Why did God make Different Aged Rocks

[AV1611VET]

Yes, you are actually getting it. The Spirit is strong in our weakness.

Amen!

 

[Cabal]

Yes, you are actually getting it. The Spirit is strong in our weakness.

This is complete nonsense. There are correct arguments and there are bad arguments, and creationism is redolent with the latter. Repeating them in faith does nothing to their efficacy, so I don't know what kind of Disney-style "just believe!" faith is being expressed here.

 

[bloodbought09]

This is complete nonsense. There are correct arguments and there are bad arguments, and creationism is redolent with the latter. Repeating them in faith does nothing to their efficacy, so I don't know what kind of Disney-style "just believe!" faith is being expressed here.

Redolence has to do with fragrance. I am not speaking exclusively of the creation incident. I am not proposing an argument. I am saying that the Spirit helps in my weakness. I used to have a "just believe" type of faith, but God rewards diligence in that I do not just believe but know.

As for a fragrance:

2 Corinthians 2:14-17

14. Now thanks be to God who always leads us in truimph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place.
15. For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.
16. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things?
17. For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So you're just here to derail the thread?

 

[bloodbought09]

The tracks are laid and the locomotive is running at full steam. I have brought the soul train.

 

[Hespera]

http://onthebrink78.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/trainwreck21.jpg

 

[Mess]

This is complete nonsense. There are correct arguments and there are bad arguments, and creationism is redolent with the latter. Repeating them in faith does nothing to their efficacy, so I don't know what kind of Disney-style "just believe!" faith is being expressed here.

Ah well this is just why these kind of arguments are a waste of time. You say that creationism is full of bad arguments, creationists say evolution is full of bad arguments. It is just down to what faith you uphold, because that is basically what evolution is nothing but a more worldly kind of religion. Anyway have fun in this little discussion.

 

[Tomatoman]

It is just down to what faith you uphold, because that is basically what evolution is nothing but a more worldly kind of religion.

Whenever someone says this it reveals a complete ignorance of the theory of evolution.

 

[Cabal]

Redolence has to do with fragrance. I am not speaking exclusively of the creation incident. I am not proposing an argument. I am saying that the Spirit helps in my weakness. I used to have a "just believe" type of faith, but God rewards diligence in that I do not just believe but know.

I know you're not proposing an argument, but other people in this thread are - and given that the same unconvincing and flawed arguments get put forward time and time again, I'm not certain that these weaknesses are helpful. We are not immune to the consequences of our bad arguments, as anyone with any inkling of experience dealing with nonbelievers will attest to.

Ah well this is just why these kind of arguments are a waste of time. You say that creationism is full of bad arguments, creationists say evolution is full of bad arguments. It is just down to what faith you uphold, because that is basically what evolution is nothing but a more worldly kind of religion. Anyway have fun in this little discussion.

Evolution is not a faith, nor are its arguments bad - but even if that were the case, the arguments evolution makes aren't claimed to become more valid if you "just believe really hard while you say them" as some creationists think theirs do.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ah well this is just why these kind of arguments are a waste of time. You say that creationism is full of bad arguments, creationists say evolution is full of bad arguments. It is just down to what faith you uphold, because that is basically what evolution is nothing but a more worldly kind of religion. Anyway have fun in this little discussion.

You are new here. Do you understand what AV embedded age argument is? It is not usual creationist arguments. It is his own special extraordinary brand of nonsense. It has to do with the earth being created 6,000 years ago but actually being 4.5 billion years old. He claims the earth has maturity without history. I have been debating creationists of one stripe or another for more than 20 years and have never seen the argument in this exact form before, especially since he claims it is not an Omphalos argument.
If you want to discuss the ordinary brand of creationist claims how about starting a different thread for the purpose so we can keep this one to the discussion of his embedded age creationism.

So AV how do you explain the different ages of rocks and the ordered fossil record? Aren't they an indication of history as well as maturity? And yet you claim the earth was created with age but not history. As far as I can tell you have ducked this question many times.

 

[Split Rock]

Irrelevant. You define embedded age as maturity without history.

The geological column still contains history. So embedded age is wrong.

Not in Genesis 1, it didn't.

I see you guys are conflating the Creation Event with the Flood, and it's confusing you.

No one said anything about The Flood. We are talking about the rocks that God made 6,100 years ago (according to you).

 

[Split Rock]

Ah well this is just why these kind of arguments are a waste of time. You say that creationism is full of bad arguments, creationists say evolution is full of bad arguments. It is just down to what faith you uphold, because that is basically what evolution is nothing but a more worldly kind of religion. Anyway have fun in this little discussion.

We say creationism is full of bad arguments because... well.. it is. In any case, we are discussing Embedded Age Creationism specifically, and I beleive we have shown that it is falsified.

Oh, and evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth. Period. No religion involved.

 

[AV1611VET]

So AV how do you explain the different ages of rocks and the ordered fossil record?

I'm not going there in this thread, Frumious.

You know as well as I do that there were not fossils on this planet in Genesis 1.

In fact, there were no fossils in the universe in Genesis 1.

I'll say this much, so you can see where I'm coming from -- but again, this thread deals with why God did it, not how it got done.

The OP already assumes God created this earth with different-aged rocks, and trying to argue that He didn't is a concern you should be showing the OP -- not me.

In any event, I'll post a picture of a simple child's toy to demonstrate how God does things line-upon-line -- but I won't discuss it here.

I have a feeling you guys are going to end up accusing me of derailing this thread, and it's not going to happen, if I can help it.

Here it is:

 

[ukgrace]

You know as well as I do that there were not fossils on this planet in Genesis 1.

Could it be that when your story was written they could not even comprehend what a fossils might be or that they even existed so they could not write about fossils? in all honesty AV1611VET they could only write about the things that they know about or imagined or were afraid of and they were afraid of things they didn't understand, which was just about everything, please AV1611VET close your Bible take off your religious cap and use your brain for just a short while.

 

[bloodbought09]

Could it be that when your story was written they could not even comprehend what a fossils might be or that they even existed so they could not write about fossils? in all honesty AV1611VET they could only write about the things that they know about or imagined or were afraid of and they were afraid of things they didn't understand, which was just about everything, please AV1611VET close your Bible take off your religious cap and use your brain for just a short while.

l;dk sdf; sdlf;fd dlskflk sdlkfl dslksfwel; el;fsd;a'

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'm not going there in this thread, Frumious.

You won't go there on any thread because you can't without admiting that embedded age is just another form of Omphalos

You know as well as I do that there were not fossils on this planet in Genesis 1.

In fact, there were no fossils in the universe in Genesis 1.

I'll say this much, so you can see where I'm coming from -- but again, this thread deals with why God did it, not how it got done.

The OP already assumes God created this earth with different-aged rocks, and trying to argue that He didn't is a concern you should be showing the OP -- not me.

In any event, I'll post a picture of a simple child's toy to demonstrate how God does things line-upon-line -- but I won't discuss it here.

I have a feeling you guys are going to end up accusing me of derailing this thread, and it's not going to happen, if I can help it.

Here it is:

This toy the shows history. Either the rings were added one at a time in order or the rings were stacked off the post and then added. You could argue that it was created ex-nihilo with the appearance of history but that is clearly an Omphalos argument which you try so desperately to deny.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could it be that when your story was written they could not even comprehend what a fossils might be or that they even existed so they could not write about fossils?

I usually don't address topics about what the human authors knew and didn't know; they were glorified secretaries writing for the Creator of the universe and were not inhibited by lack of knowledge like today's writers are.

 

[AV1611VET]

You could argue that it was created ex-nihilo with the appearance of history...

No, I couldn't -- that would contradict what I believe.

Embedded Age = maturity without history.

 

[Cabal]

No, I couldn't -- that would contradict what I believe.

Embedded Age = maturity without history.

Then you'll just have to remain wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you'll just have to remain wrong.

And what would I have to do to remain right? agree with Frumious Bandersnatch?

I'd still be wrong, wouldn't I?

Jettison embedded age for theistic evolution?

What specifically would right me?

(Please answer this.)