Adam and Eve

[Tiberius]

Y Adam is the earliest male who is related to all modern humans if you trace the line of parentage back through males. Mit-Eve is the same, but the female version.

And regardless of what others think about AV's idea of embedded age, I'm trying to get an understanding of what he believes.

 

[hangback]

Did y-Adam and mtDNA Eve have belly buttons?

While we're talking about fictitious characters, did y-Hanzel and mtDNA Gretel have belly buttons?

He's not talking biblical adam and eve, he's talking the first living things to have a y chromosome and mitochondria (separate entities)

Um, Mitochondrial-Eve and Y-Chromosomal-Adam aren't fictional... They are theoretical individuals that are predicted by modern genetics.

Y Adam is the earliest male who is related to all modern humans if you trace the line of parentage back through males. Mit-Eve is the same, but the female version.

So the answer to AV1611VETs question is therefore YES they did have belly buttons, because no matter what came before them they were both born to the female of whatever it was called, Ape or Biped.
What is all of this embedded age nonsense?

 

[AV1611VET]

According to both definitions (specifically definition c from Webster's) age requires the passage of time; it is a measurement. Using proper English, the age of the universe AV describes is 6000 years.

I made it clear that I'm using definition #4 from answers.com

If you want to play the Telephone Game and change it, this will be the outcome:

"Embedded Age" is nothing more then a word game.

 

[AV1611VET]

While we're talking about fictitious characters, did y-Hanzel and mtDNA Gretel have belly buttons?

Yup --- make your jokes.

That's why we keep repeating ourselves.

 

[AV1611VET]

Um, Mitochondrial-Eve and Y-Chromosomal-Adam aren't fictional... They are theoretical individuals that are predicted by modern genetics.

Um ... I was under the impression they are quite real.

 

[Wedjat]

They are AV, you're just misunderstanding his usage of the word theoretical.

Theoretical is not guess. It's like seeing tire tracks in the mud, you can ascertain beyond reasonable doubt that some sort of vehicle drove over the mud at some point. The vehicle is quite real, despite the fact that it's "theoretical".

 

[Tiberius]

AV, please don't forget my question...

 

[Freodin]

I made it clear that I'm using definition #4 from answers.com

If you want to play the Telephone Game and change it, this will be the outcome:

Not only do you limit the definition to one special instance and ignore any other definitions (which do, as well as the one you use, include the passing of time), you even misuse the definition you use.

defintion #4 from answers.com is "The state of being old; old age: hair white with age."

That refers - correctly - to old age. "Old" is here used as a time-relative adjective, referring to the general "livespan" of the object in question.

So if that is the one and only definition you use and accept, you have again contradicted yourself. A 30 year old is not "old" in that sense, and thus Adam was not embedded "age".

 

[Cabal]

Yup --- make your jokes.

That's why we keep repeating ourselves.

We're only joining in with the fun, that whole creationism thing was a great starter joke.

 

[sbvera13]

I made it clear that I'm using definition #4 from answers.com

age: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

4. The state of being old; old age: hair white with age.

That's a rather vague definition; it explains nothing relevent to your argument. Probably why you like it, makes it easy for you to invent whatever meaning you'd like. So what definition do you want to use for "old"?

 

[Tiberius]

Thanks. Now, another question...

Now imagine two universes. One was created 6000 or so years ago as we said just now with the "embedded age" of billions of years, and the other has actually existed for those billions of years (it was created/came into being/whatever term applies to this particular universe all those billions of years ago - for the sake of a term, we'll call this "actual age").

Is there anything that could happen in the universe with the embedded age (that was created by God 6000 years ago) that could not happen in the universe with actual age (that was created billions of years ago)?

Don't forget this, AV...

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't forget this, AV...

I'm ignoring that one, too --- I'm choosey.

 

[Tiberius]

Why? It's a perfectly valid question.

However, let me answer it for you. You'll be welcome to tell me that I am wrong, provided you tell me why I am wrong.

You yourself have said several times that there's no evidence that the world was created by God 6000 years ago, apart from the Bible. If it wasn't for the Bible, all our investigations would show that the world is billions of years old.

However, if there was something that could happen in a universe that was created only 6000 years ago with embedded age that could NOT happen in a billions of years old universe, then this would violate your position.

So, your claim that there's no evidence apart from the Bible for a 6000 year old universe indicates that anything that can happen in a universe created 6000 years ago with embedded age can also happen in a universe that is billions of years old.

Would you agree with this? If you don't agree, why not?

 

[Tiberius]

I guess his lack of an answer means I am right...

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Clever answer, if you're thinking evolutionarily...so what was the first creature to have a belly button, then, just out of curiosity?

I don't mean to necro this post but I was just browsing around and thought I'd look into this. Took google about 0.11 seconds to return this result for me

Earliest Known Ancestor of Placental Mammals Discovered

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I guess his lack of an answer means I am right...

That's a good question you posed. A universe that is 14billion years old and a universe that is 6000 years old with 14billion years of embedded age would be indistinguishable to science. That's why creationists shouldn't get their panties in a wad when SCIENCE teachers teach students about what SCIENCE tells. Sure, the earth could be 6,000 years old with embedded age, or we could all be living in a week-old hologram designed to look 14 billion years old. But science can only deal with what can be observed, tested, and falsified.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is worth reigniting:
​

Can God create an object --- tomorrow --- such that it falls apart with age the next day?

 

[pgp_protector]

God can't do anything against his nature.
Is your God deceptive?

 

[AV1611VET]

God can't do anything against his nature.
Is your God deceptive?

No ... why would making something so old tomorrow that it falls apart the next day be an act of deception?

(Especially if it was documented.)

 

[Tomatoman]

I guess his lack of an answer means I am right...

Yes, AV frequently abandons threads and arguments when he is forced on the defensive. When asked a direct question where an answer would reveal how idiotic his position is he tends to ignore it. Either that or he posts a random bible quote, which amounts to the same thing. He does this repeatedly.