Flood Geology

[doubtingmerle]

From dictionary.com, the definition of APPARENT:

"According to appearances, initial evidence, incomplete results, etc.: ostensible, rather than actual:"

I'm not buying that.

It waters down "actual" too much, and gives room to argue about it.

APPARENT AGE CREATION is a joke.

Ok, so if the Earth has a physical age much different from its existential age, you are not talking about the idea that it appears older than it is. You must be talking about something different. What are you talking about when you refer to a physical age that is distinct from its existential age?

 

[doubtingmerle]

SOURCE

Interesting. You point to a source that argues that the Earth was created many millions of years old. It argues that dinosaurs went extinct 66 million years ago. So how does this in any way support your cause? How does this in any way support your assertion that the Earth has a physical age different from its existential age.

By the way, your source is well argued for what it says. I think I will link to it from my site, as it is a good middle of the road argument for an Earth that began many millions of years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

How can the Earth have two ages? That makes on sense.

Have you seen my canoe thread, where I ask the age of a canoe that has been carved from a tree that's 1000 years old?

MY CANOE CHALLENGE

You say the Earth has an existential age of about 6030 years, but do not specify its physical age. What is the physical age of the Earth, in your opinion?

I used to say it is 4.543 billion years old.

But now I prefer saying: "It is as old as God willed it."

 

[doubtingmerle]

Only those who want to be confused.

You say this in response to, "In fact, I think every single person here is confused with what you are saying."

Ah so dlamberth and I are confused because we want to be confused?

No problem. Let me turn to the audience. Is there anybody here who understands AV1611VET's position and can tell me how he would answer the questions above?

Or should I assume everyone here "wants to be confused."

 

[doubtingmerle]

Have you seen my canoe thread, where I ask the age of a canoe that has been carved from a tree that's 1000 years old?

MY CANOE CHALLENGE

Why do you point to this old thread where your age of the Earth argument was obliterated?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I used to say it is 4.543 billion years old.

But now I prefer saying: "It is as old as God willed it."

OK, according to you the Earth has an existential age of 6030 years. It has a physical age that may or may not be different.

How is the "physical age" in any way relevant to the topic of this thread? Can we just stick with the existential age, the actual age based on when it began to exist?

 

[dlamberth]

Physical Age: As old as God willed it.

Existential Age: Since 4004 BC.

That looks like God is faking us out as He willed the Earth to appear very old, but it's not really old at all. Isn't that a bit dishonest?

 

[driewerf]

SOURCE

From the page you quote:
"God has loaded the universe with strong evidence of very old age, much older than 10,000 years, probably millions or billions of years."
"There is no need to develop untenable positions just to protect an old interpretation or teaching when we encounter new information. God is fully capable of creating things either slow or fast. Now we see that creation is even more awesome when it unfolds with precision and elegance over billions of years."
"

Reasons for resistance​

TRADITION. For thousands of years, Jews and Christians have believed that the entire universe, including Adam, was created in the same week, about 4000 BC. The tradition of a young earth created in six 24-hour days is so firmly entrenched in religious dogma that it was seldom questioned – and even questioning was heresy – until modern scientific discoveries made this assertion untenable. See Bible study here on the Big Bang."

 

[Astrophile]

Geologists draw a column on paper, then label that column -- if I remember right -- neolithic, mesolithic, and paleolithic.

Then they assign long periods of time between those three eras.

Then they subdivide those into ... what? ... Davidian and Ordovidian and other goofy names.

But what they're really doing, is comparable to taking the street you live on, stretching it out some million miles, then claiming anything found between you and your neighbor's house, which is now about ten thousand miles away, got deposited (or formed) there over a period of centuries.

4004 BC

Geologists draw a column on paper, then label that column -- if I remember right -- neolithic, mesolithic, and paleolithic.

Then they assign long periods of time between those three eras.

Then they subdivide those into ... what? ... Davidian and Ordovidian and other goofy names.

But what they're really doing, is comparable to taking the street you live on, stretching it out some million miles, then claiming anything found between you and your neighbor's house, which is now about ten thousand miles away, got deposited (or formed) there over a period of centuries.

You do not remember right. Neolithic, Mesolithic and Palaeolithic are chronological stages in archaeology, not geology. The names of the eras in geology are Cenozoic (66.0 million years to present day), Mesozoic (251.9 to 66.0 million years) and Palaeozoic (538.8-251.9 million years).

There are geological periods called the Devonian and the Ordovician. Both of them belong to the Palaeozoic era.

The archaeological stages all belong to the Cenozoic era. The Palaeolithic stage (or Old Stone Age) 'extends from the earliest known use of stone tools by hominins, ca. 3.3 million years ago, to the end of the Pleistocene, ca. 11,650 cal BP' - Paleolithic - Wikipedia . Therefore even the Palaeolithic stage occupies only the last 20th of the Cenozoic era. That should give you an indication of the immensity of geological time.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do not remember right. Neolithic, Mesolithic and Palaeolithic are chronological stages in archaeology, not geology. The names of the eras in geology are Cenozoic (66.0 million years to present day), Mesozoic (251.9 to 66.0 million years) and Palaeozoic (538.8-251.9 million years).

There are geological periods called the Devonian and the Ordovician. Both of them belong to the Palaeozoic era.

The archaeological stages all belong to the Cenozoic era. The Palaeolithic stage (or Old Stone Age) 'extends from the earliest known use of stone tools by hominins, ca. 3.3 million years ago, to the end of the Pleistocene, ca. 11,650 cal BP' - Paleolithic - Wikipedia . Therefore even the Palaeolithic stage occupies only the last 20th of the Cenozoic era. That should give you an indication of the immensity of geological time.

Okay.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Hans Blaster]

From the page you quote:
"God has loaded the universe with strong evidence of very old age, much older than 10,000 years, probably millions or billions of years."
"There is no need to develop untenable positions just to protect an old interpretation or teaching when we encounter new information. God is fully capable of creating things either slow or fast. Now we see that creation is even more awesome when it unfolds with precision and elegance over billions of years."
"

Reasons for resistance​

TRADITION. For thousands of years, Jews and Christians have believed that the entire universe, including Adam, was created in the same week, about 4000 BC. The tradition of a young earth created in six 24-hour days is so firmly entrenched in religious dogma that it was seldom questioned – and even questioning was heresy – until modern scientific discoveries made this assertion untenable. See Bible study here on the Big Bang."

That link surprised me. I was expecting compatibility arguments to keep Christians from choosing the established scientific result *over* their religion and doubting or questioning too much, but. it quickly shifts to having a position that is more credible to convince non-believers and skeptics to become christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah so dlamberth and I are confused because we want to be confused?

No problem. Let me turn to the audience. Is there anybody here who understands AV1611VET's position and can tell me how he would answer the questions above?

Or should I assume everyone here "wants to be confused."

Or you can assume they don't want to get involved with your line of questioning.

Why get involved with someone who's trying hard not to understand?

 

[Aaron112]

Why get involved with someone who's trying hard not to understand?

Jesus HImself Chastised / Rebuked/ Corrected/ Scolded His Own Disciples several times for their lack of faith, lack of understanding.
Then, for some reason, the Father Granted them Faith and Understanding.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus HImself Chastised / Rebuked/ Corrected/ Scolded His Own Disciples several times for their lack of faith, lack of understanding.
Then, for some reason, the Father Granted them Faith and Understanding.

I somehow don't think this applies to Merle.

 

[Aaron112]

Jesus HImself Chastised / Rebuked/ Corrected/ Scolded His Own Disciples several times for their lack of faith, lack of understanding.
Then, for some reason, the Father Granted them Faith and Understanding.

I somehow don't think this applies to Merle.

Many of the disciples who STARTED to follow Jesus,
did not receive faith nor understanding.
They stopped following Jesus - they walked away from Jesus and told Him that He was saying things they could not accept.
There were more who did not, who do not, follow Jesus than who do follow Jesus.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Or you can assume they don't want to get involved with your line of questioning.

Why get involved with someone who's trying hard not to understand?

So you resort to attacks on the person?

May I remind you that attacks on the person are forbidden by the forum rules. Is it too much to ask that you please abide by forum rules, and cut out the attacks on the person? We are here to address issues, not to attack people.

Again, if there is a single person who understands what you are saying about the existential age and physical age of the earth, then let that person come forward and explain it. I find zero people willing to come forward and explain to us what you are saying.

But if every single person reading the last 52 posts is confused about what you are saying, and you refuse to clarify, then, no, it is not my fault that I do not understand. The record speaks for itself.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That link surprised me. I was expecting compatibility arguments to keep Christians from choosing the established scientific result *over* their religion and doubting or questioning too much, but. it quickly shifts to having a position that is more credible to convince non-believers and skeptics to become christians.

Yes, it surprised me that AV1611VET linked to this. It basically argues against his views.

There are a number of Christian sites like this one that argue that the Earth is old, and that the young Earth advocates discredit the faith. They argue that the proper thing to do is admit that conventional geology is correct on the age of the Earth. Another good site is Creation Science - Old Earth Ministries .

 

[AV1611VET]

But if every single person reading the last 52 posts is confused about what you are saying, and you refuse to clarify, then, no, it is not my fault that I do not understand. The record speaks for itself.

And as I pointed out, you even confused dlamberth with your line of questioning.

Now he's confused even more.

Thanks for nothing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And as I pointed out, you even confused dlamberth with your line of questioning.

Now he's confused even more.

Thanks for nothing.

Or it might be that, and this is a crazy idea, that your position is completely nonsensical in the face of the evidence we actually have and that your position of embedded age is just an attempt to force fit that evidence into your idea of the Earth being only 6,000 years old when it clearly isn't.

 

[Estrid]

Ok, so if the Earth has a physical age much different from its existential age, you are not talking about the idea that it appears older than it is. You must be talking about something different. What are you talking about when you refer to a physical age that is distinct from its existential age?

That would be imaginary age.