"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

[Tomk80]

Oh please... I went to eat breakfast. I never claimed to spend anywhere near the amount of time you do here, AVET.

Is AV still using that "I'm online more than you"-shtick? How incredibly dumb is that?

 

[Cabal]

Oh, so everything has to come with a prediction attached to it now, does it?

Is this some new additive to the Scientific Method?

Personally I hope it fails every prediction you guys can come up with, and more.

Arf.

Yeah, that's kinda what positing a theory eventually entails for it to persist. Or indeed, positing ANY idea.

Man --- that's just a pity on six different levels --- isn't it?

So much for your proposed claims about The Documentation, as I keep saying.

Oh, my.

Please do tell me what prediction Embedded Age should make.

Just one please.

There's 25 pages worth?

It's there with the Cross, and the 10 Commandments, and Noah's Ark --- right?

(Please answer this.)

Not being scientific models aside, at least they're actually IN the Bible.

Um ... no ... science condemns a lot of stuff to the scrap bin.

It's called "entropy" --- and God is going to step in and put a stop to it.

And this makes our arguments incorrect...how?

Do I look like I'm running away?

I'll say this much, I see you guys go offline a lot more than you see me go offline.

Like I said, you spend a lot of time on here. That doesn't mean you're incapable of running away. "/thread" or "___ can take a hike" are classic examples.

Let's keep the teaching of the Creation out of the schools, so you guys can be proud of your "bliming" ignorance.

Then you can explain to your kids why you don't want it taught in school, but spend a large amount of time on the Internet asking us questions about it.

Trust me, if creationists gave up trying to shoehorn their pseudoscience and religion into a science classroom, this board would be a lot emptier. Believe what you like - just don't drag the school system down with it.

 

[Cabal]

Is AV still using that "I'm online more than you"-shtick? How incredibly dumb is that?

The scientists' equivalent:

"I spend more time in a laboratory than you. Your theories are invalid."

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, I do know the principle of isochron dating. Apparently you do not.
.

So, tell me how to get an isochron. How many sample do you need? How to sample them?

 

[Hespera]

Spoken by the champion of refuse-to-learn

 

[Tomk80]

So, tell me how to get an isochron. How many sample do you need? How to sample them?

Why don't you tell me. I've gone over a number of things with you with me doing all the explaining. Your turn.

 

[Hespera]

While you are at it explain why you think organic molecules come only from life and can only be formed under earth like conditions. We want to learn.

this link may help

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967Natur.213..273S

 

[AV1611VET]

Trust me, if creationists gave up trying to shoehorn their pseudoscience and religion into a science classroom, this board would be a lot emptier.

Not hardly --- I don't use any science, and I seem to be a magnet for people wanting to tell me their theories.

 

[Cabal]

Not hardly --- I don't use any science, and I seem to be a magnet for people wanting to tell me their theories.

Well, this board appears to have been a place for discussing the creation/evolution debate long before you arrived, AV. And the only reason most atheists and TEs give two hoots about creationism is because various strains of it are meddling in places they shouldn't. One of the innumberable JOYS of entrenched debates like CvsE is the countless tangential debates like this one.

If the debate was over tomorrow, I doubt people would be too concerned about what creationists think anymore.

I'm sure you like to think this is all about you, but sorry to disappoint...

 

[gaara4158]

Well, this board appears to have been a place for discussing the creation/evolution debate long before you arrived, AV. And the only reason most atheists and TEs give two hoots about creationism is because various strains of it are meddling in places they shouldn't. If the debate was over tomorrow, I doubt people would be too concerned about what creationists think anymore.

I'm sure you like to think this is all about you, but sorry to disappoint...

He's not going to change his mind just because you told him how it really is... the truth can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sure you like to think this is all about you, but sorry to disappoint...

You're not disappointing me at all.

Your exact words were:

Trust me, if creationists gave up trying to shoehorn their pseudoscience and religion into a science classroom, this board would be a lot emptier.

And I disagree --- unless I'm some kind of exception or something.

I don't use any science whatsoever in my explanations, and I rarely ask for science from you guys --- therefore I'm not shoehorning anything anywhere.

Yet this board seems to be a bed of activity.

 

[AV1611VET]

He's not going to change his mind just because you told him how it really is... the truth can take a hike.

Truth?

Is that a science term?

 

[Philothei]

Mod hat on:"


Please refrain from flaming or this thread will be closed.


Mod hat off.

 

[BananaSlug]

Has any creationist that subscribes to "embedded age" answered the question about fossils in rock older than 6,000 years? I haven't really heard anything, just people trying to change the topic.
AV, the past few posts have answered you challenge to come up with a prediction for your "embedded age" scenario, yet you seem to completely ignore them. What do you have to say?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, the past few posts have answered you challenge to come up with a prediction for your "embedded age" scenario, yet you seem to completely ignore them. What do you have to say?

I simply don't accept the explanations --- that's all.

Let's take yours, for example, and parse it --- but first --- here's my definition of Embedded Age --- from here 1:

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.

Now, let's parse your prediction:

Assumption 1: The Earth was created in 4004B.C. with 4.5 billion years of embedded age.

Correct.

Assumption 2: For "embedded age" to work, we must accept the various methods science uses to date rock, since it shows how old God created them.

No, you don't.

Embedded Age is not based on your ability to date rocks.

If you, for instance, fail to date a rock, that doesn't mean Embedded Age didn't work.

Let me correct your statement:

For "embedded age" to work, God simply needs to embed the age.

Remember Point 1 above --- only God can do it.

Prediction: Though the earth itself is 4.5 billion years old we should find no evidence of history past approximately 6000 years ago.

Correct.

Observation: We have found many fossils and evidence of past events from well past 6,000 years ago (which was the entire point of the OP).

In my opinion, no you haven't. You date fossils, I believe, by the age of the material they are found in. (Correct me please, if I'm wrong.) That's why I gave the hypothetical that if I embedded the image of a leaf in anthracite, would the leaf be assumed to be as old as the anthracite it was found in?

And I find it funny that you accept the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old yet you tell the methods we use to tell us that age to "take a hike."

That's easier than saying what I used to say all the time; viz. IF THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS SCIENCE, THEN SCIENCE IS WRONG.

You can't accept what science says but tell it to "take a hike" at the same time.

That's right --- as long as science doesn't disagree with the Bible, I accept it; but if it disagrees, it can take a hike.

There is the one prediction you asked for, the prediction that the entire thread was based around.

No, Embedded Age does not make predictions, and it is not science --- all it is is an historical fact --- nothing more.

What say you?

I say you're wrong, and your example is faulty.

I understand "embedded age" completely...

No offense, but I could not disagree more with this statement.

... but there are enough holes in it to drive a Winnebago through.

I disagree.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I simply don't accept the explanations --- that's all.

Why not?

Embedded Age is not based on your ability to date rocks.

Then what would you say it is based on?

That's why I gave the hypothetical that if I embedded the image of a leaf in anthracite, would the leaf be assumed to be as old as the anthracite it was found in?

Quick question, AV -- and I would appreciate an answer, although it may seem only tangentally related to the issue at hand: Why would you embed the image of a leaf in anthracite if there was no leaf actually there?

That's easier than saying what I used to say all the time; viz. IF THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS SCIENCE, THEN SCIENCE IS WRONG.That's right --- as long as science doesn't disagree with the Bible, I accept it; but if it disagrees, it can take a hike.

And on what do you base this?

No, Embedded Age does not make predictions, and it is not science --- all it is is an historical fact --- nothing more.

Nothing at all, AV -- historical facts need to be based on actual history -- you've demonstrated all the time that no such history exists.

I say you're wrong, and your example is faulty.No offense, but I could not disagree more with this statement.I disagree.

Again, it would be nice if you based this on something -- but nobody's expecting you to.

 

[juvenissun]

Why don't you tell me. I've gone over a number of things with you with me doing all the explaining. Your turn.

Fine.

You need at least two samples. Better be three, and the more the better.
These samples should be taken from different localities, or different parts of an outcrop.

If they made an isochron, that says something. If they don't, that says something else.

So, AFTER you have an isochron, THEN you start to give a history.

Good enough?

 

[Sophophile]

Let me correct your statement: Remember Point 1 above --- only God can do it.Correct.In my opinion, no you haven't. You date fossils, I believe, by the age of the material they are found in. (Correct me please, if I'm wrong.) That's why I gave the hypothetical that if I embedded the image of a leaf in anthracite, would the leaf be assumed to be as old as the anthracite it was found in?That's easier than saying what I used to say all the time; viz. IF THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS SCIENCE, THEN SCIENCE IS WRONG.That's right --- as long as science doesn't disagree with the Bible, I accept it; but if it disagrees, it can take a hike.

Hi AV1611VET.

*All* science disagrees with "embedded age" because science assumes when we make a direct observation of the real world we are seeing something real. In fact, this is common sense.

Embedded age, on the other hand, seems to me to teach that certain observations are elaborate fakes, and there is no way in principle to identify the fakes using physical evidence.

How, then, are we supposed to "try the spirits whether they are of God"? (1 John 4:1)

Cheers
S.

 

[juvenissun]

Hi AV1611VET.

*All* science disagrees with "embedded age" because science assumes when we make a direct observation of the real world we are seeing something real. In fact, this is common sense.

Science also realizes that some other things could also be real, but can not be seen. This is called theoretical science. The "embedded age" is one of the issue.

 

[Tomk80]

Fine.

You need at least two samples. Better be three, and the more the better.
These samples should be taken from different localities, or different parts of an outcrop.

If they made an isochron, that says something. If they don't, that says something else.

So, AFTER you have an isochron, THEN you start to give a history.

Good enough?

No, not even close. Try again. Explain what an isochron actually is. What is the reasoning behind an isochron. Then you'll get why the age you get from an isochron can only be arrived at because there is a history there.