Taking questions on the Creation.

[AV1611VET]

This thread is a perfect example, You say that it can't take light any longer than 6100 light years to reach Earth from anywhere in the universe, because the universe is only 6100 years old.

Oh, my --- I don't recall ever having said that.

I have stated that light has only been in transit a maximum of 6100 years, but I have never said it reaches us from its point-of-origin anywhere in space in that amount of time.

 

[BananaSlug]

And yet, if it wasn't for Embedded Age, I wouldn't be saying the universe is 13.7 billiion years old.

Correct.

All Embedded Age is, is a modified form of OEC, anyway.

No it is a modified form of YEC. You are claiming the universe was created ~6000 years ago with 13.5 billion years of age.

I take a lot of flack for Embedded Age --- but it's worth it, if it will reconcile the Bible with Science.

It doesn't. You need to explain why we have "embedded history" along with "embedded age". Ancient volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, etc are all found in the earth's geologic history. Your scenario says there is only ~6000 years of actual history, yet the geologic record shows a much longer history of earth.

 

[Alunyel]

Oh, my --- I don't recall ever having said that.

I have stated that light has only been in transit a maximum of 6100 years, but I have never said it reaches us from its point-of-origin anywhere in space in that amount of time.

So light wasn't traveling for 13.5 billion - ~6100 years?

What was it doing, having a tea party with gravity and electromagnetism, or something?

If light has only been traveling for 6100 years, then how can we see this;

?

If those galaxies are a maximum of 6100 light years away, then how come we're not all burnt to a crisp, from the Sun, which is only 8 light minutes away?

If they're close enough for their light to reach us in ~6100 years, then our Sun must be very, very close for its light to reach us in 8 minutes.

 

[Sophophile]

And yet, if it wasn't for Embedded Age, I wouldn't be saying the universe is 13.7 billiion years old.

All Embedded Age is, is a modified form of OEC, anyway.

I take a lot of flack for Embedded Age --- but it's worth it, if it will reconcile the Bible with Science.

Hi again AV1611VET

I believe that you despise science, because it contradicts your young-universe concept. This is why you try to sweep observed evidence under the rug, and pretend it doesn't exist. This is why you keep running away from supernova 1987A.

As I said before, embedded age does not reconcile the Bible with Science. Rather, embedded age is utterly anti-science, because it involves the idea that factual evidence about the real world is not really real, but is an illusion. Not only that, but I am sure many Christians would agree that it is absolutely dreadful as an apologetic, because it makes God look like a cosmic prankster salting the universe with misleading evidence of age.

Regards
S.

 

[Sophophile]

Oh, my --- I don't recall ever having said that.

I have stated that light has only been in transit a maximum of 6100 years, but I have never said it reaches us from its point-of-origin anywhere in space in that amount of time.

Dear AV1611VET

Above you have now clearly espoused the "light created in transit" explanation for distant starlight.

This necessarily requires that the light we see from SN1987A, looking in every tiny detail like it really came from a supernova 168,000 light years away 168,000 years ago, did not in fact come from that supernova. Instead, the light "created in transit" contains the illusory image of the supernova within it.

Because you cannot reconcile a 6,000 year-old universe with observations of SN1987A, you must deny that the observations are real -- even though we really saw them (and we have the photographic plates to prove it). Instead, you claim we are observing the illusion of an explosion that only looks like it happened 168,000 years old, whereas really it didn't.

This is what I have been saying all along.

Do you now acknowledge that your 6,000 year time frame requires illusory astronomical observations?

If you say "yes", great, we have some interesting epistemological things to discuss.

If you say "no", then please answer my first question in this thread: When did SN1987A explode, and how far away was it when it did?

Thanks and regards
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't. You need to explain why we have "embedded history" along with "embedded age".

No, I don't have to explain it --- for two good reasons:

1. This thread is about the Creation Week.
2. Embedded Age = maturity without history.

 

[gaara4158]

No, I don't have to explain it --- for two good reasons:

1. This thread is about the Creation Week.
2. Embedded Age = maturity without history.

Embedded age claims that there is no history. Yet we find history (fossils, asteroid impacts, volcanoes, etc.). You've got some 'splaining to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe that you despise science, because it contradicts your young-universe concept.

And I believe you're wrong too, as I don't have a 'young-universe concept.'

The universe is 13.7 billion years old --- if that's a 'young universe', then mathematically I'm 12,352,459.02 years old.

As I said before, embedded age does not reconcile the Bible with Science.

Then I'm afraid you don't understand it.

Not only that, but I am sure many Christians would agree that it is absolutely dreadful as an apologetic, because it makes God look like a cosmic prankster salting the universe with misleading evidence of age.

Was He a 'prankster' when He walked on water?

Was He a 'prankster' when, every time He showed up, He twisted science into a pretzel?

Please answer this question:

• If you went back to first-century (A.D.) Israel with your current attitude about the Bible, and were allowed to take all the scientific tools you could with you, how much time, in your opinion, would you spend investigating what you just saw with your own eyes?

Again --- please answer this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Embedded age claims that there is no history. Yet we find history (fossils, asteroid impacts, volcanoes, etc.). You've got some 'splaining to do.

No, you do.

Show me 'fossils, asteroid impacts, volcanoes, etc.' in Genesis 1.

 

[Cabal]

No, you do.

Show me 'fossils, asteroid impacts, volcanoes, etc.' in Genesis 1.

Burden of proof fail.

Try again.

 

[Alunyel]

No, you do.

Show me 'fossils, asteroid impacts, volcanoes, etc.' in Genesis 1.

Show me nuclear fusion in Genesis 1.

Stars aren't just a "light", they're basically giant H and He fusion reactors.

Show me the expelled heavier elements in Genesis 1, as a result of that nuclear fusion.

It's the material all planets are made of.

Show me gravity in Genesis 1.

It's what caused the heavier elements to become planets and the He and H clouds to become stars.

Show me the huge clouds of H and He in Genesis 1.

The two simplest molecules, and the first to exist, drawn together through gravity, eventually becoming stars, eventually fusing to become heavier elements, eventually becoming planets. We can still see clouds of H and He that were never dense enough to become stars.

 

[AV1611VET]

The two simplest molecules, and the first to exist, drawn together through gravity, eventually becoming stars, eventually fusing to become heavier elements, eventually becoming planets. We can still see clouds of H and He that were never dense enough to become stars.

Not in Genesis 1 --- we have the earth before the sun --- remember?

In fact --- in Genesis 1 --- the Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy didn't exist.

The amount of mass/energy in Genesis 1 started out at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

 

[Alunyel]

Not in Genesis 1 --- we have the earth before the sun --- remember?

In fact --- in Genesis 1 --- the Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy didn't exist.

The amount of mass/energy in Genesis 1 started out at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

Wrong, actually.

First, Din, the goddess of power created the Earth.

Next, Nayru, the goddess of wisdom gave the spirit of law into the world.

Lastly, Farore the goddess of courage poured life into the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong, actually.

First, Din, the goddess of power created the Earth.

Next, Nayru, the goddess of wisdom gave the spirit of law into the world.

Lastly, Farore the goddess of courage poured life into the world.

It's fun to play the role of what we call a Diabolical Plagiarist, isn't it?

In fact, when I see mockery like this, it's like I'm traveling back in time and reading the minds [or hearts] of those who wrote such stuff as the Epic of Gilgamesh.

As Solomon put it, 'There's nothing new under the sun.'

Until I came to this site, I always wondered what they said to Jesus when they mocked Him at His trials.

Now I think I have a pretty good idea.

 

[Cabal]

It's fun to play the role of what we call a Diabolical Plagiarist, isn't it?

Is this some more "Basic Doctrine" coming to the fore now?

In fact, when I see mockery like this, it's like I'm traveling back in time and reading the minds [or hearts] of those who wrote such stuff as the Epic of Gilgamesh.

You claim to read people's hearts and minds now? Someone should call Jesus, tell him he's got a contender.

As Solomon put it, 'There's nothing new under the sun.'

Until I came to this site, I always wondered what they said to Jesus when they mocked Him at His trials.

Now I think I have a pretty good idea.

Why, did he spend a lot of time debating creation and evolution at his trial? Think you'll find that was not the case.

The fact you can't see the point that's being raised and take it as "diabolical plagiarism" or whatever the latest jargon term you've just thought up is simply pathetic.

 

[Alunyel]

The Hyrulian creation is true, LoZ: OoT says so.

 

[gaara4158]

No, you do.

Show me 'fossils, asteroid impacts, volcanoes, etc.' in Genesis 1.

Show me Adam coughing and sneezing in Genesis 1.

Stop moving the goal posts and give a direct answer for once. Your claim is that God created the Earth with age, but not with history. But the history is found in places it cannot have naturally occurred if the earth has only been around for ~6100 years. Why is the history there?

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact you can't see the point that's being raised and take it as "diabolical plagiarism" or whatever the latest jargon term you've just thought up is simply pathetic.

204

 

[Cabal]

The Hyrulian creation is true, LoZ: OoT says so.

It even has a Trinity/Triforce!

 

[Cabal]

204

I apologise. It's hard to tell sometimes.

Either way, you missed the point.

ETA: The REAL irony is that thaum's post you QV'd CONTAINED THE POINT.