Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Cabal, if you set your attitude aside for a moment, and take a real look at my posts, you'll see that it's not evolution, per se, that I discredit --- it is science.
Since evolution runs on science, and since God did not rely on science*, but on omnipotence, I am against evolution.
Read my caption: it says SCIENCE can take a hike, not EVOLUTION.
Evolution is just one aspect of science.
* Which didn't even exist at the time.
Embedded Age is an eclectic of YEC and OEC (even science). I take the best of both paradigms and combine them into one coherent cosmology that raises the Ussher/deep time contradiction to the level of a paradox.Then what is all of this hullabaloo about "embedded age".
Because I certainly wouldn't want someone to get the wrong impression of what I believe.If "science can take a hike", then why not just say the earth is 6100 years old and be done with it?
I believe that got moderated.If I remember correctly, there was a post where you said "Yahweh can take a hike".
No comment.Talk about blasphemy...
Embedded Age is an eclectic of YEC and OEC (even science). I take the best of both paradigms and combine them into one coherent cosmology that raises the Ussher/deep time contradiction to the level of a paradox.
Sun is 4.5 billion years old.My view is that if you understand something profoundly then you will be able to explain it in accessible language. So go ahead prove to me that the universe is old.
158Except you reject any scientific notion that there was actual history over 6000 years ago, but all of that is based on the methods of science, so why bother to accept the conclusions of science?
If I remember right, history isn't science, per se.Right, and for embedded age to work, you have to render the majority of scientific conclusions and the methods by which they were obtained moot. If it implies history greater than 6000 years old, which it does, because all these embedded ages look suspiciously well-ordered, it can take a hike by those criteria.
So again, why pander to science this much?
If I remember right, history isn't science, per se.
Is that correct?
Jesus made science take a hike many times when He walked on water, healed the sick and raised the dead.As you have so often stated before "science can take a hike". So why do you accept certain conclusions of science if science itself can "take a hike".
Whenever the question goes outside of the realm of Genesis 1, I don't feel obligated to answer, even if I could.I'm sorry, but "embedded age" is not a coherent cosmology if you refuse to answer the questions that many on here feel are a big thorn in the side of your concept.
Jesus made science take a hike many times when He walked on water, healed the sick and raised the dead.
Whenever the question goes outside of the realm of Genesis 1, I don't feel obligated to answer, even if I could.
Ya --- that's just one of Lucifer's five goals: to be like the Most High.Many other religious figures made science "take a hike". Hollywood makes science "take a hike" almost everyday.
Let's not telephone my reply, okay?In other words you don't feel like answering questions that makes you feel uncomfortable.
Obviously.To me, fossils embedded in 250 million yeard old stone had to get there somehow.
There were no fossils in Genesis 1, where God did His embedding of age. Your failure to acknowledge that is what is confusing you.I would still like to know God's purpose for "embedding" 20,000 years of age into Pleistocene fossils.
No, it means you are describing these fossils as an anachronism to Embedded Age Creation, and they aren't.The fact you are unable to answer these questions and account for evidence that flies in the face of your little pet "hypothesis" means your idea holds no water.
Ya --- that's just one of Lucifer's five goals: to be like the Most High.
We have a name for that: Diabolical Mimicry.
Let's not telephone my reply, okay?
I said I don't feel obligated to answer any questions outside of Genesis 1, even if I could.
There were no fossils in Genesis 1, where God did His embedding of age. Your failure to acknowledge that is what is confusing you.
Fossils are testimonies of death; death is God's enemy; and God had no enemies in Genesis 1.
No, it means you are describing these fossils as an anachronism to Embedded Age Creation, and they aren't.
And why is that?Why are there fossils with C14 dates of ages greater than 6100 years? You need to be able to answer these questions.
And why is that?
They have nothing to do with Embedded Age Creation.
I can't help it if you find fossils with C14 content that exceeds 6100 years of age.
Perhaps they were used in Carbon experiments by the Nephilim?
(They seem to have been involved with the use of anthracite for some reason.)
I don't know --- nor should I have to.
I think you misunderstand my attitude AV.Not even close.Nope --- the details are all wrong.
Especially the order of Creation.
If Genesis 1 is evolution, then our alphabet owes us an apology.No --- I'll let you insist "only I" for awhile --- then I'll pwn you by quoting [the late] Henry M. Morris.
That's where I got it.
Your attitude is the source of your mistakes.
Creatio ex nihilo is what you guys would call an "educated guess" --- or hypothesis.Since you (and Morris) can make it up, then so can I?
I think the greater question is why do you deny the evidence that the universe is old.
There are a couple of ways to get good estimates on the age of the universe, but no way to know exactly for sure. For an idea of how hard this is, let's pretend I show you a person and ask you to guess how old she is. It would be somewhat difficult to guess the exact right age, but how would you do it? You would think about how old that person looks compared to other people you know of different ages. Well, we only have one universe, so we can't compare it with other universes so determining the age is very hard! Here are three of the more accurate ways:
1) I mentioned just using 1/H was not a very accurate way of finding the age if we use the current measurement of H only. Remember H measures the rate of expansion so assuming H is constant in time says the universe has always been expanding at the same rate. We know this is not true (we believe the universe is actually accelerating) so to be more accurate we have to come up with a model for what we think the expansion rate has been like. In other words, we have to find H as a function of time, integrate over the history of the universe, and then take the inverse of that to get a more accurate age estimate. We're still doing some guesswork here, because we don't know exactly what H was at every moment in the past (it was hard enough for us to figure out what it is now!) Each model will give a different value for the age, but one of the most popular models gives about 13.7 billion years.
2) Another method is looking at clusters of stars (groups of stars all born at the same time that are at the same distance from us). When stars are in the longest stage of their lives (burning hydrogen) we can put them on a plot of temperature versus luminosity (how bright they are) and we find they all fall in a straight line (we call it the "main sequence"). Based on our knowledge of stars, we know how long each type of star stays on the main sequence. When we observe a cluster of stars, we can see all types of stars filling out the line we call the main sequence. Thus we can see what types of stars have already left the main sequence in old clusters to find an upper limit for the age of the cluster and thus the universe. This method gives ages of 11-13 billion years.
3) There is a special kind of event in some stars' lives called a supernova. A certain kind of supernova occurs when the core of a star becomes a white dwarf (a really compact star near the end of its life) and the star's outer layers bounce off this core and fly into space in a huge explosion. The white dwarf left behind glows at first and then cools as it ages. If we find white dwarves that are really cool, we can estimate how much time must have passed in order for them to get that cool and get a value for the age of the universe. This method gives ages of around 12.7 billion years.
Curious About Astronomy: How do we determine the age of the universe?
So the next question would be why would God give the universe an age much older than it actually is?
Jesus said all one must do to be saved is to accept him as lord and savior. There's nothing in that condition which says you must also accept a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Once again scientists don't 'prove' anything, so your question should be "what evidence is there that the universe is old?" or "How old is the universe?"
I see you're a young earth creationist so I'll deal with the age of the Earth, and not the age of the universe, which isn't actually mentioned in the Bible.
Looking at the history of dating the Earth is instructive because methods were used before the discovery of radioactivity and its application in radio-dating.
James Hutton in his "Theory of the Earth", published in 1795, proposed that the land was slowly and gradually eroded into the seas and the sediments hardened by heat and were raised again to form new land. He saw no evidence of the Earth's beginning only a slow recycling of the land. He was the first so-called uniformitarian and though he did not provide an age for the Earth, thought it to be unimaginably old
Later Charles Lyell published his "Principles of Geology" in 1830, basing his ideas on Huttons uniformitarianism. Lyell thought the geological features of the earth could only be explained by slow perpetual processes of erosion, sedimentation reforming etc., operating at the same rate they do today. That is:-
William Smith (17691839) produced geological maps of England and Wales and was the first person to use fossils to assign relative dates to the strata. His studies led him to believe the Earth was much older than 6,000 years
- Studies of strata suggested that they were laid down by natural processes in which the sea and land had changed places several times.
- Studies of earthquakes and volcanoes showed that the surface crust is subject to massive natural transformation.
- Observation of rain, wind, water erosion, and sea erosion in action showed that they were forces capable of reducing mountains and creating valleys.
During this period there was a considerable debate between various parties, but the efforts of the biblical geologists failed and by 1830 this was a dead issue in science. Of course today, although the uniformitarian principle is used in geology, it is recognised that the Earth has experienced several catastrophic events in its lifetime.
The first person to actually calculate an age for the Earth seems to have been William Thomson (Lord Kelvin, 18241907). Assuming the Earth was originally a molten object and using measured rates of heat loss, he calculated an age of between 20 million and 400 million years. However, he did not take into consideration convection currents within the Earth, nor was he aware of the heat produced inside the Earth by radioactivity, both of which would have led to a severe underestimation.
In 1899 and 1900, John Joly of the University of Dublin calculated the rate at which the oceans should have accumulated salt from erosion processes, and determined that the oceans were about 80 to 100 million years old.
Following the discovery of radio-isotopes and the way they disintegrated into different elements, attempts were made to use this method to date the Earth. Arthur Holmes, a pioneer in this emerging technology, published "The Age of the Earth, an Introduction to Geological Ideas" in 1927 in which he presented a range of 1.6 to 3.0 billion years. Since then numerous measurements have been made using radiometric different techniques.
Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/17/1/pdf/i1052-5173-17-1-4.pdf
G. Brent Dalrymple is considered an expert on this subject and has written a book entitled "The Age of the Earth" Amazon.com: The Age of the Earth (9780804723312): G. Dalrymple: Books
It's interesting to read his comments:-
Evidence for an old Earth does not tell us whether the rest of the universe is older, but it does tell us it cannot be younger.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?