Evolution Proven!

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Where are we going with this?

For a trip down the rabbit hole I'm afraid.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm still none the wiser about embedded age vs history.

You've got to be kidding me?

As comprehensive as that OP is and you still don't know the difference?

My best guess is that the universe was created with the appearance of age but none of it happened.

Drop the words I highlighted in red and put a period after "age", so that it reads like this:

My best guess is that the universe was created with age.

... and you'll be right on the mark.

Burnt out stars, tree rings, everything. Is that right or have I missed something subtle?

Forget burnt out stars, forget tree rings, forget whatever, and just concentrate on Genesis 1 until you understand Embedded Age.

That other stuff is going to interfere and cause you to not understand.

As far as I'm aware there isn't any evidence. Latest hypothesis is that a large proto-planet collided with Earth. Where are we going with this?

Why then, if the moon was created ex nihilo, as the Bible says it was, would you guys be asking for evidence?

 

[Nostromo]

You've got to be kidding me?

No, and you've confused me even further. Since both age and history are the results of the passing of time, what exactly is the difference?
Or are you saying that the universe was empty for 13 billion years and then one day 6000 years ago he filled it with the stuff we see now. A bit more elaboration wouldn't go amiss here, I think there are a few people who don't see the distinction.

Why then, if the moon was created ex nihilo, as the Bible says it was, would you guys be asking for evidence?

I'm not asking for evidence of creation ex-nihilo, I was talking about the flood. By your own admission evidence appears to have been concealed in some places and planted in others. This just seems a little strange to me. What's wrong with looking at the evidence and working our way to an answer?

 

[CoderHead]

A bit more elaboration wouldn't go amiss here, I think there are a few people who don't see the distinction.

You can lump me into that group. AV, you were asked the difference between omphalos and embedded age. You QVed a thread about embedded age without a distinct line drawn between the two concepts.

You're saying that God created the universe and embedded age without history.

Omphalos says that God created the universe and made it appear old.

What's the difference?

 

[AV1611VET]

You can lump me into that group. AV, you were asked the difference between omphalos and embedded age. You QVed a thread about embedded age without a distinct line drawn between the two concepts.

You're saying that God created the universe and embedded age without history.

Omphalos says that God created the universe and made it appear old.

What's the difference?

Embedded Age is maturity without history.

Omphalos is maturity with history.

One of the biggest differences is scarring.

In Omphalos, Adam and Eve were created with scars.

 

[Nostromo]

That distinction is pretty pointless.

What's the difference between a star going supernova in EA and Omphalos? And speaking of the moon, why did he create it with millions of years worth of scarring?

 

[AV1611VET]

That distinction is pretty pointless.

'Pretty pointless', huh?

Is that all you've got to say about it?

It doesn't matter to you at all whether or not Adam and Eve had belly buttons (scars)?

What you call 'pretty pointless' represents a major difference between Omphalos and Embedded Age.

I can see where this conversation is going to go; so I'm going to go.

Have a nice day.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

That distinction is pretty pointless.

What's the difference between a star going supernova in EA and Omphalos? And speaking of the moon, why did he create it with millions of years worth of scarring?

Because god likes to keep us on our toes I guess. Kind of a 'test your faith' scenario.

 

[Nostromo]

The difference between these two is trivial, and once again seems not to mesh with reality in all cases. How on Earth you can possibly tell me that one of these is what happened and the other is not is also beyond me.

Kind of a 'test your faith' scenario.

Must be I suppose.

 

[CoderHead]

The difference between these two is trivial, and once again seems not to mesh with reality in all cases. How on Earth you can possibly tell me that one of these is what happened and the other is not is also beyond me.Must be I suppose.

That's the problem I'm having with the two ideas being contrasted with each other as opposites. Either way, God created a universe that is young but appears old. Regardless of whether or not that entails history, it's a deceptive move on God's part. I see no justification for God needing to have done that.

 

[Doveaman]

Because that's not how it works.

The amount of red-shift tells us how fast the stars are traveling relative to us. Looking at where it appears to be and working backwards to when the matter was clumped together gives an age (13 billion years), and you can work out how much further it has traveled since the light left it to give it's current distance (78 billion light years). That's a very simplified version anyway.

Well, your simplified version sounds a bit too complex, so I'll stick with the King James version.

 

[AV1611VET]

Regardless of whether or not that entails history, it's a deceptive move on God's part.

Well if you're going to accuse God of being deceptive --- at least try to be accurate.

And if history is such a minor point, why is it usually the first thing brought up?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, your simplified version sounds a bit too complex, so I'll stick with the King James version.

Can't go wrong ---

 

[Doveaman]

The question that is consistently being ignored is this:

If there is no physical evidence that any particular deity created the earth, then any particular religion could be right. Why believe any one religion if there is no physical evidence that shows a particular religion is the "right one"?

You guys are too materialistic, that's the problem.

I think it's because your telescopes can't see beyond the particle horizon.

I'm sure when they are able to see that far you'll see God smiling back.

 

[Nostromo]

History isn't a minor point, the difference between the two 'created aged' scenarios is. From our point of view there is no difference whatsoever, so how did you discern it, and how do you know which is the right one?

 

[Nostromo]

Well, your simplified version sounds a bit too complex, so I'll stick with the King James version.

If that was too complex I think you better had.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

If that was too complex I think you better had.

 

[BananaSlug]

History isn't a minor point, the difference between the two 'created aged' scenarios is. From our point of view there is no difference whatsoever, so how did you discern it, and how do you know which is the right one?

http://www.christianforums.com/t2580923-4/#post50941727

We've been through this once before. It is amazing the denial some people have. If you want to follow this, be prepared for a lot of ignored questions.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
The point is, if God so perfectly faked history that there's no way to discover that it's a fake, it is essentially history.
​

Do you and AV both choose your religion based on how little correlation there is to reality?

Why not just admit it is what the evidence suggests it is?

Just saying...

 

[Cabal]

'Pretty pointless', huh?

Is that all you've got to say about it?

It doesn't matter to you at all whether or not Adam and Eve had belly buttons (scars)?

What you call 'pretty pointless' represents a major difference between Omphalos and Embedded Age.

I can see where this conversation is going to go; so I'm going to go.

Have a nice day.

Adam and Eve could have been 30 year olds with a history that didn't involve the very specific process of scarring perhaps?