Title: James Carville explains everything about Mike Johnson Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Nov 12, 2023 Author:James Carville Post Date:2023-11-12 23:48:41 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:7984 Comments:48
I believe it because of a variety of time markers in space and on earth seem to indicate it. The "time candle" quasars appear to indicate certain ages of star systems. Uranium dating seems to indicate that certain things on earth are hundreds of millions or billions of years old. Carbon-14 dating seems to indicate the age of things back to 50,000 years. Continental drift occurs at a measurable rate. Looking at the gaps between the continents, which clearly were once connected, works out to the continents having separated several hundred million years ago. Dinosaur bones, uranium dated, give us indications of life a hundred million years ago. To me, this is convincing, mutually reinforcing evidence that the world and universe are very old, so that's why I think that.
To me, this is convincing, mutually reinforcing evidence
No. Actually it is circular reasoning. Asumptions about X. So the assumptions about X make Y true. Since We claim Y is True. Assumptions can be made that Z is true.
Then you have to assume life evolved over millions of years and lots of dead things before Adam and Eve.
Well, the dinosaurs lived millions of years before men, and died, and when men and animals eat plants, even before Adam and Eve fell, the plants died. So there was death before sin.
I reconcile what the Bible says to what happened by thinking that the Bible is telling a story for the purpose of teaching something, but that it is not literally true.
I'd be fine with that. But so many people have forced the conflict into my face and told me that No, I cannot be gentle with the text that way, I cannot read it as a metaphor, that I have to CHOOSE between accepting it all as literally true, or rejecting it all.
My answer to that is really "Who are you to pretend that you can demand such a thing?"
But my answer to other men, who anger me by their stance, is "Easy then, I reject it all."
I don't, really, but if my choice is between believing the inane, or believing the evidence that I trust, I'll choose the evidence and reject the inane. This is not something I actually do, internally, it is in response to the all-or-nothing approach of Protestants, which really strikes me as rather desperate and pathetic. I don't believe what they believe about the Bible. To THEM, this means that I can't believe anything. I do anyway. But in annoyance at being shoved into that stupid dichotomy, I'll tell them that I reject the Bible.
It is actually true to say that I understand the Bible to be what it is: a book, with contradictions and errors in it, but nevertheless something that carries in it some of what God said, and needing to be studied - carefully. If you take it literally, you will oppress women and burn witches, and it would be better to never have read it.
Well, the dinosaurs lived millions of years before men, and died, and when men and animals eat plants, even before Adam and Eve fell, the plants died. So there was death before sin.
