If he "remade the world" then why wouldn't he remake it from scratch honestly instead of giving the Earth a false history?
Let me recall the comparison with the wine: wine must have a history of at least 6 months for it to be wine, there is no instant wine like there is instant ginger drink...
God made wine within a second just for the sake of having some good tasty wine. He didn't cheat, he didn't lie. He made the wine from scratch. Yet it looked older than it actually was.
Same with creation, I think.
In #252 I said that only in an old looking universe man is able to notice galaxies apart from their own. Is that cheating by God? No, I think. It is loving from his side to show man galaxies. Yet Bible (Genesis 1) holds that they are some 6000 years old only.
Dear Subduction Zone, this is going round in circles. Can we stop here. Normally you're doing a great job in apologetics, I know that. I've read what you wrote on CF, for instance. I know you make a case for atheism that isn't easy to deal with. But this time it's going round in circles a bit...
I don't think that my refutation of your answers reveals a lack of education in science.
The only way to refute evidence is with more accurate evidence.
no. One example: when you say "the cellar does not show traces of moisture, so it's a myth that flooding has occured!" I refute it with pointing to the land lord that potentially exchanged the house - after the flooding. To me, that's a refutation. If the flooding happened prior to the building of the new house, your evidence points to nothing but to the absence of a flooding
of the new house. But that wasn't your point for which you claimed evidence!
Do you remember when I asked you how you would test your beliefs? You not only said that you did not have a test, you said that you would not test them. That is a statement that said that you had no evidence for your beliefs and were not interested in finding evidence for your beliefs.
This is a misrepresentation of what I said.
I said that I don't test
my general belief in God. If it's just interpretation of scientific data for a particular field, I am open to change my mind!
As I see it, you made an ad hominem remark in #272 questioning that I wasn't afraid to learn.
God isn't a bumbler, I think. He didn't cheat. God didn't commit any evil act, nor is he ashamed, I think.
I didn't give a poor argument, I didn't paint God as an evil incompetent liar. I reason logically, I think.
The narrative of a literal Genesis is not a flase one.
I think I do understand what is and what is not evidence.
I didn't resort to mere hand waving and I don't assume that hand waving makes my arguments fly.
Don't pretend to be my teacher in posting unwarranted educational links, please.