A Letter From An Atheist

[Davian]

...
I'm the one that calls it Embedded Age Creation, but that's because I can't think of a better name for it.

I can: Omphalos

Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I had to look that up. Sums up AV's comments pretty well, and includes the comparison with Last Thursdayism.

 

[Naraoia]

Of course, I regret many such decisions now. That is why I am so bad in biology. I was chasing physics and thought biology is only for girls.

Ow, now, that hurt. You know, I've often wondered if my choice of biology over physics is a result of these stupid sexist prejudices that quietly sneak into everyone's experience right from birth. I hope not, and I certainly don't consciously think biology is "girly" or "not a hard science" (or that "girly" = lame), but still.

So how can you tell if a egg has been fertilized and if that egg will produce a chicken or not?

Sit a hen on it and wait three weeks?

 

[AV1611VET]

Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I had to look that up. Sums up AV's comments pretty well, and includes the comparison with Last Thursdayism.

QV please:

Since embedded age is maturity without history, the best answer to this is that you have maturity without history.

Maturity with history is Omphalism.

 

[Davian]

QV please:

So how many times has our galaxy rotated since it was formed?

 

[Jazer]

Sit a hen on it and wait three weeks?

So how do we know if someone is saved or not. If you can not tell from the outward appearance? Do we set a hen on them and see if they hatch?

Matthew 23:37-39 (NKJV)
Jesus Laments over Jerusalem

37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”

 

[timatter]

Av1611VET- "Embedded age". I heard almost the same thing. You might find it under "Appearance of Age" theory. I think there are three different degrees of it, the most convincing of them, from "Total" appearance of age where everything is only 6 to 10,000 years old, but was created to look and test as if things had happened the way science believes it had.

 

[AV1611VET]

Av1611VET- "Embedded age". I heard almost the same thing. You might find it under "Appearance of Age" theory. I think there are three different degrees of it, the most convincing of them, from "Total" appearance of age where everything is only 6 to 10,000 years old, but was created to look and test as if things had happened the way science believes it had.

WOW, Ti!

Thank you very much for that! I googled it and it indeed has a lot to say.

I especially like this one: Did God Create With Appearance Of Age?, where it says:

This is because the world today is not as it was in creation. God's creative powers are at rest now, and He is maintaining the creation using present laws of physics. The original created world, perfect and non-decaying at first, was subsequently cursed and made subject to decay and death. Furthermore, even that world was destroyed by the Flood of Noah, so that the world we live in today is a relic of destructive processes, not creative processes. Any effort to apply present processes and process rates to creation is doomed to failure.

He did good, until the very last line, where he says:

On the other hand, if fallen scientists extrapolating present process are right and the universe is old, then God has lied to us, for He clearly said He created all things in six days, not too long ago.

I disagree with this, as I do think the universe is old.

It has genuine age, but not because it grew old, but because it was created old.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, for starters I never said I did. I don't run to get blood tests every time I think I have a subjective experience. That said, there are increasingly sophisticated scientific ways of testing whether I actually experience the emotion I say I'm experiencing - or at least whether my body is doing the same things other human bodies do when their owners claim a certain emotion.

Your subjective experience is an internal feeling, not an external entity. Bear that in mind for later...

A prof should have read the job description before applying.

Of course. And given what you just said, you have no reason to expect anyone to believe you

You'll note that we were talking about the existence of God(s), while you kept referring to relationships. These are two different issues.

Remember, the "relationship" you speak of is made up of your subjective experiences. You experience emotions, you do not necessarily experience God. We could theoretically hook you up to an ECG or some manner of brain imaging machine and make some inferences about your emotional state. That is only evidence of your feelings, though.

I have an anxiety disorder. I know that experiencing a feeling doesn't necessarily mean that there's an objectively real, external cause for it. You may feel safe or happy or awed or feel a mysterious presence, and you may attribute those experiences to God, but it's no more evidence of God's existence than my permanent fight-or-flight response is evidence that I'm in danger.

When you replied to several people in one post, it suppressed my interest to reply to you.

 

[Orogeny]

Since embedded age is maturity without history, the best answer to this is that you have maturity without history.

Maturity with history is Omphalism.

What you fail to understand is that the Earth displays an incredibly long and complex history. Your ignorance of this does not validate your idea.

 

[Jazer]

Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I had to look that up. Sums up AV's comments pretty well, and includes the comparison with Last Thursdayism.

Ok, so the theory has been around for a while. At least 150 years.

 

[timatter]

AV1611VET- The "Total Appearance of Age theory" could explain all of the scientific problems with geology, evolution and the "Distant Starlight Problem". If God wanted to make the universe look extremely old, he could make it totally consistant with every test we can do. He could totally fool us. But that creates problems about God. It makes God into a deceptive God. Not an attribute most people want to believe of a good God. Plus, if God created a universe with a Total Appearance of age, why would he get mad at us believing the evidence that he put there to convince us of that. If it is actually 14 billion years old, or 6000, if he made it look 14 Billion, why would he object to us believing it was 14 billion years old? He put all of the evidence there that it was really that old.

 

[Davian]

AV1611VET- The "Total Appearance of Age theory" could explain all of the scientific problems with geology, evolution and the "Distant Starlight Problem". If God wanted to make the universe look extremely old, he could make it totally consistant with every test we can do. He could totally fool us. But that creates problems about God. It makes God into a deceptive God. Not an attribute most people want to believe of a good God. Plus, if God created a universe with a Total Appearance of age, why would he get mad at us believing the evidence that he put there to convince us of that. If it is actually 14 billion years old, or 6000, if he made it look 14 Billion, why would he object to us believing it was 14 billion years old? He put all of the evidence there that it was really that old.

Interesting. So if we observe the universe, and everything in it, examining it to the best of our knowledge and abilities, it *looks* like it is billions of years old.

Why would this make for a deceptive god?

 

[AV1611VET]

What you fail to understand is that the Earth displays an incredibly long and complex history.

What I do understand is that Davian is wrong.

I am not Omphalos, I am Embedded Age.

Your ignorance of this does not validate your idea.

I couldn't care less if "my idea" is validated or not.

As our motto says: God did it -- that settles it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it is actually 14 billion years old, or 6000...

It is both, timatter.

You're trying to argue a point with me that you apparently know very little about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would this make for a deceptive god?

It wouldn't.

God gave us Genesis 1 to clarify the issue, not cloud it.

Here's a scenario you can butcher until you don't understand:

Suppose, in 1/10 of a second, God created the earth and one single star 30 billion light years from the earth.

That's all that's in the universe: the earth and one star.

Now, suppose for reasons known only to Him, He also created light from the star to the earth.

Now He documents what He did, what order He did it in, how long it took Him (1/10 second), why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitness were.

Question: Would it be right for someone to come along and conclude God was being deceptive?

 

[Davian]

What I do understand is that Davian is wrong.

I am not Omphalos, I am Embedded Age.

Well, at least the wiki page is something to work with.

What's the difference?

I couldn't care less if "my idea" is validated or not.

In contrast with how much you do go on about it.

As our motto says: God did it -- that settles it.

For whom do you speak again?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, at least the wiki page is something to work with.

What's the difference?

What do you mean, "What's the difference?"

I told you what the difference is.

Once again:

• Embedded Age = maturity without history
• Omphalism = maturity with history

 

[Davian]

It wouldn't.

God gave us Genesis 1 to clarify the issue, not cloud it.

Here's a scenario you can butcher until you don't understand:

Suppose, in 1/10 of a second, God created the earth and one single star 30 billion light years from the earth.

That's all that's in the universe: the earth and one star.

Now, suppose for reasons known only to Him, He also created light from the star to the earth.

Now He documents what He did, what order He did it in, how long it took Him (1/10 second), why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitness were.

Question: Would it be right for someone to come along and conclude God was being deceptive?

But say this document was an owner's manual for a car. I'm having some issue with the car, so I get out the manual from the glove box, and start reading. Strangely, the manual does not appear to match up with what I see on the car, even as the label on the front cover says it is for this car.

Would it be right for me to conclude that the manufacturer was trying to be deceptive? Could there be other, far more parsimonious explanations?

 

[Davian]

What do you mean, "What's the difference?"

I told you what the difference is.

Once again:

• Embedded Age = maturity without history
• Omphalism = maturity with history

If I read the wiki correctly, with Omphalism, our galaxy, by any objective measure, will appear to be billions of years old, and appear to take about 250 million years to complete a single rotation (the spiral pattern rotating in the opposite direction). We can work back to a reference point (such as the Sun achieving fusion), do the math, and we have the number of rotations.

The 'Last Thursdayism' critique would be of the assertion that God didn't actually create the universe billions of years ago, but did it - relative to the apparent age of the universe - a 'blink of an eye' ago, with all the galaxies formed, and spinning, and surprising number of them already in the process of colliding. In cosmological time scales, that would be "Last Thursday".

How does that compare to "Embedded Age"?

 

[mathclub]

well, certainly some interesting responses here.

To clarify, my point was that as an atheist my beliefs have nothing to do with evolution, the big bang or any other scientific theory. A point which I think most people got. A lot of theists seem to think that these theories contradict their religious beliefs, and are understandably upset about that. I am actually quite interested in evolution, and have read quite a few books on it, but am not as interested in the big bang so far. It's not actually that I don't care about these things at all, it's just that they have nothing to do with my atheist world view, so as an atheist I don't really care one way or the other.

I also probably should have used 'accept' rather than 'believe' when talking about science, but not really that bothered. I do believe that in the theory of evolution, and some people do not, so it was accurate, even if perhaps not optimal.

Obv I get that not all theists feel like that about science, and if you don't then I wasn't really aiming it at you. And these are just my personal views on atheism, I'm not trying to speak for anyone else. Some atheists probably identify with what I was saying, but just as many probably disagree ... such is the way with atheists.

In regards to the 'god of the gaps' etc, as an Atheist I think we should be linking science with disproving the bible as often as possible. I like the god of the gaps, because as the gaps get smaller and smaller, then so does that version of god. I agree that evolution does not necessarily disprove the bible, but I think it's a good thing that a lot of people do ... because as each piece of evidence piles up supporting evolution it makes religious belief that god snap his fingers and magiced the earth out of nothing look as ridiculous as it really is.