It's a wonder AV is
still trying to convince us of what he is or isn't - when
everyone knows and agrees that he is a young-earth, omphalic creationist, the only twist being that he thinks that you can be X years old without having existed for X years.
AV: We have you pinned down like a butterfly in a museum draw. Here are your beliefs, except this time, instead of pointing out the contradictions with oh-so-subtle "confusions" I'm just going to pretend I'm you.
You believe:
- The earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- The earth was created 6100 years ago.
- The difference is accounted for by "embedded age."
- Embedded age is "maturity without history."
- You are not YEC because you think the earth is 4.5 billion years old
- You are not Omphalos for the same reason
That, I am very confident, is what you believe. However, some of the results are:
- You believe the earth has existed for 6100 years.
- You believe that the earth nonetheless looks 4.5 billion years old, and the reason for that is God.
The problem for you is that, if we take
normal English this means that:
- You are a young earth creationist, since "The earth has been in existence for 6100 years" (In normal English) Is a YEC statement
- You subscribe to a version of the Omphalos hypothesis because, as well as the above, YEC, statement, you think the earth appears very old - your claim that the earth IS old notwithstanding because, as I say, we are talking in normal English.
So, little butterfly, you wiggle and flap and pretend we don't understand you. But we do - we know
exactly what's going on. You almost certainly won't reply to this post, at least, not in any useful way. I suppose when we stab a butterfly it tends to be dead, or will be shortly thereafter.
This nonsense is made even more ironic when you don't even understand what an atheist or agnostic is - or at least, can't get your head around some common conceptions of them. There are essentially two fundamental sets of definitions. Firstly, the strong-agnostic concept coupled with a weak/strong atheist distinction, that is:
- Agnostic: One cannot know whether God exists
- Weak atheist: I do not believe that God exists
- Strong atheist: I believe that God does not exist
The other set is:
- Agnostic: I don't know whether God exists
- Atheist: God does not exist
The problem with any agnostic conception is that it expresses an epistemic state not an intentional one, and it therefore depends on your idea of knowledge. However, because of that fact, in either of those two sets of beliefs above, it is perfectly possible for one to be agnostic and atheist because one expresses something to do with knowledge, the other, to do with belief.
Anyway. If you assume that there was only one, or a few beetle kinds, you have a problem. Why don't we observe hyperevolution now?