- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,021
- 51,492
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Of course not.This is not a very good definition...
Upvote
0
Of course not.This is not a very good definition...
Not even close --- they are embedded in an instantaneously-created universe. You're making it sound like He waited 6100 years, then embedded age.
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?
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.But isn't your "embedded age" idea based entirely on the scientific determination that the earth's physical age is very old?
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.
I have a feeling she's just here to mock; but that's okay, she's going to get an education.
Of course not.
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.
It is OK. It just take me one minute to respond to her question with a positive, educational information.
5. They came into existence by changing what was created.
Positive educational information, with just a hint of non standard syntax?
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.
You can't handle my questions.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.
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.
I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason
WOW --- and you want me to learn some Geology? No thanks --- you'd hate me even worse.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.