"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

AnotherAtheist · Jul 5, 2018

dad said:
Science not realizing it is inspired, does not mean it is not inspired.

No. But science being inspired only by human thought, with no divine intervention, completely explains everything we see in science. If you could provide evidence of any divine being that could inspire science, or that such inspiration has happened, then you might have something to claim. If we don't have to back up claims with evidence, then wouldn't a claim that the world is ruled by superintelligent oysters that control us (including science) by mind-control be just as plausible. More plausible really, as we know that oysters exist as does the sea that they live in.

I tend to look at the results...the fruit. Does the fables and origin stories garner faith in God, or doubt?

For quite a number of people, studying the Bible carefully and really understanding what it says was the main cause of their atheism. E.g. Matt Dillahunty.

Also, if the ability of a book to garner faith in a religion shows it to be correct (is this your claim?), then wouldn't that make The Koran and the works of L Ron Hubbard true as they are able to garner faith?

Not all things it enables sinners to do are good for the planet..or mankind.

No, but can you name any system in the world which is solely good. Would you agree that an awful lot of evil is done in the world, inspired by religion?

The thing I said about science is that it enables us to do things. It doesn't actually mean that we do those things. E.g. science is right now enabling us to anticipate destructive changes to our climate due to human action. If we (as a species) fail to act appropriately and doom future generations to a severely damaged environment, that's not the fault of science. It's the fault of those who refused to accept the message.

Dog eat dog animalistic godless morals are not the best set on the block actually.

How so? Anyone who is godless can take the morality from (e.g.) The Bible, and then add better morals. E.g. not keeping slaves etc. Without a belief in a God preventing us from improving those morals and making them more suited to the modern world. So, Godless morals can easily be the best set on the block.

And where do you get your 'dog eat dog animalistic' from? Do you have any evidence that the Godless are any more 'dog eat dog animalistic' than the religious?

Paul of Eugene OR · Jul 5, 2018

AnotherAtheist said:
. . . . And where do you get your 'dog eat dog animalistic' from? Do you have any evidence that the Godless are any more 'dog eat dog animalistic' than the religious?

Well the most organized example of strident atheism is communism, and under Stalin and Mao many evil things were done in its name. Of course, we can find examples of evil things done in the name of religion. The inquisition comes to mind.

AV1611VET · Jul 5, 2018

AnotherAtheist said:
For quite a number of people, studying the Bible carefully and really understanding what it says was the main cause of their atheism.

You too?

And are you bragging, or complaining?

And for the record, if you expect me to believe that, you can just start calling me Genghis Khan.

The Bible generates faith, not destroys it.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

AnotherAtheist said:
E.g. Matt Dillahunty.

Even Dillahunty says, "Take your opponent seriously."

I have some standard questions I love to ask unbelievers who claim they were Christians at one time; but seeing as I have posted them several times before, I won't do it here.

AnotherAtheist · Jul 5, 2018

AV1611VET said:
You too?

And are you bragging, or complaining?

And for the record, if you expect me to believe that, you can just start calling me Genghis Khan.

The Bible generates faith, not destroys it.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

So the Bible claims, but as in the example (Dillahunty) that I gave, it certainly doesn't work reliably. I've read lots of the Bible, as I always check context of verses I've been given. I've seen nothing that would cause me to have faith; quite the opposite. I've just read all of Romans 10, for example. What, in there, should make me think that this is not just a religious text written by people who are not in any way divinely inspired?

Here's another person reporting the same thing. https://ask.metafilter.com/115757/reading-the-bible-and-losing-faith

That link references the book Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker, describing a similar experience.

There seems to be a difference between what the Bible says, and what happens in real life. I can guess which one you will believe.

Even Dillahunty says, "Take your opponent seriously."

Which is a lot easier if your opponent can create a cogent argument and seriously address points.

I have some standard questions I love to ask unbelievers who claim they were Christians at one time; but seeing as I have posted them several times before, I won't do it here.

Well, I spent some time searching to see if I could find those questions (which I wouldn't answer because I was never a Christian - that's why I quoted Dillahunty not myself.)

dad · Jul 5, 2018

AnotherAtheist said:
No. But science being inspired only by human thought, with no divine intervention, completely explains everything we see in science.

If there was or was not a lot of Satanic/demonic inspiration involved in science, how would you know?? You must confess you have no way of knowing either way. Speak accordingly.

If you could provide evidence of any divine being that could inspire science, or that such inspiration has happened, then you might have something to claim.

provide to...who? God provided His Son and Scripture as proof. He works in hundreds of millions of little test tubes (believers) as we speak, and always has.
'
How would we provide something to narrow minded science, that accepts only approved little criteria as their religion sees fit?
Apparently he went the route of 'attending seminary... '

For quite a number of people, studying the Bible carefully and really understanding what it says was the main cause of their atheism. E.g. Matt Dillahunty.

Many folks call those cemeteries. Not usually a place to get faith but to lose it.

Also, if the ability of a book to garner faith in a religion shows it to be correct (is this your claim?), then wouldn't that make The Koran and the works of L Ron Hubbard true as they are able to garner faith?

I have faith in science and the koran, that they are inspired.(not by God) I also have faith in the One True Almighty creator God named Jesus. I have faith in a lot of things.

No, but can you name any system in the world which is solely good. Would you agree that an awful lot of evil is done in the world, inspired by religion?

If sin is in the world, then we would have good and evil done by man in any area he is involved in.

The thing I said about science is that it enables us to do things. It doesn't actually mean that we do those things. E.g. science is right now enabling us to anticipate destructive changes to our climate due to human action. If we (as a species) fail to act appropriately and doom future generations to a severely damaged environment, that's not the fault of science. It's the fault of those who refused to accept the message.

Man cannot save himself or the planet. Really. Did Hiroshima save the planet? Did the war to end all wars save the planet? Did the health care that perhaps most in the world can't afford save the planet?

How so? Anyone who is godless can take the morality from (e.g.) The Bible, and then add better morals.

No.

Old and new testaments are all about Jesus. His predicted coming, His life and death and Resurrection and return...etc. One cannot take Him out of the bible. Nor can you improve on Him!

E.g. not keeping slaves etc.

He came to set slaves free. The world He came to had plenty of slaves in it, in more ways than one. Being free is not limited to one's occupation. Paul was free in jail. Some people who think they are free are hopeless slaves.

Without a belief in a God preventing us from improving those morals and making them more suited to the modern world.

Your idea of improving is your idea. I am not about to hold your opinion over that of God.

And where do you get your 'dog eat dog animalistic' from? Do you have any evidence that the Godless are any more 'dog eat dog animalistic' than the religious?

I can think of one quick test!

Do you think you are an animal?

AV1611VET · Jul 5, 2018

AnotherAtheist said:
Well, I spent some time searching to see if I could find those questions (which I wouldn't answer because I was never a Christian - that's why I quoted Dillahunty not myself.)

You didn't say if you found them or not, so qv please:

AV1611VET said:
Excellent question for former Christians!

Also, why would they want to give up all this:

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

... for what anything else has to offer?

GrowingSmaller · Jul 6, 2018

gaara4158: ..."embedded age" is completely unfalsifiable.

AV1611VET: Ain't that a pity?

Must not be scientific, then.

My answer: I bet it is. What are your projections of embedded age based on if not falsifiable science? (eg. it could be found that dating techniques are faulty)

AV1611VET · Jul 6, 2018

GrowingSmaller said:
My answer: I bet it is. What are your projections of embedded age based on if not falsifiable science? (eg. it could be found that dating techniques are faulty)

You have a good point here.

I do believe certain dating techniques (such as dendrochronology and ice core sampling) are faulty, but only Jesus can show them wrong.

And one way He can do it is to take them back in time to 4004 BC and show them His father speaking the universe into existence.

Justatruthseeker · Jul 6, 2018

BananaSlug said:
"Embedded age" is a theological belief in how God created the earth. Just as God created all of the plants, animals and humans in a state of maturity, he created the earth with "embedded age." This allows them to believe the earth is only around 6,000 years old yet shows signs that it is 4.5 billion.

Embedded age theology is indistinguishable from Omphalos:

The book presented Philip Henry Gosse's attempt to resolve one of the great contradictions bedeviling naturalists of his day, namely, the apparent disagreement between the enormous age of the earth suggested by the geological record and the comparatively much shorter six-thousand-year age suggested by the book of Genesis. It seems to me that it was merely an attempt to explain away the mass of evidence that pointed to an old earth.

This theology is thoroughly flawed however. This would be a deception on God's part and God is supposedly not a deceiver. God created Adam and Eve in a state of maturity but not with a history. He did not give them memories of youth or scars which would signify a history. The earth is covered with scars from its past however.

Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began

Hebrews 6:18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.

So here we have two verses which show it is in fact impossible for God to lie. So we have the Bible which tells us God cannot lie and we have a theological belief in which God created a world that appears older than what it really is. That sounds like a lie to me.

"Embedded age" is also untestable. If everything that we study points to an older earth, then it is indistinguishable from a young earth with apparent age. It makes no sense other than an attempt to explain away the evidence.

How about evidence for "embedded age"? We have people who claim that God may have created anthracite "ahead of time" while all other coal was formed during the flood. Problem with this belief is that plant and animal fossils have been found in coal.

This implies a history because the plants had to be around to create fossils.

How about rock layers?

Kink folds in Cretaceous slate, Kodiak, Alaska

The above geological structure is a fold (ductile deformation) that occurs when land masses are slowly pushed together. The extreme heat from the pressure allows rock layers to buckle and fold. This disproves "embedded age" because:
1. The layers are dated to the Cretaceous period (a period that never really existed)
2. The folding shows a history of events that caused the stone to:
a) Be made- slate is sedimentary rock made from silt.
b) Become folded as it can only happen with extreme pressure.

1. Some people would claim that Pangaea broke apart during or after the flood. This is in a direct contradiction with "Embedded Age" as Pangaea was formed over 250 million years ago. According the "embedded age" the earth was formed in its current state with the appearance of age. Pangaea never existed!

2. According to "embedded age" any rock tested, though only 6,000 years old, will show its "embedded age." Therefore, a rock shown to be 250 million years old through the various radioisotope dating methods is really only 6,000 years old.

3. However, fossils are found in rock dated to 250 million years ago.

According to "embedded age" God created the earth as "mature" with the appearance of age.

Any rock dated older that 6,000 years was created to appear that age.

If followed to the logical conclusion, any fossils found in rock older than 6,000 years belonged to animals that never existed!
This is why "embedded age" is a crock. It is impossible to have an "embedded age" for a planet without the appearance of a history... and that would make God a liar.

Of course embedded age is wrong.

God stretched out the Heavens. (Expansion in geek speak)

According to relativistic time effects time and decay rates slow upon acceleration.

If something slows, it was faster in the past. But since they use the rate of today's slower clocks and decay rates, to calculate something that occurred faster in the past, they come to an incorrect calculation of age, because they do not adjust for relativistic time effects.

There is no reason to assume it was made to appear old, when science tells you exactly why it appears old, even if it was created only a few thousand years ago. You simply have to accept science, and make adjustments for relativistic time affects, which no one seems to want to do for some reason, even when they claim to follow science.

Paul of Eugene OR · Jul 6, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Of course embedded age is wrong.

God stretched out the Heavens. (Expansion in geek speak)

According to relativistic time effects time and decay rates slow upon acceleration.

If something slows, it was faster in the past. But since they use the rate of today's slower clocks and decay rates, to calculate something that occurred faster in the past, they come to an incorrect calculation of age, because they do not adjust for relativistic time effects.

There is no reason to assume it was made to appear old, when science tells you exactly why it appears old, even if it was created only a few thousand years ago. You simply have to accept science, and make adjustments for relativistic time affects, which no one seems to want to do for some reason, even when they claim to follow science.

Sorry, you have completely misread the nature of time dilation as it applies to the past of the earth. Remember, time is always slowed for . . . the other guy. Our earth reflects time having passed for over 4 billion years. That's over four billion orbits of our earth around the sun. There is absolutely no adjustment via relativity theory that would make that history of earth go away. It is written into the very rocks of the planet. Any relativity effects of slowing time would be expressed outside of earth in other bodies.

PsychoSarah · Jul 7, 2018

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Well the most organized example of strident atheism is communism, and under Stalin and Mao many evil things were done in its name. Of course, we can find examples of evil things done in the name of religion. The inquisition comes to mind.

-_- communism and atheism are separate things. Communism, unlike atheism, promotes specific practices and political views. It just so happens to be that Karl Marx wasn't a fan of religion, hence the association with atheism and communism. However, I don't know of any modern communist countries that outright ban religion. China and Russia don't (I know Russia isn't technically communist anymore, but I'm including it anyways), with China being a huge source of new Christian converts as of late, and North Korea has a sort of state enforced religion in which their dead leader is worshiped. The remaining communist countries are Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba, and none of them ban religious practices.

Since atheism has no tenants or political affiliations in and of itself, it doesn't really make sense to say that any action is "in the name of atheism".

Paul of Eugene OR · Jul 7, 2018

PsychoSarah said:
-_- communism and atheism are separate things. Communism, unlike atheism, promotes specific practices and political views. It just so happens to be that Karl Marx wasn't a fan of religion, hence the association with atheism and communism. However, I don't know of any modern communist countries that outright ban religion. China and Russia don't (I know Russia isn't technically communist anymore, but I'm including it anyways), with China being a huge source of new Christian converts as of late, and North Korea has a sort of state enforced religion in which their dead leader is worshiped. The remaining communist countries are Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba, and none of them ban religious practices.

Since atheism has no tenants or political affiliations in and of itself, it doesn't really make sense to say that any action is "in the name of atheism".

Logically, of course, you are exactly correct, and there have been many atheists who were in no way to be associated with such atrocities as were wrought by Stalin and such.

Justatruthseeker · Jul 7, 2018

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Sorry, you have completely misread the nature of time dilation as it applies to the past of the earth. Remember, time is always slowed for . . . the other guy. Our earth reflects time having passed for over 4 billion years. That's over four billion orbits of our earth around the sun. There is absolutely no adjustment via relativity theory that would make that history of earth go away. It is written into the very rocks of the planet. Any relativity effects of slowing time would be expressed outside of earth in other bodies.

That's what the twin on the rocket ship believed too - that it was "the other guy's" clocks which were slow.

Then he returned to that frame and found out it was instead he himself that aged less, not "the other guy"........ Regardless of what he thinks is reality, his clocks slowed and the stationary frames did not, evident in the fact that he had aged less than the stationary twin upon his return. He can believe the "other guys" clocks slowed all he wants, but when he returned he found out that just wasn't true at all.

So you are going with the viewpoint of the person shown to be wrong in what he perceived?????

Ummm, those other bodies are undergoing the same effect.

You don't actually believe that only the clock on board the ship changes and not the ship and everything sharing that frame as well do you? The twin wouldn't age less if it was just his clock....

PsychoSarah · Jul 7, 2018

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Logically, of course, you are exactly correct, and there have been many atheists who were in no way to be associated with such atrocities as were wrought by Stalin and such.

Well, and there were Nazis that had nothing to do with the death camps in WWII (getting an obvious criticism out of the way in just this first sentence). It isn't a matter of some members of a group being involved and others not, but rather that being a member of the group (atheists) had no relationship with the actions of communists at all, much less Stalin. It's like how being a golfer and loving french fries are entirely unrelated, despite some people falling into both categories.

AV1611VET · Jul 7, 2018

PsychoSarah said:
However, I don't know of any modern communist countries that outright ban religion. China and Russia don't ...

China and Russia believe in separation of church and state, do they?

Religion in China is closely managed by legislation. Unlike the U.S., where church and state are technically separate, the Chinese state governs religion just as it governs other areas of life.

SOURCE

PsychoSarah · Jul 7, 2018

AV1611VET said:
China and Russia believe in separation of church and state, do they?

SOURCE

-_- that's not the same thing as banning religion. Sounds to me that you'd prefer a Theocracy over a Democracy.

Justatruthseeker · Jul 7, 2018

PsychoSarah said:
-_- that's not the same thing as banning religion. Sounds to me that you'd prefer a Theocracy over a Democracy.

Worked for Israel, until man messed it up like he does everything.

https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bible-and-archaeology-king-solomons-reign-israels-golden-years

AV1611VET · Jul 7, 2018

PsychoSarah said:
Sounds to me that you'd prefer a Theocracy over a Democracy.

Yesindeedydo!

Specifically: a Christocracy.

More specifically: the Millennial Reign of Christ.

AV1611VET · Jul 7, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Worked for Israel, until man messed it up like he does everything.

Indeed they did.

1 Samuel 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

Justatruthseeker · Jul 7, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Indeed they did.

1 Samuel 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

Yep, and went straight downhill from there. But hey, they got what they wanted.....

"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence

Finally Old Enough

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence

Undefeated!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Muslm Humanist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Finally Old Enough

Chaotic Neutral

Finally Old Enough

Newbie

Chaotic Neutral

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Chaotic Neutral

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency