Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

This is probably the best formulation of the counter retort to "embedded age" and related excuses I've seen. Well done.

LOL -- and he's totally wrong.

It's embedded age, not embedded history.

Neither one of you know what I'm talking about.

And I can understand why, too.

Miracles are true academic nightmares.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You still can't get it right, can you, chief?

It's EMBEDDED AGE, not embedded history.

And if you think my explanation about fossils embedded in 3.5 billion year old rock is "only in my imagination," then test it yourself.

Take a 3.5 billion year old rock, pulverize it down to sediment, put a dog's skeleton in it, let the sediment lithify, then tell me how old that dog's skeleton is.

Or can science take a hike?

History is age, age is history. You cannot have one without the other and to embed age is to embed history. That's why I specifically asked about the dinosaurs in relation to your embedded age nonsense.

And you don't even give one single jot about science so why should I try and even think of fulfilling anything you suggest?

Your embedded age nonsense is fake history, fake age, and is nothing but extra Biblical nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither one of you know what I'm talking about.

History is age, age is history. You cannot have one without the other and to embed age is to embed history.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for the QED.

QED for us that you don't understand how interlinked history and age is. Again: one cannot exist without the other. To embed age IS to embed history. If not, prove me wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

QED for us that you don't understand how interlinked history and age is. Again: one cannot exist without the other. To embed age IS to embed history. If not, prove me wrong.

If they are so interlinked as you say they are, why do you change the wording from "embedded age" to "embedded history"?

I know why.

You're trying to make it look like the Omphalos hypothesis.

Which, of course, it isn't.

Here is a post you made nine years ago -- that's nine years ago -- nine:

But your claim is that God made the Earth 6000 years ago with 4.5 billion years worth of embedded history. That's not true history, that's fake history.
That is lying.
But as I've said, I don't want this thread derailed by your cockamamie idea, so please kindly take it to another thread. I want this thread to be a discussion of what this subforum is supposed to be about: science.

SOURCE

And you haven't learned a thing since.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If they are so interlinked as you say they are, why do you change the wording from "embedded age" to "embedded history"?

Because when talking about events in the past, history and age are indeed interlinked and virtually synonymous. You cannot have age without history and you cannot have history without age.

I know why.

You're trying to make it look like the Omphalos hypothesis.

Which, of course, it isn't.

Here is a post you made nine years ago -- that's nine years ago -- nine:

But your claim is that God made the Earth 6000 years ago with 4.5 billion years worth of embedded history. That's not true history, that's fake history.
That is lying.
But as I've said, I don't want this thread derailed by your cockamamie idea, so please kindly take it to another thread. I want this thread to be a discussion of what this subforum is supposed to be about: science.

SOURCE

And you haven't learned a thing since.

I've learnt a lot, enough to know that nothing I've said about your embedded age nonsense is wrong.

It's Omphalos hypothesis. It's Last Thursdayism. It's Young Earth Creationism. It's extra-Biblical nonsense, and I'm pretty sure that if you went to various other pastors, they'd probably say it goes against Christian doctrine in general.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why make a world that appears older than it is, BEYOND what is necessary for function? Earth wouldn't have to have all these qualities that indicate old age to have a sustainable environment.

It's as pointless as the idea of Adam from creation myth having a belly button.

Perhaps the appearance of age is merely a result of what took place during the creation process.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because when talking about events in the past, history and age are indeed interlinked and virtually synonymous.

What happened to the word "embedded"?

Did you mean to say, 'Because when talking about events in the past, history and embedded age are indeed interlinked and virtually synonymous'?

Did you leave it out on purpose, thinking I wouldn't catch it?

I'll give you credit for trying hard to make it look like -- as you put it -- a cockamamie idea.

But you're making yourself look bad in doing so.

Just admit you don't understand and we'll let it go at that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What happened to the word "embedded"?

Did you mean to say, 'Because when talking about events in the past, history and embedded age are indeed interlinked and virtually synonymous'?

Did you leave it out on purpose?

I'll give you credit for trying hard to make it look like -- as you put it -- a cockamamie idea.

But you're making yourself look bad in doing so.

Just admit you don't understand and we'll let it go at that.

No I did not mean to say that in the slightest. What I wrote was what I intended.

Embedded age is embedded history, both of which are fake. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

And you certainly do not need my help to make your idea look nonsensical. I also don't think I ever used the term cockamamie. But that is indeed another word that should be used to describe it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Perhaps the appearance of age is merely a result of what took place during the creation process.

Explain.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Forbid people copied down the bible a little incorrect. I don't even think "billion" was in the ancient vocabulary.

Phrases like ten thousand thousands are used to convey large numbers like that in the Bible. They also used illustrations like as many as grains of sand in the ocean or as numerous as the stars.

 

[AV1611VET]

I also don't think I ever used the term cockamamie.

Did you not read your own words from that link I proved to a post you made nine years ago?

Click on that link and read it yourself.

Mamma mia.

I even copy/pasted it here and highlighted it in bold.

I should quit, because you really are making yourself look bad.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did you not read your own words from that link I proved to a post you made nine years ago?

Click on that link and read it yourself.

Mamma mia.

I even copy/pasted it here and highlighted it in bold.

I should quit, because you really are making yourself look bad.

Apologies, I was focused mainly on the current discussion, not a discussion from nearly a decade ago.

Still does not change a damn thing I wrote though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Still does not change a damn thing I wrote though.

So I notice.

Nine years, and haven't learned a thing.

That's sad.

And even Hans Blaster in Post 498 gave a thumbs up to your error.

See what science does, when it gets in the way?

Neither one of you understand what embedded age is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So I notice.

Nine years, and haven't learned a thing.

That's sad.

And even Hans Blaster in Post 498 gave a thumbs up to your error.

See what science does, when it gets in the way?

What's there to learn? You posit God created billions of years of fake history by embedding fake age into the earth. Enough said.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Explain.

Well there are a lot of possible explanations. We don’t know what kind of forces or energies the earth and the universe were exposed to during the creation process, so we can’t really know what effect they might’ve had on materials or even the laws of physics during that time. I know a lot of people might argue that we’ve never witnessed such “energies or forces” but I don’t think we should expect to since we’re not currently witnessing the creation of the universe. For example if we went to the Sea of Galilee today and performed a bunch of scientific experiments we’d probably find nothing out of the ordinary, but if we had been there 2000 years ago watching Jesus walking on the surface of it we would obviously have to conclude that something out of the ordinary is taking place with the laws of physics as we know them. So to me it’s not surprising that we wouldn’t be aware of such energies and forces that we’ve never witnessed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well there are a lot of possible explanations. We don’t know what kind of forces or energies the earth and the universe were exposed to during the creation process, so we can’t really know what effect they might’ve had on materials or even the laws of physics during that time. I know a lot of people might argue that we’ve never witnessed such “energies or forces” but I don’t think we should expect to since we’re not currently witnessing the creation of the universe. For example if we went to the Sea of Galilee today and performed a bunch of scientific experiments we’d probably find nothing out of the ordinary, but if we had been there 2000 years ago watching Jesus walking on the surface of it we would obviously have to conclude that something out of the ordinary is taking place with the laws of physics as we know them. So to me it’s not surprising that we wouldn’t be aware of such energies and forces that we’ve never witnessed.

So you can't explain such an idea then. Good to know.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So you can't explain such an idea then. Good to know.

No, I can’t explain it, but at the same time you can’t refute it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, I can’t explain it, but at the same time you can’t refute it.

No, very true. But since the idea is an idea that has no basis in reality nor in the Bible itself, it can be dismissed out of hand easily.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Phrases like ten thousand thousands are to convey large numbers like that in the Bible. They also used illustrations like as many as grains of sand in the ocean or as numerous as the stars.

That post is 9 years old. And the poster hasn't been here in 5 years.