Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

The bible may be good enough for you but the OT is still just stories dreamt up by bronze age people to explain away something they could not possibly comprehend, and would you believe, not very bright 21st century people are still falling for it, but I guess that's what they would call progress in the bible belt.

If you truly believe this, I have a question for you:

Did the Jews have a right to their land prior to 1948?

Let's see your level of comprehension.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I've got Something better than evidence --- the Bible.

Which makes the Bible your evidence. Ergo you don't have anything "better" than evidence, you just have different evidence.

And the big difference is the Bible isn't all that robust as evidence for anything about the origins of the earth or geologic history. It is backed up by virtually nothing (hence your need to invent "Embedded Age" as a way to align the appearance of history and "deep time" and the Bible's indication that no such thing actually exists).

Seems that if the bible's evidence were truly good enough for you you'd just be straight ahead Young Earth Creationist who blatantly defied all the science.

 

[Mike Elphick]

First, I think Split Rock may be probing you for answers as to why so much age was embedded (4-5 billion years), which is a lot longer than what would be required to make mountains, rivers and (most importantly) the soil ready for habitation by trees, fish and mammals.

I certainly cannot answer that question, as that would fall under God's sovereignty.

I'm sure He embedded the exact amount He wanted.

Yet it is YOU, not God, who is asserting the world was made in "BC4004", and at the same time the Earth is "4.57 billion years" old. If you cannot answer the question above, simply claiming God can do what he wants, it's crystal clear, to me at least, that you are second-guessing God simply to reconcile these two dates and for no other reason!

He may also have been wondering why there was a need to embedded age in the first place, when God had infinite time to let the world "mature" on its own, naturally and in real time.

If by "mature on its own", you mean the appearance of life on it as well, then I don't believe He did that.

No, I don't mean that. For the sake of this discussion I'm going along with a creationist agenda. I'm figuring out how the Earth was prepared for the life that God intended to plant here during the subsequent five days of creation.

God is a God of boundaries, and I believe He has placed boundaries that nature cannot pass.

I wouldn't know (and I don't know how you would know either).

And evolution cannot work with these boundaries in place.

We're not talking about evolution, and I'm not falling for another diversion.

*Second, if the "answer is in the question", this is the first time you've ever given a REASON for embedded age (and I've asked you often enough). Are you now saying it was to 'weather' the earth — to grind the rocks down a bit and let the world stabilise to make it a "mature" place for life to exist?

No --- that would entail the passage of time.

A recoded passage of time, yes.

Here's what SR asked, with the answer in the question itself:

Why did God find it necessary to "embed" age, just to make the earth "mature" enough to support Adam and the rest of life He created?

I highlighted the answer in red.

So you did. You reckon the mountains and valleys, rivers and all the rest just appeared? And the rocks were not ground down to make it a "mature" place for life to exist? But where many of the gains of sand have come from is well known — from identified weathered rocks. How do you explain that?

If that's the case then your embedded age most definitely has history embedded with it too — sedimentary rocks (created by weathering) in temporal (historical) sequence, the oldest at the bottom, the youngest at the top. This is something we've been telling you all along.

I'm glad you see the problem with your own statement.

Perhaps we are making some progress?

I don't understand your last two sentences. The fact is there are layers of rock that have different ages. There are sedimentary rocks, limestone, sandstones, shale, chalk etc. Many of these contain fossils. You have never been able to explain why these have different dates (oldest at the bottom).

We can't make progress until you address these problems.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've got Something better than evidence --- the Bible.

Which makes the Bible your evidence.

That applies to me as well.

So your efforts to change It back to evidence, when I just said there's Something better than evidence, negates the rest of your disrespectful post.

 

[Freodin]

That applies to me as well.

So your efforts to change It back to evidence, when I just said there's Something better than evidence, negates the rest of your disrespectful post.

I know that you have problems with the use of categories in the english language, but "Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

So if you use the Bible to determine the truth of your assertion... it is your evidence.


Don´t torture your own mothertongue more than necessary in your Holy Crusade.

 

[Mike Elphick]

If you truly believe this, I have a question for you:

Did the Jews have a right to their land prior to 1948?

Let's see your level of comprehension.

This has nothing to do with levels of comprehension, but with knowing, understanding and interpreting history.

In "The Invention of the Jewish People" by Shlomo Sand it is suggested that the history of the Jewish people is not as straight-forward as many are led to believe:-

All modern nation states have a story of their origins, passed down through both official and popular culture, and yet few of these accounts have proved as divisive and influential as the Israeli national myth. The well-known tale of Jewish exile at the hands of the Romans during the first century AD, and the assertion of both cultural and racial continuity through to the Jewish people of the present day, resonates far beyond Israel's borders. Despite its use as a justification for Jewish settlement in Palestine and the project of a Greater Israel, there have been few scholarly investigations into the historical accuracy of the story as a whole. In this bold and ambitious new book, Shlomo Sand shows that the Israeli national myth has its origins in the nineteenth century, rather than in biblical times when Jewish historians, like scholars in many other cultures, reconstituted an imagined people in order to model a future nation. Sand forensically dissects the official story and demonstrates the construction of a nationalist myth and the collective mystification that this requires. A bestseller in Israel and France, Shlomo Sands book has sparked a widespread and lively debate. Should the Jewish people regard themselves as genetically distinct and identifiable across the millennia or should that doctrine now be left behind and if the myth of the Jewish state is dismantled, could this open a path toward a more inclusive Israeli state, content within its borders?
The Invention of the Jewish People: Amazon.co.uk: Shlomo Sand: Books

 

[AV1611VET]

This has nothing to do with levels of comprehension, but with knowing, understanding and interpreting history.

In "The Invention of the Jewish People" by Shlomo Sand it is suggested that the history of the Jewish people is not as straight-forward as many are led to believe:-

I'll ask you the same question then, Mike: Did the Jews have a right to their land prior to 1948?

 

[Sanguis]

If you truly believe this, I have a question for you:

Did the Jews have a right to their land prior to 1948?

Let's see your level of comprehension.

Do the Native Americans living in reserves have a right to their land?

 

[thaumaturgy]

That applies to me as well.

So your efforts to change It back to evidence, when I just said there's Something better than evidence, negates the rest of your disrespectful post.

"Disrespectful post"? Wow, you spend a lot of time finding persecution.

Just because you said the Bible is better than evidence, doesn't make it anything but a different type of evidence, AV.

I've personally, on this board, seen you multiple times "defend the Bible" by referring to prophecy counts as if to bolster the idea that the Bible is somehow "correct", ergo you use evidence to support your contention that other claims in the bible are "evidentiary" in nature.

If you are going to play "word games" then pay very close attention to WORDS.

I can't stress this enough. You can't just willy-nilly redefine words and concepts as they suit you, AV!

YOU are destroying the very thing you defend when you destroy "word meaning".

Can you not understand that? If you gut the meaning of words as they are commonly held, then what do you have left? The Bible is words.

If you find meaning in those words, fine! But that meaning only has value if you don't first do everything to destroy that meaning!

 

[AV1611VET]

Did the Jews have a right to their land prior to 1948?

This has nothing to do with levels of comprehension, but with knowing, understanding and interpreting history.

I'll ask you the same question then, Mike: Did the Jews have a right to their land prior to 1948?

Do the Native Americans living in reserves have a right to their land?

That's the spirit!

Keep dodging the question until it falls back about five pages, then someone starts in with: "What's your point, AV?"

I wonder if you guys even know why I'm asking it?

 

[Freodin]

Did the Jews have a right to their land prior to 1948?

Yes, of course they did.

Have property rights changed somehow in 1948?

 

[Belk]

I've got Something better than evidence --- the Bible.

Unless they have added a couple of passages that I am unaware of, no you don't. Neither embedded age nor the age of the Earth is recorded in the bible. The number you use for the later was calculated by Bishop Ulster, you believe his method to be correct. The former someone had to make up whole cloth since you claim (and I agree) that there is no evidence for it. Both are based on fallible men and their understanding of their holy writings.

So I guess my question on embedded age is "With no evidence for embedded age and no evidence that Bishop Ulster was correct in his calculations why should I believe your hypothesis to be correct?"

 

[AV1611VET]

I've personally, on this board, seen you multiple times "defend the Bible" by referring to prophecy counts as if to bolster the idea that the Bible is somehow "correct"...

That's right --- and the higher the number, the more likely for failure.

Remember? Failure is considered as anything less than 100%.

In His first advent, Jesus fulfilled 109 of 333 prophecies with 100% accuracy.

In His second advent, He is going to go for 224 of 333 --- something exponentially harder --- with the same result in accuracy.

You guys who whine about "potential falsification" all the time need to take notice.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, of course they did.

Have property rights changed somehow in 1948?

Did they rights to that land in 1848?

 

[AV1611VET]

So I guess my question on embedded age is "With no evidence for embedded age and no evidence that Bishop Ulster was correct in his calculations why should I believe your hypothesis to be correct?"

Get a calculator and verify Bishop Ulster's [sic] calculations yourself then, if you think he was mathematically wrong.

 

[Freodin]

Did they rights to that land in 1848?

Yes, of course. Their land is their land. In 1948, 1848 and 2048.

But you are asking the wrong questions again, AV. Or, you simply don´t say what you mean.

You imply that "their land" is, of course, the current state of Israel. This is incorrect. This is not "their land". Property rights are not societally or racially based... they are personal.

 

[Mike Elphick]

I'll ask you the same question then, Mike: Did the Jews have a right to their land prior to 1948?

Didn't you read my post? Asking such a question is not a test of someone's ability to comprehend or understand. I don't know enough about history, never mind the history of the Jewish people and I wouldn't be qualified to provide an answer without doing many years of research. Even then, without access to all the original material and not knowing any Hebrew, I doubt if I could do it anyway.

Shlomo Sand was interviewed recently on the BBC, and I thought his ideas were interesting and challenging. The basis of his thesis is that Judaism was originally a religious community spread across the world and Jews only in the 19th century began to see themselves as an ethnic people. Many thousands of gentiles around the world converted to Judaism — as a religion — with the result that a large proportion of Jews cannot now be genetically linked to the Jewish homeland.

I don't know whether this is true or not, but one needs to be aware of all the evidence to come to a conclusion. Don't you think?

 

[Mike Elphick]

<Deleted>​

 

[Belk]

Get a calculator and verify Bishop Ulster's [sic] calculations yourself then, if you think he was mathematically wrong.

Maybe you could answer the question I asked about embedded age? Since that is the topic of the thread you created after all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe you could answer the question I asked about embedded age? Since that is the topic of the thread you created after all.

So I guess my question on embedded age is "With no evidence for embedded age and no evidence that Bishop Ulster was correct in his calculations why should I believe your hypothesis to be correct?"

Embedded Age is an eclectic explanation that combines YEC with the ages that science goes by, into one coherent cosmology.