Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

If that's what Embedded Age is, then we can all lay this argument to rest as it is completely incorrect as there's plenty of history well past the 6,000 year mark.

Documented history?

 

[Bushido216]

Star light.

 

[AV1611VET]

Star light.

Star bright.

 

[sandwiches]

Documented history?

Yep.

 

[Bushido216]

Star bright.

The light from the nearest star would take more than 10,000 years to get here.

Anyway, the problem with this theory is that it doesn't make any predictions. There's no way to differentiate this theory from Last Tuesdayism. In other words, there's no test or prediction you could make that wouldn't support your theory or disprove Last Tuesdayism, so it can't be explanatory in any scientific way.

That doesn't mean it isn't right, or whatever, but to science it's useless.

 

[AV1611VET]

The light from the nearest star would take more than 10,000 years to get here.

Actually 4.5 years --- unless you want me to be pedantic, then I would say about 8 minutes.

 

[Bushido216]

Ugh.

Okay, fine, the light from the FARTHEST star takes longer than 10,000 years to get here.

Regardless, the rest of my post is valid. Embedded Age doesn't make any predictions that would differentiate it from Last Tuesdayism.

I'd appreciate a response to this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Embedded Age doesn't make any predictions that would differentiate it from Last Tuesdayism.

Why would Embedded Age be making any predictions?

It's history, not science.

 

[Freodin]

Why would Embedded Age be making any predictions?

It's history, not science.

This is one of your just-too-simple linguistic games.


I really don´t want to be picky, but you really NEED to explain the terms you use if you want people to understand what you are talking about.

For example... you have just claimed "Embedded Age is history." But you have also claimed "Embedded Age is maturity WITHOUT history".

Somehow, you mean two different things with the same word. No wonder people don´t understand you.


So I assume that by "history" you mean something like "something that happened and was written down".
God embedded age into things - something that happened - thus "history".
Nothing happened to the things that had embedded age - thus "no history".

But there is nothing written down about God embedding age into things - this is only what you concluded. So do we leave out the "written down" from your definition of history?

On the other hand, "something happening" leaves traces in the physical world. "Age", especially, is a physical concept. Science.

So there is no dichotomy between "history" and "science" here. It´s both... and both fields say: "It is wrong."

 

[juvenissun]

The light from the nearest star would take more than 10,000 years to get here.

Anyway, the problem with this theory is that it doesn't make any predictions. There's no way to differentiate this theory from Last Tuesdayism. In other words, there's no test or prediction you could make that wouldn't support your theory or disprove Last Tuesdayism, so it can't be explanatory in any scientific way.

That doesn't mean it isn't right, or whatever, but to science it's useless.

In another thread, I appreciate your recognition that theory (model) leads to meaningful observation. So I respond here.

The idea of embedded age is about the issue of time. If the idea addressed an issue, then it can be used to make prediction. So, any idea can be useful and can be expanded into a scientific project.

For example, if the past time could be embedded, could the current time also be an embedded one? This is not just a wild idea, it has a Biblical basis. And the suggested answer is a yes.

 

[Sanguis]

Why would Embedded Age be making any predictions?

It's history, not science.

And the existence of Tiktaalik isn't history?

Science made a prediction on where its fossils would be found, if it existed, and lo and behold, they were correct!

The same thing happened with Microraptor, and countless other prehistoric species.

"Embedded age" is absurd, it defies logic. You claim that the Earth is really 6100 years old, then claim it's also really 4.5 bn years old.

If that were true, what would we expect to see, that couldn't be explained by any other possibility?

If it were false what would we expect to see?

If you can't answer them, then kindly stop spouting complete gibberish.

Tractors can't be F22 raptors and still be tractors.
The Earth can't be 4.5bn years old and still be 6100 years old.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Why would Embedded Age be making any predictions?

It's history, not science.

Gosh! embedded age = maturity without history = history != science

 

[Bushido216]

In another thread, I appreciate your recognition that theory (model) leads to meaningful observation. So I respond here.

The idea of embedded age is about the issue of time. If the idea addressed an issue, then it can be used to make prediction. So, any idea can be useful and can be expanded into a scientific project.

For example, if the past time could be embedded, could the current time also be an embedded one? This is not just a wild idea, it has a Biblical basis. And the suggested answer is a yes.

Alright, so, admitting that I'm from a position of ignorance, since embedded age is new since I was last here, my question is still basically the same.

What you've suggested is a new area for research. What I'm looking for is a statement like "if we're right, you would expect to find X in a circumstance where you tested using method Y".

Sort of like, "if relativity is right (not wrong) then you'd expect to see stars shifting as their light was warped by the sun".

 

[Bushido216]

Why would Embedded Age be making any predictions?

It's history, not science.

Well. Colour me embarrassed.

 

[Sanguis]

I got news for Av. It's fiction, not history, regardless of how much he believes otherwise.

 

[hangback]

I got news for Av. It's fiction, not history, regardless of how much he believes otherwise.

The truth will out in the end AV1611VET.
I think it was George Washington who said,
You can fool all of the people some of the time,
you can fool some of the people all of the time,
but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Embedded age along with creationism is not just a dead end it is the most dead end thing since the first dead end became know as a dead end,
they are in fact the mother and father of all dead ends, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Sanguis]

The truth will out in the end AV1611VET.
I think it was George Washington who said,
You can fool all of the people some of the time,
you can fool some of the people all of the time,
but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Embedded age along with creationism is not just a dead end it is the most dead end thing since the first dead end became know as a dead end,
they are in fact the mother and father of all dead ends, but that's just my opinion.

Then it's an opinion that we share.

Creationism is the Lord Supreme of Fail.

 

[Split Rock]

Ugh.

Okay, fine, the light from the FARTHEST star takes longer than 10,000 years to get here.

Regardless, the rest of my post is valid. Embedded Age doesn't make any predictions that would differentiate it from Last Tuesdayism.

I'd appreciate a response to this.

Actually, you are wrong about AVET's model not making predictions (even though he would like it that way). It does make predictions we can test and it fails them. According to E.A. (Embedded Age) God embedded age into the earth but not history. From this, we can make the prediction that the Earth has no history older than 6,100 years ago, since that was when it was created. In addition, God did not embed any history (such as scars, etc.). When we look at the Earth, however, we see lots of very old history. We find old impact craters, extinct coral reefs buried under the ocean, coal seams with fossils in them, evidence of volcanic activity thousands of years old, chalk deposits miles deep made from dead microorganisms, hundreds of thousands of ice rings in the Antartic, etc. All this shows that the Earth has a History far older than 6,100 years. According to E.A. it should not. Therefore, E.A. is falsified. Either the Earth was made far longer ago than 6,100 years, or God created it with a history that never happened. AVET refuses to accept this, because E.A. is one of his little pet paradigms and he doesn't really care if it works or not.

Why would Embedded Age be making any predictions?

It's history, not science.

Because the Past has an impact on the Present, whether you creationists like it or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

I got news for Av. It's fiction, not history, regardless of how much he believes otherwise.

You weren't there --- and if you think it's fiction, you might want to try and convince bookstores.

I don't see the Bible in the fiction section.

 

[AV1611VET]

I got news for Av. It's fiction, not history, regardless of how much he believes otherwise.

You weren't there --- and if you think it's fiction, you might want to try and convince bookstores.

I don't see the Bible in the fiction section.