Adam and Eve

[Freodin]

I have a thread on this, but I'll ask it here, instead of QV'ing it:

Can God create an object --- tomorrow --- such that it falls apart with age the next day?

And if I remember correctly, we dealt with this question before.

The answer is and was: no, he cannot. Things do not fall apart with age. Things fall apart because of what happened to them in the time they needed to reach that age.

You can twist the definitions as much as you want: sooner or later you will find a "time passing" part in the definitions.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. We are talking about fossils in Today's Real World, not what is described in Genesis.

I know you're not --- there are no fossils described in Genesis.

2. We are talking about the history in Today's Geological Column, not what history is described in Genesis.

I know you're not --- there is no history described in Genesis.

3. Your Embedded Age Model makes Predictions, whether you like it or not.

You're comparing Genesis 1 to the rest of time, and that doesn't work.

To understand Embedded Age best, let's go back in time to B.C. 4004.

Pretend you're Adam, and it is Day 1 of your existence --- (Day 6 of earth's existence.)

Look around --- do you see any fossils anywhere?

Dig deep now --- see anything?

Look on those mountain tops over there --- see any?

Now pick that rock up and radio-date it.

How old is that rock? 800,000,000 years, you say? Good job! I agree.

Now, let's fast-forward to B.C. 2200.

Look around --- do you see any fossils anywhere?

There's one, you say? Good, now radio-date it.

What's the date? 50,000 years, you say? Okay, if you say so.

What's that you just said? It can't be 50,000 years old because it was alive only a few years ago?

Then something's wrong, isn't it? Didn't we only fast-forward 1,804 years?

You might want to check our equipment then, eh?

Oh, everything's working fine? Good, then either this fossil of an animal that died just a few years back is giving us false signals, or we need to re-think these half-life time lines.

Can't do that, you say? Science is too uniform for that?

Well, then I have only one explanation, Adam: we'll have to live with the discrepancy until God decides to explain why His Word and our machine disagree with each other.

I suspect the problem is on our end, though ---

 

[pgp_protector]

Excuse me --- yes, it does have to do with real age.

Ask any atheist who has known me for awhile.

I can tell you w/o even looking --- since I've said it so many times --- that it is definition #4 on answers.com.

I have a thread on this, but I'll ask it here, instead of QV'ing it:

Can God create an object --- tomorrow --- such that it falls apart with age the next day?

No QV

 

[BananaSlug]

Well, here we go again.Show me these fossils in Genesis 1.

Show me "embedded age" of the earth in Genesis 1.

 

[laconicstudent]

I notice you make a number of claims about radiometric dating without citing any proof.

It looks like the typical straw man in which a YEC uses radiocarbon dating on the WRONG type of rock (igneous, not sedimentary) or on something that is older then 50,000 years old (you have to use another isotope to date it, then).

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you seriously stating that if the fossils don't exist in the Bible, they don't exist in reality?

Genesis 1 --- laconicstudent --- Genesis 1.

Let's not be in such a hurry to scratch our heads yet, okay?

Let's get Genesis 1 down, before we start horsing around with other chapters, okay?

Why should God have mentioned fossils? He does not care about increasing our scientific knowledge, therefore DNA and fossils are not mentioned, science is something he allows us to find for ourselves.

Oh, my --- God doesn't care about increasing our scientific knowledge?

And I have stated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that God cares so much about us that He gifts (that's 'gifts', not 'gives') us scientists.

Scientists --- those special breeds [pun intended] of people that just seem to have that special nose (and understanding) for things that swirl, click, blink, move, don't move, accelerate, change temperature under different pressures, go through two slits at once, attract each other, repel each other, flow faster when there's a bottleneck, percolate, osmose, divide, multiply, breed, swim, walk, crawl, have prehensile tails, are arboreal, nocturnal, diurnal, hibernate, aestivate, salivate, etc.

 

[laconicstudent]

No no no, you miss the point. It is completely irrelevant that fossils are not mentioned in Scriptures. Since fossils clearly exist, and are dated older then 6,000 years, we have to evaluate Scripture in light of the obvious reality.

 

[BananaSlug]

It seems to me that "embedded age" is more of an idea that allows AV to still believe in the Bible despite the evidence that shows the earth is much older than 6100 (existential) years.
So AV, are you going to show me "embedded age" of the earth in Genesis 1?

 

[AV1611VET]

I notice you make a number of claims about radiometric dating without citing any proof.

It looks like the typical straw man in which a YEC uses radiocarbon dating on the WRONG type of rock (igneous, not sedimentary) or on something that is older then 50,000 years old (you have to use another isotope to date it, then).

Whatever --- at least I tried.

 

[laconicstudent]

Whatever --- at least I tried.

Not really..... you presented a bunch of hearsay claims and urban legends about Carbon-dating without any evidence whatsoever, ignored the fact that Carbon-14 is only one of several isotopes, ignored the fact that Carbon-14 dating is not intended to be used on some things.

I merely point this out, and asked you to actually source your claims, and explain how the instances you mention were valid applications of radiocarbon dating that invalidate the method.

 

[Mike Elphick]

That's it, Mike --- play with the definition until you don't understand it.

On the contrary, I explained the definition and where I think you were going wrong. For some, however, a self-constructed definition (remember, Googling "embedded age" with omphalos only brought up two of your posts to Christian-forums and nothing else) leads to a state of blind self-conviction. So every time you repeat your phrase you become more assured of its veracity. I don't mean this in a nasty way, I just think you should be aware of it.

Regards,

Mike.

 

[Split Rock]

I know you're not --- there are no fossils described in Genesis.I know you're not --- there is no history described in Genesis.You're comparing Genesis 1 to the rest of time, and that doesn't work.

To understand Embedded Age best, let's go back in time to B.C. 4004.

Pretend you're Adam, and it is Day 1 of your existence --- (Day 6 of earth's existence.)

Look around --- do you see any fossils anywhere?

Dig deep now --- see anything?

Look on those mountain tops over there --- see any?

Now pick that rock up and radio-date it.

How old is that rock? 800,000,000 years, you say? Good job! I agree.

Now, let's fast-forward to B.C. 2200.

Look around --- do you see any fossils anywhere?

There's one, you say? Good, now radio-date it.

What's the date? 50,000 years, you say? Okay, if you say so.

What's that you just said? It can't be 50,000 years old because it was alive only a few years ago?

Then something's wrong, isn't it? Didn't we only fast-forward 1,804 years?

You might want to check our equipment then, eh?

Oh, everything's working fine? Good, then either this fossil of an animal that died just a few years back is giving us false signals, or we need to re-think these half-life time lines.

Can't do that, you say? Science is too uniform for that?

Well, then I have only one explanation, Adam: we'll have to live with the discrepancy until God decides to explain why His Word and our machine disagree with each other.

I suspect the problem is on our end, though ---

When did I mention radioisotope dating? I did not. There are other ways to see history in the earth. It does not need to be dated with a mechanism you already claim started "ahead."

When Adam dug up some coal, did it have fossils in it?

Were there any impact craters around when Adam was in the Garden?

Was there ice at the poles with millions of microfossils in it, and hundreds of thousands of layers?

Was there evidence of massive volcanic eruptions that never occurred?

Were the Hawaiian islands already formed over a Hot Spot that did not yet exist?

Were there already Coral Reefs made from animals that never existed?

Was there miles of Chalk in the earth made from microorganisms that never existed?

These are the questions.

 

[Tiberius]

So, AV, apart from saying that the Bible and science are different, what's your point with this thread?

 

[Mike Elphick]

To understand Embedded Age best, let's go back in time to B.C. 4004.

Pretend you're Adam, and it is Day 1 of your existence --- (Day 6 of earth's existence.)

Look around --- do you see any fossils anywhere?

Dig deep now --- see anything?

Look on those mountain tops over there --- see any?

Now pick that rock up and radio-date it.

How old is that rock? 800,000,000 years, you say? Good job! I agree.

Now, let's fast-forward to B.C. 2200.

Look around --- do you see any fossils anywhere?

There's one, you say? Good, now radio-date it.

What's the date? 50,000 years, you say? Okay, if you say so.

What's that you just said? It can't be 50,000 years old because it was alive only a few years ago?

Then something's wrong, isn't it? Didn't we only fast-forward 1,804 years?

You might want to check our equipment then, eh?

Oh, everything's working fine? Good, then either this fossil of an animal that died just a few years back is giving us false signals, or we need to re-think these half-life time lines.

Can't do that, you say? Science is too uniform for that?

Well, then I have only one explanation, Adam: we'll have to live with the discrepancy until God decides to explain why His Word and our machine disagree with each other.

I suspect the problem is on our end, though ---

Sorry to repeat myself AV, but the flaw in your argument goes back to your definition:

I define 'embedded age' as 'maturity without history.

You see, without 'history', you are blind to the processes that might have been taking place whilst the object has been aging. You can't know the starting date and therefore you're unable even to say how old an object might be.

But look what you've been doing - contrary to your definition, you have been providing an historical context for your explanation:- B.C. 4004, Historical Adam, Day 1, Day 6, B.C. 2200, 1,804 years... So what you are actually describing is 'maturity with history'. Not only that, but you're depicting a process in which there is a massive discrepancy between your historical account (starting 6,100 years ago) and another, based on scientific measurements, starting 4.7 (or 14) billion years ago, which you ascribe to 'embedded age'.

Since you agree that the scientific dating is correct, embedded age must be a supernatural state. Your definition should therefore read:-

Embedded age is a supernatural phenomenon in which the age of an object has been accelerated to become some fraction of the actual duration of the object's existence.

 

[laconicstudent]

So, AV, apart from saying that the Bible and science are different, what's your point with this thread?

The logical response would be a reiteration of his arbitrary claim that Science cannot disprove a literal interpretation of the Bible, but a literal interpretation of a Bible verse can allow us to dismiss all physical evidence to the contrary.

 

[Freodin]

Sorry to repeat myself AV, but the flaw in your argument goes back to your definition:

You see, without 'history', you are blind to the processes that might have been taking place whilst the object has been aging. You can't know the starting date and therefore you're unable even to say how old an object might be.

Sorry to say that: you are misunderstanding AV.

"History", in his view, does not mean the recording of events, but the events themselves.
So it is not that we are blind to the processes that happened - there were no processes that happened. In his view... and he uses that view rather inconsistently.

Now pick that rock up and radio-date it.

How old is that rock? 800,000,000 years, you say? Good job! I agree.

This is an example of that inconsistency. Adam dated that newly created rock to 800 million years? How? Why?
Answer: he observed the effects of the events that happened to the rock.

...the first man on the planet did not require [a navel]...

But neither do or did the first rocks on the planet require the radiometric effects of being 800 million years old.

These radiometric effects are the "navel" of the rocks. The effects of events - HISTORY! - that has, in his view, never happened.

This is not "maturity without history"... this is the original omphalos hypothesis.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Sorry to say that: you are misunderstanding AV.

"History", in his view, does not mean the recording of events, but the events themselves.
So it is not that we are blind to the processes that happened - there were no processes that happened. In his view... and he uses that view rather inconsistently.

Thank you for the clarification - this thread get's crazier with each post!

AV first claimed, based on the presence or (assumed) absence of navels that:-

Evolution is Omphalos, in that the first man and woman would have belly buttons. Whereas the Adam and Eve of the Bible would not, and that fact would be a testimony to their progeny.

Yet, if I have understood this correctly, by expounding his 'embedded age' idea, he's actually presenting the Omphalos hypothesis - a young earth creationist explanation for the differences between biblical and measured ages. As you point out:-

But neither do or did the first rocks on the planet require the radiometric effects of being 800 million years old.

These radiometric effects are the "navel" of the rocks. The effects of events - HISTORY! - that has, in his view, never happened.

This is not "maturity without history"... this is the original omphalos hypothesis.

Indeed it is!

 

[Split Rock]

These radiometric effects are the "navel" of the rocks. The effects of events - HISTORY! - that has, in his view, never happened.

This is not "maturity without history"... this is the original omphalos hypothesis.

A good point. AVET has never been able to explain why it was necessary, or even useful, to "embed" age into the earth when it was first made, just to make it "mature" for Adam to live on. Nor has he explained what it means to "embed" age into something.

 

[AV1611VET]

Split Rock, I hope you don't mind.

I'm going to quote your post, with my answers in red inserted.

This should make answering it easier.

The words in red are mine, not yours.

When Adam dug up some coal, did it have fossils in it?

• Not in Genesis 1.

Were there any impact craters around when Adam was in the Garden?

• No.

Was there ice at the poles with millions of microfossils in it, and hundreds of thousands of layers?

• There were no poles until after the Flood.
• The earth was one uniform temperature --- a tropical paradise.

Was there evidence of massive volcanic eruptions that never occurred?

• Not in Genesis 1.

Were the Hawaiian islands already formed over a Hot Spot that did not yet exist?

• The earth was one continent --- called Eden --- (some call it Pangaea).

Were there already Coral Reefs made from animals that never existed?

• Not in Genesis 1.

Was there miles of Chalk in the earth made from microorganisms that never existed?

• Not in Genesis 1.

 

[AV1611VET]

You see, without 'history', you are blind to the processes that might have been taking place whilst the object has been aging.

Okay --- Mike --- let's simplify this even further.

Let's just use Genesis 1:1 --- and we'll skip the whole rest of the chapter.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Now --- let's take a look at what we have:

TERRA AQUA

This is how the earth looks after Genesis 1:1, and before Genesis 1:2.

This ball of sea water is 4.57 billion years old, and yet, 1 second before Genesis 1:1, this ball of water did not exist.

The amount of mass/energy in the entire universe at this point consists of the amount of mass/energy in this ball of water.
​