Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

Adam was not 30. Adam was one day old, but looked 30.

--- huh?

That would have been a neat trick.

 

[The Lady Kate]

So you're agreeing with me?

No, I'm humoring you.

 

[The Lady Kate]

--- huh?

That would have been a neat trick.

After molding a human figure from dust and breathing in life through his nose, making him appear mature shouldn't be all that impressive, relatively speaking.

 

[Freodin]

There were no scars made --- I added that to my OP.

But you do see that this contradicts your claim of "there was no evidence"?

 

[dad]

There are scars in the Earth, and those scars are dated to millions of years before present. As one example, the K/T tektites were produced by the meteor impact in the Yucatan peninsula and they contain a 65 million year history of 40K decay.

"A comparison of breccias and basement rocks from four drill holes near the Chicxulub impact structure, Yucatan (a possible Cretaceous-Tertiary [K-T] boundary crater), with black and yellow impact glasses from the Haitian K-T boundary layer shows that mixtures of andesite-like rocks with carbonates and evaporites from Chicxulub are compositionally different from the yellow glasses. At the time of impact, the Chicxulub area was covered by evaporitic and carbonate deposits several kilometres thick. Because impact glasses are generally produced by shock melting of surface rocks, a link between the Haitian glasses and Chicxulub is difficult to understand. The

34S isotopic signature of Chicxulub breccias and evaporites is incompatible with that of a continental K-T boundary. We suggest that the pre-impact target stratigraphy at Chicxulub as well as the interpretation of the carbonate-evaporite rocks as breccias should be revised."

Chicxulub Crater, Yucatan: Tektites, impact glasses, and the geochemistry of target rocks and breccias -- Koeberl 21 (3): 211 -- Geology

Not that it is directly related, but when I googled tektites Chicxulub --this appeared. Makes me wonder how much really needs revision..

 

[ReverendDG]

--- huh?

That would have been a neat trick.

why is it a neat trick? haven't you pointed it out enough that god needed someone who was old enough to take care of the garden? why would god need to "embed" adam with age, when he could just mold a person out who was physically equal to what we would otherwise think was a 30 year-old man? you give god too little credit, which is odd coming from someone who thinks god "embedded" age into the earth for no logical reason. adam is still only day old, even if he looks 30, age implies time no matter how much you twist the meaning of words.

 

[hangback]

What a complete waste of time and effort.

 

[Mike Elphick]

How does embedded age differ from last thursdayism?

In Last Thursdayism, the history is fake, just like in Omphalos

You really need to read up on Gosse, because he never considered Omphalos age and history to be fake — implying pretence and deception. He does, however, use the word 'false' — meaning artificial in the context of his book. For him, the 'embedded' history was an essential component of a world in a natural state with everything operating within their normal cycles.

We have passed in review before us the whole organic world: and the result is uniform; that no example can be selected from the vast vegetable kingdom, none from the vast animal kingdom, which did not at the instant of its creation present indubitable evidences of a previous history. This is not 'put forth as a hypothesis, but as a necessity ; I do not say that it was probably so, but that it was certainly so; not that it may have been thus, but that it could not have been otherwise.

<...>

I think I have demonstrated in these pages, that such a cyclical character does attach to. and is inseparable from, the history of all organic essences; and that creation can be nothing else than a series of irruptions into circles: that, supposing the irruption to have been made at what part of the circle we please, and varying this condition indefinitely at will,—we cannot avoid the conclusion that each organism was from the first marked with the records of a previous being. But since creation and previous history are inconsistent with each other; as the very idea of the creation of an organism excludes the idea of pre-existence of that organism, or of any part of it; it follows, that such records are false, so far as they testify to time; that the developments and processes thus recorded have been produced without time, or are what I have called prochronic.

Gosse gave a REASON for God creating the Earth with antiquity and Gosse gave a REASON for it having a history to match.

The law of creation supersedes the law of nature; so far, at least, as the organic world is concerned. The law of nature, established by universal experience, is, that its phenomena depend upon" certain natural antecedents : the law of creation is, that the same phenomena depend upon no antecedents. The philosopher who should infer the antecedents from the phenomena alone, without having considered the law of creation, would be liable to form totally false conclusions. In order to be secure from error, he must first assure himself that creation is eliminated from the category of facts which he is investigating; and this he could do only when the facts come within the sphere of personal observation, or of historic testimony. Up to such a period of antiquity as is covered by credible history, and within such a field of observation as history may be considered fairly cognisant of,—the inference of physical antecedents from physical phenomena, in the animal or vegetable world, is legitimate and true. But, beyond that period, I cannot safely deduce the same conclusion ; because I cannot tell but that at any given moment included in iny inquiry, creation may have occurred, and have been the absolute beginning of the circular series.

If anything it's YOUR theory that's FAKE, because you cannot provide a REASON for God having embedded age into the universe; you cannot give a REASON that it should lack history; you cannot EXPLAIN the ages of fossils; you cannot EXPLAIN the dating of geological features; and you cannot EXPLAIN the differing ages of celestial objects.

I put it to you:- YOUR ideas have little to do with creation, even less to do with science, but more to do with the invention of a simplistic word posy with which to impress yourself and then, hopefully, your fellow creationists. Gosse did it a thousand time better 150 years ago, with a scholarly book replete with evidences and references. Yours is no more than a cheap imitation. Even Gosse had the humility to claim it was not his idea — all you do is scoff him.

Quotations taken from "Omphalos: An attempt to untie the geological knot" (1857) by Philip Henry Gosse. pp 334-338

 

[AV1611VET]

But you do see that this contradicts your claim of "there was no evidence"?

If you want to present the pristine, glorified creation as evidence back then, then I'll agree with you.

But the glorified state was removed when Adam sinned, and nature took over the reigns.

As the evidence waned, the Documentation increased.

 

[AV1611VET]

What a complete waste of time and effort.

Time only consisted of 6 days in Genesis 1, and the effort was well-worth it.

 

[Mike Elphick]

I have only one question. How does an adult take this nonsense seriously?

This is why "Embedded age" is just plain nonsense that he somehow manages to get people to address as if it deserved any more consideration than a ridiculously childish concept such as, "does the world crease to exist when no one is looking at it?"

Yes it's plain unadulterated nonsense, and yes, AV manages to get people to address his absurd, amateurish assertions.

Why take him seriously? I don't take him that seriously, though naturally I respect his private beliefs. However, when these are broadcast and when they clash with main-stream science, and especially when they include young earth creationist dogma, I will respond if I can. First, because there's more people reading these threads than us. Second, why should AV escape unscathed after depositing (nice expression that) these outlandish claims in a C/E forum? Why should he get away with presenting stuff as fact when he can't support it with evidence?

We all know that whatever we say has absolutely no effect on AV — he just repeats it again — but there are surely a few who will listen to people who've made the effort to identify and highlight his basic scientific errors and logical fallacies.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gosse gave a REASON for God creating the Earth with antiquity and Gosse gave a REASON for it having a history to match.

Good for Gosse.

Gosse was Omphalos --- I'm Embedded Age.

 

[Freodin]

If you want to present the pristine, glorified creation as evidence back then, then I'll agree with you.

But the glorified state was removed when Adam sinned, and nature took over the reigns.

As the evidence waned, the Documentation increased.

So the "pristine, glorified" state means that
a) Adam had no navel
b) Adam had no signs of wear in his teeth or signs of growth in his bones

but

c) Rocks that Adam would have dated at day 3 would show an "embedded age" of millions of years (which you never have explained how he would arrive at that date)

And now, all the lack of evidence was because if "Adam sinned".

Did Adam magically / miraculously grew a belly button after eathing the fruit?


You want to have it both ways. You want to explain "science" with your "embedded age" claims, but you deny the means that science uses to get its observations. You claim and discard evidence as it fits your needs.

"Science can take a hike", so you say. Perhaps you should stay consistent and discard science completely.

At least, a dogmatic claim of truth by divine word cannot be falsified. Your contradicting claims can... and constantly are. Everytime you try to mend your claims, they fall apart even more.

 

[Cabal]

But the glorified state was removed when Adam sinned, and nature took over the reigns.

As the evidence waned, the Documentation increased.

Which makes focusing on Genesis 1 somewhat redundant, but anyway....

 

[Mike Elphick]

Gosse gave a REASON for God creating the Earth with antiquity and Gosse gave a REASON for it having a history to match.

Good for Gosse.

Gosse was Omphalos --- I'm Embedded Age.

No, your hypothesis is an extremely pale imitation of Omphalos. Why couldn't you respond to what I said instead of repeating yourself?

• Please provide a REASON for God having embedded age into the universe
• Please give a REASON that this should specifically exclude history
• Please EXPLAIN the variable dates of fossils
• Please EXPLAIN the variable dating of geological formations
• Please EXPLAIN why celestial objects like supernovae have differing ages

Well? Do you have any reasons and explanations?

 

[AV1611VET]

"Science can take a hike", so you say. Perhaps you should stay consistent and discard science completely.

Nope --- we can have the best of both worlds, if we'll accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior.

Those who don't accept Him get the best of this world only, then it gets worse.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, your hypothesis is an extremely pale imitation of Omphalos.

There are some overlaps, but the differences are strong enough to give it another name; in this case: Embedded Age.

Why couldn't you respond to what I said instead of repeating yourself?

• Please provide a REASON for God having embedded age into the universe
• Please give a REASON that this should specifically exclude history
• Please EXPLAIN the variable dates of fossils
• Please EXPLAIN the variable dating of geological formations
• Please EXPLAIN why celestial objects like supernovae have differing ages

Well? Do you have any reasons and explanations?

Give it up, Mike.

I'm a little low on REASONS.

I can only explain what happened, how it happened, where it happened, Who did it, why it was done, what order it was done in, and even who the eyewitnesses were --- and I can back it up in writing.

If that's not good enough, I can't help you.

 

[Freodin]

Nope --- we can have the best of both worlds, if we'll accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior.

Those who don't accept Him get the best of this world only, then it gets worse.

I explained why can not "have the best of both worlds" in the part of my post that you ignored.

But at least you ARE consistent in this behaviour: you have a tremendous talent for ignoring anything that disagrees with you.

 

[Freodin]

There are some overlaps, but the differences are strong enough to give it another name; in this case: Embedded Age.Give it up, Mike.

I'm a little low on REASONS.

I can only explain ... why it was done, ...

If that's not good enough, I can't help you.

Wow... now you manage to contradict yourself within only two sentences. Best of both world, surely. "I can´t give you any reasons, but I can tell you why."

 

[Cabal]

Nope --- we can have the best of both worlds, if we'll accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior.

Those who don't accept Him get the best of this world only, then it gets worse.

Consider yourself damn lucky that science doesn't ask you to believe in it before you can benefit from it.