Adam and Eve

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET, do you have a belly button?

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you have two choices.

1. The Earth is actually far older than what is implied by a counting up of the geneologies in the Old Testament.

2. Your Embedded Age model is Wrong.

Which is it?

You missed it by one --- I have a third choice: the earth is both 6100 years old, and 4.57 billion years old.

 

[Tiberius]

AV, a question to clarify...

According to you, God made the world about 6000 years ago, and starting from the moment he made it, it was 4.5 billion years old, correct?

 

[Spacewyrm]

Yes.

So, that means that you're Omphalos, too. I'm glad all that's been cleared up.

 

[Spacewyrm]

He has an embedded post count?

LOL. But AV worked really hard to get his ridiculous post count, so I think that would count as history. An embedded post count is without history.

 

[Split Rock]

You missed it by one --- I have a third choice: the earth is both 6100 years old, and 4.57 billion years old.

You are really trying hard to be obtuse... aren't you? If the Earth has a long History (not age) with scars such as ancient volcanic deposits, huge formations of chalk made from the calcite plates shed from micro-organisms, ancient impact crators, coal deposits with fossils of the plants they were made from imbedded in them, miles of coral reefs buried underneath the ocean, etc., etc., then the Earth Cannot be both young and non-Omphalous (according to your own definition). It really is that simple. Do you really think it pleases God that you cannot admit you are wrong about this?

 

[Jazer]

Fine.
It is so ridiculously unlikely that Adam and Eve existed that I place it in the same likelihood as my left big toe being struck by a meteorite within the next four minutes.

Adam and Eve existed and Science verifys that. For example, we know that Abraham is the father of the Hebrew Nation and the Arab Nations. Science tells us that this is exactly true that Jews and Arabs are Genetically identical through their father. The Adam and Eve we read about in the Bible is the beginning of the Hebrew people and the Bible is their early history. A written history that goes back 3500 years and has been proven to be accurate & true over and over again. Four minutes to God maybe 40 years for you. So you better watch out that you do not get hit by that 2036 Apophis meteorite.

 

[Wedjat]

Adam and Eve existed and Science verifys that.

Your immediately wrong, but I'll let it slide.

For example, we know that Abraham is the father of the Hebrew Nation and the Arab Nations.

Through the bible.

Science tells us that this is exactly true that Jews and Arabs are Genetically identical through their father.

The heck are you talking about?
Exactly identical and they'd be twins. Genetically similar maybe, but most humans are, it's all rather relative. And coming from the same geographic area, it would make sense that they would be more closely related with each other than say, South Africans.

The Adam and Eve we read about in the Bible is the beginning of the Hebrew people and the Bible is their early history.

Sorry, maybe you meant mythologies. Most cultures have them.

A written history that goes back 3500 years and has been proven to be accurate & true over and over again.

The only "accuracies" I have seen in the bible is that they occasionally mention a real place. It's historical fiction then. Greek mythology often listed real places too, does that make it true?

Four minutes to God maybe 40 years for you. So you better watch out that you do not get hit by that 2036 Apophis meteorite.

If God existed, then he knew perfectly well what I meant by four minutes. If he didn't choose to strike me down then, then he can't claim credit for my meteorite death in the next forty years, tough luck.

 

[hangback]

Adam and Eve existed and Science verifys that.

What kind of person allows themselves to believe this? I am slowly beginning to think that my beliefs are wrong,
is there a God? I am beginning to wonder.

 

[Cabal]

LOL. But AV worked really hard to get his ridiculous post count, so I think that would count as history. An embedded post count is without history.

In terms of posts with actual content, the actual number is a lot less than a million

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, a question to clarify...

According to you, God made the world about 6000 years ago, and starting from the moment he made it, it was 4.5 billion years old, correct?

Correct --- be careful of that word "made" though --- it could be confusing.

But, yes, that is correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are really trying hard to be obtuse... aren't you? If the Earth has a long History (not age) with scars such as ancient volcanic deposits, huge formations of chalk made from the calcite plates shed from micro-organisms, ancient impact crators, coal deposits with fossils of the plants they were made from imbedded in them, miles of coral reefs buried underneath the ocean, etc., etc., then the Earth Cannot be both young and non-Omphalous (according to your own definition). It really is that simple. Do you really think it pleases God that you cannot admit you are wrong about this?

Split Rock, can you take a plastic swimming pool, fill it with sand, place a layer of green leaves on the surface, then take that swimming pool and shake it every which way, move sand all around, etc., then in a month or two, have someone come along and mistake the now brown leaves that are down towards the bottom of the pool of sand for having been there for years?

What would you think if he accused you of placing an inch of sand in the pool, then some leaves, then another inch or so of sand, then more leaves, etc.

And no matter how much you tried to explain that at one time, all the leaves were on the surface, and that they are now on the bottom because of the pool's catastrophe, he wouldn't believe you, stating that the pool should show much more evidence of having been shook?

 

[AV1611VET]

In terms of posts with actual content, the actual number is a lot less than a million

Like I said before, if you remove all my number posts, then all the posts where I had to repeat myself over and over, then all the posts were I had to repeat my questions until they were "answered", then the posts I bumped, then all the posts where I qv'd, the number would be smaller still.

At least in my number posts, the repetition is justified.

 

[hangback]

Split Rock, can you take a plastic swimming pool, fill it with sand, place a layer of green leaves on the surface, then take that swimming pool and shake it every which way, move sand all around, etc., then in a month or two, have someone come along and mistake the now brown leaves that are down towards the bottom of the pool of sand for having been there for years?

What would you think if he accused you of placing an inch of sand in the pool, then some leaves, then another inch or so of sand, then more leaves, etc.

And no matter how much you tried to explain that at one time, all the leaves were on the surface, and that they are now on the bottom because of the pool's catastrophe, he wouldn't believe you, stating that the pool should show much more evidence of having been shook?

That's a really really bad analogy, in fact it's a ridiculous analogy.

 

[Cabal]

Like I said before, if you remove all my number posts, then all the posts where I had to repeat myself over and over, then all the posts were I had to repeat my questions until they were "answered", then the posts I bumped, then all the posts where I qv'd, the number would be smaller still.

At least in my number posts, the repetition is justified.

Well, that's what you get when you refuse to accept the implications of your own ideas and try and catch people out with semantics games.

I was referring to your number threads mainly, although I've seen you throw the million posts figure at people a few times recently, which is something you've been taken to task for countless times - I'm you did it "accidentally", but we don't like having to repeat ourselves either....

 

[Cabal]

That's a really really bad analogy, in fact it's a ridiculous analogy.

Funnily enough, creationists aren't that great with analogies

 

[Loudmouth]

Split Rock, can you take a plastic swimming pool, fill it with sand, place a layer of green leaves on the surface, then take that swimming pool and shake it every which way, move sand all around, etc., then in a month or two, have someone come along and mistake the now brown leaves that are down towards the bottom of the pool of sand for having been there for years?

The age of a leaf is not judged by its color but by its 14C content.

Secondly, shifting sands do not sort leaves by minute differences in 14C content, nor does sand sort diatoms into discrete layers.

What we do observe is that leaves fall into lakes as do diatoms on an annual basis forming varves. When we date leaves and insects by their 14C content they match the number of annual diatom layers. This is clearly a history of annual diatom sedimentation that captures leaves and insects from that year. In order for this not to be a record of history someone would have to purposefully date the leaves and purposefully insert them into artificially produced diatom layers. IOW, they would have to fake the history. It would be an Omphalos type history.

 

[AV1611VET]

The age of a leaf is not judged by its color but by its 14C content.

Did you read where I said 'have someone come along and mistake the now brown leaves...'?

That's 'mistake' --- as in 'goof'.

Not everyone walks around with a Carbon-dating kit.

This isn't Silicon Valley, and sooner or later, someone without a Carbon-dating kit is going to make a mistake.

 

[Tiberius]

Correct --- be careful of that word "made" though --- it could be confusing.

But, yes, that is correct.

For the sake of clarity then, what word would you use?

God ____ the world about 6000 years ago, and starting from the moment he ____ it, it was 4.5 billion years old

What word would you put in the blank?

 

[Split Rock]

Split Rock, can you take a plastic swimming pool, fill it with sand, place a layer of green leaves on the surface, then take that swimming pool and shake it every which way, move sand all around, etc., then in a month or two, have someone come along and mistake the now brown leaves that are down towards the bottom of the pool of sand for having been there for years?

What would you think if he accused you of placing an inch of sand in the pool, then some leaves, then another inch or so of sand, then more leaves, etc.

And no matter how much you tried to explain that at one time, all the leaves were on the surface, and that they are now on the bottom because of the pool's catastrophe, he wouldn't believe you, stating that the pool should show much more evidence of having been shook?

Go ahead then. Explain how all of this planetary history only looks like history because God "shook it up." Explain all the chalk deposits by God "shaking up" the planet. How about the old impact craters and coral reefs? Or maybe when God "shook up" the earth, fossils got embedded into coal seams? Does that sound ridiculous? It should.