The definition of EMBEDDED AGE

[AV1611VET]

Maturity without history.

Keep in mind:

1. Only God can do it.
2. It is an act of omnipotence - not science - and therefore cannot be verified.
3. Since it cannot be verified, documentation would be necessary for clarification.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Maturity without history.

Keep in mind:

1. Only God can do it.
2. It is an act of omnipotence - not science - and therefore cannot be verified.
3. Since it cannot be verified, documentation would be necessary for clarification.

That does not account for all of the discernable events that we see in the geologic and fossil records.
EDIT: Oh yeah i forgot to mention that we also have discernable events that we can find in dna.

 

[Psudopod]

So, someone says God said the world is young, and that's good enough for you, right?

However we have maturity with history when it comes to the earth, so you are out with your own definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

That does not account for all of the discernable events that we see in the geologic and fossil records.

Check your eyesight then, and quit "seeing" things from a uniformitarian perspective.

And remember:
[bible]Ecclesiastes 3:11[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

So, someone says God said the world is young, and that's good enough for you, right?

Wrong --- not just someone --- Someone --- (and He didn't "say the world is young").

However we have maturity with history when it comes to the earth, so you are out with your own definition.

I'll vouch for 6100 years of it --- no more.

 

[FishFace]

Maturity without history.

Keep in mind:

1. Only God can do it.
2. It is an act of omnipotence - not science - and therefore cannot be verified.
3. Since it cannot be verified, documentation would be necessary for clarification.

F.

You said you were going to provide a definition, why didn't you?
All you've done is said "maturity without history" which is just as meaningless as "embedded age."

Suppose you want us to look up the two words in a dictionary. Maturity means, "full development; perfected condition:" In the context of age, the first phrase is the relevant one. So an earth with embedded age is "fully developed." History, then, means "the aggregate of past events." in this context. So "maturity without history" means "fully developed without having seen the events that would develop it."

Which means looking old but not being old.

Which is Omphalos.

Why is it that every time AV puts any detail into his theology, it turns out to be contradictory or insane?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Check your eyesight then, and quit "seeing" things from a uniformitarian perspective.

And remember:
[bible]Ecclesiastes 3:11[/bible]

What are the implications of not being able to assume that the laws of physics are the same for as long as the universe has existed (to be more precise, the laws of physics have been constant since planck time after the big bang)?
If this is the case then no meaningful statements about the past can be justified be it a second ago, a century ago, a millenia ago, or a million years ago. We know that much to not be the case.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maturity means, "full development; perfected condition:"

How do you embed "full development; perfect condition" from nothing? Only an omnipotent Creator can.

In the context of age, the first phrase is the relevant one. So an earth with embedded age is "fully developed."

Yes --- mature.

History, then, means "the aggregate of past events." in this context. So "maturity without history" means "fully developed without having seen the events that would develop it."

Correct --- and why wasn't it "seen"? Because there is none. See?

Which means looking old but not being old.

Wrong conclusion --- looking old, because it is old.

Which is Omphalos.

Don't forget --- you guys also say I'm YEC.

Why is it that every time AV puts any detail into his theology, it turns out to be contradictory or insane?

Because you guys try too hard to shoot it down, or you make jokes, or whatever. Anything but trying to learn.

 

[UnknownUsername]

Guys, I don't think there's any way to effectively debate AV, and his "God did it." belief. Because there's no way to prove him wrong: he seems to imply that he acknowledges there are things that look to be millions of years old. But he then falls back to saying that God put it to look that way six thousand years ago, or ten thousand or whatever.

Using the God did it response is intellectual death: it's saying "Sure, we see all this history in the Earth, but God put it that way to fool us." The problem is that there's no real way to prove him wrong, as foolish as the belief sounds.

 

[AV1611VET]

What are the implications of not being able to assume that the laws of physics are the same for as long as the universe has existed...

The right understanding of the universe --- almost at the level of faith:

[bible]Hebrews 11:3[/bible]

 

[Psudopod]

Wrong --- not just someone --- Someone --- (and He didn't "say the world is young").

Wrong - someone said that Someone said it. There is no reason to believe it other than faith.

I'll vouch for 6100 years of it --- no more.

But you can't make that history go away, can you? Just blow hot air about uniformitism, which I suspect you think means something it doesn't.

 

[Molal]

Maturity without history.

Keep in mind:

1. Only God can do it.
2. It is an act of omnipotence - not science - and therefore cannot be verified.
3. Since it cannot be verified, documentation would be necessary for clarification.

What? I have no idea what you are talking about - particularly with reference to 3. It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Psudopod]

The right understanding of the universe --- almost at the level of faith:

But you cannot learn anything from "Goddidit, case closed." Its the antithesis of learning. Unless you are willing to study something, you cannot learn about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What? I have no idea what you are talking about - particularly with reference to 3. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Take my Apple Challenge, Molal; that should help clarify it.

 

[Molal]

Take my Apple Challenge, Molal; that should help clarify it.

That challenge is just fluff and hand waving.

Point number 3 on your OP does not make sense. If embedded age has no proof then (cannot be verified) how can you obtain documentation for clarification?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Only God can do it.

AV, you lost the argument with this line even before it started!

YOU can't tell us anything about God let alone back up a claim that absurd!

How do you KNOW only God can do it?

I'll tell you how you know: because you made up the concept and since it is wholly indefensible you put it on God who is likewise unproven and is the PERFECT place for all unfalsifiable hypotheses to reside.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

What are the implications of not being able to assume that the laws of physics are the same for as long as the universe has existed (to be more precise, the laws of physics have been constant since planck time after the big bang)?
If this is the case then no meaningful statements about the past can be justified be it a second ago, a century ago, a millenia ago, or a million years ago. We know that much to not be the case.

The right understanding of the universe --- almost at the level of faith:

[bible]Hebrews 11:3[/bible]

The problem with that is that it is demonsterably incorrect. We can make predictions about an animal or a feature that should exist in the fossil record and the time range and even the area that it should exist in and be correct about it. I didnt just dream up that scenario, that's how they found tiktaalik. I took a vertebrate evolution course the year before they found tiktaalik and it was very clear what was missing from the fossil record, you could describe the animal that should be there... and they found it. If we can make predictions about events that happened in the past then the past is not inconsistent with modern laws of physics as those predictions rely on a consistency of physics to be true.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Take my Apple Challenge, Molal; that should help clarify it.

Geez, AV, let the apple thing go! You lost that one too!

(Next time put a little (R) or (C) or (TM) next to "Apple Challenge" that way it will look all professional!)

 

[thaumaturgy]

Check your eyesight then, and quit "seeing" things from a uniformitarian perspective.

AV, please don't insult those of us who actually got geology degrees and have looked at the geologic record.

I'm guessing from your disregard for science in general that you don't know the first foreign thing about geology. Nor do you likely care about it.

I'm making this challenge to you: learn some science. Pay attention in class.

THEN come back and complain about how science is done.

 

[AV1611VET]

That challenge is just fluff and hand waving.

Point number 3 on your OP does not make sense. If embedded age has no proof then (cannot be verified) how can you obtain documentation for clarification?

Go to your nearest Christian bookstore and ask for a 1611 King James Bible.



You'll recognize It --- It doesn't come with a copyrite.