Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[sandwiches]

No, what I think really bothers you guys, is that you can't make God to be a deceiver --- something even His Son was accused of when He walked the earth.

I notice that it doesn't bother you guys that Omphalos is embedded history.

You'll accept that w/o question, because even Wikipedia mentions it being deceptive.

On the other hand, Embedded Age bothers you guys because you can't bring it around and show deception --- even from Wikipedia.

It's noteworthy that you'll accept an explanation that says God did embed history, but won't accept an explanation that says God didn't embed history.

And you guys are trying --- you're trying real hard.

1. It bugs you you can't use a definitive site to link me to that says it's deceptive.
2. It bugs you you can't use the dictionary to show it's wrong.
3. It bugs you you can't use science to disprove it.
4. It bugs you you can't call it something else, like YEC or Omphalos.

And I'm not in the least bit sorry --- I make no apologies for an airtight cosmology.

I see you're so bothered by my post and the correct usage of the word 'history' that you decided to avoid responding to it altogether.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know what I think? I think you're frustrated because you're selling, but no one is buying. That isn't our fault... it is the fault of the product you are selling.

Is that because the "product" combines Biblical cosmology with scientific cosmology?

Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Airtight?? Are you kidding??Its got more holes than swiss cheese! This is what all these posters are trying to explain to you.

You know what I think? I think you're frustrated because you're selling, but no one is buying. That isn't our fault... it is the fault of the product you are selling.

Personally I don't want God to be a deceiver. What we are trying to get you to understand is that your model either makes him out to be a deceiver, or it simply contradicts itself. You won't listen, because you have made up your mind and you have closed it shut.

QFT

Sorry AV, but I think most of us see it this way, you're simply choosing not to, then are getting frustrated because we don't accept what you accept as evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

QFT

Sorry AV, but I think most of us see it this way, you're simply choosing not to, then are getting frustrated because we don't accept what you accept as evidence.

Nope --- I've learned over the years that it's not my job to convert you guys.

As my pastor says, "I couldn't convert anyone, even if I wanted to."

What's slowing wearing me down though, is the almost non-stop repetition of even the most basic of Christian teachings --- often to the same person.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Nope --- I've learned over the years that it's not my job to convert you guys.

As my pastor says, "I couldn't convert anyone, even if I wanted to."

What's slowing wearing me down though, is the almost non-stop repetition of even the most basic of Christian teachings --- often to the same person.

Then why stick around and do it? I think maybe you confuse having to repeat "the most basic Christian teachings" as others not understanding what you are trying to tell them. When, in fact, they/we/I understand what you're telling us, we just disagree. This is probably the source of your frustration, as you see yourself as having the "Infallible Truth," and if only we'd just see things as you do, everything would be alright.

On the one hand, you have your infallible interpretation and personal belief in the KJV. This is a priori for you. On the other hand, you're an intelligent and reasonable individual. The problem for you is that you've got to somehow meld these two points of view into one cohesive model that let's you sleep at night. I get this.

Which is why we have all pointed out how untenable "embeded age" is as a working hypothesis, yet you are uable to see it. This is the tragedy. You think that "embeded age" allows you to have your cake and eat it too, 'cept it doesn't. Sorry.

 

[Split Rock]

Is that because the "product" combines Biblical cosmology with scientific cosmology?

No. Because it doesn't work.

Nope --- I've learned over the years that it's not my job to convert you guys.

As my pastor says, "I couldn't convert anyone, even if I wanted to."

I guess neither you nor your pastor are aiming very high...

What's slowing wearing me down though, is the almost non-stop repetition of even the most basic of Christian teachings --- often to the same person.

What are you referring to as a most basic of Christian teachings?? Certainly not "Embedded Age."

 

[The Lady Kate]

Is that because the "product" combines Biblical cosmology with scientific cosmology?

More likely because the "product" is little more than repackaged ego.

 

[Sanguis]

Nope --- I've learned over the years that it's not my job to convert you guys.

That's nice.

As my pastor says, "I couldn't convert anyone, even if I wanted to."

He's wrong. You could if you would provide solid, empirical evidence to back your religious claims up, after looking at your beliefs as nothing more than a hypothesis, and putting it through the logical reasoning that science puts everything through.

But then, we need more Christians like your pastor, everyone should stop trying to convert everyone to their own religion.

What's slowing wearing me down though, is the almost non-stop repetition of even the most basic of Christian teachings --- often to the same person.

It doesn't matter how much you repeat yourself, it won't make you any more correct, unless you have evidence to back up what you're repeating.

 

[Freodin]

Other than your bible and personal faith, you have absolutely no way of proving that god created everything 6,100 years ago, but looks really old, but no deception was involved.

I have to correct you on that: this is not what AV says. God did not create everything 6,100 year ago and had it look really old... he created everything 6,100 years ago and it is really old.

If you want to critizise him, you have to get that correct.

I´m so picky about that special point because it is exactly the thing that "bugs me" with his hypothesis: he is absolutely unable and unwilling to explain what the heck he means with "old" or "age".

(And, no, AV, I don´t accept your "answers.com #4" rote as a compelling answer: I explained why this definition is a) not fitting in your case and b) you resort to circular reasoning when you try to make it fit.)

 

[Mike Elphick]

[W]hat I think really bothers you guys, is that you can't make God to be a deceiver --- something even His Son was accused of when He walked the earth.

I notice that it doesn't bother you guys that Omphalos is embedded history.

You'll accept that w/o question, because even Wikipedia mentions it being deceptive.

On the other hand, Embedded Age bothers you guys because you can't bring it around and show deception --- even from Wikipedia.

What you posted above is NOT TRUE. Wikipedia does not "mention it being deceptive" — quite the opposite!

Gosse's argument was that since living things had a cycle of reproduction and development, God must have created them in the act of developing, with trees having rings, and animals having skin, blood, and bones all making them appear older than they were. From any examination of a post-creation world, the world would appear to have been created in the cycle of normal processes, and would look old. No element of deception by God would be inherent in this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(book)

and

The basis for Hebblethwaite's objection, however, is the presumption of a God that would not deceive us about our very humanity - an unprovable presumption that the Omphalos hypothesis rejects at the outset.
Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even your highly admired Henry Morris in his book The Twilight of Evolution wrote:-

. . . But This Does Not Involve Deception
"We insist as emphatically as we know how that the doctrine of creation of apparent age does not in the remotest degree involve a divine deception, but is rather inherent in the very nature of creation. Further, God in grace has even revealed much concerning the true age of the creation in His written Word, but men have simply refused to accept it."
An Additional Note on the Omphalos Argument | NCSE

This is what makes it so frustrating discussing things with you. You WILL NOT do any research — you will not find out what Gosse was actually saying and therefore are wilfully ignorant about his hypothesis.

I pointed this out to you several times, complete with extracts from Gosse's book:- here, here, here and here.

You obviously never even looked at these!

Omphalos disgusts you because you think it equated to deception. You therefore invented "embedded age — maturity without history", because you were under this lazy misconception. Omphalos DOES NOT imply deception, so you've wasted your time. Do some research next time.

 

[Sanguis]

I have to correct you on that: this is not what AV says. God did not create everything 6,100 year ago and had it look really old... he created everything 6,100 years ago and it is really old.

Huh?

That makes about as much sense as saying... I dunno... "I made a car, but it not only looks like a hovercraft, it is a hovercraft!" Then it's a hovercraft, not a car...

Assuming 6100 years is "young" and 4.5 billion years is "old". Either something's old, or it's young. It can't be both. Something cant've been made 500 years ago, but really be 5000 years old. It's absurd to say it's possible.

 

[Mike Elphick]

1. It bugs you you can't use a definitive site to link me to that says it's deceptive.
2. It bugs you you can't use the dictionary to show it's wrong.
3. It bugs you you can't use science to disprove it.
4. It bugs you you can't call it something else, like YEC or Omphalos.

And I'm not in the least bit sorry --- I make no apologies for an airtight cosmology.

You show your true colours here, AV.

It bugs me because:-

1. Gosse's Omphalos hypothesis is NOT about deception. So you had no need to invent an alternative.
2. Your dictionary definition included hair white with age., but this is an example of the word's usage, given by answers.com in italics. It's not part of the definition. So all that's left for definition #4 is "The state of being old".
3. With "no evidence for it" you made that an impossibility, but that works both ways
4. Oh yes we can — it's a very pale imitation of Omphalos.

"Airtight cosmology" indeed! I'm shocked someone could be so proud of such a useless proposal — one that lacks reason and explains nothing.

 

[Freodin]

Huh?

That makes about as much sense as saying... I dunno... "I made a car, but it not only looks like a hovercraft, it is a hovercraft!" Then it's a hovercraft, not a car...

Assuming 6100 years is "young" and 4.5 billion years is "old". Either something's old, or it's young. It can't be both. Something cant've been made 500 years ago, but really be 5000 years old. It's absurd to say it's possible.

You have found the rub in AV´s theory. In his view, this is possible. Everyone else is trying to find out why he doesn´t see the contradiction.

 

[Freodin]

Your dictionary definition included hair white with age., but this is an example of the word's usage, given by answers.com in italics. It's not part of the definition. So all that's left for definition #4 is "The state of being old".

And that definition does not even fit his proposal of "embedded age".

"Old" in the sense of this special definition is a concept relative to the general livespan of the object in question. Someone who´s "hair [is] white with age" is an old human. Old for a human being. 30 year old Adam is not "old" in this sense - not in our perception and even less in his alledged 900 year livespan.

He is not in "the state of being old".

AV´s usage of that definition is simply wrong.

 

[Sanguis]

You have found the rub in AV´s theory. In his view, this is possible. Everyone else is trying to find out why he doesn´t see the contradiction.

I'd hardly call it a theory. It's more a sorta... desperate grab at an attempt to make his fail belief sound reasonable, when in fact, it's about as reasonable as trying to use a road map in the middle of Antarctica.

 

[Freodin]

I'd hardly call it a theory. It's more a sorta... desperate grab at an attempt to make his fail belief sound reasonable, when in fact, it's about as reasonable as trying to use a road map in the middle of Antarctica.

That was the colloquial usage of the term "theory". I just got tired of typing out "hypothesis".

 

[Sanguis]

That was the colloquial usage of the term "theory". I just got tired of typing out "hypothesis".

I think the term "nonsense" would've been more fitting.

Seriously, though 'least hypotheses are based on reason and logic. There's absolutely no logic or reason involved in AV's nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Sanguis --- --- welcome to CF!

He's wrong. You could if you would provide solid, empirical evidence to back your religious claims up, after looking at your beliefs as nothing more than a hypothesis, and putting it through the logical reasoning that science puts everything through.

I disagree: 1 .

But then, we need more Christians like your pastor, everyone should stop trying to convert everyone to their own religion.

We're not supposed to try and convert; we're supposed to witness.

 

[AV1611VET]

...

 

[AV1611VET]

I have to correct you on that: this is not what AV says. God did not create everything 6,100 year ago and had it look really old... he created everything 6,100 years ago and it is really old.

I'll say this much, you seem to understand Embedded Age more than any other atheist.

(And, no, AV, I don´t accept your "answers.com #4" rote as a compelling answer: I explained why this definition is a) not fitting in your case and b) you resort to circular reasoning when you try to make it fit.)

That's a pity --- it'll keep you from being able to further understand Embedded Age.