Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[BCP1928]

... and be totally wrong about it.

That's always possible, but the proposition being advanced here is that it would be impossible for scientists to study it if it had erupted due to supernatural causes.

 

[AV1611VET]

How can you preform geology 'with respect to the Bible'? Pray tell.

Good question.

So I don't want to hear it, when someone whines about no "rich, famous, and prestigious geologists," when we creationists can't even get a job, unless we "leave our beliefs at the door."

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you mean by "with respect to the Bible"?

LOL -- that's about right.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Good question.

So I don't want to hear it, when someone whines about no "rich, famous, and prestigious geologists," when we creationists can't even get a job, unless we "leave our beliefs at the door."

Nope, that's just a useless comment. I asked you: How can you preform geology 'with respect to the Bible'? Do can you do any bit of science 'with respect to the Bible'? Seriously. How?

 

[AV1611VET]

When a geologist walks up to a volcano to study what it can show us about itself, it's about the volcano.

Okay ... and?

That is I guess, unless another level of deception is being introduced? The volcano is an illusion?

Ask someone who's into Maya.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's always possible, but the proposition being advanced here is that it would be impossible for scientists to study it if it had erupted due to supernatural causes.

Sorry ... I don't see what you're saying.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry ... I don't see what you're saying.

They're saying that, in your view, no matter what anyone studies about the Earth, it's going to be wrong regardless... unless they obviously subscribe to your extra-Biblical 'embedded age' claim.

 

[River Jordan]

Good question.

So I don't want to hear it, when someone whines about no "rich, famous, and prestigious geologists," when we creationists can't even get a job, unless we "leave our beliefs at the door."

Why can't flat earthers get a job as cartographers? Why can't geocentrists get a job at NASA?

 

[AV1611VET]

How can you preform geology 'with respect to the Bible'?

Just do it.

But don't disrespect the Bible doing it.

I don't mind a geologist telling me this rock is 30 million years old.

But I do mind him telling me that it formed 30 million years ago.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just do it.

But don't disrespect the Bible doing it.

I don't mind a geologist telling me this rock is 30 million years old.

But I do mind him telling me that it formed 30 million years ago.

Which is only because you subscribe to an extra-Biblical claim that you made up. So no, no-one has to mind you when they tell you a rock formed 30 million years ago.

 

[River Jordan]

Just do it.

Then they should do it and show everyone how it produces better results. They have millions of dollars for all sorts of other things.

Anything less is just empty rhetoric, like the kid on the sideline boasting about how much better he is than everyone else, but never actually getting in the game.

 

[dlamberth]

... and be totally wrong about it.

What's wrong about it? That the volcano is physically there to be studied? How it affected the surrounding landscape? The potential to predict future eruptions? Learning signs of impending eruptions? Impacts on the environment? Their history on the impacts of the Earth? The source of magma? The makeup of the pool of magma under a volcano? Potential mud flow danger to populations? There's a lot to be learned studying a volcano's history.

 

[dlamberth]

Just do it.

But don't disrespect the Bible doing it.

I don't mind a geologist telling me this rock is 30 million years old.

But I do mind him telling me that it formed 30 million years ago.

That's because you, when it comes to what the Earth is showing us about itself, subscribe to a deceptive God.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's wrong about it? That the volcano is physically there to be studied? How it affected the surrounding landscape? The potential to predict future eruptions? Learning signs of impending eruptions? Impacts on the environment? Their history on the impacts of the Earth? The source of magma? The makeup of the pool of magma under a volcano? Potential mud flow danger to populations? There's a lot to be learned studying a volcano's history.

If you study a volcano and want to tell me how it's affecting the landscape, and that it's going to erupt in a week or so and blanket the area with smoke and ash and lava ... go for it.

But if you start telling me it's been erupting every one hundred years for the past ten thousand years, I'm going to tell you you're wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you study a volcano and want to tell me how it's affecting the landscape, and that it's going to erupt in a week or so and blanket the area with smoke and ash and lava ... go for it.

But if you start telling me it's been erupting every one hundred years for the past ten thousand years, I'm going to tell you you're wrong.

And why should anyone take what you say seriously?

 

[Kylie]

Matthew 21:21
Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

Do YOU have faith?

Yes it matters if you claim they need to observe it. They know not what they are observing when it comes to God doing things in our lives, or the world, etc. They do not have eyes to see. Or ears to hear when it comes to things of the spirit. They are denizens of the natural only,

Excuses, excuses.

What happens actually is that He answers in a better way than they thought they wanted or needed. Again you can't see that with a microscope

More excuses.

It does neither, really. It neither knows how God does anything, nor that He does things when He does them. They have a natural only explanation. That is what they are all about. That is their range and mandate and reason for being. They do it predictably, repeatedly

But if the mountain moves, then it moves.

Read it yourself. The promise in contingent. Many great things through history by Christians were done by faith , It just so happens that those things were not usually having a mountain relocate. They may have had miracles happen to feed the poor, take care of loved ones, preach the gospel in ways that were greater, etc
Matthew 21:21
Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

We grow in faith more and more unto that perfect day when we go to heaven. That is one of the amazing and wonderful things what we have to look forward to. Even if our faith is not now at that level. He's working on us. Science can't see that either! Natural science can't see Him working on us, or our faith, or what it does etc.

Yeah, it says that IF a person has faith they can do it.

Now, if you claim to have faith, then you are one of the people who can do it.

So stop making excuses and do it.

They would see it as a weak formation collapsing perhaps, or as plate movements, or some natural cause. No glory to God whatsoever. No observation of what is really happening. Clueless naturalonlykins fumbling in the dark and talking a big game.

None of those things could explain Mt Everest relocating to the Australian outback. Science would have no possible explanation for it.

With God all things are possible, but the verse simply said the mountain would fall into the sea. Not be teleported across the globe.

Fine.

Pray for Mt Everest to be cast into the sea then. If you have faith, then you should be able to do it.

 

[dlamberth]

If you study a volcano and want to tell me how it's affecting the landscape, and that it's going to erupt in a week or so and blanket the area with smoke and ash and lava ... go for it.

But if you start telling me it's been erupting every one hundred years for the past ten thousand years, I'm going to tell you you're wrong.

If that's what the Volcano' history is showing us, I'm going to tell you that your wrong because God's Creation can not lie.

 

[Kylie]

Well, that does not give dave the right to be rude, nor say nothing good about Tour.

Claiming that someone is a liar is neither rude nor false if he is actually a liar.

Most likely, unless there is some thought that is divinely revealed to you, such as St. Thomas Aquinas's talks with Our Lord during his writing of the Summa.

Science does not come through divine revelation.

It would be rude if I were to say that on a secular forum like Atheist forums, but you are on a Christian forum, where Christians congregate and discuss. It is like walking into a rally of an opposite political faction and preaching your beliefs, then being offended they, at their rally, are going to call you wrong or misguided.

However, this is not a Christians-only forum. Atheists are welcome here.

If you want a place where only Christians are allowed, then there is a Christians-only section of this website, I believe. You may be happier there.

Away from us misguided people.

Moreover, I explained where I said you were misguided, it was not an insult for all secular people.

Yeah, you said, "Misguided was referring to the personal belief, not the intellectual one." I found this answer very vague and unclear.

If someone is misguided, it means they have shown faulty judgement or reasoning.

Can you show me where my judgement or reasoning has been faulty? (Apart from simply disagreeing with what you believe is true, that is.)

You misunderstand the act of faith versus the understanding of the faith. The Church Fathers, theologians, and philosophers have long provided rigorous intellectual frameworks for the understanding of the faith; but the act of faith is rooted in fundamental human drive to understand our purpose, which them drives us to understand the purpose itself, that being God. This is specifically said in the Scriptures by Solomon: "I applied my mind to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under the heavens" (Ecclesiastes 1:13). It is just as philosophy is not based purely and fundamentally on science, so to is the act of faith not based purely and fundamentally on science. As AV would say: "Science says it, you question it, but if the Bible says it, that settles it."

This does not address my question.

I am not asking about the acts of faith compared to the understanding of faith.

I am asking you a simple question: is there any intellectual basis for your faith? Yes or no.

I said emotionally indifferent. If I am discussing something with someone, I try not to resort to the emotional connection, rather sticking to the intellectualism of a certain topic. I am not indifferent to Christianity, no. I do not claim indifference in the braud spectrum, I said I am emotionally indifferent when in discussion, not in my own faith, as I said in the parthenesies "all within Christianity."

Well, it seems to me that emotional indifference can only happen when you have no stakes in the discussion.

For example, in a discussion about whether Episode A or episode B of "How I Met Your Mother" was the better episode, I would have no stakes at all, since I am completely unfamiliar with the show, and I do not have any opinions about whatever two episodes are being discussed.

But since you most definitely DO have stakes in a discussion about religion (since you are motivated to support the side of your own religious beliefs), I don't see how you can claim to be emotionally indifferent. You have a desire to support your own side, and that means you are biased.

What I meant is that you will not get far in discussion if you are to use titles such as that, nothing more was being implied.

If you believe that Christianity is logical, then you have nothing to worry about.

Why do you think that title would have anything to do with our discussion unless you thought that there was something illogical about Christianity?

You speak in plurals, and that is not good. Not all believers are abrasive about their personal beliefs, just as most secularists are not abrasive about their beliefs. I think they should, and all sides should be peaceful in discussion and understanding that no one will change their view from one conversation or one proof text, especially when that view is so close to their heart, like Christianity or Atheism.

Did you also say, "Not all men"?

I never said ALL believers, did I?

It seems you are more concerned with the style of discussion rather than the substance.

Well, what exactly is your purpose on CF other than to confuse the faithful?

You claimed not to resort to the emotional connection in your discussions, yet here you are trying to paint me as someone who comes here purely to spread confusion amongst the believers. Oh, what a mean nasty atheist I am! I'm like the Grinch! I sneak around and sprinkle confusion dust!

Why do you try to paint me like that?

I'm here for a discussion about different religious topics. Why do you think that atheists are unable to do this?

Wouldn't it be better for science, as it always has been, to leave those who reject science in the dust and work with those who are orthodox in their science? Why spend so much time chiseling foundations with toothpicks?

First of all, why do you think science is "chiseling foundations with toothpicks"? Science has done more in the last 200 years to advance humanity's understanding of the world than religion.

Secondly, why do you think I would want people who disagree with science to be left behind? Do you really think I'm the sort of person who says, "We have developed a cure for your sickness, but it's based on evolutionary theory and you're a creationist, so you can't have it!"

You've said you are only 18, and it shows. You seem to have very little understanding of what atheists are actually like.

"Defeater of Illogic" for one, is that really a necessary title?

In what way is pointing out the flaws of illogical arguments "misguided"?

Or do you think I should let people use logically flawed arguments? Do I get to use logically flawed arguments as well? It would certainly make it easier to disprove Christianity! "My cat has whiskers, therefore Christianity is false!" See how easy that is?

You quote Euripides and Russel, which implicate the faith as being foolish or without evidence; in that sense, you are misguided in your approach.

My signature does not say that those with faith are fools, it says that those who reject sensible claims are fools. It applies to many people, such as antivaxxers and flat earthers.

And the Russel quote is simply pointing out that faith (religious or otherwise) is not required when there is testable and repeatable evidence.

But of course, this isn't a "criticise Kylie's signature" thread, is it? So let's try to keep the discussion on topic, shall we?

I don't know about that, it is important to build off of the topic, one note that should be given to the people who are reading the thread is that neither side looks down on the other, and that this discussion is done in peace and good-tidings to all. I am trying to spread peace!

The thread is about embedded age, and so far all you have done is call me misguided, complained about my title as "defeater of illogic" and criticised my signature quotes. Nothing that you have said is even remotely related to the topic.

 

[truthpls]

Do YOU have faith?

Probably not enough to relocate a big mountain. Even a little hill would be a challenge

Excuses, excuses.

More excuses.

But if the mountain moves, then it moves.

And land masses move every day

Yeah, it says that IF a person has faith they can do it.

Exactly, and He gives us more and more faith unto that perfect day.

Now, if you claim to have faith, then you are one of the people who can do it.

No one could do it even with faith. God does it. We just ask Him to

So stop making excuses and do it.

None of those things could explain Mt Everest relocating to the Australian outback. Science would have no possible explanation for it.

The continent of Australia is a lot bigger than Everest. He moved it along with all continents and they all went where they were told like puppies.

Fine.

Pray for Mt Everest to be cast into the sea then. If you have faith, then you should be able to do it.

Satan asked Jesus to jump off a high cliff just because He could have done it. Jesus had more important miracles in mind. Like healing the sick, raising the dead, making wine for a party etc

 

[AveChristusRex]

Claiming that someone is a liar is neither rude nor false if he is actually a liar.

Science does not come through divine revelation.

However, this is not a Christians-only forum. Atheists are welcome here.

If you want a place where only Christians are allowed, then there is a Christians-only section of this website, I believe. You may be happier there.

Away from us misguided people.

Yeah, you said, "Misguided was referring to the personal belief, not the intellectual one." I found this answer very vague and unclear.

If someone is misguided, it means they have shown faulty judgement or reasoning.

Can you show me where my judgement or reasoning has been faulty? (Apart from simply disagreeing with what you believe is true, that is.)

This does not address my question.

I am not asking about the acts of faith compared to the understanding of faith.

I am asking you a simple question: is there any intellectual basis for your faith? Yes or no.

Well, it seems to me that emotional indifference can only happen when you have no stakes in the discussion.

For example, in a discussion about whether Episode A or episode B of "How I Met Your Mother" was the better episode, I would have no stakes at all, since I am completely unfamiliar with the show, and I do not have any opinions about whatever two episodes are being discussed.

But since you most definitely DO have stakes in a discussion about religion (since you are motivated to support the side of your own religious beliefs), I don't see how you can claim to be emotionally indifferent. You have a desire to support your own side, and that means you are biased.

If you believe that Christianity is logical, then you have nothing to worry about.

Why do you think that title would have anything to do with our discussion unless you thought that there was something illogical about Christianity?

Did you also say, "Not all men"?

I never said ALL believers, did I?

It seems you are more concerned with the style of discussion rather than the substance.

You claimed not to resort to the emotional connection in your discussions, yet here you are trying to paint me as someone who comes here purely to spread confusion amongst the believers. Oh, what a mean nasty atheist I am! I'm like the Grinch! I sneak around and sprinkle confusion dust!

Why do you try to paint me like that?

I'm here for a discussion about different religious topics. Why do you think that atheists are unable to do this?

First of all, why do you think science is "chiseling foundations with toothpicks"? Science has done more in the last 200 years to advance humanity's understanding of the world than religion.

Secondly, why do you think I would want people who disagree with science to be left behind? Do you really think I'm the sort of person who says, "We have developed a cure for your sickness, but it's based on evolutionary theory and you're a creationist, so you can't have it!"

You've said you are only 18, and it shows. You seem to have very little understanding of what atheists are actually like.

In what way is pointing out the flaws of illogical arguments "misguided"?

Or do you think I should let people use logically flawed arguments? Do I get to use logically flawed arguments as well? It would certainly make it easier to disprove Christianity! "My cat has whiskers, therefore Christianity is false!" See how easy that is?

My signature does not say that those with faith are fools, it says that those who reject sensible claims are fools. It applies to many people, such as antivaxxers and flat earthers.

And the Russel quote is simply pointing out that faith (religious or otherwise) is not required when there is testable and repeatable evidence.

But of course, this isn't a "criticise Kylie's signature" thread, is it? So let's try to keep the discussion on topic, shall we?

The thread is about embedded age, and so far all you have done is call me misguided, complained about my title as "defeater of illogic" and criticised my signature quotes. Nothing that you have said is even remotely related to the topic.

I feel as if you are intentionally misconstruing what I said.

Claiming that someone is a liar is neither rude nor false if he is actually a liar.

That is your view, but that is not the wording id use.

Science does not come through divine revelation.

That is also your view, and you are entitled to it! However, I believe Biblical science, coming from the divine inspiration of the scriptures, is indeed divinely revealed science.

However, this is not a Christians-only forum. Atheists are welcome here.

If you want a place where only Christians are allowed, then there is a Christians-only section of this website, I believe. You may be happier there.

Away from us misguided people.

What I meant is that this is a Christian forum, specifically made for Christians in mind.

Yeah, you said, "Misguided was referring to the personal belief, not the intellectual one." I found this answer very vague and unclear.

If someone is misguided, it means they have shown faulty judgement or reasoning.

Can you show me where my judgement or reasoning has been faulty? (Apart from simply disagreeing with what you believe is true, that is.)

Rather than saying something that will be misconstrued, I will just point to what you said: "I am more concerned with the style of discussion rather than the substance. Hence the misguided style.

This does not address my question.

I am not asking about the acts of faith compared to the understanding of faith.

I am asking you a simple question: is there any intellectual basis for your faith? Yes or no.

Yes.

Well, it seems to me that emotional indifference can only happen when you have no stakes in the discussion.

For example, in a discussion about whether Episode A or episode B of "How I Met Your Mother" was the better episode, I would have no stakes at all, since I am completely unfamiliar with the show, and I do not have any opinions about whatever two episodes are being discussed.

But since you most definitely DO have stakes in a discussion about religion (since you are motivated to support the side of your own religious beliefs), I don't see how you can claim to be emotionally indifferent. You have a desire to support your own side, and that means you are biased.

An emotional response in a discussion is characterized by the illogical and unnecessary overreaction to a particular point that uses more personal grammar and language than what is necessary for that point. Therefore, emotional indifference = cool, calm, collected.

Why do you think that title would have anything to do with our discussion unless you thought that there was something illogical about Christianity?

Nothing more was being implied.

It seems you are more concerned with the style of discussion rather than the substance.

Yes! Exactly!

Why do you try to paint me like that?

I'm here for a discussion about different religious topics. Why do you think that atheists are unable to do this?

I did not imply that, where you got that meaning from what I said is in itself a divine revelation.

First of all, why do you think science is "chiseling foundations with toothpicks"? Science has done more in the last 200 years to advance humanity's understanding of the world than religion.

Secondly, why do you think I would want people who disagree with science to be left behind? Do you really think I'm the sort of person who says, "We have developed a cure for your sickness, but it's based on evolutionary theory and you're a creationist, so you can't have it!"

What I meant is why do you even try to debate people who you think are dead wrong, shouldn't you [if the science was sound] just ignore those who question the science and work with those who don't? Let me give a hypothetical: We developed mathematics because we found out whats after 2+2=4, we didn't spend our time debating those who questioned that, we just ignored them. (that's not calling either side wrong or either side better than another).

You've said you are only 18, and it shows. You seem to have very little understanding of what atheists are actually like.

Hence why I even mentioned it. I'm not the best in scientific discussions because of my young age, hence why I haven't spoken about science.

In what way is pointing out the flaws of illogical arguments "misguided"?

The style should be more peaceful and loving, like instead of saying "Excuses, excuses" and "More excuses," why not say "I think that answer is flawed, but I respect your view, however I will say this on the subject" or something such as.

Or do you think I should let people use logically flawed arguments? Do I get to use logically flawed arguments as well? It would certainly make it easier to disprove Christianity! "My cat has whiskers, therefore Christianity is false!" See how easy that is?

Logically flawed points fizzle out quickly, as no one pays attention to them; if you give them attention, they only gain reputability.

My signature does not say that those with faith are fools, it says that those who reject sensible claims are fools. It applies to many people, such as antivaxxers and flat earthers.

And the Russel quote is simply pointing out that faith (religious or otherwise) is not required when there is testable and repeatable evidence.

Well, with all respect, of course, you don't put in parentheses who you mean in those quotes, so it is easy to assume if no context is given.

The thread is about embedded age, and so far all you have done is call me misguided, complained about my title as "defeater of illogic" and criticised my signature quotes. Nothing that you have said is even remotely related to the topic.

Fair point, but what I said was related to your style, not your view. The question I originally asked was simple, can you say something good about the individuals who claim are making "excuses" and whatnot, it was not meant to be a psychoanalysis or criticism, with me speaking on dave's mentality for the first half of the original message, the other half were compliments and the question I originally asked, so I don't really know why you were unable to answer it, and just move on? It seems like a pretty simple thing, in my view, but its okay!