A Question Rgarding Embedded Age

[Dizredux]

This is a prime example of misinformation.

Oh the irony!

The statement in question is

There are actually mainstream Christian denominations that have published statements that they see no issue with the theory of evolution.

Just

Post it. Someone tried this with Francis Collins and it failed.

I posted the stances of a number of mainstream denominations that in one way or another do not reject evolution and all you can say is

This is a prime example of misinformation. A prime example of presenting a position by not giving the entire position.

I gave the published statements from several denominations and you only gave a response on the Catholic one with no support or cite and one which appears to contradict what others report.

So where did you get this and what was the date on it? Forgive me if I do not take your word and request some back up. I backed up my post by citing where I got it. Just saying "somewhere on the internet" isn't gonna hack it.


Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Oh the irony!

The statement in question is Just I posted the stances of a number of mainstream denominations that in one way or another do not reject evolution and all you can say is I gave the published statements from several denominations and you only gave a response on the Catholic one with no support or cite and one which appears to contradict what others report.

So where did you get this and what was the date on it? Forgive me if I do not take your word and request some back up. I backed up my post by citing where I got it. Just saying "somewhere on the internet" isn't gonna hack it.


Dizredux

The source was Wikipedia. Weren't you suggesting that the Catholic Church accepted the Darwinist position that all the complexity and variety of life we observe today is totally, completely, only, solely by naturalistic mechanisms? If so, you were offering only a partial, misleading and dishonest position of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church doesn't embrace the position that humanity is the result of only, solely, completely, totally naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[justlookinla]

I do not wish to be accused of not providing all the information. Follow the link. It is an official statement by the Presbyterian Church USA concerning evolution. Your refusal to do so only demonstrates you unwillingness to verify "original sources".

Yes, I can easily C/P the whole thing. Then you will ask what I left out. I don't play games. See it for yourself.

Just a little copy and paste quickly gives the position of the Presbyterian Church USA concerning evolution. From the Presbyterian Mission Agency of the Presbyterian Church USA website.....

"Our Confession of Faith says:
"It pleased God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.
After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls . . ." (Chapter IV).
The Larger Catechism answers the question "How did God create man?" as follows: "After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female; formed the body of man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of man; endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls; made them after his own image . . ."(Q. 17)"​

You see, the Presbyterian church doesn't accept the view of Darwinian creationism which is based upon humanity being the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic processes acting upon a life form from long long ago.

 

[Split Rock]

Just a little copy and paste quickly gives the position of the Presbyterian Church USA concerning evolution. From the Presbyterian Mission Agency of the Presbyterian Church USA website.....

"Our Confession of Faith says:
"It pleased God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.
After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls . . ." (Chapter IV).
The Larger Catechism answers the question "How did God create man?" as follows: "After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female; formed the body of man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of man; endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls; made them after his own image . . ."(Q. 17)"​

You see, the Presbyterian church doesn't accept the view of Darwinian creationism which is based upon humanity being the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic processes acting upon a life form from long long ago.

Do you actually want science text books to discuss evolution in terms of which god was involved and how? Or peer-reviewed journal articles? I sure don't.

 

[RickG]

Just a little copy and paste quickly gives the position of the Presbyterian Church USA concerning evolution. From the Presbyterian Mission Agency of the Presbyterian Church USA website.....

"Our Confession of Faith says:
"It pleased God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.
After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls . . ." (Chapter IV).
The Larger Catechism answers the question "How did God create man?" as follows: "After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female; formed the body of man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of man; endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls; made them after his own image . . ."(Q. 17)"​

You see, the Presbyterian church doesn't accept the view of Darwinian creationism which is based upon humanity being the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic processes acting upon a life form from long long ago.

Oh! So you wanted me to C&P the whole statement so I wouldn't quote mine it. But you just did what you told me not to do. That is why I insisted you go to the site and read the entire statement. You copied the confession of faith without providing context. So, I will provide what is stated directly above that.
"Evolution statement

In light of recent developments regarding the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in public schools, the Office of Theology and Worship offers the following, the Presbyterian Church U.S. 1969 GA-approved theological statement on the subject.
EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE

Primary Reference: GA Minutes 1969: 59-62
Denomination: PCUS
Conclusion from the Study
Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory. Scripture states that "out of the ground" the Lord God formed every beast, Genesis 2:19, and "of the dust of the ground" the Lord God formed man, Genesis 2:7. Genesis 1 teaches that according to the Word of God there came into being Light, Firmament (called Heaven), the Earth and the Seas. Then, God said: "Let the waters bring forth" and "Let the earth bring forth." After the creation of Light, the Firmament and the Earth, after the Earth and the Waters brought forth plant, aquatic and animal life, then God said: "Let us make man." This man, Adam, meaning both a man and man, is by nature both individual and corporate. The name Adam is simply a generic term for man brought forth from the Earth. Genesis 1 describes Creation as taking place in six days; however, it is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of Creation. Our Confession of Faith says:"


The follows the confession of faith which you posted. Furthermore, I will provide a statement from the Nationial Center for Science Education concerning that statement:


"On June 20 the 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), meeting in Columbus, Ohio, passed the following resolution:

"The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA)

"1. Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and the Reformed Confessions.

"2. Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.

"3. Encourages State Boards of Education across the nation to establish standards for science education in Public Schools based on the most reliable content of scientific knowledge as determined by the scientific community.

"4. Calls upon Presbyterian scientists and science educators to assist congregations, presbyteries, communities, and the public to understand what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge."



Essentially what they are saying is that God is still the creator, but Genesis doesn't specify exactly how that was done and that they see no conflict with that creation being through evolution.

 

[Dizredux]

The source was Wikipedia. Weren't you suggesting that the Catholic Church accepted the Darwinist position that all the complexity and variety of life we observe today is totally, completely, only, solely by naturalistic mechanisms? If so, you were offering only a partial, misleading and dishonest position of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church doesn't embrace the position that humanity is the result of only, solely, completely, totally naturalistic mechanisms.

The source was Wikipedia but you did not tell me where on Wiki it was.This is what I was requesting. I gave my sources, it is your turn.

Dizredux

 

[Kylie]

Evolution is one of the oldest religions in the world. The latest version of evolutionary dogma was cooked up in masonic lodges by Erasmus Darwin and his buddies, so yea, may as well have been thought up drunk at a pub. And all of this was just a rehash of the evolutionary mysticism promoted by the ancient greeks.

You're absolutely lost if you think Evolution's roots are scientific.

Erasmus Darwin - Temple of Nature 1803

Ere Time began, from flaming Chaos hurl'd
Rose the bright spheres, which form the circling world;
Earths from each sun with quick explosions burst,
And second planets issued from the first.
Then, whilst the sea at their coeval birth,
Surge over surge, involv'd the shoreless earth;
Nurs'd by warm sun-beams in primeval caves
Organic Life began beneath the waves.

Organic Life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.

1803 is the oldest you can get? Please, nearly every religion in the world is older than that. Don't get your information about evolution from creationist sources. They can't be relied on for accurate information.

 

[Kylie]

Apparently you missed an earlier post of mine responding to the guesses an suppositions concerning the flatworm, so I'll repost it. The typical phrases were used by the scientests who came up with the guesses.....

"It may well be"

"This may mean"

"based on the assumption"

"using a software program to create an evolutionary road map that showed the most likely relationships among the organisms"

"researchers don't know yet the details of when or how this other change occurred"

"may be"

This folks is a perfect example of the subjective 'evidence' of those who embrace Darwinist creationism. The maybes, could be's and might have beens aren't evidence, but simply the faith based beliefs of those who believe humans are the result of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism acting upon these life forms who are "simple bilaterian, unsegmented, soft-bodied invertebrate animals. Unlike other bilaterians, they have no body cavity, and no specialized circulatory and respiratory organs, which restricts them to flattened shapes that allow oxygen and nutrients to pass through their bodies by diffusion."

That doesn't mean that they are making it up.

The "assumption" would be like the assumption that a dropped hammer falls due to gravity. You can't prove it isn't falling by the actions of magical invisible fairies, but you can safely assume that it is gravity because it fits in with known behaviours of objects in gravity.

And the same goes for "most likely".

So stop trying to make it sound like it's a wild guess. It is not. It is very well supported.

 

[justlookinla]

Do you actually want science text books to discuss evolution in terms of which god was involved and how? Or peer-reviewed journal articles? I sure don't.

Me either!! I certainly don't want the pseudo-science of Darwinist creationism to be equated with science.

 

[justlookinla]

Oh! So you wanted me to C&P the whole statement so I wouldn't quote mine it. But you just did what you told me not to do. That is why I insisted you go to the site and read the entire statement. You copied the confession of faith without providing context. So, I will provide what is stated directly above that.
"Evolution statement

In light of recent developments regarding the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in public schools, the Office of Theology and Worship offers the following, the Presbyterian Church U.S. 1969 GA-approved theological statement on the subject.
EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE

Primary Reference: GA Minutes 1969: 59-62
Denomination: PCUS
Conclusion from the Study
Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory. Scripture states that "out of the ground" the Lord God formed every beast, Genesis 2:19, and "of the dust of the ground" the Lord God formed man, Genesis 2:7. Genesis 1 teaches that according to the Word of God there came into being Light, Firmament (called Heaven), the Earth and the Seas. Then, God said: "Let the waters bring forth" and "Let the earth bring forth." After the creation of Light, the Firmament and the Earth, after the Earth and the Waters brought forth plant, aquatic and animal life, then God said: "Let us make man." This man, Adam, meaning both a man and man, is by nature both individual and corporate. The name Adam is simply a generic term for man brought forth from the Earth. Genesis 1 describes Creation as taking place in six days; however, it is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of Creation. Our Confession of Faith says:"


The follows the confession of faith which you posted. Furthermore, I will provide a statement from the Nationial Center for Science Education concerning that statement:


"On June 20 the 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), meeting in Columbus, Ohio, passed the following resolution:

"The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA)

"1. Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and the Reformed Confessions.

"2. Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.

"3. Encourages State Boards of Education across the nation to establish standards for science education in Public Schools based on the most reliable content of scientific knowledge as determined by the scientific community.

"4. Calls upon Presbyterian scientists and science educators to assist congregations, presbyteries, communities, and the public to understand what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge."



Essentially what they are saying is that God is still the creator, but Genesis doesn't specify exactly how that was done and that they see no conflict with that creation being through evolution.

Could you point out where they agree with the Darwinist creationism view that mankind was created solely, only, totally, completely by naturalistic processes? Especially the part about God as the creator?

They're two diametrically opposed views, one teaches absolutely no mechanisms needed to create humanity other than naturalistic mechanisms. The other teaches that only naturalistic mechanisms cannot create humanity.

 

[justlookinla]

The source was Wikipedia but you did not tell me where on Wiki it was.This is what I was requesting. I gave my sources, it is your turn.

Dizredux

Right, I gave my source, Wikipedia. If you're interested in further reading, simply search for the quote.

 

[justlookinla]

That doesn't mean that they are making it up.

The "assumption" would be like the assumption that a dropped hammer falls due to gravity. You can't prove it isn't falling by the actions of magical invisible fairies, but you can safely assume that it is gravity because it fits in with known behaviours of objects in gravity.

And the same goes for "most likely".

So stop trying to make it sound like it's a wild guess. It is not. It is very well supported.

Dress it up however you wish, under the cloak there is the body of guesses and suppositions.

 

[ob77]

AV has an idea regarding embedded age, which he uses to explain how the Earth can be billions of years old while only having existed for 6000 years. Apparently it involves age being something that can be put into an object, somehow.

Now, I have a question about how all this works.

Firstly, AV has said that the embedding of age into the universe happened in creation week.

Secondly, AV has said that fossils came AFTER creation week.

However, that means that age could not have been embedded into fossils because they came about after the process of age embedding had finished.

My question is this: if age has not been embedded into fossils (as per the two points above), why do they date to be much older than 6000 years?

Because the "days" are not 24hr periods to begin with. Peter refers to the three earth ages and the "world that was", which was a different age.
The greek refers to those days as eons....multiple long periods of time.
The Assyrian recorded histories go back to about 72,000 years, to the time of the wars in heaven between the "chaos monster, Lucifer and and God of the Heavens, Murdock. This was way before Adam's appearance on the earth. See the 31st chapter of Ezekiel, Where God tells Pharaoh, that he was a great and mighty empire when God was preparing the garden for Adam.
Where the bible says that the earth was created "void and without form" -the Hebrew, "Tohu- vah - bohu", which means, became that way, not created that way. You will find this same phrase in the 4th chapter of Jeremiah.
The earth is billions of years old. God does things naturally and is not in a hurry, as noted in how long it has taken us at present to become the pieces of crap we are today. The previous ages belong to the fossilized remains of the dinosaurs. Tohu - vah - bohu is the times long past where before Lemuria and Atlantis sunk. I do not believe as some to write an entire book about a subject, I get to the point and get out. You or anyone else can send me a personal response to get a reply.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dress it up however you wish, under the cloak there is the body of guesses and suppositions.

You always make this claim, but when you are faced with the actual science you can't point to the guesses and suppositions.

 

[bhsmte]

You always make this claim, but when you are faced with the actual science you can't point to the guesses and suppositions.

He has done so for a couple of months. I would expect this trend to continue.

 

[justlookinla]

He has done so for a couple of months. I would expect this trend to continue.

Yes, the trend is going to continue!

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, the trend is going to continue!

So you will continue to lie and claim that theories are made up of guesses and suppositions, and you will refuse to discuss the actual science that exposes your lies?

 

[Kylie]

Dress it up however you wish, under the cloak there is the body of guesses and suppositions.

You have no idea how science actually works, do you? All you've got is a strawman. What you describe has no relation to actual science.

 

[Kylie]

Because the "days" are not 24hr periods to begin with. Peter refers to the three earth ages and the "world that was", which was a different age.
The greek refers to those days as eons....multiple long periods of time.
The Assyrian recorded histories go back to about 72,000 years, to the time of the wars in heaven between the "chaos monster, Lucifer and and God of the Heavens, Murdock. This was way before Adam's appearance on the earth. See the 31st chapter of Ezekiel, Where God tells Pharaoh, that he was a great and mighty empire when God was preparing the garden for Adam.
Where the bible says that the earth was created "void and without form" -the Hebrew, "Tohu- vah - bohu", which means, became that way, not created that way. You will find this same phrase in the 4th chapter of Jeremiah.
The earth is billions of years old. God does things naturally and is not in a hurry, as noted in how long it has taken us at present to become the pieces of crap we are today. The previous ages belong to the fossilized remains of the dinosaurs. Tohu - vah - bohu is the times long past where before Lemuria and Atlantis sunk. I do not believe as some to write an entire book about a subject, I get to the point and get out. You or anyone else can send me a personal response to get a reply.

Tell this to AV...

 

[RickG]

So you will continue to lie and claim that theories are made up of guesses and suppositions, and you will refuse to discuss the actual science that exposes your lies?

It's really difficult for me to understand why some people want to seemingly discuss science, but refuse to look at the numerous deliberate misrepresentations when they are shown. And why would anyone want to support such behavior.

I can understand why a person would want to cling to a 6,000 years old earth, and I have no problem with that. The problem I have is when this young earth belief is supported by erroneous information that is so easily shown to be erroneous, if not out right misrepresented.