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.
I'm sorry you don't recognize a right answer when you see one.
Your science gets in the way, doesn't it?
And why do I believe it "appears" 4.5 billion years old?You believe that Earth was created 6,000 years ago but has the appearance of 4.5 billion years go.
No, I don't.Warden_of_the_Storm said:That means you believe the Earth is 6000 years old.
Gee ... I wonder why?But you cannot show that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
And why do I believe it "appears" 4.5 billion years old?
Because it is ... or because I think it's just an illusion?No, I don't.
And I'll thank you to respect my beliefs.
But I'll also realize I can't get blood from a turnip.
But in the eyes of creationists, or the YEC mindset rather, what are the mainstream geologists getting wrong?
And no, I don't hate the interpretation of the creationists. I just see it as baseless and wrong.
Gee ... I wonder why?
Mabye it's because I believe it is 4.57 billion years old, eh?
I beg your pardon?And don't start with the whole "Oh, it's embedded history, not embedded age" nonsense. Age is history.
You may think it is wrong. But you can not say it is baseless. Any conclusion is made based on something.
In this case, the mistake of mainstream geologist in the eyes of Creationists is that they miscounted the rate of deposition of the rocks layers. Mainstream geologists suggested that it take a whole lot more time to make those rocks.
I beg your pardon?
For the 80th time here:
Embedded age = maturity without history.
Get it straight somehow ... will you, scientist?
So, let me get this straight.
Science gets in the way of discussing science. But, non-scientific, faith-based beliefs, are the best way to discuss science.
No, it isn't.It's the same thing!
Wow ... keep posting, chief.Warden_of_the_Storm said:Are you really that dense?
Is that so?Warden_of_the_Storm said:History is age.
What's my magazine have to do with it?Maddening, isn't it?
No, it isn't.
Embedded history is Last Thursayism.
Wow ... keep posting, chief.
The more you post, the more you show you don't know a thing about what you're railing against.Is that so?
Are you saying I should believe Adam had a childhood?Maturity is history.
Fair enough.I want to have an actual, scientific discussion in the science sub-forum. Is that too much to ask?
This is an issue that I would like to see discussed, sticking to science, so can we please talk about the science?
Deep time.So I have to ask: what are they getting wrong? What are men and women who have spent years studying their field, all across the globe, getting wrong?
Deep time.
I'm sorry you don't recognize a right answer when you see one.
Your science gets in the way, doesn't it?
I can, but due to the myopic restrictions I'm willing to respect at your request, I'll have to remain silent.But you cannot show that deep time is wrong. I have stated this before.
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?