"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[Subduction Zone]

The part I don't understand is why one feels the need distort and/or misrepresent well understood science to support ones religious beliefs. To me that implies insecurity in ones faith.

That is also shown by those people not being able to argue logically. I know that I have been wrong. I hope that I have argued logically. That was one of the ways that I found I was very wrong on at least two subjects. Realizing that one is wrong is the first step in learning new and sometimes exciting science.

 

[AV1611VET]

The part I don't understand is why one feels the need distort and/or misrepresent well understood science to support ones religious beliefs.

Does "well understood science" support this thread (or any thread) that God is a deceiver?

To me that implies insecurity in ones faith.

If you judge one's faith by how much science he accepts, then that's your prerogative.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're right.

My mistake.

He died in 2007.

You are still avoiding the facts.

You're good at putting words in other peoples' mouths.

I'll pass.

We can look at your own words:

Bananaslug: You are saying there is no evidence for "embedded age", yet this verse clearly says God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen SINCE THE CREATION. If God hid all of the evidence for creation, then Romans 1:20 is wrong. Which is wrong, Romans 1:20 or your "embedded age" interpretation?

AV1611VET: But God didn't hide it, did He? You guys found it with your radiometrics. Believe me, if He didn't want you to find it, you would never find it.

post #99 of this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/taking-questions-on-embedded-age-creation.7415712/
​

I can find several more examples of you saying that radiometric dating measures the embedded age of the rock.

​

We all do, don't we?


Ain't that a gas?

When are you going to deal with the facts and reality?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does "well understood science" support this thread (or any thread) that God is a deceiver?

No, but the logical outcome of your claims is that he is one. It is rather amazing that you still won't let yourself see how the only one calling God a liar is you. Not directly but by implication.

If you judge one's faith by how much science he accepts, then that's your prerogative.

That is now what he said nor meant. It is your approach to this that indicates a weak faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

When are you going to deal with the facts and reality?

You first.

Whose reality is smaller, your's or mine?

Yours can't get past Hubble.

Mine includes ...

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

 

[RickG]

Does "well understood science" support this thread (or any thread) that God is a deceiver?

Note my signature. Yes, if God implanted fossils in such a way to represent evolution and a way to date them that would not be know until thousands of years later, while providing a written text to the contrary, that is deception.

If you judge one's faith by how much science he accepts, then that's your prerogative.

I have no problem with anyone basing their religious beliefs and interpretation of scripture solely on faith, or even denying science they do not agree with. I do have a problem with those who deliberately misrepresent any information, or make things up to support those beliefs, that is bearing false witness. Understand that this is not unique to religion or Christianity, as it can apply to secular beliefs as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is rather amazing that you still won't let yourself see how the only one calling God a liar is you. Not directly but by implication.

Why should I waste my time doing it, when I have you guys doing it for me?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why should I waste my time doing it, when I have you guys doing it for me?

It seems that someone has to do it for you. The sad fact is that almost every Christian can see what is wrong with an "embedded age". And it is not just one, it is a entire sequence of ages. You try to claim that your embedding does not have history, but it does. The history written in the rocks would need to be correct or requires a dishonest God. I don't see any other way out of it. And you don't seem to be able to see any way out of it either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Note my signature. Yes, if God implanted fossils in such a way to represent evolution and a way to date them that would not be know until thousands of years later, while providing a written text to the contrary, that is deception.

No argument there.

I have no problem with anyone basing their religious beliefs and interpretation of scripture solely on faith, or even denying science they do not agree with.

Nor do I.

I do have a problem with those who deliberately misrepresent any information, or make things up to support those beliefs, that is bearing false witness.

I don't care for tomatoes, and that's my prerogative.

But if I start viewing everything on my plate I don't like as tomatoes, then I have a problem.

Understand that this is not unique to religion or Christianity, as it can apply to secular beliefs as well.

But not RickG ... right?

You've got science down so pat, it bugs you if people "deliberately misrepresent any information," doesn't it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why should I waste my time doing it, when I have you guys doing it for me?

Do you still hold to the position that radiometric dating measures the physical age of a rock, and therefore measures the embedded age of the rock? Remember this equation that YOU created?

"PA - UD = EA
What this simple formula says, is that, to compute the amount of age God embedded into the earth, simply take the object's Physical Age, subtract Ussher's Dating (6012 years) from it, and there you have the minimun age that God embedded."

If you do not hold that position, then the radiometric age would be measuring a real history.

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems that someone has to do it for you. The sad fact is that almost every Christian can see what is wrong with an "embedded age".

Again, if you have to stand behind others to make a point ... well ... it's your prerogative, I guess.

I won't say anymore.

 

[Loudmouth]

You first.

I am dealing with reality. I have rocks with a physical age of billions of years as measured by radiometric dating. Where did that age come from? Are you still claiming that it was embedded age?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you still hold to the position that radiometric dating measures the physical age of a rock, and therefore measures the embedded age of the rock? Remember this equation that YOU created?

Wheeee!

And the tilt-a-whirl just keeps on going, doesn't it?

Have you, by the way, seen my tilt-a-whirl thread?

It's from way back.

 

[Loudmouth]

Still no response to this?

Bananaslug: You are saying there is no evidence for "embedded age", yet this verse clearly says God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen SINCE THE CREATION. If God hid all of the evidence for creation, then Romans 1:20 is wrong. Which is wrong, Romans 1:20 or your "embedded age" interpretation?

AV1611VET: But God didn't hide it, did He? You guys found it with your radiometrics. Believe me, if He didn't want you to find it, you would never find it.

post #99 of this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/taking-questions-on-embedded-age-creation.7415712/​

 

[Loudmouth]

Wheeee!

And the tilt-a-whirl just keeps on going, doesn't it?

Have you, by the way, seen my tilt-a-whirl thread?

It's from way back.

Still no response?

Bananaslug: You are saying there is no evidence for "embedded age", yet this verse clearly says God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen SINCE THE CREATION. If God hid all of the evidence for creation, then Romans 1:20 is wrong. Which is wrong, Romans 1:20 or your "embedded age" interpretation?

AV1611VET: But God didn't hide it, did He? You guys found it with your radiometrics. Believe me, if He didn't want you to find it, you would never find it.

post #99 of this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/taking-questions-on-embedded-age-creation.7415712/​

 

[AV1611VET]

I am dealing with reality.

Then deal with all of it.

It should simplify this stale conversation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then deal with all of it.

It should simplify this stale conversation.

This is part of reality:

Bananaslug: You are saying there is no evidence for "embedded age", yet this verse clearly says God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen SINCE THE CREATION. If God hid all of the evidence for creation, then Romans 1:20 is wrong. Which is wrong, Romans 1:20 or your "embedded age" interpretation?

AV1611VET: But God didn't hide it, did He? You guys found it with your radiometrics. Believe me, if He didn't want you to find it, you would never find it.

post #99 of this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/taking-questions-on-embedded-age-creation.7415712/​

 

[AV1611VET]

Still no response?

Bananaslug: You are saying there is no evidence for "embedded age", yet this verse clearly says God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen SINCE THE CREATION. If God hid all of the evidence for creation, then Romans 1:20 is wrong. Which is wrong, Romans 1:20 or your "embedded age" interpretation?

AV1611VET: But God didn't hide it, did He? You guys found it with your radiometrics. Believe me, if He didn't want you to find it, you would never find it.

post #99 of this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/taking-questions-on-embedded-age-creation.7415712/​

I'm off that ride.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm off that ride.

You tried to pretend that you were never on it.

Then it appears that radiometric dating measures the true age of a rock. Your claims are shown to be wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then it appears that radiometric dating measures the true age of a rock.

Only if you believe its age resets to zero.

Only if you assume you can't measure the date of the lava that created the rock, whose age reset to zero.

In short, only on paper.