Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

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

Let's see for ourselves:

A deceptive creator

In addition:

The Omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.

I do not believe Adam had a navel.

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.

I did not invent Embedded Age --- my pastor, who has two doctorates, mentioned it in a sermon; and although he claims he is YEC, I have taken it from there.

Omphalos DOES NOT imply deception...

Every single atheist, agnostic, and even Christian I have talked to in the past three and a half years here would disagree with you.

... so you've wasted your time. Do some research next time.

Like I said, Gosse obviously hasn't convinced you, and he's surely not going to convince me.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

LOL --- I hear ya ---

 

[Cabal]

Today they do.

History didn't exist in Genesis 1.

And again, I don't believe that is the primary purpose of tree rings --- to show history.

I'm sure they have a biological function apart from demonstrating [alleged] passage of time.

As do navels.

So any comment, AV? Why this insistence to exclude embedded navels while allowing many other embedded age aspects, even when they violate the actual criterion you set down?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Judging something ahead of time like that is just going to create a blind spot in your mind that would require what's called conceptual blockbusting to remove.

You'll end up never understanding it, if you keep calling it nonsense ahead of time.

By way of example, I cannot grasp evolution.

To me, it is evil and from the devil.

And I believe that because of that, I cannot get the nuances of the philosophy down --- (and don't care to).

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

Can you show logic behind the Trinity?

Is the Trinity therefore, 'nonsense'?

 

[Cabal]

Let's see for ourselves:

A deceptive creator

Hmm....only reading the heading and not the article and treating opinions as fact.

Yup, up to your usual standards.

 

[AV1611VET]

So any comment, AV? Why this insistence to exclude embedded navels while allowing many other embedded age aspects, even when they violate the actual criterion you set down?

Navels are scars --- for the tenth time.

 

[Freodin]

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

I know that you will ignore anything that disagrees with you, but I´ll tell you now for the third time: you usage of that definition is a) circular and b) not fitting your usage.

If you want to state that, in order to "further understand Embedded Age", I have to accept something that is simply WRONG... well, that goes to show how "airtight" your system really is.

 

[Freodin]

Navels are scars --- for the tenth time.

Your defintion of "no scarring" in the OP is completely arbitrary. There is no reason at all to exclude "scars" from the possible signs of history.

Oh, sorry, I forgot one reason: you don´t like it. That´s a compelling reason, of course.

 

[Psudopod]

Navels are scars --- for the tenth time.

So are tree rings, really. They're a permanent visible effect on a body from a event that occured previously in history, which is what a scar is. And while we can speculate about Adam without ever knowing if he had a navel or not, we can see the tree rings that go back over 10,000 years. Maybe those trees in the garden did have ring and maybe they didn't, but at some point about 4000 years of fake history was created and inserted on the trees (if you are correct).

 

[Cabal]

Navels are scars --- for the tenth time.

No, they are remnants of a natural function, required for the process of growth, as are tree rings. Tree rings are old transport systems.

 

[sandwiches]

Navels are scars --- for the tenth time.

Navels are scars of a specific process through which humans are born. The world shows the equivalent of scars or damage through volcanoes, earthquakes, meteorites, etc. Why would God create all the signs of being born and aging into the Earth but not the same signs for a human?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your defintion of "no scarring" in the OP is completely arbitrary.

Not, it's not --- I deem God's creation perfect --- thus no scars.

There is no reason at all to exclude "scars" from the possible signs of history.

I don't --- history is full of scars.

It's history I exclude.

Oh, sorry, I forgot one reason: you don´t like it. That´s a compelling reason, of course.

Attitude can keep you from learning as well.

 

[Cabal]

I don't ---

Apart from navels, for some arbitrary reason you can't justify.

 

[AV1611VET]

Navels are scars --- for the tenth time.

No...

Yes.

The navel (also known colloquially as the belly button, or clinically as the umbilicus) is a scar on the abdomen, caused when the umbilical cord is removed from a newborn baby.

Scars (also called cicatrices) are areas of fibrous tissue that replace normal skin (or other tissue) after injury. A scar results from the biologic process of wound repair in the skin and other tissues of the body. Thus, scarring is a natural part of the healing process. With the exception of very minor lesions, every wound (e.g. after accident, disease, or surgery) results in some degree of scarring.

Scar tissue is not identical to the tissue that it replaces and is usually of inferior functional quality.

 

[Freodin]

Not, it's not --- I deem God's creation perfect --- thus no scars.

This IS arbitrary. Scars don´t have anything to do with "perfection". Scars are - in the normal, non-embedded world - remnants of events. They are not different in that regard from tree rings or isotope ratios.

I have to wonder though... do you think that Jesus had a navel?

 

[Cabal]

Yes.

Maybe quote the entire post, instead of just one word, and analyse that point, ok?

And while you're at, maybe you can reconcile you claim that you don't exclude scars and proceed to exclude two scars for no other reason than sheer caprice.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe quote the entire post, instead of just one word, and analyse that point, ok?

Ok.

No, they are remnants of a natural function, required for the process of growth, as are tree rings. Tree rings are old transport systems.

Yes.

The navel (also known colloquially as the belly button, or clinically as the umbilicus) is a scar on the abdomen, caused when the umbilical cord is removed from a newborn baby.

Scars (also called cicatrices) are areas of fibrous tissue that replace normal skin (or other tissue) after injury. A scar results from the biologic process of wound repair in the skin and other tissues of the body. Thus, scarring is a natural part of the healing process. With the exception of very minor lesions, every wound (e.g. after accident, disease, or surgery) results in some degree of scarring.

Scar tissue is not identical to the tissue that it replaces and is usually of inferior functional quality.

 

[Mike Elphick]

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

Let's see for ourselves:

A deceptive creator

This is disgraceful! How low can you get in three-word-quote mining!!! What follows in the Wikipedia article is an explanation for why Gosse DID NOT mean deception. You did nor read the extract.

In addition:

The Omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.

I do not believe Adam had a navel.

You can believe and disbelieve whatever you want.

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.

I did not invent Embedded Age --- my pastor, who has two doctorates, mentioned it in a sermon; and although he claims he is YEC, I have taken it from there.

Yet you had it personally confirmed "by God". A much better authority than two PhD's — fallacious 'arguments from authority', both

Omphalos DOES NOT imply deception...

Every single atheist, agnostic, and even Christian I have talked to in the past three and a half years here would disagree with you.

Here's what Gosse himself thought about it:-

It may be objected, that, to assume the world to have been created with fossil skeletons in its crust, —skeletons of animals that never really existed,—is to charge the Creator with forming objects whose sole purpose was to deceive us. The reply is obvious. Were the concentric timber-rings of a created tree formed merely to deceive ? Were the growth lines of a created shell intended to deceive ? Was the navel of the created Man intended to deceive him into the persuasion that he had had a parent?*

These peculiarities of structure were inseparable

* Dr. Harris has the following observations :— "Why might not God have created the crust of the earth, just as it is, with all its numberless stratifications, and diversified formations, complete ? And the analogy for such an exercise of creative power is supposed to be found In the creation of Adam, not as an infant, but as an adult; and in the production of the full-sized trees of Eden. To which the reply is direct: the maturity of the first man, and of the objects around him, could not deceive him by implying that they had slowly grown to that state. His first knowledge was the knowledge of the contrary. He lived, partly, in order to proclaim the fact of his creation. And, could his own body, or any of the objects created at the same time, have been subjected to a physiological examination, they would, no doubt, have been found to indicate their miraculous production in their very destitution-of all the traces of an early growth; whereas the shell of the earth is a crowded storehouse of evidence of its gradual formation. So that the question, expressed in other language, amounts to this: Might not the God of infinite truth have enclosed in the earth, at its creation, evidence of its having existed ages before its actual production ? Of course, the objector would disavow such a sentiment. But such appears to be the real import of the objection; and, as such, it involves its own refutation."—PreAdamite Earth, p. 83.

"Omphalos: An attempt to untie the geological knot" (1857) by Philip Henry Gosse. pp 347 - 348

... so you've wasted your time. Do some research next time.

Like I said, Gosse obviously hasn't convinced you, and he's surely not going to convince me.

Oh, you're so wrong! To me the whole thing is obviously completely absurd, and I'm certainly not out to CONVINCE you, only to INFORM you.

On this particular subject, about which you pretend to be an expert, you're actually very much an amateur floundering in the dark

 

[AV1611VET]

On this particular subject, about which you pretend to be an expert, you're actually very much an amateur floundering in the dark

I am not an expert on Omphalos, if that's what you meant.

I barely know it, and never heard of it until I came here three and a half years ago.

In any event, I'm not here to discuss Omphalos, Gosse, scars, imperfect tissue, or anything of that genre.

I'm here to take questions on Embedded Age Creation.

 

[sandwiches]

Ok.

Yes.

Like I said, it may be scar but it remains a sign of the human development process. The Earth has signs of processes older than 6,000. Why wouldn't humans have them?