[OriginalIntent]

The question lacked any intelligent purpose, beyond distraction.

He sure challenged you and said he could prove it was just an opinion that you were expressing. That was the purpose he gave you. It was to prove you wrong.

You should have taken the challenge to answer the question and then point out the flaws in his arguments as he presented them. It could have gotten interesting, at least more interesting than name-calling.

It still looks like you were afraid to answer the question at any rate.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"He sure challenged you and said he could prove it was just an opinion that you were expressing. That was the purpose he gave you. It was to prove you wrong."

No, it was to distract. It didn't work.

"You should have taken the challenge to answer the question..."

I did answer it, in the way it deserved to be answered. I said I don't believe there ever was an Adam. There was no point taking the silly hypothetical any further. It was obvious where he was going with the question, and there was no way to answer it as stated without having him be able to say, *But God could have just made him APPEAR to be in his 20's!* That means we can't trust anything we see around us, because it could all be a trick.

My point is valid; any *God* that makes the universe APPEAR to be 15 billion years old but really is only 6,000 years old is a lying trickster God. I do not say that such a God actually exists, just that there are people who claim such a God exists. The question about Adam would in no way challenge my claim, as there is no way to answer it. It's like asking when I stopped beating my wife.

"It still looks like you were afraid to answer the question at any rate."

I did answer it, in the way it deserved.

"It could have gotten interesting, at least more interesting than name-calling."

Then he shouldn't have called me names.

[Oztrich Boy]

marker