A question...

AV1611VET · #41 5th November 2009, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff

Also, keep in mind you're discussing something with a guy who once claimed that if the original Bible texts disagreed with the KJV translation, then the original Bible texts were wrong.

And if science disagrees with the Autographs?

Cabal · #42 5th November 2009, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

And if science disagrees with the Autographs?

It would be nice if there WERE some to inspect.

AV1611VET · #43 5th November 2009, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff

Also, keep in mind you're discussing something with a guy who once claimed that if the original Bible texts disagreed with the KJV translation, then the original Bible texts were wrong.
Originally Posted by AV1611VET

And if science disagrees with the Autographs?
Originally Posted by Cabal

It would be nice if there WERE some to inspect.

I'll ask a second time, guys:

And if science disagrees with the Autographs?

Cabal · #44 5th November 2009, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

I'll ask a second time, guys:

And if science disagrees with the Autographs?

Again, WHAT autographs?!

Mike Elphick · #45 5th November 2009, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Originally Posted by Mike Elphick

Embedded age IS the young earth creationist's Omphalos.

No, it's not, Mike.

Oh yes it is! It it most definitely a young earth creationist invention - obviously - to explain away the apparent (measured) age of the earth. However, like moon dust it's now an argument (hypothesis) the YECists are advised to no longer use. Take a look at Creationwiki if you don't believe me:-

What appears to us to be the age of something may in many cases simply be our misconception or false expectations. In any case, charging God with causing us to believe they are old when he has told us they are not is illogical.

Yep! YECists have thrown Omphalos out!

Young Earth Creationists ... no longer ... believe in Embedded Age.

They believe the earth is only 6100 years old physically (YECs, please correct me if I'm wrong).

And although I'm about two pixels away from being a YEC myself, I still maintain a difference.

Fixed it for you and I now agree

.

AV1611VET · #46 5th November 2009, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Elphick

Oh yes it is! It it most definitely a young earth creationist invention - obviously - to explain away the apparent (measured) age of the earth.

I'm not going to argue with you, Mike.

YEC, Omphalos, and Embedded Age are three different and distinct interpretations.

Of the three, Embedded Age and Omphalos take current scientific paradigms into consideration, whereas YEC is Sola Scriptura.

Omphalos says Adam and Eve had scars, whereas Embedded Age says they didn't.

Cabal · #47 5th November 2009, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

I'm not going to argue with you, Mike.

YEC, Omphalos, and Embedded Age are three different and distinct interpretations.

Of the three, Embedded Age and Omphalos take current scientific paradigms into consideration, whereas YEC is Sola Scriptura.

Omphalos says Adam and Eve had scars, whereas Embedded Age says they didn't.

It just says they were made fully matured adults instead.

Whoops.

AV1611VET · #48 5th November 2009, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Cabal

It just says they were made fully matured adults instead.

Yes --- all three claim that Adam and Eve were created as fully-mature adults.

Cabal · #49 5th November 2009, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Yes --- all three claim that Adam and Eve were created as fully-mature adults.

So they still had some age embedded then didn't they, navels or no?

Mike Elphick · #50 5th November 2009, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

I'm not going to argue with you, Mike.

YEC, Omphalos, and Embedded Age are three different and distinct interpretations.

Of the three, Embedded Age and Omphalos take current scientific paradigms into consideration, whereas YEC is Sola Scriptura.

Omphalos says Adam and Eve had scars, whereas Embedded Age says they didn't.

You're a stubborn fellow AV

, but you're avoiding the point (as usual), namely:- did the Omphalos hypothesis originate from young earth creationism or not?. The answer is YES it did. Your proposal of 'embedded age' cannot be distinguished from the original YECist Omphalos invention.

Sorry, but I am right and you are wrong

.