Is fossil evidence that strong of a case for evolution?

[AV1611VET]

It is also your prerogative.

That's right.

Okay with you if I exercise it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why can we find millions of years of history in rocks that are found on top of fossils?

Because I'm convinced you guys can find almost anything you put your hearts to.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because I'm convinced you guys can find almost anything you put your hearts to.

Then why isn't it embedded history? Explain it to us.

 

[Naturalism]

Did I say animals were made as food sources? if so, link please?

You didn't, but the source you cited did. It also doesn't explain (nor did you) how the consumption & digestions of plants and animals doesn't result in them dying.

You tell me.

I am supposed to tell/guess you what you think is logical now? C'mon, I am asking for why you agree with the provided ages that geophysicists get using techniques and methods you don't agree with. Care to explain your logic there?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why isn't it embedded history? Explain it to us.

For the second time, embedded history is Omphalos or Last Thursdayism.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's right.

Okay with you if I exercise it?

Bobby Brown - My Prerogative - YouTube

 

[AV1611VET]

You didn't, but the source you cited did.

That's their prerogative, and my prerogative to ignore it.

It also doesn't explain (nor did you) how the consumption & digestions of plants and animals doesn't result in them dying.

I don't plan to, either.

I am supposed to tell/guess you what you think is logical now? C'mon, I am asking for why you agree with the provided ages that geophysicists get using techniques and methods you don't agree with. Care to explain your logic there?

Until you make an effort to understand this, I'm not going to feel obligated to play 20 questions.

And even if you were trying to understand this, I'm not going to feel obligated to play 20 questions.

IMO, you're trying not to understand, and it's working.

 

[Loudmouth]

For the second time, embedded history is Omphalos or Last Thursdayism.

Yes, and that is what is required for millions of years of history found in rocks above fossil bearing strata, according to your model.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, and that is what is required for millions of years of history found in rocks above fossil bearing strata, according to your model.

What you guys can deny you're doing is:

Suppose I accuse one of you of originating natural selection, and you denied it by citing Charles Darwin's, The Preservation of Favoured Races; and I started asking questions about something he said on p. 4 or whatever, and even accused you of believing it, since you cited Darwin?

Wouldn't you think I was trying to avoid admitting I was wrong?

 

[Loudmouth]

What you guys can deny you're doing is:

Suppose I accuse one of you of originating natural selection, and you denied it by citing Charles Darwin's, The Preservation of Favoured Races; and I started asking questions about something he said on p. 4 or whatever, and even accused you of believing it, since you cited Darwin?

Wouldn't you think I was trying to avoid admitting I was wrong?

I am only taking your claims, and following them to their conclusion.

Your claims require history to be embedded in rocks that overly fossils. This is an unavoidable consequence of what you have claimed about these rocks.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am only taking your claims, and following them to their conclusion.

Your claims require history to be embedded in rocks that overly fossils. This is an unavoidable consequence of what you have claimed about these rocks.

I'm not interested in the age of rocks, I'm interested in the Rock of Ages.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not interested in the age of rocks, I'm interested in the Rock of Ages.

That is proven false every time you talk about embedded age in rocks.

 

[bhsmte]

You're basically saying you agree with what scientists say regarding the age of the earth (4.57by), you just don't know why you believe it to be 4.57by.

That AV, he is always good for a chuckle.

 

[bhsmte]

Because I'm convinced you guys can find almost anything you put your hearts to.

AV, you are on a roll today.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except it would seem "The Ark", when are creationists due to find it again?

Anyone with basic physics should know that stuff decays over time.

I believe the Ark was dismantled and used as Noah's homestead.

But scientists keep "seeing things" when it comes to the Ark.

They periodically pique the public's interest with "sightings" of the Ark, knowing full well how entropy works.

The effect, of course, is just what Satan wants:

To dull the public's interest in things pertaining to the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

"But scientists keep "seeing things" when it comes to the Ark."??

Welll, it's not the Ark they are seeing, is it?

So then what is it, in your opinion?

Why would they do that?

To create "false echoes."

to get the creationists to go and look for it?

I wasn't aware creationists went out looking for it.

I would assume scientists do.

They are the ones with the tools and self-calibrated equipment, tuned to deep time and all that other anti-Biblical stuff.

I thought the only people who went looking for the ark were creationists, why would anyone else go looking?

Because they have the equipment, the software and the manpower to go poking around where they don't belong.

Why is it, when an earthquake strikes, like the one in Haiti, or a tsunami that hit Indonesia, you don't hear of scientists being killed?

They're never around in the area, where you actually need them.

They're busy predicting quakes in Timbuktu, while quakes are occuring everywhere else but Timbuktu.

But let a quake occur where scientists predicted one -- by coincidence -- and it's all over the news how accurate they are.

Is Satan working through some creationists to make other creationists look foolish?

Creationists who buy into today's worldly science are certainly prone to marching to the beat of another drummer.

 

[DerelictJunction]

1

Okay, any explanation will not contradict your interpretation of what the KJV says, even if that explanation has to be illogical.

The problem is that you haven't provided an explanation for your conclusion that God embedded age into the Earth when He created it.

You simply asserted that this must be what He did because the current science found evidence of a 4.5 billion year age for the Earth and your (infallible) interpretation of the KJV Bible has the age of the Earth at 6018 years.

The fact that radioactive decay products and 300-million-year-old volcanic ash on top of fossils indicate embedded history, does nothing to affect the unassailable illogic you are using.

I wholly support you believing as you wish. However, you bring up embedded age in a science forum as if it were evidence to support a young existential age for the Earth. Then you simply leave it out there and make no attempt to support it despite the fact that it implies that your God is deceptive with no logical reason for being so except to turn people away from accepting the account in Genesis as literal history.

It looks like in your defense of your interpretation of the KJV, you sacrificed the integrity of your God.

We are likely not going any further in this line of discussion. Embedded age is just a poorly thought out assertion of no merit, either scientifically or theologically.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Welll, it's not the Ark they are seeing, is it?

So then what is it, in your opinion?

To create "false echoes."

Another assertion without merit? Name one scientist who has claimed to have seen the Ark.

I wasn't aware creationists went out looking for it.

Then you are pretty out of touch. I believe a simple google search could do much to alleviate your lack of awareness.

I would assume scientists do.

Based on what information?

They are the ones with the tools and self-calibrated equipment, tuned to deep time and all that other anti-Biblical stuff.

mass chromatography is now anti-Biblical?

Because they have the equipment, the software and the manpower to go poking around where they don't belong.

Because creation scientists can't get funding due to all the money required to build a creation museum and run websites.

Why is it, when an earthquake strikes, like the one in Haiti, or a tsunami that hit Indonesia, you don't hear of scientists being killed?

They're never around in the area, where you actually need them.

They're busy predicting quakes in Timbuktu, while quakes are occuring everywhere else but Timbuktu.

But let a quake occur where scientists predicted one -- by coincidence -- and it's all over the news how accurate they are.

Earthquakes cannot be predicted beyond knowing that certain areas are more prone to have them than others. This massive red herring deserves no further comment.

 

[Naturalism]

That's their prerogative, and my prerogative to ignore it.

Ah I see. So it's valid to cite them in specific section where it agrees with your beliefs but if other sections do not you ignore it. I guess logic can take a hike.

I don't plan to, either.

While I completely understand from your position why you would not like to discuss it at all, your rejection of discussing it and immediate disregard of it is evidence that you don't comprehend or care why it's an issue. You cite that very article as supporting your beliefs that plants and animals were made as food sources & yet the very concept of how animals consume plants and other animals entails their death. So basic really.

I guess logic can take a hike again?

Until you make an effort to understand this, I'm not going to feel obligated to play 20 questions

I'm here asking 20 questions you're here making 20 assumptions.

IMO, you're trying not to understand, and it's working.

You have not offered an example of where & why you take the theological over the logical and further by what means you use (e.g. reason, evidence, or logic.) to arrive at that assessment that the theological takes precedence over the logical. You stated the moon but nothing beyond that.

 

[Naturalism]

What you guys can deny you're doing is:

Suppose I accuse one of you of originating natural selection, and you denied it by citing Charles Darwin's,

That you originated the concept of "embedded age" is really beside the point and irelevant to how it's supported or not based on a preponderance of evidence.