Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

essentialsaltes · May 26, 2021

Estrid said:
Have you read Lucretius on fossils?

I remember skimming through a clunky translation of De Rerum Natura. I don't recall in particular, though I see he is credited as being one of several ancient philosophers who had some kind of vague protoscientific idea of evolution.

Sort of like Aristarchus hypothesizing a heliocentric universe, but without the real scientific basis that Copernicus and Galileo later provided. A scientific theory as opposed to an idea.

AV1611VET · May 26, 2021

VirOptimus said:
I understand the data,

What data?

Ion cloud? time crystals? plasma cloud? microwave background? what exactly?

What data was left over as evidence, when God spoke Earth into existence ex nihilo?

VirOptimus · May 26, 2021

AV1611VET said:
-snip- God spoke earth into existence ex nihilo?

There is no evidence or data supporting that assertion.

AV1611VET · May 26, 2021

essentialsaltes said:
Although Omphalos literally means navel, in analogy of Adam, the book itself is about geology.

Then you should know for a fact that I'm not Omphalos.

essentialsaltes said:
If I understand you correctly (admittedly not something I find easy) your only difference with this idea is that it is not merely an appearance of age.

Congratulations.

You are correct.

It is not just an appearance of age I'm talking about, it is age.

The earth appears old, because the earth is old.

But stuff implanted into it to only make it look old is not what I believe.

VirOptimus · May 26, 2021

AV1611VET said:
Then you should know for a fact that I'm not Omphalos.Congratulations.

You are correct.

It is not just an appearance of age I'm talking about, it is age.

The earth appears old, because the earth is old.

But stuff implanted into it to only make it look old is not what I believe.

Old by definition requires time.

AV1611VET · May 26, 2021

VirOptimus said:
There is no evidence or data supporting that assertion.

KA-RECT!

Move your token one step closer to the Well of Understanding.

AV1611VET · May 26, 2021

VirOptimus said:
Old by definition requires time.

Nope.

Time requires two things: distance and speed.

Otherwise you have to clarify it as "growing old".

VirOptimus · May 26, 2021

AV1611VET said:
Nope.

Time requires two things: distance and speed.

Otherwise you have to clarify it as "growing old".

Thats not how time works.

VirOptimus · May 26, 2021

AV1611VET said:
KA-RECT!

Move your token one step closer to the Well of Understanding.

Im already there, will you ever join me?

AV1611VET · May 26, 2021

VirOptimus said:
Thats not how time works.

Well they say even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

VirOptimus · May 26, 2021

AV1611VET said:
Well they say even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

They say a lot of things.

essentialsaltes · May 26, 2021

AV1611VET said:
But stuff implanted into it to only make it look old is not what I believe.

Are all fossils therefore remnants of once living creatures? That is they all lived after the earth was created?

[I have to be careful. If mountains were created actually old, maybe fossils actually lived even if they didn't.]

AV1611VET · May 26, 2021

essentialsaltes said:
Are all fossils therefore remnants of once living creatures?

Affirmative.

essentialsaltes said:
That is they all lived after the earth was created?

Affirmative.

essentialsaltes said:
[I have to be careful. If mountains were created actually old, maybe fossils actually lived even if they didn't.]

You lost me on that one.

essentialsaltes · May 26, 2021

AV1611VET said:
Affirmative.

We've gone around this before, so don't exert yourself to whip up an extrabiblical miracle again.

dlamberth · May 26, 2021

VirOptimus said:
Old by definition requires time.

I believe that he has a different definition of "old" than what you and I would understand.

VirOptimus · May 26, 2021

dlamberth said:
I believe that he has a different definition of "old" than what you and I would understand.

Its just incoherent non-rational all around.

pitabread · May 26, 2021

VirOptimus said:
Its just incoherent non-rational all around.

There's nothing rational about creationism.

Astrid · May 26, 2021

essentialsaltes said:
I remember skimming through a clunky translation of De Rerum Natura. I don't recall in particular, though I see he is credited as being one of several ancient philosophers who had some kind of vague protoscientific idea of evolution.

Sort of like Aristarchus hypothesizing a heliocentric universe, but without the real scientific basis that Copernicus and Galileo later provided. A scientific theory as opposed to an idea.

Go back and check, his ideas about age of the earth and the nature of fossils is interesting.

essentialsaltes · May 26, 2021

Estrid said:
Go back and check, his ideas about age of the earth and the nature of fossils is interesting.

If there's a point you want to make, we are all ears.

Astrid · May 26, 2021

essentialsaltes said:
If there's a point you want to make, we are all ears.

I think the ideas the Romans had are interesting.
No more to it than that.

Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

Fact-Based Lifeform

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

A nihilist who cares.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

A nihilist who cares.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

A nihilist who cares.

A nihilist who cares.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

A nihilist who cares.

Fact-Based Lifeform

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Fact-Based Lifeform

Senior Contributor

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency