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.
This is probably the best formulation of the counter retort to "embedded age" and related excuses I've seen. Well done.
You still can't get it right, can you, chief?
It's EMBEDDED AGE, not embedded history.
And if you think my explanation about fossils embedded in 3.5 billion year old rock is "only in my imagination," then test it yourself.
Take a 3.5 billion year old rock, pulverize it down to sediment, put a dog's skeleton in it, let the sediment lithify, then tell me how old that dog's skeleton is.
Or can science take a hike?
Neither one of you know what I'm talking about.
History is age, age is history. You cannot have one without the other and to embed age is to embed history.
Thanks for the QED.
QED for us that you don't understand how interlinked history and age is. Again: one cannot exist without the other. To embed age IS to embed history. If not, prove me wrong.
If they are so interlinked as you say they are, why do you change the wording from "embedded age" to "embedded history"?
I know why.
You're trying to make it look like the Omphalos hypothesis.
Which, of course, it isn't.
Here is a post you made nine years ago -- that's nine years ago -- nine:
But your claim is that God made the Earth 6000 years ago with 4.5 billion years worth of embedded history. That's not true history, that's fake history.
That is lying.
But as I've said, I don't want this thread derailed by your cockamamie idea, so please kindly take it to another thread. I want this thread to be a discussion of what this subforum is supposed to be about: science.
SOURCE
And you haven't learned a thing since.
Perhaps the appearance of age is merely a result of what took place during the creation process.Why make a world that appears older than it is, BEYOND what is necessary for function? Earth wouldn't have to have all these qualities that indicate old age to have a sustainable environment.
It's as pointless as the idea of Adam from creation myth having a belly button.
Because when talking about events in the past, history and age are indeed interlinked and virtually synonymous.
What happened to the word "embedded"?
Did you mean to say, 'Because when talking about events in the past, history and embedded age are indeed interlinked and virtually synonymous'?
Did you leave it out on purpose?
I'll give you credit for trying hard to make it look like -- as you put it -- a cockamamie idea.
But you're making yourself look bad in doing so.
Just admit you don't understand and we'll let it go at that.
Perhaps the appearance of age is merely a result of what took place during the creation process.
Phrases like ten thousand thousands are used to convey large numbers like that in the Bible. They also used illustrations like as many as grains of sand in the ocean or as numerous as the stars.Forbid people copied down the bible a little incorrect. I don't even think "billion" was in the ancient vocabulary.
I also don't think I ever used the term cockamamie.
Did you not read your own words from that link I proved to a post you made nine years ago?
Click on that link and read it yourself.
Mamma mia.
I even copy/pasted it here and highlighted it in bold.
I should quit, because you really are making yourself look bad.
Still does not change a damn thing I wrote though.
So I notice.
Nine years, and haven't learned a thing.
That's sad.
And even Hans Blaster in Post 498 gave a thumbs up to your error.
See what science does, when it gets in the way?
Well there are a lot of possible explanations. We don’t know what kind of forces or energies the earth and the universe were exposed to during the creation process, so we can’t really know what effect they might’ve had on materials or even the laws of physics during that time. I know a lot of people might argue that we’ve never witnessed such “energies or forces” but I don’t think we should expect to since we’re not currently witnessing the creation of the universe. For example if we went to the Sea of Galilee today and performed a bunch of scientific experiments we’d probably find nothing out of the ordinary, but if we had been there 2000 years ago watching Jesus walking on the surface of it we would obviously have to conclude that something out of the ordinary is taking place with the laws of physics as we know them. So to me it’s not surprising that we wouldn’t be aware of such energies and forces that we’ve never witnessed.Explain.
Well there are a lot of possible explanations. We don’t know what kind of forces or energies the earth and the universe were exposed to during the creation process, so we can’t really know what effect they might’ve had on materials or even the laws of physics during that time. I know a lot of people might argue that we’ve never witnessed such “energies or forces” but I don’t think we should expect to since we’re not currently witnessing the creation of the universe. For example if we went to the Sea of Galilee today and performed a bunch of scientific experiments we’d probably find nothing out of the ordinary, but if we had been there 2000 years ago watching Jesus walking on the surface of it we would obviously have to conclude that something out of the ordinary is taking place with the laws of physics as we know them. So to me it’s not surprising that we wouldn’t be aware of such energies and forces that we’ve never witnessed.
No, I can’t explain it, but at the same time you can’t refute it.So you can't explain such an idea then. Good to know.
No, I can’t explain it, but at the same time you can’t refute it.
That post is 9 years old. And the poster hasn't been here in 5 years.Phrases like ten thousand thousands are to convey large numbers like that in the Bible. They also used illustrations like as many as grains of sand in the ocean or as numerous as the stars.
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?