Originally posted by @eladarBecause God allegedly created Adam to be perfect and to live forever. Not imperfect and full of wear and tear, like what you're claiming to be true in order to make your point.
I said it is possible and likely. In the same way Adam probably had a belly button.
Why would God create natural laws and not follow those laws when creating people and objects?
Since you're saying that God created a man meant to live forever to look damaged and worn from aging, then you've just proven your God is illogical, and and contradicted the idea that God's creations are perfect.
Originally posted by @vivifyNatural aging occurs to achieve an age. That aging could appear damaged compared to its earlier state.
Because God allegedly created Adam to be perfect and to live forever. Not imperfect and full of wear and tear, like what you're claiming to be true in order to make your point.
Since you're saying that God created a man meant to live forever to look damaged and worn from aging, then you've just proven your God is illogical, and and contradicted the idea that God's creations are perfect.
I guess it all depends on the view of the person classifying it.
Originally posted by @eladarMy friend, it is you who have been a complete horses' arse this entire thread.
I am going with the general idea. When Adam was created how old did he look?
When the stars were created. How old did the universe look? How long did it take for the star's light to get here?
You can carry on with other discussions after answering my question.
Of course if you wish to continue being a horses rear, continue as you have been doing.
You left a key word out of your OP, spinning everyone's wheels for 4 pages, and despite acknowledging that mistake, your pompousness remains as high as ever.
Have you no shame?
And now this latest post...what a doozy. You insist on a literal meaning, yet refuse to answer questions pertinent to that meaning. When things get slightly difficult, you want to shift back from a literal to a general meaning!
You cannot have it both ways.
As long as you keep playing it like this, I will continue heckling. You and your ideas are not well-considered enough to merit serious discussion.
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemIf you read my posts the message was clear, but you do not want to admit that I am right, so need to create side issues to avoid the troubling issue I raise.
My friend, it is you who have been a complete horses' arse this entire thread.
You left a key word out of your OP, spinning everyone's wheels for 4 pages, and despite acknowledging that mistake, your pompousness remains as high as ever.
Have you no shame?
And now this latest post...what a doozy. You insist on a literal meaning, yet refuse to ...[text shortened]... ontinue heckling. You and your ideas are not well-considered enough to merit serious discussion.
Originally posted by @eladarThis was the question from the original post.
If we assume that the Biblical account of creation is true, how old would the universe appear moments after it was created?
Assuming the same rate of expansion today, how long would it take for the stars to reach the position God placed them?
Then the secondary question, how old would the rays of light need to appear if one could see them on earth?
This was the original question before vivify hijacked the thread, so you assumed the topic was vivify's or some other.
Then you refuse to deal with the actual topic when redirected.
Typical arrogant libtard.
Originally posted by @eladarWhy do you even bother arguing with libtards? Stick with the true believers.
This was the question from the original post.
Assuming the same rate of expansion today, how long would it take for the stars to reach the position God placed them?
Then the secondary question, how old would the rays of light need to appear if one could see them on earth?
This was the original question before vivify hijacked the thread, so you assum ...[text shortened]... .
Then you refuse to deal with the actual topic when redirected.
Typical arrogant libtard.
1 edit
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemFunny how you play word games, left one key word out, what was it?
My friend, it is you who have been a complete horses' arse this entire thread.
You left a key word out of your OP, spinning everyone's wheels for 4 pages, and despite acknowledging that mistake, your pompousness remains as high as ever.
Have you no shame?
And now this latest post...what a doozy. You insist on a literal meaning, yet refuse to ...[text shortened]... ontinue heckling. You and your ideas are not well-considered enough to merit serious discussion.
Why use the term friend? No friend was be such a horse's butt. At least after doing so is no longer a friend.
Originally posted by @handyandyThe point was made, libtards just refuse to admit it.
Why do you even bother arguing with libtards? Stick with the true believers.
Too caught up in their own self righteous hatred of Bible believing Christians.
But in the end, the lot of you will burn, so good luck.
Originally posted by @eladarSounds like you take some comfort in that.
But in the end, the lot of you will burn, so good luck.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeThat would be sad if true.
Sounds like you take some comfort in that.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeVengeance belongs to the Lord.
Sounds like you take some comfort in that.