Sans Scripture, Evolution?

[Nathan Poe]

No, Omphalos is embedded history --- a false history that never occurred.

And embedded age contains precisely that -- or is age nothing but a number to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

And embedded age contains precisely that -- or is age nothing but a number to you?

1. The length of time that one has existed; duration of life: 23 years of age.
2. The time of life when a person becomes qualified to assume certain civil and personal rights and responsibilities, usually at 18 or 21 years; legal age: under age; of age.
3. One of the stages of life: the age of adolescence; at an awkward age.
4. The state of being old; old age: hair white with age.

QV 4 above.

 

[Nitron]

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=45280404

You can see embedded age here.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

No --- my God documented what He did, when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, how He did it, and who the eyewitnesses were; and even preserves that Documentation for everyone to read.

How about yours?

I have no god to concern me with its possible deception.

By the way, the bible was written by superstitious ancient men with self-serving agendas, compiling word-of-mouth mythology into a book to try to explain why we are here and where things came from. Not your god.

As far as books and believability goes, the Lord of the Rings series is more believable. LotR has few, if any, contradictions, while the bible has hundreds. I'm not saying I do take the Lord of the Rings series as true (I don't, it's fiction), but I am saying it's more coherent than the thing that you take as literally true.

 

[Psudopod]

I was actually going to make the point that if this is embedded history without age, then we have the Omphalos Hypothesis; but I think Psudopod is trying to get me to say that this earth is 4.57 billion years old because it grew that old, and I don't believe that.

I know you don't believe it, but that's what the evidence points too. Unless you think God embedded a fake history. You've only got those two choices AVET. That you don't like either of them doesn't change anything.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No --- my God documented what He did, when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, how He did it, and who the eyewitnesses were; and even preserves that Documentation for everyone to read.

How about yours?

Except that He apparently forgot to document that He indeed "embedded" age, which either makes Him deceptive or you a bad theologian. Take your pick.

 

[ReverendDG]

QV 4 above.

yes and...?
i honestly don't believe that you can ever make your embedded age nonsense make any sense for anyone but yourself.
you have to ignore problems with the whole idea, you have to ignore that embedded age is a meaningless concept unless you accept that the ages in genesis are correct and they really were a straight lineage

as i've ask before AV, why do you bother to accept that the earth is somehow 4.6 billion years old?
you don't believe that isotopes work the way they do, so why even accept it as you say "based on faith"
it just boggles the mind imo that anyone can say "yeah the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but its existed for 6k years" and not expect people think they're insane
i've never understood how you came to this conclusion, did god create the earth with craters? the isotopes saying 4.5by?

theres so much stuff that denies your views its amazing, i mean look at the trace fossils, did god in all his glory embed termite mounts and sand dunes in the earth to fool us?

 

[rjw]

Without the Bible, would scientists back then still teach evolution?

Bit hard to know what you are asking AV. However, on the assumption that empirical science still got underway, then I would say "yes".


Regards, Roland

 

[Nathan Poe]

Except that He apparently forgot to document that He indeed "embedded" age, which either makes Him deceptive or you a bad theologian. Take your pick.

I'm going to go with both on this one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that He apparently forgot to document that He indeed "embedded" age, which either makes Him deceptive or you a bad theologian. Take your pick.

I'm going to go with both on this one.

Good --- then I invite you two to take this challenge, and let's see how you answer it.

If you can't show deception and the intent to deceive, then don't act like you're some kind of "experts" on the subject.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Good --- then I invite you two to take this challenge, and let's see how you answer it.

If you can't show deception and the intent to deceive, then don't act like you're some kind of "experts" on the subject.

That challenge is missing necessary details for answering. You refuse to provide them, insisting we make do with the insufficient data you provide. Therefore, you fail. Good day, sir.

 

[AV1611VET]

That challenge is missing necessary details for answering. You refuse to provide them, insisting we make do with the insufficient data you provide. Therefore, you fail. Good day, sir.

No --- you think it's missing in detail. It's about as clear-cut as you can get.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

No --- you think it's missing in detail. It's about as clear-cut as you can get.

Wrong. It's quite clear what the point of that challenge is: Showing embedded age with a non-deceptive god to be possible.

However, you fail to address key points. For example, multiple people in aforementioned thread asked if the man had indications of age. That is to say, does he have a memory of his past? Does he have scars or other marks that come with general wear and tear on a human body over the decades? This is necessary information, because the thing you are trying to allude to--the universe in general, and earth in particular--does in fact show signs of being billions of years old. We see the light from supernovae millions of light years away. We can observe galaxies billions of light years away (and therefore billions of years old). We see impact craters on planets in our solar system millions of years old. We find scores of fossils of long-extinct animals.

So your "challenge" is incomplete and frankly stupid, unless you're being intentionally dishonest and misleading.

 

[Valkhorn]

So your "challenge" is incomplete and frankly stupid, unless you're being intentionally dishonest and misleading.

Actually creationists have no problem being dishonest to get their point across.

 

[AV1611VET]

However, you fail to address key points.

Not hardly --- and even though I don't feel obligated to address your false accusations, I'll be kind enough to point you to Post 5? of that thread, where I did address that.

 

[dlamberth]

I was just wondering if evolutionists are just as <<SE>>unwise<<SE>> w/o the Bible as they are with It, that's all.

Evolution is "knowledge" about life.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is "knowledge" about life.

"Okay."

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Good --- then I invite you two to take this challenge, and let's see how you answer it.

The challenge that you /threaded the day before you offered this invitation? That challenge?

If you can't show deception and the intent to deceive, then don't act like you're some kind of "experts" on the subject.

OK, so presumably I can now act like some kind of expert...? Yay.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Actually creationists have no problem being dishonest to get their point across.

I always thought it was a requirement.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Not hardly --- and even though I don't feel obligated to address your false accusations, I'll be kind enough to point you to Post 5? of that thread, where I did address that.

"It doesn't matter to this thread" is a non-answer. Whether you admit it or not, it's missing key pieces of information about the condition of the man.