And as I have said before: It's getting to the point where every verse, passage, and chapter in the Bible is being countered by science.
This "decay" you're talking about; is it the same science that says this is impossible:
Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.
You know the answer to that.
Your reality cannot be checked then, and opposes history. It is too small a reality. Do not try to limit the all men to that. Some of us do not want to live in a box.Science is not trying to counter the Bible. Science is interested in learning about the reality around us.
The decay that science talks about is the decay that happens in reality.
QV please:That is why it is called a miracle. If your explanation for the earth looking older (and by older I mean existing for a longer time) was simply a "miracle", I would not question you. Embedded age is an attempt of reconciling science and your interpretation of the Bible. The science behind embedded age is flawed, that is why I question you.
I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation:
- Definition = maturity without history
- Method = creatio ex nihilo
- Unique features:
- requires omnipotence
- laws of science not in effect
- occurred BC4004 (according to Ussher's dating)
- no evidence left behind
- no scarring
- completed in 6 days (on purpose)
- Described in detail in Genesis 1
- Witnessed by the angels
andYour reality cannot be checked then, and opposes history. It is too small a reality. Do not try to limit the all men to that. Some of us do not want to live in a box.
Embedded age is closer than invented age.QV please:
[/size]
[/list]
Notice two things: no science and no scars; so I don't know where you're coming from when you say: 'The science behind embedded age is flawed...'
Indeed!Embedded age is closer than invented age.
Your reality cannot be checked then,
Paul mentions four dimensions ... please show me how you have checked beyond the third.You have already been shown how it is checked, and you ignore it.
Paul mentions four dimensions ... please show me how you have checked beyond the third.
QV please:
[/size]
[/list]
Notice two things: no science and no scars; so I don't know where you're coming from when you say: 'The science behind embedded age is flawed...'
And that's why I stipulated "without history."Notice one thing: you definition of maturity includes everything we use for scientific dating (you admit an "age" of 4.57 billion years for the earth, whatever that means). The problem is that scientific dating does not determine maturity, it determines history.
As dad said: Embedded Age is closer than Imagined Age.Indeed what? You said many times the earth is 4.57 billion years old.
And that's why I stipulated "without history."
So does the sun, doesn't it?Radiohaloes do indicate millions of years of history just as fossils do.
And that's why I stipulated "without history."
Had I said: Embedded Age = Embedded Maturity, then you guys would be claiming Last Thursdayism.
Just what I do with the evidence for a local flood [only], or evidence that the NT Gospels were written hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, or any other evidence that concludes that what the Bible says is not what really happened -- I ignore it.And what to do with the evidence of historical events? Ignore them?
Just what I do with the evidence for a local flood [only], or evidence that the NT Gospels were written hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, or any other evidence that concludes that what the Bible says is not what really happened -- I ignore it.
First of all, I believe God gave me that definition.Thanks. So what's the point of making up something as contradictory as "maturity without history". Why not just say "I deny most history"