sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
I see you're so bothered by my post and the correct usage of the word 'history' that you decided to avoid responding to it altogether.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see you're so bothered by my post and the correct usage of the word 'history' that you decided to avoid responding to it altogether.No, what I think really bothers you guys, is that you can't make God to be a deceiver --- something even His Son was accused of when He walked the earth.
I notice that it doesn't bother you guys that Omphalos is embedded history.
You'll accept that w/o question, because even Wikipedia mentions it being deceptive.
On the other hand, Embedded Age bothers you guys because you can't bring it around and show deception --- even from Wikipedia.
It's noteworthy that you'll accept an explanation that says God did embed history, but won't accept an explanation that says God didn't embed history.
And you guys are trying --- you're trying real hard.
And I'm not in the least bit sorry --- I make no apologies for an airtight cosmology.
- It bugs you you can't use a definitive site to link me to that says it's deceptive.
- It bugs you you can't use the dictionary to show it's wrong.
- It bugs you you can't use science to disprove it.
- It bugs you you can't call it something else, like YEC or Omphalos.
Is that because the "product" combines Biblical cosmology with scientific cosmology?You know what I think? I think you're frustrated because you're selling, but no one is buying. That isn't our fault... it is the fault of the product you are selling.
James 3:11 said:Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
QFTAirtight?? Are you kidding??Its got more holes than swiss cheese! This is what all these posters are trying to explain to you.
You know what I think? I think you're frustrated because you're selling, but no one is buying. That isn't our fault... it is the fault of the product you are selling.
Personally I don't want God to be a deceiver. What we are trying to get you to understand is that your model either makes him out to be a deceiver, or it simply contradicts itself. You won't listen, because you have made up your mind and you have closed it shut.
Nope --- I've learned over the years that it's not my job to convert you guys.QFT
Sorry AV, but I think most of us see it this way, you're simply choosing not to, then are getting frustrated because we don't accept what you accept as evidence.
Then why stick around and do it? I think maybe you confuse having to repeat "the most basic Christian teachings" as others not understanding what you are trying to tell them. When, in fact, they/we/I understand what you're telling us, we just disagree. This is probably the source of your frustration, as you see yourself as having the "Infallible Truth," and if only we'd just see things as you do, everything would be alright.Nope --- I've learned over the years that it's not my job to convert you guys.
As my pastor says, "I couldn't convert anyone, even if I wanted to."
What's slowing wearing me down though, is the almost non-stop repetition of even the most basic of Christian teachings --- often to the same person.
No. Because it doesn't work.Is that because the "product" combines Biblical cosmology with scientific cosmology?
I guess neither you nor your pastor are aiming very high...Nope --- I've learned over the years that it's not my job to convert you guys.
As my pastor says, "I couldn't convert anyone, even if I wanted to."
What are you referring to as a most basic of Christian teachings?? Certainly not "Embedded Age."What's slowing wearing me down though, is the almost non-stop repetition of even the most basic of Christian teachings --- often to the same person.
Is that because the "product" combines Biblical cosmology with scientific cosmology?
Nope --- I've learned over the years that it's not my job to convert you guys.
As my pastor says, "I couldn't convert anyone, even if I wanted to."
What's slowing wearing me down though, is the almost non-stop repetition of even the most basic of Christian teachings --- often to the same person.
Other than your bible and personal faith, you have absolutely no way of proving that god created everything 6,100 years ago, but looks really old, but no deception was involved.
[W]hat I think really bothers you guys, is that you can't make God to be a deceiver --- something even His Son was accused of when He walked the earth.
I notice that it doesn't bother you guys that Omphalos is embedded history.
You'll accept that w/o question, because even Wikipedia mentions it being deceptive.
On the other hand, Embedded Age bothers you guys because you can't bring it around and show deception --- even from Wikipedia.
Gosse's argument was that since living things had a cycle of reproduction and development, God must have created them in the act of developing, with trees having rings, and animals having skin, blood, and bones all making them appear older than they were. From any examination of a post-creation world, the world would appear to have been created in the cycle of normal processes, and would look old. No element of deception by God would be inherent in this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(book)
The basis for Hebblethwaite's objection, however, is the presumption of a God that would not deceive us about our very humanity - an unprovable presumption that the Omphalos hypothesis rejects at the outset.
Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
. . . But This Does Not Involve Deception
"We insist as emphatically as we know how that the doctrine of creation of apparent age does not in the remotest degree involve a divine deception, but is rather inherent in the very nature of creation. Further, God in grace has even revealed much concerning the true age of the creation in His written Word, but men have simply refused to accept it."
An Additional Note on the Omphalos Argument | NCSE
I have to correct you on that: this is not what AV says. God did not create everything 6,100 year ago and had it look really old... he created everything 6,100 years ago and it is really old.
And I'm not in the least bit sorry --- I make no apologies for an airtight cosmology.
- It bugs you you can't use a definitive site to link me to that says it's deceptive.
- It bugs you you can't use the dictionary to show it's wrong.
- It bugs you you can't use science to disprove it.
- It bugs you you can't call it something else, like YEC or Omphalos.
Huh?
That makes about as much sense as saying... I dunno... "I made a car, but it not only looks like a hovercraft, it is a hovercraft!" Then it's a hovercraft, not a car...
Assuming 6100 years is "young" and 4.5 billion years is "old". Either something's old, or it's young. It can't be both. Something cant've been made 500 years ago, but really be 5000 years old. It's absurd to say it's possible.
Your dictionary definition included hair white with age., but this is an example of the word's usage, given by answers.com in italics. It's not part of the definition. So all that's left for definition #4 is "The state of being old".
You have found the rub in AV´s theory. In his view, this is possible. Everyone else is trying to find out why he doesn´t see the contradiction.
I'd hardly call it a theory. It's more a sorta... desperate grab at an attempt to make his fail belief sound reasonable, when in fact, it's about as reasonable as trying to use a road map in the middle of Antarctica.
That was the colloquial usage of the term "theory". I just got tired of typing out "hypothesis".
I disagree: 1 .He's wrong. You could if you would provide solid, empirical evidence to back your religious claims up, after looking at your beliefs as nothing more than a hypothesis, and putting it through the logical reasoning that science puts everything through.
We're not supposed to try and convert; we're supposed to witness.But then, we need more Christians like your pastor, everyone should stop trying to convert everyone to their own religion.
I'll say this much, you seem to understand Embedded Age more than any other atheist.I have to correct you on that: this is not what AV says. God did not create everything 6,100 year ago and had it look really old... he created everything 6,100 years ago and it is really old.
That's a pity --- it'll keep you from being able to further understand Embedded Age.(And, no, AV, I don´t accept your "answers.com #4" rote as a compelling answer: I explained why this definition is a) not fitting in your case and b) you resort to circular reasoning when you try to make it fit.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?