"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

[AV1611VET]

Now, it seems to me that in the course of this thread "embedded age" was reduced to a logical contradiction; viz. it means the universe is old and not-old at the same time.

Paradox --- not contradiction.

This runs afoul of the law of non-contradiction...

It's interesting you say this, as whenever I'm asked what makes God unique, or am asked to explain the Trinity, I usually answer that He is the only One Who can violate the Law of Non-contradiction.

... and the principle of explosion...

I'm not familiar with that.

... as well as the posited nature of God as truthful and not the author of confusion.

It's kinda hard to accuse God of being untruthful, isn't it; in view of the fact that He put --- in Writing --- what He did, when He did it, where He did it, what order He did it in, why He did it, and even who the eyewitnesses were?

If He wanted us to come to the wrong conclusion about the universe, He could have simply left Genesis 1 out.

In my opinion, Genesis 1 was written so scientists wouldn't come to the wrong conclusion.

Think about it, Sophophile. God could have created this universe in any order He wanted to, including scientific order; but He chose one of the most unscientific orders around.

Why? To confuse us?

No --- to show us that this universe was not created scientifically.

I love to point out that one of the biggest differences, if not the biggest difference, in how this universe came to be, is that, according to science, the total amount of mass/energy has remained the same --- whereas, in ex nihilo creation, the amount of mass/energy started out at zero, then raised to its current level over a period of six days.

 

[gaara4158]

Hi gaara4158.

I appreciate AV1611VET sticking with this discussion to explicate "embedded age" and dig through the details of the concept, in spite of sniping from all sides (me included).

It is only by "getting our hands dirty" with the details that we can honestly claim to be seekers of truth.

Now, it seems to me that in the course of this thread "embedded age" was reduced to a logical contradiction; viz. it means the universe is old and not-old at the same time. This runs afoul of the law of non-contradiction and the principle of explosion, as well as the posited nature of God as truthful and not the author of confusion.

However, "iron sharpens iron". If we are truth-seekers we will not hoot about winners and losers, because by the process of discussion and debate we all benefit by bringing our understanding closer to truth.

Just my 2c.

S.

Well, I'm as much a seeker of truth as the next guy, but AV continues to put forward this "embedded age" idea as a valid explanation for the contradiction between science and the Bible regarding the Earth's age. I'm not hooting about a victory or anything, I'm simply reminding AV that as much as he sidesteps my questions, those questions remain unanswered, and as long as they are unanswered, embedded age is not a valid theory. Me telling him "you lose" was my frustrated and abridged way of telling him "your theory has been debunked and you may no longer use it if you wish to remain honest."

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[gaara4158]

Paradox --- not contradiction.It's interesting you say this, as whenever I'm asked what makes God unique, or am asked to explain the Trinity, I usually answer that He is the only One Who can violate the Law of Non-contradiction.I'm not familiar with that.It's kinda hard to accuse God of being untruthful, isn't it; in view of the fact that He put --- in Writing --- what He did, when He did it, where He did it, what order He did it in, why He did it, and even who the eyewitnesses were?

If He wanted us to come to the wrong conclusion about the universe, He could have simply left Genesis 1 out.

In my opinion, Genesis 1 was written so scientists wouldn't come to the wrong conclusion.

Think about it, Sophophile. God could have created this universe in any order He wanted to, including scientific order; but He chose one of the most unscientific orders around.

Why? To confuse us?

No --- to show us that this universe was not created scientifically.

I love to point out that one of the biggest differences, if not the biggest difference, in how this universe came to be, is that, according to science, the total amount of mass/energy has remained the same --- whereas, in ex nihilo creation, the amount of mass/energy started out at zero, then raised to its current level over a period of six days.

You're a presuppositionalist, AV

 

[MoonLancer]

...

 

[MoonLancer]

It's kinda hard to accuse God of being untruthful, isn't it;

If He wanted us to come to the wrong conclusion about the universe, He could have simply left Genesis 1 out.

assuming many things which i do not hold to be true,

He could have simply made the universe appear as it is. One must ask why he diden't do that way. If he couldn't make the universe appear as it is that means god has a limitation. So by making the universe as he did it means he had a reason to making it a appear as it is not. What other reason could their be if not to be intentionally dishonest about his creation?

This brings us back to

It's kinda hard to accuse God of being untruthful, isn't it;

and my answer is, not so much.

The bible has a logical problem of being a source of circular logic so as to discredit it as a source of infallible fact. In addition the bible is not actually written by God. its written by man who were inspired by Gods words. However These people could have just as easily been delusional or out right liars and theirs really no way to cross check this because conversations with god conveniently occur in ones head separate from a reality that can be recorded or observed

This makes it imperative that God create a world that appears as it is and tests as a world he intended use to perceive it as.

Its like having a manual and a product not match up. one of them is wrong. and since God cant make mistakes, it means one of them is a Lie. Or we say that God cannot lie, that would mean God made a mistake.

 

[MoonLancer]

But I ask you again, How are embedded fossils not considered history embedded in rock?

This is the folly of your premise which you are well aware of. So please answer or stop your dishonestly by carrying on about embedded age.

 

[Hespera]

Imagine all those extra fossils that were embedded, and nobody will ever even find them. Like in the ancient sea bed 3000 ft below the kansas wheatfields, oil drillers bring up little pieces of sea shells from down there.

Sticking all those things down there for nothing seems such a weird thing to do. In fact, I plain dont believe it. Doesnt begin to pass the common sense test.

 

[Tomk80]

You're welcome! I doubt most of the creationists on this forum would take the time to actually research the things they talk about. I decided I would make it easier for them and bring the research to them!

Very good. Point was that I have discussed a number of issues with Juvenissun before, always with the same results. Me doing all the legwork, him doing nothing. I thought I'd reverse the roles for a time, but unsurprisingly he bowed out after his first irrelevant post.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Paradox --- not contradiction.

It's interesting you say this, as whenever I'm asked what makes God unique, or am asked to explain the Trinity, I usually answer that He is the only One Who can violate the Law of Non-contradiction.

So your answer is that He is an author of confusion.

It's kinda hard to accuse God of being untruthful, isn't it; in view of the fact that He put --- in Writing --- what He did, when He did it, where He did it, what order He did it in, why He did it, and even who the eyewitnesses were?

In view of the facts that 1) you're very mistaken about "His" writing, and 2) said writing doesn't match up with the facts, I'd actually agree with you, AV -- it is hard to accuse God of being untruthful.

It's quite easy, on the other hand, to draw that conclusion about the Bible.

If He wanted us to come to the wrong conclusion about the universe, He could have simply left Genesis 1 out.

Pointless, since "He" never put it in there in the first place.

He did, however, place a whole lot of clues in the Earth that He must've known we'd stumble upon sooner or later, and assuming we're not all a pack of book-worshippers, would figure out the 4.5 billion year history of the planet.

In my opinion, Genesis 1 was written so scientists wouldn't come to the wrong conclusion.

Your opinion has been duly noted, and deservedly mocked. By your what-passes-for-logic, every Creation myth was written so scientists wouldn't come to the wrong conclusion.

Think about it, Sophophile. God could have created this universe in any order He wanted to, including scientific order; but He chose one of the most unscientific orders around.

Actually, He did no such thing -- although the people who influenced His worshippers thought their God did.

Why? To confuse us?

Worked on you.

No --- to show us that this universe was not created scientifically.

Spoken like someone who has truly and unquestioningly missed the whole point.

I love to point out that one of the biggest differences, if not the biggest difference, in how this universe came to be, is that, according to science, the total amount of mass/energy has remained the same --- whereas, in ex nihilo creation, the amount of mass/energy started out at zero, then raised to its current level over a period of six days.

And we love to point out how utterly meaningless that is because it's based on nothing but your own say-so.

 

[Hespera]

I am still waiting for juv to accept that he is mistaken about organic compounds indicating life, or earth like conditions. i think he bowed out on that one too.

im glad my ideas about the nature of reality are not so fragile that a little organic chemistry is a threat to it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're a presuppositionalist, AV

Interesting --- very interesting.

 

[AV1611VET]

He could have simply made the universe appear as it is. One must ask why he diden't do that way.

The easy answer to that is that God is sovereign, and didn't need to ask anyone ahead of time for "directions".

Another point is that what might be acceptable to you, as far as the order is concerned, may not be acceptable to another.

I'm glad He created the earth first --- (it was the first object to appear in the universe) --- as it shows where His priority was, and what He was thinking at the time.

The fancy word I coined for the earth coming first is: geoprominence.

Thus, the universe may not be geocentric, but it is certainly geoprominent.

 

[MoonLancer]

The easy answer to that is that God is sovereign, and didn't need to ask anyone ahead of time for "directions".

Another point is that what might be acceptable to you, as far as the order is concerned, may not be acceptable to another.

I'm glad He created the earth first --- (it was the first object to appear in the universe) --- as it shows where His priority was, and what He was thinking at the time.

The fancy word I coined for the earth coming first is: geoprominence.

Thus, the universe may not be geocentric, but it is certainly geoprominent.

You still have answered why he diden't make the world appear as you say it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

You still have answered why he diden't make the world appear as you say it is.

Of course not --- I never answer anything here.

It keeps you guys guessing ---

 

[BananaSlug]

AV, since you seem to be all-knowledgable about your beloved "embedded age" scenario, care to answer the question of the KT Boundary event?

It's been posited several times and every time you either ignored it or waved it away.

If Cretaceous aged rock (65 million years end of Cretaceous) was created that age in 4004 BC it also has a relatively thin layer of material that is rich in iridium, shocked quartz, and tekkites which are indicitive of a cataclismic event (especially since this layer is found in the same age strata in many different places all over the world). Do you care to attempt and answer this? Stop pussyfooting around and answer the question since the KT Boundary Layer is in direct violation of what "embedded age" means.

 

[MoonLancer]

Of course not --- I never answer anything here.

I have noticed. i guess your not very well prepared to defend your faith or your beliefs.

 

[GhostSlug]

Of course not --- I never answer anything here.

It keeps you guys guessing ---

Since you like to keep us "guessing" by never answering anything asked to you, why did you bring up "embedded age" in the first place? If you're not willing to defend your faith, why mention it at all?

But I'll try again...care to reply about the KT Boundary?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, since you seem to be all-knowledgable about your beloved "embedded age" scenario, care to answer the question of the KT Boundary event?

Not really --- I don't know what it is exactly.

If Cretaceous aged rock (65 million years end of Cretaceous) was created that age in 4004 BC it also has a relatively thin layer of material that is rich in iridium, shocked quartz, and tekkites...

Okay, then --- it is a 65 million-year-old "Creataceous-aged rock" that was created that age in 4004 BC, with a relatively thin layer of material that is rich in iridium, shocked quartz, and tekkites.

You answered your own question.

... which are indicitive of a cataclismic event (especially since this layer is found in the same age strata in many different places all over the world).

You mean like a worldwide flood?

Do you care to attempt and answer this?

Not really --- but since what you wrote doesn't contradict the Scriptures (that I know of) --- I'll take your word for it.

Stop pussyfooting around and answer the question since the KT Boundary Layer is in direct violation of what "embedded age" means.

Your OP clearly shows you have no idea what embedded age is --- none.

So I'm sure almost anything I say, short of agreeing with you, is going to come across as me not answering your question.

MoonLancer has that same problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have noticed. i guess your not very well prepared to defend your faith or your beliefs.

I guess not ---

Funny though, how [I believe it was] Gaara seems to have bagged me pretty well with that link to "presuppositionist" post.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since you like to keep us "guessing" by never answering anything asked to you, why did you bring up "embedded age" in the first place? If you're not willing to defend your faith, why mention it at all?

But I'll try again...care to reply about the KT Boundary?

QV please: 362.