Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Kylie]

Why would we?

All those plants and animals and Adam & Eve are long gone, and their evidence long dried up.

So why should I believe a claim that has no supporting evidence?

 

[Kylie]

Fair enough.

My apology.

I didn't understand what Aaron112 was saying.

As I said. I would suggest next time you go and read the conversation and if you have any questions, ask for clarification instead of just jumping in.

 

[AV1611VET]

So why should I believe a claim that has no supporting evidence?

So you won't stereotype science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you won't stereotype science.

And there goes the irony metre for the thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

And there goes the irony metre for the thread.

My standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Academia's standards:

1. Ancient text says x, current science says x = go with x
2. Ancient text says x, current science says y = go with y
3. Ancient text says x, current science says ø = go with ø
4. Ancient text says ø, current science says x = go with x
5. Ancient text says ø, current science says ø = who cares?

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Scientific Method to be contradicted.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Academia's standards:

1. Ancient text says x, current science says x = go with x
2. Ancient text says x, current science says y = go with y
3. Ancient text says x, current science says ø = go with ø
4. Ancient text says ø, current science says x = go with x
5. Ancient text says ø, current science says ø = who cares?

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Scientific Method to be contradicted.

And again... there goes any shred of irony for this thread.

 

[driewerf]

My standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Academia's standards:

1. Ancient text says x, current science says x = go with x
2. Ancient text says x, current science says y = go with y
3. Ancient text says x, current science says ø = go with ø
4. Ancient text says ø, current science says x = go with x
5. Ancient text says ø, current science says ø = who cares?

The second part is counterfactual. Academia's standard would rather be
1. Ancient text says x, current science says x = study and evaluate x
2. Ancient text says x, current science says y = study and evaluate y
3. Ancient text says x, current science says ø = start a research project
4. Ancient text says ø, current science says x = study and evaluate x
5. Ancient text says ø, current science says ø = start a research project

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Scientific Method to be contradicted.

Prime directive: don't accept truth on authority or tradition. Try to study and evaluate the supporting evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

The second part is counterfactual. Academia's standard would rather be

1. Ancient text says x, current science says x = study and evaluate x
2. Ancient text says x, current science says y = study and evaluate y
3. Ancient text says x, current science says ø = start a research project
4. Ancient text says ø, current science says x = study and evaluate x
5. Ancient text says ø, current science says ø = start a research project

So science first says y, THEN they study and evaluate y?

Isn't that how we got Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii?

Shame on me for assuming it had been studied before it became y.

Prime directive: don't accept truth on authority or tradition. Try to study and evaluate the supporting evidence.

So go ahead and contradict the Scientific Method?

Isn't that how we got Pluto demoted?

 

[driewerf]

So science first says y, THEN they study and evaluate y?

Nope. Scientists evaluate their data during their research and before submission. The it is reevaluated during the peer review before publication. After publication readers will evaluaye and comment, during presentations at congresses debates will follow.

Isn't that how we got Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii?

And also how we got rid of it. You just don't seem to get over it. That science admits and corrects it mistakes displays it's grandeur, and not it's weakness.

 

[AV1611VET]

And also how we got rid of it. You just don't seem to get over it. That science admits and corrects it mistakes displays it's grandeur, and not it's weakness.

Lights fires, then puts them out.

 

[driewerf]

So go ahead and contradict the Scientific Method?

Your request makes no sense. A result, data point or conclusion can be contradicted. A method can be used or discarded.
I still hope that it is just stupidity that makes you write such stuff.

 

[driewerf]

Lights fires, then puts them out.

Nope, that's the christian god's way: first cursing humanity, and then offering "salvation" or "redemption" through the sacrifice of his son.

 

[Aaron112]

I would argue that this rewritten history is not actually history...

Go ahead. People then would mock you , say you're wrong, ignore you, and maybe stone you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Go ahead. People then would mock you , say you're wrong, ignore you, and maybe stone you?

Let's pray they don't go THAT far!

Hate the sin, pray for the sinner.

 

[Aaron112]

Let's pray they don't go THAT far!

It is good to pray, but realize they ALREADY go THAT far!

 

[AV1611VET]

It is good to pray, but realize they ALREADY go THAT far!

Doesn't surprise me.

 

[Kylie]

So you won't stereotype science.

Stereotype science as what, exactly? A discipline that doesn't just accept whatever claims are made?

Why do you act as though asking for evidence before a claim is accepted is a bad thing?

 

[Kylie]

Go ahead. People then would mock you , say you're wrong, ignore you, and maybe stone you?

Yes, they might indeed do that.

But it wouldn't change the fact that the rewritten history NEVER HAPPENED, would it?

 

[driewerf]

Stereotype science as what, exactly? A discipline that doesn't just accept whatever claims are made?

Why do you act as though asking for evidence before a claim is accepted is a bad thing?

Because AV1611VET has a world view from which al evidence has been removed. The absence of evidence is the big proof that he is right.
For example see this post of him:

Anyone notice that many people are scientifically illiterate

It really would be a miracle if their eyes were opened and they saw that a controversial reading of an ancient religious text was absolute truth after all Yeah it will be but it might not be a pleasant one for them when it finally does happen.

www.christianforums.com

 

[Ace777]

I define Embedded Age Creation as: maturity without history.

You never addressed the question of a very rapid history. The first Galaxy did not just appear. It expanded from the size of a grain of sand to the size of a Galaxy in a blink of an eye. According to science, but you do not accept Science so it must not be true. You can not get something from something. You have to get somthing from nothing. Even though there is no evidence that nothing has ever existed.