If I would have

@moonbus said
Let's start with the age of the universe, shall we? The preponderance of evidence indicates it is billions of years old, not merely thousands, and that contradicts a whole lot of what you believe. Let's look at the phenomena of life, shall we? The preponderance of evidence indicates that primitive life forms appeared first, and that complex ones appeared later, millions of ye ...[text shortened]... er science is wrong, or the literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong, they cannot both be right.

I question your preponderance of evidence, you have NO IDEA how old it is, and even if it's thousands or billions of years old that isn't a debatable point, we simply do not know and that isn't even the main question. It can be billions of years old and God did it or thousands of years old and God did it, it can be either one so no matter how old it is that doesn't rule out God.

The phenomena of life, again, you have no idea how old the earth is, it doesn't matter, claiming billions of years old, I can grant you that, and it does not help your case one wit. Some of the processes in life are time-sensitive something requires the correct action after a reaction to occur, adding billions of years doesn't help an issue that has hours to get right or start over.

Suggesting we see simpler life in what we call older (cannot prove) time periods in life doesn't mean anything we see simpler life in the here and now. If you want to base all of your reasons to believe on our ability to say how old something is, you are doing so on faith, evolution did it. None of that addresses all of the complex work in life that we see taking place with the timing, nothing about the evolutionary theory suggests foreknowledge or understanding to come up with necessary mutations to handle changes in the environment in a life-friendly manner, again faith.

You have no mechanism that can explain how the instructions in life got there, and if you want to play word games on how we describe all of the processes in life that follow distinct patterns of act, and reactions, give me your terminaologies of choice.

@kellyjay said
I question your preponderance of evidence, you have NO IDEA how old it is, and even if it's thousands or billions of years old that isn't a debatable point, we simply do not know and that isn't even the main question. It can be billions of years old and God did it or thousands of years old and God did it, it can be either one so no matter how old it is that doesn't rule out ...[text shortened]... in life that follow distinct patterns of act, and reactions, give me your terminaologies of choice.

Kelly Jay: "You have NO IDEA how old it is, and even if it's thousands or billions of years old that isn't a debatable point, we simply do not know and that isn't even the main question."

Kelly Jay: "The phenomena of life, again, you have no idea how old the earth is, it doesn't matter, claiming billions of years old, I can grant you that, and it does not help your case one wit."

As I said on the previous page:

We are talking about the origins of the universe. The fact of the matter is that no one knows what the origin of the universe was or why it originally came to be able to work in the way it does. No one knows, KellyJay. Not you, not me, not Indonesia Phil.

You seem to be illustrating my point.

@kellyjay said
You have no mechanism that can explain how the instructions in life got there, and if you want to play word games on how we describe all of of act, and reactions, give me your terminaologies of choice.

Phrases like "How the instructions in life got there" are rhetorical gimmicks. "The processes in life that follow distinct patterns" can be described as the laws of physics which are a description of the nature of the universe as we currently understand it. Now, if you want to be a propagandist who fills his texts with rhetorical gimmicks, you could say: "Laws? Laws? OK then, who is the legislator? Who is the male supernatural being who passed these laws?"

@kellyjay said
With two answers that are in direct conflict with each other, you are correct they both cannot be right; however, they both can be wrong. So without bias, we need to look at the most reasonable non-contradictory answer to find what best fits. Reducing aggravation doesn't come into play, that is just accepting a point of view to get along it is not seeking the truth in any ...[text shortened]... an feelings don't play a part, we don't feel our way into truth, not suggesting you are saying that.

Try again.

What I said was, "both can be right".

The two sides are not "in direct conflict". One happened. We have the proof. What is not provable is that "Goddidit". But it is still true. God left no proof (except for personal accounts) so that people can still choose to not believe in Him. Therefore, the only way to achieve this is if the provable facts of cosmology and evolution is the WAY "Goddidit".

Not sure who first said it, but "facts is facts". And by the same token, ruling out God is one of the bigger follies of man.

@suzianne said
Try again.

What I said was, "both can be right".

The two sides are not "in direct conflict". One happened. We have the proof. What is not provable is that "Goddidit". But it is still true. God left no proof (except for personal accounts) so that people can still choose to not believe in Him. Therefore, the only way to achieve this is if the provable facts ...[text shortened]... t, but "facts is facts". And by the same token, ruling out God is one of the bigger follies of man.

If they are in conflict no, they cannot be both right, if they are not in conflict of course they can both be right.

@kellyjay said
If they are in conflict no, they cannot be both right, if they are not in conflict of course they can both be right.

Does this mean your supernatural perspective must be right? Because it does not confict with anything else you believe?

@kellyjay said
Psalm 18:25-27
English Standard Version

With the merciful you show yourself merciful; with the blameless man you show yourself blameless; with the purified you show yourself pure; and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous. For you save a humble people, but the haughty eyes you bring down.

Could you kindly explain how this post supports the premise in your OP?

Thanks.