Inspecting a rock the day after creation

I've been an atheist for about 60 years now, so I was an atheist when I first enlisted in the military. In basic training, they had religious services depending on broad denomination definition: Catholic, Protestant, Jewish.There may have been more specialized services such as for Mormons, though Jewish may have been handled as specialized. My first TI (Training Instructor, the NCO pushing us through boot camp) seemed like a typical Bible Belt red-neck. Since we had to be marched in formation everywhere we went, for Divine Services he appointed squad leaders to march the Catholics to Catholic services and the Protestants to Protestant services. That job done, he was just following form by asking if there was anyone's religious needs not being met and one hand went up: "What else is there?" "I'm Jewish." So apparently Judaism wasn't normally on their radar, but I know that they did have Jewish services because one of the details I was assigned to one Friday was as a Shabbas goy, so nu.We weren't required to attend services (except for first Sunday and maybe the last), but those who chose not to were detailed conducting a field day of the barracks (eg, wax and buff the barracks floor, etc). Personally, I found that to be much more spiritually fulfilling that attending services.Now to address your point. The first service, Protestant, was very generic and included the Shaker hymn, Lord of the Dance. Being familiar with neither the Shakers nor the context of that hymn, I sat there mightily puzzled why a Christian service would include singing praises to Lord Shiva, the only "Lord of the Dance" I was aware of. I kind of remember that that was part of my decision to seek refuge in Field Day.

So, you admit that a lot of the current Earth's geology did not exist right after the original creation. So, your magical flood created all the geologic changes after the geology of the real creation. But the vast complexity of that geology is massively beyond that any flood could produce.You might as well go with a "last Thursdayism" model of creation, where God created everything 5 days ago, and we only have an illusion of any sort of longer history.Moose

The facts that science only covers the natural, and that a creation by God is supernatural are absolute

An explanation you want is limited to only the natural. There is none. Such explanations are worthless and off topic of creation. If you want to claim we were created by only the natural you have a lot of splainin to do

The bible says no such thing so if some church said otherwise, not my problem. Once gain lightning and storms etc can be supernatural. The bible says so. Science would not know either way. They are stuck in onlythenaturalville

quote:

---

In Message 1512 of the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread you said, "The supernatural cannot be observed." Now you've changed your mind by saying that if you're spiritually minded you can often observe the supernatural. You're engaged in the Tinkerbell fallacy, that you can only see if you believe.

---

Cannot be observed by natural only science. If God allowed Satan to cause a typhoon somewhere, science would have no clue. They would explain it totally by the natural

I've been trying to find a recent reply to me, about a month ago, which basically says the same kind of thing, that most creationist claims are based on misunderstanding of science that is shared by much of the general public.I think that might have been you. If it is you, then could you please repeat it or point me to the topic/message where you had replied to me. I think I would like to use it. You are much more of an optimist than I am.I had started a project which classifies creationists into a hierarchy based on their experience and degree of activity. What I found was that the higher a creationist rises through experience and activism the more dishonest they must become in order to remain a creationist.Most creationists are bottom feeders who mindlessly consume creationist claims and arguments and who start their activism by regurgitating that creationist nonsense in public. All they know is how to repeat what they had been fed without understanding their own claims. That is a major reason why it is virtually impossible to have a discussion with a creationist: they literally do not know what they are talking about, so it's impossible for them to even attempt to discuss their own claims, let alone explain or defend them. Just about all that they are capable of learning is how to avoid getting into a discussion and which claims to avoid using with a knowledgeable opponent since they are are too weak and vulnerable to refutation. For example, there's a local YEC activist who's been active for more than three decades and who has a very high opinion of his own expertise even though he's still a bottom feeder; even though he is open about being a young-earther, he absolutely avoids discussing any young-earth claims with someone who is knowledgeable because he knows from bitter experience how weak those claims are.dad3 has all the markings of a bottom feeder. He will never try to work through the issues, let alone try to understand actual science (what you called "where we are coming from").

Well of course if we are to limit ourselves to only what you personally think the bible says or doesn't say, I guess you're going to find yourself correct in every position you wish to take on it.This is what happens when people just make stuff up to suit whatever they want to believe. As you don't seem to want to talk about anything but lightning, what examples of non-supernatural lightning do you have?

Phoenix in the winter is clear, mild, sunny. I'm sure there must have been a t-storm in the near past, just can't remember when. I also can't recall whether that t-storm was from your god or from my god or was one of them all natural ones from no god at all.How do you tell?

Could you perhaps respond to posts instead of just briefly restating your original position. We do understand that you believe the supernatural to be indetectable by scientists, but questions and problems have been raised concerning that view. Simply repeating that position over and over while ignoring the substance of the responses does little to move the discussion forward.--Percy

If your best defence has resorted to a supposed bible case for an old earth, you best dig out a white flag now

Thanks for the reply. A cursory scan of your reply failed to yield a clear point. IN a word, what is your point?

No substance, just false allegations. Try again

You seem to fail to grasp the basic concept that the dating you refer to is all based only on the natural. Unless you deny that, you already lost

The natural just cannot work for a one day old rock in Eden. Obviously. Your dream that it works is unsupportable. Your method is limited to the time since creation. Period.