Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Ophiolite]

And yes, I am using external evidence.

Go out and look around.

I'm sure you'll find thorns somewhere.

And the external evidence for the previous non-existence of thorns? Where is that?
A Challenge in which the Challenger refuses pertinent questions, or avoids direct answers, is not a Challenge, but an exercise in self deception.

 

[AV1611VET]

And the external evidence for the previous non-existence of thorns? Where is that?

There you go!

That's what Kylie should be asking.

Good job!

It shows me you understand what I'm saying.

A Challenge in which the Challenger refuses pertinent questions, or avoids direct answers, is not a Challenge, but an exercise in self deception.

I don't consider her challenge to me "an excuse in self deception."

I just don't think she's thinking it through all the way.

 

[trophy33]

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation here.

I define Embedded Age Creation as: maturity without history.

Maturity without history is not what we see around us. We see plenty of history.

One thing is to show a mature body, another thing is to show a body with lot of scars, long term sun damage, long term nutritional deficiencies, with worn teeth etc.

And the universe is exactly that - not just "mature", but full of history.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maturity without history is not what we see around us.

Correct.

We weren't there with Adam.

The only persons on Earth that had maturity without history were Adam & Eve.

They were fully grown, but without having grown fully.

Same for all the plants and animals.

Fully grown, fully functional, no history.

We see plenty of history.

As we should.

One thing is to show a mature body, another thing is to show a body with lot of scars, long term sun damage, long term nutritional deficiencies, with worn teeth etc.

Okay.

QV please:

My Dental Challenge

And the universe is exactly that - not just "mature", but full of history.

Yes indeed.

But the universe has only experienced history since 4004 BC.

It might be billions of years old physically, but it's only 6027 years old existentially.

 

[Kylie]

Here's what you said in a previous post:

So you are saying the fundamental nature of the universe changed?
Please describe these changes in detail.

It sounds to me like you're accepting the fact that I'm saying the universe was different before the Fall, as you're asking how it changed.

If you accept the fact that I'm using the Bible to say the universe was different then, then why are you now claiming the Bible is not evidence for my claims?

And yes, I am using external evidence.

Go out and look around.

I'm sure you'll find thorns somewhere.

Okay, point taken, but then you went and changed it by claiming you were providing evidence. Post 395 if you want to go and see for yourself. And you provided no evidence. You just repeated the claim.

And yes, we have thorns today, but absolutely no evidence that rose bushes were thornless before the fall.

 

[Kylie]

And you don't understand what it is you're asking me to provide, when I give it to you.

You want specific examples in detail, here's one of the best:

Thorns.

Before the Fall, there were none.

After the Fall, they're everywhere.

Just like God said.

And if you don't accept the Bible as evidence, then your challenge to me to provide details of what changed is moot.

Since, in your mind, there's nothing that went from pristine to cursed.

Okay, you really seem to be having trouble with this...

Aaron12 said, "Gubberments and farmassies rewrote history..."

I was talking about governments rewriting history. I said that a government can change the history books, but they can't change the events that actually happened.

Then you came in with this "It is HIS story" comment. I assume you meant God or Jesus. But that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion about governments trying to alter historical records.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yes, we have thorns today, but absolutely no evidence that rose bushes were thornless before the fall.

Why would we?

All those plants and animals and Adam & Eve are long gone, and their evidence long dried up.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you came in with this "It is HIS story" comment. I assume you meant God or Jesus. But that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion about governments trying to alter historical records.

Fair enough.

My apology.

I didn't understand what Aaron112 was saying.

 

[trophy33]

Correct.

We weren't there with Adam.

The only persons on Earth that had maturity without history were Adam & Eve.

I am not talking about these biblical figures, but about the universe we observe.

But the universe has only experienced history since 4004 BC.

No, it contains much more history than that. Not just maturity, but history. Like your teeth and skin are worn, not just mature.

It might be billions of years old physically, but it's only 6027 years old existentially.

Why should it be 6027 years old existentially? Where did you pull this number from.

 

[driewerf]

Why should it be 6027 years old existentially? Where did you pull this number from.

from 4004 BC up until 2024 AD. If we are to believe bishop Usher, it will be 6028 years somewhere in October 2024.

 

[trophy33]

from 4004 BC up until 2024 AD. If we are to believe bishop Usher, it will be 6028 years somewhere in October 2024.

I know where it is coming from, I am just waiting for a proper justification why should ancient genealogies (in the Masoretic textual family) be used for that. Where is any biblical instruction to do such thing.

 

[driewerf]

I'm not going to waste my time doing that in a thread where the creation week is the default position.

But I reject your default position, for it is in contradiction with everything I know and can see with my own eyes and you have never given any reason to accept your default position. Each of my questions in this thread went to the hart of the matter and each time you either deflected the question, or refused to go into the answer as now.

Then keep it out of this thread please.

I am not inclined to comply with that request.

Anything you see, you see well after the creation week in 4004 BC, and is not the subject of this Q&A thread.

Since the subject of this thread is embedded age, everything we see from before the alleged creation week is subject of this thread: the Lascaux cave paintings, the Deccan traps, supernovae remnants, the Andromeda Galaxy, the fused chromosome n° 2, Tiktaalik, etc.
They don't go away because you don't want to deal with it. But they exist.

 

[driewerf]

Not during the creation week, you don't.

Anything you see, you see it well after the creation week is long past.

@AV1611VET's post above is a reaction to my post below.

It has been pointed out that we see supernovae remnants that have "never existed"; lava layers of eruptions that would have never happened, Civilizations outside the 6000 year time frame. This has been pointed out to you multiple times. Limiting "embedded age" to only Adam is lying by omission. You know that. Yet you decided knowingly and deliberately to spread a falsehood. That is up to you. But I will not be shy of pointing out that you can only defend your embedded age nonsense and your vision of christianity by omitting substantial information. By committing fraud. You really created a god in your own image.

The green part has been deleted by him in his reaction. Interesting that a post in which it is pointed out that AV1611VET omits relevant information, he deletes the most crucial part of the post and reacts to the least important, to the point of distorting the original message.

 

[driewerf]

So you are saying the fundamental nature of the universe changed?

Please describe these changes in detail.

Yup.

I'll give you what the Bible gives:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

1. I don't consider this as "fundamental". I would rather consider something like the charge of the electron, the speed of light, the strength of the strong nuclear force, etc. as fundamental.
2. Provide any evidence that these things changed. That women hadn't painful labour, that there were no thorns and thistles etc.

And with that, can we please stick to Genesis 1 & 2?

Why should we? Is embedded age not supposed to be applicable to reality - you know, there is a whole Universe with alleged embedded age outside.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not talking about these biblical figures, but about the universe we observe.

The universe we observe is through myopic lenses.

We can only go so far back in time, then things start to get fuzzy.

No, it contains much more history than that.

Only on paper.

Not just maturity, but history.

Only on paper.

Like your teeth and skin are worn, not just mature.

The amount of decay in my teeth and skin can be verified.

Why should it be 6027 years old existentially?

Because that's when time began.

23 October 4004 BC

Where did you pull this number from.

I like to use Ussher's chronology for Occam razor's sake.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know where it is coming from,

So your question was rhetorical?

... I am just waiting for a proper justification why should ancient genealogies (in the Masoretic textual family) be used for that.

I promise I won't concatenate the genealogies from your Masoretic textual family.

I promise.

Where is any biblical instruction to do such thing.

There are none, as far as I know.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not inclined to comply with that request.

Fair enough.

Then I'm not inclined to answer your questions, as doing so will drag this thread into everything from the Fall, the Flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the Resurrection, pyramids, and anything and everything you mentioned in the rest of your post.

We'll end up arguing over everything BUT embedded age.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. I don't consider this as "fundamental". I would rather consider something like the charge of the electron, the speed of light, the strength of the strong nuclear force, etc. as fundamental.

Wow.

You want me to throw in the Doppler Effect, the Coriolis Effect, the Rayleigh Effect, and Thin Layer Chromatology while I'm at it?

2. Provide any evidence that these things changed.

Changes occurred after Genesis 2, starting in Genesis 3.

Genesis 3, ff is beyond the scope of this Q&A thread.

 

[driewerf]

The universe we observe is through myopic lenses.

We can only go so far back in time, then things start to get fuzzy.

These myopic lenses allow us still to see more than blind faith

Only on paper.

Nope. What exists only on paper is the alleged word of god.
Embedded age doesn't even make it on paper, it exists only in the smoky hallucinations of a deluded embedded age creationist.
The "deep time" exists in the rocks, in the ice layers, in the cave paintings, the stars and galaxies, in our chromosomes and fossils, in corral reefs and in the ocean floor. It exists in reality.

 

[driewerf]

Wow.
You want me to throw in the Doppler Effect, the Coriolis Effect, the Rayleigh Effect, and Thin Layer Chromatology while I'm at it?

None of these are fundamental aspects of physics. And to be pedantic, it's Thin Layer Chromatography.

Changes occurred after Genesis 2, starting in Genesis 3.

Just repeating the claim for which I asked evidence doesn't make the claim more evidenced. It just shows that you haven't any evidence.

Genesis 3, ff is beyond the scope of this Q&A thread.

Translation: let us ignore everything that is inconvenient.