The Return of My Apple Challenge

[FishFace]

No you don't --- need proof?

You've aptly demonstrated that we all can agree just what it is you are. Since it is only you who disagrees, any non-arrogant person would be wondering whether they did such a great job of explaining themselves if every single person here misunderstands you in the same way.

Chalk me up as another person who reckons you're the free-market communist - you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, whoops, I mean in existence - that's YEC - and you believe it is 4.5 billion years old - that's... contradictory. You believe that the earth has existed for 6,000 years but that it looks as if it has existed for much longer - that is Omphalos. You also say you don't subscribe to Omphalos.

Free market communist, literal-bible atheist, square circle... whatever. Confused is the best way of describing you if we need to be succinct.

 

[Psudopod]

I don't know why we're talking embedded history (omphalos) now. I believe in embedded age (ex nihilo).

I know you do. And if that was all, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, you come on here, telling us we're all wrong, that you people like us for breakfast, and we're all just "armchair scientists". If you start a debate people are going to debate back. Reality says the univser is not only 13.7 billion years old, it has 13.7 billion years of history. And until you can show everyone a decent explaination for those 13.7 billion years of history, you're going to have to face them every time you bring up the embedded age thing.

Even if the universe is 6000 years old with 13.7 years of embedded history, you are still left with the fact that knowing this is useless in terms of science. You'll never improve technology or life quality with the embedded age assumption, whether it is true or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know you do. And if that was all, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, you come on here, telling us we're all wrong...

How does it feel? Can't take what you guys dish out?

Even if the universe is 6000 years old with 13.7 years of embedded history, you are still left with the fact that knowing this is useless in terms of science. You'll never improve technology or life quality with the embedded age assumption, whether it is true or not.

First of all, you need to make up you mind which one I am.

Second of all, I don't plan on improving technology or life quality, with or without the atheist icon.

 

[Phred]

How does it feel? Can't take what you guys dish out?

First of all, you need to make up you mind which one I am.

Second of all, I don't plan on improving technology or life quality, with or without the atheist icon.

You just can't get over the fact that you create your god in your mind... can you? All these mental gymnastics are to try and align your holy scripture with reality. But reality stands on its own quite nicely, thank you. It doesn't need aligning with your scripture. Until you can clearly define what your god is and where it is and all that your god may as well not exist. It's in the same category as Santa and the Easter Bunny. While you can't prove they don't exist you also can't prove they do.

So it doesn't matter... all this nonsense about embedded age and ex nihilo creation. These are things you've created to allow your god to exist. Since you've created them, YOU explain 'em. I just don't feel any of it is worth my time to bother with anymore.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Even if the universe is 6000 years old with 13.7 years of embedded history, you are still left with the fact that knowing this is useless in terms of science. You'll never improve technology or life quality with the embedded age assumption, whether it is true or not.

I wouldn't say that it would be useless. If we did know that this was true then we would also know that some of the theories are wrong and would have to devise others in their place. Knowing the truth does not have to improve anything beyond knowledge of the truth though it is good when it does improve other things as well.

I personally believe that embedded age is just a way to twist reality into a biblical interpretation. I also believe that the arguement about this knowledge being useless falls on its face right out the gate. If it were true then it would be true and the usefullness of such information is meaningless in that regaurd.

 

[FishFace]

First of all, you need to make up you mind which one I am.

Only if there were a meaningful difference. Something you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate.

Embedded age = it looks old but has existed for fewer years.
Embedded history = it looks old but has existed for fewer years.

Saying "it looks old because it is old" as you are so fond of doing makes no difference since you're just toying with your pet definition of "old." I don't care for your own personal dialect of gobbledegook, and sticking to English exposes embedded age and embedded history to be precisely the same thing.

 

[Split Rock]

It's called embedding age.

Yes, you have stated it is "embedded age" about a million times. The problem is, you have never, ever explained what that means!
Instead you keep complaining that you are misunderstood. You have even claimed that we misunderstand you on purpose (as part of your over all persecution complex, no doubt).

One more chance:

1. What does it mean to "embed" age into something?

2. What is the practical difference between "embedded age" and "embedded history?"

3. The earth shows scars from old events, such as earthquakes, volcanic and tectonic activity, meteor/asteroid collisions, local floods, etc. Is this not history?

 

[arnoldedward]

Simple question, this is meant to be an anology of something, presumably that just because we have no proof of God making everything we cant say he didnt do. But in order for your analogy to work you need to have no evidence and as you said many times, the bible is evidence, so your analogy is either faulty or the bible is bullcrap.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. What does it mean to "embed" age into something?

CLICK HERE
​

2. What is the practical difference between "embedded age" and "embedded history?"

CLICK HERE
​

3. The earth shows scars from old events, such as earthquakes, volcanic and tectonic activity, meteor/asteroid collisions, local floods, etc. Is this not history?

Yes it does --- at least 6100 years worth --- correction: 6099 years worth.

 

[arnoldedward]

What about dinosaurs I couldnt help but ask

 

[Split Rock]

The definition of EMBEDDED AGE

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.

If it is "Maturity without history," then why was it necessary to embed 4.5 billion years of age into the earth? What is a "mature" earth? Is it one on which Adam could live in the Garden? Why did that require 4.5 billion years of age? All it would require is a non-molten, stable planet with some topsoil. That hardly requires 4.5 billion years!

Why is it unverifiable? Let's say God created the earth in a day and made it nice and solid and stable. 6,000 years later we use radioisotope dating to determine the age of the earth. Why would we not get 6,000 years? And if we did, that would certainly go against all we know about planet formation and how the solar system developed, would it not? That would be verification of Maturity without history.

[What's the difference?

Embedded Age: Let's suppose Mike, who is 20 years old, and has a scab from a minor cut, buys a newspaper dated 13 December 07, reads it, and goes to bed. That night, God embeds 10 years of [maturity without history] into Mike. When Mike wakes up the next morning, he is now 30 years old, has that scab from a minor cut, and will go out and buy a newspaper dated 14 December 07, etc.

Omphalism: Let's suppose Mike, who is 20 years old, and has a scab from a minor cut, buys a newspaper dated 13 December 07, reads it, and goes to bed. That night, God embeds 10 years of [maturity with history] into Mike. When Mike wakes up the next morning, he is now 30 years old, has no scab, and will go out and buy a newspaper dated 14 December 07, etc.

See the difference?

I see the difference, but it is rather esoteric. It is also not at all clear to me that Omphalous supporters would agree that their model would follow the second example and not the first. I also asked what the practical difference was, and from your example there doesn't seem to be one. Unless you knew when Mike got the injury, you would never see a difference.

Yes it does --- at least 6100 years worth --- correction: 6099 years worth.

But this does not follow what you are claiming. You are claiming that the 4.5 billion years was embedded, and only the later 6,000 years is real age with history. Yet these examples of planetary scars I mentioned go back millions or billions of years into "embedded" age. If you are claiming they are really examples of what happened within the last 6,000 years, then there is very little (if any) "embedded" age left for us to argue over.

Do you understand the problems now?

 

[quatona]

CLICK HERE​

Maturity without history.

Keep in mind:

1. Only God can do it.

1. Fender and Gibson can do it, too.
2. http://www.fender.com/customshop/instruments/search.php?partno=0150080800

 

[FishFace]

I see the difference, but it is rather esoteric. It is also not at all clear to me that Omphalous supporters would agree that their model would follow the second example and not the first. I also asked what the practical difference was, and from your example there doesn't seem to be one. Unless you knew when Mike got the injury, you would never see a difference.

Also, in what way is Mike 30 years old, now? Have his organs become more worn? Does have more wrinkles, is his skin collagen less elastic? Have his telomeres been shortened?

If so, then how come he still has the scab, and how are those changes different to the scab one.
If not, then he doesn't look any older than his existence - but the earth does.

 

[Belk]

Because, as I have said before, we hold science up to a higher Standard; and again, for the record, if it doesn't contradict the Scriptures, I have no problem with it. That's why I'll take your word that the earth is 4.57 billion years old - it doesn't contradict a literal reading of Genesis.



As I have just stated, as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible, I'm okay with it.



I've clearly explained this paradox using definitions, examples, and challenges. I even, in a rare moment, showed how it's very easy to do scientifically, using only a second dimension of time - (although I personally don't subscribe to that interpretation).



It's called embedding age.

So is the 6000 years biblical? I know that bishop Usser calculated the figure using the genealogies. Does it state anywhere in the bible that the genealogies are complete? In other words is it just assumed they are complete or is there scriptural backing?

 

[AV1611VET]

If it is "Maturity without history," then why was it necessary to embed 4.5 billion years of age into the earth? What is a "mature" earth? Is it one on which Adam could live in the Garden? Why did that require 4.5 billion years of age? All it would require is a non-molten, stable planet with some topsoil. That hardly requires 4.5 billion years!

CLICK HERE
​

Why is it unverifiable? Let's say God created the earth in a day and made it nice and solid and stable. 6,000 years later we use radioisotope dating to determine the age of the earth. Why would we not get 6,000 years? And if we did, that would certainly go against all we know about planet formation and how the solar system developed, would it not? That would be verification of Maturity without history.

If you radioisotope-dated the earth to 6100 years, that would confirm YEC, not embedded age. After all, a reading of only 6100 years would mean that 6100 years ago the earth was 0 years old, and thus didn't have any age.

Yet these examples of planetary scars I mentioned go back millions or billions of years into "embedded" age.

I don't believe that, myself. You're ruling out catastrophism, and it's creating a blind spot.

If you take a brand new piece of wood, submerge it under hundreds of tons of water for a year, subject it to sudden freezing on each end, then literally pull it apart into five pieces, while all the time subjecting it to meteor strikes, earthquakes, etc. for a period of time - (in other words, beat it practically to a pulp) - it's going to have plenty of scars.

Then someone comes along, looks at it and says, "Yup. Looks like normal wear-and-tear to me." Would you buy his assessment?

 

[AV1611VET]

So is the 6000 years biblical? I know that bishop Usser calculated the figure using the genealogies. Does it state anywhere in the bible that the genealogies are complete? In other words is it just assumed they are complete or is there scriptural backing?

Without looking it up right now - (I'm in lazy mode) - I believe Matthew gives us a triad of 14 generations in Chapter 1. In other words, he gives us three groups, consisting of 14 generations - (minus the last one, which I think only has 13). These groups, I believe, have gaps in them, but the gaps can easily be covered by Daniel 9, who mathematically calculates the exact year of the birth of the Messiah.

[bible]Daniel 9:25[/bible]

So if indeed billions of years passed somewhere between generations in the Old Testament, it would have had to occur somewhere between 1 Chronicles and Daniel 9, and that's just not even feasible.

 

[keith99]

CLICK HERE​

If you radioisotope-dated the earth to 6100 years, that would confirm YEC, not embedded age. After all, a reading of only 6100 years would mean that 6100 years ago the earth was 0 years old, and thus didn't have any age.



I don't believe that, myself. You're ruling out catastrophism, and it's creating a blind spot.

If you take a brand new piece of wood, submerge it under hundreds of tons of water for a year, subject it to sudden freezing on each end, then literally pull it apart into five pieces, while all the time subjecting it to meteor strikes, earthquakes, etc. for a period of time - (in other words, beat it practically to a pulp) - it's going to have plenty of scars.

Then someone comes along, looks at it and says, "Yup. Looks like normal wear-and-tear to me." Would you buy his assessment?

Your wood example is good, but not as you intend it to be. Yes on the surface you see a very beat up piece of wood. So it should have taken a long time. But very simple checks with carbon 14 dating show otherwise. An expert would notice other things, like lack of rot.

The Earth has more than just large scars (that have since filled in with nicely layered strata). There are also minerals that contain the WRONG elements. There is no known way to create the mineral with that element where it is in the crystal structure. But there is a way to explain how it got there. It was a different element when the crystal was created and has since undergone radioactive decay. And that gives us a way to know just when that crystal was formed.

Now there is no reason to think God could not have done something to make the crystal 6000 years ago to look like it was much older. The question is WHY? To decieve men just for the fun of it? Or because He wants an excuse to condemn men for believeing what they can see and figure out. Worshiping such a God seems pretty close to Satinism to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you radioisotope-dated the earth to 6100 years, that would confirm YEC, not embedded age. After all, a reading of only 6100 years would mean that 6100 years ago the earth was 0 years old, and thus didn't have any age.

A freshly formed zircon crystal does not contain any lead. Old ones do, due to the decay of uranium (as keith 99 also mentions). So a newly formed zircon would date to 0. Why is this a problem? Why did God include a little bit of lead in zircons for no other reason than to make them look old?

I don't believe that, myself. You're ruling out catastrophism, and it's creating a blind spot.

The false spot is your lack of knowledge. We can date meteor impacts (like the famous Chixilub impact which coincided with the disappearance of the dinosaurs) by the rocks they form. Specifically, meteors produce tektites which are little glassy globules that form from the cooling of ejected, melted material. When the material is a liquid they outgas, including their Argon. When they reform into a solid the Potassium isotopes decay producing trapped Argon. By measuring the ratio of Potassium to Argon (K/AR dating) we can tell when the meteor impact occured. For the Chixilub impact that was 65 million years ago, or in your case the meteor impact was faked, including the tektites.

If you take a brand new piece of wood, submerge it under hundreds of tons of water for a year, subject it to sudden freezing on each end, then literally pull it apart into five pieces, while all the time subjecting it to meteor strikes, earthquakes, etc. for a period of time - (in other words, beat it practically to a pulp) - it's going to have plenty of scars.

Expose it to the energies produced by these meteor impacts and you will not have any wood left.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Keith ---

Now there is no reason to think God could not have done something to make the crystal 6000 years ago to look like it was much older. The question is WHY? To decieve men just for the fun of it? Or because He wants an excuse to condemn men for believeing what they can see and figure out. Worshiping such a God seems pretty close to Satinism to me.

This thing of accusing God of deception doesn't work. God has been through that before ---

[bible]Matthew 27:63[/bible]

--- and I get the impression that nothing has changed since His crucifixion as far as what some people think of Him.

To address this accusation, I have to ask you, Keith:

• If God was being deceptive, why did He document what He did, how He did it, where He did it, why He did it, when He did it, what order He did it in, and who the eyewitnesses were?

 

[Loudmouth]

Hi, Keith ---



This thing of accusing God of deception doesn't work.

"If it pleases the court, I contend that my client merely embedded the look and signature of van Gogh on the canvas. He had no intention of deceiving anyone into thinking it was a real van Gogh."

"The defendant is found guilty."

Perhaps we should say "forger" instead of "deceiver". That would make it a little easier to understand.