The Flood

[AV1611VET]

LOL

LOL

CHECKMARK IT!!!!!

Ya --- I usually end up deleting a thread when they start asking the same questions over and over, and pretend they don't know what I'm talking about.

It took me over a year to explain to these "scientists" what embedded age was (ex nihilo) --- only to realize later that they understand perfectly what embedded history is (Omphalos).

You gotta love'em though!

 

[FishFace]

I'll try one more time to add some credibility with this thread, before I gladly checkmark it into infinity:

How many times has Zircon gone around the sun?

Uh, which zircon?

How old is the earth?

4.55 billion years.

How old is the universe?

13.7 billion years.

Three amazingly-easy questions.

Yup. Well, except the first one which doesn't really make sense, but I guess that was a typo.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'll try one more time to add some credibility with this thread, before I gladly checkmark it into infinity:

How many times has Zircon gone around the sun?

Which one?

How old is the earth?

Pretty close to 4.5 billion years old, as evidenced by the measured age of meteors. The oldest zircons on Earth date to about 4.4 billion years, if memory serves.

How old is the universe?

13.7 billion years +/- 1% as measured by the WMAP and COBI surveys of the cosmic microwave background (a remnant of the history and development of the universe).

 

[Naraoia]

Here we go --- I ask a very simple question --- and I need to be a NASA scientist to figure out your answer.

That's fine --- keep that technical stuff up --- you're not convincing anyone.

I didn't think it was so complicated, but if you tell me specifically what you don't understand, I'll try to explain at a non-NASA level

 

[Loudmouth]

Ya --- I usually end up deleting a thread when they start asking the same questions over and over, and pretend they don't know what I'm talking about.

It took me over a year to explain to these "scientists" what embedded age was (ex nihilo) --- only to realize later that they understand perfectly what embedded history is (Omphalos).

You gotta love'em though!

Answer me this, young Skywalker. Would your God implant a fake cooling history in granites, as illustrated by the cooling curve seen in my post above (post 555)?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your bicycle example was flawed because you implied that, looking at the earth, we found that the components were old, although the earth was young.

No --- I did not.

Physical Age vs Existential Age

Let's say you have a parking lot full of brand new, just built, shiny bicycles.

You leave them outside for 35 years, until they are old and rusty.

Now you remove the handlebars from one, the seat from another, the chain from another, etc., and build a brand new bicycle from the parts of all these other bicycles.

Question: How old is this brand new bicycle?

• If you say it's 35 years old, you would be right - yet wrong.
• If you say it's brand new, you would be wrong - yet right.

Sometimes we have to make up terminology (like existential age) in order to clarify - not cloud - an issue.

Two questions:

1. Wouldn't the new bike show an appearance of age?

• Yes --- it would appear old, because it is old.

2. Wouldn't the new bike show a history of being in existence for 35 years?

• Yes --- it would seem to do so --- therefore documentation to the contrary would be needed - (again, to clarify the issue - not cloud it).

 

[FishFace]

Yes, sir, I meant the oldest --- how many times please, has it gone around the sun?

If it went around the sun --- by itself --- then I submit it wasn't the earth.

If it went around the sun on a whole planet, where are the other artifacts that should be just as old?

Oh that's right --- their ages have been "reset" --- therefore they are now younger than the earth.

I think I'll reset my watch, I need to start feeling younger.

You realise that your example disproves your point, right? Resetting your watch doesn't make you younger. Resetting the clock of a rock on the earth doesn't make the earth younger. Nor does it make the rock younger, but it just so happens that the reset coincides with the formation of the rock.

If you had a watch that just counted up in days, and we took the watch off you, melted you down, threw your atoms around for a while, and reassembled something a bit like you with some of those atoms, gave "you" the watch back, and reset it, then maybe you've got a better analogy.

It's not difficult to understand - not at all. You don't even need to think about anything other than "clocks" if you don't want to. Dating methods just read the clock, and the age on the clock corresponds to the age of the rock. As we've seen, forming a sedimentary rock doesn't reset the clock, so if you try and date sandstone, you end up with an age older than the rock itself. But you do get the age of whatever is making up that rock.

Does any of this make any sense to you? Like I said, it's not difficult - as long as you make a little bit of effort to understand. The zircon you mentioned is almost as old as the earth. It would be foolish to assume that, just because we find not much else to that age, that it was on it's own. (In which case, as you rightly point out, the earth would be younger.) Since we know that materials which get melted and resolidify have their clocks reset, we have a way in which we could have an old earth but a deficit of old rocks. Coupled with our understanding of gravity, astronomy and so on, it's reasonable to conclude that the earth, along with its zircons, was first around 4.55 billion years ago (give or take.)

 

[FishFace]

No --- I did not.

The bike wasn't old - end of story. It was a new bike made from old parts. Simple, clear, concise, no unnecessary definitions or fluffy bits.

 

[FishFace]

Ya --- I usually end up deleting a thread when they start asking the same questions over and over, and pretend they don't know what I'm talking about.

It took me over a year to explain to these "scientists" what embedded age was (ex nihilo) --- only to realize later that they understand perfectly what embedded history is (Omphalos).

You gotta love'em though!

You still haven't made any sensible distinction between embedded age and embedded history.

 

[Split Rock]

It took me over a year to explain to these "scientists" what embedded age was (ex nihilo) --- only to realize later that they understand perfectly what embedded history is (Omphalos).

We all understand what it means to make something look older than it is (this "embedded history" thing is just something you made up to explain Omphalos utilizing your "embedded" jargon). However, you were never able to explain what exactly "embedded age" is. I don't think you know what it is either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Coupled with our understanding of gravity, astronomy and so on, it's reasonable to conclude that the earth, along with its zircons, was first around 4.55 billion years ago (give or take.)

Right --- the zircons didn't morph --- but everything else --- including the ground they rested/embedded on did.

Well --- it may be time for you "scientists" to start giving us a different explanation anyway. I'm sure you'll wait for the peer review (or vote) first.

Their oxygen isotopic composition has been interpreted to indicate that more than 4.4 billion years ago there was already water on the surface of the Earth. This spectacular interpretation has been published in top scientific journals, but is the subject of debate. Perhaps the oxygen isotopes and other compositional features (the rare earth elements) record more recent hydrothermal alteration of the zircons rather than the composition of the magma at the time of their original crystallization.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bike wasn't old - end of story. It was a new bike made from old parts. Simple, clear, concise, no unnecessary definitions or fluffy bits.

No it's not "end of story."

I still see two questions in that story that you "scientists" haven't answered.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ya --- I usually end up deleting a thread when they start asking the same questions over and over, and pretend they don't know what I'm talking about.

You mean after you repeatedly fail to actually answer the questions you claimed you would answer.

It took me over a year to explain to these "scientists" what embedded age was (ex nihilo) --- only to realize later that they understand perfectly what embedded history is (Omphalos).

You gotta love'em though!

We understand that your embedded age nonsense is just that. A totally illogical attempt to justify the YEC interpretation of Genesis by invoking a version of the Omphalos hypothesis while playing word games to try to make it appear that you are not a YEC invoking the Omphalos hypothesis. As I said before if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck you can expect to have trouble convincing people that it is a chicken no matter how you dress it up.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll say one thing before I go --- when the Lord gets here --- we're all gonna get what's coming to us --- myself included.

But you guys are about as dishonest as they come.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'll say one thing before I go ---

Don't let the door hit you on the ***.

when the Lord gets here --- we're all gonna get what's coming to us --- myself included.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that long overdue event.

But you guys are about as dishonest as they come.

We are not the ones claiming not to be something that we clearly are. That is you.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I'll say one thing before I go --- when the Lord gets here --- we're all gonna get what's coming to us --- myself included.

But you guys are about as dishonest as they come.

We are not the ones who make up stories and pass them off as the infallible word of god.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't think AV ever asked you to "cut him some slack". And it is not our fault that you can't understand the scriptures. It is yours. You must be born again. Look at the same scripture from 3 different translations.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

1Co 2:14 Whoever does not have the Spirit CANNOT receive the gifts that come from God's Spirit. Such a person really does not understand them, and they seem to be nonsense, because their value can be judged only on a spiritual basis.

1Co 2:14 A person who isn't spiritual doesn't accept the teachings of God's Spirit. He thinks they're nonsense. He can't understand them because a person must be spiritual to evaluate them.


It says, "he CAN'T understand them" he "must be SPIRITUAL to evaluate them"!

I repeat, "he CAN'T understand them" he "must be SPIRITUAL to evaluate them"!!!

We are only telling you what God's word says and it's by your own admittance that we draw our conclusions that you fit what the scriptures says.

You can't understand the scriptures because you are not spiritual ... your not born again!

That is obvious because of what the first part of that same scripture says,

"A person who isn't spiritual doesn't accept the teachings of God's Spirit".

• You don't accept the teachings of the Spirit of God.
• You don't accept God's word.
• You don't even believe in God.
• So the obvious deduction is that you, that's right YOU, cannot UNDERSTAND the Bible which is the Word of God!

Whatever helps you "pigeonhole" people who disagree with you.

I come to the table, I've read the Bible, I spent decades as a believing Christian, I've read extensively on the history of the faith and religious thought.

If you want to tell me I don't understand it simply because I disagree with your interpretation I'll take it as a compliment I suppose.

Unlike your obvious lack of scientific background which makes you uniquely unqualified to carry on a debate with a scientist, I have a religious background.

I can and will continue to discuss the Bible no matter how much you wish I didn't have access to what it says.

If you bring a science topic up and I disagree with your read on it, I will tell you why I disagree (as I usually do, and you'll note I almost always provide numerous outside information sources to back up my claims), but I will not tell you you can't understand the science.

I will, however, tell you when it is abundantly clear that you don't understand the science.

That is a subtle distinction and one you may not grasp the first read through.

I would welcome a serious discussion on the science with you. And because I used to teach geology and chemistry at the college level, I know people are capable of grasping the topics.

You wish to tell me I can't understand your bible unless I believe as you do, then it renders the bible exactly useless to any discussion.

 

[Split Rock]

I'll say one thing before I go --- when the Lord gets here --- we're all gonna get what's coming to us --- myself included.

But you guys are about as dishonest as they come.

Uncalled for, AVET... shame on you.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That won't get you into heaven and neither will Celsus. You need to get rid of the bitterness in your heart and turn to God and repent. That's what's going to do it for you.

Let us read from the Book of Inan:

Some just love ostentation...theirs.

Said with a smile and in a bright pink font so we know it isn't "bitterness".

 

[thaumaturgy]

But you guys are about as dishonest as they come.

[BIBLE]Exodus 20:16[/BIBLE]