Test thread for YEC'ism.

AV1611VET · Apr 23, 2008

Nathan Poe said:
More importantly, how can anything "agree" or "disagree" with the Bible when the Bible can only say what its readers interpret it as saying?

Thanks for making my point for literalism.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 23, 2008

Nathan Poe said:
More importantly, how can anything "agree" or "disagree" with the Bible when the Bible can only say what its readers interpret it as saying?

Great point. As far as I know nothing in modern geology explicitly disagrees with the Old Earth Creationist interpretion of Genesis. I suppose one could argue that palenotology does as far as interpretation of evolutionary sequences go but geology does not.

AintNoMonkey · Apr 23, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Thanks for making my point for literalism.

Thanks for fully misunderstanding the post.

AV1611VET · Apr 23, 2008

Nathan Poe said:
More importantly, how can anything "agree" or "disagree" with the Bible when the Bible can only say what its readers interpret it as saying?

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Great point.

Thanks for agreeing with Nathan.

AV1611VET · Apr 23, 2008

AintNoMonkey said:
Thanks for fully misunderstanding the post.

Thanks for being wrong.

Nathan Poe · Apr 23, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Thanks for making my point for literalism.

Indeed -- thinking is hard, so the literalists found a way to bypass the problem.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Apr 23, 2008

AV1611VET said:
But it is not, Nathan --- let me remind you:

Embedded age = maturity without history.

QV PLEASE

But AV, the earth has history that clearly shows in its geology. So how did that "history" get there if the age was embedded without history?

What you are promoting is simply a nonsensical variation of the Omphalos hypothesis. As I said before, if it looks like a duck walks like a duck, quacks like duck and flys like a duck calling it a chicken will not convince anyone that it is not a duck.

Nathan Poe · Apr 23, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Thanks for being wrong.

Nope, he's right, you have completely missed the point, just as Jesus said you would.

But by all means, keep mindlessly asserting your own correctness without bothering to learn your mistake -- Your fellow Creationists will love you for it.

thaumaturgy · Apr 23, 2008

AV1611VET said:
I won't touch Embedded History --- (Omphalism) --- that's not my bag.

Well, hopefully you'll understand that when you start down the road of "Word Games" and unique, specific, non-standard definitions of things like "age", then people are prone to trip over your "unique self-centered definitions" once in a while.

Thanks for the "correction" on this. I wouldn't want to misrepresent your point. It is so obscure, anti-logical and such a semantic labrynth that it can certainly do that on its own.

Nathan Poe · Apr 23, 2008

AV1611VET said:
But it is not, Nathan --- let me remind you:

Embedded age = maturity without history.

QV PLEASE

Maturity is impossible without history -- whether a real history or a manufactured one.

All you've managed to do is invent another miracle for God to commit so that you don't have to admit a mistake.

Your fellow YECs will love you.

AV1611VET · Apr 23, 2008

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
But AV, the earth has history that clearly shows in its geology. So how did that "history" get there if the age was embedded without history?

Was the following geology available to Adam and Eve:

Grand Canyon
White Cliffs of Dover
Bright Angel Shale
Mt Rushmore - [okay, scratch that one]
7 continents
ummm ... whatever else

I hardly think so.

Once again --- Embedded Age is maturity without history; and seeing as how Omphalos is embedded history, your duck is not a duck.

huldah153 · Apr 23, 2008

AV1611VET said:
But it is not, Nathan --- let me remind you:

Embedded age = maturity without history.

QV PLEASE

You can't have embedded age without embedded history. Otherwise, dinosaur fossils would be found in modern rocks instead of ancient ones.

Incidentally, I find the notion of dinosaurs not existing more plausible than the idea that they evolved into chickens.

thaumaturgy · Apr 23, 2008

AV1611VET said:
White [something] of Dover

You do your debate honor with that.

Maybe your mom or dad was familiar with the song.

AV1611VET · Apr 23, 2008

thaumaturgy said:
Well, hopefully you'll understand that when you start down the road of "Word Games" and unique, specific, non-standard definitions of things like "age",

You mean like this one:

answers.com --- age said:
The state of being old; old age

AintNoMonkey · Apr 23, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Thanks for being wrong.

Oh, I guess I forgot that your idea of 'understanding' is placing whatever meaning you want on whatever you see, regardless of what its abundantly clear true meaning is.

My bad, I guess I'm so used to dealing with rational people that I sometimes assume you have that quality as well.

AV1611VET · Apr 23, 2008

Nathan Poe said:
Maturity is impossible without history -- whether a real history or a manufactured one.

I already made that point here.

AintNoMonkey · Apr 23, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Blue Angel Shale

**Bright Angel Shale

AintNoMonkey · Apr 23, 2008

huldah153 said:
Incidentally, I find the notion of dinosaurs not existing more plausible than the idea that they evolved into chickens.

...I can't tell if you're serious or not.

AV1611VET · Apr 23, 2008

AintNoMonkey said:
Oh, I guess I forgot that your idea of 'understanding' is placing whatever meaning you want on whatever you see, regardless of what its abundantly clear true meaning is.

My bad, I guess I'm so used to dealing with rational people that I sometimes assume you have that quality as well.

Standard dictionary definitions, ANM --- standard dictionary definitions.

AV1611VET · Apr 23, 2008

thaumaturgy said:
You do your debate honor with that.

Maybe your mom or dad was familiar with the song.

AintNoMonkey said:
**Bright Angel Shale

Okay --- I've had two corrections - (thank you) - and a couple of false accusations.

But I'm still awaiting the answer, though ---

Test thread for YEC'ism.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency