Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Split Rock]

I'll answer these since AVET doesn't want to (and yes I am serious):

[*]Where did Noah live before the Flood?

New Jersey.

[*]Where are the flood waters now?

Neptune

[*]Why were they taken there?

To act as a warning to Fallen Angels

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not against prayer. I am interested in determining why you will not give up on E.A. when it should be clear to you by now that it does not work. If I am correct about why, is it possible that you are mistaken about God providing the answer you sought out? Could E.A. be wrong?

You guys haven't even come close to convincing me of anything.

To tell you the truth, it's hard to tell when you guys are serious, just pulling my chain, or have no clue what I'm talking about.

Your word choices, how fast you guys come back with an answer, desires to steer the conversation away from the points I make, refusals to answer my questions, pleas for definitions of words, etc., all show me you have no idea what I'm saying.

And asking me questions, then telling me I'm 'making it up' before you [guys] even hear my answer is pretty infantile.

No, you guys are a long way from convincing me I'm wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll answer these since AVET doesn't want to (and yes I am serious):



New Jersey.



Neptune



To act as a warning to Fallen Angels

Not bad --- now show my justification.

 

[sandwiches]

You guys haven't even come close to convincing me of anything.

To tell you the truth, it's hard to tell when you guys are serious, just pulling my chain, or have no clue what I'm talking about.

Your word choices, how fast you guys come back with an answer, desires to steer the conversation away from the points I make, refusals to answer my questions, pleas for definitions of words, etc., all show me you have no idea what I'm saying.

And asking me questions, then telling me I'm 'making it up' before you [guys] even hear my answer is pretty infantile.

No, you guys are a long way from convincing me I'm wrong.

Does that mean you're gonna respond to my posts or just keep conveniently ignoring them?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

You guys haven't even come close to convincing me of anything.

To tell you the truth, it's hard to tell when you guys are serious, just pulling my chain, or have no clue what I'm talking about.

Your word choices, how fast you guys come back with an answer, desires to steer the conversation away from the points I make, refusals to answer my questions, pleas for definitions of words, etc., all show me you have no idea what I'm saying.

And asking me questions, then telling me I'm 'making it up' before you [guys] even hear my answer is pretty infantile.

No, you guys are a long way from convincing me I'm wrong.

Actually, it's you that doesn't have a clue as to what you're talking about. "EA" has been soundly defeated at every turn, and rather than concede defeat, or at the very least admit where EA could be wrong, you just stand in a corner spouting nonsense, and then are genuinely confused when we don't agree with you. Crazy, huh?

 

[MoonLancer]

Well on that subject, you don't have to be deceptive to make a replicated apple. I mean, a replicated apple, assuming a perfect copy, would be an apple just like any others. There's no deception there. It is, in fact, an apple and it is in fact mature. If you're saying that you try to pass it off as an apple that fell from a tree, then that's specific intent. We would have to show that this Christian god had the intent of deceiving people into thinking the Earth is 4.5billion years old. And more to the point, it really would be, in the sense that it would have gone through all the transformations that it would have if it had taken 4.5billion year to get to this point. However, there's still history.

If, as AV is claiming, his god, through the Bible, indicated that world is only 6,000 years old, then there'd be no deceit as he would've specifically told us that the world is only 6,000 years old even though it appears much older.

I think that AV's idea would be more accurately described as Embedded Maturity: Maturity without Age. History is an inseparable part of maturity, however. No way around that.

I am afraid to say that its not that simple because there are many factors at work that correlate that shouldn't if god embed the age and history into the world but was not being deceptive about it.


also the bible wouldn't say this, which i think is more direct then the shaky genealogy that av is basing his date on. God never says how old the world is. Man says how old God says the world is.

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.

thus at the very least, the age of the universe can be seen in the stars and i know its not 6100 years old

 

[Nathan Poe]

You guys haven't even come close to convincing me of anything.

Not surprising.

To tell you the truth, it's hard to tell when you guys are serious, just pulling my chain, or have no clue what I'm talking about.

How about "not care one whit except for entertainment?"

And asking me questions, then telling me I'm 'making it up' before you [guys] even hear my answer is pretty infantile.

Perhaps you're just too predictable?

 

[Cabal]

Your word choices, how fast you guys come back with an answer, desires to steer the conversation away from the points I make, refusals to answer my questions, pleas for definitions of words, etc., all show me you have no idea what I'm saying.

All of which you do on a regular basis in most other threads on most other subjects, so maybe you're not in a position to be pointing fingers on whether people are clueless?

 

[Sophophile]

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation:

1. Definition = maturity without history

Dear AV1611VET

Hope you are well.

I haven't had the chance to read right through this thread, but ...

Last time we went over your Embedded Age concept I demonstrated how astronomical observations of supernovas directly refute Embedded Age, because they are direct observations of history stretching back at least 168,000 years.

I asked you, in accordance with your Embedded Age concept, when did supernova 1987A explode. Your answer was: I don't know.

In my book, this was equivalent to conceding the point that Embedded Age does not reconcile with observed reality. So I left things there.

The beautiful thing about supernova 1987A is that it requires essentially no assumptions about distance, speed of light etc to determine that it exploded 168,000 years ago, other than the "assumption" that when we see something, it is real, and not an illusion of something that didn't actually happen. All you need to determine how long ago this star exploded, is the ability to measure an angle, and the ability to measure time (in this case, about 8 months). The rest is just trigonometry.

I know you don't like addressing astronomy AV1611VET, because apart from it being an ancient and noble art, astronomical observations are direct observations of the past. We can see with our own eyes events and processes that occurred hundreds of thousands, millions and even billiions of years ago.

Of course, you have every right to claim that when we make astronomical observations of events from millions of years ago, we are seeing "illusions" of events that never occurred. And I will be the first to point out that this does not reconcile your interpretation of scripture with observed reality, because "reconciling" means taking direct observations seriously, not just dismissing them as illusory.

So, I will ask again: According to the Embedded Age concept, when did supernova 1987A explode?

Thanks and regards
Sophophile

 

[AV1611VET]

So, I will ask again: According to the Embedded Age concept, when did supernova 1987A explode?

9

 

[sandwiches]

9

Why link to a thread where you were refuted? Is it just to save yourself the time of being refuted again?

 

[Tiberius]

AV, I have some questions for you...

Over in your Adam and Eve thread I asked you:

Okay, so just to clarify, AV, you would say that God created the world about 6000 years ago, and starting from the moment he created it, it was 4.5 billion years old. Correct?

You said that this was correct.

Then I asked:

Thanks. Now, another question...

Now imagine two universes. One was created 6000 or so years ago as we said just now with the "embedded age" of billions of years, and the other has actually existed for those billions of years (it was created/came into being/whatever term applies to this particular universe all those billions of years ago - for the sake of a term, we'll call this "actual age").

Is there anything that could happen in the universe with the embedded age (that was created by God 6000 years ago) that could not happen in the universe with actual age (that was created billions of years ago)?

You failed to answer that. You said you were being choosy. So I'm asking you again, and I would appreciate an answer, or at least give me a good reason for not answering it.

However, I suggested a possible answer:

Why? It's a perfectly valid question.

However, let me answer it for you. You'll be welcome to tell me that I am wrong, provided you tell me why I am wrong.

You yourself have said several times that there's no evidence that the world was created by God 6000 years ago, apart from the Bible. If it wasn't for the Bible, all our investigations would show that the world is billions of years old.

However, if there was something that could happen in a universe that was created only 6000 years ago with embedded age that could NOT happen in a billions of years old universe, then this would violate your position.

So, your claim that there's no evidence apart from the Bible for a 6000 year old universe indicates that anything that can happen in a universe created 6000 years ago with embedded age can also happen in a universe that is billions of years old.

Would you agree with this? If you don't agree, why not?

You have yet to respond to this question as well.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Tiberius, I don't know how to answer that question.

I don't exactly understand it.

If you take two universes: one created ex nihilo w/embedded age, and the other created [however] --- can you tell them apart?

Is that the crux of your question?

If so, I don't know what you're looking for in an answer.

Here's a go at it, though:

Yes, if you're talking about one universe being sans God, they should be easy to tell apart.

Let's call the embedded age universe, Universe A, and the other one, Universe B.

• UA has angels in it, UB does not.
• UA has a supernatural Book, UB does not.
• UA has a nation that is indestructible, UB does not.
• UA has an empty tomb in it, UB does not.

Again, I don't know how to answer your question.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why link to a thread where you were refuted? Is it just to save yourself the time of being refuted again?

he is very thoughtful like that -- it's also convenient for people who need more material to lol at.

 

[MoonLancer]

9

nice, a qv of a qv only to go to a post about video that has no link. that was helpful...

 

[Sophophile]

9

Dear AV1611VET

Do not think I don't remember our discussions on the subject of SN1987A. Here is what I said on 19 August 2009 regarding the thread you linked above:

Unfortunately, as I explained above, the large amount of time you spent discussing this with Jester did not result in any reconciliation of our visual observations of supernovae with the young universe concept.

And thanks for your frank acknowledgement that you are "at a loss" to explain this. This leads to my crucial point: As an advocate of a 6000 year-old universe, you should be upfront about all the implications of your viewpoint. This includes the fact that your viewpoint necessarily requires that there be, throughout the universe, perfect illusions of events that never happened, or did not happen when and where we directly observe them to happen. In other words, the young-universe concept requires that we totally ignore directly observed evidence from the real world, sweep it under the rug, and pretend it doesn't exist.

Now, your most recent answer to the question of when did SN1987A explode was "I don't know."

The reason for this is, as I demonstrated, there is no way to reconcile our observations of the supernova with your Embedded Age concept. If there was a way to reconcile these things, your answer would be something other than "I don't know". So unless you can provide an answer other than "I don't know", I take it that you concede the point that Embedded Age does not reconcile with direct observations of reality.

I would be very happy to revisit the details of our direct observations of this supernova should your memory need to be refreshed.

Thanks and regards
S.

 

[Belk]

Originally Posted by Jester4kicks

Here's a video that explains it. Could you tell me how you resolve the conflict?

​

AV1611VET
Okay --- I watched the video and took notes --- let's resolve the conflict, shall we?

First of all, the emphasis has shifted from stars to a supernova.

I'll admit --- even I'm guilty of doing that, as you started out this whole conversation with questions about galaxies, and I shifted the emphasis to stars --- but now it looks like you want to talk about the supernova of one particular star.

Before we discuss something exploding, let's discuss how it got there in the first place --- deal?

At 1:28, he says this:

Therefore, using trigonometric calculations (which I'll spare you), we place the supernova's distance at 168,000 light-years.
​

So far, so good --- but then he says this:

This means that the universe is AT LEAST 168,000 years old.
​

No, it doesn't --- it means that God placed that star there when He configured the universe.

168,000 light years ≠ 168,000 years.

Moving on, he says:

This star exploded:

1. 168,000 years before 1987.
2. 32,000 years after modern humans evolved.
3. 162,000 years before creationists say God made the Universe.

​

And I say:

1. Baloney.
2. Baloney.
3. Baloney.

He is assuming that at the time that star was placed where it was, that's the time its light started out for the earth.

Now comes this doosey:

What is the mechanism that caused the speed of light to decay?

THEY HAVE NONE.
​

Well, I'm not a YEC, so I can't speak for them. I don't know what their position [no pun intended] is on this, but I can surmise that the "mechanism" that caused C to "decay" is God.

And I put "decay" in quotes, as I don't believe it decayed. One moment it is moving at the speed of the will of God, the next moment, it was moving at C --- (IOW, zero deacceleration).

At 2:47, he says this:

If the supernova is 168,000 light-years away, then for the light to get here in 6000 years it must have traveled an average of 28 times its current speed.
​

Again, if the supernova occurred BEFORE God began stretching the universe, then the star was much, much closer.

Before this guy takes on a YEC, he needs to do some more homework --- don't you think?

ETA: And he needs to quit assuming that stars came BEFORE starlight.

Post 1144

http://www.christianforums.com/t7324274-115/#post51188300

 

[Bushido216]

I'm praying this is Poe's law.

Please, please, please...

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason for this is, as I demonstrated, there is no way to reconcile our observations of the supernova with your Embedded Age concept. If there was a way to reconcile these things, your answer would be something other than "I don't know". So unless you can provide an answer other than "I don't know", I take it that you concede the point that Embedded Age does not reconcile with direct observations of reality.

The answer I'm giving is: "I don't know".

And if you're going to change "supernova" to "reality" --- go ahead --- but be forewarned that it is just going to come back on you and confuse you in the end.

I can't reconcile evolution with Embedded Age either; for obvious reasons.

So if you want to go with something other than, 'God did it', then you're not going to understand such concepts as:

1. stars being the homes of angels
2. the plan of salvation in the stars
3. supernovas testifying of God's judgment on the angels
4. etc.

In short, you will stunt your grown when it comes to learning the deeper concepts of Theology.

 

[MoonLancer]

I'm sorry but the bible disagrees with you on this subject

psalm 19:1-6

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.