?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hi, Aggie!



Actually I'm not Omphalos.

I believe in what I call "embedded age creation."

That doesn't make sense, because Omphalos IS "embedded age creation".

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't make sense, because Omphalos IS "embedded age creation".

I don't believe Adam & Eve had belly buttons.

I don't believe God's creation had any other scars either.

(Note: the belly button, from which the word "Omphalos" comes from, is considered a scar.)

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I believe in what I call "embedded age creation."

Blah-blah-blah-blah.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

That doesn't make sense, because Omphalos IS "embedded age creation".

Soundly debunked! ( 15th April 2015, 08:07 PM ) : refer also: 2009 CF pg. 35


RickG tried to reason it out, but reason is not strong with this one. (read here) :

'....Those are things I gather, from your many posts, that you have not studied academically and are there not familiar with. Therefore, your lack of knowledge and understanding in those areas.' ( 21st July 2012, 11:05 AM )

Further summarized by TK Valentine: here

'But it doesn't matter anymore -- "Embedded Age" is based upon a definition of "maturity" which doesn't work in the real world. Consequently, "Embedded Age" doesn't work in the real world.

Whatever ignorance AV possesses (which he wears like a badge) is no longer relevant, since his own failures debunk "Embedded Age" as a viable method for looking at the real world.'
http://www.christianforums.com/t7415712-81/#post61027410

 

[Aggie]

It's a bit before my time, but it seems that AV doesn't really want to get answers to his questions. He only wants to ask them, and let people jump through the hoops. Sad, but that is the nature of his game.

People at this board have discussed before whether it's worthwhile to respond to creationists who aren't really looking for answers, and the consensus generally was that it is. These threads get read by a lot of people who don't post in them, and it's beneficial for the lurkers to be able to see the answers to these questions.

Actually I'm not Omphalos.

I believe in what I call "embedded age creation."

In other words, God created the universe ... not just with the appearance of age ... but with actual age.

I define embedded age creation as: maturity without history.

I'm not sure if I've asked you this before: what does it mean to create the universe with actual age? From a young-Earth perspective, at the end of Day 1 the universe had existed for less than 24 hours. If it had existed for less than 24 hours at that point, what does it mean for its actual age (not just apparent age) to be in the billions of years?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure if I've asked you this before: what does it mean to create the universe with actual age? From a young-Earth perspective, at the end of Day 1 the universe had existed for less than 24 hours. If it had existed for less than 24 hours at that point, what does it mean for its actual age (not just apparent age) to be in the billions of years?

Good question, of which I have no real answer.

My guess would be that the chemical bonds between the molecules would not be quite as strong as if the universe had been created brand new.

I once saw the term "tired energy," and I like it.

In addition, those things that start out as seeds, then "crescendo" to adulthood, and then fade to advanced age would have appeared instantly as well.

Thus Adam & Eve came on the scene as fully-mature adults.

So whether it started out as "tired energy," such as rocks and stuff; or whether it started out at its peak energy level, such as Adam & Eve, the thing is, it started out as having maturity without history.

 

[Strathos]

RNA molecules?

 

[AV1611VET]

RNA molecules?

I suppose.

Are they responsible for aging?

 

[Strathos]

They're some of the candidates for the results of abiogenesis. I'm assuming you're asking what would happen if abiogenesis occurred but evolution never did.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

People at this board have discussed before whether it's worthwhile to respond to creationists who aren't really looking for answers, and the consensus generally was that it is. These threads get read by a lot of people who don't post in them, and it's beneficial for the lurkers to be able to see the answers to these questions.

Intelligent readers find stupidity a labor intensive operation and just
scroll baby scroll.
If you have time for this, go for it.

 

[Davian]

Intelligent readers find stupidity a labor intensive operation and just
scroll baby scroll.
If you have time for this, go for it.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

 

[SkyWriting]

If evolution is true, what would we look like if we hadn't have evolved?

That's a great question.


If the theory is true, then it is a reflection of reality.
Reality says that life only occurred one time.
There are no other signs of life in the Cosmos.
If the theory is not based on physical, testable or
observable evidence then it is a faith based religion.

I think I'm saying that earth would be devoid of life
just like the rest of the Cosmos we see. That is the
natural state of matter. If life were to occur,
it would fail-to-thrive in tens of millions of cases.

So we should be seeing abiogenesis everywhere we
look, on an ongoing basis, struggling and failing.

We should be seeing life occurring on every planet
but getting snuffed out by unfavorable conditions.

Every planet.....or mass...should be a life experiment
piled deep with failures and we being the lucky ones
that evolved.

Awesome question.

 

[Oafman]

Reality says that life only occurred one time.
There are no other signs of life in the Cosmos.

The fact that we have not found any signs, having searched such a minute proportion of the cosmos in such primitive ways, absolutely does not mean that life does not exist elsewhere. You're lifting a single piece of hay from the side of the haystack, briefly looking at it, and then claiming with certainty that the needle is not in the stack.

If the theory is not based on physical, testable or observable evidence then it is a faith based religion.

It would be an unfalsifiable theory. Useless to science, but not a religion. This is not even the case for abiogenesis, nevermind evolution.

I think I'm saying that earth would be devoid of life just like the rest of the Cosmos we see. That is the natural state of matter.

So, life on Earth is not natural? Not part of nature?

If life were to occur, it would fail-to-thrive in tens of millions of cases.

On what basis do you claim that it has not?

So we should be seeing abiogenesis everywhere we look, on an ongoing basis, struggling and failing.

We should be seeing life occurring on every planet but getting snuffed out by unfavorable conditions.

Why should abiogenesis be constantly occurring? What if it is a rare event? Why should we expect to see it constantly happening, everywhere we glance?

And finally, the question was specifically about evolution, yet for some reason you responded to it as if it was about abiogenesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

If the theory is not based on physical, testable or
observable evidence then it is a faith based religion.

Here are 29+ testable predictions based on observations:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

I think I'm saying that earth would be devoid of life
just like the rest of the Cosmos we see. That is the
natural state of matter. If life were to occur,
it would fail-to-thrive in tens of millions of cases.

If life survived just once out of every 10 million attempts, then there should be hundreds if not thousands of planets with life in our galaxy alone.

So we should be seeing abiogenesis everywhere . . .

The opening post asks about evolution, not abiogenesis. Also, a planet with life would be very hostile to abiogenesis since no lifeform produced by abiogenesis could outcompete a species that has evolved for millions or billions of years. The presence of oxygen produced by life may also prevent abiogenesis. The facts are just the opposite. We should not see life emerging through abiogenesis all of the time on today's Earth.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I don't believe Adam & Eve had belly buttons.

I don't believe God's creation had any other scars either.

(Note: the belly button, from which the word "Omphalos" comes from, is considered a scar.)

Have you looked at the moon through a telescope?

Have you visited the grand canyon?

Have you seen images of supernova remnants?

Those count as scars, AV!

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you looked at the moon through a telescope?

Have you visited the grand canyon?

Have you seen images of supernova remnants?

Those count as scars, AV!

I've addressed these before.

All of these came after the Fall, not during the Creation week.

1. The cratering on the moon was caused by angels fighting each other. One third on Lucifer's side and two thirds on God's side.

2. The Grand Canyon is a result of the split-up of Eden (Pangaea) into five large continents in Peleg's lifetime.

3. Supernova are the results of God destroying stars that were occupied by angels that joined Lucifer in the Rebellion.

Those should count as scars.

Just like everyone born after the Fall has a belly button.

Even tree rings and radio halos are considered scars.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've addressed these before.

All of these came after the Fall, not during the Creation week.

1. The cratering on the moon was caused by angels fighting each other. One third on Lucifer's side and two thirds on God's side.

Nothing is more hilarious than a supposed biblical literalist who has to add stories to the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing is more hilarious than a supposed biblical literalist who has to add stories to the Bible.

There's nothing wrong with speculating.

Otherwise ignorant, modern-age, lab-working, rat-herding, Bible-denying, empirical scientists would walk all over us.

And to me, nothing is more ironic than a supposed empiricist who has to play connect-the-dots to The Preservation of Favoured Races.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Good question, of which I have no real answer.

My guess would be that the chemical bonds between the molecules would not be quite as strong as if the universe had been created brand new.

But chemical bonds do NOT grow weaker with age.