.
You have no clue what I am asking. Perhaps you are just the other side of the same coin.
Where did you learn grammar?
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @josephwWay to avoid the point.
[b]"Their point of view of if God did create the world, is like yours who does believe."
Where did you learn grammar?[/b]
You are just like them in your faulty assumption.
I never asked if Adam aged. I never asked if Adam had zits.
I asked how old would he appear.
The same could be asked about the universe. How old would it appear at the moment of creation?
How long did it take the first star light to reach earth?
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarNot yet, but I have answered others. [It is cheap to accuse of me of not playing along just because I didn't answer one question out of 3-4 that you asked in a single post!]
Really? You have answered my question about Adam?
In my next post, I'll answer that question.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemOthers are tangents to the topic of the thread. They are not the official topic. Hopefully you can get around to the actual topic of the thread.
Not yet, but I have answered others. [It is cheap to accuse of me of not playing along just because I didn't answer one question out of 3-4 that you asked in a single post!]
In my next post, I'll answer that question.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladar"Adam" is symbolic of the first evolved human - homo sapiens. He was conceived in a womb and born just like all other human babies. Difference is, he got favorable DNA [probably due to a copying error] that set him apart from his ancestors.
Really? You have answered my question about Adam?
Over time, this "Adamic" DNA multiplied due to its survival advantages over the other apes.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemThe assumption in this thread is that the Genesis account is literally true.
"Adam" is symbolic of the first evolved human - homo sapiens. He was conceived in a womb and born just like all other human babies. Difference is, he got favorable DNA [probably due to a copying error] that set him apart from his ancestors.
Over time, this "Adamic" DNA multiplied due to its survival advantages over the other apes.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarDid I not answer your other questions about how old the earth was? And how old the stars were? And your first one about how old the universe would appear to be?
Others are tangents to the topic of the thread. They are not the official topic. Hopefully you can get around to the actual topic of the thread.
Does your memory suck this bad, or are you just being disingenuous? 🙄
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarNope! Nice try. You added a word. The OP is, and I quote:
The assumption in this thread is that the Genesis account is literally true.
If we assume that the Biblical account of creation is true, how old would the universe appear moments after it was created?
The word "literal" is not in there.
Disingenuous, it is.
Save it for people who won't notice. I'm going to call you out on it every time.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemSorry that was the intent. If you have no interest in such a discussion then leave the thread.
Nope! Nice try. You added a word. The OP is, and I quote:
If we assume that the Biblical account of creation is true, how old would the universe appear moments after it was created?
The word "literal" is not in there.
Disingenuous, it is.
Save it for people who won't notice. I'm going to call you out on it every time.
If you wish to contribute continue.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarAre you using the order of creation of Genesis 1, or the order of creation of Genesis of 2? They're contradictory.
Sorry that was the intent. If you have no interest in such a discussion then leave the thread.
If you wish to contribute continue.
If you want a literalist interpretation to be used, you must resolve the contradiction. Throw one or the other out, please, so it is clear what we are assuming.
08 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarAnd my initial answer to the modified question,
Sorry that was the intent. If you have no interest in such a discussion then leave the thread.
If you wish to contribute continue.
"If we assume that the Biblical account of creation is true, how old would the universe appear moments after it was created?"
is modified to:
The universe, with a correct understanding of how it works on the part of the observer, would appear to be moments old. Modern science would have to be wrong about billions of years. All that we think we know is somehow wrong. But I have no proof of why it is wrong, so that is the best I can do.