- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,652
- 52,517
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
Then clearly you would rather walk blindly imagining your own fantasy world.
1. You show above that you have no idea what you are talking about when talking about Zircon.Well, whoop-tee-la-la. Then you either haven't lurked when I've begged over and over for a specific event that occurred 4.57 billion years ago, or gave me a circular answer like:
When I get answers from you guys like, "We see...we see...we see," that shuts me down quick.
- Earth is 4.57 billion years old, because Zircon is 4.57 billion years old; and Zircon is 4.57 billion years old, because Zircon formed 4.57 billion years ago.
I walk by faith --- not by sight.
Basically, the above makes you dishonest, a liar. That is what it comes down to, isn't it AV. Claiming that noone has answered you on this is a lie, claiming that you would actually try to understand the evidence is a lie. It's a lies and dishonesty from you. Ultimately, that is all you have to offer.
Yup --- real crafty.
That's why He documented what He did, when He did it, why He did it, how He did it, where He did it, and who the eyewitnesses were. Then, on top of that, preserved His Documentation throughout all history; and on top of that, commands us to spread that Documentation around. That's real crafty!
In addition, this crafty God warns us not to walk by sight, but to walk by faith.
That is real craft in action!
That would require you to discuss isochron dating. Seems you've reached an impasse. The evidence is there to show that God didn't embed age, yet you are not interested in discussing that evidence but at the same time require me to discuss it with you. So we find ourselves in an impasse created by you, from which only you can move us further but for which you have no interest. That is what makes you dishonest.I am not going to discuss Isochron dating with you, then apply it to the earth's history as a valid refutation of YEC, until you show me that He didn't embed that age in the first place.
No, you're not. You are so unlike me that we could be inhibiting different universes.I'm just like you.*
Wrong. The earth shows a history whether God exists or doesn't. I did not arrive at that conclusion starting from the premise that God doesn't exist and I do not need that premise to show that the earth has a history. I have always approached this discussion from the standpoint that if God exists, He does not lie. This position makes the conclusions from the evidence the same, regardless of whether God exists or not.You start from the premise that God didn't ---
You don't. You start from the premise that your own little viewpoints that you love and worship are correct.I start from the premise that God did ---
and neither one of us is going to budge.
Well, you are correct if you state that I am not going to budge with the semantic games you are playing. Unlike you though, I can be persuaded from my current position if you actually present some evidence. That is what brought me to this position in the first place.
I have reached my current position from a position were I thought that the history of the earth as reconstructed, as well as the theory of evolution, were not based on sound scientific footing. This position was one I was taught by my father and grand father. Especially for the latter I had (and have) great respect because he was very knowledgable. He is one of the people that persuaded me to go into science. But discussion with them, as well as with friends who had the same ideas and people on this forum, showed that they were wrong, that the evidence was against them. I can be persuaded to a different position, but you actually need to bring more to the table than a dishonest attitude where you will not look at the evidence presented and silly semantic games. But that is all you have to offer so far.
Because unlike you, I am honest in this discussion. I do not ask for evidence which I subsequently will not look at, and I will do more than just play semantic games (if the person I am discussing with will do so too).Except I don't call you a liar.
We see a universe with history.
Which means God has made the universe to look like it has a history, even though it doesn't have one.
What a crafty deceiver he is!
I am not going to discuss Isochron dating with you, then apply it to the earth's history as a valid refutation of YEC, until you show me that He didn't embed that age in the first place.
Being created yesterday actually 30 years ago* is intrinsically impossible since it is a contradiction in terms.
And while I do believe in a 2nd (and 3rd) dimensions of time, I emphatically do not believe God used them to embed age into His Creation.
Well, whoop-tee-la-la. Then you either haven't lurked when I've begged over and over for a specific event that occurred 4.57 billion years ago, or gave me a circular answer like:
- Earth is 4.57 billion years old, because Zircon is 4.57 billion years old; and Zircon is 4.57 billion years old, because Zircon formed 4.57 billion years ago.
When I get answers from you guys like, "We see...we see...we see," that shuts me down quick.
Did anyone, anywhere, suggest the idea of embedded age before scientists discovered how old the Earth is?MOK, I've used this example before only once --- I'll bring it up again, since you seem to be sincere in trying to convince me that I'm wrong.
Let me state beforehand that I do not think this is how God did it. This example is just to show you one way that it can be done logically.
If a second dimension of time existed, one could go out at 10:00:00, enter the 2nd dimension, mow his lawn, take a shower, read the paper, then return and resume his duties.
While his watch may say 17:00:00 (5pm), a clock on the wall of his house would still read 10:00:00. Yet the lawn is mowed, he has taken a shower and read the paper.
God could have created Adam on the 6th day at 06:00:00, entered him into a 2nd dimension of time for 30 years, then returned him to 06:00:00 --- and voila --- a 30 year-old-man in the blink of an eye.
HOWEVER --- there's a problem with this. Adam, in those 30 years has acquired a memory of things he did then. He may have a few scars. Tooth decay - (okay skip that one). Longer hair. A deeper voice, etc.
So, to circumvent this, God could have created Adam on the 6th day at 06:00:00. Entered him into the 2nd dimension for 30 years, then brought him back to 06:00:00 in pristine, perfect condition, with no memory of events, no longer hair, no cuts or bruises, no nothing.
And while I do believe in a 2nd (and 3rd) dimensions of time, I emphatically do not believe God used them to embed age into His Creation.
Did God also change the isotope concentrations in the Zircons to once again indicate change over millions of years, change that never occured to creatures that never existed?
Did anyone, anywhere, suggest the idea of embedded age before scientists discovered how old the Earth is?
Maturity without history.
And now on to the next items:
Invisible pink unicorns
Colorless green ideas
Square circles
Let me put it this way. If He did - (and I'm not convinced He did) --- but if He did, then I'm thankful for the fact that He documented Genesis 1, which shows us that evolution did not occur.
Let me put it this way. If He did - (and I'm not convinced He did) --- but if He did, then I'm thankful for the fact that He documented Genesis 1, which shows us that evolution did not occur.
I'd never heard it before until my pastor mentioned it in one of his sermons.
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?