My Goosenecks challenge.

[Loudmouth]

Right now, what I think would get me moderated.

How would a yes/no answer to that question get you moderated?

I will try again.

Do you think the Earth was created 4.5 billion years ago? A simple yes or no will do.

 

[Strathos]

They've been doing more than studying.

They've been calibrating their equipment, programming their computers, and cross-referencing their finds for corroboration purposes.

And you think you apparently know better than them and can detect some obvious flaw that every single one of them has overlooked for hundreds of years.

In fact, I think this is a good topic for a challenge thread of my own.

 

[crjmurray]

Link please?

You told me earlier this week that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. That's 6,000 years old.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

You told me earlier this week that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. That's 6,000 years old.

Appearance of Age in a Young but Mature Creation*

Did God create with the appearance of age? ** by John Morris (President, Institute for Creation Research) is a vigorous defense of apparent age. (3 k)

~~~
* Appearance of Age - Mature Creation
** '....On the other hand, if fallen scientists extrapolating present process are right and the universe is old, then God has lied to us, for He clearly said He created all things in six days, not too long ago.' [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Dr. John Morris is the President of the Institute for Creation Research.[/FONT]

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact, I think this is a good topic for a challenge thread of my own.

Sweet!

 

[AV1611VET]

You told me earlier this week that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. That's 6,000 years old.

ago ≠ old

 

[AV1611VET]

Appearance of Age in a Young but Mature Creation*

Did God create with the appearance of age? ** by John Morris (President, Institute for Creation Research) is a vigorous defense of apparent age. (3 k)

~~~
* Appearance of Age - Mature Creation
** '....On the other hand, if fallen scientists extrapolating present process are right and the universe is old, then God has lied to us, for He clearly said He created all things in six days, not too long ago.' [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Dr. John Morris is the President of the Institute for Creation Research.[/FONT]

I don't believe in apparent age.

I believe in embedded age.

The earth is 4.57 billion years old physically, and 6000 years old existentially.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

 

[crjmurray]

ago ≠ old

Only to you.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I don't believe in apparent age.

I believe in embedded age.

The earth is 4.57 billion years old physically, and 6000 years old existentially.

2009 CF
pg. 35

Yes --- when God spoke the earth into existence --- it appeared out of nowhere as a 4.57 billion-year-old planet (in my opinion so far).

So you agree that embedded age is not valid?

It's also not logical, so it doesn't belong in logical discussion.

I agree.

At least "Goddidit and made it look like it just happened by accident" is logical.

It might be logical --- but God does nothing by accident --- and He certainly didn't just make it "look like" it happened.

The nebulous statement "God created a 4.7 billion year old world 6000 years ago" makes about as much sense as "God created a circle with four sides."

Again, I agree.

Good to hear you won't be bringing up embedded age anymore

Can't wait to see what you come up with next, though!

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe in apparent age.

I believe in embedded age.

The earth is 4.57 billion years old physically, and 6000 years old existentially.

That is blasphemous to say the least.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Since AV and some other creationists like challenges so much:

I have brought this up before and no flood proponent yet has been able to answer this question. How did the following geologic feature form if there was a worldwide flood:

Goosenecks State Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So how do you explain that feature, and other features similar around the world by using a Flood?

Hey hey sub.

Have you considered that noahs flood may not have been a world wide flood?

Cheers

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey hey sub.

Have you considered that noahs flood may not have been a world wide flood?

Cheers

I was arguing with those that claim a worldwide flood.

Can you tell me which version of the flood that you believe in? We can see if the evidence tells us whether it could happen or not. You do realize that the Bible says that all land life died, don't you?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

I was arguing with those that claim a worldwide flood.

Can you tell me which version of the flood that you believe in? We can see if the evidence tells us whether it could happen or not. You do realize that the Bible says that all land life died, don't you?

Thank you for the reply. Please excuse me for my confusion friend

I view the flood as local but am always willing to see an arguement that may convince me.

There is good argument for 6th day creation - go forth and multiply and nth day creation of Adam and eve - stay in the garden.

It could be possible that there were 2 seperate creations. 6th day and Adams descendants - after Gods rest

If this is so then 'the sons of God' (who had the breath of life) could possibly have stayed in one area.


7:4 For yet 5750 seven 7651 days 3117, and I will cause it to rain 4305 8688 upon the earth 776 forty 705 days 3117 and forty705 nights 3915; and every 3605 living substance 3351 that I have made 6213 8804will I destroy 4229 8804 from off 5921 the face 6440 of the earth 127.(destroy: Heb. blot out)


127 of the earth

Strong: H127

Orig: from 119; soil (from its general redness):--country, earth, ground, husband(-man) (-ry), land

Note
The event of rhe tower of babel suggests the descendants of Adam and Noah had not scattered yet and maybe all in one place.

noahs ark was before tower of babel. Tower of babel is linked with the scatter of the indo-euro proto language.

Please tell me what u think?

Cheers

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for the reply. Please excuse me for my confusion friend

I view the flood as local but am always willing to see an arguement that may convince me.

There is good argument for 6th day creation - go forth and multiply and nth day creation of Adam and eve - stay in the garden.

It could be possible that there were 2 seperate creations. 6th day and Adams descendants - after Gods rest

If this is so then 'the sons of God' (who had the breath of life) could possibly have stayed in one area.


7:4 For yet 5750 seven 7651 days 3117, and I will cause it to rain 4305 8688 upon the earth 776 forty 705 days 3117 and forty705 nights 3915; and every 3605 living substance 3351 that I have made 6213 8804will I destroy 4229 8804 from off 5921 the face 6440 of the earth 127.(destroy: Heb. blot out)


127 of the earth

Strong: H127

Orig: from 119; soil (from its general redness):--country, earth, ground, husband(-man) (-ry), land

Note
The event of rhe tower of babel suggests the descendants of Adam and Noah had not scattered yet and maybe all in one place.

noahs ark was before tower of babel. Tower of babel is linked with the scatter of the indo-euro proto language.

Please tell me what u think?

Cheers

When the flood occurred do you think that Noah and family were all that was left of mankind?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

When the flood occurred do you think that Noah and family were all that was left of mankind?

I believe 'those who had the breath of life' and some 6th day ppl perished - opinion . Noah, his descendants and 6th day creation were left

6th day went forth..

Breath of life - adam

What u think?

Cheers

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe 'those who had the breath of life' and some 6th day ppl perished - opinion . Noah, his descendants and 6th day creation were left

6th day went forth..

Breath of life - adam

What u think?

Cheers

You are of course wrong. I would like to refer you to what I call "the lesson of the cheetah". About ten thousand years ago cheetahs died down to almost extinction levels. There was an effective population of less than 10. Even now, ten thousand years later they suffer as a result of this. One result of that is that one can take a skin graft from almost any cheetah and put it in another. We can't do that. We have to wait for years sometimes looking for someone close enough to us so that we can get a transplant.

If the flood of Noah happened there would be no need to check thousands of people when looking for an organ transplant.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

You are of course wrong. I would like to refer you to what I call "the lesson of the cheetah". About ten thousand years ago cheetahs died down to almost extinction levels. There was an effective population of less than 10. Even now, ten thousand years later they suffer as a result of this. One result of that is that one can take a skin graft from almost any cheetah and put it in another. We can't do that. We have to wait for years sometimes looking for someone close enough to us so that we can get a transplant.

If the flood of Noah happened there would be no need to check thousands of people when looking for an organ transplant.

Could this reply be considered a composition/division fallacy?

You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts?