I shouldn't have opened that door, then. I think it's a stupid argument and that's all my point was. It doesn't mean I'm a young earther, . . .
I may have been born and raised in Iowa; however, I was not just dumped out of the corn wagon. Look at your quotes below:
If you mean I lack the "knowledge" of considering the period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 as evidence for a million year gap along with flawed scientific dating, I don't, I just think it's really stupid.
I deny the existence of "facts", yes. I can't deny facts that aren't there.
Actually scientific dating methods are all flawed I suggest you do some research into carbon dating, which is the only method other than theory scientists have to base their long dating off of.
The skinny of the method is that the entire process is based off bias. Carbon dating begins with an assumption on how old the object is. You don't simply run it through and it tells you how old it is, unbiased-like. The process begins with multiple biases and assumptions (including how old you expect it to be). So yes, there's plenty of proof to disprove current dating methods. The process begins with ASSUMPTIONS which obviously means, if those assumptions are wrong, the entire dating process is wrong.
This is why you can bury chicken bones for a few months, dig them up, submit them to scientific testing as "really old finds", and they come up with million year old estimation when in the end the reality is the bones were only a couple months old. Why? It begins with ASSUMPTIONS.
Except that dating isn't a valid method.
What's funny is people that's only defense is "you don't understand" are usually the ones that don't have a legitimate defense.
. . . it only means I think it's unknowable and to take one stance or the other is a stupid argument because neither can be proven by our scientific methods. It could be 6,000 years old, or it could be 5 Trillion. It doesn't matter to me, and neither can be proven.
That simply is not true! Whereas, it may not be possible to accurately determine when "In the beginning" [Gen. 1:1] took place, it has been proven that the earth is millions of years older than the 6,000 years-old that you young-earthers cling to. See my detailed proof in a prior post -- it would take proof that the atomic age atmospheric testing produced 18.2 times more atmospheric carbon 14 [via gamma rays] than the sun has produced throughout history.
Now please elaborate how you think the ages have anything to do with our current state and the letters written to the church today.
If you were not so obsessed with your chicken-bone theology and my not reading your OP, you would have noticed that I already provided the answer to this question in my original post(s) in this topic. With full cognition and mental facilities in the first age, still 1/3 of the souls followed Satan. Hence, in this flesh body with limited mental capabilites and no full knowledge of Satan, of course God does not expect that all will come to Christ. The entire purpose of this second age is an attempt to save some of the 1/3 that fell with Satan in the first age.