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.
If I had a son, and he asked me for a Lamborghini, "science" would show that request to have no effect as well.
That would be more of an economics question, anyway.
Okay --- economic "science" would show that request to have no effect as well.
You are one cruel, horrible parent.
Any scientist worth his or her salt will tell you that statistically speaking a new Lambourghini not only correlates to a better homelife, but improves the recipient's charisma, and, dare I say, evolutionary advantages in terms of reproductive success.
Leave it to an atheist to equate evolutionary advantages in terms of reproductive success to a better home life.
Well OK. The only two people I know of that believe this embedded age stuff are you and your pastor. Happy now?What gave you that idea?
1. Most of us here do not think it is OK to believe in embedded history.And it's okay to believe in embedded history (Omphalos Hypothesis), but I mention embedded age and you guys act so "innocent" as to not having a clue as to what I'm talking about?
And in that thread you never explained what "embedded age actually is!Insomuch as I had to start a whole thread on the subject?
OK.... take a deep breath..... now slowly release it. Now picture yourself on a secluded beach, with a soft breeze blowing and the distant sound of seagulls flying overhead. Feel better now?Give me a break!
But I believe you AVET, when you say they are not the same!And, incidentally, some posters here say they are one and the same, thus rendering your remark errorenous.
I'm going to assume you have a point here and ask what it was.
2. We actually understand the Omphalos argument (even if we disagree with it).
Leave it to you to misread the post -- The not only coupled with the but clearly denotes two separate advantages.
"Science" can't show squat when it comes to prayer, and should keep their clipboards out of it.
"Science" can't show squat when it comes to prayer, and should keep their clipboards out of it.
I understand embedded age, but I think that if it looks 4.54 billion years old, acts 4.54 billion years old and appears 4.54 billion years old then it is 4.54 billion years old for all intents and purposes.Then you should understand the concept of "embedded age," which I now think some do, but act like they don't.
I understand embedded age, but I think that if it looks 4.54 billion years old, acts 4.54 billion years old and appears 4.54 billion years old then it is 4.54 billion years old for all intents and purposes.
If you disagree then may I point you to some Last Thursdayism?
Then you should understand the concept of "embedded age," which I now think some do, but act like they don't.
AV I will venture that most "understand" what you mean, but most of us simply think it is a "word" game or a last ditch effort to reconcile the fact that literal Genesis clashes with pretty much every metric of reality and science through dint of "doublmindedness".
So it's not like most are acting like they don't understand, they are simply stating their strong disagreement with your particular neologism.
Then you should understand the concept of "embedded age," which I now think some do, but act like they don't.
That's what age is, Patashu --- age. This earth looks old because it is old.
I don't disagree --- Adam looked thirty years old, because Adam was thirty years old.
And I disagree.
People understand the concept of embedded history (omphalos) with no problem, but want to play dumb when it comes to embedded age (ex nihilo).
I really can't tell if they understand it or not.
AVET, why do you assume that when someone tells you that they do not understand that they must be lying, just because you have repeated the same explanation over and over. Repeating an explanation that makes no sense to us many times over and over will not help us to understand you. It is akin to talking loudly to someone who does not understand your language. We are not deaf AVET, we simply do not understand you.
The Omphalos argument is really quite simple. God made the earth and Adam mature. He made an adult Adam, and he made an Earth that was not molten, but ready for life. How he did this is not clear, however. You can explain it by saying he did this with embedded "history," as opposed to your idea of using embedded "age," but many of us do not see the difference.
What is the practical difference between using embedded history and embedded age? Do they both not look the same? Do they have the same properties and characteristics? How would an Earth created mature with embedded age different from one which was made with embedded history?
I started a whole thread on this, SR, and people didn't want to pay attention and listen, so I really don't care.
And you did not answer any of these questions in that thread.
More accurately, and to follow one of your own analogies, the dust Adam was made from was 30 years old.AV1611VET said:I don't disagree --- Adam looked thirty years old, because Adam was thirty years old.
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?