My rock challenge

[crazyforgod1212]

.

 

[theophilus777]

Yes. More samples to test always narrows the margin of error as well as refining decay rates which are always being monitored and more precise data becomes available. Science is always looking for more accurate and verifiable information. Suppose you had made that comment in 1920, 1930, 1940, etc.?

Very interesting. Refining the margin of error I can see, given enough new data. And that process might even lean towards one end of the current range or another, revising the current estimate slightly. But a change of a magnitude as compared to the total age? I'd be surprised to see something that drastic but if you wouldn't be, well that's pretty cool because that would indicate a lot of new learning. I guess I just don't know enough to see where that might come from.

 

[Kylie]

I will not talk to you again if you keep saying that I gave my students "incorrect information".

That's the analogy.

God creating the world 6000 years ago and making it look a lot older is the same as a teacher knowing that Lincoln was assassinated and yet making it appear to the students that he died of old age.

When someone tells people one thing knowing full well that the thing they are saying is false, then it is deceptive. That's the point of the analogy. Don't try to twist the analogy to support your point of view if it means the analogy no longer fits.

 

[lasthero]

I am sure there are many descendants of Jesus living today.

...wait, what?

 

[Kylie]

This reflects very immature thinking. There is either a lot of stuff we don't know, including details of time, or we know everything. Clearly we don't know everything, and on that much everyone here agrees. We should also know that science will operate on the assumption that what we know is accurate, otherwise progress stops dead. So a scientific claim of the age of the earth can be made, and yet may be refined in the future, or just plain wrong. Its just that we seem to be running out of ways to revise that estimate.

And there is a lot of stuff we DO know. And we know that a gravitational field large enough to alter the flow of time to the degree required to have several billion years of history in only 6000 years didn't happen because if it did, it would have destroyed the planet.

 

[AV1611VET]

God creating the world 6000 years ago and making it look a lot older ...

God created the world 6000 years ago as a 4.57 billion year old planet.

Are you saying He made it look like it was 25 billion years old?

Earth looks old because Earth is old.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The bible has multiple historical accounts, most people, places and events have been verified as true and I am sure there are many descendants of Jesus living today. Alas, there is no body to test as it came back to life and then ascended to heaven.

No it doesn't, most of the events in the bible are only referenced in the bible alone. This does not bode well for most of these events, which are often so significant that if they actually happened there is no way only 1 text would reference them.

 

[EternalDragon]

...wait, what?

Jesus' mother had more regular kids.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Jesus' mother had more regular kids.

Those wouldn't be descendants of Jesus though, not direct ones anyways.

 

[Kylie]

God created the world 6000 years ago as a 4.57 billion year old planet.

Are you saying He made it look like it was 25 billion years old?

Earth looks old because Earth is old.

No, according to you, it is 6000 years old. How old something is refers to how long it has existed. If it has existed for no more than 6000 years, it cannot be older than 600 years old. How do you not understand this?

 

[lasthero]

Jesus' mother had more regular kids.

Yeah, what Psycho said. Do you understand what the word 'descendant' means?

 

[RickG]

God created the world 6000 years ago as a 4.57 billion year old planet.

Complete with a fossil history that demonstrates evolution. Why would he do that?

Earth looks old because Earth is old.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, according to you, it is 6000 years old.

I beg your pardon?

 

[AV1611VET]

Complete with a fossil history that demonstrates evolution.

Not.

As I pointed out before, God did not intend fossils to exist.

Why would he do that?

The Fall is responsible for that.

Can't have it both ways.

Yes, indeed.

The earth is 4.57 billion years old physically.
The earth is 6000 years old existentially.

Physical Age - Existential Age = Embedded Age

 

[AV1611VET]

No just plain nonsense.

Like walking on water?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep just like that.

Your unbelief is noted.

 

[RickG]

Not.

As I pointed out before, God did not intend fossils to exist.

By your reasoning, yes he did, because we can measure the existence of the earth to be at least 4.54 billion years old and a fossil record going back at least 3 billion years and possibly 4 billion years. If God embedded that age he also embedded the fossils. Otherwise explain why the fossil dates to an old age. Fall or no fall.

 

[AV1611VET]

Otherwise explain why the fossil dates to an old age. Fall or no fall.

Fossils came after the Fall, not before it.

Fossils have nothing whatsoever to do with what happened between the Creation and the Fall.

They simply didn't exist.

 

[RickG]

Fossils came after the Fall, not before it.

Fossils have nothing whatsoever to do with what happened between the Creation and the Fall.

They simply didn't exist.

Was embedded age before or after the fall?

 

[RickG]

Well AV, did embedded age occur before or after the fall? Inquiring minds want to know.