"the math behind a million years old world, and the math behind say a 20,000 year old world, can both work out given the correct context. but the fact remains that truth is truth. and we haven't found it yet, frogs have a sticky goo on the tongue, and another enzyme in their mouth that makes it non-sticky. (notice my mind dazzling technical terms =D) natural selection does not account well for this sort of mutation, pointing toward a creative designer. Similarly giraffes have a sponge in their brain so they don't pass out when getting a drink of water."
Dude, the math is called physics, and no, it doesn't work out for a 20,000 year old world OR a million year old world. The universe itself is around 14.7 billion years old, and the earth is NOT roughly the same age as the rest of the universe, although the Bible claims it is. The sun does not revolve around the earth. Rabbits are not cud-chewing animals. Evolution (and from your above comment it is apparent that you know nothing about evolutionary biology except what you've heard second-hand from crackpots) is real. And yes, these are all about the same--They are all cases in which the Bible is verifiably wrong.
And yet when I point out one of these cases, your response is along the lines that of course you know better than that, but on your NEXT point, the Bible is a science authority! This is the position of a crazy person.
The Bible fails as a science textbook--Utterly and completely. Get over it. The church typically resists reality as long as it possibly can, which is one reason people like me lose patience with people like you, who think that if it comes down to what a book says and what rocks and stars say, the book is true and the rocks and stars must be lies--but selectively, of course. If your faith depends upon the accuracy of a literal interpretation of the Bible in explaining the physical world, and convoluted explanations and disinformation campaigns to get around the places where it is absolutely proven wrong, then you have a real problem.
Every time the Bible and science conflict, the Bible loses. Use it for matters of spirituality, but take some science and history classes, and try to get over your delusion that the Bible can also function as a science textbook--Because it is just that; a delusion. You want to debate things based on fact? Cool. But I'm getting a bit tired of people who haven't the first clue claiming that because their favorite book says something, all of science must be wrong if it disagrees.
By the way, the terracentric model of the universe is inconsistent with the general and special theories of relativity, which are required for lasers, etc. Your postulated age of the Earth contradicts pretty much everything we know about physics and astronomy. According to the physics of the Bible, there can be no internet--in fact, according to the Bible, most of what we consider modern technology cannot exist.
"the math behind a million
"the math behind a million years old world, and the math behind say a 20,000 year old world, can both work out given the correct context. but the fact remains that truth is truth. and we haven't found it yet, frogs have a sticky goo on the tongue, and another enzyme in their mouth that makes it non-sticky. (notice my mind dazzling technical terms =D) natural selection does not account well for this sort of mutation, pointing toward a creative designer. Similarly giraffes have a sponge in their brain so they don't pass out when getting a drink of water."
Dude, the math is called physics, and no, it doesn't work out for a 20,000 year old world OR a million year old world. The universe itself is around 14.7 billion years old, and the earth is NOT roughly the same age as the rest of the universe, although the Bible claims it is. The sun does not revolve around the earth. Rabbits are not cud-chewing animals. Evolution (and from your above comment it is apparent that you know nothing about evolutionary biology except what you've heard second-hand from crackpots) is real. And yes, these are all about the same--They are all cases in which the Bible is verifiably wrong.
And yet when I point out one of these cases, your response is along the lines that of course you know better than that, but on your NEXT point, the Bible is a science authority! This is the position of a crazy person.
The Bible fails as a science textbook--Utterly and completely. Get over it. The church typically resists reality as long as it possibly can, which is one reason people like me lose patience with people like you, who think that if it comes down to what a book says and what rocks and stars say, the book is true and the rocks and stars must be lies--but selectively, of course. If your faith depends upon the accuracy of a literal interpretation of the Bible in explaining the physical world, and convoluted explanations and disinformation campaigns to get around the places where it is absolutely proven wrong, then you have a real problem.
Every time the Bible and science conflict, the Bible loses. Use it for matters of spirituality, but take some science and history classes, and try to get over your delusion that the Bible can also function as a science textbook--Because it is just that; a delusion. You want to debate things based on fact? Cool. But I'm getting a bit tired of people who haven't the first clue claiming that because their favorite book says something, all of science must be wrong if it disagrees.
By the way, the terracentric model of the universe is inconsistent with the general and special theories of relativity, which are required for lasers, etc. Your postulated age of the Earth contradicts pretty much everything we know about physics and astronomy. According to the physics of the Bible, there can be no internet--in fact, according to the Bible, most of what we consider modern technology cannot exist.