Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

AV1611VET · Nov 15, 2009

Skaloop said:
You're the only one I've ever seen trying to teach "embedded age". Don't try to pass your ineffective teaching abilities onto others when nobody else is trying to teach your nonsense.

Hmmm --- ever see anyone teach Supralapsarianism?

Good thing you're not blind.

Nathan Poe · Nov 15, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Hmmm --- ever see anyone teach Supralapsarianism?

Good thing you're not blind.

If there was a point here, you failed to show it.

Cabal · Nov 15, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Hmmm --- ever see anyone teach Supralapsarianism?

Good thing you're not blind.

Oh come on. Slightly more general than embedded age, wouldn't you say?

I mean, if you were discussing supralapsarianism, wouldn't this thread be called "Taking questions on Supralapsarianism"? Rather than referring to something else?

Nathan Poe · Nov 15, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I disagree --- you can't always blame the teacher.

And that works both ways too.

If teacher after teacher can't explain even basic theology here (which I've noticed), I don't fault the teacher.

Except that "Embedded age" isn't basic theology -- it's a product of your own imagination.

Look around --- you've got a lot of "teachers" here trying to explain their POV, and nothing is sinking in anywhere.

Perhaps the reason it doesn't "sink in" is because excrement floats.

Even a great teacher would have difficulty getting people to believe nonsense.

Bushido216 · Nov 15, 2009

@ AV:

I teach Sunday school to 7 year olds.

It's not that hard.

Sanguis · Nov 15, 2009

Wow.

Just read back a bit in this thread, I honestly don't think I've ever read anything even half as nonsensical as Av writes, ever. It's like logic and reason are as alien a concept to him as even the possibility that he could be wrong.

Someone who's been here a while, is he always like that? 'Cause I got a good laugh out of the gibberish I've read in this thread.

Skaloop · Nov 15, 2009

Sanguis said:
Someone who's been here a while, is he always like that?

Pretty much, yeah. I will give him credit, though, for being consistent with his arguments; he does not stray from what he believes, which is somewhat comendable.

BasinBrat · Nov 16, 2009

I wonder what this theory of embedded age gives us in terms of the methods to understand the development of life sciences as they are being studied today. Evolutionary and old earth geology gives us ways of understanding not just the past, but the present and the future. How does this ex-nihilo theory do that?

Sanguis · Nov 16, 2009

Skaloop said:
Pretty much, yeah. I will give him credit, though, for being consistent with his arguments; he does not stray from what he believes, which is somewhat comendable.

Can be, but when what you believe is as irrational as what Av believes, then being unwilling to alter your beliefs as more evidence and facts come to light is definately not a good thing.

sandwiches · Nov 16, 2009

Skaloop said:
Pretty much, yeah. I will give him credit, though, for being consistent with his arguments; he does not stray from what he believes, which is somewhat comendable.

I wouldn't call immutable beliefs and atrophied learning capabilities commendable.

Mike Elphick · Nov 16, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Split Rock said:

Why did God find it necessary to "embed" age, just to make the earth "mature" enough to support Adam and the rest of life He created?

Click to expand...

That word "just" shows that you are confused --- not to mention putting "mature" in quotes; but you did end it with a question mark, so I guess there's hope for you guys yet.

And please note that the answer is in the question.

First, I think Split Rock may be probing you for answers as to why so much age was embedded (4-5 billion years), which is a lot longer than what would be required to make mountains, rivers and (most importantly) the soil ready for habitation by trees, fish and mammals. He may also have been wondering why there was a need to embedded age in the first place, when God had infinite time to let the world "mature" on its own, naturally and in real time.

Second, if the "answer is in the question", this is the first time you've ever given a REASON for embedded age (and I've asked you often enough). Are you now saying it was to 'weather' the earth — to grind the rocks down a bit and let the world stabilise to make it a "mature" place for life to exist? If that's the case then your embedded age most definitely has history embedded with it too — sedimentary rocks (created by weathering) in temporal (historical) sequence, the oldest at the bottom, the youngest at the top. This is something we've been telling you all along.

Mike Elphick · Nov 16, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I don't care if he's teaching arithmetic.

If he's being laughed at, ignored, misquoted, thought of as a troll, supertroll, liar, deceiver, or just plain wrong; the students are not going to learn anything.

In this thread and the two others ("Adam and Eve" & "A question") you've not been ignored, you've never been misquoted, the participants don't for a minute think you're a troll or supertroll, and certainly don't think you're a liar or out to intentionally deceive. So what does that leave? Yep! You're just plain WRONG!

Adam and Eve, as first-created human beings, never existed. They are mythical beings originating in the mists of time from people who lacked scientific knowledge yet who tried to imagine how they came into being and where they had come from. So trying to date the world using genealogies based on Adam's creation is a hopeless endeavour.

Embedded age - AV style - is a desperate attempt to make this bronze-age dating fit modern scientifically measured ages for the Earth and universe and, for the aforementioned reasons, is also a hopeless endeavour. Moreover, as has been pointed out, it is internally inconsistent and falls flat on its face trying to explain the dates of geological formations, fossils and the distance and age of stars.

However, for those who do believe in Adam and Eve and in a young earth. and who may also be interested in embedded age, I would recommend Gosse's Omphalos hypothesis, which is a much better alternative — one that is internally consistent and which explains not only why God might have embedded age and history into the world, but also how the Earth is in the condition we see it today.

AV1611VET · Nov 16, 2009

BasinBrat said:
I wonder what this theory of embedded age gives us in terms of the methods to understand the development of life sciences as they are being studied today.

I don't know --- I don't know what's being taught today.

It probably contributes nothing to current-day secular teachings.

One thing it does however, is show how life got started; but then any Christian cosmology does that.

BasinBrat said:
Evolutionary and old earth geology gives us ways of understanding not just the past, but the present and the future.

They give you a way of interpreting the past and the future; and that interpretation method (uniformitarianism) is wrong.

BasinBrat said:
How does this ex-nihilo theory do that?

It doesn't --- it teaches catastrophism --- that the universe came into existence without any natural processes having taken place.

Sanguis · Nov 16, 2009

AV1611VET said:
They give you a way of interpreting the past and the future; and that interpretation method (uniformitarianism) is wrong.

If it's wrong, then falsify it, using evidence. Don't just say "It's wrong!" and expect that to hold any credibility whatsoever.

I'm fast reaching the conclusion that absolutely nothing you say has any credibility, anyway. I figure it'll be just as funny to see you admit that you can't, as it would be for you to actually try and falsify evolution and a 4.5bn year old Earth.

It's a win/win situation. Lulz will be had, either way.

AV1611VET · Nov 16, 2009

Mike Elphick said:
First, I think Split Rock may be probing you for answers as to why so much age was embedded (4-5 billion years), which is a lot longer than what would be required to make mountains, rivers and (most importantly) the soil ready for habitation by trees, fish and mammals.

I certainly cannot answer that question, as that would fall under God's sovereignty.

I'm sure He embedded the exact amount He wanted.

Mike Elphick said:
He may also have been wondering why there was a need to embedded age in the first place, when God had infinite time to let the world "mature" on its own, naturally and in real time.

If by "mature on its own", you mean the appearance of life on it as well, then I don't believe He did that.

God is a God of boundaries, and I believe He has placed boundaries that nature cannot pass.

And evolution cannot work with these boundaries in place.

Mike Elphick said:
Second, if the "answer is in the question", this is the first time you've ever given a REASON for embedded age (and I've asked you often enough). Are you now saying it was to 'weather' the earth to grind the rocks down a bit and let the world stabilise to make it a "mature" place for life to exist?

No --- that would entail the passage of time.

Here's what SR asked, with the answer in the question itself:

Why did God find it necessary to "embed" age, just to make the earth "mature" enough to support Adam and the rest of life He created?

I highlighted the answer in red.

Mike Elphick said:
If that's the case then your embedded age most definitely has history embedded with it too sedimentary rocks (created by weathering) in temporal (historical) sequence, the oldest at the bottom, the youngest at the top. This is something we've been telling you all along.

I'm glad you see the problem with your own statement.

Perhaps we are making some progress?

AV1611VET · Nov 16, 2009

Sanguis said:
If it's wrong, then falsify it, using evidence.

I've got Something better than evidence --- the Bible.

And the Bible portrays the antithesis of uniformitarianism as Truth.

That's good enough for me.

Sanguis · Nov 16, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I've got Something better than evidence --- the Bible.

And the Bible portrays the antithesis of uniformitarianism as Truth.

That's good enough for me.

That's not better than evidence.

That's a book of ancient, bronze age mythology. Nothing more, nothing less.

You have absolutely nothing to support your claims.

Nothing.

Nil.

Nada.

That book counts towards nothing, because nothing in it can be verified with evidence, and almost all of it has been falsified with evidence. If that book's good enough for you, then that says a lot about your stunted intellectual capabilities, and shows how little you understand about the real world.

AV1611VET · Nov 16, 2009

Sanguis said:
That's a book of ancient, bronze age mythology. Nothing more, nothing less.

And when this universe comes to an end, that Book will still be standing.

hangback · Nov 16, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I've got Something better than evidence --- the Bible.

That's creationism, you don't need evidence because you have the bible and the answer to every question is Goddidit.

AV1611VET said:
And the Bible portrays the antithesis of uniformitarianism as Truth.

That's good enough for me.

The bible may be good enough for you but the OT is still just stories dreamt up by bronze age people to explain away something they could not possibly comprehend, and would you believe, not very bright 21st century people are still falling for it, but I guess that's what they would call progress in the bible belt.

Sanguis · Nov 16, 2009

AV1611VET said:
And when this universe comes to an end, that Book will still be standing.

Are you serious?

When the universe comes to an end, there won't be any paper left, let alone whole books.

Even, if by some odd chance it did manage to remain intact 'till the end of the universe, there'd be no one left to read it.

Please, please, please, please tell me you don't actually believe a book could last billions and billions and billions and billions of years?

Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Newbie

Active Member

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Not so new...

Not so new...

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency