[Right Wing Professor]

But why would I want to do that, RWP? Are you attributing "motives" to me? Actually, I'm quite comfortable with that 4.7 billion figure; I'm also quite comfortable with the six-thousand figure. The two figures do not refer to the same thing.

There are two sets of numbers; one based on science, one based on a literal reading of the Bible. The two are irreconcilable, and they do refer to the same thing; the age of the Earth.

It's one of those nasty binary situations conservatives are accused of being fond of.

I'm not attributing motives, because I really don't know why one would want to hedge on a matter like this.

[WildTurkey]

I'm not attributing motives, because I really don't know why one would want to hedge on a matter like this.

Is that a joke?

[WildTurkey]

I'm not attributing motives, because I really don't know why one would want to hedge on a matter like this.

Is that a joke?

[betty boop]

The two are irreconcilable, and they do refer to the same thing; the age of the Earth.

No, the 6000 figure refers, not to the age of the Earth, but to the lapse of time from the ensoulment of Adam to the present. BTW, the 6000 figure isn't necessarily incompatible with Darwin's theory, even though Darwin expressed no interest whatever in "souls."