My "Embedded Age" Challenge

[BananaSlug]

"Embedded Age" is the scenario where God created the Earth in a state of "maturity without history". In other words, the Earth is physically ~4.5 billion years old without 4.5 billion years of history. Existentially, the Earth is ~6100 years old, so there is ~6100 years of history.

This theology accepts all methods of radiometric dating and scientific testing. However, it also ignores the evidence that Earth's history extends much further back than 6100 years. Many fossils are ignored, even though the rock was dated using the same methods that were previously touted as being an accurate measurement of this "embedded age". Coal seams with fossils of ancient ferns and leaves were waved away with the excuse that "an ancient super-race dug up coal, rolled it around in leaves, then placed it back in the ground".

Using C14 as a measurement is an accurate way not to date the rock the fossil is embedded in, but the bone itself. Measuring the decay rate of Carbon 14 is no different than measuring the decay rate of any other isotope that is used to date the age of the Earth. Carbon 14 dating techniques are reliable up to 70,000 years. There is an abudance of evidence that the Earth has a history much, much, MUCH older than 6100 years. There is also an abundance of evidence that anatomically modern humans have been on Earth for at least 200,000 years.

In short, the dating methods that are considered accurate in "embedded age" theology are also its downfall, unless for some strange reason C14 dating is inaccurate (even though it has been correlated with dendrochronology and other methods).

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the challenge is to try and explain why "embedded age" is accurate, even though all of the evidence shows it isn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

So the challenge is to try and explain why "embedded age" is accurate, even though all of the evidence shows it isn't.

Because embedded age caters to the current conclusion -- not the method it was arrived at.

In other words, the number itself, be it 4.57 billion or 13.7 billion, is supplied by the scientists, and embedded agers just agree with it on principle.

If tomorrow, someone says the earth is only 1 billion years old -- then tomorrow I'll be saying God embedded 1 billion years into the earth.

If the very next day, they say they were wrong and the earth is really 50 billion years -- then the very next day I will be saying God embedded 50 billion years into the earth.

 

[BananaSlug]

Because embedded age caters to the current conclusion -- not the method it was arrived at.

If it caters to the current conclusion, then it assumes the methods are accurate.

In other words, the number itself, be it 4.57 billion or 13.7 billion, is supplied by the scientists, and embedded agers just agree with it on principle.

If "embedded age" agrees with the age on principle, then it also agrees with the methods used to obtain it.

If tomorrow, someone says the earth is only 1 billion years old -- then tomorrow I'll be saying God embedded 1 billion years into the earth.

So you claim that "science can take a hike" and "science changes, the Bible doesn't", yet you are trying to fit science into the Bible?

If the very next day, they say they were wrong and the earth is really 50 billion years -- then the very next day I will be saying God embedded 50 billion years into the earth.

So what do you think of all of the fossils and other historical events that happened in Earth's distant past?

 

[AV1611VET]

If it caters to the current conclusion, then it assumes the methods are accurate.

No, it doesn't -- especially since the method involves the passage of time, which wasn't available then.

If "embedded age" agrees with the age on principle, then it also agrees with the methods used to obtain it.

No, it doesn't.

Again, the methods are based on a faulty presumption -- the passage of time.

The earth didn't "grow" old, it came into existence old.

So you claim that "science can take a hike" and "science changes, the Bible doesn't", yet you are trying to fit science into the Bible?

You [should] know exactly what I mean by 'science can take a hike' -- as much as I have explained it.

So what do you think of all of the fossils and other historical events that happened in Earth's distant past?

I think they don't have one blessed thing to do with embedded-age creation and shouldn't be discussed in that context.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Because embedded age caters to the current conclusion -- not the method it was arrived at.

In other words, the number itself, be it 4.57 billion or 13.7 billion, is supplied by the scientists, and embedded agers just agree with it on principle.

If tomorrow, someone says the earth is only 1 billion years old -- then tomorrow I'll be saying God embedded 1 billion years into the earth.

If the very next day, they say they were wrong and the earth is really 50 billion years -- then the very next day I will be saying God embedded 50 billion years into the earth.

Why?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No, it doesn't -- especially since the method involves the passage of time, which wasn't available then.

No, it doesn't.

Again, the methods are based on a faulty presumption -- the passage of time.

The earth didn't "grow" old, it came into existence old.

You [should] know exactly what I mean by 'science can take a hike' -- as much as I have explained it.

I think they don't have one blessed thing to do with embedded-age creation and shouldn't be discussed in that context.

 

[Split Rock]

So what do you think of all of the fossils and other historical events that happened in Earth's distant past?

I think they don't have one blessed thing to do with embedded-age creation and shouldn't be discussed in that context.

That is because while you are happy to develop and to propagate a pet theory or a paradigm, you do not want to test its predictions. Most creationists do the same. Why test an idea that allows you to mentally reconcile your interpretation of scripture with reality, when it could wind up being falsified? Then where will you be.... back at square one? What next... having to go through all the trouble of coming up with a new paradigm? That's too much like work. No, it is much easier to simply adopt a pet theory and never test its predictions. Of course, this is a very poor way to discover The Truth, which is what creationists always claim they are peddling. however, I have come to understand that The Truth is not what creationists are interested in.

 

[BananaSlug]

No, it doesn't -- especially since the method involves the passage of time, which wasn't available then.

Why are some rocks 4.5 billion years old, while others are dated younger? We find rocks that are only 3 million years old, 100 million years old, 200 years old, 65 million years old. Why are there so many different ages if the earth was created with 4.5 billion years of age? Did God also create rocks with ages that seem to imply the passage of time?

No, it doesn't.

Again, the methods are based on a faulty presumption -- the passage of time.

So 4 is the right answer even though 3+1 is the wrong presumption? Again, if the Earth was created with 4.5 billion years of age, why do we also have progressively younger rocks?

The earth didn't "grow" old, it came into existence old.

That might be true if every rock we tested was either 4.5 billion years old or <6100 years old. We find rocks in age from 4.5 billion years to just recently formed. If the earth did not "grow" old, then why are there progressively younger rocks?

You [should] know exactly what I mean by 'science can take a hike' -- as much as I have explained it.

Yeah, "boolean standards".

I think they don't have one blessed thing to do with embedded-age creation and shouldn't be discussed in that context.

I think they should, because they have been found in rock older than 6100 years.

 

[Split Rock]

Why are some rocks 4.5 billion years old, while others are dated younger? We find rocks that are only 3 million years old, 100 million years old, 200 years old, 65 million years old. Why are there so many different ages if the earth was created with 4.5 billion years of age? Did God also create rocks with ages that seem to imply the passage of time?

I have to hand it to you, Bananaslug... I had not thought of this simple argument against Embedded Age... and it is such an obvious one! One more nail for the Embedded Age coffin!

 

[BananaSlug]

I have to hand it to you, Bananaslug... I had not thought of this simple argument against Embedded Age... and it is such an obvious one! One more nail for the Embedded Age coffin!

 

[Tomatoman]

Split Rock:

I have to hand it to you, Bananaslug... I had not thought of this simple argument against Embedded Age... and it is such an obvious one! One more nail for the Embedded Age coffin!

I hadn't thought of that argument either. Nice one, Bslug.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are some rocks 4.5 billion years old, while others are dated younger?

You should be able to answer that now within the confines of embedded age creation.

God did it.

Why He did it is not the subject of this thread -- is it?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

You should be able to answer that now within the confines of embedded age creation.

God did it.

Why He did it is not the subject of this thread -- is it?

The obvious answer is "He" didn't. But that isn't the subject of this thread either.

 

[sbvera13]

So the challenge is to try and explain why "embedded age" is accurate, even though all of the evidence shows it isn't.

Barking up the wrong tree here. The whole point of embedded age is to handwave away the evidence... bringing in evidence simply won't make a dent in the mental edifice of anyone that uses this dishonest drivel as their belief system. Better to show how it's only purpose is to allow one lie to oneself... although how to show that to someone who willingly lies to themselves I'm not sure.

 

[Mike Elphick]

In "embedded age" creation, AV style, there is no passage of time, only the ultimate state of possessing age. Unfortunately, AV deceives himself with his war cry "age without history!" &#8212; as has been repeatedly pointed out by others:-

1. It is clear that the Earth actually abounds in history extending back at least hundreds of millions of years.

2. He cannot explain why there are variations in the ages of rocks and why the oldest sedimentary rock layers are found beneath younger layers.

If the oldest rocks on Earth are 4.6 billion years old, why do we find rocks with intermediate ranges? Why is it that the least developed fossils belong to the oldest fossil-bearing rock layers?

In an "embedded age" scenario, let's say this slug represents light. It travelled the two yards from A to B (arrowed) in no time at all, but when measurements are made (knowing the distance and speed of slug travel) the time "embedded" seems to be four hours. AV claims that God created the universe such that we can today see ancient starlight and can measure vast cosmic distances, but that the universe only has an 'existential' age of a few thousand years. So our slug didn't "travel", it came into existence "travelled". However, what AV is doing is effectively ignoring the obvious slime trail.

Let's take Carbon-14 dating. The basis for Carbon-dating depends on neutrons, generated from cosmic ray interactions in the upper atmosphere, being captured by Nitrogen-14 to form the unstable radioactive isotope Carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5730 years. The important point here is the constancy of its formation in the atmosphere &#8212; so many units per unit of time &#8212; and its constancy of degeneration. As soon as a Carbon-14 atom is incorporated into an organism it represents an historical point in time, which is no different from a point in the slug's slime trail.

 

[Split Rock]

In "embedded age" creation, AV style, there is no passage of time, only the ultimate state of possessing age. Unfortunately, AV deceives himself with his war cry "age without history!" — as has been repeatedly pointed out by others:-

1. It is clear that the Earth actually abounds in history extending back at least hundreds of millions of years.

2. He cannot explain why there are variations in the ages of rocks and why the oldest sedimentary rock layers are found beneath younger layers.

If the oldest rocks on Earth are 4.6 billion years old, why do we find rocks with intermediate ranges? Why is it that the least developed fossils belong to the oldest fossil-bearing rock layers?

In an "embedded age" scenario, let's say this slug represents light. It travelled the two yards from A to B (arrowed) in no time at all, but when measurements are made (knowing the distance and speed of slug travel) the time "embedded" seems to be four hours. AV claims that God created the universe such that we can today see ancient starlight and can measure vast cosmic distances, but that the universe only has an 'existential' age of a few thousand years. So our slug didn't "travel", it came into existence "travelled". However, what AV is doing is effectively ignoring the obvious slime trail.

Let's take Carbon-14 dating. The basis for Carbon-dating depends on neutrons, generated from cosmic ray interactions in the upper atmosphere, being captured by Nitrogen-14 to form the unstable radioactive isotope Carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5730 years. The important point here is the constancy of its formation in the atmosphere — so many units per unit of time — and its constancy of degeneration. As soon as a Carbon-14 atom is incorporated into an organism it represents an historical point in time, which is no different from a point in the slug's slime trail.

I like the "slime trail" analogy! According to AVET's Embedded Age, the slug was created mature with embedded age, but it should be no history. When we show him the slime trial, he simply ignores it and says it doesn't matter. Typical creationist thinking.

 

[BananaSlug]

I'm archiving this...

 

[Skaloop]

The things mentioned in this thread (different aged rocks, the "slime trail" analogy) got me to thinking. I don't know if AV has addressed it before, but here goes.

So as far as I can tell, according to Embedded Age, when the Earth was done being created in Genesis 1:1 through 1:10, it was 2 days old (existentially) but ~4.5 billion years old physically. But at this point, there were no animals or plants created. So it was just the planet, basically as we know it now but without the varied climates or separate continents (correct, AV?)

So on day 2 of creation were there any fossils within the rocks that formed the Earth? The Earth was fully formed (even called good). No plants or animals existed yet. So was it created with fossils of things that didn't exist yet, or were the fossils added later?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Even when I was a young-earther I thought embedded age was stupid. Sure, Adam and Eve had to look like something, make them 20-30ish. And I guess we need to be able to see more than like 100 stars so sure, stretch the light so that we don't have to wait for them to start appearing. That's a bit of a leap but I guess I could accept it. But why on earth would God make rocks look old? There's no point. It's just deceptive. If He's going to embed all of these clues that the earth is billions of years old and not include ANY evidence that the earth is young, and then give us ability to reason and consider our surroundings, how can he fault us for accepting the clues he gave us? That'd be like him torturing us every single day of our lives but expecting us to believe that he loves us and wants what's best for us.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

The things mentioned in this thread (different aged rocks, the "slime trail" analogy) got me to thinking. I don't know if AV has addressed it before, but here goes.

So as far as I can tell, according to Embedded Age, when the Earth was done being created in Genesis 1:1 through 1:10, it was 2 days old (existentially) but ~4.5 billion years old physically. But at this point, there were no animals or plants created. So it was just the planet, basically as we know it now but without the varied climates or separate continents (correct, AV?)

So on day 2 of creation were there any fossils within the rocks that formed the Earth? The Earth was fully formed (even called good). No plants or animals existed yet. So was it created with fossils of things that didn't exist yet, or were the fossils added later?

Get ready for it. You're about to see a very impressive backflip that rivals the stunts performed by Cirque Du Soleil.