"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[bhsmte]

Would it be asking too much to get back on topic?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[bhsmte]

I conclude that if you were God you would not allow for freedom and responsibility. You would interfere with free choices and their natural consequences. You would be an absolute despot, and the entire universe would revolt against your rule.

You can conclude what you like, about that hypothetical

 

[Loudmouth]

I conclude that if you were God you would not allow for freedom and responsibility.

Do doctors take away a child's freedom and responsibility when they cure them of childhood leukemia?

Your premise is perhaps one of the most backwards things I have ever read. Boy, just think how my parents created me and then had the gall to make their existence so obvious . . .

 

[JasonClark]

Leprechauns, Zeus, Fairies, Brownies, Ghosts, and so on. They all seem to have equal explanatory power, as in none.

If I only counted the times I won at Blackjack, could I claim divine providence?

That goes without saying after all what else could it be?

 

[RickG]

That would be fine with me, since I am guilty of starting the thread.

The opening post still stands:

Some creationists make the claim that God created the Earth with maturity or embedded age during the initial creation of the Earth which is why rocks appear to be millions to billions of years old when measured with radiometric dating. The problem is that this requires God to put fake fossils in the ground.

1. When a T. rex or other large animal dies, it doesn't dig through hundreds of feet of solid basalt rock and make a fossil.

2. Therefore, any lava flows found above a fossil had to occur AFTER the organism died.

3. Lava flows found above fossils date to millions of years old which creationists claim were created during the initial creation of the Earth.

Not only fake fossils and fake ages, but a 6000 year delay in knowing this. And if this is the case why do the creation science people have to continue misrepresenting science?

 

[dad]

By whom? believers, if there was any truth in any of the religious claims anywhere in the world you would not need faith, but sadly you still do,
everything must be taken on faith because there is absolutely nothing to any of the stories anywhere, they tell you there is but there's not,
you believe them if it makes you feel better but that's all it's ever going to do for you, make you feel better.

False. Jesus said if any man do what He said, then he would know. History and prophesy also prove Scripture.

 

[dad]

That would be fine with me, since I am guilty of starting the thread.

The opening post still stands:

Some creationists make the claim that God created the Earth with maturity or embedded age during the initial creation of the Earth which is why rocks appear to be millions to billions of years old when measured with radiometric dating. The problem is that this requires God to put fake fossils in the ground.

1. When a T. rex or other large animal dies, it doesn't dig through hundreds of feet of solid basalt rock and make a fossil.

2. Therefore, any lava flows found above a fossil had to occur AFTER the organism died.

3. Lava flows found above fossils date to millions of years old which creationists claim were created during the initial creation of the Earth.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });

No. All it requires is that your dates are based on faith in some past nature you cannot prove. The fossils and lava are zero problem.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. All it requires is that your dates are based on faith in some past nature you cannot prove. The fossils and lava are zero problem.

We can directly observe a same state past in the universe around us. No faith needed.

 

[dad]

We can directly observe a same state past in the universe around us. No faith needed.

We can directly observe a same state past in the universe around us. No faith needed.

Pathetic. Obviously the light moves and we see it near earth. Good to see you utterly stumped.

 

[Loudmouth]

Pathetic. Obviously the light moves and we see it near earth. Good to see you utterly stumped.

The light comes from out in the universe. It is a direct observation of what is happening there, not here. When we see the same natural laws everywhere in the universe, it is proof that the past was the same as the present.

 

[RickG]

Pathetic. Obviously the light moves and we see it near earth. Good to see you utterly stumped.

What does a different past look like? How do you know it was different?

 

[dad]

The light comes from out in the universe. It is a direct observation of what is happening there, not here. When we see the same natural laws everywhere in the universe, it is proof that the past was the same as the present.

Absurd claim. If it wasdirect, they would not claim it takes billions of years to get Here!

Think for a minute. IF time were different or did not exist there, but did here, how else could we see things?!

 

[Loudmouth]

Absurd claim. If it wasdirect, they would not claim it takes billions of years to get Here!

To get here from where?

Think for a minute. IF time were different or did not exist there, but did here, how else could we see things?!

If there were no time there then light would not have a velocity and we would not be getting photons from outer space.

 

[dad]

What does a different past look like? How do you know it was different?

I think the focus here is the stars and time. How could it be in the past unless there was time there at the stars?! Yes, to a small degree we can say that in the solar system here, near earth as I call it...it takes minutes for light to reachus. Maybe we could even say many hours. End of story!

 

[Loudmouth]

I think the focus here is the stars and time. How could it be in the past unless there was time there at the stars?! Yes, to a small degree we can say that in the solar system here, near earth as I call it...it takes minutes for light to reachus. Maybe we could even say many hours. End of story!

Then how could we see a time gap between a supernova explosion and rings of debris around supernova 1987a? How could we observe the continuing changes in supernova 1987a:

 

[RickG]

I think the focus here is the stars and time. How could it be in the past unless there was time there at the stars?! Yes, to a small degree we can say that in the solar system here, near earth as I call it...it takes minutes for light to reachus. Maybe we could even say many hours. End of story!

No, not end of story. I asked how you the past was physically different and by what means is that observed and quantified. So far you have not presented any evidence of a different past.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does a different past look like?

Red sun, perpetual motion, no death.

 

[RickG]

Then how could we see a time gap between a supernova explosion and rings of debris around supernova 1987a? How could we observe the continuing changes in supernova 1987a:

Not only that, we were able to observe specific isotopes from gamma ray emissions of SN1987A 169,000 light years distant and measure their decay rates, which are exactly the same as we observe today on earth.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9912131

Full paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9912131.pdf

 

[RickG]

Red sun, perpetual motion, no death.

.

 

[Doveaman]

If God were to intervene on behalf of his followers in every instance, the character of the Devil would never be revealed to the world and to the universe!

That's a good point.

The works of the devil remind us of our need for God.

Scientists have no clue how to fight evil. All they can do is contribute to it.