Taking Questions on the Creation

[AV1611VET]

Now who's mixing the Bible with a personalised (in your case, very personalised) brand of science?

Well, now that's funny --- can you explain this in light of the fact that I say there is no science associated with the Creation?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have but one question: assuming your assumption about embedded age is correct, why didn't God at least include an explanation, a hint or something to that effect in the Bible?

God stated what He did, how He did it, where He did it, when He did it, why He did it, and even who the eyewitnesses were. What more do you want?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

God stated what He did, how He did it, where He did it, when He did it, why He did it, and even who the eyewitnesses were. What more do you want?

I want a reason to believe your concept of embedded age. So far, all I've seen are unsupported speculations from a person I don't trust about a collection of stories I don't trust either.

 

[AV1611VET]

I want a reason to believe your concept of embedded age. So far, all I've seen are unsupported speculations from a person I don't trust about a collection of stories I don't trust either.

Good luck, then, Diogenes.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Good luck, then, Diogenes.

You know, I may not have learned a lot of things in my time, but there's one thing I definitely know: if you think you understand something but you can't explain it to another person, you never understood it in the first place.

Good luck, Philip.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know, I may not have learned a lot of things in my time, but there's one thing I definitely know: if you think you understand something but you can't explain it to another person, you never understood it in the first place.

Just browse this thread, and you'll see why no one understands it.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Just browse this thread, and you'll see why no one understands it.

Nobody understands it because there is nothing to understand. It's an internally contradictory concept, a logical impossibility and bad theology to boot.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody understands it because there is nothing to understand. It's an internally contradictory concept, a logical impossibility and bad theology to boot.

Then we see where the problem lies, don't we?

 

[Catherineanne]

No, the earth does not bear false witness to the Creation; and no, God did not make it that way.

The earth does not point to the Creation Event at all --- for that, you need the Bible.

Can you now comment on the concept of embedded age, in the light of your assertion that the earth does not bear false witness to the Creation, and your admission that God does not deceive.

Many thanks.

 

[Catherineanne]

And just by coincidence, you picked my opinions, right?

I did not choose you, you chose to set yourself up. Meanwhile, this is not the only thread I have commented on.

Well, you won't see the day you refute this 'ol boy's opinions --- especially on the Creation --- which is my forte.

I said I am here to refute your unBiblical assertions, which I have done, not that I am here to change your mind, which I do not expect anyone to do.

When a person becomes too entrenched in one opinion, they identify with it so strongly that they cannot change their mind without losing their identity, no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary. I suspect this may be true of you, which is a shame.

 

[Catherineanne]

You are???

If you cannot tell the difference between questioning you and questioning Scripture, you have a problem.

 

[Catherineanne]

Well, English Atheists are kinda strange. They gave us the Bible in the first place, then wonder why we use It so effectively.

What evidence do you have for the assertion that the Bible was compiled by English Atheists, of all people?

This thread gets more like the twilight zone every moment.

Lord, have mercy!

 

[Catherineanne]

Where does it say that Adam was created as a mature human? Besides, creating a human being with the body and mind of an adult does not equal "embedding age" into it anymore than constructing a contemporary forgery of a Louis XIV desk does.

This is a very good point.

 

[Catherineanne]

Well, in the meantime, why don't you brush up on Genesis 1 and see if you have any [more] questions for me.

I did not notice an answer to my question about rocks, just a deflection.

Genesis 1 does not mention them. Does this mean:

1 They do not exist
2 They were created later
3 The Biblical account is incomplete, and cannot be expected to contain every detail
4 God created the world with embedded rocks but forgot to mention it.

 

[Split Rock]

Do you expect AV to write a book for your questions? I won't ask so many questions if I really want to have any useful answer back.

He asked for questions and I gave him questions. He can answer some, all or none; he has chosen to answer none.

But, just let you know that ALL these questions have been discussed extensively in the Origin Theology forum. If fact, if you are able to ask a "new" question, you would really be a good theologian.

I am not really supposed to ask questions there. I noticed you didn't bother to answer any of them, even though you claim they have all been asked and answered before.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you now comment on the concept of embedded age, in the light of your assertion that the earth does not bear false witness to the Creation, and your admission that God does not deceive.

Many thanks.

QV please.

 

[Cabal]

Well, now that's funny --- can you explain this in light of the fact that I say there is no science associated with the Creation?

You accept the scientifically determined ages and just say that they're embedded in a 6100 year old universe. It's a cynical creation of an unproveable loophole, and nothing else, just so you can say, "my interpretation is right." (Actually, you don't even realise it's an interpretation, but that's a mere sidenote.)

 

[Catherineanne]

The definition of EMBEDDED AGE

Maturity without history.

Keep in mind:

1. Only God can do it.
2. It is an act of omnipotence - not science - and therefore cannot be verified.
3. Since it cannot be verified, documentation would be necessary for clarification.

This is not a very good definition, because it fails to say what embedded age entails. Moreover, it does not answer the question I asked, which was:

"Can you now comment on the concept of embedded age, in the light of your assertion that the earth does not bear false witness to the Creation, and your admission that God does not deceive."

 

[AV1611VET]

He asked for questions and I gave him questions. He can answer some, all or none; he has chosen to answer none.

QV post 8 please.

 

[AV1611VET]

You accept the scientifically determined ages and just say that they're embedded in a 6100 year old universe.

Not even close --- they are embedded in an instantaneously-created universe. You're making it sound like He waited 6100 years, then embedded age.