• 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.

Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
46
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Does being placed in a special garden and being told to tend it qualify?

Does naming the animals qualify?

Does getting married and told to have children qualify?

I would say Adam & Eve were two very mature individuals ... both created in a moment of time, and neither having a past.

And what of my other question, AV? If there is something that is fit for its purpose and then becomes unfit, has it become immature?
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes you are.I was asking for AV's opinion.
Are you AV? Has he authorised you to act as a representative of himself? Are you able to determine AV's opinion on things asked of him and respond to those questions in his stead? No? Well then, I wasn't asking you, and you can't speak for him.Now, if I posed it as a general question, I'd be more than happy for you to answer. But when I clearly direct a question to a particular member, it means

I'm not interfering with AV's answer to your question.
There is a private message system if you choose not to use the public one.


I'm not interested (at that time) in anyone else's viewpoints.

Your actions speak much louder than your words do.
Not only is there an ignore feature built into the forum
but there is one built into your brain as well.
Those who have no control over one, can always use the other as backup.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,620
52,515
Guam
✟5,128,669.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not only is there an ignore feature built into the forum but there is one built into your brain as well.
Those who have no control over one, can always use the other as backup.
Well-put!

I second that!
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wait, how is it a perfect model? There's so much that it doesn't and can't explain, I can hardly see how that makes it perfect.

Scientifically, it doesn't explain anything. If it can't be repeated on demand, it's not science.


But theologically, there is a mystery about how God works that is cleared up when we examine what claims are made about miracles and exactly what they are. If we look at each claimed "miracle" we see that God Creates situations that are "fit" or "properly matured" for the occasion. And most have an aspect of "time" that not in sync with our normal experiences.

Miracles, including list of biblical miracles (WebBible™ Encyclopedia) - ChristianAnswers.Net
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,322
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Scientifically, it doesn't explain anything. If it can't be repeated on demand, it's not science.


But theologically, there is a mystery about how God works that is cleared up when we examine what claims are made about miracles and exactly what they are.

So, this is something that man invented in his attempts to try to explain God.

That's all you had to say.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I can't help but notice that AV is refusing to answer my question...

If something becomes unfit for its purpose, has it become immature?
Consider this:

A creationist teacher gave a lecture on the biology of frogs to his pupils in biology class.

He then proceeded to put a frog on a table in front of the audience and shouted to the frog "JUMP"! The startled frog indeed jumped.

He then chopped off one of the front legs of the frog and shouted "Jump" and the frog jumped out of fear of being further mutilated.

He continued to cut of the frogs remaining appendages and each time the frog jumped until the last appendage was cut and the frog did not jump no matter how loudly the creationist shouted "JUMP".

He then told his class: " With the evidence I have brought forth; We can now conclude that when all the legs of a frog are cut off then the frog becomes deaf".

^_^
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,897
Georgia
✟1,091,965.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation:

  1. Definition = maturity without history
  2. Method = creatio ex nihilo
  3. Unique features:
    • requires omnipotence
    • laws of science not in effect
    • occurred BC4004 (according to Ussher's dating)
    • no evidence left behind
    • no scarring
    • completed in 6 days (on purpose)
  4. Described in detail in Genesis 1
  5. Witnessed by the angels

At one day old - is Adam and zygote - or a fully formed adult capable of language, walking, taking care of himself? In the Bible he is an adult.

the plants are fully formed and are ready to be eaten as food. They are not all seeds.

The land animals a fully formed - they are not all suckling 1 day olds without a mother - destined to die.

The atmosphere is fully formed - mature - it has the right balance of elements to support life.

It turns out that if you want to make a fully functioning biosphere - the one-day old "appearance" has to be fully formed and mature - not infant.

(As I am sure we both agree -- just adding a few points.)

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟106,373.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
The atmosphere is fully formed - mature - it has the right balance of elements to support life.

It turns out that if you want to make a fully functioning biosphere - the one-day old "appearance" has to be fully formed and mature - not infant.

Hardly on day 1 GB.

800px-Oxygenation-atm-2.svg.png

Evolution of atmospheric
2eb3c6df162be09cce642ecc4dec9948.png
. The upper red and lower green lines represent the range of the estimates. The stages are: stage 1 (3.85–2.45Gyr ago (Ga)), stage 2 (2.45–1.85Ga), stage 3 (1.85–0.85Ga), Stage 4 (0.85–0.54Ga )and stage 5 (0.54Ga–present)

http://www.astrobio.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp/tajika/papers/Isaac%20et%20al%20(2005)%20EPSL.pdf

http://archenv.geo.uu.nl/pdf/Anbar et al 2007 Science Whiff Oxygen.pdf

http://re.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Oceanic nickel depletion.pdf

http://seismolab.gso.uri.edu/~yang/ocg540/Kump.Nature.2008.pdf

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/eemartin/GLY6075F10/papers/BroeckerOce'91.pdf

http://researchpages.net/media/resources/2007/08/13/nature05169.pdf
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
At one day old - is Adam and zygote - or a fully formed adult capable of language, walking, taking care of himself?

On day 1, did Adam have scars down his back consistent with being attacked by a bear?

On day 1, did Adam have a calcification in his right femur consistent with a break during adolescence?

On day 1, did Adam have scars on his face consistent with acne scarring?

IOW, did God include a fake history of things that had happened to Adam?

the plants are fully formed and are ready to be eaten as food. They are not all seeds.

On day 1, did pine trees have scarring under their bark consistent with grubs even though no grubs had ever eaten of the tree?

On day 1, did God make sure to have trees buried in the ground under multiple layers of ash to mimic several rounds of volcanic eruptions? Did God also make sure that the ring widths in the trees were all coordinated between specimens and with 14C concentrations to give a fake history of a recent ice age, one that never occurred?

IOW, did God include a fake history in these trees that has nothing to do with how the trees function?

The land animals a fully formed - they are not all suckling 1 day olds without a mother - destined to die.

On day 1, did land animals bear marks from having been attacked by predators a year ago?

The atmosphere is fully formed - mature - it has the right balance of elements to support life.

On day 1, did arctic ice have alternating layers of oxygen isotopes to mimic annual deposition? Did the 14C content of carbon dioxide trapped in these layers decrease in a way as to exactly mimic radioactive decay of the amount of time indicated by the oscillating oxygen isotope ratios?

It turns out that if you want to make a fully functioning biosphere - the one-day old "appearance" has to be fully formed and mature - not infant.

We have more than that. We have a planet and universe that has a multi-billion year history that has nothing to do with function. Rocks don't need radiohalos in order to function as rocks. Lakes don't need hundreds of thousands of annual varves in order to function as lakes. Ice in the arctic does not need hundreds of thousands of layers in order to function as the arctic. What we observe is history, not maturity.
 
Upvote 0

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
46
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Consider this:

A creationist teacher gave a lecture on the biology of frogs to his pupils in biology class.

He then proceeded to put a frog on a table in front of the audience and shouted to the frog "JUMP"! The startled frog indeed jumped.

He then chopped off one of the front legs of the frog and shouted "Jump" and the frog jumped out of fear of being further mutilated.

He continued to cut of the frogs remaining appendages and each time the frog jumped until the last appendage was cut and the frog did not jump no matter how loudly the creationist shouted "JUMP".

He than told his class: " With the evidence I have brought forth; We can now conclude that when all the legs of a frog are cut off then the frog becomes deaf".

^_^

:D Very good.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,897
Georgia
✟1,091,965.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation:

  1. Definition = maturity without history
  2. Method = creatio ex nihilo
  3. Unique features:
    • requires omnipotence
    • laws of science not in effect
    • occurred BC4004 (according to Ussher's dating)
    • no evidence left behind
    • no scarring
    • completed in 6 days (on purpose)
  4. Described in detail in Genesis 1
  5. Witnessed by the angels

At one day old - is Adam and zygote - or a fully formed adult capable of language, walking, taking care of himself? In the Bible he is an adult.

the plants are fully formed and are ready to be eaten as food. They are not all seeds.

The land animals a fully formed - they are not all suckling 1 day olds without a mother - destined to die.

The atmosphere is fully formed - mature - it has the right balance of elements to support life.

It turns out that if you want to make a fully functioning biosphere - the one-day old "appearance" has to be fully formed and mature - not infant.

(As I am sure we both agree -- just adding a few points.)


On day 1, did Adam have scars down his back consistent with being attacked by a bear?

On day 1, did Adam have a calcification in his right femur consistent with a break during adolescence?

No. did he need them to be created perfect, sinless, mature, independent and to worship God??

Or are you claiming that you "found Adam" as he was "one day old" and sure enough he had scars and calcification of old bone injuries??

Or are you arguing out of the void of what you do not have to refute the text?

Did God also make sure that the ring widths in the trees were all coordinated

You talk as if you sampled the fully grown trees one day after God made them. Did you??

Do you know how to make an fully grown tree that does not have the benefit of any rings at all??

Do you think you are looking at even one tree that God made directly?


On day 1, did arctic ice have alternating layers of oxygen isotopes to mimic annual deposition? Did the 14C content of carbon dioxide trapped in these layers decrease in a way as to exactly mimic radioactive decay of the amount of time indicated by the oscillating oxygen isotope ratios?

Do ice rings compress such that you can only separate them out down to a few 1000 years?

Did WWII planes get buried in ice with many more ice rings above them - than we have had time pass since WWII??

Is evolutionism simply a massive matrix of guesswork that collapses when you attempt to verify it??

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No. did he need them to be created perfect, sinless, mature, independent and to worship God??
Now this is why I would refuse to worship any deity even if one were proven to exist. Anyone who creates me for the sole purpose of me worshipping him is to say the least an arrogant, vain, being. Sorry but I believe in Democracy and such notions as bowing my head and worshipping anything are not consistent with democracy!
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟106,373.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Do ice rings compress such that you can only separate them out down to a few 1000 years?

They are layers of ice, not rings, and yes they have been dated to over 800,000 years in Antarctica.

Did WWII planes get buried in ice with many more ice rings above them - than we have had time pass since WWII??

No, they did not. That is a common young earth proponents misrepresentation of ice core chronology.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,897
Georgia
✟1,091,965.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
They are layers of ice, not rings, and yes they have been dated to over 800,000 years in Antarctica.

Layers of ice come out as "rings" in core sampling "as it turns out".

And yes they get horribly compressed well before 800,000.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,897
Georgia
✟1,091,965.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Evolutionists will believe anything in their devotion to by-faith-alone evolutionism.

They believe that given enough time gas and rocks will turn into bacteria (prokaryotes).


They believe by faith alone that given enough time prokaryotes turn into eukaryotes (amoeba for example).


They believe by faith alone that given enough time and chance on mount improbable amoebas will turn into horses.


No wonder their own atheist scientists - like Collin Patterson lament the distinctly religious nature of the argument for evolutionism.


--=========================


Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:

Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians
"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

--========================

No wonder even Dawkins responds with 11 seconds of totally flummoxed silence when asked to demonstrate the salient principle of the evolutionist doctrine in action - in real life.

By contrast - those dealing with REAL science are more than happy to jump into a description/illustration of real life observations relative to gravity. Turns out that when you HAVE the observations - you love to talk about out. When the blind faith evolutionism does NOT have it and all they are doing is excusing why they have nothing - they get upset that the question was asked that exposes them on that point.

How predictable.



in Christ,


Bob
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,897
Georgia
✟1,091,965.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Evolutionists will believe anything in their devotion to by-faith-alone evolutionism.

They believe that given enough time gas and rocks will turn into bacteria (prokaryotes).


They believe by faith alone that given enough time prokaryotes turn into eukaryotes (amoeba for example).


They believe by faith alone that given enough time and chance on mount improbable amoebas will turn into horses.


No wonder their own atheist scientists - like Collin Patterson lament the distinctly religious nature of the argument for evolutionism.


--=========================


Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:

Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians
"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

--========================

No wonder even Dawkins responds with 11 seconds of totally flummoxed silence when asked to demonstrate the salient principle of the evolutionist doctrine in action - in real life.

By contrast - those dealing with REAL science are more than happy to jump into a description/illustration of real life observations relative to gravity. Turns out that when you HAVE the observations - you love to talk about out. When the blind faith evolutionism does NOT have it and all they are doing is excusing why they have nothing - they get upset that the question was asked that exposes them on that point.

How predictable.




WOW talk about misrepresentation:confused: !


Those are just the facts. You need something more than surprise at finding out about them as a form of objection.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,342
11,897
Georgia
✟1,091,965.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BTW - as we have all seen - evolutionism is clearly a flawed religion.

The embedded age of the earth - as noted earlier is a false idea.

Adam could not have existed as a zygote day 1 - nor could any animal.

And the earth had to already be fully formed to support life.

Again - stating the obvious.

But this is the role of bible believing Christians when it comes to confronting the false religion of evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.