The definition of EMBEDDED AGE

[MrGoodBytes]

Maturity without history.

Impossible and therefore useless as a definition. Congratulations, you've debunked your own argument with the first line.

Keep in mind:

1. Only God can do it.

Says who? Certainly not the Bible.

1. It is an act of omnipotence - not science - and therefore cannot be verified.

Why can't an act of omnipotence be verified?

1. Since it cannot be verified, documentation would be necessary for clarification.

Finally, we agree on something. Unfortunately, there is no documentation.

 

[milkyway]

Impossible and therefore useless as a definition. Congratulations, you've debunked your own argument with the first line.

Says who? Certainly not the Bible.

Why can't an act of omnipotence be verified?

Finally, we agree on something. Unfortunately, there is no documentation.

The whole idea of 'maturity without history' is a wonderful example of the triumph of science over superstition.

If science hadn't discovered the true age of the earth, bible believers would not have had to formulate such a desperate idea to try and prop up their creation myth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Impossible and therefore useless as a definition.

Only because it isn't in Wikipedia anywhere (that I know of).

It's interesting that you have no trouble with:

• history without the passage of time (Omphalism)

But can't seem to grasp:

• age without the passage of time

 

[AV1611VET]

If science hadn't discovered the true age of the earth, bible believers would not have had to formulate such a desperate idea to try and prop up their creation myth.

That's quite an indictment --- coming from someone who has no explanation. Have you seen my Ex Nihilo Challenge?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Only because it isn't in Wikipedia anywhere (that I know of).

I haven't looked in Wikipedia, and I don't need to. Maturity without the passage of time is impossible.

It's interesting that you have no trouble with:

• history without the passage of time (Omphalism)

But can't seem to grasp:

• age without the passage of time

I have no logical objection to Omphalos because it's simply artificial aging on a literally cosmic scale. An omnipotent being certainly could make it appear that a 6100 year old object is 4.5 billion years old, just like a fraudulent vendor of antiquities could build a table from scratch and then treat it with chemicals to make it look like a baroque masterpiece.

What you are claiming - "age without the passage of time" is simply impossible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no logical objection to Omphalos because it's simply artificial aging on a literally cosmic scale.

So you have no problem with the concept that God could create a man and implant the idea of cuts and bruises, etc. in his head; but you find God creating a 30-year-old man in one day "impossible"?

 

[milkyway]

That's quite an indictment --- coming from someone who has no explanation. Have you seen my Ex Nihilo Challenge?

Oh yes, I've seen it.

It's a 'challenge' in the same sense that "What does the colour blue smell like?" is a question.

Grammatically sound but logically risible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Grammatically sound but logically risible.

It's still a valid scientific question --- care to answer it? And yes, I'll accept "I don't know" as a valid answer.

 

[milkyway]

It's still a valid scientific question --- care to answer it? And yes, I'll accept "I don't know" as a valid answer.

In what way is it a 'scientific' question?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

So you have no problem with the concept that God could create a man and implant the idea of cuts and bruises, etc. in his head; but you find God creating a 30-year-old man in one day "impossible"?

It is impossible. A 30-year old man necessarily requires 30 years to age. God can create a human being in a day that, for all intents and purposes, looks and acts like a 30-year old, of course. Creating a man who really is 30 years old in a day is no more possible than a square circle.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is impossible. A 30-year old man necessarily requires 30 years to age. God can create a human being in a day that, for all intents and purposes, looks and acts like a 30-year old, of course. Creating a man who really is 30 years old in a day is no more possible than a square circle.

You skimmed over the Omphalos part, MrGoodBytes. Remember? We're talking your unusual propensity to accept Omphalos, but not Embedded Age.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

You skimmed over the Omphalos part, MrGoodBytes. Remember? We're talking your unusual propensity to accept Omphalos, but not Embedded Age.

I already said that Ompalos is logically sound. It's a theologists's nightmare, of course, but that's not my problem. Your embedded age hypothesis is both fundamentally impossible and completely without biblical support, so I don't see any reason to buy it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I already said that Ompalos is logically sound. It's a theologists's nightmare, of course, but that's not my problem. Your embedded age hypothesis is both fundamentally impossible and completely without biblical support, so I don't see any reason to buy it.

Then I submit you're hypocritical.

 

[Psudopod]

So you have no problem with the concept that God could create a man and implant the idea of cuts and bruises, etc. in his head; but you find God creating a 30-year-old man in one day "impossible"?

It's not that it's impossible for God to create a man with the body of a 30 year. Or to create a world that's mature. But this world has history and that's the same as creating a man with a navel and scars etc. We understand what you are saying, but you're saying it without any justification.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Then I submit you're hypocritical.

Why am I hypocritical? I don't believe in Omphalos any more than you do, I merely say that it's internally consistent, unlike your hypothesis.

 

[milkyway]

In what way is it a 'scientific' question?

No answer?

Yet another win for science!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why am I hypocritical? I don't believe in Omphalos any more than you do, I merely say that it's internally consistent, unlike your hypothesis.

Indeed -- an Omnipotent deity can be deceptive -- there's no internally logical reason to think God couldn't have been yanking our chains with the Creation. The only problem comes with trying to reconcile that possibility with Christian theology (which often tells internal logic to take a hike, anyway)

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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.

Maturity without history, even though we see evidence of history. Age without history strikes me as an oxymoron and thus the proper definition of "embedded age" is an oxymoronic attempt to reconcile the YEC interpretation of scripture with reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maturity without history, even though we see evidence of history. Age without history strikes me as an oxymoron and thus the proper definition of "embedded age" is an oxymoronic attempt to reconcile the YEC interpretation of scripture with reality.

And yet you don't see history without age oxymoronic? Or do you?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

And yet you don't see history without age oxymoronic? Or do you?

But the Omphalos supporters don't claim that what we see is real history, they say this planet has the appearance of history, which is entirely possible.