My rock challenge

[EternalDragon]

And that is the point I am making. This embedded age stuff makes no sense whatsoever.

It's really simple. Just think of it like this. It takes time for an orange to grow the edible inside part. It takes time to grow the peel around the edible parts.

If an entity could create a new orange in an instant, it would have the appearance of age and history. Yet have no age or history. There would really be no way to tell it apart from a normal orange. Other than it would be an extremely perfect orange.

Now give that orange a few weeks to sit there and it would be even harder to tell the difference as it would start to show signs of age and history. (Decay).

 

[juvenissun]

Of course the student is mislead! By intentionally misleading them to believe something else, you are misleading them!

Whatever students think, they answer the question wrong. As a consequence, they learned. So they should not complain on anything. The teacher is trying to teach you, not to cheat you.

Whether we "think" God misleads or not, we should learn once the answer is given. No complaint. Certainly not to accuse Him misleading or cheating.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's really simple. Just think of it like this. It takes time for an orange to grow the edible inside part. It takes time to grow the peel around the edible parts.

If an entity could create a new orange in an instant, it would have the appearance of age and history. Yet have no age or history. There would really be no way to tell it apart from a normal orange. Other than it would be an extremely perfect orange.

Now give that orange a few weeks to sit there and it would be even harder to tell the difference as it would start to show signs of age and history. (Decay).

Would the newly created orange have frost scars from past injuries? Would the new created orange have a navel from a flower stage it never went through? Would the orange have marks on it from insects that never touched it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Whatever students think, they answer the question wrong. As a consequence, they learned. So they should not complain on anything. The teacher is trying to teach you, not to cheat you.

Whether we "think" God misleads or not, we should learn once the answer is given. No complaint. Certainly not to accuse Him misleading or cheating.

Actually, it would appear that the Biblical authors are the ones who misled us if they intended to suggest that the Earth is young.

 

[Loudmouth]

What does both having existed for the same length of time have to do with embedded age?

The earth and Adam were only six days apart in existence, but the earth was 4.57 billion years old and Adam was 20 (or 30) years old.

That would be a fake, embedded history. The age of the Earth is measure using historical events. You are saying that these historical events were faked.

 

[Loudmouth]

Would a newly created rock have fossils in it?

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be a fake, embedded history.

Embedded history is Omphalism.

The age of the Earth is measure using historical events.

From Wikipedia:

The age of the earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

...

It is hypothesized that the accretion of Earth began soon after the formation of the calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact amount of time this accretion process took is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact age of the oldest rocks on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages.

SOURCE

You are saying that these historical events were faked.

No.

 

[EternalDragon]

That would be a fake, embedded history. The age of the Earth is measure using historical events. You are saying that these historical events were faked.

No, the earth is measured by the presupposition that those processes take eons of time and that there was no global breakup, flooding, volcanism and increased subduction.

What scientists study is the aftermath of a catastrophic flood and continental breakup never seen before.

 

[lasthero]

No, the earth is measured by the presupposition that those processes take eons of time

No one ever presupposed that. If anything, they presupposed the opposite. It was initially believed the Earth was young. The evidence showed otherwise.

that there was no global breakup, flooding, volcanism and increased subduction.

That's what the evidence shows.

What scientists study is the aftermath of a catastrophic flood and continental breakup never seen before.

The scientists themselves don't seem to think so. If you'd like to present any evidence to that effect, I'm sure they'd love to see it.

 

[EternalDragon]

No one ever presupposed that. If anything, they presupposed the opposite. It was initially believed the Earth was young. The evidence showed otherwise.

How do you think they arrive at starting isotope ratios from the past? Use a time machine?

That's what the evidence shows.

Then you/they have misinterpreted the evidence.

The scientists themselves don't seem to think so. If you'd like to present any evidence to that effect, I'm sure they'd love to see it.

They already have it and can see it.

 

[Kylie]

Whatever students think, they answer the question wrong. As a consequence, they learned. So they should not complain on anything. The teacher is trying to teach you, not to cheat you.

Whether we "think" God misleads or not, we should learn once the answer is given. No complaint. Certainly not to accuse Him misleading or cheating.

So you have no problem with a teacher deliberately LYING to students? Deliberately giving them and TEACHING them false information?

That's a disgusting attitude.

 

[Kylie]

Just don't think everyone else should agree with you.

I think the people who disagree with my are by far in the minority. And lacking evidence as well.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually, it would appear that the Biblical authors are the ones who misled us if they intended to suggest that the Earth is young.

You misled by caveman?
What happened to evolution?

 

[juvenissun]

Would a newly created rock have fossils in it?

It is certainly scientifically correct. (need explanation?)

 

[AV1611VET]

I think the people who disagree with my are by far in the minority. And lacking evidence as well.

1. Disagrees with you.
2. In the minority.
3. Lacking evidence.

Sounds like my kind of people!

 

[Mainframes]

1. Disagrees with you.
2. In the minority.
3. Lacking evidence.

Sounds like my kind of people!

People who revel in ignorance....? Brilliant.

 

[Kylie]

1. Disagrees with you.
2. In the minority.
3. Lacking evidence.

Sounds like my kind of people!

Birds of a feather...

Doesn't mean the birds are actually right though...

 

[Loudmouth]

It is certainly scientifically correct. (need explanation?)

That doesn't answer the question.

Would a newly created rock have fossils in it?

 

[selfinflikted]

Embedded age is lol. Before we had the ability to accurately date rocks and other materials, Christians could just claim the earth is 6,000 years old. No real conflict with perceived reality, end of story. But now that we can and do reliably date certain materials, the 6,000 year old claim is easily dismissed. But for some reason, rather than accepting reality, some people have to roundoff->handspring->whipback->handspring->half in half out double full their story to coincide with what we are fairly certain is the age of the earth. It's ad hoc. It's made up. It's shoehorning reality to fit with a belief so desperately clutched that nothing is immune to this sort of twisting. It's sad, really.

 

[juvenissun]

That doesn't answer the question.

Would a newly created rock have fossils in it?

Yes.