Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

Take care.

You too ---

 

[Mike Elphick]

You make too much stuff up, AV.

When you ask good questions, then make statements like this, Mike, it provokes me not to answer.

Especially since you're judging my answers before I even answer them.

Ho Ho! All described "in detail in Genesis 1:1", Eh? Please show us:-

1. How do you know it was sea water without a solid interior and not just fresh water?
2. Where did the salts come from to make it "sea water"?
3. Where did the water come from?
4. Later in Genesis, God divided the water from the land. Where did the land come from and where did all the water go to? (Clue: the Earth must have expanded).
5. Where in Genesis does it tell us the "mass of water was in God's hand"?

I'm going to pretend like you really want to know and go ahead and answer them:

1. Sea water contains almost every element on the Periodic Table --- (if not every element). So when it was time to command the dry land to appear, all the elements had to do was come together into the right configuration, and land would appear. This is known as creatio ex materia.
2. Those came ex nihilo when God commanded the earth (then only water) to appear.
3. The water also came ex nihilo when God commanded the earth to appear.
   The land was dissolved in the water --- right down to the atomic level. When the time came, God called the land forth, and the atoms assembled into one giant landmass called Eden (or Pangaea). As the elements came together the earth would not have needed expand, as nothing is being added. In fact, the diameter of the earth decreased when God sheared off a layer of water and ballooned it out into space to become what we call a water canopy.
4. Isaiah 40:12

I'll demolish this stupidity using the solubility of iron and silicon as examples:-

I'm taking the mass of the Earth as 5.98 x 10^24 kg and the water content of the hydrosphere to be 1.41 x 10^21 kg. Since there is probably water present in the mantle, I'll be very generous and double this to 2.82 x 10^21 kg. I'm assuming also that "the waters above" were deposited back to Earth during the Fludd.

Iron
The most common element that makes up the Earth's composition is iron at 32.1%, thus there is 5.98 x 10^24 x .321 kg, or about 1.92 x 10^24 kg iron which would have to be dissolved in 2,82 x 10^21 kg of your "sea water". Put in terms of bucket chemistry this would be 680 kg iron dissolved in each litre water!

However, the maximum amount of ferric chloride you can get into solution (one of the most soluble iron salts) is 1 kg per litre at 100 degrees C. Of course, with all that oxygen about (30.1% of the Earth's mass) and water around, it would soon get converted into fairly insoluble oxides and hydroxides (rust).

Silicon
Silicon is the third most abundant element at 15.1% of the Earth's mass, 5.98 x 10^24 x .151 kg, or about 0.90 x 10^24 kg. This, in bucket chemistry terms, is 319 kg silicon per litre water!

Poor old silica, however, is particularly insoluble in water. Even as silicic acid, it has a very low solubility and it readily condenses to form silica gel, which is even more insoluble.

Conclusion
You (or your double-doctorate pastor) should stop making stuff up. Some people may even believe you!

I'm still wondering what all this has to do with the age of the Earth. BTW Isaiah is not Genesis, is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Incorrect, and easily provable.

Example: the question is "How much is 2+2?"

You say: 5
The Bible disagrees with you and says "17.5"
I disagree with both of you and say "42".

Why would I, a KJVO, say "5", if the KJV says "17.5"?

Conclusion: there can be more than two opposite opinions on a topic.

q.e.d.

It's too bad you guys have to resort to your conclusions before I even respond, isn't it?

Then you guys wonder why sometimes I choose not to.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll demolish this stupidity using the solubility of iron and silicon as examples:-

Good --- then there's no need for me to respond --- right?

I'll just quit before I embarrass myself even further.

How's that?

 

[Cabal]

It's too bad you guys have to resort to your conclusions before I even respond, isn't it?

Then you guys wonder why sometimes I choose not to.

The correct answer is: respond to the conclusions, a "rebuttal" if you will.

The incorrect answer is: playing the victim card, YET AGAIN

 

[Mike Elphick]

I'll demolish this stupidity using the solubility of iron and silicon as examples:-

Good --- then there's no need for me to respond --- right?

I'll just quit before I embarrass myself even further.

How's that?

It took just 10 minutes for you to come back with that! That's hardly long enough to read and digest what I wrote, never mind composing a reply. I bet you never got further than this first line and the 'red mist' came down.

But you're quite right, I don't want to hear any more deviations from the topic of embedded age, especially if they are as crazy as this one. We've been down the path of the Jewish homeland and now the Earth popping out of an impossibly hyper-saturated solution of insoluble compounds — not to mention the firmament you got us side-tracked into.

I believe you create these red-herrings because of your frustration at not being able to answer our questions, principally the ones about fossils, geology and cosmology.

 

[Sanguis]

I think this thread is a good indicator of why you joined here --- to pester us.

Life has its frustrations, and some people come here to take them out on others.

Not to learn.

I'm not taking my "frustrations" out on anyone.

I just find your whole world view hilarious.

I'm ambivalently laughing and crying. Laughing because of the stupidity of your claims, and crying because it's sad that someone is actually intellectually stunted enough to believe them.

 

[Freodin]

Why would I, a KJVO, say "5", if the KJV says "17.5"?

Because you missed the context of the "17." and focused solely on the "5" perhaps?

I don´t know, and I really don´t want to go down another derail.

But in the post I quoted, you stated that "us" disagreeing with the Bible would have to mean that we would have to agree with you, in the case the Bible disagreed with you. And this is all that I have shown incorrect.

Accept it, or show my reasoning to be wrong.

It's too bad you guys have to resort to your conclusions before I even respond, isn't it?

Then you guys wonder why sometimes I choose not to.

As my post quoted one of your "responses", I don´t see how this can be interpreted as "resorting to conclusions before [you] even respond".

But playing the victim is so much easier than to having face a mistake, isn´t it?

"I´m not wrong, I´m just persecuted!"

 

[CoderHead]

Why would I, a KJVO, say "5", if the KJV says "17.5"?

I'm just curious, then, if you agree with the KJV that Pi is equal to exactly 3?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Kings 7:23&version=KJV

 

[CoderHead]

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.

Interesting. If I may ask:

• Where are the angels, and how can you prove that Universe A has them/Universe B doesn't?
• Is it supernatural? How do you prove that? It's printed on normal paper and has no measurable powers, save the effect on susceptible people's minds.
• Which nation is that? Given the status of weaponry around the world and the sheer amount, I'd say no nation is currently indestructible.
• Which tomb would that be? Where is it? How do you know it's the one you're looking for?

 

[tanzanos]

My universe (universe "c") has Penthouse babes serving English breakfast, Oriental lunch, international supper, while all the time pampering me and offering themselves to me 24 -7. You can't beat that with any religion!

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm just curious, then, if you agree with the KJV that Pi is equal to exactly 3?

1

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't beat that with any religion!

Oh, I think Muhammad can give your Universe C a run.

I can almost hear him saying, "Pfft --- rookie."

 

[BananaSlug]

God just poofed up a bike that is 35 years old and covered with rust.
Though the object is brand new "existentially", it is 35 years physically.
How is the rust not evidence of a history?

 

[Split Rock]

Originally Posted by Split Rock

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.

Unfortunately, this does not surprise me.

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.

I am usually very serious with you, and I think most of the posts in this thread are also serious. I aslo think we understand you a lot better than you understand us.

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.

You are describing yourself better than us. Our word choices are for the sack of clarity and consistency. You seem to make your word choices for the exact opposite reasons... to sow confusion and make definitions subjective so that words mean whatever you want them to mean at the time. As far as our refusal to answer questions, you have yet to answer my question about prayer and whether it is possible that E.A. is wrong.

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

You do make up a lot of stuff, but I only tell you that after I read your answers.

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

This bring me to a question based on my earlier question that you still haven't answered. Feel free to answer this one if not the previous one. What would convince you that E.A. is wrong?

 

[chrisnu]

If there's any way you can get a copy of this book:

​

I would highly recommend you do so --- assuming you're really interested.

I don't want to read a book to find out what you're talking about. I would like these claims explained here. You're not getting off that easy.

Please tell me where in the Bible it says that angels literally live inside of stars.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I don't want to read a book to find out what you're talking about. I would like these claims explained here. You're not getting off that easy.

Please tell me where in the Bible it says that angels literally live inside of stars.

Unfortunately you'll probably not get a straight answer from him. He is master of using semantics to be elusive. Much of what he says makes sense to him, and he has neat and tidy explanations for his interpretations, but when held up to scrutiny, they fall apart, which is about the time he resorts to semantics and 'yoda-like' quips.

 

[CoderHead]

I don't want to read a book to find out what you're talking about.

Not to mention, what was asked was scriptural backing, not some person's thoughts on the matter in the form of a non-"divinely-inspired" book.

Please tell me where in the Bible it says that angels literally live inside of stars.

If that's not clear, I don't know what is. Of course, I expect a very liberal interpretation of a verse that doesn't actually say that.

 

[BananaSlug]

It's actually where it should be; but as usual, everyone wants to talk anything but the Creation Week, which is a subject that requires a high degree of concentration and discipline.

Like sheep who can't stay in their pasture, most people can't stay in Genesis 1 for anymore than two or three pages.

Then I get faced with a dilemma: go after them and beg them to come back, or let them stand at a distance and make noises.

This thread is an excellent example.

If I remember correctly, my questions for you were very pertinent. It doesn't really matter that fossils are not mentioned in Genesis 1. The fact is that we find fossils in rock that shouldn't have fossils (according to "embedded age"). How exactly did those fossils get inside of solid rock?

Now if you say "the flood did it" we have a problem. If there is evidence for a flood then it would be less that 6,000 years old. On top of that you say God "cleaned up" any evidence for the flood. So how exactly did those fossils get into rock that is older than 6100 years?

 

[hangback]

It's all getting very tedious now.