My [playing card] Challenge

[AV1611VET]

You seem to assume that I was never faithful. Guess what, Genesis didn't make a bit of sense then either.

So you are familiar with embedded age, then?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you are familiar with embedded age, then?

Everyone has known about it since 1857. See attachment.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I'll welcome any explanation that doesn't disrespect a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and if you say that it's the literal interpretation that's the problem, then please have the courtesy to tell me that you would expect me to adhere to embedded-age creation. Wouldn't you, if you took the Bible literally?

Honestly no I would not. I would say that the bible does not tell us how old the earth is. The problem with the age isn't that you take the bible literally but that you believe some man that said the bible says that the earth is 6100 years old. The bible does not say this at all.

Apparently someone chose one of the geneologies from the NT and assigned a numeric value to a generation added them together and filled in the gaps. This is the first major problem as those generations are of various numbers of years and can not accurately be assigned a numeric value as a whole. The second problem is that the books of the NT give different numbers of generations. If memory serves there is a difference of 14 generations between Matthew and Luke. The thrid problem is that Peter tells us that we should not be ignorant of the fact that a day with God is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day.

The other problems arise in Genesis itself even though people read it as 6 days of creation it does not literally say this. It says in the begining God created the heavens and the earth. There is no time frame here at all other than in the begining, this could have taken any lenght of time. We do not see the first day until aroud verse 5. People just assume that everything prior to this happened on the first day. I find this to be an odd assumption.

Then when we move on to Genesis 2 we see a different order of events if we also read this literally then we are left in conflict and we should clearly see that the bible does not give us a literally accurate description of creation at all.

 

[[serious]]

"Fair enough, then let's see you explain how a person can hold a rock in one hand that's 10 million years old, and a Bible in the other that shows this earth as having been in existence for only 6100.

I'll welcome any explanation that doesn't disrespect a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and if you say that it's the literal interpretation that's the problem, then please have the courtesy to tell me that you would expect me to adhere to embedded-age creation. Wouldn't you, if you took the Bible literally?"

I'm not criticizing you for what youj believe. If you simply say "I believe in embedded age" I would consider your position much more reasonable than most creationists. However, trying to argue for creationism from embedded age is rather problematic. It is the form of your argument I criticize.

 

[justsomefool]

The other problems arise in Genesis itself even though people read it as 6 days of creation it does not literally say this. It says in the begining God created the heavens and the earth. There is no time frame here at all other than in the begining, this could have taken any lenght of time. We do not see the first day until aroud verse 5. People just assume that everything prior to this happened on the first day. I find this to be an odd assumption.

Good point. I can't believe that i have read as many posts on this subject as i have and this is the first time that i have seen this point expressed!

 

[AV1611VET]

If you simply say "I believe in embedded age" I would consider your position much more reasonable than most creationists.

I believe in embedded age.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So you are familiar with embedded age, then?

Hey, AV, are you ever going to answer my question... what will you do when a police officer wrongly arrests you for a crime, and refuses to accept that all the exculpatory evidence is valid, because he KNOWS that he is right, even before looking at the evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, AV, are you ever going to answer my question... what will you do when a police officer wrongly arrests you for a crime, and refuses to accept that all the exculpatory evidence is valid, because he KNOWS that he is right, even before looking at the evidence?

Well, I imagine I'm going to go to jail, am I not?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Well, I imagine I'm going to go to jail, am I not?

Well I would imagine that's so.

And you think this a superior model to the "look at the evidence and THEN make a decision" model?

Seriously?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well I would imagine that's so.

And you think this a superior model to the "look at the evidence and THEN make a decision" model?

Seriously?

As long as you deny that the perpetrator of the "crime" left a note so the "police" could attribute said "crime" to the right person, you're not going to understand what really happened.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

As long as you deny that the perpetrator of the "crime" left a note so the "police" could attribute said "crime" to the right person, you're not going to understand what really happened.

You mean "the police received an anonymous letter from someone who doesn't know any details about the crime but claims to be the perpetrator", which is, incidentally, exactly what happens in every high-profile investigation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean "the police received an anonymous letter from someone who doesn't know any details about the crime but claims to be the perpetrator", which is, incidentally, exactly what happens in every high-profile investigation.

No, I meant just what I said. You sound like a defense attorney.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

As long as you deny that the perpetrator of the "crime" left a note so the "police" could attribute said "crime" to the right person, you're not going to understand what really happened.

ok, so lets use your note in our analogy...


a police officer arrests you for a crime that you didn't commit. He has a note that places the blame on you, however all available forensic, eyewitness, balistic, financial and alibi evidence shows you are innocent. However, the police officer has this note and refuses to look at any other evidence, because his belief that the note is a REAL confession from the REAL criminal is absolutely unchalengable.

Do you think his investigation technique is still appropriate/

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No, I meant just what I said. You sound like a defense attorney.

I know that you meant it. It's just not applicable to the situation we have in the real world.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know that you meant it. It's just not applicable to the situation we have in the real world.

That's because you deny the existence of the Author.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That's because you deny the existence of the Author.

thats because there is no empirical evidence to suggest an author.

 

[FishFace]

That's because you deny the existence of the Author.

No, of course there was an author. We just disagree on the identity. So, again, we have a poor situation - the police have a note claiming to be written by the perpetrator, and claiming to be you. They hold this as the unchallengeable truth, in spite of all the evidence already mentioned (forensic, alibi, ballistics)

This doesn't seem to be a good technique, don't you agree?

 

[milkyway]

That's because you deny the existence of the Author.

It's not denying the author as such. It's that the author is incredibly shy and hasn't left an iota of empirical evidence to show he exists.

So with the evidence we do have, it's very unlikely the author exists other than in the mind of the believer.

 

[AV1611VET]

thats because there is no empirical evidence to suggest an author.

A note with no author?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

A note with no author?

Oh come ON... you KNOW that isn't an appropriate spin to the metaphore... *sigh* but if you INSIST on being pedantic...

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that the author of the note had any relation whatsoever to anyone associated with the commission of the crime