*My* Apple Challenge

[ReverendDG]

We believe the universe and all that is within it was created in 6 literal days because of one thing. JESUS RAISING UP FROM THE DEAD.

Fin.

Since HE rose up from the dead, then Gen. 1:1 is correct and right. Then HE really did create the entire universe in 6 literal days.

Guess what? HE rose up from the dead! Now you are hosed!

SOLI DEO GLORIA.

prove it

 

[ReverendDG]

Who said I was a YEC?

believing the earth has existed for 6 thousand years makes you a YEC, despite your use of weasel words

 

[ReverendDG]

QV PLEASE

is that a joke?

 

[FishFace]

Can I ask what you are, then?

(Also, are your pastor's degrees from Bible Colleges or normal ones?)

A Self-Contradictory Creationist.

 

[AV1611VET]

believing the earth has existed for 6 thousand years makes you a YEC, despite your use of weasel words

No, it doesn't --- it could also make me Omphalos, Last Thursdayism, or Embedded Age.

[Now, DG, which of those fourteen words above is a weasel word?]

 

[AV1611VET]

is that a joke?

What? You need me to invoke Poe's Law for ya?

 

[ReverendDG]

No, it doesn't --- it could also make me Omphalos, Last Thursdayism, or Embedded Age.

[Now, DG, which of those fourteen words above is a weasel word?]

embedded age is, your use of "existence" verses "age" are.

you saying the earth has existed for 6 thousand years, but somehow its 4.5 billion, by changing what words mean.
i call it weasel words, because you alter the meaning so you are never wrong and you can weasel out of being wrong by claiming the other person doesn't understand you. mainly because you don't use words the way other people use them

as i've said, no one believes you subscribe to omphalos or last thursdayism. they are the closest ideas we have to what you believe that make any sense though.

 

[ReverendDG]

What? You need me to invoke Poe's Law for ya?

it must be a joke. no one could think someone asking for extra-biblical evidence means a youtube clip of someone singing a song about creation is evidence.

i guess you get the giggles from thinking you are tweaking the noses of evo posters eh?
it wasn't really amusing the first time, now its not funny at all

 

[FishFace]

No, it doesn't --- it could also make me Omphalos, Last Thursdayism, or Embedded Age.

[Now, DG, which of those fourteen words above is a weasel word?]

"Embedded age" is a weasel phrase, it attempts to hide the inherent contradiction involved in believing that the earth has existed for 6000 years, that it looks 4.5 billion years old, but that God would not create a 6000 year old earth looking much older.
We all know this by now - the earth cannot be 4.5 billion years old but have existed only for 6000 years. That is a contradiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

embedded age is, your use of "existence" verses "age" are.

Then I'll tell you what --- you come up with a better term, and I'll use it.

you saying the earth has existed for 6 thousand years, but somehow its 4.5 billion...

Now right here tells me you are using "weasel words." Do you see what you're doing, DG? You're critiquing the term Embedded Age, then you're turning right around and saying "somehow." Like I'm the one that's confused.

Your sentence should read:

• you saying the earth has existed for 6 thousand years, but has 4.5 billion years embedded...

...by changing what words mean.

I haven't changed the meaning of one word --- not one. You are the one denying the term, then acting like you don't know what I'm talking about.

i call it weasel words, because you alter the meaning...

No, I'm not --- and again --- if you can come up with a better term, I'll use it.

... so you are never wrong and you can weasel out of being wrong by claiming the other person doesn't understand you.

Well, I believe I've demonstrated that to be the case --- at least with you.

You are the one who critiques the term embedded age, then says "somehow."

mainly because you don't use words the way other people use them

Keep saying that enough times --- you just might end up believing it.

as i've said, no one believes you subscribe to omphalos or last thursdayism.

Baloney --- I've been called both --- as well as YEC. Ask Frumious Bandersnatch what I am.

Do you ever wonder why RMWILLIAMS doesn't post here anymore? Go read his profile. He and I had one dosey of a fight, with admin stepping in to break it up.

they are the closest ideas we have to what you believe that make any sense though.

I have a feeling you're not even trying to understand, and until I see someone show me they have some semblance of what I'm talking about, I'll be hanged if I'll let someone tell me I'm wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

it must be a joke. no one could think someone asking for extra-biblical evidence means a youtube clip of someone singing a song about creation is evidence.

i guess you get the giggles from thinking you are tweaking the noses of evo posters eh?
it wasn't really amusing the first time, now its not funny at all

Sorry you don't like the Carpenters --- my Shepherd is a carpenter's son.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Embedded age" is a weasel phrase, it attempts to hide the inherent contradiction...

Yup --- make it sound like I have ulterior motives, and have to go around hiding things. You're just confusing yourself, not me.

... involved in believing that the earth has existed for 6000 years, that it looks 4.5 billion years old, but that God would not create a 6000 year old earth looking much older.

I honestly don't know how many times I've said this --- it looks old because it is old. I would expect it to look old.

We all know this by now - the earth cannot be 4.5 billion years old but have existed only for 6000 years. That is a contradiction.

It is not a contradiction --- it is a paradox.

 

[FishFace]

Yup --- make it sound like I have ulterior motives, and have to go around hiding things. You're just confusing yourself, not me.

It is hiding (or attempting to hide) the fact that you believe that the universe is simultaneously 6000 and 4.5 billion years old.
The only way you can try and hide this is by using English in a nonsensical fashion and saying that one of these ages is embedded. Age doesn't get embedded. Age is a property of an object that it acquires purely by virtue of existing. Appearance of age is just appearance, actual age is the time for which the thing has existed - simple as that.

I honestly don't know how many times I've said this --- it looks old because it is old. I would expect it to look old.

Why would you expect the earth to look old?

It is not a contradiction --- it is a paradox.

It is a contradiction. Firstly, we can agree that if something is X years old, it can't be Y years old, unless X = Y. Then, we can also agree that if something has existed for exactly X years, it can't have existed for exactly Y years, unless X = Y.
Now, everyone but you can agree that if something is X years old, then it has existed for X years. So saying that something is X years old but has existed for Y years is a contradiction because X does not equal Y.

The only part you disagree on is the equivalence of age and existence. But that's just tough, because those words are already part of English, so you don't just get to redefine them.
Your attempts at using non-standard phrasing fails too, because when you attempt to define them ("history without maturity" or whatever nonsense it was) you again fall into the same trap.

Whichever way you turn, age is an inherent property of an object that is determined precisely by how long it has existed for. God cannot meaningfully change the age without changing the length of existence, because the two are one and the same.
You can't get away from this fact, the only way to get out of the contradiction is to say God changed some other property of the world - its appearance, for example.

You've not made any reasonable attempt to show us how age is different from length of existence (because the bike made from old bike parts is still young, even though the parts are old) so you're still mired in contradiction.

 

[Allegory]

We believe the universe and all that is within it was created in 6 literal days because of one thing. JESUS RAISING UP FROM THE DEAD.

Fin.

Since HE rose up from the dead, then Gen. 1:1 is correct and right. Then HE really did create the entire universe in 6 literal days.

Guess what? HE rose up from the dead! Now you are hosed!

SOLI DEO GLORIA.

Why don't you go back to drawing up plans to kill all the gays and atheists in your new country?

 

[Wyzaard]

For lack of a better term --- I refer to myself as an Embedded-Age Creationist.

Errr?

Don't quote me on this, but I think he has a Doctor of Theology from Greensboro [North Carolina] Baptist College; and a Doctor of Divinity honorary degree from Pensacola Christian College.

Wow... the first college doesn't exist, and the second has bestowed an honorary doctorate on lots of crazies...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/05/barton_stumping.html

I smell wedge degrees.

http://www.answers.com/topic/pensacola-christian-college

"Pensacola Christian College is not accredited by any accreditation body recognized by its country. As such, its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. [1] The Chronicle of Higher Education reported:[5]

“ Pensacola [Christian College], however, has shown no interest in outside approval of any kind. Nor does it advertise its unaccredited status. A search of the Web site turns up no mention of accreditation. It is not mentioned in the college's viewbook either, which dedicates four pages to sports activities and two to campus facilities. It is mentioned, in small print, on the inside flap of the course catalog: "Pensacola Christian College has never made application for regional accreditation as the College believes it would jeopardize the College's philosophical distinctives."

The catalog goes on to say that getting other colleges to accept Pensacola's credits "has seldom been an insurmountable problem." ” As PCC is not accredited, PCC graduates may have difficulty pursuing a graduate degree or getting employment where an accredited degree is required.[6] This is not due to a lack of accreditation bodies, as there are at least three bodies recognized by the United States Department of Education that accredit religious colleges. All students at PCC are required to sign a statement that they understand that "Pensacola Christian College has never made application for regional accreditation because the College believes it could jeopardize the College's philosophical distinctive. It is the practice of Pensacola Christian College, and other colleges and universities, to accept or reject credits based on their own institutional criteria regardless of whether or not that particular school transferring credit is accredited. "" [

 

[GrayCat]

Every day you and your friend walk past the same apple tree. You see the buds, then the flowers, then the fruit develop in order. One day an apple falls off a tree, into your friend's hand. Your friend tells you it was created ex nihilo, and shows you a 3,000 year old book which says apples are created ex nihilo.

Who do you believe? Your friend's book, or your own senses?

Both.

Cause that just seems cool.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is hiding (or attempting to hide) the fact that you believe that the universe is simultaneously 6000 and 4.5 billion years old.

Nothing is being hidden --- I state my position right up front.

The only way you can try and hide this is by using English in a nonsensical fashion and saying that one of these ages is embedded.

And I'll point out again --- for the nth time --- that you guys have no problem whatsoever with embedded history (Omphalism); but for some reason can't understand embedded age.

Age doesn't get embedded.

Baloney --- look at Adam the day he was created --- 30 years old. If you disagree, then explain how a one-day-old "man" got married.

Age is a property of an object that it acquires purely by virtue of existing.

It acquires is the key phrase here. Acquiring something and having something embedded into it are two different processes.

Appearance of age is just appearance, actual age is the time for which the thing has existed - simple as that.

Unless there's an exception --- and that's just what the Creation Week was --- one big week of one exception after another.

Why would you expect the earth to look old?

Because it is old.

It is a contradiction. Firstly, we can agree that if something is X years old, it can't be Y years old, unless X = Y. Then, we can also agree that if something has existed for exactly X years, it can't have existed for exactly Y years, unless X = Y.
Now, everyone but you can agree that if something is X years old, then it has existed for X years. So saying that something is X years old but has existed for Y years is a contradiction because X does not equal Y.

I'm going to copy this, and insert the qualifiers, just so you can see the difference.

It is a paradox. Firstly, we can agree that if something is X [physical] years old, it can't be Y [physical] years old, unless X [physical] = Y [existential]. Then, we can also agree that if something has existed for exactly X [physical] years, it can't have existed for exactly Y [physical] years, unless X [physical] = Y [existential].

Adam was one day old existentially --- 30 years old physically.

Now, everyone but you can agree that if something is X years old, then it has existed for X years. So saying that something is X years old but has existed for Y years is a contradiction because X does not equal Y.

Unless X and Y are two different types of age.

The only part you disagree on is the equivalence of age and existence. But that's just tough, because those words are already part of English, so you don't just get to redefine them.

Then you explain how a one day old can have an embedded history (Omphalism).

Your attempts at using non-standard phrasing fails too, because when you attempt to define them ("history without maturity" or whatever nonsense it was) you again fall into the same trap.

You've got that "nonsense" backwards --- it's maturity without history.

Whichever way you turn, age is an inherent property of an object that is determined precisely by how long it has existed for.

Unless Someone makes an exception.

God cannot meaningfully change the age without changing the length of existence, because the two are one and the same.

God "changed" nothing --- He brought it into existence without it having to be changed.

You can't get away from this fact, the only way to get out of the contradiction is to say God changed some other property of the world - its appearance, for example.

How did God change something that didn't even exist yet? What do you think "nihilo" means in "ex nihilo"?

You've not made any reasonable attempt to show us how age is different from length of existence (because the bike made from old bike parts is still young, even though the parts are old) so you're still mired in contradiction.

I've discussed this until I'm blue in the tooth with you guys, and all you guys do is make jokes, then laugh at your own jokes.

 

[FishFace]

And I'll point out again --- for the nth time --- that you guys have no problem whatsoever with embedded history (Omphalism); but for some reason can't understand embedded age.

Because age as a concept is identical with time in existence. To proceed you have to give an analysis of what "age" and "history" actually mean as properties of things.
I have always claimed, in line with the English language, that the "age" property is just another name for the "time in existence" property. I would guess that when you say history as a property you mean "appearance of age."
There are two properties here that I understand - existence and appearance. You're introducing a third one - age, distinct from existence.
If you think age is something else, something that can be given to an object - you call this "embedding" - then you'll have to tell us exactly what you think age is.

Baloney --- look at Adam the day he was created --- 30 years old. If you disagree, then explain how a one-day-old "man" got married.

Of course Adam was only 1 day old - that's how long he'd been in existence. If I created an apple ex nihilo into your hand right now, then it wouldn't have any age whatsoever.

It acquires is the key phrase here. Acquiring something and having something embedded into it are two different processes.

If it gets age embedded into it then it acquires age - embedding is one way you claim an object can acquire age.

Unless there's an exception --- and that's just what the Creation Week was --- one big week of one exception after another.

No, you don't understand. As far as I can tell, in English, "age" and "time in existence" aren't just two things which happen to be the same in everything not created by God. They are two different ways of referring to the same thing.
Your response is just as illogical as if you claimed that God created a red object that reflects 60% of incident light in the 440-490nm region.
That is a contradiction - 440-490nm is by definition the blue region of the spectrum and a red object by definition cannot reflect strongly in that region.

The only way you can proceed is by arguing that age and existence are different properties. Existence is a fairly intuitive concept - but you will need to explain what age is and how it's different.

Because it is old.

How do you know it's old?

I'm going to copy this, and insert the qualifiers, just so you can see the difference.

You've done it wrong. Years aren't physical or existential, and you refer to Y [existential] where you only pointed out a physical one. You agree with what I wrote, anyway, as far as I can tell.

Adam was one day old existentially --- 30 years old physically.

Your example for this was the bicycle. The recycled bike was 1 day old one day after it was put together. The parts were older, but the bike is not just the parts.
By this analogy, Adam would be one day old, made from 30 year-old parts. The parts would still have existed for 30 years though. This is obviously not what you mean.

Unless X and Y are two different types of age.

Then you need to analyse these different types of age if you are to convince anyone that there really are two types.

Then you explain how a one day old can have an embedded history (Omphalism).

I'm not sure what history is when you use it as a property. A one day old can look old, can function just the same as an old person. Is that embedded history?

You've got that "nonsense" backwards --- it's maturity without history.

Terribly sorry - nonsense is harder to remember. So if embedded age is maturity without history, and "regular" age has both side-by-side, then we can infer that the essential feature of age is maturity.
So what is maturity when you say the word in this context?

Unless Someone makes an exception.

God can no more make an exception here than he could make an exception with any other definition - he can't create a red object reflecting strongly in the blue region, because that is contradictory.
As you've been told, if you think that God can perform contradictions, then your worldview is not just inconsistent in that one area - you can prove and disprove any proposition just from one contradiction.

How did God change something that didn't even exist yet? What do you think "nihilo" means in "ex nihilo"?

Not relevant - if you really don't understand then think of it as change from what the norm would be.

I've discussed this until I'm blue in the tooth with you guys, and all you guys do is make jokes, then laugh at your own jokes.

This is just jokes? This is philosophy, AV. I am asking you to perform an analysis on the word "age." This shouldn't be too hard for you, since you use the word so much in this context; you should know exactly what it means. In fact, I already suggested that based on your other writing, you might identify age with maturity - but then that needs an analysis, too.
This isn't a joke, it's the only way anyone's going to be satisfied that "age" means anything other than "time in existence."

Any further discussion on this topic from you, unless you have something new to add --- I'll consider trolling.

Either that, or you're just too dumb to understand.

The ball's in your court, AV - it's up to you to add something new. As far as I'm concerned, I understand perfectly - you believe in two contradictory claims.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Freodin]

And I'll point out again --- for the nth time --- that you guys have no problem whatsoever with embedded history (Omphalism); but for some reason can't understand embedded age.



Baloney --- look at Adam the day he was created --- 30 years old. If you disagree, then explain how a one-day-old "man" got married.



It acquires is the key phrase here. Acquiring something and having something embedded into it are two different processes.



Unless there's an exception --- and that's just what the Creation Week was --- one big week of one exception after another.



Because it is old.



I'm going to copy this, and insert the qualifiers, just so you can see the difference.



Adam was one day old existentially --- 30 years old physically.



Unless X and Y are two different types of age.



Then you explain how a one day old can have an embedded history (Omphalism).



You've got that "nonsense" backwards --- it's maturity without history.



Unless Someone makes an exception.



God "changed" nothing --- He brought it into existence without it having to be changed.



How did God change something that didn't even exist yet? What do you think "nihilo" means in "ex nihilo"?



I've discussed this until I'm blue in the tooth with you guys, and all you guys do is make jokes, then laugh at your own jokes.

Any further discussion on this topic from you, unless you have something new to add --- I'll consider trolling.

Either that, or you're just too dumb to understand.

The problem we have with your construct of "embedded age" is that it means nothing - just sounds like it does.

What is "age"? It seems that in your view, "age" is a state.
Adam was 30 years old, when he was created? No, he wasn´t, because that is not what "30 years old" means.

He might have been created in a state that we - not having experienced creation ex-nihilo - associate with "30 years of age". But it isn´t the same.

"Age" comes from passing through time. "Age" includes "history". You cannot have one without the other.

The only variant of "embedded age" that would make sense is the variant that God did create a universe that is 13+ billion years old - complete with history and all.

It would take the meaning of the "6000 years ago" catchphrase, but it is still better than a God who needs to be within a timeline he himself created. Now THAT would be paradox.

 

[ReverendDG]

Then I'll tell you what --- you come up with a better term, and I'll use it.

how about you use the words everyone else uses

Now right here tells me you are using "weasel words." Do you see what you're doing, DG? You're critiquing the term Embedded Age, then you're turning right around and saying "somehow." Like I'm the one that's confused.

yes i am using somehow, because you use the term "embedded" and think its meaningful.
don't act like i can't criticize "embedded age" for the logical conflicts and linguistic problems it has

Your sentence should read:

• you saying the earth has existed for 6 thousand years, but has 4.5 billion years embedded...

I haven't changed the meaning of one word --- not one. You are the one denying the term, then acting like you don't know what I'm talking about.

what does embedded even mean? thats where the "somehow" comes from.
age, oldness are properties of an object, they ARE old, an object can only be one age or calling something old is meaningless

No, I'm not --- and again --- if you can come up with a better term, I'll use it.

how about you not use such nonsensical arguments instead

Well, I believe I've demonstrated that to be the case --- at least with you.

sorry you believe wrong, i find the idea of something being young but somehow old, since "embedded" is a meaningless term, at least when trying to decipher the logical twists you make, when it comes to your arguments

You are the one who critiques the term embedded age, then says "somehow."

what the hell does that even mean?

Keep saying that enough times --- you just might end up believing it.

oh please, you are the author of confusion

Baloney --- I've been called both --- as well as YEC. Ask Frumious Bandersnatch what I am.

you think he says that, i don't believe he did flat out. you may think he implied it, just like you think everyone else does

Do you ever wonder why RMWILLIAMS doesn't post here anymore? Go read his profile. He and I had one dosey of a fight, with admin stepping in to break it up.

who?

I have a feeling you're not even trying to understand, and until I see someone show me they have some semblance of what I'm talking about, I'll be hanged if I'll let someone tell me I'm wrong.

like i said, you think people don't try. but i believe you are wrong, i think your arguments lack logic and coherence.
so you blame everyone else for your own short comings when it comes to explaining things