My Word Challenge

qualitas occulta · Nov 22, 2011

However, an "existential" basis of age is the only relevant thing when considering age, for existential age can always be defied and twisted. It's completely independent of temporality, and the basis of age is its relationship with time in the first place.

If you read between the lines, I never said I believed that Eve was formed from the rib of Adam. I merely said that within the allegory, that would be how I would interpret it on the basis of age.

I assume you've never done literary critique?

AV1611VET · Nov 22, 2011

qualitas occulta said:
However, an "existential" basis of age is the only relevant thing when considering age, for existential age can always be defied and twisted.

Not if it's kept in check by standards.

Anything can be twisted, but adhering to a literal interpretation of something forces even those hostile to it to admit to what it is saying -- even if they don't agree with what is being said.

I don't agree with what the serpent-beast told Eve in the garden, but I'm forced to believe he said it.

qualitas occulta said:
It's completely independent of temporality, and the basis of age is its relationship with time in the first place.

And how much time are we talking? one day.

Therefore, as I said, Eve was one day old existentially and 20-30 years old physically.

qualitas occulta said:
If you read between the lines, I never said I believed that Eve was formed from the rib of Adam. I merely said that within the allegory, that would be how I would interpret it on the basis of age.

Which loops back to my first point.

If you think it's nothing more than an allegory, then I don't know what your problem is with embedded age.

It's those who take Genesis 1 literally that have a problem with it -- (myself and other literalists excluded).

qualitas occulta said:
I assume you've never done literary critique?

Not really.

My style is to tell anything that contradicts the Bible to TAKE A HIKE.

Most people don't like that, but until the Internet becomes a Gestapo, they can take a hike as well.

Internet scientists have a very low tolerance for anything sacred, and you'd better believe what they believe -- and not 95% like I do -- 100%, or you're a candidate for ridicule.

And you'd better not just believe what they believe, you'd better believe what they believe for the same reasons they believe it.

I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old, but since I believe it for reasons other than what Internet science teaches, I'm Omphalos, Last Thursday, OEC, YEC, liar, troll, supertroll, deceiver, et ad nauseum cetera.

Tiberius · Nov 22, 2011

AV1611VET said:
No -- you're confusing yourself.

You're retconning Mrs. Smith back to the creation week.

If you had asked me how old Eve was, I would say I think she is 20 or 30, but has never gone around the sun.

If she has never gone around the sun, how could she be 20 years old? Remember that you have said that "age" means to have the property of being old, and "old" is defined by you to be the number of times a thing has gone around the sun.

So, i Eve's age was 20, then she is twenty years old, and that means she muist have gone around the sun twenty times.

Yet you say she hasn't. So she cannot possibly be twenty years old!

It seems that you need to redefine at least one of your terms.

Or perhaps you claim she has twenty years of maturity, but is only a few days old (assuming we meet her a few days after she was created from Adam's rib - and don't get technical with me about whether the correct word is created, or formed, or made or whatever, because you know what I mean.)

But in that case, you need to define what you mean by "maturity."

Stop thinking of age as a verb, and think of it as a noun -- like a pocket watch.

But you have defined "age" to mean "being old" and things only get old by going around the sun - an action, and actions are described by verbs.

So you are telling me to treat this verb as a non-verb?

Then think of God as giving this 'pocket watch' to His creation.

Meaning what?

razeontherock · Nov 22, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Not really.

My style is to tell anything that contradicts the Bible to TAKE A HIKE.

Most people don't like that, but until the Internet becomes a Gestapo, they can take a hike as well.

Internet scientists have a very low tolerance for anything sacred, and you'd better believe what they believe -- and not 95% like I do -- 100%, or you're a candidate for ridicule.

And you'd better not just believe what they believe, you'd better believe what they believe for the same reasons they believe it.

I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old, but since I believe it for reasons other than what Internet science teaches, I'm Omphalos, Last Thursday, OEC, YEC, liar, troll, supertroll, deceiver, et ad nauseum cetera.

One of the more entertaining and endearing exchanges I've seen on CF

AV1611VET · Nov 22, 2011

Tiberius said:
If she has never gone around the sun, how could she be 20 years old?

By having her age embedded in her.

And going around the sun involves history too, doesn't it?

And I made it clear that we are dealing with maturity without history, didn't I?

If you want to call it 'embedded maturity' so you can understand it better, that's fine with me -- but until something better comes along, I'm going with Embedded Age, with age being used as a noun.

qualitas occulta · Nov 22, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Not if it's kept in check by standards.

What standards?

Anything can be twisted, but adhering to a literal interpretation of something forces even those hostile to it to admit to what it is saying -- even if they don't agree with what is being said.

As even Freud himself said: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes, though, a cigar is an allegory for something else. The challenge of course is how one decides which one of the two are correct.

And how much time are we talking? one day.

Therefore, as I said, Eve was one day old existentially and 20-30 years old physically.

Which loops back to my first point.

If you think it's nothing more than an allegory, then I don't know what your problem is with embedded age.

It's those who take Genesis 1 literally that have a problem with it -- (myself and other literalists excluded).

I'm not sure you understand what "independent" means. It means that with regards to temporality, time doesn't matter--for anything can be however old they would be regardless of what time is. To give an analogy, what bed you wake up in is independent of what a person on the other side of the world does (e.g, me). That means that whatever actions I do has no effect on the make or model of bed you wake up in, or vice versa.

"Embedded age" would just be an oxymoron since the juxtaposition of a time-based concept (age) and its "embeddedness" denies its relationship to time in the first place.

Not really.

My style is to tell anything that contradicts the Bible to TAKE A HIKE.

Immediately dismissing points of view that contradicts your Weltanschauung means you'll never learn.

And you'd better not just believe what they believe, you'd better believe what they believe for the same reasons they believe it.

If you've done any reading, you'd realize that secular thought is nowhere near that monolithic.

AV1611VET · Nov 22, 2011

qualitas occulta said:
What standards?

My Boolean standards:

Whatever the Bible supports: support.
Whatever the Bible trumps: trump.
If the Bible is silent and science supports it: support it.
If the Bible is silent and science trumps it: trump it.

FrenchyBearpaw · Nov 22, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Not if it's kept in check by standards.

Anything can be twisted, but adhering to a literal interpretation of something forces even those hostile to it to admit to what it is saying -- even if they don't agree with what is being said.

I don't agree with what the serpent-beast told Eve in the garden, but I'm forced to believe he said it.

And how much time are we talking? one day.

Therefore, as I said, Eve was one day old existentially and 20-30 years old physically.

Which loops back to my first point.

If you think it's nothing more than an allegory, then I don't know what your problem is with embedded age.

It's those who take Genesis 1 literally that have a problem with it -- (myself and other literalists excluded).

Not really.

My style is to tell anything that contradicts the Bible to TAKE A HIKE.

Most people don't like that, but until the Internet becomes a Gestapo, they can take a hike as well.

Internet scientists have a very low tolerance for anything sacred, and you'd better believe what they believe -- and not 95% like I do -- 100%, or you're a candidate for ridicule.

And you'd better not just believe what they believe, you'd better believe what they believe for the same reasons they believe it.

I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old, but since I believe it for reasons other than what Internet science teaches, I'm Omphalos, Last Thursday, OEC, YEC, liar, troll, supertroll, deceiver, et ad nauseum cetera.

Care for some cheese to go with this?

ProScribe · Nov 22, 2011

Tiberius said:
AV, please define the word "Old", in the context of, "I asked Mrs Smith how old she was."

Then explain how it relates to the meaning of old as in "I investigated to see how old the Earth is."

Old = Having become of age.

Tiberius · Nov 22, 2011

AV1611VET said:
By having her age embedded in her.

But we've already determined that age is solely dependent on how old she is, and how old she is is solely dependent on how many times she has gone around the sun.

Therefore, if she hasn't gone around the sun 20 times, she's not twenty years old, and if she's not twenty years old then she can't have an age of twenty years.

Seems to me you need to specify what age means in terms of the embedded variety.

And going around the sun involves history too, doesn't it?

Yes it does, and since from the definitions provided by you speak of actions that require history.

And I made it clear that we are dealing with maturity without history, didn't I?

According to the definitions you provided, such a thing is impossible. You've certainly provided not definitions that allow for it.

Perhaps you need to expand your definitions?

If you want to call it 'embedded maturity' so you can understand it better, that's fine with me -- but until something better comes along, I'm going with Embedded Age, with age being used as a noun.

Define age in this context then, and it had better well be defined as a noun.

qualitas occulta · Nov 22, 2011

AV1611VET said:
My Boolean standards:

Whatever the Bible supports: support.

Whatever the Bible trumps: trump.

If the Bible is silent and science supports it: support it.

If the Bible is silent and science trumps it: trump it.

What of the times when the Bible and science contradicts?

FrenchyBearpaw said:
Care for some cheese to go with this?

I would willingly partake in this generous dispensation of cheese.

AV1611VET · Nov 22, 2011

qualitas occulta said:
What of the times when the Bible and science contradicts?

That's covered by standard #2.

Tiberius · Nov 23, 2011

Hey, AV, still waiting for you to define age in the context of "embedded age".

AV1611VET · Nov 23, 2011

Tiberius said:
Hey, AV, still waiting for you to define age in the context of "embedded age".

Time for a breather, eh?

As far as I'm concerned, this train has left the station --

Tiberius · Nov 23, 2011

Shame you weren't on it.

Can you define "age" in that context or not?

If you can, please do so.

Jazer · Nov 23, 2011

qualitas occulta said:
What of the times when the Bible and science contradicts?

They never contradict. Only science can show us a true understanding of the Bible.

Jazer · Nov 23, 2011

AV1611VET said:
"embedded age"

So is there any way to tell embedded age from non embedded age or are they identical?

AV1611VET · Nov 23, 2011

Jazer said:
So is there any way to tell embedded age from non embedded age or are they identical?

They are identical.

To find out how much age was embedded, take the physical age and subtract 6015.

This is assuming, of course, that dating methods are correct.

Orogeny · Nov 23, 2011

Jazer said:
They never contradict. Only science can show us a true understanding of the Bible.

Correct! It shows us that the bible is not to be used in any way, shape, or form as a scientific text, and that much of the bible's text may be best taken as allegory.

AV1611VET · Nov 23, 2011

Orogeny said:
Correct! It shows us that the bible is not to be used in any way, shape, or form as a scientific text, and that much of the bible's text may be best taken as allegory.

As in transubstantiation?

My Word Challenge

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Take time for granite.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Jazer

Guest

Jazer

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Trilobite me!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency