"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

[Cabal]

Just like skeletons in a graveyard don't show a thing (other than the fact that death is real), fossils don't show a thing --- and they aren't even skeletons --- they're impressions of things.

So much for evolution being against God because it involves death - you might want to have a word with him about this embedded dead things malarkey?

 

[AV1611VET]

So much for evolution being against God because it involves death - you might want to have a word with him about this embedded dead things malarkey?

I have no idea what point you're making.

1. Show me death in Genesis 1.
2. Show me that death isn't God's enemy.

"Embedded dead things"???

 

[Cabal]

I have no idea what point you're making.

1. Show me death in Genesis 1.
2. Show me that death isn't God's enemy.

"Embedded dead things"???

If God embedded the old age of the Earth, that includes the thousands of ancient fossils that existed - never mind the actual remains of the more recently dead organisms.

Sounds like God would have had to embed a lot of dead lifeforms to do his cover-up - and yet you're against evolution because it involves death?

 

[AV1611VET]

If God embedded the old age of the Earth, that includes the thousands of ancient fossils that existed - never mind the actual remains of the more recently dead organisms.

That's Omphalism --- and I'm not Omphalos.

You're so dead-set on those fossils being as old as they are, you can't even categorize me correctly.

If you were to reverse-engineer these fossils, I think you'd see that they would only go back so far, maybe 4000 years at the most --- 6000 if you're lucky --- then disappear.

In my opinion.

 

[Cabal]

That's Omphalism --- and I'm not Omphalos.

You're so dead-set on those fossils being as old as they are, you can't even categorize me correctly.

If you were to reverse-engineer these fossils, I think you'd see that they would only go back so far, maybe 4000 years at the most --- 6000 if you're lucky --- then disappear.

In my opinion.

Right, but that would mean God yet again buggered around with the rules - this time for the OTHER dating methods like radiometry etc. Sounds awfully embedded to me.

You can't just say "Oh well but the fossils are young" when they're clearly DON'T LOOK IT. Which means either the Earth was made according to current thinking, or God embedded age into a bunch of DEAD LIFE - which has a uncomfortable amount in common with one of your 4 points against evolution.

But I can see why you're so keen to dismiss fossils - they do provide a few awkward implications, don't they?

 

[ragarth]

Just as a point of technicality that confuses me. If we assume God's existence, and assume that God created bones in prehistory, then those bones would not be death because they were never alive. Correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

So much for evolution being against God because it involves death - you might want to have a word with him about this embedded dead things malarkey?

Do you mind answering this question?

If I went out and imprinted a leaf on a 30-million-year old rock, would you assume a 30-million-year history?

Thanks!

 

[AV1611VET]

Just as a point of technicality that confuses me. If we assume God's existence, and assume that God created bones in prehistory, then those bones would not be death because they were never alive. Correct?

Correct.

 

[ragarth]

Correct.

Okay, so if Bones created ex nihilo were never alive, and therefore not technically dead, then the creation of bones during Genesis 1 would not be the creation of death during creation week. Ergo, the question about the existence of bone within certain forms of coal formation during creation week is valid, because this does not constitute the existence of death during pre-fall existence.

//Though technically it's not the 'presence of bone' but rather the leftover imprints that are at discussion, so God wouldn't have even created the bone, just the imprints of bone within the coal.

 

[Cabal]

Do you mind answering this question?Thanks!

I'll give it a shot.

"If I went out and imprinted a leaf on a 30-million-year old rock, would you assume a 30-million-year history?"

Probably - who's going to dig to the 30million year stratum and carve a leaf onto some rocks?

And if you're going to say Goddidit, then yet again, the Bible epic-fails by way of explanation.

Correct.

Fair point. But then again, if God made the evidence for evolution, then there can't be much wrong with it

 

[ragarth]

I'll give it a shot.

"If I went out and imprinted a leaf on a 30-million-year old rock, would you assume a 30-million-year history?"

Probably - who's going to dig to the 30million year stratum and carve a leaf onto some rocks?

And if you're going to say Goddidit, then yet again, the Bible epic-fails by way of explanation.

Problem is, there are physical differences between a 30million yo rock carved with an imprint, and mud that was imprinted with a dino foot and hardened to survive the next 30 million years. This is why we can usually tell fake fossils (dinosaur and human footprints together) and real fossils ( dino butt imprints http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004591 ) apart.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, so if Bones created ex nihilo were never alive, and therefore not technically dead, then the creation of bones during Genesis 1 would not be the creation of death during creation week.

That is correct --- although it would, in my opinion, constitute Omphalism --- nevertheless, yes, that's correct.

Ergo, the question about the existence of bone within certain forms of coal formation during creation week is valid, because this does not constitute the existence of death during pre-fall existence.

I don't believe He created impressions of bone within coal, myself; but, yes, someone who is Omphalos could give you [and me] a run for your money.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fair point. But then again, if God made the evidence for evolution, then there can't be much wrong with it

And if He didn't make evidence for evolution?

 

[ragarth]

That is correct --- although it would, in my opinion, constitute Omphalism --- nevertheless, yes, that's correct.

I don't believe He created impressions of bone within coal, myself; but, yes, someone who is Omphalos could give you [and me] a run for your money.

Okay, so you believe that the fossil impressions left in excavated coal did not happen during creation week, but rather happened after creation week? If this is correct, then that would mean that you believe any coal that contains fossils was created less than 6,000 years ago- Is that right?

 

[Cabal]

Problem is, there are physical differences between a 30million yo rock carved with an imprint, and mud that was imprinted with a dino foot and hardened to survive the next 30 million years. This is why we can usually tell fake fossils (dinosaur and human footprints together) and real fossils ( dino butt imprints http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004591 ) apart.

I completely realise that. I just wasn't going to get that technical on a question that didn't warrant or merit it.

It's like what a (NASA?) researcher said to the moon-landings-were-faked conspiracy theorists who said they even faked the moon rocks too - "Honestly, it would be a much easier task to just GO TO THE MOON AND GET ONE."

 

[ragarth]

I completely realise that. I just wasn't going to get that technical on a question that didn't warrant or merit it.

It's like what a (NASA?) researcher said to the moon-landings-were-faked conspiracy theorists who said they even faked the moon rocks too - "Honestly, it would be a much easier task to just GO TO THE MOON AND GET ONE."

Hahahaha! That's an awesome quote. !

 

[Cabal]

And if He didn't make evidence for evolution?

Either we'd be discussing some other theory, or perhaps there actually WOULD be evidence for the creation account as it literally stands.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, so you believe that the fossil impressions left in excavated coal did not happen during creation week, but rather happened after creation week? If this is correct, then that would mean that you believe any coal that contains fossils was created less than 6,000 years ago- Is that right?

Or the imprint was put there less than 6000 years ago --- yes.

If a lump of anthracite containing 40 million years of embedded age acquires an imprint 1000 years ago, that would not constitute Omphalism.

 

[Cabal]

Hahahaha! That's an awesome quote. !

I think I've anecdoticised it somewhat - think it might have been in a New Scientist article. Think they were quoting someone, anyway, who'd analysed the unique glass nodules in moon rock that we just couldn't fake even in 1969 (probably not even now) even if we wanted to.

Of course, an omnipotent God could probably create perfect fakes, but then we're back with the Anything-Goes!!!!1 scenario, in which case we might as throw the whole book out the window, because who wants to adjust all theories to have a "chance of my God interacting with the experiment in a non-reproducible way" factor inbuilt....

 

[AV1611VET]

Either we'd be discussing some other theory, or perhaps there actually WOULD be evidence for the creation account as it literally stands.

Well --- I'm still waiting to hear why Embedded Age is wrong --- and I have a feeling I'm not going to, either.

Especially since all we're yakking about is impressions in coal, YEC, and Omphalism --- everything BUT embedded age.

(You guys are smart.)