Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Show me Adam and/or Eve's history profile the second they turned 30.
I contend they didn't have one.
Omphalos has an embedded history profile in the created object.
As does being made at age 30, it implies that there were 30 years of history before that, the same way having a navel implies there was a birthing event in that individual's history - so again, why the big fuss over navels when you have a maturity elephant sitting in your office?
__________________ ____________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Either that, or I've had Gosse shoved at me long before you even thought of coming here.
QV please:
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
Deception.
Omphalos means "navel" --- as in Adam had a navel --- as in they show signs of being born --- as in the appearance of history --- as in deception.
I'm on record as saying I don't believe Adam and Eve had a belly button.
You repeated that mistake three years later in the current two threads. Whereas omphalos does mean navel in Greek, in this context Omphalos means an embedded age hypothesis put forward by Gosse long before Ham and Morris constructed moderm YECism. I don't see why you should object to Gosse being "shoved at" you, as his beliefs and yours are much the same type of young earth creationism. It actually has less to do with Adam's belly button and much more to do with how the universe is as we find it.
As does being made at age 30, it implies that there were 30 years of history before that, the same way having a navel implies there was a birthing event in that individual's history - so again, why the big fuss over navels when you have a maturity elephant sitting in your office?
I'm familiar with what it may imply --- that is why I stress the fact that it is maturity without* history.
Is it your belief that Adam suffered an inguinal hernia at some point in his life?
__________________ We are surrounded by endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, and it is noaccident, but the direct consequence of evolution by non-random natural selection - the only game in town, the greatest show on Earth. ~R.D.
You repeated that mistake three years later in the current two threads. Whereas omphalos does mean navel in Greek, in this context Omphalos means an embedded age hypothesis put forward by Gosse long before Ham and Morris constructed moderm YECism. I don't see why you should object to Gosse being "shoved at" you, as his beliefs and yours are much the same type of young earth creationism. It actually has less to do with Adam's belly button and much more to do with how the universe is as we find it.
When I said this three years ago, Mike:
Omphalos means "navel" --- as in Adam had a navel
--- I was saying that Gosse (not I) was implying that Adam had a navel.
He was zero years old --- existentially.See how you're confusing yourself by changing the wording?
I changed the wording on purpose.
It's embedded age --- not 'apparent age'.
If Adam is 0 existenstial years but 30 physical years he is in reality only 0 years old. The correct statement is that he is 0 years old but has 30 years of age. Maturity implies history...
__________________ Slug's 1st Law of YECism- Genesis 1-9 must be interpreted literally. Slug's 2nd Law of YECism- Any other verses can be interpreted liberally to support the 1st Law. Slug's 3rd Law of YECism- Make up any extra-Biblical claim, no matter how wild, to wave-away evidence in violation of the 1st Law.
"If God sent a wind from space, and blew waters off the surface, for example, the waters would go down. Just as if you take a cup full of water over a sink, and blow hard on it, a lot will go out of the cup. Elementary." -dad ^This statement nullifies his own argument by comparing a "present state" event to a "past state" event!
Either that, or I've had Gosse shoved at me long before you even thought of coming here.
When I said I introduced you to Gosse, I didn't mean to imply that I or you had never heard of him. It was because you didn't seem to have a clue about what he was saying and what was in his book. That was why I linked to articles from Wikipedia and other places to demonstrate his embedded age hypothesis. I even quoted from his book, so you would have a clear idea of what he was on about. Did you look?
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
When I said this three years ago, Mike: --- I was saying that Gosse (not I) was implying that Adam had a navel.
You're too consumed with navels, AV. The suggestion that Adam and Eve had navels is a not the major part of Gosse's hypothesis, simply a conclusion he made. I recommend you read this article about his book and it might, just might, open your eyes to what he was really saying.
Hence the minuteness arid, undeniableness of the proofs of life which geologists rely on so confidently, and present with such justifiable triumph, do not in the least militate against my principle. The marks of Hyaeuas' teeth on the bones of Kirkdale cave; the infant skeletons associated with adult skeletons of the same species; the abundance of coprolites; the foot-tracks of Birds and Reptiles; the glacier-scratches on rocks; and hundreds of other beautiful and most irresistible evidences of pre-existence, I do not wish to undervalue, nor to explain away. On the hypothesis that the actual commencing point of the world's history was subsequent to the occurrence of such things in the perfect ideal whole, these phenomena would appear precisely as if the facts themselves had been diachronic instead of prochronic, as was really the case.
Last edited by Mike Elphick; 6th November 2009 at 03:37 PM.
Have we received an explanation of how believing in supernaturally embedded age as opposed to a simply old universe is parsimonious?
__________________ "There is no struggle too vast, no odds too overwhelming, for ever should we fail- should we fall- we will know that we have lived." --Anomander Rake.
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." --Plato
"I cried unto the LORD with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy hill." Psalm 3:4
"The virtuous man is never a novice in worldly things." Marcus Valerius Martialis
You don't define your terms, which makes comprehending what you're saying even more difficult. What is the difference between "age" and "maturity", for instance?
We've been over this before, but (since you think we're making progress) here goes again:-
Omphalos is a universe which was created in six days, but with an apparent older age and apparent history built in so as to make it a working, mature system. By "apparent" I mean that whatever tests of age and history are applied, today and at creation, the measurements will consistently show an age and history of great antiquity, many millions of times greater than the chronological age and history at the point of creation. In your terms, it had age and history embedded into it..
Omphalos = embedded age and history
What I find confusing is your expression "maturity without history". First, whenever you describe it, you always include a bit of history. Genesis 1, for example, has an historical setting:-
There's a sequence of creation events here that took a day to accomplish, and you say it happened 6,100 years ago. That's history. Incidentally, in the Adam and Eve thread you tried to avoid this by limiting your description to the first verse.
Second, the real earth and universe have measurable history within them - rock layers and fossils in temporal sequence, observation of stars 'evolving' etc. Tree rings, lake varves and ice cores all show a consistent history many thousands of years older than the young earth creationists' 6,100 years.
Finally, you can't have age without history, because you need at least one historical reference point for assessing how old an object is. If you will allow me to remove this confusing and contradictory part from your definition I get:-
AV's hypothesis = embedded age with history.
That makes the two definitions equivalent.
Mike, there is a slight, albeit insignificant, difference between Omphalos and AV's belief. Let's see if I can explain it.
Have you read/seen/listened to any of the permutations of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Think about the construction of Earth Mark Two on Magrathea. A new Earth is being built to replace the old one that got demolished, with fossils being buried, fijords being crafted, etc, etc.
Now let's look at a particular fossil of, say, a Tyrannosaurus rex. AV's contention seems to be that if the fossil was only two days old, but appeared to be 65 million years old (and prepared in such a way that dating methods would conclude it was 65 million years old), then that would be like Omphalos.
Conversely, I think what AV calls "Embedded Age" would be analogous to the fossil would not just appearing to be 65 million years old, but actually being 65 million years old.
Now, I'm not sure that Omphalos distinguishes between the two situations. AV seems to think it does, although, based on his lack of study habits, this doesn't mean much. Even if he is correct in his definition, the distinction between Omphalos and "Apparent Age" is titanically inconsequential.
But this distinction is veeeeeery important for him for some reason. Maybe to show that he came up with this all by himself?
__________________ "God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy."
-- Billy Currington
Last edited by TheManeki; 6th November 2009 at 06:15 PM.
I am not a scientist, I am not a lawyer and thanks to the educational abuse of a fundamentalist parent I am not even a high school graduate.
But luckily, I do not have to be any of those things to see that statement for the nonsense that is is.
The arguments you deal in are on the whole, nonsense. You sole skill and ingenuity lies in repeating your logically unsound hogwash over a thousand times a day and in your ability to utterly ignore any evidence or argument brought against your nonsense by zeroing in on insignificant little nitpicks then countering with weasel-worded questions intended to entrap your adressee in much the same style as a hick-town prosecutor bringing his case before a kangaroo court.
If I am wrong, I invite you to pick apart my post and address every point I have made in the above paragraph, pointing out to me where I am wrong.
If I am right, ignore the above paragraph and post something irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.
__________________ "I would still reply, that the knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena, that I should rather believe the most extraordinary events to arise from their concurrence, than admit of so signal a violation of the laws of nature."
-David Hume
Linear Mode
