My Igneous Challenge

[TLK Valentine]

So if I believe God embedded 4.47 billion years of age into the earth, I made that number up?

Or am I agreeing with the conclusion of science?

Since science never concluded that anything was "embedded," then yes, you're making that number up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because I'm a literalist, and that means my default position is literal, unless I have reason to believe otherwise.

Since parables are by definition made up stories you have reason to believe otherwise, or are you saying that the translators of the Bible did not know the correct English word to use. Even Jesus's disciples asked him why he taught using parables.

As I said, unless otherwise convinced, I'll take the view that they were real events.

But that is a unjustified standard. You seem to put some special trust in the translators of the King James Bible. Surely they knew what the word "parable" meant. They would not have used a word that means "made up story to get a moral point across" for a fact by your standards.

I won't.

There's no reason to have to say it.

But you have. Every time that you say God "embedded" an age that is the same as saying that he led.

Until you can demonstrate that you understand it, I'll take that comment with a grain of salt.

And if you do demonstrate that you understand it, I'll take that comment as blasphemy.

Now that makes no sense at all. If I show that you are calling God a liar by showing I understand how your "embedded" as nonsense does just that you want to charge me with blasphemy? If anything you should be charging yourself. I am not the one saying that God lied. I never believed such nonsense which is why I never believed in an embedded age.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since science never concluded that anything was "embedded," then yes, you're making that number up.

Interesting how you can justify a false accusation.

And for making that number up, don't you think it's a little coincidental that it just happens to agree with what scientists say?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting how you can justify a false accusation.

And for making that number up, don't you think it's a little coincidental that it just happens to agree with what scientists say?

For someone that supposedly is a fan of logic you do not seem to know how to use it. TLK made no false accusation.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Interesting how you can justify a false accusation.

Or a true one.

And for making that number up, don't you think it's a little coincidental that it just happens to agree with what scientists say?

Scientists never said anything about embedded numbers... you simply stole their real ones.

It's not a coincidence; you're just unoriginal.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists never said anything about embedded numbers...

Good.

All they have to do is supply me with the number I should use, and I'll take care of explaining the rest.

HOWEVER, that's why I came up with the formula for determining the amount of embedded age.

You know -- for inquiring minds?

Now you don't need me to calculate it for you anymore.

Just use the formula yourself.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Good.

All they have to do is supply me with the number I should use, and I'll take care of explaining the rest.

HOWEVER, that's why I came up with the formula for determining the amount of embedded age.

You know -- for inquiring minds?

Now you don't need me to calculate it for you anymore.

Just use the formula yourself.

Very well.

4.7 billion real years + 0 "embedded" years = 4.7 billion years.

There now -- wasn't that easier?

 

[AV1611VET]

Very well.

4.7 billion real years + 0 "embedded" years = 4.7 billion years.

There now -- wasn't that easier?

For you, maybe.

It's hard to understand, isn't it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

For you, maybe.

It's hard to understand, isn't it?

It's always difficult to justify adding made up information where it's not needed. The mental contortions that many Christians -- present company included -- put themselves through would be impressive if they were only necessary.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's always difficult to justify adding made up information where it's not needed. The mental contortions that many Christians -- present company included -- put themselves through would be impressive if they were only necessary.

So not only is it hard for you to understand, but you can't tell me it's hard for you to understand?

Help me out here.

I'm trying to understand.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So not only is it hard for you to understand, but you can't tell me it's hard for you to understand?

Help me out here.

I'm trying to understand.

It's hard for you to understand because you're making up facts in order to justify a conclusion. You make it difficult for everyone (including yourself) because you don't want anyone (including yourself) to understand the facts, only to accept them.

If only you were interested in truth, the facts would be easy for you to understand.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's hard for you to understand because you're making up facts in order to justify a conclusion.

A simple formula is hard to understand?

And why do you keep turning this around on to me?

I'm giving you a chance to shine here, but now you want to talk about me.

And incorrectly too -- as I understand it well.

I'm trying to ascertain if you do, but apparently you want to talk about your favorite subject: me.

 

[TLK Valentine]

A simple formula is hard to understand?

The formula is easy -- the need to add made up "embedded" numbers is the difficult part.

And why do you keep turning this around on to me?

Because you're having difficulty understanding the simple concept -- made up numbers are not necessary for the formula.

I've already shown this: 4.7 billion real years + 0 embedded years = 4.7 billion years.

Why make it more complicated than the truth? What do you gain?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread had a small clean up. Please remember to discuss the content of a post and not the member.

Also, the blasphemy rule is still in effect.

 

[AV1611VET]

The formula is easy -- the need to add made up "embedded" numbers is the difficult part.

Hmmm.

The formula is easy, yet you misquote it (as usual).

I'm not familiar with a plus sign in my formula, that now you seem to think is "easy."

Because you're having difficulty understanding the simple concept -- made up numbers are not necessary for the formula.

LOL

I'm the one having difficulty here?

I've already shown this: 4.7 billion real years + 0 embedded years = 4.7 billion years.

That's your formula -- not mine.

Mine is hard for you to understand ... remember?

Why make it more complicated than the truth? What do you gain?

What do I gain?

The chance to expose you as someone so desperate to make me look wrong, he ends up hoisting himself by his own petard.

 

[whois]

If only you were interested in truth, the facts would be easy for you to understand.

the truth?
what do you make of the following truth:
"there is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and no empirical evidence that they do so."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Hmmm.

The formula is easy, yet you misquote it (as usual).

I'm not familiar with a plus sign in my formula, that now you seem to think is "easy."

Why don't you repost your formula, then?

LOL

I'm the one having difficulty here?

As always.

That's your formula -- not mine.

Mine is hard for you to understand ... remember?

Repost it, and I'll point out the problems.

What do I gain?

The chance to expose you as someone so desperate to make me look wrong, he ends up hoisting himself by his own petard.

And all it cost you is the truth -- you must be proud of yourself.

 

[TLK Valentine]

the truth?
what do you make of the following truth:
"there is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and no empirical evidence that they do so."

Half-truth, you mean.

I think the quote is a lot more interesting when it's not mined.

"There is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and no empirical evidence that they do so. Nevertheless, eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotic ones, animals and plants are more complex than protists, and so on. This increase in complexity may have been achieved as a result of a series of major evolutionary transitions. These involved changes in the way information is stored and transmitted."

 

[AV1611VET]

Repost it, and I'll point out the problems.

Physical Age - Existential Age = Embedded Age

 

[whois]

Half-truth, you mean.

I think the quote is a lot more interesting when it's not mined.

"There is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and no empirical evidence that they do so. Nevertheless, eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotic ones, animals and plants are more complex than protists, and so on. This increase in complexity may have been achieved as a result of a series of major evolutionary transitions. These involved changes in the way information is stored and transmitted."

well?
where is the empirical evidence?