"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

[AV1611VET]

if Adam does not have a belly button, the apple does not have a stem system. You don't get to have it both ways.

What are you talking about?

The apple could have a worm in it and bruises, for all I care.

Assume the apple is Omphalos, if you have to --- just answer the challenge.

(Since even an omphalos apple can be created ex nihilo.)

also how are their fossils in rocks that tell us the world is older then 6000 years?

I'll abstain from answering this question --- it is not the subject of this thread.

Besides, I already agree that this world is older than 6000 years --- so the question is moot.

 

[ragarth]

Now if memories and experiences of 25 years of lifetime could also be implanted, it would become more difficult to make the distinction... perhaps up to a point where there would be no more difference. But these would be fakes. The 3 year old replicant would simply not have been around 4 years earlier to get memories or make experiences.

You explained it better than I, perceived age is 'fake' in the context that it's not necesserily the real age. When you see someone who looks 35 but is actually 45, you perceive the age as 35, and she may say she's 35, but she is not in actuality 35. One is real, the 45 years, one is perceived and therefore virtual, false, only perceived but not real.

AV is very set on the statement that "embedded age" is NOT fake. And that excludes every possibility of "embedding" memories, experiences or history at all. It can only focus on the state of age.

And this is why I'm not arguing the point with him, because his description makes absolutely zero sense- I this was confirmed with the Q/A series I had with him in this very thread. I had initially thought that maybe he was referring to the actual creation of time so that past events before creation actually happened, but he isn't. His argument as I see it is identical to embedded history, except he's claiming it's not. The only way he can believe his statements here is if his faith is blinding him to the glaring inaccuracies, and if that's the case, no amount of pointing them out will disway him or show him the reality he's refusing to see. In this case, his argument is so utterly nonsensical as to be contradictory to reality, logic, and Father Cthulhu.

But the state of age has no meaning if we exclude the fact that our understanding of a state of age comes only and exclusively from ageing.

This is not true, while your chronological age is very important, your biological age is too. One is real, your chronological age, the other is perceived, your biological age. Just because the state of your body is perceived as that of a 50 year old while you're still 20 doesn't mean it isn't serious- you've got health issues. While you're body is not actually 50 years old, it's comparative, you're doctor is saying 'you're in equivalent health as a 50 year old, start eating better, and get some exercise.' This is the crux of perceived age, while it's not real, it is *relative* to perception.

 

[AV1611VET]

1 op + 82 posts = op still not answered

Not bad --- still got a few pages to go though.

 

[gaara4158]

1 op + 82 posts = op still not answered

Not bad --- still got a few pages to go though.

Hey, AV... why would you point that out? The OP is an attack on your beloved "embedded age" and you're reminding us all that this attack has not been refuted?
You're either getting sloppy with your Poe skills or you're in the wrong thread

 

[ragarth]

1 op + 82 posts = op still not answered

Not bad --- still got a few pages to go though.

The original post made a statement:

"Embedded age is indistinguishable from omphalos <insert body of proof> This is why it's a crock"

If then left the duty of disproving the premise, that embedded age is a crock, up to the responses. So if the OP isn't answered yet, that's bad for embedded age.

 

[MoonLancer]

What are you talking about?

nutritional systems before separation. it is a sign of age, history and maturity.

Besides, I already agree that this world is older than 6000 years --- so the question is moot.

You have a very warped idea of what age, old, history, maturity means. your trying to win the argument by butchering words, but it doesn't change that the world formed much later then 6000 years, and that people evolved from simpler life.

 

[BananaSlug]

I'll abstain from answering this question --- it is not the subject of this thread.

Besides, I already agree that this world is older than 6000 years --- so the question is moot.

Fossils are the part of the argument of the thread! If you cannot explain why their are millions of years worth of fossils while only 6100 years of actual history then something is wrong.

Neanderthals were a species of human that went extinct approximately 24,000 years ago. Since this is before the actual 4004B.C. creation of Adam and Eve how do you explain it?

The oldest fossils of modern human beings, Homo sapiens sapiens, are 125,000-100,000 years old, appearing at the time of the first of the great ice ages. Homo sapiens sapiens are identified by a large brain (1,400 cc), a small face in proportion to the size of the skull, a small chin, and small teeth. In addition, they were tall and relatively slender in build.

Did God embed all of this since Adam and Eve were not created until 4004B.C? I would really like for someone who accepts "embedded age" to attempt to explain any events on earth that are older than 4004B.C. (fossils, asteroid impacts, orogenies, oceanic transgressions, etc.)

Would you care to explain my earlier post about the KT boundary? Why do we have this appearance of a cataclasmic event at the 65 million year mark when this age was "embedded" by God. AV, it's your job to show my why I'm wrong, so far I've given plenty of evidence that shows the early has a long and tulmultuous history.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fossils are the part of the argument of the thread!

Fair enough, then --- I'll bow out.

I am not --- repeat, not --- going to discuss fossils (reminiscent of death, God's enemy) --- in the context of the the Creation Week and Genesis 1, where God pronounced everything, "very good".

If you cannot explain why their are millions of years worth of fossils while only 6100 years of actual history then something is wrong.

And that is not the subject of the Creation Week, which you seem to have lured me here to discuss, then switched topics.

And, I promise you, you won't play that game with me.

Either confine the Creation to Genesis 1 --- or I'll leave this thread.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It just a semantics game, sheesh.

 

[AV1611VET]

It just a semantics game, sheesh.

Call it what you want, but please confine it to Genesis 1, where it belongs.

 

[MoonLancer]

meh

 

[Cabal]

I am not --- repeat, not --- going to discuss fossils (reminiscent of death, God's enemy) --- in the context of the the Creation Week and Genesis 1, where God pronounced everything, "very good".And that is not the subject of the Creation Week, which you seem to have lured me here to discuss, then switched topics..

So exactly how many dead lifeforms would God have had to embed to fool everyone again, AV?

 

[juvenissun]

1 op + 82 posts = op still not answered

Not bad --- still got a few pages to go though.

Very funny. I think these people must be very bored.

Now, gets busy:

Why do we called it an "embedded" age? Did those "embedded" time ever exist? If not, then the word "embedded" seems not to be a good one.

So, could somebody explains that word in the OP, please?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Fair enough, then --- I'll bow out.

I am not --- repeat, not --- going to discuss fossils (reminiscent of death, God's enemy)

Also reminiscent of knowledge -- your enemy, IIRC.

Either confine the Creation to Genesis 1 --- or I'll leave this thread.

An intelligent discussion of the Creation mythology, and you leave?

Not seeing the downside here...

 

[TheBear]

Don't forget, all the fossilised organisms would have to be DEAD.

And that would screw up the whole - 'no death before the fall' - routine.

 

[Cabal]

And that would screw up the whole - 'no death before the fall' - routine.

Exactly my point.

Embedded age involving fossils requires dead organisms.

Don't worry, I'm sure there's a convenient and in no way horribly cynical workaround

 

[Split Rock]

I don't know --- I can't put myself in God's place and see what He would see had Adam not been created with age. I'm sure He had His reasons.

Perhaps a YEC could better answer this.

Why would a YEC answer the question? Embedded Age is not a YEC concept, its your's and your pastor's. If you cannot defend it, don't use it anymore.

Fair enough, then --- I'll bow out.

Go right ahead. Just don't bring up "embedded age" anymore.

I am not --- repeat, not --- going to discuss fossils (reminiscent of death, God's enemy) --- in the context of the the Creation Week and Genesis 1, where God pronounced everything, "very good".And that is not the subject of the Creation Week, which you seem to have lured me here to discuss, then switched topics.

What nonsense! You won't discuss fossils because they are "reminiscent of death, God's enemy?" Do you think anyone here takes you seriously when you post something like that? Just admit you cannot defend Embedded Age, but will keep your eyes and ears closed and still believe it anyway. I just cannot understand why it is so hard for you to defend The Truth.

And, I promise you, you won't play that game with me.

You only play the games where you automatically win... is that it?

Either confine the Creation to Genesis 1 --- or I'll leave this thread.

Whatever.

 

[BananaSlug]

Call it what you want, but please confine it to Genesis 1, where it belongs.

But it is within Genesis 1. If God created Cretaceous aged rock he created it with fossils within it. That was the whole point of the thread! Well, not just fossils but other geological events as well...

 

[BananaSlug]

Why do we called it an "embedded" age? Did those "embedded" time ever exist? If not, then the word "embedded" seems not to be a good one.

So, could somebody explains that word in the OP, please?

"Embedded age" refers to God creating a "mature" earth that appears to be 4.5 billion years old while creating it in 4004 B.C. (the year that many YEC's love to point to as the Creation date). "Embedded Age" differs from Omphalos (supposedly) because God created the earth to appear old without a history.

Though it would be possible to create a physically mature living organism without a history (such as memories or scars from past trama) it is impossible to create such a thing as a planet to be "aged" without showing a history as well.

The point of the OP was showing that we have tons of evidence for past events that are well over 6,000 years old. According to "embedded age," the earth may (appear to) be 4.5 billion years old but should in reality only have 6,000 years of history. In lieu of such a belief we have evidence of past asteroid impacts (KT boundary event 65mya), evidence of humans older than 6,000 years (oldest Homo sapiens 165,000ya), and fossils of organisms from 600mya.

According to "embedded age," rocks that are dated using the various dating methods were created to appear old despite the fact the creation date is around 4004B.C. That means that 250 million year old rock was created to appear as 250 million year old rock.

"Embedded age" is age without history. However, that same 250 million year old rock has fossils within it. While it being 250 million years old can signify "embedded age," the fossils represent a history, which flies in the face of what "embedded age" signifies.
In reality, "embedded age," much like omphalos, is a way to try and explain away the evidence that supports an old earth. It is not good theology because it does not take into account the history that is written within the rocks.

 

[MoonLancer]

If av bows out of this thread, fine. But its going to haunt him. If av talks about embedded age elsewhere as if its a valid idea, lets all qv this thread ;p because its clear he has no answer to the fossils in the rocks.