Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Sanguis]

Well since Christmas is near I thought this would make a nice present for our faithful friends:

Please, please tell me this is satire.

If not, then that's just one more reason why PS3/360 > Wii.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZUmTdeaoiQ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmQhYEaCqs4

Lulz, difficult decision.

Edit: Oh dear. It's real. Heh, 0:36 - Wave your magic wand and sprinkle your magical fairy dust!

 

[tanzanos]

Please, please tell me this is satire.

Apparently it is not from what I have gathered so far.

By the way nothing beats BF2 and soon to be released BF Bad Company 2. MEDIC!!!!!!!! I NEED SOME HELP HERE!! MEDIC!!!!!!!!

 

[Tiberius]

AV, don't forget my question. Is there any meaningful difference between a universe that has actually been around for the billions of years science tells us and a universe that has only been around for 6000 years or so (despite looking much older)?

I know you said the Bible is one such thing, but you haven't yet explained why the Bible can't exist in a universe that is billions of years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

[deleted]

 

[Tiberius]

Was that an answer to my question that you deleted?

 

[MoonLancer]

Apparently it is not from what I have gathered so far.

Don't worry, it IS satire. Go to the website it lists and try to preorder it. The website and the video are some kind of viral marketing for dantais inferno

 

[Sanguis]

Don't worry, it IS satire. Go to the website it lists and try to preorder it. The website and the video are some kind of viral marketing for dantais inferno

Well, that's certainly a relief.

I'ma get that game, looks pretty sick. (Even though it looks like another DMC clone.)

What a way to advertise that game, though. 'Sgenius!

 

[Split Rock]

I'm necroing this thread to encourage AVET to come defend Embedded Age Creationism in my new thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7458623/

 

[Doveaman]

I'm necroing this thread to encourage AVET to come defend Embedded Age Creationism in my new thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7458623/

Why don't you just copy and paste his posts from this thread into your new thread. I think AVET defended his Embedded Age Theory quite well here. After all, Jesus did instantly create embedded aged wine from water. And God did instantly create an embedded aged snake from Moses' staff. Such theological evidence does add support to AVET's Embedded Age Theory.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why don't you just copy and paste his posts from this thread into your new thread. I think AVET defended his Embedded Age Theory quite well here. After all, Jesus did instantly create embedded aged wine from water. And God did instantly create an embedded aged snake from Moses' staff. Such theological evidence does add support to AVET's Embedded Age Theory.

Is everything written in the Bible "theological evidence" that it really happened?

Because if it so, I'd love to get into a discussion on "theological evidence" of the Virgin Birth, but nobody ever seems to want to take me up on it.

 

[Doveaman]

Is everything written in the Bible "theological evidence" that it really happened?

Because if it so, I'd love to get into a discussion on "theological evidence" of the Virgin Birth, but nobody ever seems to want to take me up on it.

"Theological Evidence" simply means that it is written or recorded in Scripture. If it is recorded in Scripture, then it happened.

The "Virgin Birth" is recorded in Scripture as a historical event, therefore it happened.

Scientific evidence of the "Virgin Birth" is not necessary, since there is obviously none.

 

[Nathan Poe]

"Theological Evidence" simply means that it is written or recorded in Scripture. If it is recorded in Scripture, then it happened.

The "Virgin Birth" is recorded in Scripture as a historical event, therefore it happened.

Scientific evidence of the "Virgin Birth" is not necessary, since there is obviously none.

I'm not even talking about "scientific evidence" -- I'll even forego the "virgin" part of it. Using Scripture alone, we can talk about the circumstances of Jesus' birth objectively and see that it could not have happened as described -- thereby falsifying your premise of "If it is recorded in Scripture, it happened."

And of course, without that premise, "Theological evidence" falls flat.

So what say you, Doveaman? Are you willing to put your "theological evidence" to the test?

 

[Split Rock]

Why don't you just copy and paste his posts from this thread into your new thread.

I think I'll just link this thread. Would you like me to do the same for you?

I think AVET defended his Embedded Age Theory quite well here. After all, Jesus did instantly create embedded aged wine from water. And God did instantly create an embedded aged snake from Moses' staff. Such theological evidence does add support to AVET's Embedded Age Theory.

What about our falisification of Embedded Age? Like the fact that the earth has a history older than 6,000 years, which is clearly a falsification of Embedded Age, since history was not embedded, only age was.

 

[Doveaman]

So what say you, Doveaman? Are you willing to put your "theological evidence" to the test?

By an Agnostic? No thanks.

I've already tested it myself personally, and I cannot help but to believe it. I can ignore it or deny it, but I cannot not believe it even if I tried not to believe it. It's too believable to be not true.

 

[Nathan Poe]

By an Agnostic? No thanks.

What are you afriad of? (As if we didn't all already know)

I've already tested it myself personally, and I cannot help but to believe it. I can ignore it or deny it, but I cannot not believe it even if I tried not to believe it. It's too believable to be not true.

Spare us the bluff, bluster, and empty rhetoric -- When offered a chance to prove "theological evidence," you scurried away.

 

[sandwiches]

By an Agnostic? No thanks.

I've already tested it myself personally, and I cannot help but to believe it. I can ignore it or deny it, but I cannot not believe it even if I tried not to believe it. It's too believable to be not true.

The only answer that fits this poor post:
Sad Trombone

 

[The Lady Kate]

The only answer that fits this poor post:
Sad Trombone

LOL! And sadly appropriate for those whose faith demands they shun inquiry.

 

[AV1611VET]

What about our falisification of Embedded Age? Like the fact that the earth has a history older than 6,000 years, which is clearly a falsification of Embedded Age, since history was not embedded, only age was.

History has nothing to do with embedded age.

We could have a history going back 30 zilliion years, and yet, at the moment history started, it could have started with objects containing embedded age.

 

[Tiberius]

Did it take you almost two years to think of that, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did it take you almost two years to think of that, AV?

Nah, I just wanted to flush you out of the pocket.

I've seen you talking to everyone else but me lately; and frankly, I missed you.