"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

[AV1611VET]

Why would a YEC answer the question? Embedded Age is not a YEC concept, its your's and your pastor's. If you cannot defend it, don't use it anymore.

Did you read before you posted, Split Rock?

Here again, and with emphasis, is what I wrote:

I don't know --- I can't put myself in God's place and see what He would see had Adam not been created with age. I'm sure He had His reasons.

Perhaps a YEC could better answer this.

 

[AV1611VET]

If av bows out of this thread, fine. But its going to haunt him. If av talks about embedded age elsewhere as if its a valid idea, lets all qv this thread ;p because its clear he has no answer to the fossils in the rocks.

Good idea!

/thread

 

[gaara4158]

I think this is the closest to conceding defeat I've ever seen from you, AV! Congratulations!

 

[MoonLancer]

Good idea!

/thread

ok! see you in a few posts

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Call it what you want, but please confine it to Genesis 1, where it belongs.

Where what belongs? I hope you don't think the Gen 1 should be amended by your embedded age "theology."

 

[Freodin]

This is not true, while your chronological age is very important, your biological age is too. One is real, your chronological age, the other is perceived, your biological age. Just because the state of your body is perceived as that of a 50 year old while you're still 20 doesn't mean it isn't serious- you've got health issues. While you're body is not actually 50 years old, it's comparative, you're doctor is saying 'you're in equivalent health as a 50 year old, start eating better, and get some exercise.' This is the crux of perceived age, while it's not real, it is *relative* to perception.

You might have misunderstood me here: I don´t deny that the concept of "perceived age" is a valid one or has its uses.

But all these concepts exists because we know and experience "age" as the passing of time - history.

We know that a 50 year old human is subject to this passing of time, and accumulates "health problems". But these problems are not the result of "age", but of what happened to the body during the time to reach that "age".

That is the problem. We all perceive "age" as the result of things that happen in time. Without them, we would not relate that concept to "age".

That is not limited to "age". We all perceive everything in the way we do, because of how it became what it is.

That´s why AV was asked for Adam´s navel and the apple´s stem. We know what a human looks like and what an apple looks like, because we know how they came to be humans and apples. Humans have navels because they were born inside their mother - apples have their cores and stems because they grew on trees.

Remove that way of "becoming" - you might call it "maturing" to keep with AV´s terminology - and you remove the sole reason for these feature.

That´s what AV tries to do, and that´s why he has these problems of explaining these features.

 

[ragarth]

You might have misunderstood me here: I don´t deny that the concept of "perceived age" is a valid one or has its uses.

But all these concepts exists because we know and experience "age" as the passing of time - history.

We know that a 50 year old human is subject to this passing of time, and accumulates "health problems". But these problems are not the result of "age", but of what happened to the body during the time to reach that "age".

That is the problem. We all perceive "age" as the result of things that happen in time. Without them, we would not relate that concept to "age".

That is not limited to "age". We all perceive everything in the way we do, because of how it became what it is.

That´s why AV was asked for Adam´s navel and the apple´s stem. We know what a human looks like and what an apple looks like, because we know how they came to be humans and apples. Humans have navels because they were born inside their mother - apples have their cores and stems because they grew on trees.

Remove that way of "becoming" - you might call it "maturing" to keep with AV´s terminology - and you remove the sole reason for these feature.

That´s what AV tries to do, and that´s why he has these problems of explaining these features.

I'll be honest, aside from some differences in how we describe it, I'm not seeing much change between what I said and what you're saying. If perceived age is in the eye of the beholder, then it is a result of perception, which not only uses what our senses tell us, but filters that through our experiences and knowledge.

Remember, we 'see' a picture, but we 'perceive' fine art.

 

[Freodin]

I'll be honest, aside from some differences in how we describe it, I'm not seeing much change between what I said and what you're saying. If perceived age is in the eye of the beholder, then it is a result of perception, which not only uses what our senses tell us, but filters that through our experiences and knowledge.

Remember, we 'see' a picture, but we 'perceive' fine art.

But why do we? That is the point I am trying to make with AV, and I´m not sure you understood that.

There is a reason why we connect "age" with a certain state... that reason we can call "history". If we ignore that - the way things get to be how they are - we ignore the very meaning of the term "age" that AV wants to use.

 

[ragarth]

But why do we? That is the point I am trying to make with AV, and I´m not sure you understood that.

There is a reason why we connect "age" with a certain state... that reason we can call "history". If we ignore that - the way things get to be how they are - we ignore the very meaning of the term "age" that AV wants to use.

We associate certain states of things with particular ages because under normal circumstances something would be in that state due to being that particular age. Coral grows at a set rate, as do barnacle encrustation, so we can estimate the age of sunken ships based on the amount of growth. TO accelerate artificially this process would give an artificial appearance of age, so that we might perceive the age as something different than what it actually is.

We perceive the artificial age because we associate things with what is normal to us. It is normal to us for wrinkles to signify age, therefore when someone is wrinkled we associate the wrinkles with showing age. This is why we perceive them as old. If the wrinkles are the result of a skin disease, then this perception is false because the wrinkles arise from a non-normal method.

We both agree, so we can stop telling each other the same thing.

 

[Split Rock]

Good idea!

/thread

OK everyone... AVET has admitted defeat and this thread is over.

 

[Hespera]

OK everyone... AVET has admitted defeat and this thread is over.

Good, I figured the whole thread had a pretty simple answer, embedded age is wrong because its dumb.

 

[Freodin]

OK everyone... AVET has admitted defeat and this thread is over.

Would that he did... but all he did was dropping out when he couldn´t answer a problem.... again.

And then he wonders why there are people who don´t see any problem with his claims... they are the people who run away when they hear the word "problem".

 

[BananaSlug]

Just one more thing, and then we'll submit this thread to be archived

Desert Limestone Formations

It is interesting because according to "embedded age" these limestone layers were created in 4004 B.C. and made to appear millions of years old (of course Limestone ranges in age from the Eocene (55mya) to as far back as the Ordovician (488mya) and many different ages in between).

Limestone often contains variable amounts of silica in the form of chert and/or flint, as well as varying amounts of clay, silt and sand as disseminations, nodules, or layers within the rock. The primary source of the calcite in limestone is most commonly marine organisms. In fact, if we look at limestone under a microscope we can see the fossil shells of hundreds of foraminiferans. Limestone forms in low-energy deep ocean environments whereas sandstone is indicative of high-energy coastal environments.

The Foraminifera, ("Hole Bearers") or forams for short, are a large group of amoeboid protists with reticulating pseudopods, fine strands of cytoplasm that branch and merge to form a dynamic net.[1] They typically produce a test, or shell, which can have either one or multiple chambers, some becoming quite elaborate in structure.[2] These shells are made of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) or agglutinated sediment particles. About 275,000 species are recognized, both living and fossil.
Tests are known as fossils as far back as the Cambrian period,[8] and many marine sediments are composed primarily of them. For instance, the limestone that makes up the pyramids of Egypt is composed almost entirely of nummulitic benthic foraminifera.[9] Production estimates indicate that reef foraminifera annually generate approximately 43 million tons of calcium carbonate and thus play an essential role in the production of reef carbonates.[10]

These organisms secrete shells that settle out of the water column and are deposited on ocean floors as pelagic ooze or alternatively are conglomerated in a coral reef (see lysocline for information on calcite dissolution). Regions overlying Limestone bedrock tend to have fewer visible groundwater sources (ponds and streams), as surface water easily drains downward through cracks in the Limestone. While draining, water slowly (over thousands or millions of years) enlarges these cracks; dissolving the calcium-carbonate and carrying it away in solution. Most well-known natural cave systems are through Limestone bedrock.

This is interesting because according to "embedded age" theology, God created the limestone formations to appear millions of years old without an actual history. However, limestone is essentially nothing but fossil!

Oh, and if death is the "enemy" of God, he sure does seem to enjoy it!

Leviticus 1

The Burnt Offering

1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting. He said, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any of you brings an offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock.

3 " 'If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting so that it [a] will be acceptable to the LORD. 4 He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him. 5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron's sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces. 7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar. 9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

10 " 'If the offering is a burnt offering from the flock, from either the sheep or the goats, he is to offer a male without defect. 11 He is to slaughter it at the north side of the altar before the LORD, and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle its blood against the altar on all sides. 12 He is to cut it into pieces, and the priest shall arrange them, including the head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar. 13 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest is to bring all of it and burn it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 14 "

'If the offering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds, he is to offer a dove or a young pigeon. 15 The priest shall bring it to the altar, wring off the head and burn it on the altar; its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. 16 He is to remove the crop with its contents [b] and throw it to the east side of the altar, where the ashes are. 17 He shall tear it open by the wings, not severing it completely, and then the priest shall burn it on the wood that is on the fire on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

Thread is now ready for archival!

 

[juvenissun]

"Embedded age" refers to God creating a "mature" earth that appears to be 4.5 billion years old while creating it in 4004 B.C. (the year that many YEC's love to point to as the Creation date). "Embedded Age" differs from Omphalos (supposedly) because God created the earth to appear old without a history.

Though it would be possible to create a physically mature living organism without a history (such as memories or scars from past trama) it is impossible to create such a thing as a planet to be "aged" without showing a history as well.

The point of the OP was showing that we have tons of evidence for past events that are well over 6,000 years old. According to "embedded age," the earth may (appear to) be 4.5 billion years old but should in reality only have 6,000 years of history. In lieu of such a belief we have evidence of past asteroid impacts (KT boundary event 65mya), evidence of humans older than 6,000 years (oldest Homo sapiens 165,000ya), and fossils of organisms from 600mya.

According to "embedded age," rocks that are dated using the various dating methods were created to appear old despite the fact the creation date is around 4004B.C. That means that 250 million year old rock was created to appear as 250 million year old rock.

"Embedded age" is age without history. However, that same 250 million year old rock has fossils within it. While it being 250 million years old can signify "embedded age," the fossils represent a history, which flies in the face of what "embedded age" signifies.
In reality, "embedded age," much like omphalos, is a way to try and explain away the evidence that supports an old earth. It is not good theology because it does not take into account the history that is written within the rocks.

"Embedded" means put "something" into another thing. So, an embedded age is NOT a zero age.

Do we have an agreement?

 

[BananaSlug]

"Embedded" means put "something" into another thing. So, an embedded age is NOT a zero age.

Do we have an agreement?

Agreed. But "embedded age" also means having an age that is different from the actual age. In Genesis, Adam was created as mature (18-30 years) but his actual age was zero. As long as Adam was not created with an umbilical scar, past memories, or other scars then "embedded age" is possible because there is no history.
Certain people believe that the earth was created approximately 6100 years ago with 4.5 billion years of age embedded within it but no history past 6100 years. The whole point of the thread was to show there is evidence of not only human history that is older than 6000 years but plenty of evidence of earth history going back a few billion years.
I think that I have done well to make my point but I'll be glad to continue the discussion. I enjoy it.

 

[gaara4158]

Agreed. But "embedded age" also means having an age that is different from the actual age. In Genesis, Adam was created as mature (18-30 years) but his actual age was zero. As long as Adam was not created with an umbilical scar, past memories, or other scars then "embedded age" is possible because there is no history.
Certain people believe that the earth was created approximately 6100 years ago with 4.5 billion years of age embedded within it but no history past 6100 years. The whole point of the thread was to show there is evidence of not only human history that is older than 6000 years but plenty of evidence of earth history going back a few billion years.
I think that I have done well to make my point but I'll be glad to continue the discussion. I enjoy it.

In short, "embedded age" accounts for the apparent age of the rocks, but it doesn't account for the fossils. Fossils effectively falsify embedded age.

 

[Split Rock]

In short, "embedded age" accounts for the apparent age of the rocks, but it doesn't account for the fossils. Fossils effectively falsify embedded age.

Not only fossils, but impact craters, tectonic folding and uplifting, glacial activity, etc., all show a long earth history.

 

[Freodin]

In short, "embedded age" accounts for the apparent age of the rocks, but it doesn't account for the fossils. Fossils effectively falsify embedded age.

Forgive me the nitpicking... but how does "embedded age" account for the apparent age of rocks?

What does "age" mean for a rock? How is it determined?

And how is it "embedded" into rocks?

 

[juvenissun]

Agreed. But "embedded age" also means having an age that is different from the actual age. In Genesis, Adam was created as mature (18-30 years) but his actual age was zero. As long as Adam was not created with an umbilical scar, past memories, or other scars then "embedded age" is possible because there is no history.

You are contradicting yourself. If some "different age" is put in Adam, how could this "different age" be zero? There has to be something related to time, which is "embedded" in Adam.

Agree again?

 

[juvenissun]

In short, "embedded age" accounts for the apparent age of the rocks, but it doesn't account for the fossils. Fossils effectively falsify embedded age.

No, no. The "Apparent age" is a scientific term. The "Embedded age" is a philosophical term. They are entirely different.