Why do YECists have such a low opinion of God?

[thaumaturgy]

If I had a son, and he asked me for a Lamborghini, "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.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be more of an economics question, anyway.

Okay --- economic "science" would show that request to have no effect as well.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Okay --- economic "science" would show that request to have no effect as well.

I'm going to assume you have a point here and ask what it was.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Leave it to an atheist to equate evolutionary advantages in terms of reproductive success to a better home life.

Leave it to you to misread the post -- The not only coupled with the but clearly denotes two separate advantages.

 

[Split Rock]

What gave you that idea?

Well OK. The only two people I know of that believe this embedded age stuff are you and your pastor. Happy now?

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?

1. Most of us here do not think it is OK to believe in embedded history.

2. We actually understand the Omphalos argument (even if we disagree with it). Your Embedded Age argument still makes no sense to us, and you seem to be unable to explain what "embedded age" is.

Insomuch as I had to start a whole thread on the subject?

And in that thread you never explained what "embedded age actually is!

Give me a break!

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?

And, incidentally, some posters here say they are one and the same, thus rendering your remark errorenous.

But I believe you AVET, when you say they are not the same! Recall also that I have never claimed you are using the Omphalos Argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm going to assume you have a point here and ask what it was.

"Science" can't show squat when it comes to prayer, and should keep their clipboards out of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

2. We actually understand the Omphalos argument (even if we disagree with it).

Then you should understand the concept of "embedded age," which I now think some do, but act like they don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Leave it to you to misread the post -- The not only coupled with the but clearly denotes two separate advantages.

Well, if he would have said "reproductive impulses", that would have fit his icon better --- then I would have understood.

 

[Nathan Poe]

"Science" can't show squat when it comes to prayer, and should keep their clipboards out of it.

Neither can you -- except to show the utter hubris to think that this mythical all-powerful creater of the infinite multiverse is going to put the brakes on His divine plan to accomodate your every little trivial request.

Prayer is the ultimate exercise in vanity.

 

[Baggins]

"Science" can't show squat when it comes to prayer, and should keep their clipboards out of it.

Science can show that in blind trials ill people getting prayed for fare slightly less well than ill people who are not.

Have you got a reason that why be, or is this the reason that you think science should keep out of subjects like prayer, because it shows them to be the vacuous exercises in self agrandisment they really are.

 

[Patashu]

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

That's what age is, Patashu --- age. This earth looks old because it is old.

If you disagree then may I point you to some Last Thursdayism?

I don't disagree --- Adam looked thirty years old, because Adam was thirty years old.

 

[thaumaturgy]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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".

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.

So it's not like most are acting like they don't understand, they are simply stating their strong disagreement with your particular neologism.

I'm not one of the Kennedy twins.

 

[Split Rock]

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

If you do not care anymore, fine. Just don't complain when we continue to question "embedded age," or just stop using the argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you did not answer any of these questions in that thread.

The OP itself was a [very easy] question --- one that people ignored.

Care to answer it now?

 

[theFijian]

I don't disagree --- Adam looked thirty years old, because Adam was thirty years old.

More accurately, and to follow one of your own analogies, the dust Adam was made from was 30 years old.