My New Apple Challenge

[AV1611VET]

I have a feeling you don't even know what it is; but that's certainly not stopping you from criticizing it, is it?

You're certainly not alone here.

I know exactly what your embedded age idea is, but you are deliberately using a misleading and incorrect use of English to make it sound as if your position isn't straightforward young earth creationism, which it is.

I rest my case.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I rest my case.

Then it is the fault of your misleading and incorrect use of English.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then it is the fault of your misleading and incorrect use of English.

Until you come up with something better, I'll just stick with what I got.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Until you come up with something better, I'll just stick with what I got.

I have already told you how you are not describing what you believe correctly. If you want to persevere with your misleading use of words then you are just being deliberately dishonest.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have already told you how you are not describing what you believe correctly.

That's your problem, not mine.

If you want to persevere with your misleading use of words then you are just being deliberately dishonest.

I don't think the problem lies on my end, chief; but you're certainly welcome to your opinion of my honesty.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

That's your problem, not mine.

Your misleading use of English is my problem? I see.

I don't think the problem lies on my end, chief;

It does.

but you're certainly welcome to your opinion of my honesty.

If you persist in saying you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old when in fact you believe it is only about 6000 years old then it is difficult to come to any other conclusion. If instead you were to say you believe god created the earth 6000 years ago with the appearance of being 4.5 billion years old then you would be stating your position correctly.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you persist in saying you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old when in fact you believe it is only about 6000 years old then it is difficult to come to any other conclusion.

I don't though, do I?

In fact, I have never said the earth is only about 6000 years old, have I?

I did say it is existentially about 6000 years old, but that's a far cry from saying it is physically about 6000 years old.

And if you don't know the difference ... well ... that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I don't though, do I?

In fact, I have never said this universe is only about 6000 years old, have I?

I did say it is existentially about 6000 years old, but that's a far cry from saying it is physically about 6000 years old.

And if you don't know the difference ... well ... that's your problem, not mine.

If you believe the earth/universe was created 6000 years ago then you believe it is 6000 years old. You may believe it has the appearance of being older embedded in it, fine, but you believe it is 6000 years old. And that is young earth creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you believe the earth/universe was created 6000 years ago then you believe it is 6000 years old. You may believe it has the appearance of being older embedded in it, fine, but you believe it is 6000 years old. And that is young earth creationism.

Like I said, the problem is on your end, not mine.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Like I said, the problem is on your end, not mine.

I have described your position accurately. You just don't like it.

 

[Split Rock]

Trying to find out what embedded age is good for without fully understanding what embedded age is, is like putting a prenatal drug on the market without fully understanding how it works.

You have yet to explain what "embedded age" is. You do not seem to know anymore than I do. And no, saying "age without history" does not explain what embedded age IS. Therefore I suppose we should conclude that you don't know what embedded age is good for either.

 

[AV1611VET]

And no, saying "age without history" does not explain what embedded age IS.

How about "maturity without history"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about "maturity without history"?

That would of course be fine. That is if you would admit that our world does not have an embedded age since it clearly has a history. By your very own standards the Earth is an old world, probably 4.55 Billion years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is if you would admit that our world does not have an embedded age since it clearly has a history.

No, thanks.

Your version of history, with atom-to-adam evolution over billions of years, can take a hike.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, thanks.

Your version of history, with atom-to-adam evolution over billions of years, can take a hike.

So what is your claim now? Are you going to come up with some other excuse than embedded history? Are you going to say that God lies? Or are you just going to lie?

By the way, no evolutionist claims atoms to Adam evolution. No more than they claim Atoms to Ask, Atoms to Pangu, Atoms to Mannus, or countless other mythological beings.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, no evolutionist claims atoms to Adam evolution.

Really? not even Theistic Evolutionists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? not even Theistic Evolutionists?

On an individual scale some unlearned people may believe it. I would think that most would realize that the Adam and Eve story is just a myth, just as the Noah's flood story is just a myth.

 

[AV1611VET]

On an individual scale some unlearned people may believe it. I would think that most would realize that the Adam and Eve story is just a myth, just as the Noah's flood story is just a myth.

How about y-Adam?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about y-Adam?

Do you mean y-chromosomal Adam? You do realize that he and mitochondrial Eve never met right?

 

[Belk]

I've asked this before, but I'll ask it again:

What is this dating method that would date Adam at one day old, and the universe at 4.57 billion years?

Not entirely sure I understand what you are asking for with this question. Are you asking if there is a single dating method that would do this? No there is not. Or are you asking if embedded age were true would we expect these disparate answers. No we would not.

If neither of those are what you are asking let me know and I will try to answer as best I can.

And if you have a machine that only measures history (and embedded age = zero history), then of course it would return a value of 'one day.'

You certainly wouldn't expect it to show 20 or 30 years of history, would you?

Correct, we would not expect 20 or 30 years we would expect an answer of one day. Hence why I have issues with embedded age. Even if God embedded age into the universe we would not know it since we can only measure the history of an objects breakdown of isotopes. Therefore we would only see the age of 6000 or so years.