Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

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

To be honest, I didn't even understand some of it.

The bit about why Adam couldn't date the rocks on the 3rd day, and Adam growing a navel --- I don't know what you're talking about.

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

I'll say this much, I understand more about evolution here than you guys do embedded age.

I can do just what you guys do, with one exception.

I can laugh, make jokes, cut up, ad hominem, play the Telephone Game with you guys' posts, add noise, etc.; and still get a basic understanding of what you're saying.

You guys don't, and it comes back on you.

Only you try and make it look like it's my fault, and I don't buy it.

I throw you guys a left curve by qv'ing many of my answers, which I'm sure upsets those who are repeating their questions to try and trip me up.

Some have even flat-out told me they won't read anything I qv --- (and I don't blame them; I wouldn't either).

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow... now you manage to contradict yourself within only two sentences. Best of both world, surely.

Yes.

As the saying goes: Aim for earth, you get earth; aim for Heaven, you get both.

 

[Cabal]

I can laugh, make jokes, cut up, ad hominem, play the Telephone Game with you guys' posts, add noise, etc.; and still get a basic understanding of what you're saying.

Yeah, like mtEve and y-Adam are Omphalos, calling Pluto a dwarf planet is science rather than actually looking at anything empirical about it, and ions can't be negatively charged.

Flawless.

 

[Cabal]

Yes.

As the saying goes: Aim for earth, you get earth; aim for Heaven, you get both.

Greed as well as intellectual sloth.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

If I could talk to science, I'd have my own points to make as well.

 

[Cabal]

If I could talk to science, I'd have my own points to make as well.

Then surely don't begrudge others for raising their points about the Bible*.

*Your personal interpretation of the Bible, to be more accurate.

 

[Freodin]

To be honest, I didn't even understand some of it.

The bit about why Adam couldn't date the rocks on the 3rd day, and Adam growing a navel

I´m sorry, I ´m not in the habit of archivating my own post, and even less so your´s.

In one of your previous posts - perhaps YOU will find it - you stated that "science" (or scientists had they been around then, or "If you had been Adam" or anything in that line) would have dated a rock at day three, it would have said it was "800,000,000 years old" - and that you would agree with that.

[edited to add:] Found it. http://www.christianforums.com/t7411224-15/#post53393572 Post#142

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.)
...
Now pick that rock up and radio-date it.

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

In response to that, I asked you HOW "SCIENCE" WOULD HAVE ARRIVED AT THAT STATEMENT (not literally my words, but again in that line).

Of course, you ignored that question, as you ignore any questions that would lead you to conclusions you don´t want to accept.

I ask that question again, generally regarding your "embedded age" claims:

How would "science" get the age of the stuff it tests. How does it know that 800 million years were embedded into this rock, 30 years of age was embedded in that human, 50,000 years were embedded into that bone.

BY WHAT METHOD DOES SCIENCE DO THAT?

 

[Mike Elphick]

Give it up, Mike.

Why should I? I'm a guest here just like you.

I'm a little low on REASONS.

I can only explain what happened

No. You can only conjecture what happened, because there is no evidence. Right?

how it happened,

No. You cannot!

where it happened

No. You can't tell where it happened.

Who did it, why it was done

Why was it done again? I thought you didn't know!

what order it was done in,

You've never told us the order. Was it God (infinite age embedded without history) —> Earth —> moon & sun —> stars —> plants —> animals —> man?

and even who the eyewitnesses were

You couldn't give any eyewitnesses for the age embedding process.

and I can back it up in writing.

Not for the age embedding process.

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

It's not good enough and I don't need your help.

 

[Loudmouth]

Good for Gosse.

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

Just as Lenin was a Marxist, not a Communist.

 

[Loudmouth]

Adam was, let's say, 30 (some say 20 --- it doesn't matter).

Can you give me an example of something that occurred when Adam was 5?

Can you tell me how many feathers there are on a winged horse?

How in the world are we supposed to describe your fantasies?

 

[VirOptimus]

AV; how did you reach your conclusions about embedded age?

And if it is so appearant in the bible as you claim why doesnt more christians agree with it?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV; how did you reach your conclusions about embedded age?

By agreeing with science.

Taking the physical age of the earth (4.57 billion years) as a minuend, the amount of time the earth has been in existence according to James Ussher's dating method (6012 years) as a subtrahend, the difference is the amount of embedded age.

And if it is so appearant in the bible as you claim why doesnt more christians agree with it?

It's not an expressed truth, it's an implied truth.

Not everyone agrees with James Ussher, so it stands to reason that they are not going to agree with Embedded Age.

By the same token, not everyone agrees with deep time, so it stands to reason they are not going to agree with Embedded Age as well.

I blend the best of both explanations into one eclectic cosmology.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

By agreeing with science.

Taking the physical age of the earth (4.57 billion years) as a minuend, the amount of time the earth has been in existence according to James Ussher's dating method (6012 years) as a subtrahend, the difference is the amount of embedded age.It's not an expressed truth, it's an implied truth.

Not everyone agrees with James Ussher, so it stands to reason that they are not going to agree with Embedded Age.

By the same token, not everyone agrees with deep time, so it stands to reason they are not going to agree with Embedded Age as well.

I blend the best of both explanations into one eclectic cosmology.

Certainly not the most parsimonious explanation, with a healthy dose of speacial pleading, but hey, at least it's nice and tidy in your mind, and that's all that matters I suppose.

 

[Loudmouth]

By agreeing with science.

Taking the physical age of the earth (4.57 billion years) as a minuend, the amount of time the earth has been in existence according to James Ussher's dating method (6012 years) as a subtrahend, the difference is the amount of embedded age.It's not an expressed truth, it's an implied truth.

Let's use Supernova 1987a as an example. This is a star that went supernova in 1987 and is about 150,000 light years away. This means that light from this star takes 150,000 years to reach earth.

If the Universe is only 6,000 years old this means that the observed light from this star prior to 1987 came from a star that never existed. In fact, the supernova explosion itself never really happened. It is a fake history of this star. It is an Omphalos supernova.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's use Supernova 1987a as an example. This is a star that went supernova in 1987 and is about 150,000 light years away. This means that light from this star takes 150,000 years to reach earth.

If the Universe is only 6,000 years old this means that the observed light from this star prior to 1987 came from a star that never existed. In fact, the supernova explosion itself never really happened. It is a fake history of this star. It is an Omphalos supernova.

QV starting here: 1142 --- a lengthy discussion in SN1987a.

 

[BananaSlug]

Well, I guess I may as well consider this thread over and done with, since I can't keep the focus in Genesis 1, so I may as well just start answering all your questions again.Of course there is.

You have gone out of Genesis 1 many times over the course of this thread.

You guys know the flaws before you even understand the concepts.

I knew the flaws as soon as I heard the concepts.

And what do you understand about His creation from science, that is included in Embedded Age Creation, that I happen to agree with?

I understand the history of our planet goes back far beyond a measly 6100 years.

I've only said it (as a formula) twice, so here it is a third time: the age of the earth.

Remember my formula, that I have posted twice?

PA - UD = EA

What this simple formula says, is that, to compute the amount of age God embedded into the earth, simply take the object's Physical Age, subtract Ussher's Dating (6012 years) from it, and there you have the minimun age that God embedded.

Problem is that "age"= passage of time. You still haven't really explained why a "mature" earth has to be 4.5 billion years old.

Since Paul said God's invisible qualities, or what I called "omnipotence" in the OP, are demonstrated by something seen in His creation: age.But God didn't hide it, did He?

I thought it was "maturity" not "age". You are slipping on your semantics.

What tells me that, is the fact that you guys critique it before you even understand it.Again, embedded age melds science (specifically the age of the earth) with the Scriptures.

I do understand it that is why I'm saying it is wrong. I don't believe in God so it doesn't really bother me. However, you are really making God look like a deceiver and a jerk. I really wonder how many new believers some of you chase away because of your antics.

A global flood, taking three chapters in Genesis, and you say it's funny that the Bible doesn't mention major geologic events.

Never read anything about asteroid impacts or volcanic eruptions either yet we find them in the geologic record.

Mamma mia.Yes, a history of more than 6100 years would falsify Embedded Age creation.

I suppose this makes it a viable hypothesis now.

And what about all the evidence we have for more than 6100 years of history?

But the geologic record is based on an interpretation called 'uniformitarianism', not 'catastrophism', and therefore I don't trust what scientists claim the geological record tells them

Then why even trust the dating methods they use? Why don't you simply say the Earth is only 6100 years old?

Yes, a history of more than 6100 years would automatically falsify Embedded Age Creation.

Smilodon skull radiocarbon dated to have lived around 15,000 years ago. If you do not accept this date, why not? It is the same concept as other forms of radioisotope dating, except for the fact we are actually testing the fossils, not just the rock they are found in. So here we have just one piece of evidence that shatters your idea. We have found and dated many of these fossils as far back as 50,000 years ago.

What will you say now?

 

[Freodin]

By agreeing with science.

Taking the physical age of the earth (4.57 billion years) as a minuend, the amount of time the earth has been in existence according to James Ussher's dating method (6012 years) as a subtrahend, the difference is the amount of embedded age.It's not an expressed truth, it's an implied truth.

Not everyone agrees with James Ussher, so it stands to reason that they are not going to agree with Embedded Age.

By the same token, not everyone agrees with deep time, so it stands to reason they are not going to agree with Embedded Age as well.

I blend the best of both explanations into one eclectic cosmology.

But that is not true: you disagree with science all the time.
You always claim that "science says X is so-and-so-many years old - I agree with that."
But when "science" says something like that, the "implied truth" is: "So-and-so-many years ago, something happened, and that resulted in X"

But you constantly deny that "something happened X years ago", as soon as X>6000.

So in what way do you "agree" with science?

I see that you missed or ignored my last question again, so I have to repeat myself once more:

How would "science" get the age of the stuff it tests. How does it know that 800 million years were embedded into this rock, 30 years of age was embedded in that human, 50,000 years were embedded into that bone.

BY WHAT METHOD DOES SCIENCE DO THAT?

 

[AV1611VET]

Problem is that "age"= passage of time.

Without looking it up, I can tell you there are at least four defintions of "age" on answers.com.

I use definition #4.

Smilodon skull radiocarbon dated to have lived around 15,000 years ago.

Good for Smilodon.

If you do not accept this date, why not?

It would violate the Prime Directive: Never let science override Scripture.

It is the same concept as other forms of radioisotope dating, except for the fact we are actually testing the fossils, not just the rock they are found in.

Good.

You guys built that test yourselves.

You built it, tested it, and implemented it; and it runs on uniformitarian principles.

I'm under no such obligation to accept it, especially since it violates the Prime Directive.

So here we have just one piece of evidence that shatters your idea. We have found and dated many of these fossils as far back as 50,000 years ago.

It's only causing you guys confusion --- not me.

What will you say now?

I think you guys need to learn what Embedded Age actually is.

If Smilodon's skeleton is 15,000 years old, that doesn't mean Smilodon himself lived that long ago.

What if I died tomorrow and my skeleton was dated at 30,000 years?

Would that bust your theory?

 

[AV1611VET]

So in what way do you "agree" with science?

My cut-off point is well-known here.

Place a Bible on the table, now all the science that disagrees with that Bible can be placed to the left of that Bible, and all the science that agrees with that Bible can be placed to the right of that Bible.

I think you'll find that very, very, very, very, very little science will be placed to the left of that Bible.

 

[Split Rock]

I'll say this much, I understand more about evolution here than you guys do embedded age.

We understand the implications of your "Embedded Age" model much better than you do. But you're not interested in such things. For you, Embedded Age is just a "Feel Good" way of reconciling your interpretation of scripture with the reality of what science tells us... nothing more. You don't care if it actually works, or not.. just that it sounds good. Much like most other creationists.

Only you try and make it look like it's my fault, and I don't buy it.

It's all your fault if your model fails. Don't blame the messenger.

I throw you guys a left curve by qv'ing many of my answers, which I'm sure upsets those who are repeating their questions to try and trip me up.

Some have even flat-out told me they won't read anything I qv --- (and I don't blame them; I wouldn't either).

How dishonest.. you give us "qvs" when you yourself claim you would ignore them??