Embedded age is bad theology. I'd rather get some scientists to start with an assumption of biblical inspiration and go out into the world and look for evidence for a young earth
And that is bad science! WIn-Win!
Why on earth would anyone automatically start with the concept that the Bible is in any way "inspired"?
Face it, if you ran across the Bible, had never heard of any of it before, never heard of Christianity, and saw it in a pile of other books of
other religions, would you automatically be able to determine which of the books was really by God? Really?
If so, explain why.
I suspect you are starting from the assumption because someone told you the Bible was the inspired word of God, the creator of the Universe.
, find faulty assumptions in the old earth / evolutionary paradigm and do some serious ass kicking, Chuck Norris style.
Funny you should say that, because they've tested the old earth assumptions (all starting
without the necessity of any of it being true) and come to conclusion it is true.
Interesting that until the 1700's and Hutton et al. no one assumed the earth had any real age or
had to have a specific age. It wasn't until people started looking at the actual data that someone said "Hey, this must be pretty old!"
So Chuck Norris would be proud because the scientists have effectively laid the smack down on this goofy "young earth" garbage.
Read the history of geology. It didn't appear out of nowhere. We know how the thought process was developed and we can even look at the data every single day. It just means going outside and opening your eyes!
So, you know, if you stack the Bible up against the rock record, one tells a story all observers will read in pretty much one way while the other has to be decreed holy and inerrant and the reading of which is open to just about anyone's variation.
Can you guess which is which?