In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[Hammster]

I think that is an incredibly stupid idea, one which turns God into a deceiver.

Not if He said He created in six days.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, there is no difference. History is just time passing, both deny that time has passed so they are the same.

So if I had two history books, and one had blank pages, and the other was a standard high school history book, you'd call them both the same?

 

[VirOptimus]

So if I had two history books, and one had blank pages, and the other was a standard high school history book, you'd call them both the same?

No, but that is not equal to what you are suggesting either.

 

[VirOptimus]

Since you aren't a brethren, the comment didn't apply to you.

So? I can comment on whatever I want, no?

 

[Hammster]

So? I can comment on whatever I want, no?

Sure. I was just pointing out that your response was meaningless since you are not a Christian. But comment away.

 

[VirOptimus]

Sure. I was just pointing out that your response was meaningless since you are not a Christian. But comment away.

Meaningless? You only care what christians think?

Thats a bit myopic. Especially when science is involved.

 

[Loudmouth]

Neither of those cause me questions.

The point being that there is probably no evidence that would make you doubt your beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm a current staff member. And this isn't an attack. You started with "that's not my God". I brought up the how the Israelites would have understood Gen 1, and you basically said that you don't believe any of scripture.

"Then I question the bible and its entire contents,after all, it was written and complied by man deciding what would and what would not go in it."

All I'm doing is taking this argument to its logical conclusion. I've not insulted you, nor belittled you. But if you feel offended, I will back off. I doubt there is much more to add, anyway.

Do you have to believe that there really was a Prodigal Son in order to believe scripture?

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's go over this again, shall we?

1. Embedded Age is maturity without history.

Is that why rocks date as they do with radiometric methods?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not if He said He created in six days.

If we can't trust the creation to tell us how old it is, why should we trust the Bible?

 

[RickG]

I'm a current staff member. And this isn't an attack. You started with "that's not my God".

The thread topic is about embedded age. Even in the OP it is stated that his God would not do that. My statement is essentially the same thing in different words. I do not believe the God of Abraham to be a deceiver by making the earth to look and check out by numerous scientific methods and observations to show it is to be much older than 6,000 years.

I brought up the how the Israelites would have understood Gen 1, and you basically said that you don't believe any of scripture. "Then I question the bible and its entire contents,after all, it was written and complied by man deciding what would and what would not go in it."

Again, I stated nothing but facts concerning the lack of historical and archeological evidence of any Hebrews being in Egypt during the time Rameses.

And yes, I question the bible and its contents, as I do in science, "Question Everything". Questioning everything does does not imply denial.

All I'm doing is taking this argument to its logical conclusion. I've not insulted you, nor belittled you. But if you feel offended, I will back off. I doubt there is much more to add, anyway.

I am not offended nor do I wish you to back off. The thing we all need to understand is that this is a science forum where science is what should be discussed. Unfortunately so far, all we have been doing for the most part is engage in apologitects, which the rules ask us not to do in the debate and discussion forums. My pointing out specific facts is a scientific approach. Does it question the validity of some of the bible, yes. Does it deny the bible, absolutely not. You had previously pointed out a scripture that you mentioned was obviously metaphoric/allegory. My response was, then how is Genesis 1 not an allegory since we know for a fact that those events do not agree with known facts. That is not a denial statement, it is a quantifying statement placing it in the category of an allegory or metaphor until new information presents a different factual and verifiable perspective.

 

[RickG]

Let's go over this again, shall we?

1. Embedded Age is maturity without history.
2. Last Thursdayism is maturity with history.

I pointed out to you previously with a specific example utilizing ice cores which demonstrate seasons withing annual rings as well as specific events. How does that not show history?

 

[Hammster]

Meaningless? You only care what christians think?

Thats a bit myopic. Especially when science is involved.

I never said that. I was only pointing out that the connect was directed towards Christrians. It would be like asking 5 dentists which toothpaste they recommend, and me jumping in and saying "Crest". I'm entitled to my opinion, but in that instance it's not applicable.

 

[Hammster]

The point being that there is probably no evidence that would make you doubt your beliefs.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion.

 

[Hammster]

Do you have to believe that there really was a Prodigal Son in order to believe scripture?

There was no Prodigal son, as that's a parable.

 

[Hammster]

If we can't trust the creation to tell us how old it is, why should we trust the Bible?

So you're saying its created? That's a step in right direction.

 

[RickG]

Is that why rocks date as they do with radiometric methods?

What is being ignoring is that the relationship between the parent and daughter isotopes is in fact a historical progression of processes of nuclear decay. In fact, it seems to deny all physical earth processes since claimed 6,000 old creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is being ignoring is that the relationship between the parent and daughter isotopes is in fact a historical progression of processes of nuclear decay. In fact, it seems to deny all physical earth processes since claimed 6,000 old creation.

The relationship between multiple isotope systems is what clinches it for me. In a young and created Earth, why would the K/Ar ratio determine the U/Pb ratio in the same geologic layer? We see the exact relationships between independent parent/daughter isotopes that we should see from millions of years of decay. It can't be there just by coincidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you're saying its created? That's a step in right direction.

You are avoiding direct questions. That's a step in the wrong direction.

If we can't trust the creation to tell us the truth, why should we trust the Bible to tell the truth?

 

[Loudmouth]

There was no Prodigal son, as that's a parable.

But Jesus said there was a Prodigal Son, didn't he?