"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

AV1611VET · Mar 6, 2009

Hespera said:
It is stone obvious that the fossils were added later. It is not for us to ask why / how.

I don't mind people asking why/how --- but when I answer with what I think is the right answer and then get accused of not answering --- that's childish.

That "3) ?????" didn't set well with me.

ragarth · Mar 6, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I don't mind people asking why/how --- but when I answer with what I think is the right answer and then get accused of not answering --- that's childish.

That "3) ?????" didn't set well with me.

It was to illustrate that without providing a method to counter the already provided method of the opposing argument, your argument has no legs to stand on. If that doesn't set well with you, well I'm sorry. I can't help it if that's a hollow apology though, because the fact is I don't always like the arguments people use against me, but that doesn't change their validity or effectiveness against me.

AV1611VET · Mar 6, 2009

ragarth said:
It was to illustrate that without providing a method to counter the already provided method of the opposing argument, your argument has no legs to stand on.

However you justify it, I thought it was a little immature.

I'm trying my best to answer you guys' questions (for about the third time), and I don't need that stuff.

People already think I'm some kind of supertroll or something, and all you guys want to do is belittle me.

If you think it's easy defending the faith --- try sitting on this side of the keyboard for a change.

/pout

ragarth · Mar 6, 2009

AV1611VET said:
However you justify it, I thought it was a little immature.

I'm trying my best to answer you guys' questions (for about the third time), and I don't need that stuff.

People already think I'm some kind of supertroll or something, and all you guys want to do is belittle me.

If you think it's easy defending the faith --- try sitting on this side of the keyboard for a change.

/pout

I have. Before I took off to concentrate on college I had a thread going in morals & ethics where people could pose arguments against creationism and I'd attempt to defend them. Arguing for the opposition is an effective way to explore and challenge your own ideas. I usually read opposition literature (I've read Michael Behe, but have never read Dawkins), but when I do read literature that I agree with, I'm very critical about it and question it as if it were opposition.

AV1611VET · Mar 6, 2009

ragarth said:
I have. Before I took off to concentrate on college I had a thread going in morals & ethics where people could pose arguments against creationism and I'd attempt to defend them. Arguing for the opposition is an effective way to explore and challenge your own ideas.

Stuff like this: 3. ????? --- is no way to carry on a mature debate.

That was a direct accusation that I didn't answer the question --- despite the fact that I not only answered it, but even qv'd you to it, earlier.

That was nothing more than an attempt to get lurkers to think I don't answer questions.

I said it before, and I'll say it again --- I currently don't think I have one question outstanding (pending) that I haven't answered at least twice --- some as much as 30 times.

ragarth · Mar 6, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Stuff like this: 3. ????? --- is no way to carry on a mature debate.

That was a direct accusation that I didn't answer the question --- despite the fact that I not only answered it, but even qv'd you to it, earlier.

That was nothing more than an attempt to get lurkers to think I don't answer questions.

I said it before, and I'll say it again --- I currently don't think I have one question outstanding (pending) that I haven't answered at least twice --- some as much as 30 times.

AV1611VET said:
Assuming that you are right --- and a fossil of a leaf has been found in anthracite --- my answer is simply, "I don't know how it got there" --- BUT, I don't think the Scriptures are totally silent on some issues, and I think there's enough information in God's Diary that it can be ascertained, or at least be explained with an educated guess.

Therefore --- qv. please 189 .

AV1611VET said:
Why, of course --- how could I have forgotten that?Oops! Forgot that too, didn't I?I forgot to ask Him that one.Oh. Finally --- something I did do!

Yay, me!Hmmm --- despite the fact that there was a race of angels on the earth for a couple thousand years?

Angels who created a race of giants --- and men of reknown?You know what "reknown" means, don't you, Split Rock?

Like --- "had in reputation".

As in men like --- famous scientists --- as in geologists --- as in half-man/half-angel supergeologists?

Nevermind --- I can hear someone laughing clear over here.Incorrect.

That was you're answer when I asked this:

ragarth said:
Okay, I get your position now. Speaking specifically about anthracite, your position is that it was *not* created with fossils in it, but that the fossils were later added. So the question is then, what is the method by which a piece of anthracite can have a fossil of a leaf inside it without that fossil of the leaf having been put in the anthracite during creation? This is the question that naturally arises since you are positing that the fossils did not originate during creation week but that the anthracite coal itself did.

So you're answer was 'I don't know' and referencing a thread that had little to do with the question I posed. How is this in any way answering the question at hand? I'll tell you what, don't even worry about it, I'm slipping out of this thread again. 'I don't know' is not a valid answer to back up your claim unless you're willing to drop your claim and either 1) rebuild it or 2) research it.

MoonLancer · Mar 6, 2009

AV you have a few outstanding questions that you may have think you answered but for the rest of us, was not sufficient. please answer them, and DONT QV. If your faith is worth defending you will type out the answer in a dignified and respectable way.

If God created coal/rock 6000 years ago, Why are their fossils in it that show a much older history?

If God did not create fossils within the coal/rock at the same time, how did these fossils find their way into the coal/rock? what method should one use to find out when these creatures actually fossilized?

BananaSlug · Mar 6, 2009

AV1611VET said:
No, I don't ---Let me repeat: the earth is 4.57 billion years old --- that contradicts what I highlighted in red above.

Perhaps you don't understand. If you believe the earth was created in 4004 B.C. you are a Young Earth Creationist now matter how "old" the earth was created to appear.

No kidding?Then get out your calculator and do it yourself --- report back when you have the updated figure.

If you cared to do any research on ancient Hebrew culture, you would know that the word "beget" does not mean "became the father of." If my great-grandchild gave birth to a baby boy, I still "beget" him because he is my direct descendant.

The Jews did not use the word son in a limited sense, as we do today.
Matthew 1:1 states Jesus was the "son of David, the son of Abraham." This appears to indicate that David was the father of Jesus, and Abraham was his grandfather. A Jew would have understood that Matthew did not mean there was only one generation between these men; but that Jesus was a descendant of David, who was a descendant of Abraham. This fact is born out in the verses that follow (Matthew 1:2-17).
In the Jewish mind, the word son could be applied to one who was not a literal, first generation son, as is commonly understood today. It could mean a descendant; which could be a grandson, great grandson, or son of a more distant generation.
The custom of skipping generations can be called "genealogical abridgement."

Genealogical abridgement occurs not only in Matthew 1:1, but also in the Old Testament. Compare Ezra 7:3 with 1st Chronicles 6:7-10, and you can see how Ezra deliberately skipped six generations from Meriaoth to Azariah (son of Johanan).
Son could also be used to describe kinship without sonship. Although Zerubbabel was the nephew of Shealtiel (1st Chronicles 3:17-19), he was called the "son of Shealtiel" (Ezra 3:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:12).
Jair is another example of this principle. He was a distant son-in-law of Manasseh (1st Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15); yet, he was called the "son of Manasseh" (Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14, 1st Kings 4:13).
The point to remember is that the word son can be applied to several types of relationships.

Thanks for the correct --- the universe has been functioning in less time than I thought.

Uh-huh --- and I'm Genghis Khan.

I'm sure Genghis Khan was nowhere near as stubborn.

No, these little things called fossils do not show a history. Just like skeletons in a graveyard don't show a thing (other than the fact that death is real), fossils don't show a thing --- and they aren't even skeletons --- they're impressions of things.Because they're found in rock older than 6000 years --- that's why.

No, skeletons in a graveyard do show a history. Some may belong to older people, some may belong to younger people. Some will show signs of crippling disease, some will be relatively disease free. The bones themselves also show a history of the individual to whom they belonged to.
And skeletal fossils are bones that have become permeated with minerals. Skeletal fossils are not impressions, they are fossilized bone.

And until you learn that Adam and Eve lived on a planet that was 4.57 billion years old (minus 6012 years) --- and stop calling me a YEC --- you're going to have this problem.

Sorry, if the earth was created in 4004B.C. then you are a YEC no matter how old the earth was created.

Again, even skeletons in a graveyard can't prove when the graveyard was built; and there is no such a thing as 600 million years of fossil "history".

Yes but we can take various clues from the skeletons to find out the time frame of when the graveyard was "open." And there is such thing as 600 million years of fossil history. We've found fossils in rock much older than 6,000 years.

If I went out and imprinted a leaf on a 30-million-year old rock, would you assume a 30-million-year history?No, it doesn't --- but I'm tired of hearing you guys beg.

I guarantee we could tell the difference between a 30million year old rock with a carved leaf imprint vs a 30 million year old rock with a 30 million year old leaf imprint.

BananaSlug · Mar 6, 2009

AV1611VET said:
B is my answer --- I believe God created coal and oil in the earth during the Creation Week.

Then how on earth do we get dinosaur footprints in coal!? The flood supposedly killed every creature that lived on land, and then the coal was covered with vast amounts of sediment from said flood, since it was created during the flood.

AV1611VET · Mar 6, 2009

BananaSlug said:
Perhaps you don't understand.

Believe me, I understand quite well --- it's you who make a mistake almost every time you post here.

Including a glaring one in your OP.

BananaSlug said:
If you believe the earth was created in 4004 B.C. you are a Young Earth Creationist now matter how "old" the earth was created to appear.

I thought that made me Omphalos?

OP said:
Embedded age theology is indistinguishable from Omphalos:

I've spent a large part of this thread correcting you --- and the rest repeating myself.

Even others have attempted to correct you.

The bottom line is, you have no idea what you're talking about.

BananaSlug said:
If you cared to do any research on ancient Hebrew culture, you would know that the word "beget" does not mean "became the father of." If my great-grandchild gave birth to a baby boy, I still "beget" him because he is my direct descendant.

And if you read Genesis 5, not only does it say A begat B, but it says how much time transpired between the time A was born and when B was born, and when B was born, and when A died. Leaving no room for generation gaps --- not to mention Jude corroborating Enoch as the "seventh from Adam".

AV1611VET · Mar 6, 2009

BananaSlug said:
Then how on earth do we get dinosaur footprints in coal!? The flood supposedly killed every creature that lived on land, and then the coal was covered with vast amounts of sediment from said flood, since it was created during the flood.

I'm sorry --- I'm not going to spend an inordinately large amount of time here anymore repeating and explaining myself to you.

I didn't realize how little theology you know, or I would not have spent nearly as much time here.

BananaSlug · Mar 6, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Believe me, I understand quite well --- it's you who make a mistake almost every time you post here.

Please feel free to QV the posts where I clearly made a mistake and I will gladly correct them.

Including a glaring one in your OP.

As I just stated, please show my glaring mistake that seemed to only be notices by you.

I thought that made me Omphalos?

It does. "Embedded age" and Omphalos are just attempts to explain away why all of the evidence is against a young earth.

I've spent a large part of this thread correcting you --- and the rest repeating myself.

When have you corrected me? You have completely ignored the fossil question I posited to you. If rock was created at the time of creation to be 250 million years old, why are there fossils (or fossil impressions) in said 250 million year old rock?

Even others have attempted to correct you.

Please tell me how many people have tried to correct me. As I remember you and Juvinessun are the only two. And I also remember that both Juvinessun and dad have questioned your beloved "embedded age."

The bottom line is, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, you're right. What a waste of several years and $30,000 worth of student loans to get a higher education. I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. I only have a Bachelor's in Biology and spent my entire life in a Southern Baptist church and therefore have idea what I'm talking about.

And if you read Genesis 5, not only does it say A begat B, but it says how much time transpired between the time A was born and when B was born, and when B was born, and when A died. Leaving no room for generation gaps --- not to mention Jude corroborating Enoch as the "seventh from Adam".

Oops, you just strayed from Genesis 1!

Genesis 5
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. 3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. 7 After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.
9 Enosh lived ninety years, and begot Cainan.[a] 10 After he begot Cainan, Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and had sons and daughters. 11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.
12 Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Mahalalel. 13 After he begot Mahalalel, Cainan lived eight hundred and forty years, and had sons and daughters. 14 So all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.
15 Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and begot Jared. 16 After he begot Jared, Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years, and had sons and daughters. 17 So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died.
18 Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch. 19 After he begot Enoch, Jared lived eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters. 20 So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died.
21 Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah. 22 After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24 And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
25 Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and begot Lamech. 26 After he begot Lamech, Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.
28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son. 29 And he called his name Noah, saying, “This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD has cursed.” 30 After he begot Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, and had sons and daughters. 31 So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.
32 And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

1 Timothy 1:4
neither to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, the which minister questionings, rather than a dispensation of God which is in faith; so do I now.

And too bad no one has been able to figure out how long A&E were in the garden before God kicked them out. And the Bible still specifically does not say how old the earth is. It does say how old Judaism is though.

AV, I feel that I have given plenty of evidence against "embedded age."
1. The earth was created in 4004B.C. with 4.5 billion years of "embedded age."
2. Any rock dated and found to be older than 6,000 years was created older (250 million year old rock was created in 4004B.C. to be 250million years old).
3. There is no evidence of history older than 6,000 years.
4. There are fossils in 250 million year old rock.

Plus, no coal was created during the flood since the youngest coal (lignite) was formed around 50-70 million years ago. Obviously all coal that we've found has "embedded age" placed into it during Genesis 1.

BananaSlug · Mar 6, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I'm sorry --- I'm not going to spend an inordinately large amount of time here anymore repeating and explaining myself to you.

I'm still waiting for something of substance.

I didn't realize how little theology you know, or I would not have spent nearly as much time here.

Seeing as most of the stuff you expouse is not true theology but your own personal opinion based on extra-Biblical interpretations to justify your literal translation of the Genesis Creation story then I'll take that as a compliment.
As I recall, I actually know a good bit about theology because every time I asked you a difficult theological question you always prefered to "/thread" than answer it.
If I know so little about theology then it should be easy for me to accept "embedded age" since to me it flies in the face of everything the Bible says about God. I guess the fact that I have 4 different uncles who are ordained ministers (3 Presbyterian, 1 Baptist) that I have grown up with (and were honest with me when they couldn't answer my questions instead of trying to make up crap) says a lot about my knowledge of theology, doesn't it?
I'm sure I couldn't tell you anything about transubstantiation or the difference between Calvinist vs Armenian doctrine or even about Martin Luther's 50 Theses and the Protestant Reformation. I don't know squat about the different names of God (and I recall that you told one of those names to "take a hike") and I know diddley about Gnosticism vs. Traditional Christianity.

No AV, I say I actually know MORE about theology than you do...

MoonLancer · Mar 6, 2009

perhaps then you can answer this

AV you have a few outstanding questions that you may have think you answered but for the rest of us, was not sufficient. please answer them, and DONT QV. If your faith is worth defending you will type out the answer in a dignified and respectable way.

If God created coal/rock 6000 years ago, Why are their fossils in it that show a much older history?

If God did not create fossils within the coal/rock at the same time, how did these fossils find their way into the coal/rock? what method should one use to find out when these creatures actually fossilized?

corvus_corax · Mar 6, 2009

MoonLancer said:
AV you have a few outstanding questions that you may have think you answered but for the rest of us, was not sufficient. please answer them, and DONT QV. If your faith is worth defending you will type out the answer in a dignified and respectable way.

If God created coal/rock 6000 years ago, Why are their fossils in it that show a much older history?

If God did not create fossils within the coal/rock at the same time, how did these fossils find their way into the coal/rock? what method should one use to find out when these creatures actually fossilized?

Hmmmmm
I was wondering why AV didn't address (or, perhaps, did ignore) your post.
After all, he addressed posts that were created after yours
Odd, yes?

Tomk80 · Mar 7, 2009

I'm going to throw this out here once more, since I don't think anyone has yet. AV states that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. However, the way that age is calculated by scientist is by isochron dating, a method which would only work if there was an actual history.

Just so everyone understands how untenable AV's position really is.

AV1611VET · Mar 7, 2009

corvus_corax said:
Hmmmmm
I was wondering why AV didn't address (or, perhaps, did ignore) your post.
After all, he addressed posts that were created after yours
Odd, yes?

Either that, or I already answered it in post 189, then referenced it in posts 193 and 197.

juvenissun · Mar 7, 2009

Tomk80 said:
I'm going to throw this out here once more, since I don't think anyone has yet. AV states that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. However, the way that age is calculated by scientist is by isochron dating, a method which would only work if there was an actual history.

Not at all. You do not know the principle of an isochron and get it all reversed.
It should be: because we get an isochron, so we give it a history.

AV1611VET · Mar 7, 2009

juvenissun said:
Not at all. You do not know the principle of an isochron and get it all reversed.
It should be: because we get an isochron, so we give it a history.

Have you noticed, Juvenissun, how these guys don't want the Creation taught in school because it's not science; then, when I agree with them that it's not science, it's history --- they balk at that, saying it's science --- and then, when you go to discuss it, they bring up history in the form of isochron dating and dendochronology?

These guys truly are confused.

Cabal · Mar 7, 2009

Tomk80 said:
I'm going to throw this out here once more, since I don't think anyone has yet. AV states that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. However, the way that age is calculated by scientist is by isochron dating, a method which would only work if there was an actual history.

Just so everyone understands how untenable AV's position really is.

That's why I mentioned the tree - all we need to find is one piece of evidence of age appearing greater than 6100 years and things start to get uncomfortable. Embedded history ahoy.

"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Life is an experiment, experience it!

Life is an experiment, experience it!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Life is an experiment, experience it!

Life is an experiment, experience it!

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Titleless

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

... and God saw that it was good.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency