Embedded age vs astronomy

[Sophophile]

Just reading the recent thread "Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong. AV1611VET states "embedded age" does not mean omphalos.

But I don't understand what "embedded age" does mean.

Perhaps the answers to these questions might help clarify:

1. How many times has the earth gone round the sun, according to the embedded age concept? 6,000? 6 billion? Or some other number?

2. There are many astronomical events observed to be > 6,000 light years away (e.g. Supernova 1987a). According to the embedded age concept, did these events actually occur? If so, how long ago?

Also, I am puzzled how "embedded age" squares with Romans 1:20, which states that those who have not heard the gospel are still held accountable because God's holiness and might can be discerned by studying the natural world that He created.

Thanks
S.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The whole embedded age idea would mean that the universe is one great deception created to fool all of us. It would mean that the light we see from the Milky Way at night was never actually emitted by the stars. It would mean that the supernova we see in a distant galaxy never actually happened. It would mean that no living being ever made the footprints in the mud recently disovered in Africa.

People who subscribe to this absurd idea must be fans of the Matrix movies, and think that God is one big fat liar. Makes you wonder.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. How many times has the earth gone round the sun, according to the embedded age concept? 6,000? 6 billion? Or some other number?

2. There are many astronomical events observed to be > 6,000 light years away (e.g. Supernova 1987a). According to the embedded age concept, did these events actually occur? If so, how long ago?

Also, I am puzzled how "embedded age" squares with Romans 1:20, which states that those who have not heard the gospel are still held accountable because God's holiness and might can be discerned by studying the natural world that He created.

1. 6100 times.

2. Yes, they actually occurred. I don't know how long ago, but certainly <6100 years. Keep in mind that a light year is a measure of distance --- not time.

My own personal belief is that God gives those who have never heard the Gospel (and never will) a special ability to interpret nature in such a way that they are able to make the choice to either accept or reject His son.

 

[AV1611VET]

The whole embedded age idea would mean that the universe is one great deception created to fool all of us.

The only ones being fooled are those who cling so tenaciously to science that they reject the Documentation to the contrary.

 

[Danyc]

The only ones that get it right are those who cling so tenaciously to God's Creation that they reject a book passed through human hands to the contrary.

fix'd.

 

[gaara4158]

2. Yes, they actually occurred. I don't know how long ago, but certainly <6100 years. Keep in mind that a light year is a measure of distance --- not time.

Yes, but for the light to reach us, it'd have to have been traveling for more than 6100 years. But don't worry, you can just say God created the photons already in place so that they'd show up on Earth in 1987.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, but for the light to reach us, it'd have to have been traveling for more than 6100 years. But don't worry, you can just say God created the photons already in place so that they'd show up on Earth in 1987.

Here's an oldie-but-goodie on this subject: 253.

 

[Sophophile]

1. 6100 times.

2. Yes, they actually occurred. I don't know how long ago, but certainly <6100 years. Keep in mind that a light year is a measure of distance --- not time.

My own personal belief is that God gives those who have never heard the Gospel (and never will) a special ability to interpret nature in such a way that they are able to make the choice to either accept or reject His son.

Hi AV1611VET. Thanks for the response.

1.

If the earth has actually orbited the sun only 6,100 times, but contains clear evidence it has orbited the sun well over 100,000 times (e.g. orbital cycles recorded in ice cores etc), isn't this Omphalos?

I mean, the 6,101st ice layer follows the same pattern as the 6,100th one based on all observable evidence. But "embedded age" means they are fundamentally different -- one formed because of real history (the earth went round the sun, causing winter etc) whereas the other was formed in situ at the moment of creation, reflecting only apparent (fake) history. I understood this to be the Omphalos theory.

2.

A light year is a measure of time as well as distance. This is because we actually observe (not assume) constant light speed at all distances in all directions.

Light speed is not infinite, so when we observe a distant object we are directly observing the past. If light speed had changed over time, we would observe processes (such as galactic rotation, radioactive decay etc) going at different speeds for objects at different distances. We do not observe this. Therefore the speed of light has not changed for a very long time.


Thus, an object like SN1987a, which is measured by triangulation to be about 160,000 light years away, is at least 160,000 years old. This is simply an observed fact.

3.

It seems to me the embedded age concept implicitly acknowledges that the physical evidence shows the universe is very much older than 6,100 years. In other words, there is no way in principle to establish an age of 6,100 years based on the physical evidence alone.

But in Romans 1:20 Paul teaches that the natural world reflects God's nature accurately, "so that they [the heathen] are without excuse".

I suggest, then, that the embedded age concept contradicts Romans 1:20.

Cheers
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

1.

If the earth has actually orbited the sun only 6,100 times, but contains clear evidence it has orbited the sun well over 100,000 times (e.g. orbital cycles recorded in ice cores etc), isn't this Omphalos?

The earth did not orbit the sun 6100 times the day it was created --- and it was not created with polar climatology --- therefore no ice cores anywhere.

Show me these ice cores in Genesis 1.

I'm not going to let you guys stray outside of Genesis 1, then call me names.

You guys are being disingenuous --- luring me here with something about creation, then wanting to talk anything but the Creation Week.

 

[Sophophile]

The earth did not orbit the sun 6100 times the day it was created --- and it was not created with polar climatology --- therefore no ice cores anywhere.

Show me these ice cores in Genesis 1.

I'm not going to let you guys stray outside of Genesis 1, then call me names.

You guys are being disingenuous --- luring me here with something about creation, then wanting to talk anything but the Creation Week.

Hello AV1611VET.

I certainly did mix up some genuine questions about embedded age with some criticism of that position. That was impolite. Sorry.

But it is not reasonable to accept your argument that if something is not mentioned in Genesis 1, then it does not exist. Surely that is self-evident. If you meant something else, please explain.

Cheers
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hello AV1611VET.

I certainly did mix up some genuine questions about embedded age with some criticism of that position. That was impolite. Sorry.

But it is not reasonable to accept your argument that if something is not mentioned in Genesis 1, then it does not exist. Surely that is self-evident. If you meant something else, please explain.

Cheers
S.

Well, angels are not mentioned in Genesis 1 --- yet they exist.

And in any other thread, I would say "QV the Water Canopy Theory", but I don't want to drag this thread away from the OP, which confines this discussion to the Creation Week, i.e. Genesis 1.

 

[Sophophile]

Well, angels are not mentioned in Genesis 1 --- yet they exist.

And in any other thread, I would say "QV the Water Canopy Theory", but I don't want to drag this thread away from the OP, which confines this discussion to the Creation Week, i.e. Genesis 1.

I was trying to understand the nature and application of the embedded age concept.

I had a look at Water Canopy Theory but it did not appear to address the issues of embedded age and Omphalos.

Can the embedded age concept can only be explained and defended by confining discussion to Genesis 1? Or should we include in our considerations other parts of the Bible, and direct, observational evidence of the natural world?

This is a very important question.

I for one do not believe you can disregard observed reality in developing your Biblical hermeneutic.

Regards
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or should we include in our considerations other parts of the Bible, and direct, observational evidence of the natural world?

You'll make a serious theological mistake if you do that.

QV this post --- 2 --- in which Frumious Bandersnatch shows how science differs from Genesis 1 in the order of appearance of the universe.

 

[Sophophile]

You'll make a serious theological mistake if you do that.

QV this post --- 2 --- in which Frumious Bandersnatch shows how science differs from Genesis 1 in the order of appearance of the universe.

I disagree, AV1611VET. I believe that the embedded age concept creates more theological problems than it solves.

With regard to post "2", you are presupposing that the literal sequence in Genesis 1 is of primary theological importance. Given the clear poetic structure of Genesis 1, this is arguable and, in my view, very doubtful.

In general, though, I believe "embedded age" puts you on a dangerous slippery slope towards pure subjectivism. By ommitting Biblical and non-Biblical evidence from your hermeneutic, you are adopting the position that its okay to believe whatever you want to believe without regard to objective evidence. This implies it is okay for anyone to do the same, that nothing is really true or false, because truth and reality are matters of subjective interpretation, and cannot legitimately be checked for correctness in any way.

This is not what the Bible teaches. I do hope you agree.

Cheers
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is not what the Bible teaches. I do hope you agree.

Goodbye ---

 

[MoonLancer]

distance --- not time.

it distance and time. it is the distance it travels in a year. So by knowing the distance of the star, also know the time at which the light was emitted from that star that we see today.

 

[Sophophile]

Goodbye ---

1 Peter 3:15


S.