Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation:

1. Definition = maturity without history
2. Method = creatio ex nihilo
3. Unique features:
   • requires omnipotence
   • laws of science not in effect
   • occurred BC4004 (according to Ussher's dating)
     
   • no evidence left behind
   • no scarring
     
   • completed in 6 days (on purpose)
4. Described in detail in Genesis 1
5. Witnessed by the angels

 

[laconicstudent]

Since both a theory of Embedded Age, and an Old Universe manage to explain observable phenomenon, and Old Universe is simpler, what reasons are there for accepting Embedded Age over an Old Universe?

thats a nice concise definition btw.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since both a theory of Embedded Age, and an Old Universe manage to explain observable phenomenon, and Old Universe is simpler, what reasons are there for accepting Embedded Age over an Old Universe?

If by 'Old Universe', you mean OEC (Old Earth Creation), Old Earth Creation embraces many different theories; such as Gap and Day/Age, at the expense of Bible dating.

In other words, a BC4004 creation date is sacrificed in the name of deep time.

Embedded Age, by contrast, is one narrow explanation; and explains how the universe can be both old and young at the same time.

thats a nice concise definition btw.

Thank you!

 

[dewaddict84]

Couldn't this reasoning be applied to anything?

Once you factor in
requires omnipotence
laws of science not in effect
no evidence left behind
Then it's possible to explain any occurrence, event, or phenomena that we experience.
"God did it."

And, 2nd question, what does this really bring to the table? It explains how YEC meshes with all the evidence against it, I'll give you that. But what else?

Finally, take a guess as to why god would try to fool us about the age of the world.

 

[Mike Elphick]

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation:

1. Definition = maturity without history
2. Method = creatio ex nihilo
3. Unique features:
   • requires omnipotence
   • laws of science not in effect
   • occurred BC4004 (according to Ussher's dating)
   • no evidence left behind
   • completed in 6 days (on purpose)
4. Described in detail in Genesis 1
5. Witnessed by the angels

Whenever I see things like "no evidence left behind" highlighted as a unique feature, I'm left thinking "how can these guys know anything about it - surely that's an impossibility?"

Also, I have completely failed to find anything in Genesis (not just Genesis 1) that in the least bit touches upon embedded age. And where does it say this embedding of age was witnessed by angels? I can't find it.

So my question is this: - "Show me why this embedded age stuff is not just an excuse to explain away the thorny creationist problem of scientific age determinations being hundreds of thousand times adrift from supposed biblical chronology?"

 

[JustMeSee]

Why deceive us, God He does?
Why God need embed age in objects Earth?
Why God not make object age brand new?

 

[JustMeSee]

Where in Bible said God embed age in objects, God did?

 

[marlowe007]

What is the essential difference between this and the Omphalos hypothesis?

 

[AV1611VET]

Couldn't this reasoning be applied to anything?

I suppose it could, but you would need some kind of documentation to back it up, or you just might find yourself all alone.

Once you factor in
requires omnipotence
laws of science not in effect
no evidence left behind
Then it's possible to explain any occurrence, event, or phenomena that we experience.
"God did it."

Yes and no --- it depends on your frame of reference.

If you're coming from a blank slate, then you need to formulate a coherent cosmology (again, based on documentation you didn't write yourself) and submit it for scrutiny; but if you're coming from an 'anything goes' perspective, then you need documentation to prevent any outside interference.

In short, you need something that allows to step on the gas, as well as apply the brakes.

I feel confident, for example, stating that angiosperms existed before the sun; but I would not be confident saying man existed before the sun.

I could sit and make stuff up all day, but sooner or later I'm going to contradict what is written in the documentation, and I'm going to have to retract.

And, 2nd question, what does this really bring to the table? It explains how YEC meshes with all the evidence against it, I'll give you that. But what else?

Faith.

Finally, take a guess as to why god would try to fool us about the age of the world.

There is no foolery going on, since Embedded Agers and Atheists should be in complete agreement with each other on the earth's age.

If tomorrow, scientists discover that the earth is actually only 800 million years old, you'll see me tomorrow claiming the earth is 800 million years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whenever I see things like "no evidence left behind" highlighted as a unique feature, I'm left thinking "how can these guys know anything about it - surely that's an impossibility?"

That's why we need something to guide us, and some prefer science to be their guide in how this universe started, and some choose the Bible as their guide as to how this universe started --- (and some use both).

Also, I have completely failed to find anything in Genesis (not just Genesis 1) that in the least bit touches upon embedded age.

Embedded age is arrived at by taking the physical age of the universe and subtracting the number of years that have elapsed since BC4004.

To [over]simplify this, let's reduce it to a simple formula: PA - UD = EA.

• PA = physical age of the universe
• UD = Ussher's Dating method of BC4004 = 6012 currently
• EA = embedded age = amount of greatest age embedded into the universe

And where does it say this embedding of age was witnessed by angels? I can't find it.

Job 38:6-7 shows the angels present and celebrating when the foundations of the earth were laid.

So my question is this: - "Show me why this embedded age stuff is not just an excuse to explain away the thorny creationist problem of scientific age determinations being hundreds of thousand times adrift from supposed biblical chronology?"

It's not an 'excuse', it's a cosmology based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, along with what scientists agree about the age of the universe.

 

[hangback]

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation:

1. Definition = maturity without history
2. Method = creatio ex nihilo
3. Unique features:
   • requires omnipotence
   • laws of science not in effect
   • occurred BC4004 (according to Ussher's dating)
     
   • no evidence left behind
   • completed in 6 days (on purpose)
4. Described in detail in Genesis 1
5. Witnessed by the angels

This shows just how concocted creationism is, it's absurd speculation wrapped up in AV1611VET's ego.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why deceive us, God He does?

If God wanted to deceive us, we would never even suspect it.

Why God need embed age in objects Earth?

I don't know.

I think it is for anthropic reasons, meaning that the universe was made to accommodate us.

Life is fragile, and a universe that is "too strong" or "too weak" will destroy us.

The conditions on the other planets in our solar system are a good indication of what would happen to us if our planet was closer to the sun, further away, was larger, was smaller, and so on.

Why God not make object age brand new?

Because He put more emphasis on physical age than existential age, knowing that we were going to have to learn to exist outside of how we were created; that is, have to exist in a fallen or 'non-glorified' state.

He is, however, going to restore us (and His creation) to a brand-new glorified state in the future.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation:

1. Definition = maturity without history

Problem #1: Completely undermines the concept of both terms "maturity" and "history"

Unique features:

"Left no evidence behind"[/quote

Then how do you know about it?

And don't say "The Bible tells me so". What physical beings wrote the bible? Humans. We know that because:

If you claim God "inspired" the writers then will have to provide sufficient "proof" of that which would, then, be "evidence" of your claim thus undermining your own definition of Embedded Age.

1. Witnessed by the angels

What are angels?

Remember; if you want to play philosophy games then only God has "necessary existence" a la the Ontological Argument. So anything shy of that must be some lesser being. If you can provide proof of angels then we should be able to verify the Embedded Age hypothesis directly, which again would be "evidence" for the hypothesis thus undercutting your own claims.

SUMMARY
You actually do think there was "evidence" left for Embedded Age but you realize that it really isn't evidence that would convince someone who doesn't already believe in they myth in the first place so you put the claim "there is no evidence left behind" so as to throw off any subsequent discussion of the weak evidence you like.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where in Bible said God embed age in objects, God did?

The first part of 2 Peter 3:5.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old...

Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity. Selah.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the essential difference between this and the Omphalos hypothesis?

Scarring.

Embedded Age is embedded age, whereas Omphalos is embedded history.

 

[Freodin]

If God wanted to deceive us, we would never even suspect it.I don't know.

I think it is for anthropic reasons, meaning that the universe was made to accommodate us.

Life is fragile, and a universe that is "too strong" or "too weak" will destroy us.

The conditions on the other planets in our solar system are a good indication of what would happen to us if our planet was closer to the sun, further away, was larger, was smaller, and so on.Because He put more emphasis on physical age than existential age, knowing that we were going to have to learn to exist outside of how we were created; that is, have to exist in a fallen or 'non-glorified' state.

He is, however, going to restore us (and His creation) to a brand-new glorified state in the future.

But that contradicts your own premises.

I quote: "laws of science not in effect"

 

[AV1611VET]

But that contradicts your own premises.

I quote: "laws of science not in effect"

The laws of science came into effect after the Creation.

For instance, the First Law of Thermodynamics was instituted in Genesis 2:1-3.

This is why, at the end of this current dispensation, God is going to rearrange --- (not annihilate and re-create) --- the atoms into a New Heavens and a New Earth.

God pronounced His Creation "very good" in Genesis 1:31, and He is not going to let sin cause its annihilation.

 

[Freodin]

The laws of science came into effect after the Creation.

For instance, the First Law of Thermodynamics was instituted in Genesis 2:1-3.

This is why, at the end of this current dispensation, God is going to rearrange --- (not annihilate and re-create) --- the atoms into a New Heavens and a New Earth.

God pronounced His Creation "very good" in Genesis 1:31, and He is not going to let sin cause its annihilation.

I fear you didn´t understand my objection. The post I quoted was your explanation of why such an "embedded age" was necessary. You said "the universe was made to accomodate us" and "The conditions on the other planets in our solar system are a good indication of what would happen to us if our planet was closer to the sun, further away, was larger, was smaller..."

But that assumes the existence of "the laws of science", for these are the "rules" that tell us what would / does happen if our planet was closer, further, larger or smaller.

Without these laws, there is no need for God to "accomodate" us. This is the ultimate problem of the "finetuning" argument: it does not take into account that everything that an omnipotent being does would fit together. And the "omnipotence" is another of your premises.

We always hear that God created Adam and Eve "mature", because of all the problems with growing up and surviving as babies without parents... but that is nonsense. The omnipotent God could create Adam and Eve in every state he wanted without them having any problems.

I have found out long time ago that this is the basic problem of all creationis models: they try to explain what is NOW, assuming that it was the same as NOW, while all the time claiming that it was totally different.

 

[Split Rock]

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation:

1. Definition = maturity without history

1. 
   
   I maintain this differential you asert between "Maturity without history" and "Maturity with history" is completetly made up. The only differnce seems to be your contention (backed up by nothing in scripture) that Adam did not have a navel, since it is a scar. Yet, you apply Embedded Age equally to the Earth. The Earth, however, has many scars, apparently from a history you claim did not exist and was not embedded by God. You have yet to explain the impact craters, ancient coral reefs, shale and chalk deposts, fossils inside of coal seems, etc. that show the long history (scars if you will) of The Earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

The post I quoted was your explanation of why such an "embedded age" was necessary.

Why-questions are the hardest to answer.

The Bible can give you what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, why He did it, and even who the eyewitnesses were; but as far as why He did what He did, why He did it where He did, why He did it the way He did, why He did it in the order He did it in, why he used the reasoning behind doing it, and why He allowed eyewitnesses --- those are questions that, in my opinion, will not be answered in this dispensation.