"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

Status
Not open for further replies.

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That would have broken the sheets into small rocks which would be obvious.
Or maybe it didn't.
They lava is still there.
Yes, the old lava (the sheets of rock) is still there. The new lava flow that brought the sheets of rock there moved on.
 
Upvote 0

Nic Samojluk

Newbie
Apr 27, 2013
1,748
170
California
Visit site
✟11,911.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Also, the expansion of the universe is [accelerating]. This is what the data shows us. It isn't hypothetical

“Once scientists understood that the universe was expanding, they immediately realized that it would have been smaller in the past. At some point in the past, the entire universe would have been a single point. This point, later called the big bang, was the beginning of the universe as we understand it today. …”

Ref.: http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/universe/universe.asp

My Comment: I see this reasoning as faulty. Let’s say that we see a car that is accelerating. If we can measure the rate of acceleration and its current speed, we can estimate the time the car started. Right?

Wrong! The reasoning is based on a faulty premise: the idea that we are dealing with a driverless car. The moment we detect a driver inside the vehicle, both our estimate and conclusion become meaningless.

This is the problem with these godless scientific studies. We assume that there is no one in charge of the universe. The moment we alter our premise, we are forced to recognize that there is no way to estimate the age of the universe.

Besides, all we can see as we observe the distant stars and galaxies is the past and what took place millions and billions of years ago. There is no way for us to observe what is taking place there today because it takes a long time for the light from those celestial objects to get to our planet
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Or maybe it didn't.

Please. Cite an example of a lava flow moving another massive basalt sheet without breaking it. I will wait.

At this point, you are just making it up.

You do realize that we can directly observe new lava making new igneous deposits, and that it exactly matches what we see in the geologic column, don't you? We never see a lava flow pick up an entire older igneous deposit and move it wholesale.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
My Comment: I see this reasoning as faulty. Let’s say that we see a car that is accelerating. If we can measure the rate of acceleration and its current speed, we can estimate the time the car started. Right?

Wrong! The reasoning is based on a faulty premise: the idea that we are dealing with a driverless car. The moment we detect a driver inside the vehicle, both our estimate and conclusion become meaningless.

What if you had a camera pointed right at the spot where you predicted the car would be, and it is there. What if every camera you look at has the car exactly where it should be at that moment?

That is exactly what we have with telescopes. We can directly observe the past universe, and we exactly what we should see if the universe has been expanding for that long. In fact, the satellites that took the picture of the cosmic microwave background were taking a picture of the universe just 300,000 years after the BB, and it is exactly was we would expect it.

This is the problem with these godless scientific studies. We assume that there is no one in charge of the universe. The moment we alter our premise, we are forced to recognize that there is no way to estimate the age of the universe.

No such assumption is made. What you seem to fail to understand is that science can not incorporate evidence that doesn't exist. If there is no evidence for God, then science doesn't include it. At the same time, science doesn't assume that God doesn't exist.

If you want God included, then present the evidence. The ball is in your court.

Besides, all we can see as we observe the distant stars and galaxies is the past and what took place millions and billions of years ago. There is no way for us to observe what is taking place there today because it takes a long time for the light from those celestial objects to get to our planet

Isn't the past exactly what you have questions about?
 
Upvote 0

James Is Back

CF's Official Locksmith
Aug 21, 2014
17,883
1,344
51
Oklahoma
✟32,480.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Mod Hat On

Thread closed permanently due to it becoming a General Apologetic thread. According to the Creation & Evolution Statement of Purpose:

"General Apologetics: This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers (there are no general apologetics forums on CF)"

GA threads aren't allowed anywhere at CF.

Mod Hat Off
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.