Young Earth or Old?

[7djengo7]

I provided a reference to the USGS site.

Obviously you deem the site worthless for the purpose of furnishing an answer to the question @JudgeRightly asked you. If you had an answer, you'd answer. The fact that you don't answer shows you have no answer to give, and the fact that you have no answer to give shows you did not get an answer to the question @JudgeRightly asked you from the site to which you're linking. The fact that you did not get an answer to @JudgeRightly's question from the site to which you're linking shows that (if you've even visited the site to which you're linking) you do not deem anything provided by the site to be an answer to @JudgeRightly's question.

So you can explain how plates of rock that are 10-60 miles thick can "subduct"?

@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

@Avajs' not answering that question is an admission that he doesn't think the site to which he has linked can explain how plates of rock 10-60 miles thick can "subduct".

If so, please provide, at a minimum, even a conceptual model for how it would happen?

@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

@Avajs's silence toward @JudgeRightly's request is @Avajs' admission that even he, himself, doesn't believe that the site to which he has linked furnishes anything like what @JudgeRightly has requested him to provide.

 

[7djengo7]

The USGS site provides information.

Does it provide you with an answer to the question @JudgeRightly asked you? Yes or No?

So you can explain how plates of rock that are 10-60 miles thick can "subduct"?

If so, please provide, at a minimum, even a conceptual model for how it would happen?

So far, your failure to answer the question asked you by @JudgeRightly -- your loud silence toward it -- is the equivalent of you providing a NO in answer the question, "Does it provide you with an answer to the question @JudgeRightly asked you? Yes or No?"

In other words, whatever "information" you think "the USGS site provides", you do not think "the USGS site provides" an answer to the question you have been asked by @JudgeRightly.

 

[7djengo7]

I'm taking a lot of science on faith if you wish to put it that way---but in every case it is faith based on evidence.

Have some courage to look at evidence.

On what "evidence" is your faith based that what you choose to call "evidence" is evidence?

@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

 

[JudgeRightly]

I provided a reference to the USGS site. Other than that man up and investigate yourself.

The USGS site provides information. Yep, I dont know is part of science. You admit you dont know but have no desire to really find out because it may (will) interfere with your religion. Simple really.

I'm 18 minutes into this video with Nick Freitas who's interviewing Tom Bilyeu, and finding it incredibly relevant to this post of yours.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The site you linked to did not answer the question I asked you to answer.

Which you still have not answered, arguably because you cannot, because it's not physically possible for plates to subduct.



You're on a discussion forum, refusing to discuss.... And telling me to "man up"?

Me asking you IS investigating.



But not the information I asked you, specifically, for.



But you'll never utter the words yourself when pressed. You'll always deflect to someone else, to try and save face.

It's extremely telling that you still refuse to even attempt to answer my question.



It has nothing to do with religion.

I know that it is physically impossible for plates of rock that are tens of miles thick to suddenly dive under each other.

That's a matter of physics.

But if fairy-tale physics is your religion, like with plate subduction, then it explains why you're so averse to answering a simple question about your beliefs, because it actually will interfere with your religion.

And all you can do is project your aversion onto others, like you're doing here.

I'm confident in my beliefs, and have no problems answering, and am even eager to answer, questions about what I believe.

I've found, however, even as a general rule of thumb, that those who are not confident in their beliefs, tend to avoid questions that undermine their beliefs, because answering them would expose how fragile their beliefs truly are, as they're not based in reality, but upon a poorly built worldview.

I'm 18 minutes into this video with Nick Freitas who's interviewing Tom Bilyeu, and finding it incredibly relevant to this post of yours.

Any chance you'll respond, @Avajs?

 

[inthebeginning]

So there was a step in regard to the creation which happened before the "beginning" of the creation?

All you prove is that you are willing to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to cling to ideas which defy common sense.

Ok, Ok. I see I got involved here.

Let's start fresh.

The narration was first to be heard by the listeners. No writing was invented yet.

This is good to know, otherwise you'll never understand those first words.

The listeners were the descendants of Adam and continued for generations and generations. The listeners weren't that intellectual like you, so this means, the language was simple and easy to understand.

The verb used to describe what happened to earth is mostly understood as "became". To use "was" is also Ok, but it doesn't agree with the way planets were formed.

Then, the earth became dark and empty? Ok, you can keep that translation, however Tohu va Bohu means something different as well, of course related to the common translation but, there is always a "but" that might interrupt the party, so let's keep the common interpretation, it doesn't hurt anything.

Planet earth became something different of what it was before. But, please, forget the story tales that there were former civilizations and similar things. Such never happened. The planet changed, that's all.

I agree that the earth is old.

Yes, it's old.

However, the age given by theoretical science is peanuts. I say this, because the radiometric method they use is not accurate at all. Scientists lie to themselves when they even swear that their method of measure is accurate. Besides, as you know how Bible works, you need minimum two witnesses to confirm something, and in this case scientists have only the radiometric method in different versions, but still is the same method at the end. One flower doesn't make Spring season, so, scientists fail to prove that their method really works if no other method confirms the results.

The age of earth is unknown; this is the sad truth.

The creator never said that his creation was "perfect". This must be clear once and for all. Same scriptures mention that God saw his creation and in each step God says that was "good". "Good" is not synonymous of "perfect".

The entire universe is imperfect. His creation is imperfect. Lert's face it, our physical bodies are imperfect, we live in an imperfect planet, and our planet exists in an imperfect universe.

God want us to be "perfect", but not physically but... but what? What part of us God wants to be perfect?

That is a question for another topic.

Here, is to know that the first verses are to be read the simple as it can be. If you find it complicated, then, sorry to say this: wisdom is not around.

I lack wisdom; however, the narration doesn't seem to be complicated to be understood in one two three.