"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

AV1611VET · Mar 7, 2009

Split Rock said:
By the very nature of your model, it makes predictions. We have just pointed those predictions out to you.

Oh, my.

Please do tell me what prediction Embedded Age should make.

Just one please.

AV1611VET · Mar 7, 2009

Split Rock said:
Then you have just condemned your precious Embedded Age model to the scrap bin, where it apparently belongs.

I'm sure it's not there alone in you guys' eyes.

It's there with the Cross, and the 10 Commandments, and Noah's Ark --- right?

(Please answer this.)

Split Rock said:
Better tell your pastor, so he can stop teaching it.

Um ... no ... science condemns a lot of stuff to the scrap bin.

It's called "entropy" --- and God is going to step in and put a stop to it.

Hespera · Mar 7, 2009

I guess its not enough just to say the obvious, that "embedded age" is wrong because it is just plain dumb?

AV1611VET · Mar 7, 2009

Please don't try and convince me it's wrong, when you guys can't convince me you know what it is.

Tomk80 · Mar 7, 2009

Cabal said:
Case in point.

It's basically the same point every single time. AV says the earth shows "age" (or at least, his never-defined particular version of it), but not history. Whenever confronted with the fact that the methods through which age is shown, also show history, he runs away.

AV1611VET · Mar 7, 2009

Tomk80 said:
Whenever confronted with the fact that the methods through which age is shown, also show history, he runs away.

Do I look like I'm running away?

I'll say this much, I see you guys go offline a lot more than you see me go offline.

Case in point:

AV1611VET said:
(Please answer this.)

Split Rock

ragarth · Mar 7, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Please don't try and convince me it's wrong, when you guys can't convince me you know what it is.

I'll happily admit I have no bliming clue what it is. It relies on a redefinition of the terms 'age' and 'history' so as to make it senseless. It has no basis in reality whatsoever whether that reality be here on planet earth, out bowing to Master Xenu, or any form of semantic reality. Youv'e effectively defined your 'embedded age' hypothesis in such a way as to make it impossible to make sense, period. Every q&a in this thread I've done with you has been an honest attempt to put together what embedded age is, and each time it has failed because it makes about as much logical sense as my saying:

"God exists because my toes smell like the number 2."

Now I go back to trying to track down my first aid kit so I can go to Glasgow and hike the Falling Water Cascades. ^^ I hate it when I lose medical supplies. -.-

BananaSlug · Mar 7, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Oh, my.

Please do tell me what prediction Embedded Age should make.

Just one please.

Assumption 1: The Earth was created in 4004B.C. with 4.5 billion years of embedded age.

Assumption 2: For "embedded age" to work, we must accept the various methods science uses to date rock, since it shows how old God created them.

Prediction: Though the earth itself is 4.5 billion years old we should find no evidence of history past approximately 6000 years ago.

Observation: We have found many fossils and evidence of past events from well past 6,000 years ago (which was the entire point of the OP).

And I find it funny that you accept the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old yet you tell the methods we use to tell us that age to "take a hike." You can't accept what science says but tell it to "take a hike" at the same time.

There is the one prediction you asked for, the prediction that the entire thread was based around. What say you? I understand "embedded age" completely but there are enough holes in it to drive a Winnebago through.

ragarth · Mar 7, 2009

Embedded Age as I understand it:

The Premise: "The earth was created to have an old age, but have no history from the moment of creation"

The Assumptions:
The age of the earth is measured by looking at the effects of the earth's long existence, these effects show a history of activity upon and within the earth, therefore we measure the age of the earth by looking at the earth's history.

Real age is measured from the point of creation, irregardless of observational measurement, and perceived age is the result of observational measurement regardless of the point of creation.

Prediction: If the earth has a real age of around 6000 years, then the earth should have no historical evidence showing an observational age older than 6000 years

Result: historical evidence exists showing the earth to be older than 6000 years, therefore the earth has a history dating back beyond 6000 years.

Conclusion: The Embedded Age hypothesis is false, it makes predictions which are clearly falsified by observational evidence.

Hespera · Mar 7, 2009

Here is something to consider. Perhaps with AV, his faith is an all or nothing thing.

If even one article of that faith could be falsified, even the tiniest thing, perhaps it would shatter the whole structure.

He and I are not on speaking terms, but maybe someone could find out if that is the case.

See, the thing is that IF that it true, then two things seem to me to follow.

One is, he will always find a way out of any logical contradiction, fact, data point, anything because he HAS to find a way out.

I am reminded of the guy i beat in Jr. High, in chess. But he defeated my winning move with a countermove that is against the rules. I protested; he said he was playing with "French rules". See? You can never win with some people.

The other thing I think about here is, suppose someone actually did somehow cause AV to see the light, that 2 plus 2 really is 4 and there is now way out of it.

Then what happens to his faith? I dont know if its really right to doggedly pursue this effort to make him see that his ideas dont make sense. A person might want to consider the possible consequences some more before continuing.

AV1611VET · Mar 7, 2009

ragarth said:
I'll happily admit I have no bliming clue what it is.

Well --- I've got a good idea, Ragarth.

Let's keep the teaching of the Creation out of the schools, so you guys can be proud of your "bliming" ignorance.

Then you can explain to your kids why you don't want it taught in school, but spend a large amount of time on the Internet asking us questions about it.

How's that?

Split Rock · Mar 7, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Oh, my.

Please do tell me what prediction Embedded Age should make.

Just one please.

Have you not been paying attention?

One More Time.

1. There should be no History recorded in the geology of the earth older than about 6,000 years.

2. Nothing created by God during the Creation Week should show History.

Your model fails on both counts.

AV1611VET said:
I'm sure it's not there alone in you guys' eyes.

It's there with the Cross, and the 10 Commandments, and Noah's Ark --- right?

(Please answer this.)

These are not models, AVET. They are either historical events or ethical rules.

AV1611VET said:
Um ... no ... science condemns a lot of stuff to the scrap bin.

Only those ideas that make predictions about what we find in the physical world, and fail.

AV1611VET said:
It's called "entropy" --- and God is going to step in and put a stop to it.

Enropy is one of those evil scientific terms... why are you using it?

AV1611VET said:
Do I look like I'm running away?

I'll say this much, I see you guys go offline a lot more than you see me go offline.

Case in point:

Split Rock

Oh please... I went to eat breakfast. I never claimed to spend anywhere near the amount of time you do here, AVET.

fantascey · Mar 7, 2009

Hespera said:
Here is something to consider. Perhaps with AV, his faith is an all or nothing thing.

If even one article of that faith could be falsified, even the tiniest thing, perhaps it would shatter the whole structure.

He and I are not on speaking terms, but maybe someone could find out if that is the case.

See, the thing is that IF that it true, then two things seem to me to follow.

One is, he will always find a way out of any logical contradiction, fact, data point, anything because he HAS to find a way out.

I am reminded of the guy i beat in Jr. High, in chess. But he defeated my winning move with a countermove that is against the rules. I protested; he said he was playing with "French rules". See? You can never win with some people.

The other thing I think about here is, suppose someone actually did somehow cause AV to see the light, that 2 plus 2 really is 4 and there is now way out of it.

Then what happens to his faith? I dont know if its really right to doggedly pursue this effort to make him see that his ideas dont make sense. A person might want to consider the possible consequences some more before continuing.

well i think she's right. don't push too hard. instead... i would go with another topic of debate.

Split Rock · Mar 7, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Well --- I've got a good idea, Ragarth.

Let's keep the teaching of the Creation out of the schools, so you guys can be proud of your "bliming" ignorance.

Then you can explain to your kids why you don't want it taught in school, but spend a large amount of time on the Internet asking us questions about it --- like good hypocrites should.

How's that?

1. FYI: I received a warning for using the word "hypocrite."

2. If you would stop using "embedded age," I will agree not to discuss it anymore either.

fantascey · Mar 7, 2009

and what? are there really different rules in chess for the french??!! no fair! what was the move?

AV1611VET · Mar 7, 2009

Split Rock said:
1. FYI: I received a warning for using the word "hypocrite."

Okay, thank you --- I'll withdraw it.

Split Rock · Mar 7, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Okay, thank you --- I'll withdraw it.

No problema, dude.

ragarth · Mar 7, 2009

fantascey said:
and what? are there really different rules in chess for the french??!! no fair! what was the move?

"French rules" is an old joke, referring to the English stereotype during the renaissance that the french cheat, so when you're doing something obviously against the rules, you say 'french rules' and it's meant to be funny.

And with that! It's off to Glasgow I go! Fallingwater Overlook on the blue ridge parkway near Peaks of Otter, milemarker 83.1 if I'm correct. I'll be stopping at Gander Mountain to buy some trail rations and new medkit and e-kit since my own have taken a hike without me, it seems. I'll post pictures if I get any good ones, I've never been to the water falls in this area before so I dunno how great they look, the cascades are supposed to be 200 feet long. The Apple-Orchard Falls (really it's a redwood forest area) is a 150 foot fall so should be more spectacular, but harder to get to. One is rated 'moderate' and the other 'strenuous' this should be fun!

pgp_protector · Mar 7, 2009

AV1611VET said:
That's the point --- you guys are trying so hard to change Embedded Age into Omphalos, that you don't even care to understand what Embedded Age is.

You just automatically assume it's wrong, irrespective of what it is.

I do the same with deep history --- dismissing it out-of-hand.

Old things would bother me if I was a YEC, but I'm not a YEC, and therefore I couldn't care less how old an object is.

Simple, Embed age is a Lie from the Devil.

Cabal · Mar 7, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Well, now, ain't that a pity --- last time I checked, I couldn't see anything resembling deep history. Looks like we're at an impasse, eh?

You're the literalist - apparently. Think that's the bigger issue here.

AV1611VET said:
So much for "proper discussion" then --- that just breaks my achy-breaky heart.

Hey, we're not the ones telling related points to take a hike.

"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Titleless

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Life is an experiment, experience it!

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

Well-Known Member

Conflation of Blathers

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

Well-Known Member

Noted strange person

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency