The age of the (observable) universe is ipso facto observable, however that doesn’t preclude the possibility that the universe was created old in the first place.
It does if there is no evidence the universe was created old.
To argue otherwise is a Russel's teapot argument, and as such can be discarded out of hand.
After all, it would be impossible for humans to live in a universe that appears young.
Why?
If you are accepting that the laws of physics would prevent human life in such a universe, why then would the laws of physics be ignored when convenient for your explanation?
This is a god of the gaps argument.
If you are content to have such a small and meager god, feel free to believe in young earth creationism.
The [theological] consensus is that it is not an important question.
And yet the scientific consensus is that the earth is old.
You can verify their findings yourself, no faith required. That's the beauty of science.
The existence and preservability of oral tradition is well-known
Yes, its very well known as the least reliable method of passing knowledge from one generation to the next.
Oral histories can change dramatically even within a single generation.
but it’s in fact the Church that created the bible, and as all things the Church creates, being made of humans, has the mark of human flaws.
So then you agree with me that its nonsense to use the flawed human creation that is the bible as a refutation of an old earth.
Of course it is nonsense to use the bible to refute OEC. The purpose of my remarks was to point out how stupid you are when it comes to biblical history and theology, and that you should recuse yourself from such discussions until you educate yourself.
It does if there is no evidence the universe was created old.
To argue otherwise is a Russel's teapot argument, and as such can be discarded out of hand.
Why?
If you are accepting that the laws of physics would prevent human life in such a universe, why then would the laws of physics be ignored when convenient for your explanation?
This is a god of the gaps argument.
If you are content to have such a small and meager god, feel free to believe in young earth creationism.
And yet the scientific consensus is that the earth is old.
You can verify their findings yourself, no faith required. That's the beauty of science.
Yes, its very well known as the least reliable method of passing knowledge from one generation to the next.
Oral histories can change dramatically even within a single generation.
So then you agree with me that its nonsense to use the flawed human creation that is the bible as a refutation of an old earth.
Of course it is nonsense to use the bible to refute OEC. The purpose of my remarks was to point out how stupid you are when it comes to biblical history and theology, and that you should recuse yourself from such discussions until you educate yourself.
Then you agree with me, pretty explicitly.
Well proving me correct seems a rather poor way to go about that.
Why?
Literally by your own admission, my point and the conclusions I drew from what I know is correct.
I had no problem with that point. I had a problem with these points:
You stating that the bible was originally written in Latin.
You stating that all English bibles come from a single source.
You stating that the existence of four separate gospels indicates that they are not the Word of God.
Various other minor fallacies and misconceptions.
You explicitly agreed that those "minor fallacies and misconceptions" are immaterial to the point I was making and that I was still right.
So great job, You have managed to directly contradict Christ's teaching on judgement.
Yeah, they are the word of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Who If you hadn't noticed, are humans.
Literally the reason for having 4 different tellings of the same story is because human retelling of divine truths is imperfect.