"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

[Sophophile]

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.

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

After reading this thread I am still not clear on what AV1611VET means by embedded age. Juvenissun's explanations helped.

I think juvenissun and AV1611VET mean this: When God created things, He not only created material things having the physical characteristics of age (maturity, marks of history etc), He also created a true and real "past history of the universe", ex nihilo and instantaneously.

To me, this is in fact logically coherent.

Am I close, or hopelessly lost.

Thanks
S.

 

[Cabal]

After reading this thread I am still not clear on what AV1611VET means by embedded age. Juvenissun's explanations helped.

I think juvenissun and AV1611VET mean this: When God created things, He not only created material things having the physical characteristics of age (maturity, marks of history etc), He also created a true and real "past history of the universe", ex nihilo and instantaneously.

To me, this is in fact logically coherent.

Am I close, or hopelessly lost.

Thanks
S.

No, I'm pretty sure AV would say that that's Omphalos, which isn't the same thing.

(urgh, why am I even attempting this...anyway)

Embedded age means that something looks a particular without necessarily having existed that particular length of time. I myself can't see what's so hard about this concept in principle, nor Omphalos, and I feel I can appreciate the difference - obviously in practice people are going to run into the odd difficulty here and there.....

 

[Sophophile]

No, I'm pretty sure AV would say that that's Omphalos, which isn't the same thing.

(urgh, why am I even attempting this...anyway)

Embedded age means that something looks a particular without necessarily having existed that particular length of time. I myself can't see what's so hard about this concept in principle, nor Omphalos, and I feel I can appreciate the difference - obviously in practice people are going to run into the odd difficulty here and there.....

Hello Cabal.

Well then I am hopelessly lost.

I thought Omphalos meant that God faked the "signs of history".

And I thought embedded age means God instead faked the history itself. This means the "signs of history" are not fake -- they refer to a history that was really instantiated at the moment of creation.

Thus I thought "embedded history" is a very compatibilist approach. It acknowledges what science discovers about the age of the universe. "If God wanted to do the work of vast ages of time in a single moment, what was to stop him?"

Cheers
S.

 

[Hespera]

Hello Cabal.

Well then I am hopelessly lost.

I thought Omphalos meant that God faked the "signs of history".

And I thought embedded age means God instead faked the history itself. This means the "signs of history" are not fake -- they refer to a history that was really instantiated at the moment of creation.

Thus I thought "embedded history" is a very compatibilist approach. It acknowledges what science discovers about the age of the universe. "If God wanted to do the work of vast ages of time in a single moment, what was to stop him?"

Cheers
S.

Well, one belief is that god exists throughout time? As well as throughout the universe, and i guess, beyond? Some even claim he controls the movement of every last atom. That sounds like a bore, but it shows the idea of considerable power.

Anyhow, if he exists throughout time, and time is of no particular meaning even, to him, I guess he could make the universe suddenly appear in all its stages from creation to whatever fate is ahead. So it all kind of exists simultaneously.

I dont know what would occupy a mind as great as that, but in a way it seems more like he might set off the big bang and then sit back to see what happens. That would be very interesting to watch for the next few billion years. If THAT isnt his main project what (in heaven's name) could he be up to.

Anyhow... once you figure totally unlimited power, than doing something like embedded age is just a minor detail to muse about but its of no great significance. Except to those deluded fools who think that finding a clamshell some odd place calls the idea of god into question.

 

[juvenissun]

After reading this thread I am still not clear on what AV1611VET means by embedded age. Juvenissun's explanations helped.

I think juvenissun and AV1611VET mean this: When God created things, He not only created material things having the physical characteristics of age (maturity, marks of history etc), He also created a true and real "past history of the universe", ex nihilo and instantaneously.

To me, this is in fact logically coherent.

Am I close, or hopelessly lost.

Thanks
S.

It should be more than that. Otherwise, the embedded age simply means history, and Adam would have a true age of, say, 25 years.

The meaning of embedded age should be that Adam had an age much much mush less then 25 years when he was created. But it should not be zero year.

 

[juvenissun]

Hello Cabal.

Well then I am hopelessly lost.

I thought Omphalos meant that God faked the "signs of history".

And I thought embedded age means God instead faked the history itself. This means the "signs of history" are not fake -- they refer to a history that was really instantiated at the moment of creation.

Thus I thought "embedded history" is a very compatibilist approach. It acknowledges what science discovers about the age of the universe. "If God wanted to do the work of vast ages of time in a single moment, what was to stop him?"

Cheers
S.

Very good. And we can push one step forward:
What's wrong if all the embedded history can still be manifested by "science"?

 

[BananaSlug]

It should be more than that. Otherwise, the embedded age simply means history, and Adam would have a true age of, say, 25 years.

The meaning of embedded age should be that Adam had an age much much mush less then 25 years when he was created. But it should not be zero year.

AV specifically stated that "embedded age" is age WITHOUT history. Adam's physical age is 25, but his existential age is 0. The earth's physical age is 4.5billion, but its existential age is 6100. There should be no history past 6100 years, but there is. Just read over the whole thread again (and don't skip the "junk" posts, they're probably the most important) and we'll continue the discussion.

 

[gaara4158]

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?

Well, AV just says they're created with millions of years' worth of decay. Like creating a glass of milk that's only half full, I suppose.

 

[MoonLancer]

Well, AV just says they're created with millions of years' worth of decay. Like creating a glass of milk that's only half full, I suppose.

the analogy i remember him using is God took old bike parts to make a new bike. the bike itself is new, while the parts that make up this new bike are incredibly old.

I think its a flawed analogy and concept, but it shows the way AV was thinking about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

the analogy i remember him using is God took old bike parts to make a new bike. the bike itself is new, while the parts that make up this new bike are incredibly old.

I think its a flawed analogy and concept, but it shows the way AV was thinking about it.

[/read-only mode]http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=38810091&postcount=1 1 [read-only mode]

 

[MoonLancer]

I am pretty sure i explained it as thus. And yes its flawed thinking.

So what worlds did god take apart to make ours? if he diden't, well its not a very good explanation is it?

This analogy simply shows god as an assembler and not a creator in any event.

PS: so whats your view on fossils and the the history they show in the rocks that supposedly only show embedded age?

 

[AV1611VET]

So what worlds did god take apart to make ours?

None --- it's simply to show that an object as simple as a bicycle can have two different ages simultaneously.

A physical age and an existential age.

 

[gaara4158]

None --- it's simply to show that an object as simple as a bicycle can have two different ages simultaneously.

A physical age and an existential age.

We all get that. To apply it to the Earth, however, the pieces God used to put the world together must have had a history; the history we observe in geology and archaeology. Otherwise, your whole analogy is moot. So, are you saying that the fossils were at one time floating in space?

 

[AV1611VET]

Note to lurkers:

When discussing the Creation Week, never, ever stray outside of Genesis 1, unless you know exactly what you're doing --- and then, only to cover a point not addressed by Genesis 1, but present in the Creation Week - (such as the presence of angels, or Lucifer's perfection).

In any event, NEVER stray outside of Genesis 1, or you'll get buried in side-issues like "talking snakes" (which neither talked, nor was a snake), the Flood, evil, the Laws of Thermodynamics, infanticide, the Godhead, whatever.

This thread is a perfect example of that.

If they have questions about these side-issues, take it to other threads, but DON'T address them here.

These people are NOT here to learn where this universe came from --- they are taught in science class that that's an unanswerable question.

They are here to bait-and-switch --- and believe me --- I'm speaking from experience.

 

[gaara4158]

Note to lurkers:
Pay no heed to creationists like this unless you know exactly what you're doing. If you do, you'll get caught up in the side-issues he loves to bring up in a pinch in order to distract you from the fact that he can't answer your question. Case in point here, where one of our most prominent posters (as he loves to bring up from time to time, bless his heart) has failed to answer any of the questions directed at his pet theory. I believe an "epic fail" picture may be in order if this continues.

 

[juvenissun]

AV specifically stated that "embedded age" is age WITHOUT history. Adam's physical age is 25, but his existential age is 0. The earth's physical age is 4.5billion, but its existential age is 6100. There should be no history past 6100 years, but there is. Just read over the whole thread again (and don't skip the "junk" posts, they're probably the most important) and we'll continue the discussion.

I know what all you posted (very easy to understand). But I don't think you get mine.

Think this: If what you said (in blue) is right, then Adam should have "some" age, not zero. Perhaps a particular dating method would show the age of Adam was "25".

 

[MoonLancer]

Note to lurkers:

When discussing the Creation Week, never, ever stray outside of Genesis 1,

ah. so where in genesis 1 does it say the world was created 6100 years ago

In any event, NEVER stray outside of Genesis 1, or you'll get buried in side-issues like "talking snakes" (which neither talked, nor was a snake), the Flood, evil, the Laws of Thermodynamics, infanticide, the Godhead, whatever.

This thread is a perfect example of that.

actually your the one who brought up that rocks have a very old age but not history. Someone brings up that fossils count as history because they show events that took place much older then 6100 yeas. Not only do you not address the problem with your hypothesis, you say you will be away for a while like a disgraced politician who now is going to spend time with his/her family.

yeah.

If they have questions about these side-issues, take it to other threads, but DON'T address them here.

here is the prefect place to address why embedded age doesn't work.

These people are NOT here to learn where this universe came from --- they are taught in science class that that's an unanswerable question.

no, simply a unanswered question.

They are here to bait-and-switch --- and believe me --- I'm speaking from experience.

what bait and switch are you talking about? The title of the thread is Embedded age and why is wrong, then lays out a case why its wrong.

I can only assume you must have actually thought about the problem of fossils in the rock, and realized you couldn't explain it away without contradicting the bible or trashing the fundamental point of your argument and that frightened you.

 

[Sophophile]

Note to lurkers:
When discussing the Creation Week, never, ever stray outside of Genesis 1.

Note to lurkers:

If it is axiomatic that the canon of Scripture must be an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound.

Exclusive focus on Genesis 1, ignoring possible conflicts with other parts of the Bible, is not a valid hermeneutic for Biblical exegesis. Acknowledgement of context is crucial for obtaining the correct interpretation.

S.

 

[dad]

Note to lurkers:



Exclusive focus on Genesis 1, ignoring possible conflicts with other parts of the Bible, is not a valid hermeneutic for Biblical exegesis. Acknowledgement of context is crucial for obtaining the correct interpretation.

S.

There are no conflicts in the rest of the bible, that is a misconception. Gen 1 is the creation order. Gen 2 is after the fact, a zooming in on some details, not another order, that is absurd. Jesus confirmed it, as others in the New Testament, Adam was real, Noah and the flood were real, etc. Period.

 

[Sophophile]

There are no conflicts in the rest of the bible, that is a misconception. Gen 1 is the creation order. Gen 2 is after the fact, a zooming in on some details, not another order, that is absurd. Jesus confirmed it, as others in the New Testament, Adam was real, Noah and the flood were real, etc. Period.

Hello dad. Nice to meet you.

If what you say is true, then there is no need to confine discussions to Genesis 1, as was suggested.

That was my point. I take it you agree?

Cheers
S.