Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Impossible and therefore useless as a definition. Congratulations, you've debunked your own argument with the first line.Maturity without history.
Says who? Certainly not the Bible.Keep in mind:
- Only God can do it.
Why can't an act of omnipotence be verified?
- It is an act of omnipotence - not science - and therefore cannot be verified.
Finally, we agree on something. Unfortunately, there is no documentation.
- Since it cannot be verified, documentation would be necessary for clarification.
The whole idea of 'maturity without history' is a wonderful example of the triumph of science over superstition.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.
Impossible and therefore useless as a definition.
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.
I haven't looked in Wikipedia, and I don't need to. Maturity without the passage of time is impossible.Only because it isn't in Wikipedia anywhere (that I know of).
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.It's interesting that you have no trouble with:
But can't seem to grasp:
- history without the passage of time (Omphalism)
- age without the passage of time
I have no logical objection to Omphalos because it's simply artificial aging on a literally cosmic scale.
Oh yes, I've seen it.That's quite an indictment --- coming from someone who has no explanation. Have you seen my Ex Nihilo Challenge?
Grammatically sound but logically risible.
In what way is it a 'scientific' question?It's still a valid scientific question --- care to answer it? And yes, I'll accept "I don't know" as a valid answer.
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.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.
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.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.
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"?
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.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.
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.Maturity without history.
Keep in mind:
- Only God can do it.
- It is an act of omnipotence - not science - and therefore cannot be verified.
- 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.
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.And yet you don't see history without age oxymoronic? Or do you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?