Flood Geology

[AV1611VET]

I don't think I ever misquoted you or attacked your person. If you think I have, please quote back where I did it. Until you do that, I urge anybody reading this to go back and look at the content of this thread. I think my conduct on this thread speaks for itself. Until somebody can quote back something I said wrong, I will assume this post is an empty attack.

I would like you to show me, please, where you got the idea of "embedded time" from me.

Unless it was from this post I made back in 2007:

Without eons of time, man could not have descended from the apes.

Time itself, has only been in operation for 6100 years.

Unless you want to say that God embedded time into time--- and He didn't --- He embedded age, not time.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I did not say you guys stretch the fossils.

I said you stretch the time.

Again, it is the evidence that shows the Earth is old. We are not making this up.

For instance, in the image below I have circled the Grand Canyon Supergroup in red. This is a set of tilted layers at the bottom of the Canyon. The layers in that group show every indication of having been deposited over a long period of time. Notice how there are two blocks of layers, with the layers of one block matching the adjacent block, except with an offset. It is obvious that these layers were once continuous across the two blocks. But as continental plates collided, the entire area was squished together and lifted up. These sets of layers broke apart and became tilted. Then erosion wiped away the upper rocks including the extension of these layers beyond the supergroup. But the erosion never got down to the bottom of these layers at the location of this Grand Canyon Supergroup. The erosion stopped at The Great Unconformity, at the blue line I marked below. Then, when conditions became right to once again build up sediments here, the supergroup was buried again, only to become exposed millions of years later when the Grand Canyon was carved out.

All that takes millions of years.

And what is your solution? Did God just bury this group of layers down there and make it look like all these events had happened? That would be deceptive. Those of us who rule out a deceptive God, are left with no choice but to accept that the supergroup is much older than 6000 years old.

Source: https://zionpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/GEO-MAP-1.jpg

(edited 1/16: minor corrections and image source added.)

 

[doubtingmerle]

I would like you to show me, please, where you got the idea of "embedded time" from me.

Unless it was from this post I made back in 2007:

OK, so you say he embedded age, not time. What is the difference?

Would you kindly tell us what you mean when you say God embedded age, not time. Because I think everybody here is confused what you mean by this distinction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you kindly tell us what you mean when you say God embedded age, not time.

To use Adam as an example, God created him in a state of maturity, without the passing of time.

Adam could walk, talk, sustain a job, get married and have children.

In other words, Adam had maturity without history.

 

[doubtingmerle]

As far as the earth's age is concerned, it is as old as God willed it when He created it.

Uh no, as far as the earth's age is concerned, its age is exactly equal to the length of time it was in existence. If the Earth was created in 4004 BC, then it is approximate 6030 years old. You can argue that it looks older, or has characteristics of what we would expect of an Earth that is older, but you cannot say it was created in 4004 BC AND is older than 6030 years. That is a self-contradictory statement.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Apparent Age can take a hike.

Learn the difference between APPARENT AGE and EMBEDDED AGE.

Please educate me on the difference. I did a quick google check, and did not find anybody who explained the difference. Since it is apparently important to you that we distinguish between the two, please explain how you use these two terms.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The earth is as old as God willed it to be.

It just didn't GROW old.

It CAME INTO EXISTENCE old.

Something I've said over and over and over again.

That certainly sounds like the concept of "Apparent Age", which you say can take a hike. How is this different from apparent age?

 

[doubtingmerle]

There is no "false history."

Embedded Age = MATURITY WITHOUT HISTORY

That also sounds like "Apparent Age" to me, which you say can take a hike. Should I assume your views can take a hike?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The earth is as old as God willed it to be.

It just didn't GROW old.

It CAME INTO EXISTENCE old.

I understand the concept of the Earth coming into existence and appearing old. We call that "apparent age". But you oppose the view that the Earth has apparent age. What can it possibly mean to come into existence and actually be old on the day of Creation?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The more I clarify, the harder you try to discredit, and the more you end up misquoting me and sitting in the dark.

Notice how your "embedded time" has now confused dlamberth?

Looking at your past posts again, it is not surprising that dlamberth and I are confused about what you are saying. In fact, I think every single person here is confused with what you are saying.

And your "maturity without history" comment does nothing to clarify it.

 

[Astrid]

OK, so you say he embedded age, not time. What is the difference?

Would you kindly tell us what you mean when you say God embedded age, not time. Because I think everybody here is confused what you mean by this distinction.

It's a distinction without a difference

That also sounds like "Apparent Age" to me, which you say can take a hike. Should I assume your views can take a hike?

Assume?

 

[dlamberth]

I don't use a calculator to work out the age of the earth.

I use a calculator to work out how long the earth has been in existence.

As far as the earth's age is concerned, it is as old as God willed it when He created it.

(You still don't understand embedded age, do you?)

So with embedded age, even though something like a basalt flow tests out to be say 15 million years old (I'm thinking of the lava flows here in the Pacific Northwest), it's really only been 4025 years since all of that lava burst out of the earth?

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh no, as far as the earth's age is concerned, its age is exactly equal to the length of time it was in existence. If the Earth was created in 4004 BC, then it is approximate 6030 years old. You can argue that it looks older, or has characteristics of what we would expect of an Earth that is older, but you cannot say it was created in 4004 BC AND is older than 6030 years. That is a self-contradictory statement.

Negative.

Physical Age: As old as God willed it.

Existential Age: Since 4004 BC.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please educate me on the difference. I did a quick google check, and did not find anybody who explained the difference. Since it is apparently important to you that we distinguish between the two, please explain how you use these two terms.

From dictionary.com, the definition of APPARENT:

"According to appearances, initial evidence, incomplete results, etc.: ostensible, rather than actual:"

I'm not buying that.

It waters down "actual" too much, and gives room to argue about it.

APPARENT AGE CREATION is a joke.

 

[AV1611VET]

That certainly sounds like the concept of "Apparent Age", which you say can take a hike. How is this different from apparent age?

QV please:

Under the apparent age theory, God has planted millions of fake bones of creatures (as dinosaurs) that never actually existed, just to fool us into thinking that they really did exist at one time.

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

That also sounds like "Apparent Age" to me, which you say can take a hike. Should I assume your views can take a hike?

Go right ahead.

You have every right to be wrong.

Staying wrong though ... well ... that's another story.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand the concept of the Earth coming into existence and appearing old. We call that "apparent age". But you oppose the view that the Earth has apparent age. What can it possibly mean to come into existence and actually be old on the day of Creation?

I have a feeling you haven't put very much research into APPARENT AGE.

 

[AV1611VET]

Looking at your past posts again, it is not surprising that dlamberth and I are confused about what you are saying.

And looking at you and dlamberth's questions and remarks, I can see why.

In fact, I think every single person here is confused with what you are saying.

Only those who want to be confused.

And your "maturity without history" comment does nothing to clarify it.

I don't doubt that one bit.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Apparent age, fake age, embedded age. Whatever terminology you want to use, it's still a load of extra-Biblical and non-Biblical nonsense.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Negative.

Physical Age: As old as God willed it.

Existential Age: Since 4004 BC.

How can the Earth have two ages? That makes on sense.

You say the Earth has an existential age of about 6030 years, but do not specify its physical age. What is the physical age of the Earth, in your opinion?