Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How do you know embedded age does not include scars?
What does age have to do with scarring?
So says Philip Gosse.Philip Gosse...
So evolution is NOT Omphalos as there is absolutely no attempt to make things older than they appear.
I asked if mtDNA Eve and y-Adam had belly buttons.See? You've got it the wrong way round, AV! If the idea of Omphalos applies to the earth being created in the act of developing, with trees having rings etc., the same would certainly apply to Adam and Eve and therefore they would have been born with navels.
More importantly, does Santa Claus have a belly button?Do they, or do they not, have belly buttons?
Santa Claus didn't start this mtDNA and y- stuff.More importantly, does Santa Claus have a belly button?
Mike Elphick said:Philip Gosse...
So evolution is NOT Omphalos as there is absolutely no attempt to make things older than they appear.
So says Philip Gosse.
Henry Morris says otherwise, and so does C.I. Scofield, Charles Ryrie, et al.
AV1611VET said:Mike Elphick said:See? You've got it the wrong way round, AV! If the idea of Omphalos applies to the earth being created in the act of developing, with trees having rings etc., the same would certainly apply to Adam and Eve and therefore they would have been born with navels.
I asked if mtDNA Eve and y-Adam had belly buttons.
And I couldn't care less if they are considered the earliest humans found, the latest humans found, or anywhere in between; nor do I care if they are single individuals, or the entire planet.
Do they, or do they not, have belly buttons?
Who cares what Henry Morris said? Now you are giving up on what the Bible says, and going with Henry Morris??Henry Morris says otherwise, and so does C.I. Scofield, Charles Ryrie, et al.I asked if mtDNA Eve and y-Adam had belly buttons.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For cryin out loud, they had belly buttons!!!And I couldn't care less if they are considered the earliest humans found, the latest humans found, or anywhere in between; nor do I care if they are single individuals, or the entire planet.
Do they, or do they not, have belly buttons?
I asked if mtDNA Eve and y-Adam had belly buttons.
And I couldn't care less if they are considered the earliest humans found, the latest humans found, or anywhere in between; nor do I care if they are single individuals, or the entire planet.
Do they, or do they not, have belly buttons?
According to evolution, the first man on the planet had to have a navel --- no ifs, ands, or buttons about it.Yes, they had belly buttons. Though I fail to see the relevance of this or how you could possibly use it in one of your semantic arguments.
According to evolution, the first man on the planet had to have a navel --- no ifs, ands, or buttons about it.
But according to Genesis 1, the first man on the planet did not require one; and, in fact, sound doctrine teaches he did not.
According to evolution, the first man on the planet had to have a navel --- no ifs, ands, or buttons about it.
But according to Genesis 1, the first man on the planet did not require one; and, in fact, sound doctrine teaches he did not.
It's the word of AV, therefore you don't need Bible verses to back it up.
According to evolution, the first man on the planet had to have a navel --- no ifs, ands, or buttons about it.
But according to Genesis 1, the first man on the planet did not require one;
Evolution is Omphalos, in that the first man and woman would have belly buttons.
Whereas the Adam and Eve of the Bible would not, and that fact would be a testimony to their progeny.
The Omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable. The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to light that appears to originate in far-off stars and galaxies (although other creationists reject this explanation).
...and, in fact, sound doctrine teaches he did not.
When God created Adam and Eve in mature form, the day they were created they might have appeared to be, say, 30 years old. But God wouldn't want or need to create the appearance of a false history, any more than the mature trees created by God would have had growth rings initially. Those are things which would develop in their offspring as a result of processes later on.
No misunderstanding, my friend.Which is why AV claims over and over that he is not a YEC and that in fact everyone is a creationist in some respect, which is to say, he likes playing with words, probably why there was that "misunderstanding" with Omphalos.
No misunderstanding, my friend.
Omphalos = navel
y-Adam had a navel
y-Adam = Omphalos
You need to realize that Omphalism necessitates a false history.
Evolution, from the perspective of YEC and Embedded Age = false history.
No misunderstanding, my friend.
Omphalos = navel
y-Adam had a navel
y-Adam = Omphalos
You need to realize that Omphalism necessitates a false history.
Evolution, from the perspective of YEC and Embedded Age = false history.
Mike Elphick said:Please don't make yourself seem even more uninformed by twisting the Omphalos hypothesis to mean 'embedded age', because that's the OPPOSITE of what the hypothesis is all about - it's actually making an excuse for observed embedded age.
Don't worry --- if anyone knows the difference --- I do.
QV please: 260 and 18.
AV1611VET said:FishFace said:1. Is there a meaningful distinction between "embedded age" and "embedded history?"
Yes
FishFace said:2. What do they each mean?
Embedded age = maturity w/o history; embedded history = maturity with history.
FishFace said:3. Do they mean anything other than the appearance of being old?
Yes; embedded age is having maturity w/o a past; embedded history is having maturity with a past you didn't live.
FishFace said:4. If so, is embedded age meaningfully distinct from actual age?
Yes; in the area of having a history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?