"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

[gaara4158]

Let me say this for about the 31st time --- the reason I am not a YEC is because I believe what science says about the overall age of the universe --- I believe it --- bee eee ell eye vee eee --- believe it. I belive science when they say the universe is 13.7 billion years --- I do not, however, believe them when they say it has a history of 13.7 billion years. I only agree with their conclusion - (and that's just to keep the peace).

You don't seem to realize that you simply can't do that. To say that the universe is billions of years old but has only been around for ~6000 years is purely to play a semantics game.
When you say you "agree" and "bee-leee-eeve" the scientists when they conclude an old age for the universe, what you're really saying is that their instruments are all working perfectly and they're making the right calculations, but they've been deceived because God made the universe out of "old" parts for no reason other than to screw with scientists. As we've been saying and as you've been stubbornly denying, this makes God a liar.

These are the implications of "embedded age," and the sooner you quit pouting about it, the sooner you'll be able to come up with a better bet theory. Just admit you're wrong; you've done it a couple times before and you're still alive.

 

[gaara4158]

Forget what I say --- what does science say?

(Please answer this.)

Well, science says that if the story is true, Jesus must have had some huge feet and was running at hundreds of miles per hour and didn't stop. It's physically impossible for anyone to stand on top of water and walk at a leisurely pace. Kriss Angel has done it, and he admits it was an illusion. Jesus probably didn't have access to the kind of technology Kriss did, so the story of Jesus (and briefly, Peter) walking on water is probably nothing more than hyperbole; an epic fairy tale. Science doesn't deal in fairy tales.

But what's the use; I know this was just a setup for you to say "SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE."

Poor guy.

 

[Sophophile]

Well, science says that if the story is true, Jesus must have had some huge feet and was running at hundreds of miles per hour and didn't stop. It's physically impossible for anyone to stand on top of water and walk at a leisurely pace. Kriss Angel has done it, and he admits it was an illusion. Jesus probably didn't have access to the kind of technology Kriss did, so the story of Jesus (and briefly, Peter) walking on water is probably nothing more than hyperbole; an epic fairy tale. Science doesn't deal in fairy tales.

But what's the use; I know this was just a setup for you to say "SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE."

Poor guy.

Hi gaara4158.

I don't believe the proper scientific approach is to say "couldn't happen". Rather, science would say: The evidence and opportunity to test this are long gone, so we cannot come to any definite conclusion. However, the story does go against all we know about the mass of humans, gravity, surface tension of water etc. and should be treated with a great deal of skepticism.

Cheers
S.

 

[Sophophile]

Let me say this for about the 31st time --- the reason I am not a YEC is because I believe what science says about the overall age of the universe --- I believe it --- bee eee ell eye vee eee --- believe it. I belive science when they say the universe is 13.7 billion years --- I do not, however, believe them when they say it has a history of 13.7 billion years. I only agree with their conclusion - (and that's just to keep the peace).

Hi again AV1611VET.

Now I am baffled.

You state here that you agree that scientists are honestly and accurately reporting findings about the age of the universe and the earth.

But you also make a "classic" (and incorrect) YEC argument against tree ring chronologies stating they might form many times per year. This argument implies scientists are not honestly or accurately reporting findings about tree rings.

So, just to clarify: Does the "embedded age" concept accept that the physically measured age of the universe is ~14 billion years, and the age of the earth is ~4.6 billion years?

Thanks in advance.

S.

 

[MoonLancer]

AV uses all the fallacious and pratt arguments that YEC use. maybe that's why people mix him up. Honestly I think he is in limbo. with his embedded age Idea, because it only works if one assumes science is honest and av doesn't think science is honest because it shows the world with a much older history.

 

[gaara4158]

Ah, so I'm either Pilate or Herod now?

Is that meant to be better or worse than the sons of Sceva?

I'd appreciate it if you explained this to me.

I suggest PROMPTLY.

Probably because they, like you (christian) and the rest of us (atheists), were made friends due to a mutual enemy. They were united against Jesus. You and we have been united against AV. It's likely this is the point he's making because once again he compares himself to Jesus. He also wrongly assumes that we must have been at enmity before, due to our differing faith icons. Finally, he credits himself for the lack of enmity between you and I, ignoring the fact that there's very little we disagree on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi gaara4158.

I don't believe the proper scientific approach is to say "couldn't happen". Rather, science would say: The evidence and opportunity to test this are long gone, so we cannot come to any definite conclusion. However, the story does go against all we know about the mass of humans, gravity, surface tension of water etc. and should be treated with a great deal of skepticism.

Cheers
S.

I'll admit, Sophophile, in almost three years here, this is one of the rare times I've seen an answer that truly matches the person's Faith Icon.

Very rarely do I see a non-Christian answer with respect to their icon.

I consider you and Wiccan Child [so far] to be the most respectful to it.

 

[Sophophile]

I'll admit, Sophophile, in almost three years here, this is one of the rare times I've seen an answer that truly matches the person's Faith Icon.

Very rarely do I see a non-Christian answer with respect to their icon.

I consider you and Wiccan Child [so far] to be the most respectful to it.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, just to clarify: Does the "embedded age" concept accept that the physically measured age of the universe is ~14 billion years, and the age of the earth is ~4.6 billion years?

Yes --- when God spoke the earth into existence --- it appeared out of nowhere as a 4.57 billion-year-old planet (in my opinion so far).

 

[AV1611VET]

Probably because they, like you (christian) and the rest of us (atheists), were made friends due to a mutual enemy. They were united against Jesus. You and we have been united against AV. It's likely this is the point he's making because once again he compares himself to Jesus. He also wrongly assumes that we must have been at enmity before, due to our differing faith icons. Finally, he credits himself for the lack of enmity between you and I, ignoring the fact that there's very little we disagree on.

Why would an agnostic disagree on anything pertaining to the existence of God?

 

[gaara4158]

Why would an agnostic disagree on anything pertaining to the existence of God?

Not what I say, but what I am, now? Shameless.
You and I, for example, seem to find a lot to disagree on. As an agnostc, I claim that we can't know either way. You claim you know one way. BAM, disagreement.

I keep thinking one day you won't get up from one of these tremendous failures...

 

[gaara4158]

Yes --- when God spoke the earth into existence --- it appeared out of nowhere as a 4.57 billion-year-old planet (in my opinion so far).

This is a logical impossibility, until you define "old" and "age." Defining them as each other doesn't help.

I assume you mean it appeared out of nowhere as a brand new planet showing all signs consistent with a 4.57 billion year old planet. Nonetheless it's still a new planet, no matter how badly you want it to be old.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

Bad attitude. I don't think I want to explain anything to you again.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a logical impossibility, until you define "old" and "age."

Then I won't define "old" and "age".

Let's leave it as a "logical impossibility", shall we?

 

[gaara4158]

Then I won't define "old" and "age".

Let's leave it as a "logical impossibility", shall we?

So you agree that embedded age is not valid?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you agree that embedded age is not valid?

Scientifically, it is not.

It is an act of omnipotence, which I'm sure you would consider to be a "non-valid answer, scientifically".

And that's why it has no business being taught in science class.

 

[gaara4158]

Scientifically, it is not.

It is an act of omnipotence, which I'm sure you would consider to be a "non-valid answer, scientifically".

And that's why it has no business being taught in science class.

It's also not logical, so it doesn't belong in logical discussion. At least "Goddidit and made it look like it just happened by accident" is logical. The nebulous statement "God created a 4.7 billion year old world 6000 years ago" makes about as much sense as "God created a circle with four sides."

 

[CraigBaugher]

Where in the Bible does it say anything about what is a day to God? In 2 Peter 3:8
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." But nowhere does it definitively says a day to God is a Thousand years. A Day to God could be 1-Million Years or even 2-Billion years. God is present in the whole Universe, and TIME is preceptive.

I not saying God didn't create everything in 6-days, 6,000-years, 6,000,000-years, or 6,000,000,000-years.

 

[BananaSlug]

Like I say, the only ones who make a fuss are the ones who prefer the McGraw-Hill bible over the 1611 King James Bible.

I'm not making a fuss over which "Bible" to use. I'm making a fuss over the fact that you accept some things that science has to discovered, but refuse something in the same area that goes against your personal beliefs.

Let me say this for about the 31st time --- the reason I am not a YEC is because I believe what science says about the overall age of the universe --- I believe it --- bee eee ell eye vee eee --- believe it. I belive science when they say the universe is 13.7 billion years --- I do not, however, believe them when they say it has a history of 13.7 billion years.

But the universe is 6,000 years old with the appearance of 13.7 Billion years. And you may accept that science says the universe is 13.7 billion years but many of the methods we used to find that age also shows a history of the universe.

I only agree with their conclusion - (and that's just to keep the peace).

What do you mean "just to keep the peace"?

Omnipotence.

The ability to deceive all of your followers?

According to Wikipedia, the trees during what was called, "The Year without a Summer."

What does abnormally cold summer weather that resulted in massive food shortages from abnormally high volcanic activity have to do with dendrochronology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer#Effects

It is a term of explanation that accounts for both the YEC and OEC positions on the age of the earth.

You admit you are half YEC? Hmmm...

In other words, it reconciles the two, without contradicting the Scriptures.

Except for the verses that claim God cannot lie or deceive.

How can it contradict me, if I believe it?

Because many of the things you say contradict themselves. I.e. Accepting the scientific methods used to find the age of the Earth yet rejecting the same principles that show the history of the Earth.

Then show me intellectually wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty

See above --- I accept their conclusion --- and that should be good enough --- but, of course, it's not --- since it's not what I say that counts, it's what I am.

You don't accept the conclusion, only part of the conclusion. The rest you reject based on your interpretation of your religious manuscript and your own personal opinion.

In other words, I get the impression you guys are saying this to me:

We're saying that "embedded age" not only goes against everything that the Earth tells us, but fundamental attributes that pertain to the nature of God.

Have anything else to say about those fossils?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's also not logical, so it doesn't belong in logical discussion.

I agree.

At least "Goddidit and made it look like it just happened by accident" is logical.

It might be logical --- but God does nothing by accident --- and He certainly didn't just make it "look like" it happened.

The nebulous statement "God created a 4.7 billion year old world 6000 years ago" makes about as much sense as "God created a circle with four sides."

Again, I agree.