Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Pete Harcoff]

Oh, yes, I can.

Adam was [physically] 30.

Adam was [existentially] 1.

Same with the earth.

If he physically appeared to be 30, that's Omphalos.

Thread over.

 

[Belk]

That sure narrows it down, doesn't it?

<shrug> Sometimes the correct answer is not the tidy answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's been your attitude all along — you just don't WANT to know anything. You're obviously far more interested in proselytising, with your head in a bucket, than in any scholarship and real knowledge.

Excuse me, but I don't consider Omphalos 'scholarship and real knowledge.'

I've already made it clear that I am not Omphalos, and want no part of it, or its disciples.

If Gosse came to our church and started spreading that Omphalos stuff, and refused to stop, he'd find himself escorted out.

And I would hold the door open.

I don't need [whatever-his-first-name-is] Gosse, Martin Luther, John Calvin, [somebody] Hume, or Jerry Falwell rubbed in my face.

(Now Charles Spurgeon --- that's different --- )

But just like you guys don't like me bringing up Aristotle and Pluto and all this other nonsense, I don't really cater to what these guys say (except maybe Charles Spurgeon --- ).

I'm not just any old Baptist --- I'm a Fundamental Baptist.

And I'm not just any old Fundamental Baptist --- I'm an Independent Fundamental Baptist.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is chiness pottery from 6000 bce with writing on it. I guess thats embedded age right?

Ya --- and I got a Sacagawea dollar coin --- but it's not 205 years old.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Remember my formula, that I have posted twice?

PA - UD = EA

What this simple formula says, is that, to compute the amount of age God embedded into the earth, simply take the object's Physical Age, subtract Ussher's Dating (6012 years) from it, and there you have the minimun age that God embedded.

Thank God the humans who wrote the bible got all the lists right and thank God Bishop Ussher came along and gave us the 6012 number!

You guys found it with your radiometrics.

Actually what we guys found with our radiometrics is precisely what you say isn't there: history.

Believe me, if He didn't want you to find it, you would never find it.

I love the philosophical implications of this sentence.

1. Do you believe God capable of "hiding" truth in any way?
2. If not then why would you even hypothesize this? Does that mean God has to follow some external set of rules (ergo more powerful than Him)?
3. If so, then does that mean whatever God unilaterally decrees to be "right" is right and that right and wrong are not somehow universal and fundamental?

What tells me that, is the fact that you guys critique it before you even understand it.Again, embedded age melds science (specifically the age of the earth) with the Scriptures.

By making us believe that physical reality isn't what it clearly appears to be. The only thing that loses in that case is physical reality. But if it helps support the almighty Scriptures then it's win-win.

But unfortunately, instead of accepting that, you guys want no part of God in cosmology.

The very minute you can:
1. Prove God exists
2. Model God's actions such that he can be used as a factor to explain the workings sufficiently to withstand even people who are not in your particular sect looking at it closely

then God can be a big part of cosmology and astronomy and physics.

But the geologic record is based on an interpretation called 'uniformitarianism', not 'catastrophism',

Do keep in mind that geologists also allow that catastrophes do occasionally occur. A simple "cartoon" understanding of geology does not one a geologist make.

Take a class.

and therefore I don't trust what scientists claim the geological record tells them.

It would help if you took a geology class.

Then you don't have to "trust" as much...you can check it out for yourself. The earth is free for the viewing in most places.

 

[Split Rock]

Ya --- and I got a Sacagawea dollar coin --- but it's not 205 years old.

I've got a Mexican Peso. But its not 12,825 years old. So?

I have just two more questions for you, AVET:

1. Is it possible that your Embedded Age model is wrong?

2. If your answer is yes, then how would you determine that it is wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank God the humans who wrote the bible got all the lists right and thank God Bishop Ussher came along and gave us the 6012 number!

Ussher didn't give us the 6012 number --- more like the 5653 number.

(I hear a phone ringing.)

Actually what we guys found with our radiometrics is precisely what you say isn't there: history.

It's what you call history; I won't dispute that.

Do keep in mind that geologists also allow that catastrophes do occasionally occur.

Uh-huh --- as long as they're official scientific catastrophies.

The ones they deny, are the ones that are biting them in their clipboards.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have just two more questions for you, AVET:

1. Is it possible that your Embedded Age model is wrong?

2. If your answer is yes, then how would you determine that it is wrong?

1. Absolutely --- I'm about two pixels away from becoming a YEC.

2. When I decide (or am convicted) that radiometric dating can take a hike.

 

[BananaSlug]

AV, I'm sure you don't mean to skip over my posts but here it is again.

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Good for Smilodon.
​

We've found thousands of Smilodon fossils as well as many other species.

It would violate the Prime Directive: Never let science override Scripture.

Then you really don't care about science. If you don't really care about science, why bother with "embedded age"?

Good.

You guys built that test yourselves.

You built it, tested it, and implemented it; and it runs on uniformitarian principles.

I'm under no such obligation to accept it, especially since it violates the Prime Directive.

So why do you accept the radiometric dating of rock? The C14 dating of fossils and radiometric dating of rock is the exact same concept. You cannot accept one yet deny the other because they are both working under the same principles.

It's only causing you guys confusion --- not me.

So you say any history older than 6100 years would falsify your idea yet reject any evidence that shows history older than 6100 years.

I think you guys need to learn what Embedded Age actually is.

I do. "Embedded Age" is AV's concept that the Earth was created 6100 years ago 4.5 billion years old. "Embedded Age" states that while the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, there is no history older than 6100 years. I think I know what it is.

If Smilodon's skeleton is 15,000 years old, that doesn't mean Smilodon himself lived that long ago.

What would it mean then? Why would God "embed" age into all of these fossils? You cannot accept one dating method yet reject another (they both use the same concept). If one is wrong then both are wrong.

What if I died tomorrow and my skeleton was dated at 30,000 years?

Would that bust your theory?

It wouldn't happen unless you've been eating lots of seafood, which use old carbon (from dissolved limestone). Do you think these little word games really take away from the fact that we have evidence for a history going well beyond 6100 years?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't really care about science, why bother with "embedded age"?

I use Boolean logic to determine what I think is right, and what I think is wrong: 158.

Why would God "embed" age into all of these fossils?

God would not embed age into a fossil.

The embedding of age occurred only in Genesis 1 --- where there was no death.

If God embedded age into a fossil, this means two things:

1. It was done outside of Genesis 1.
2. It had to have been dead (since it is a fossil).

Hence I believe neither.

 

[BananaSlug]

Then how would you take into account the age of the fossils based on the radioisotope dating, even when the dating of the rock around the fossil also correlates with the age of the fossil itself? Why do you accept one method but not the other especially since they both use the same concept?

 

[MoonLancer]

Ya --- and I got a Sacagawea dollar coin --- but it's not 205 years old.

why would anyone think that its 205 years old

 

[AV1611VET]

Then how would you take into account the age of the fossils based on the radioisotope dating, even when the dating of the rock around the fossil also correlates with the age of the fossil itself? Why do you accept one method but not the other especially since they both use the same concept?

If you found a fossil and dated it as 10,000 years old, I won't dispute it.

What I will dispute, is saying the plant or animal or man that belonged to that fossil lived 10,000 years ago.

This is where I would leave the realm of science and switch over to the realm of faith, as I would have to violate the Prime Directive by agreeing with what a machine is telling me.

And I won't do that --- no how, no way, no thanks.

 

[The Lady Kate]

My cut-off point is well-known here.

Place a Bible on the table, now all the science that disagrees with that Bible can be placed to the left of that Bible, and all the science that agrees with that Bible can be placed to the right of that Bible.

I think you'll find that very, very, very, very, very little science will be placed to the left of that Bible.

And where do you get placed?

 

[The Lady Kate]

If you found a fossil and dated it as 10,000 years old, I won't dispute it.

What I will dispute, is saying the plant or animal or man that belonged to that fossil lived 10,000 years ago.

So the fossil's a fake?

This is where I would leave the realm of science and switch over to the realm of faith, as I would have to violate the Prime Directive by agreeing with what a machine is telling me.

And I won't do that --- no how, no way, no thanks.

Your prime directive is that machines that disagree with you are wrong?

 

[hangback]

My cut-off point is well-known here.

Place a Bible on the table, now all the science that disagrees with that Bible can be placed to the left of that Bible, and all the science that agrees with that Bible can be placed to the right of that Bible.

I think you'll find that very, very, very, very, very little science will be placed to the left of that Bible.

Would it be possible for you to show some science that AGREES with the Bible?

 

[MoonLancer]

If you found a fossil and dated it as 10,000 years old, I won't dispute it.

What I will dispute, is saying the plant or animal or man that belonged to that fossil lived 10,000 years ago.

so then your just left with a deceptive god. Your stuck with a true dichotomy where god is a deceptive or the bible is not literal, assuming you agree that the dating methods are accurate.

Most other literalists try find some way to discredit science in general so they can ignore dating methods. however in doing so they end up on the opposite end of what it means to be intellectual and tend to be shunned.

 

[Split Rock]

1. Absolutely --- I'm about two pixels away from becoming a YEC.

So, the only way you could be wrong about E.A. is if YEC is correct? Could that be wrong also?

2. When I decide (or am convicted) that radiometric dating can take a hike.

Hmmm... So, what exactly is keeping you from telling radiometric dating to "take a hike?" In any case, my question was concerning E.A., not radiometric dating. Is the only way you can tell that E.A. is wrong by becoming convinced that radiometric dating is wrong?

 

[Freodin]

If you found a fossil and dated it as 10,000 years old, I won't dispute it.

I ask you again, fourth time now:

HOW DO YOU DATE SUCH A FOSSIL???

 

[Mike Elphick]

That's been your attitude all along &#8212; you just don't WANT to know anything. You're obviously far more interested in proselytising, with your head in a bucket, than in any scholarship and real knowledge.

Excuse me, but I don't consider Omphalos 'scholarship and real knowledge.'

Then you don't know what scholarship and knowledge are. Using the same thinking, you probably consider everything written by Darwin as not comprising 'scholarship and knowledge', just because you don't like it. Maybe you don't want to know about the Holocaust, because it's too shocking. Come on AV, don't be so narrow minded &#8212; take those blinkers off and see the real world for what it is, warts and all.

I've already made it clear that I am not Omphalos, and want no part of it, or its disciples.

Let me repeat: no one can BE Omphalos. Furthermore, since you refuse to learn about it, you've insufficient knowledge for deciding to reject it and its handful of disciples.

If Gosse came to our church and started spreading that Omphalos stuff, and refused to stop, he'd find himself escorted out.

And I would hold the door open.

Banning a fellow Christian young earth creationist from your church smacks of hair-splitting religious intolerance. But why would you do such a thing when you don't have the knowledge and scholarship to know and understand what his "Omphalos stuff" is all about?

WHY?

I don't need [whatever-his-first-name-is] Gosse ... rubbed in my face.

His name's Philip Henry Gosse, you should know by now.

And I'm not just any old Fundamental Baptist --- I'm an Independent Fundamental Baptist.

An independent thinker, of course, but wilfully ignorant, by your own admission.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin, Descent of Man