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.
Are you saying I should believe Adam had a childhood?
I'll pass.Please review posts #37 & #43.
I can, but due to the myopic restrictions I'm willing to respect at your request, I'll have to remain silent.
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.
Well, I see this thread is just ablaze with scientific answers.you beat me to the punch!
It's the same thing! Are you really that dense? History is age. Age is history. There are the same thing.
I want to have an actual, scientific discussion in the science sub-forum. Is that too much to ask?
Deep time.
To be fair, this isn't the place for that kind of discussion. This is a place to see some really creative alternatives to science.
From #24 on my earlier link: "geologists insert many millions of years to force the rocks to conform with the ‘given’ timescale of billions of years." http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Seriously, does he really believe that?
I wouldn't bother debating him on this. Remember his point is that God can embed actual age into something. Which is fine because God can do whatever He wants to. So if God wants a 3 month old item to actually be 3 million years old it is 3 million years old.
Now, of course, this means that God is making something without going through all the steps, which is His prerogative, but I've never really understood why God would want to do something like that. What's the point? It's not like God doesn't have all the time he could want. The upshot is that we are stuck with a 3 month old thing that is 3 million years old.
The important thing is "THIS MAKES GENESIS LITERALLY TRUE" which is kind of like "embedded truth". It isn't literally like that but it has the truth "embedded" into it to make it true when it's not.
But it is wrong. If they followed the actual lines of evidence, they would see that the rocks indicate an old Earth, not a young Earth. And there is no basis for that claim, therefore it is baseless.
There ARE bases. They use an example of much faster pace of natural deposition to show that the Grand Canyon rock layers is possible to be deposited in a much shorter period of time.
There ARE bases. They use an example of much faster pace of natural deposition to show that the Grand Canyon rock layers is possible to be deposited in a much shorter period of time.
What have the geologists done wrong to say that the Grand Canyon is 6 million years old when it should be 4000 years old?
However, their example(s) do not even come close to any of the natural processes. How do they get thousands of feet of limestone from a flood in less than a year?
They don't look at the whole canyon. Rapid erosion is the only thing that could
create it. If the GC were millions of years old, how did the water climb up the
first side to start cutting the canyon out? Where is all the sediment if that one
small river carried it away?
But you cannot show that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Scientists can show that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, meaning deep time is correct.
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?