"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

[ragarth]

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.

Okay, so the final kicker is this: Is this the only method by which coal deposits can contain fossils?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, so the final kicker is this: Is this the only method by which coal deposits can contain fossils?

I don't know --- I'm not into biogeology --- or whatever it's called.

Perhaps someone else can answer this.

 

[Cabal]

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.)

Doesn't really matter, AV - all we have to find is one piece of biological remains that inherently appears over 6100 years old.

Oh wait, there's a 9000 year old tree for starters.

Then I guess we'll be taking this semantics game to the next level! Ding-ding!

Now to find out why this isn't embedded history!

 

[Split Rock]

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.)

1, You have yet to explain what embedded age actually is, how God embedded age or why he should want to do so. Embedding age certainly isn't required to make something that is "mature," nor can I see how it is preferable.

2. You have acknowledged that fossils in coal show that those fossil imprints, etc. had to have been made within the last 6,000 years or so. However, there is no way for them to get there unless they were made as the coal was being formed or before it was formed. Therefore, the coal is all less than 6,000 years old. Correct?

 

[ragarth]

I don't know --- I'm not into biogeology --- or whatever it's called.

Perhaps someone else can answer this.

Since we're not talking specific mechanics, generalizations are good:

A) Coal created in Creation week - Fossils created in Creation week
B) Coal created in Creation week - Fossils not created in Creation week
C) Coal not created in Creation week - Fossils created in Creation week
D) Coal not created in Creation week - Fossils not created in Creation week

We've established that D is valid in your hypothesis, so we're now trying to establish if any others are valid statements in your hypothesis. Since we're not going into specifics about methods at this time, these are the only four possible answers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since we're not talking specific mechanics, generalizations are good:

A) Coal created in Creation week - Fossils created in Creation week
B) Coal created in Creation week - Fossils not created in Creation week
C) Coal not created in Creation week - Fossils created in Creation week
D) Coal not created in Creation week - Fossils not created in Creation week

We've established that D is valid in your hypothesis, so we're now trying to establish if any others are valid statements in your hypothesis. Since we're not going into specifics about methods at this time, these are the only four possible answers.

B is my answer --- I believe God created coal and oil in the earth during the Creation Week.

 

[ragarth]

B is my answer --- I believe God created coal and oil in the earth during the Creation Week.

Ah righto, so no coal was created after creation week then? If so, then I was wrong and D is not a valid result of your hypothesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just a note to lurkers:

See, this is what happens when you give in.

You'd better known your p's and q's if your gonna discuss the Creation with these guys.

Why?

They want to discuss anything BUT creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

1, You have yet to explain what embedded age actually is...

Why, of course --- how could I have forgotten that?

... how God embedded age...

Oops! Forgot that too, didn't I?

... or why he should want to do so.

I forgot to ask Him that one.

Embedding age certainly isn't required to make something that is "mature," nor can I see how it is preferable.

Oh.

2. You have acknowledged that fossils in coal show that those fossil imprints, etc. had to have been made within the last 6,000 years or so.

Finally --- something I did do!

Yay, me!

However, there is no way for them to get there unless they were made as the coal was being formed or before it was formed.

Hmmm --- despite the fact that there was a race of angels on the earth for a couple thousand years?

Angels who created a race of giants --- and men of reknown?

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

You know what "reknown" means, don't you, Split Rock?

Like --- "had in reputation".

As in men like --- famous scientists --- as in geologists --- as in half-man/half-angel supergeologists?

Nevermind --- I can hear someone laughing clear over here.

Therefore, the coal is all less than 6,000 years old. Correct?

Incorrect.

 

[Cabal]

Just a note to lurkers:

See, this is what happens when you give in.

You'd better known your p's and q's if your gonna discuss the Creation with these guys.

Why?

They want to discuss anything BUT creation.

To the lurkers - welcome to science.

ALL implications of a posited theory* need to be explored to make sure the theory holds up.

To analogise - if AV posited the existence of positive and negative electrostatic charges - fine. All well and good. But then you have to consider how they interact with each other, how they behave when they move, and dozens and dozens of other aspects. All of which have to hold up for the posited theory to survive.

If you posit something - a theory, an opinion, anything - be prepared to defend it from any and every angle. If an angle comes up that you weren't anticipating, don't pull an AV and sulk - it doesn't do your argument any good.

*And in this case, that's being charitable....

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah righto, so no coal was created after creation week then? If so, then I was wrong and D is not a valid result of your hypothesis.

Well, like Puff the Magic Giraffe showed (I can't remember his account name), there is anthracite, and there is subbituminous coal, and there is bituminous coal, and there is [something that starts with the letter ell, I think], and finally there is peat - (yes, I was so impressed with that post, I [almost] memorized it).

I believe God created the anthracite, but possibly that bituminous stuff formed by itself.

It's like God created the atmosphere, but the atmosphere also forms naturally.

 

[ragarth]

Well, like Puff the Magic Giraffe showed (I can't remember his account name), there is anthracite, and there is subbituminous coal, and there is bituminous coal, and there is [something that starts with the letter ell, I think], and finally there is peat - (yes, I was so impressed with that post, I [almost] memorized it).

I believe God created the anthracite, but possibly that bituminous stuff formed by itself.

It's like God created the atmosphere, but the atmosphere also forms naturally.

Okay, I get your position now. Speaking specifically about anthracite, your position is that it was *not* created with fossils in it, but that the fossils were later added. So the question is then, what is the method by which a piece of anthracite can have a fossil of a leaf inside it without that fossil of the leaf having been put in the anthracite during creation? This is the question that naturally arises since you are positing that the fossils did not originate during creation week but that the anthracite coal itself did.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, I get your position now. Speaking specifically about anthracite, your position is that it was *not* created with fossils in it, but that the fossils were later added. So the question is then, what is the method by which a piece of anthracite can have a fossil of a leaf inside it without that fossil of the leaf having been put in the anthracite during creation? This is the question that naturally arises since you are positing that the fossils did not originate during creation week but that the anthracite coal itself did.

Assuming that you are right --- and a fossil of a leaf has been found in anthracite --- my answer is simply, "I don't know how it got there" --- BUT, I don't think the Scriptures are totally silent on some issues, and I think there's enough information in God's Diary that it can be ascertained, or at least be explained with an educated guess.

Therefore --- qv. please 189 .

 

[AV1611VET]

Are we done in the coal mines of Genesis 6 now?

Can someone --- (Heaven forbid it would be the OP) --- can someone please tell me now why Embedded Age is wrong?

 

[ragarth]

Are we done in the coal mines of Genesis 6 now?

Can someone --- (Heaven forbid it would be the OP) --- can someone please tell me now why Embedded Age is wrong?

AV, this all relates to embedded age because you have not provided a method by which fossils can be formed within anthracite after genesis 1. Since you cannot provide such a method, the standard view that anthracite was formed with the fossils already in it holds. If this you believe that anthracite was formed during genesis 1, then it stands to reason that the fossils were too because you have failed to provide proof otherwise. If there are fossils in the coal when it was formed during genesis 1 then this is proof of embedded history.

This is all valid, because you cannot provide the proof to back up your claim that fossils were put within anthracite coal after creation.

This is what you're stating:
1) God made anthracite
2) creation is over
3) ?????
4) fossils now in anthracite

And this is what others are saying:
1) God made anthracite and fossils in anthracite
2) creation is over

You have not provided anything to fill in #3, therefore your premise is not valid, it's not sound. Without doing so you have no basis to claim that fossils were not created during creation week, and therefore no basis to claim that there is a difference between embedded age and embedded history.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is all valid, because you cannot provide the proof to back up your claim that fossils were put within anthracite coal after creation.

Ain't that a shame?

I tell you who I think did it and when --- and now you want to know how --- with proof.

Well, that's too bad --- I guess you'll just have to get saved and ask God yourself when you get to Heaven, eh?

You can't tell me where mass/energy comes from, and I can't tell you how or where angels used plants and animals in conjunction with anthracite.

I guess we're both born ignorant --- and we'll both die ignorant --- eh?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is what you're stating:
1) God made anthracite
2) creation is over
3) ?????
4) fossils now in anthracite

...

You have not provided anything to fill in #3, therefore your premise is not valid, it's not sound. Without doing so you have no basis to claim that fossils were not created during creation week, and therefore no basis to claim that there is a difference between embedded age and embedded history.

Did you qv 189, like I asked you to?

 

[Hespera]

AV, this all relates to embedded age because you have not provided a method by which fossils can be formed within anthracite after genesis 1. Since you cannot provide such a method, the standard view that anthracite was formed with the fossils already in it holds. If this you believe that anthracite was formed during genesis 1, then it stands to reason that the fossils were too because you have failed to provide proof otherwise. If there are fossils in the coal when it was formed during genesis 1 then this is proof of embedded history.

This is all valid, because you cannot provide the proof to back up your claim that fossils were put within anthracite coal after creation.

This is what you're stating:
1) God made anthracite
2) creation is over
3) ?????
4) fossils now in anthracite

And this is what others are saying:
1) God made anthracite and fossils in anthracite
2) creation is over

You have not provided anything to fill in #3, therefore your premise is not valid, it's not sound. Without doing so you have no basis to claim that fossils were not created during creation week, and therefore no basis to claim that there is a difference between embedded age and embedded history.

It is stone obvious that the fossils were added later. It is not for us to ask why / how.

Because, if they were incorporated during creation week, SOMETHING had to die before there was no apple eated (killed) and the 2nd law of thermodynamics kicked in, and so on.

As an aside here, it was believed during Roman times that fossils formed in the ground where they were found. Very fertile ground produced entire animals that popped out of the ground, less fertile, maybe just a skeleton or a single bone or shell.

 

[ragarth]

You can't tell me where mass/energy comes from

A couple decades and I might be able to. Till then, black hole evaporation (hawking radiation) is a decent answer to the idea of proton decay and heat death. It also provides potential answers as to where we came from. We have semi-direct observation of the results of things within 300,000 years of the birth of the universe. Several hypothesis have been proposed as to where it all came from, many the result of String Theory and all it's progenitors. I could go research these topics if you'd like and provide an answer, if this thread were about this topic I would have done so already. This thread is, however, about the differences between embedded age and embedded history so unless you can show how the microwave background radiation differentiates embedded age from embedded history it's completely superfluous to the discussion.

What you have done is make a claim that fossils within anthracite got there after creation week, and that this provides a distinction between embedded age and embedded history, but has failed to provide any backing of proof for this. Indeed, there is supporting proof that fossils were formed within anthracite when anthracite was formed, and therefore invalidates your claim to the contrary since you have no backing of proof.

 

[ragarth]

Did you qv 189, like I asked you to?

Yes, it looked like a lot of snarky comments to me, but otherwise devoid of anything meaningful to my post. Perhaps you could elucidate a little on how it applies to my statement?