Taking Questions on the Creation

[AV1611VET]

This is not a very good definition...

Of course not.

 

[Cabal]

Not even close --- they are embedded in an instantaneously-created universe. You're making it sound like He waited 6100 years, then embedded age.

They're still embedded now, aren't they? Also, an existence seven orders of magnitude smaller than the embedded age really amounts to nothing numerically.

But I digress.

I was hoping more for a response to: You still accept the scientfic values, but you just say "embedded!" Loophole insertion, just to be in the right with your interpretation. Seems somewhat cynical to me.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, now that's funny --- can you explain this in light of the fact that I say there is no science associated with the Creation?

But isn't your "embedded age" idea based entirely on the scientific determination that the earth's physical age is very old?

 

[AV1611VET]

But isn't your "embedded age" idea based entirely on the scientific determination that the earth's physical age is very old?

The only reason I say the earth is 4.57 billion years old, is because science says it. Much like my Mariana Trench thread, I just accept it w/o question. If tomorrow, science says the earth is 60 billion years old, then I'll say it. As long as it doesn't contradict the Bible, I'm comfortable with it. If they say the earth is 7000 years old, I'll say it. The only thing I won't say, however, is that the earth is less than 6100 years old.

 

[juvenissun]

I did not notice an answer to my question about rocks, just a deflection.

Genesis 1 does not mention them. Does this mean:

1 They do not exist
2 They were created later
3 The Biblical account is incomplete, and cannot be expected to contain every detail
4 God created the world with embedded rocks but forgot to mention it.

5. They came into existence by changing what was created.

 

[juvenissun]

I have a feeling she's just here to mock; but that's okay, she's going to get an education.

It is OK. It just take me one minute to respond to her question with a positive, educational information.

 

[Catherineanne]

Of course not.

So, for the third - or is it fourth? - time of asking.

No, the earth does not bear false witness to the Creation; and no, God did not make it that way.

The earth does not point to the Creation Event at all --- for that, you need the Bible.

Can you now comment on the concept of embedded age, in the light of your assertion that the earth does not bear false witness to the Creation, and your admission that God does not deceive.

Or do you perhaps not have an answer to this one that does not involve God committing sin?

 

[Catherineanne]

It is OK. It just take me one minute to respond to her question with a positive, educational information.

Positive educational information, with just a hint of non standard syntax?

 

[Catherineanne]

5. They came into existence by changing what was created.

I'm afraid you have lost me. How does this relate to rocks and the creation therof?

More importantly, for this thread, where does Genesis say that rocks came into existence by changing what was created?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Positive educational information, with just a hint of non standard syntax?

Catherineanne, have you not seen many of Juvenissun's posts? His grammar and syntax are attrocious. I would assume he is not a native english speaker, but I'm not sure.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The only reason I say the earth is 4.57 billion years old, is because science says it. Much like my Mariana Trench thread, I just accept it w/o question.

Accepting things w/o question has always been your forte. Perhaps you should break that habit, and begin asking meaningful questions?

If tomorrow, science says the earth is 60 billion years old, then I'll say it. As long as it doesn't contradict the Bible, I'm comfortable with it. If they say the earth is 7000 years old, I'll say it. The only thing I won't say, however, is that the earth is less than 6100 years old.

Fortunately, you've invented "embedded age" to reconcile any potential contradiction with whatever you want the Bible to mean.

 

[AV1611VET]

Accepting things w/o question has always been your forte. Perhaps you should break that habit, and begin asking meaningful questions?

You can't handle my questions.

 

[Freodin]

You can't handle my questions.

That is because you are constantly ignoring the "meaningful" part.

 

[tanzanos]

I believe in Cartoon physics! No matter what science says. If science agrees with Mickey Mouse then I shall accept science

 

[Nathan Poe]

You can't handle my questions.

Not with a straight face, no.

 

[Catherineanne]

You can't handle my questions.

Projection.

 

[Catherineanne]

Catherineanne, have you not seen many of Juvenissun's posts? His grammar and syntax are attrocious. I would assume he is not a native english speaker, but I'm not sure.

In that case, he must be forgiven. Foreigners can't help being foreign.

 

[thaumaturgy]

In that case, he must be forgiven. Foreigners can't help being foreign.

I actually can't stand Juvenissun. I have no idea if English is his first language or not, but his "geology" is usually pretty weak. I haven't followed his stuff on this particular thread. I find I have limited patience for it anymore. But I have extensive experience on his posts on many many other threads.

He claims to be skilled in geology and a teacher. I can tell you as a BS, MS, and PhD in geology and a former part-time university teacher; I have to question his claims.

He occasionally stumbles on an "accurate" higher level geologic term so he's not a completely lost individual, but he usually hides his ideas behind some sort of "wall" where he never fleshes out a geologic idea in full and when pressed for details he will usually refuse. If you wish him to support his points with a reference (as we scientists like to do) he will usually fight that, but sometimes he will provide references, sometimes to a pointless effect or sometimes to an hilarious effect.

On one thread he attempted to tell us that volcanoes are not mountains. When someone provided him with a USGS definition of "mountain" that would include volcanoes he responded with a "junior school" geology for kids page that had several definitions of mountains (including but not limited to volcanoes) and he chose the one that didn't mention the word "volcano" and took that as a "definition of mountain" that he somehow interpretted that to mean moutains cannot include volcanoes.

In another "debate" when asked for references around ocean carbonate chemistry he just puked out a list of references but refused to discuss any in detail. When I dealt with the references in detail he ran away. I will admit I got pretty short tempered with his dodging and weaving and he finally used that as his excuse to "chicken out" of the conversation.

Ironic because earlier in the thread he said this to me:

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

Overall Juvenissun annoys me more than most. Just try to get him to confess to his actual bona fides in geology. Go ahead. Try! We all have and to very strange results.

If this man is a geologist he might have been able to muddle through an undergrad (assuming his school graded on the curve). If he's a teacher he might have been able to teach at some school where standards are pretty low.

I don't know what his game is, but I don't think he is all he claims to be. He could be a troll, he could be worse. I will let you search the forum for some of his better utterances.

 

[AV1611VET]

I actually can't stand Juvenissun. I have no idea if English is his first language or not, but his "geology" is usually pretty weak. I haven't followed his stuff on this particular thread. I find I have limited patience for it anymore. But I have extensive experience on his posts on many many other threads.

He claims to be skilled in geology and a teacher. I can tell you as a BS, MS, and PhD in geology and a former part-time university teacher; I have to question his claims.

He occasionally stumbles on an "accurate" higher level geologic term so he's not a completely lost individual, but he usually hides his ideas behind some sort of "wall" where he never fleshes out a geologic idea in full and when pressed for details he will usually refuse. If you wish him to support his points with a reference (as we scientists like to do) he will usually fight that, but sometimes he will provide references, sometimes to a pointless effect or sometimes to an hilarious effect.

On one thread he attempted to tell us that volcanoes are not mountains. When someone provided him with a USGS definition of "mountain" that would include volcanoes he responded with a "junior school" geology for kids page that had several definitions of mountains (including but not limited to volcanoes) and he chose the one that didn't mention the word "volcano" and took that as a "definition of mountain" that he somehow interpretted that to mean moutains cannot include volcanoes.

In another "debate" when asked for references around ocean carbonate chemistry he just puked out a list of references but refused to discuss any in detail. When I dealt with the references in detail he ran away. I will admit I got pretty short tempered with his dodging and weaving and he finally used that as his excuse to "chicken out" of the conversation.

Ironic because earlier in the thread he said this to me:



Overall Juvenissun annoys me more than most. Just try to get him to confess to his actual bona fides in geology. Go ahead. Try! We all have and to very strange results.

If this man is a geologist he might have been able to muddle through an undergrad (assuming his school graded on the curve). If he's a teacher he might have been able to teach at some school where standards are pretty low.

I don't know what his game is, but I don't think he is all he claims to be. He could be a troll, he could be worse. I will let you search the forum for some of his better utterances.

WOW --- and you want me to learn some Geology? No thanks --- you'd hate me even worse.

 

[Danyc]

WOW --- and you want me to learn some Geology? No thanks --- you'd hate me even worse.

No, Av -- If you actually showed a willingness to learn and were fine with being corrected on geology when it would increase your knowledge; we'd all be happy with you for that. I'd be impressed, for one. Juvenissun is a case where he will not have any contradictions to what he says, and refuses to be corrected.