My Embedded Age Challenge

[Nathan Poe]

Read Hoehner first and we'll talk.

While I'm sure that vain arguments to authority have served you well in the past, I am not so easily impressed.

If Hoehner has addressed, explained, or refuted any of the points I've brought up here, kindly post a quote, or at the very least, a link.

If he has not, then neither he nor you have nothing much to say.

And you forgot to document your points. Please provide.

Point #1 -- you're asking me to document a negative?

Point #2 -- Roman Taxes

"By 167 B.C. the Republic had enriched itself greatly through a series of conquests. Gains such as the silver and gold mines in Spain created an excellent source of revenue for the state, and a much larger tax base through its provincial residents. By this time, Rome no longer needed to levy a tax against its citizens in Italy and looked only to the provinces for collections.

With expansion, Roman censors found that accurate census taking in the provinces was a difficult task at best. To ease the strain, taxes were assessed as a tithe on entire communities rather than on individuals. Tax assessments in these communities fell under the jurisdiction of Provincial governors and various local magistrates, using rules similar to the old system."

Point #3 -- use your head, man! But if you insist, you might want to consider reading James Dunn's Jesus Remembered:

"We know nothing of a universal census throughout the Roman Empire, then or earilier. And the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ansestors is hard to credit. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Luke was mistaken in dating the census so early (Luke 2:1-2) as he also was in his reference to Theudas in Acts 5:36-37."

Jesus remembered - Google Books (P. 344)

Well, Steve -- I've posted facts, links, and relevant information. Time for you to show me you've got something to talk about.

And do try to keep in mind -- this is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[drstevej]

While I'm sure that vain arguments to authority have served you well in the past, I am not so easily impressed.

Not interested in further discussion with you. Have a good day.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you can't explain why it isn't deception, then?

That's easy -- it's simply an optical illusion, created by a man-made paradigm.

You're trained to assume that the water at Point B got there from Point A, but you're not trained in the area of exceptions.

Thus, anyone bringing a completed waterfall into existence in a moment of time would be considered doing an act of deception.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not interested in further discussion with you. Have a good day.

I know the feeling --

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not interested in further discussion with you. Have a good day.

I didn't expect you to be under any circumstances -- peace out.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's easy -- it's simply an optical illusion, created by a man-made paradigm.

You're trained to assume that the water at Point B got there from Point A, but you're not trained in the area of exceptions.

Thus, anyone bringing a completed waterfall into existence in a moment of time would be considered doing an act of deception.

And would be, at that.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I know the feeling --

From which end?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

That's easy -- it's simply an optical illusion, created by a man-made paradigm.

You're trained to assume that the water at Point B got there from Point A, but you're not trained in the area of exceptions.

Thus, anyone bringing a completed waterfall into existence in a moment of time would be considered doing an act of deception.

Water travels according to the known laws of physics. You have failed to demonstrate just once where there would be exception. Please show peer reviewed documentation where anyone brought a completed waterfall into existence in a moment of time. I'd like to see that.

What you guys call being trained in the areas of exceptions, we call accepting myths and fairytales at face value.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Not interested in further discussion with you. Have a good day.

Yes. We know.

 

[sandwiches]

That's easy -- it's simply an optical illusion, created by a man-made paradigm.

You're trained to assume that the water at Point B got there from Point A, but you're not trained in the area of exceptions.

Thus, anyone bringing a completed waterfall into existence in a moment of time would be considered doing an act of deception.

Don't sidestep the question. This is about motive not perception. What is the motive behind making the world look old and then saying it isn't, behind leaving fragments of ancient animals that were never alive, behind making all living organisms fit nicely in a nested hierarchy, behind leaving the same viral DNA in what we had already determined to be our distant relatives and humans, behind sorting all fossils in a chronological and evolutionary order?

 

[Nathan Poe]

170 posts and counting, and not a single answer as to how belief in embedded age advances man's understanding of God.

I wish I was disappointed.

 

[Delphiki]

That's easy -- it's simply an optical illusion, created by a man-made paradigm.

You're trained to assume that the water at Point B got there from Point A, but you're not trained in the area of exceptions.

Thus, anyone bringing a completed waterfall into existence in a moment of time would be considered doing an act of deception.

Here's the problem. You're saying this doesn't make you a YEC. However, the waterfall, having been created all at once, only appears to have been created in order.

Just like you're saying the earth is 6000 years old but was created to only appear older -- that is still a model of a young earth. Hence, you are a YEC.

 

[student ad x]

-MOD HAT ON-

Due to multiple reported posts, a consensus of Moderators have determined to permanently close this thread.
CF Rules


-MOD HAT OFF-
​