My "Embedded Age" Challenge

[AV1611VET]

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?)

Correct indeed --

So on day 2 of creation were there any fossils within the rocks that formed the Earth?

No -- and technically the land didn't appear until day 3.

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?

The fossils came later -- well after Genesis 1.

 

[Belk]

"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.

Which still completely ignores the fact the any sort of radiometric dating is measuring history, not age.

 

[Skaloop]

Correct indeed --

Good.

No -- and technically the land didn't appear until day 3.

Appear, no, but it had been created, right? Yes, the waters hadn't been separated from the land, but the land itself was around.

The fossils came later -- well after Genesis 1.

If they came later, were they also embedded with maturity without history, since they date to the same age as the rocks they are in? And when did they come? Genesis 2?

 

[AV1611VET]

Appear, no, but it had been created, right? Yes, the waters hadn't been separated from the land, but the land itself was around.

Not necessarily.

In the paradigm I've stated before, this is what the earth looked like at the end of Day One of the creation event -- what I call Terra Aqua:

All this was, was a globe of "enriched" seawater -- nothing more.

Later, when God called forth the dry land, elements in the seawater came together to form a single supercontinent called Eden.

Terra Aqua produced Terra Firma.
​

 

[Skaloop]

Not necessarily.

In the paradigm I've stated before, this is what the earth looked like at the end of Day One of the creation event -- what I call Terra Aqua:

All this was, was a globe of "enriched" seawater -- nothing more.

Later, when God called forth the dry land, elements in the seawater came together to form a single supercontinent called Eden.

Terra Aqua produced Terra Firma.
​

OK, so when God called forth the dry land, did it have fossils in it?

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, so when God called forth the dry land, did it have fossils in it?

No -- fossils are reminiscent of death, and there was no death prior to the Fall.

 

[Doveaman]

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?

One might respond to that by claiming that God wanted us to "walk by faith, not by sight." - 2 Cor 5:7. So if we are confused by His rocks that's not His fault, that's our fault. We should learn to listen first before we go looking.

God could care less about what we think about His rocks. I mean, there are His rocks, right? So He can create them how He please. Who are we to come along and accuse Him of deception simply because He chose to add in some age into His own rocks?

If we want rocks to look the way we expect them to look then we should create our own rocks and leave God's rocks alone.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

One might respond to that by claiming that God wanted us to "walk by faith, not by sight." - 2 Cor 5:7. So if we are confused by His rocks that's not His fault, that's our fault. We should learn to listen first before we go looking.

God could care less about what we think about His rocks. I mean, there are His rocks, right? So He can create them how He please. Who are we to come along and accuse Him of deception simply because He chose to add in some age into His own rocks?

If we want rocks to look the way we expect them to look then we should create our own rocks and leave God's rocks alone.

Not good enough for me anymore. If everything we have ever encountered with our senses says the earth and the universe is older than 6,000 years old then I have to accept that until and unless we encounter evidence otherwise. What am I supposed to believe: Everything in existence ever, or a book? And why THAT book? There are other books that make similar but contradicting claims and they all have just as much evidence supporting their validity as the Bible does. Admit it, most people who accept the Bible do so because they were born into a family or region where everyone else believes it. If they were born in different countries they would accept different books.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not good enough for me anymore.

That's your choice, my friend.

If everything we have ever encountered with our senses says the earth and the universe is older than 6,000 years old then I have to accept that until and unless we encounter evidence otherwise.

And your senses are myopic, aren't they?

Did your senses tell you that Pluto was a planet at one time?

What am I supposed to believe: Everything in existence ever, or a book?

Everything in existence ever vs. the Bible are not a fair comparison.

No scientist would believe "everything in existence ever".

And why THAT book?

'THAT book' is a living, supernatural tome that has withstood the test of time, despite many attempts at Its eradication.

There are other books that make similar but contradicting claims and they all have just as much evidence supporting their validity as the Bible does.

Time has relegated these other books to the libraries of legend and lore.

Not so with the Bible.

Admit it, most people who accept the Bible do so because they were born into a family or region where everyone else believes it.

That's why the Bible is "quick" -- i.e. "alive".

If it is the Centerpiece of a family, then chances are, the children of that family will also claim It as theirs.

Pr 22:6 ¶ Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

If they were born in different countries they would accept different books.

Not necessarily.

 

[Tomatoman]

AV:

That's your choice, my friend.

That's right. That must be a dangerous concept for you, making one's own mind up based on an honest, objective appraisal of the evidence. Must make you shiver with envy. As we know, you and every other creationist are the result of extreme brainwashing. You only have to look at your own life, AV, at the family and community you grew up in and the repitition and continual reinforcement of creationist ideas in your early life to know this.

And your senses are myopic, aren't they?

No. Our sense evolved to interpret the real world we live in and they're very good at it. No human has ever had any other way of experiencing the world. Basically if it can't be accessed through our senses we don't know about it. What you and your pals think of as spiritual experience is basically your hormones (there are rather a lot of these in the human body and they cover everything from love to fear), and in the cases of visions brain chemical imbalances, probably relating to a schizoid personality type. These experiences still come through your senses though. That's all you have, and it's all the people who wrote the bible had too.

Did your senses tell you that Pluto was a planet at one time?

yawn.

Everything in existence ever vs. the Bible are not a fair comparison.

You would say that, because the bible comes off a poor second.

No scientist would believe "everything in existence ever".

I think he means everything that was actually real in history ever, in which case every scientist would. We call it evidence.

'THAT book' is a living, supernatural tome that has withstood the test of time, despite many attempts at Its eradication.

It's about as supernatural as my [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]. Or the Koran. That has stood the test of time too. Strangely you don't believe that book to be supernatural. This is because you weren't brainwashed at an early age to believe the koran was written by god.

Time has relegated these other books to the libraries of legend and lore.

Not so with the Bible.

I don't know what planet you are living on. I guess you don't know many muslims or hindus or buddhists or anyone very much who isn't hardcore christian. And if you do you haven't heard them banging on about their own religious texts. Blimey. I have to remind myself sometimes how sheltered and naive you creationists are.

That's why the Bible is "quick" -- i.e. "alive".

It's a book, not a puppy.

If it is the Centerpiece of a family, then chances are, the children of that family will also claim It as theirs.

You have just proved Don'tTreadOnMike correct. What you are describing is brainwashing.

 

[Skaloop]

No -- fossils are reminiscent of death, and there was no death prior to the Fall.

So according to your embedded age idea, if we currently date a fossil as 2 million years old, how old is it existentially, and how old is it physically?

 

[marlowe007]

Is there anyone, past or present, who has subscribed to this "Embedded Age" thing besides AV? Or is it just his own pet theory? If the latter is the case, then I don't think it deserves a category unto itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

So according to your embedded age idea, if we currently date a fossil as 2 million years old, how old is it existentially, and how old is it physically?

It is 2 million years old physically, and <6014 years old existentially.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there anyone, past or present, who has subscribed to this "Embedded Age" thing besides AV? Or is it just his own pet theory? If the latter is the case, then I don't think it deserves a category unto itself.

Does someone want to answer this, or will I have to?

 

[Mike Elphick]

Not necessarily.

In the paradigm I've stated before, this is what the earth looked like at the end of Day One of the creation event -- what I call Terra Aqua:

All this was, was a globe of "enriched" seawater -- nothing more.

Later, when God called forth the dry land, elements in the seawater came together to form a single supercontinent called Eden.

Terra Aqua produced Terra Firma.
​

Using the solubility of iron and silica in water, I previously showed how this was a physical impossibility, but AV repeats it just the same.

 

[AV1611VET]

Using the solubility of iron and silica in water, I previously showed how this was a physical impossibility, but AV repeats it just the same.

You're worried about physical impossibilities on an earth that is being shaped and molded by an omnipotent Creator?

 

[driewerf]

You're worried about physical impossibilities on an earth that is being shaped and molded by an omnipotent Creator?

When you see how often he fails, that supposed creator isn't omnipotent at all.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

That's your choice, my friend.

And your senses are myopic, aren't they?

They might be, but they are the only way we can learn about our surroundings. They've served us pretty well so far.

Did your senses tell you that Pluto was a planet at one time

Not really sure what this has to do with anything but yes. When we learned how to augment our senses with primitive telescopes we learned that there are 9 major objects orbiting the sun (instead of everything orbiting the earth like the church kept insisting). Then when our sensory augmentation apparatuses got better we realized that Pluto is not unique enough to be considered a planet unless we were willing to consider all of the chunks of pluto-sized rocks out there planets too. None of that has anything to do with the Bible though. It doesn't mention Pluto or there being 9 planets so I don't know why you're so fixated on it. Yes, science has been wrong...a LOT! But you know how we know that science has been wrong? By using better science. The reason you argue that Pluto is the ninth planet to orbit the sun at all is because Galileo defied the church with science. If it wasn't for him you would think that everything in the universe existed as specks of light on a bunch of concentric glass spheres around the earth. Unless you're a geo-centrist. Are you a geo-centrist? If not, you can thank scientists and their myopic senses.

Everything in existence ever vs. the Bible are not a fair comparison.

You're right, maybe I should have said "Everything in existence that we know about so far vs. the Bible." And this is coming from someone who considers himself a Christian. I believe and follow the teachings of Christ. (i changed my icon because someone told me I'm not a true Christian). But I also understand that the Bible is not a science text book. It was written by and for bronze-age desert nomads and mountain people BEFORE the age of science.

'THAT book' is a living, supernatural tome that has withstood the test of time, despite many attempts at Its eradication.

Time has relegated these other books to the libraries of legend and lore.

Not so with the Bible.

You know which book has withstood the test of even more time? The Bhagavad Gita, the sacred book of the oldest existing religion in the world. And to the 1 billion followers of Hinduism, it's not just legend. It's just as much a living book of truth as the Bible is to you. Should we believe their creation story too? Because I might be wrong but I think they believe the earth is actually much MUCH older than even scientists say.

If it is the Centerpiece of a family, then chances are, the children of that family will also claim It as theirs.

I rest my case. Do you think the same holds true for other books? If you live in America, there's a higher chance that it will be the center piece of your family than if you lived in Saudi Arabia. If you had been born there, the Koran would have been the centerpiece of your family and you would be touting it around now instead of the Bible.

Pr 22:6 ¶ Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Right, children believe what their parents teach them. If you're in western country and your parents teach you a religion, chances are it will be Christianity. If you were in the middle east, chances are your parents would have taught you Islam. Again, I rest my case.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really sure what this has to do with anything but yes. When we learned how to augment our senses with primitive telescopes we learned that there are 9 major objects orbiting the sun (instead of everything orbiting the earth like the church kept insisting). Then when our sensory augmentation apparatuses got better we realized that Pluto is not unique enough to be considered a planet unless we were willing to consider all of the chunks of pluto-sized rocks out there planets too.

Interesting how, in retrospect, you first called it major objects, then, when you factored learning into the equation, it changed to planet.

I submit that in 1930, we "learned" that we had nine planets -- not eight.

Then in 2006, we "learned" we had eight planets -- not nine.

You know which book has withstood the test of even more time? The Bhagavad Gita, the sacred book of the oldest existing religion in the world.

Wrong.

The Bhavagad-Gita was written because the common people were leaving the Hindu religion in droves (because of its highly-oppressive caste system).

They founded a breakaway religion, called Buddhism, and were migrating to this new religion, which allowed freedom for the common man.

To stop the exodus from Hinduism, the Hindu wrote a book of fiction called the Bagavad-Gita -- and at this point, I can't remember the rest of the story, as I can't find my reference book on it (Ancient Empires of the New Age).

It's around here somewhere.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Interesting how, in retrospect, you first called it major objects, then, when you factored learning into the equation, it changed to planet.

I submit that in 1930, we "learned" that we had nine planets -- not eight.

Then in 2006, we "learned" we had eight planets -- not nine.

Close. We learned that pluto isn't unique enough to be called a planet. "Planet" was always a pretty arbitrary word without a strict definition. Furthermore, why does it matter? Do you think the definition of the word "planet" and whether or not Pluto fits the description has anything to do with creationism? Are you trying to prove that scientists can be wrong? Because I already admitted that and so will any actual scientist (I'm an artist, not a scientist...although my wife is). Science is constantly improving itself. Scientists make-do with the tools they have and the things they are able to observe. They can only work with the technology of their time and they only go with the theories that not only fit their observations, but actually work. Now, you may claim that the Bible is like a gateway to knowledge that the best scientific instrumentation can't yet acquire and so you have a head start on knowledge that we can't yet know by using our senses. Fine. But until our instrumentation and technology improves to the point that it vindicates your story of creation you can't expect scientists to accept your story or to teach it in the SCIENCE class room. They HAVE to go one only what they observe with their senses. Maybe one day our technology will allow our senses to see the evidence that the Bible shows you and we'll be forced to believe you. If that happens, every scientist in the world who is a true scientist will be glad to agree with you. But they won't do it without physical evidence, that's how science works.

Wrong.

The Bhavagad-Gita was written because the common people were leaving the Hindu religion in droves (because of its highly-oppressive caste system).

They founded a breakaway religion, called Buddhism, and were migrating to this new religion, which allowed freedom for the common man.

To stop the exodus from Hinduism, the Hindu wrote a book of fiction called the Bagavad-Gita -- and at this point, I can't remember the rest of the story, as I can't find my reference book on it (Ancient Empires of the New Age).

It's around here somewhere.

Fictional stories designed to convey religious truth. Sounds a lot like a parable. Are we supposed to through out Jesus' most famous stories because they're fiction?