"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

[GhostSlug]

Not really --- I don't know what it is exactly.

It's been explained to you several different times.

Okay, then --- it is a 65 million-year-old "Creataceous-aged rock" that was created that age in 4004 BC, with a relatively thin layer of material that is rich in iridium, shocked quartz, and tekkites.

Correct.

You answered your own question.

No, explain how the layer got there, based on your "embedded age".

You mean like a worldwide flood?

No, tekkites are indicative of asteroid impacts as are the high levels of iridium. Plus, if this 65 million year layer was created in 4004 BC in Genesis 1, how could a flood all of a sudden insert this layer between the rock? Especially when the flood didn't happen until 1000 years after creation. We would expect to find evidence of a world wide flood in rock approximately 5000 years old not in the rock that was "embedded" with age at creation.

Not really --- but since what you wrote doesn't contradict the Scriptures (that I know of) --- I'll take your word for it.

But in contradicts the "embedded age" because it shows history.

Your OP clearly shows you have no idea what embedded age is --- none.

We do understand "embedded age". It states that in 4004 BC God created the Earth with 4.5 billion years of age but not 4.5 billion years of history. All history has happened since the 4004 BC creation time. Am I correct?

So I'm sure almost anything I say, short of agreeing with you, is going to come across as me not answering your question.

All you have to do is explain why God would insert impressions of fossils and evidence of cataclismic events in rock that is older than 6000 years. That's it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, tekkites are indicative of asteroid impacts as are the high levels of iridium.

Tektites are:

Any of numerous generally small, rounded, dark brown to green glassy objects that are composed of silicate glass and are thought to have been formed by the impact of a meteorite with the earth's surface.

A member of one of several groups of objects that are composed almost entirely of natural glass formed from the melting and rapid cooling of terrestrial rocks by the energy accompanying impacts of large extraterrestrial bodies.

Let me say this yet again --- extraterrestrial is absolutely correct --- but not asteroids, not meteors, not anything that you are willing to accept.

There was a race of extraterrestrial beings on this planet back in Genesis 6, that could have engaged in supermining activity, superfarming activity, super[whatever] activity.

And if they dug up anthracite, softened it [for whatever reason] and rolled it around on the ground so that they picked up some leaves and/or fossils --- so be it.

They may have even mixed bone and leaves together in anthracite, to form some sort of cannon power or something, for all I know.

In any event, tektite could have been formed by some high-energy activity going on.

In short --- this stuff you see was not formed here naturally --- but is a byproduct of a period of time when a superrace [of angels] inhabited the earth.

I'm almost certain you won't go with this explanation, but one thing is for sure --- I've answered this now about how many times --- in this thread, alone?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're a presuppositionalist, AV

Interesting --- very interesting.

Gaara --- I am so impressed with this, I put it in my profile that I'm also a presuppositionalist.

I'm tempted to rep you for it, but I wouldn't want you to be embarrassed.

 

[GhostSlug]

Tektites are:Let me say this yet again --- extraterrestrial is absolutely correct --- but not asteroids, not meteors, not anything that you are willing to accept.

There was a race of extraterrestrial beings on this planet back in Genesis 6, that could have engaged in supermining activity, superfarming activity, super[whatever] activity.

And if they dug up anthracite, softened it [for whatever reason] and rolled it around on the ground so that they picked up some leaves and/or fossils --- so be it.

They may have even mixed bone and leaves together in anthracite, to form some sort of cannon power or something, for all I know.

In any event, tektite could have been formed by some high-energy activity going on.

In short --- this stuff you see was not formed here naturally --- but is a byproduct of a period of time when a superrace [of angels] inhabited the earth.

I'm almost certain you won't go with this explanation, but one thing is for sure --- I've answered this now about how many times --- in this thread, alone?

Are you sure you aren't a Scientologist? If not, you should really contact L. Ron Hubbard with that one. Wow...

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you sure you aren't a Scientologist? If not, you should really contact L. Ron Hubbard with that one. Wow...

Ouch --- thank you for being rude.

It took awhile to type that, then I hit the wrong key and lost it all --- so I retyped it.

You're welcome.

 

[BananaSlug]

Tektites are:Let me say this yet again --- extraterrestrial is absolutely correct --- but not asteroids, not meteors, not anything that you are willing to accept.

You're probably right about me not going to accept it.

There was a race of extraterrestrial beings on this planet back in Genesis 6, that could have engaged in supermining activity, superfarming activity, super[whatever] activity.

Yep you're right.

And if they dug up anthracite, softened it [for whatever reason] and rolled it around on the ground so that they picked up some leaves and/or fossils --- so be it.

Can you please give me the Bible verse that says this? So these "people" took this "embedded age" anthracite and rolled it on the ground to produce fossil imprints?

They may have even mixed bone and leaves together in anthracite, to form some sort of cannon power or something, for all I know.

So if they used it for some sort of cannon power, why did they put it back in the ground? You would think that if they had all of this super technology they would have better methods of storing their "fuel" than just putting it back in the ground.

In any event, tektite could have been formed by some high-energy activity going on.

So how did the tektites get inserted into the 65 million "embedded aged" rock? Why would they want to insert the tektites?

In short --- this stuff you see was not formed here naturally --- but is a byproduct of a period of time when a superrace [of angels] inhabited the earth.

Bible verse please other that Genesis 6:1-4.
1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
3 And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive[a] with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

I don't see anything about a race of extraterrestials with super technology that could mine anthracite, roll it in the grass, and then put it back in the ground.

I'm almost certain you won't go with this explanation, but one thing is for sure --- I've answered this now about how many times --- in this thread, alone?

You're right. And thank you for verifying Slug's 3rd Law. And this is the first time you have actually "answered" the question. Any Bible verses to back up your wild claims because to me it seems you are adding to the Bible. A BIG no-no, according to the Bible.

 

[BananaSlug]

Ouch --- thank you for being rude.

It took awhile to type that, then I hit the wrong key and lost it all --- so I retyped it.

You're welcome.

Well it is a pretty wild claim that would make a great science fiction book. Seriously AV, you could make a lot of money if you wrote this stuff down and published it.

 

[gaara4158]

Gaara --- I am so impressed with this, I put it in my profile that I'm also a presuppositionalist.

I'm tempted to rep you for it, but I wouldn't want you to be embarrassed.

You can rep me for it if you like, I wouldn't be embarrassed. I've always wanted to see how you'd handle presuppositionalism... I personally think that if the idea had reached me a little earlier, I might still be a believer today. I'd like to see what you and everyone else here has to say about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can rep me for it if you like, I wouldn't be embarrassed.

Done!

I don't know if I buy all of it, but it certainly looks good from here.

I'll have to re-read it a little more slowly later and get the whole picture.

Thanks for the 411 ---

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Sorry if I'm late, but have we established yet why, for example, a fossilized fish with another fossilized fish sticking out of its mouth, the whole scenery embedded (ho, ho) in rock that appears to be millions of years old does not imply that these fish had a history?

 

[Tomk80]

Okay, so in his defense of a crazy idea, AV has now been forced into L. Ron Hubbard style inanity. Is this a correct summary of the last number of posts by AV?

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry if I'm late, but have we established yet why, for example, a fossilized fish with another fossilized fish sticking out of its mouth, the whole scenery embedded (ho, ho) in rock that appears to be millions of years old does not imply that these fish had a history?

What happened to the big one? Choked to death? Looks stupid. How does a fish sense the size of food which can be swallowed? Can he spit it out after the wrong move?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry if I'm late, but have we established yet why, for example, a fossilized fish with another fossilized fish sticking out of its mouth, the whole scenery embedded (ho, ho) in rock that appears to be millions of years old does not imply that these fish had a history?

Ya --- a history of eating.

Why wouldn't the rock be millions of years old?

Are you dating the rock from the fish, or the fish from the rock?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, so in his defense of a crazy idea, AV has now been forced into L. Ron Hubbard style inanity. Is this a correct summary of the last number of posts by AV?

No --- this is.

 

[AV1611VET]

What happened to the big one? Choked to death? Looks stupid. How does a fish sense the size of food which can be swallowed? Can he spit it out after the wrong move?

It's probably a fake --- but even if it is, it's not a point that can't be answered.

 

[Cabal]

It's probably a fake --- but even if it is, it's not a point that can't be answered.

By all means, assume it's fake first.

Creationists pull that stunt a lot more.

 

[AV1611VET]

By all means, assume it's fake first.

Creationists pull that stunt a lot more.

Except I don't care if it is a fake or not --- wrong circus.

 

[Cabal]

Except I don't care if it is a fake or not --- wrong circus.

That didn't stop you from surmising that it's "probably a fake" though, did it?

 

[AV1611VET]

That didn't stop you from surmising that it's "probably a fake" though, did it?

No, it didn't --- that much detail? Including the eyes? Looks fake to me.

 

[Split Rock]

Tektites are:Let me say this yet again --- extraterrestrial is absolutely correct --- but not asteroids, not meteors, not anything that you are willing to accept.

There was a race of extraterrestrial beings on this planet back in Genesis 6, that could have engaged in supermining activity, superfarming activity, super[whatever] activity.

And if they dug up anthracite, softened it [for whatever reason] and rolled it around on the ground so that they picked up some leaves and/or fossils --- so be it.

They may have even mixed bone and leaves together in anthracite, to form some sort of cannon power or something, for all I know.

In any event, tektite could have been formed by some high-energy activity going on.

In short --- this stuff you see was not formed here naturally --- but is a byproduct of a period of time when a superrace [of angels] inhabited the earth.

I'm almost certain you won't go with this explanation, but one thing is for sure --- I've answered this now about how many times --- in this thread, alone?

Is it OK to make up stories from whole cloth to defend any belief one holds dear... or just ones from The Bible?