"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

[BananaSlug]

"Embedded age" is a theological belief in how God created the earth. Just as God created all of the plants, animals and humans in a state of maturity, he created the earth with "embedded age." This allows them to believe the earth is only around 6,000 years old yet shows signs that it is 4.5 billion.

Embedded age theology is indistinguishable from Omphalos:

The Omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable. The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to light that appears to originate in far-off stars and galaxies, although many other creationists reject this explanation[1] (and also believe that Adam and Eve had no navels).[2]

The book presented Philip Henry Gosse's attempt to resolve one of the great contradictions bedeviling naturalists of his day, namely, the apparent disagreement between the enormous age of the earth suggested by the geological record and the comparatively much shorter six-thousand-year age suggested by the book of Genesis. It seems to me that it was merely an attempt to explain away the mass of evidence that pointed to an old earth.

This theology is thoroughly flawed however. This would be a deception on God's part and God is supposedly not a deceiver. God created Adam and Eve in a state of maturity but not with a history. He did not give them memories of youth or scars which would signify a history. The earth is covered with scars from its past however.

Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began

Hebrews 6:18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.

So here we have two verses which show it is in fact impossible for God to lie. So we have the Bible which tells us God cannot lie and we have a theological belief in which God created a world that appears older than what it really is. That sounds like a lie to me.

"Embedded age" is also untestable. If everything that we study points to an older earth, then it is indistinguishable from a young earth with apparent age. It makes no sense other than an attempt to explain away the evidence.

How about evidence for "embedded age"? We have people who claim that God may have created anthracite "ahead of time" while all other coal was formed during the flood. Problem with this belief is that plant and animal fossils have been found in coal.

This implies a history because the plants had to be around to create fossils.

How about rock layers?

Kink folds in Cretaceous slate, Kodiak, Alaska

The above geological structure is a fold (ductile deformation) that occurs when land masses are slowly pushed together. The extreme heat from the pressure allows rock layers to buckle and fold. This disproves "embedded age" because:
1. The layers are dated to the Cretaceous period (a period that never really existed)
2. The folding shows a history of events that caused the stone to:
a) Be made- slate is sedimentary rock made from silt.
b) Become folded as it can only happen with extreme pressure.


1. Some people would claim that Pangaea broke apart during or after the flood. This is in a direct contradiction with "Embedded Age" as Pangaea was formed over 250 million years ago. According the "embedded age" the earth was formed in its current state with the appearance of age. Pangaea never existed!

2. According to "embedded age" any rock tested, though only 6,000 years old, will show its "embedded age." Therefore, a rock shown to be 250 million years old through the various radioisotope dating methods is really only 6,000 years old.

3. However, fossils are found in rock dated to 250 million years ago.

According to "embedded age" God created the earth as "mature" with the appearance of age.

Any rock dated older that 6,000 years was created to appear that age.

If followed to the logical conclusion, any fossils found in rock older than 6,000 years belonged to animals that never existed!
This is why "embedded age" is a crock. It is impossible to have an "embedded age" for a planet without the appearance of a history... and that would make God a liar.

 

[Cabal]

Don't forget, all the fossilised organisms would have to be DEAD.

What was that about death being an enemy?

 

[gaara4158]

This is a great effort, but creationist logic is much more simple than that. They can just say that God was showing us how science works by creating the world to look like it had been left untouched for billions of years; it was not intended to show what did happen, just what can happen.
Of course, they'd have to come up with an answer as to why God would go to all this trouble, which would be bound to cause confusion. But the reality is, even though it's preposterous, "embedded age" is completely unfalsifiable. All we can do is cast serious doubt on it.

 

[BananaSlug]

This is a great effort, but creationist logic is much more simple than that. They can just say that God was showing us how science works by creating the world to look like it had been left untouched for billions of years; it was not intended to show what did happen, just what can happen.
Of course, they'd have to come up with an answer as to why God would go to all this trouble, which would be bound to cause confusion. But the reality is, even though it's preposterous, "embedded age" is completely unfalsifiable. All we can do is cast serious doubt on it.

True, but the "embedded age" belief says that God created a mature earth without a history. I was making the argument that you cannot create a "mature" planet without making a history.
This also contradicts the unchanging nature of God, who cannot lie and is not the God of confusion. Either the earth is 6,000 years old and God is lying about its age and history or the earth is as old as the evidence says it is.

The above would also show that creationists simply change what they believe whenever confronted with evidence of the opposite.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Embedded age" is a theological belief in how God created the earth.

Rather --- what He created it with.

How He created it is called creatio ex nihilo.

Just as God created all of the plants, animals and humans in a state of maturity, he created the earth with "embedded age."

Correct.

This allows them to believe the earth is only around 6,000 years old yet shows signs that it is 4.5 billion.

Incorrect --- the earth is not 6000 years old --- it is 4.57 billion years old. Remember: God embedded age into it. If the earth was 6000 years old, then that means that God embedded only 6000 years into it the day he created it some 6100 years ago, making it some 12,100 years old now.

Embedded age theology is indistinguishable from Omphalos:

Incorrect --- Embedded Age is defined as "maturity without history" (qv 1), whereas Omphalos is defined as "maturity with history". In other words, Omphalos is embedded history, not embedded age.

How about evidence for "embedded age"?

There is none, as embedding age did not leave an audit trail.

We have people who claim that God may have created anthracite "ahead of time" while all other coal was formed during the flood.

I don't know about "all other coal", but for the most part, that is correct. Before the Flood, during the Flood, after the Flood --- whenever.

Problem with this belief is that plant and animal fossils have been found in coal.

Not in Genesis 1, though --- you're making a leap of 2500 years into the future by bringing up the Flood, which has nothing to do with the Creation Week.

According to "embedded age" God created the earth as "mature" with the appearance of age.

Of course it would "appear old" --- because it is old.

Any rock dated older that 6,000 years was created to appear that age.

No it wasn't --- you're making it sound like it only appears old --- it is, however, in actuality --- old.

 

[AV1611VET]

..."embedded age" is completely unfalsifiable.

Ain't that a pity?

Must not be scientific, then.

 

[Freodin]

Rather --- what He created it with.

How He created it is called creatio ex nihilo.Correct.Incorrect --- the earth is not 6000 years old --- it is 4.57 billion years old. Remember: God embedded age into it. If the earth was 6000 years old, then that means that God embedded only 6000 years into it the day he created it some 6100 years ago, making it some 12,100 years old now.Incorrect --- Embedded Age is defined as "maturity without history" (qv 1), whereas Omphalos is defined as "maturity with history". In other words, Omphalos is embedded history, not embedded age.There is none, as embedding age did not leave an audit trail.I don't know about "all other coal", but for the most part, that is correct. Before the Flood, during the Flood, after the Flood --- whenever.Not in Genesis 1, though --- you're making a leap of 2500 years into the future by bringing up the Flood, which has nothing to do with the Creation Week. Of course it would "appear old" --- because it is old.No it wasn't --- you're making it sound like only like it appears old --- it is, however, in actuality --- old.

And as long as you don´t start to define what "old" or "age" means, you can keep that tap-dancing up.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was making the argument that you cannot create a "mature" planet without making a history.

And why not?

Adam was created fully-mature in one day, sans history --- why couldn't the earth have been done the same way?

 

[ragarth]

No it wasn't --- you're making it sound like only like it appears old --- it is, however, in actuality --- old.

Let me see if I understand. You're stating that God created everything including our past 6,000 years ago? Let me explain my understanding a different way:

If time is considered another spatial dimension, then the path of matter through time looks like a giant string of spaghetti. (In other words, every subatomic particle as we perceive it is just a small slice of the giant string that is in actuality that particle.) From this view, one could look at the path of time as a physical object. So 6,000 years ago, God created both a past and future, or strands of spaghetti going both into the past and the present. If this is indeed correct, then this article approximately pinpoints the period of creation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070215144334.htm

and all these people trading chili peppers existed before the point of creation by the act of the creation of time both in the present and past. This differs from the idea of a deceitful God because the past actually did happen, it just happened before creation, because God created the past history as one would craft a cup.

 

[AV1611VET]

And as long as you don´t start to define what "old" or "age" means, you can keep that tap-dancing up.

I can tell you right now w/o even looking - (since I've done it so many times) - it's definition #4 in answers.com.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me see if I understand. You're stating that God created everything including our past 6,000 years ago? Let me explain my understanding a different way:

If time is considered another spatial dimension, then the path of matter through time looks like a giant string of spaghetti. (In other words, every subatomic particle as we perceive it is just a small slice of the giant string that is in actuality that particle.) From this view, one could look at the path of time as a physical object. So 6,000 years ago, God created both a past and future, or strands of spaghetti going both into the past and the present. If this is indeed correct, then this article approximately pinpoints the period of creation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070215144334.htm

and all these people trading chili peppers existed before the point of creation by the act of the creation of time both in the present and past. This differs from the idea of a deceitful God because the past actually did happen, it just happened before creation, because God created the past history as one would craft a cup.

That's not spaghetti --- it's bologna.

 

[Freodin]

I can tell you right now w/o even looking - (since I've done it so many times) - it's definition #4 in answers.com.

Wow, I´m impressed.

"age" is given as the state of being "old" while "old" is being defined as showing the signs of "age".

AV, you are truly a master of doublespeak!

 

[ragarth]

That's not spaghetti --- it's bologna.

I was quite serious with that post, AV. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by trying to understand your point, so please don't insult me by answering my serious question with inanity when I'm trying to understand.

 

[BananaSlug]

Rather --- what He created it with.

How He created it is called creatio ex nihilo.Correct.Incorrect --- the earth is not 6000 years old --- it is 4.57 billion years old. Remember: God embedded age into it.

Then why all the fuss in the other thread when I mentioned Chinese writing that was 6,000 years old? Or in another thread where you mentioned the creation of the world happened in 4004 B.C.?
According to "embedded age," the earth is slightly over 6,000 years old with the appearance of 4.5 billion years. That is the whole point of "embedded age"!

If the earth was 6000 years old, then that means that God embedded only 6000 years into it the day he created it some 6100 years ago, making it some 12,100 years old now.

What? That makes no sense. "Embedded age" theology in connotation with YECism is a means to show that the earth is 6,000 years old with the appearance of being older.

Incorrect --- Embedded Age is defined as "maturity without history" (qv 1), whereas Omphalos is defined as "maturity with history". In other words, Omphalos is embedded history, not embedded age.There is none, as embedding age did not leave an audit trail.

If you paid more attention to my post you would realize that "embedded age" for a planet is impossible. For a planet "maturity" without a history is impossible. Rock created to appear 250 million years old has fossils that appear 250 million years old, ergo they were created with the fossils inside the rock. Embedded age theology teaches the earth is 6000 years old with the appearance of 4.5 billion. Only 6000 years of actual history has happened thus far. Anything older than that has not really happened, it only has the appearance of it.

I don't know about "all other coal", but for the most part, that is correct. Before the Flood, during the Flood, after the Flood --- whenever.Not in Genesis 1, though --- you're making a leap of 2500 years into the future by bringing up the Flood, which has nothing to do with the Creation Week.

I was mentioning the fact that some creationists believe that Pangaea broke up during the flood (God originally created Pangaea in Genesis). I said that Pangaea broke apart millions of years ago, an event that did not really happen because the earth was created with "embedded age."

Of course it would "appear old" --- because it is old.No it wasn't --- you're making it sound like it only appears old --- it is, however, in actuality --- old.

Then there is no "embedded age." If the planet is actually old then why are you trying so hard to defend "embedded age"? "Embedded age" says the planet was created to appear old. You say the earth is old, yet in another thread you mentioned the creation date as 4004 B.C. What gives?

 

[gaara4158]

I was quite serious with that post, AV. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by trying to understand your point, so please don't insult me by answering my serious question with inanity when I'm trying to understand.

you're not trying to understand, you're mocking him because you're an evil atheist demon from hell! duh!

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why all the fuss in the other thread when I mentioned Chinese writing that was 6,000 years old?

How can Chinese writing be 6000 years old, when 6000 years ago Adam and Eve were the only two people on the face of a 4.57 billion-year-old planet?

I've mentioned before, that the Chinese didn't come about until Genesis 10, which is long after Adam and Eve were gone.

 

[consol]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but are we talking about religion here?
if we are then ANYTHING is possible, ANYTHING, elephants mating with mice, it's religion,
there are no boundaries with religion, whatever you can imagine is OK, it's religion,
if AV want's 'embedded age' he can have it, after all it's his religion he can have whatever he want's,
go for it AV, AV believes it, not us.

 

[gaara4158]

How can Chinese writing be 6000 years old, when 6000 years ago Adam and Eve were the only two people on the face of a 4.57 billion-year-old planet?

I've mentioned before, that the Chinese didn't come about until Genesis 10, which is long after Adam and Eve were gone.

how indeed

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ain't that a pity?

Must not be scientific, then.

It also demonstrates God doing something one way and going through a lot of extraBiblical hassle to make it look like it was done another way.

Must not be good theology, then.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but are we talking about religion here?

No --- we're talking history.