"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

[Freodin]

So you are YEC?

I don´t know how you would get that notion from the above post. Nor does it have to do anything with the question at hand.

No, I´m not YEC. Nor am I any kind of "C".

Now let´s trade an answer for an answer:

Was Adam 30 years old (or any other certain age that you would consider "mature") the day he was created?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don´t know how you would get that notion from the above post. Nor does it have to do anything with the question at hand.

If you say Adam didn't have an age, then neither did the earth --- and if Adam was 1 year old after the earth went around the sun once, then so was the earth (one year and five days, to be exact).

That clearly makes you a YEC.

Now let´s trade an answer for an answer:

Was Adam 30 years old (or any other certain age that you would consider "mature") the day he was created?

Yes.

 

[Freodin]

If you say Adam didn't have an age, then neither did the earth --- and if Adam was 1 year old after the earth went around the sun once, then so was the earth (one year and five days, to be exact).

That clearly makes you a YEC.

Err, no. It makes me someone who can take a certain position to its conclusions, even without accepting it as correct.

Yes.

So, what does that mean? You´d have to settle on one age - whatever that might be - because something / someone cannot be two or different ages at once.

So what does it mean when you say e.g. "Adam was 30 years old when he was created", in contrast to "Adam was 40 years old when he was created"?

 

[ragarth]

So, what does that mean? You´d have to settle on one age - whatever that might be - because something / someone cannot be two or different ages at once.

So what does it mean when you say e.g. "Adam was 30 years old when he was created", in contrast to "Adam was 40 years old when he was created"?

This is not true, you can be two different ages at the same time: real and perceived. Have you ever heard someone use the phrase 'I'm ___ years old, but I have the body of a ___ year old?' They're speaking of biological age. If I were to invent a cloning process that allows me to grow adult humans, then the person stepping out of the tank would be only minutes old, but look 20 years old. This is the difference between 'real' and 'perceived' age. This discussion to me looks like you two are debating apples and oranges, or real and perceived.

 

[AV1611VET]

Err, no. It makes me someone who can take a certain position to its conclusions, even without accepting it as correct.

And that conclusion is YEC --- not Embedded Age.

So, what does that mean?

That means that God embedded age into Adam.

You´d have to settle on one age - whatever that might be - because something / someone cannot be two or different ages at once.

I use the age of 30 as an arbitrary figure --- I really don't know how old Adam was exactly.

He could walk, talk, and marry --- so I picked 30.

Actually, I used to use 20 as his age, until someone mentioned 30 would be a better figure.

So what does it mean when you say e.g. "Adam was 30 years old when he was created", in contrast to "Adam was 40 years old when he was created"?

As I said, it's just an arbitrary number.

Physically --- Adam was 30 years old.
Existentially --- Adam was 1 day old.

 

[Freodin]

This is not true, you can be two different ages at the same time: real and perceived. Have you ever heard someone use the phrase 'I'm ___ years old, but I have the body of a ___ year old?' They're speaking of biological age. If I were to invent a cloning process that allows me to grow adult humans, then the person stepping out of the tank would be only minutes old, but look 20 years old. This is the difference between 'real' and 'perceived' age. This discussion to me looks like you two are debating apples and oranges, or real and perceived.

Err, no. You are making the same mistake as AV does. You are taking the experience that humans have of aging processes, and attribute that as "age".

Or not quite: at last you distinguish between "real" and "perceived" age. AV doesn´t.

But even that does not work: if you were to invent this said cloning process, this too would be a process. It would take time, encompass history and would most likely show up in the makeup of the clone. The clone would superficially look like a 20 years old human... but also like a 20 minute old clone of a human.
It is only because you don´t have any experience with the imagined cloning process, but lot´s of experience with growing up that you would take the one for the other.

 

[Freodin]

And that conclusion is YEC --- not Embedded Age.That means that God embedded age into Adam.I use the age of 30 as an arbitrary figure --- I really don't know how old Adam was exactly.

He could walk, talk, and marry --- so I picked 30.

Actually, I used to use 20 as his age, until someone mentioned 30 would be a better figure.As I said, it's just an arbitrary number.

Physically --- Adam was 30 years old.
Existentially --- Adam was 1 day old.

The second is also just an arbitrary number... but where is the difference?

You talk about a "physical" age... again, what does that mean? What is the "physical" difference between a 20 year old, a 30 year old and a 40 year old? Where do these differences come from?

 

[ragarth]

Err, no. You are making the same mistake as AV does. You are taking the experience that humans have of aging processes, and attribute that as "age".

Or not quite: at last you distinguish between "real" and "perceived" age. AV doesn´t.

But even that does not work: if you were to invent this said cloning process, this too would be a process. It would take time, encompass history and would most likely show up in the makeup of the clone. The clone would superficially look like a 20 years old human... but also like a 20 minute old clone of a human.
It is only because you don´t have any experience with the imagined cloning process, but lot´s of experience with growing up that you would take the one for the other.

But if a 20 minute old clone is perceivable as a 20 year old human, doesn't that mean that a 20 minute clone can be perceived as a 20 year old human, and so the perceived age of the clone by an observer is 20 years?

One can claim that real age is absolute while perceived age is relative. Let's take for instance the movie Blade Runner.

***SPOILER ALERT*** Do not read below this line if you haven't seen this movie and don't want to know the plot.

In this movie, artificial humans are manufactured as a cheap and efficient labor source. The differences between them are mental only- an artificial human has no life experience and so fails certain forms of mental tests such as for emotion. An observer looking upon an artificial human would be unable to tell a 3 year old one from a 25 year old human, therefore they observe, they perceive the age as 25 years old. This is further complicated by the revelation that a new class of artificial human had been created that has memories. The one introduced is so real that it passed the emotion test, and our protagonist didn't even know she was manufactured until he was given that information. Her perceived age was so realistic that *she* thought she was really over 20 years old, instead of just a few years at most.

Given this, even though perceived age is not real, and is relative to the observer, it has real consequences. Another example is the antiquing process of making replicas look old. It's not real age, it's only perceived age, but it can have real monetary consequences.

 

[Hespera]

I think this thread is now totally unhinged from reality

 

[ragarth]

I think this thread is now totally unhinged from reality

Was it ever hinged in reality to begin with?

 

[BananaSlug]

And I'm telling you --- for the umpteenth time --- that embedded history is Omphalism.

The one thing you are not doing in this thread is telling us why Embedded Age is wrong. In fact, you want to discuss everything BUT embedded age, and, to be honest, I can clearly see that you have no idea what Embedded Age is - (but you're not alone here).

But the fossils are an important part of why embedded age is wrong. Supposedly God created the world in 4004B.C. Any rock dated older than that was created with "embedded age." If several million year old rock appears old because of its embedded age, then the fossils located within such rock belonged to animals that never really existed because God created the rock with the appearance of being old.

If God created the earth 6100 years ago, created the earth in its present state with "embedded age," then rock that is in reality 6100 years old has the appearance of 250 million years. I'm not argueing against that. However, the 250 million year old rock also has 250 million year old fossils, giving the appearance of a history. The fossils are an important aspect.

We've also found evidence of human habitation much older than 6,000 years. Either all of that evidence is just "embedded" by God (because Adam and Eve were created in 4004B.C.) or human history is much older than just 6,000 years ago.

 

[Freodin]

But if a 20 minute old clone is perceivable as a 20 year old human, doesn't that mean that a 20 minute clone can be perceived as a 20 year old human, and so the perceived age of the clone by an observer is 20 years?

One can claim that real age is absolute while perceived age is relative. Let's take for instance the movie Blade Runner.

***SPOILER ALERT*** Do not read below this line if you haven't seen this movie and don't want to know the plot.

In this movie, artificial humans are manufactured as a cheap and efficient labor source. The differences between them are mental only- an artificial human has no life experience and so fails certain forms of mental tests such as for emotion. An observer looking upon an artificial human would be unable to tell a 3 year old one from a 25 year old human, therefore they observe, they perceive the age as 25 years old. This is further complicated by the revelation that a new class of artificial human had been created that has memories. The one introduced is so real that it passed the emotion test, and our protagonist didn't even know she was manufactured until he was given that information. Her perceived age was so realistic that *she* thought she was really over 20 years old, instead of just a few years at most.

Given this, even though perceived age is not real, and is relative to the observer, it has real consequences. Another example is the antiquing process of making replicas look old. It's not real age, it's only perceived age, but it can have real monetary consequences.

The difference is the focal point of this whole discussion: what does "age" mean?

One meaning of "age" is a certain state. You can compare the 3 year old replicant with the 25 year old human, because you compare the states they are. And you know what a "25 year old" state looks like, because you have experienced it. Humanity has experienced it and shared that experience for, err, ages.

But there is a single reason why we have that experience: a 25 year old has, on average, reached that state because he has lived 25 years.
And that is also the reason why the 3 year old replicant could be distinguished from the 25 year old human: because he is lacking these 25 years of living. He has no history.

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.

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.

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.

 

[BananaSlug]

If Adam was created with "embedded age" and not omphalos, he was created without an umbilical scar. If he was created with a navel, that would signify that he was born.

The earth has many scars from its tumultuous past.

The gigantic Chicxulub Crater (~110 miles diameter) in the Gulf of Mexico near the Yucatan Peninsula is about 65 million years old. (This is the one that may be connected with the extinction of the dinosaurs.)

This is a picture of the iridium rich layer between the KT boundary. The layers found all over the world at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary contain a concentration of iridium many times greater than normal (30 times and 130 times background in the two sections originally studied). Iridium is extremely rare in the earth's crust because it is a siderophile, and therefore most of it travelled with the iron as it sank into the earth's core during planetary differentiation. As iridium remains abundant in most asteroids and comets, the Alvarez team suggested that an asteroid struck the earth at the time of the K–T boundary.
The evidence for the impact theory is supported by chondritic meteorites and asteroids which have an iridium concentration of ~455 parts per billion, much higher than ~0.3 parts per billion typical of the earth's crust. Chromium isotopic anomalies found in Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary sediments are similar to that of an asteroid or a comet composed of carbonaceous chondrites. Shocked quartz granules and tektite glass spherules, indicative of an impact event, are also common in the K–T boundary, especially in deposits from around the Caribbean. All of these constituents are embedded in a layer of clay, which the Alvarez team interpreted as the debris spread all over the world by the impact.

Shocked Quartz

Tektite Glass Sphericals

According to "embedded age," the various dating methods are used by geologists are correct in dating the earth because it shows the earths embedded age. The above shows that within the earth's layers we have evidence for various events in earth's history. The KT boundary layer is embedded with approximately 65 million years of age. This would mean all of the evidence for such a large impact event is also embedded.

 

[Split Rock]

And that conclusion is YEC --- not Embedded Age.That means that God embedded age into Adam.I use the age of 30 as an arbitrary figure --- I really don't know how old Adam was exactly.

He could walk, talk, and marry --- so I picked 30.

Actually, I used to use 20 as his age, until someone mentioned 30 would be a better figure.As I said, it's just an arbitrary number.

Physically --- Adam was 30 years old.
Existentially --- Adam was 1 day old.

If Adam was created as a 30 year old, why would any age need to be "embedded" in him? He was created as a mature adult. What needs to be "embedded?" Similarly, if God created a mature Earth, why would any age need to be "embedded" in it? All that would be required would be a stable bedrock with a layer of topsoil, and some oceans with salt water, rivers, lakes, etc. What needs to be "embedded" in a mature planet? The whole embedded idea is a means of explaining away dating measurements which say the earth is billions of years old. It is not necessary for theology at all.

Some of you have claimed AVET's model is not testable, but it is to some extent. Any historical events must have occurred within the last 6,000 years or so, because his model does not include embedded history. As Bananaslug has brought up already, the earth has a much longer history than 6,000 years, featuring historical events such as asteroid collisions, techtonic activity and fossilization of dead organisms. AVET only replies this has nothing to do with The Creation. Yet, they are refutations of the predictions that his model makes. And that prediction is that the earth will show no history prior to 6,000 years ago. There is where it Fails.

 

[MoonLancer]

History is generated when events occur w/i the passage of time. This is not the nature of something created ex nihilo. Adam had nothing to look back on.What word am I redefining?

you have no evidence ex nihilo can happen, so your not exactly on solid ground.

I can tell you, without looking, that I'm using definition #4 in answers.com for the word "old".

skipping rocks? i said nothing about the world 'old'. I said age and history.

old describes age and history, as does young. You still have the problem that your trying to separate the words meaning form eachother to craft a scenery were the world has embedded age but not history in order to justify your beliefs while simultanuses defending a dishonest god. Your flanked in this argument, and or the other is clearly the case. Eather god is a lier or the world is 'old'

 

[AV1611VET]

If Adam was created as a 30 year old, why would any age need to be "embedded" in him?

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

you have no evidence ex nihilo can happen, so your not exactly on solid ground.

QV please --- 1.

 

[MoonLancer]

QV please --- 1.

QV'ed and I ask you, If i created an apple via magic trick, and told you god did it, would you be able to tell the difference?

but now that you brought that up... does the apple have a stem? does Adam have a belly button, does the earth have fossils?

Because the earth has fossils, if one was to accept your argument, then god is a liar.

so your right, and god is liar or your wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

does the apple have a stem?

Yes.

does Adam have a belly button

No --- in my opinion.

does the earth have fossils?

No --- not in Genesis 1.

 

[MoonLancer]

Yes.No --- in my opinion.No --- not in Genesis 1.

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.

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