Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Split Rock]

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.

Here: Allow me to correct this for you:

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

 

[Split Rock]

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

Actually, there is quite alot on that left side of The Bible. It covers Physics, Chemistry, Linguistics, Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Cosmology, Paleontology and Anthropology.

One of the biggest lies of creationism, is that it only disagrees with just a little bit of science.

 

[Freodin]

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 again you go on to some derail and ignore my question. But I can understand that: after all, I only bolded and capitalized it.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Adam was, let's say, 30 (some say 20 --- it doesn't matter).

Can you give me an example of something that occurred when Adam was 5?

He wasn't 30. He was 0.

Now, if he was created to look like he was 30, then there would be indications of things that would have occured had he grown and aged like a normal human (i.e. cellular division, tissue development, etc), but didn't.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't have it both ways.

Oh, yes, I can.

Adam was [physically] 30.

Adam was [existentially] 1.

Same with the earth.

 

[BananaSlug]

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?

 

[Mike Elphick]

Taking the physical age of the earth (4.57 billion years) as a minuend, the amount of time the earth has been in existence according to James Ussher's dating method (6012 years) as a subtrahend, the difference is the amount of embedded age.

You don't need to any more, AV, because you've got competition!

Here's a great post from evcforum and theologyweb by a certain Theoferrum:-

It appears that Brown's Gas has the ability to decrease radioactivity to safe levels (which was known before the 'discovery' of Oklo, by the way, implying that event was a trial run using Brown's Gas) and this would make the waste material appear to be billions of years old and the conditions on the earth at the time of Creation (or Origin, if you prefer) and again at the flood perfectly mimmic this situation resulting in the strata of the earth appearing to be billions of years old when, in fact, it was not.

What do you reckon AV? Doesn't this explain away measured ancient dates for the Earth even better than embedded age?

 

[Freodin]

Oh, yes, I can.

Adam was [physically] 30.

Adam was [existentially] 1.

Same with the earth.

There is no difference between a "physical" and an "existential" age. The physical age of somthing IS the time that it has existed.

 

[Loudmouth]

QV starting here: 1142 --- a lengthy discussion in SN1987a.

It's a dadified discussion.

Mind explaining here?

 

[Mike Elphick]

Give it up, Mike.

I find that remark somewhat insulting and having a strong whiff of arrogance about it.

I have been reading Gosse's book and quoted extracts from it to demonstrate, contrary to your assertion, he never considered artificial age to be a deception or "fake". That word can't be found in his book.

Moreover, I demonstrated that the Omphalos hypothesis has purpose and explanation within its remit, whereas "embedded age" à la AV has neither.

From what you have written, it appears you are lacking in knowledge about Omphalos, bar belly buttons and fakery. Did you even read the quotes I provided? I'd guess not — water of a duck's back and all that.

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you reckon AV? Doesn't this explain away measured ancient dates for the Earth even better than embedded age?

I'm not sure I like this part:

...resulting in the strata of the earth appearing to be billions of years old when, in fact, it was not.

When it comes to individual objects, I have no problem with dating; but when it comes to strata, I do.

I don't think the earth was "layered" when it came into existence.

It got "layered" afterward by four possible ways:

1. A pre-flood race of giants on the earth horsed around with the land for thousands of years.
2. The Flood contributed to it.
3. God layered it as part of His clean-up, doing things as He said we should: decently and in order.
4. God layered it when He broke Eden up into continents.
   

Short answer = I don't know.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no difference between a "physical" and an "existential" age. The physical age of somthing IS the time that it has existed.

Interesting --- how old are the atoms that you're made up of?

(Please answer this with a number, or don't answer at all.)

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a dadified discussion.

Mind explaining here?

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have been reading Gosse's book and quoted extracts from it to demonstrate, contrary to your assertion, he never considered artificial age to be a deception or "fake". That word can't be found in his book.

Moreover, I demonstrated that the Omphalos hypothesis has purpose and explanation within its remit, whereas "embedded age" à la AV has neither.

Gosse can take a hike and take his belly-button with him.

If Gosse has you so enamored, why aren't you Omphalos?

I see he's really got you convinced, eh?

 

[Belk]

Interesting --- how old are the atoms that you're made up of?

(Please answer this with a number, or don't answer at all.)

sci.physics: Re: How old are atoms?

Depends on the atom but between

13.7 BY - 1 MY

 

[Freodin]

Interesting --- how old are the atoms that you're made up of?

False dichotomy. Objects are not dated by their atomic components, but by there time of existence since becoming that identifiable object.

(Please answer this with a number, or don't answer at all.)

That you got an answer that you don´t like, does not mean that this answer is wrong. More likely, that your question was wrong.

 

[MoonLancer]

Interesting --- how old are the atoms that you're made up of?

(Please answer this with a number, or don't answer at all.)

The earth has scars which you cannot explain with embed age. Science can explain it.

the only reason to perpetuate the idea of embedded age which is a cheap rip off other other ideas is that you do not have the ablity to understand or conceive of the processes and events that have shaped the earth over time. To some of us we can see the earth and see its history as clear as you see a belly button.

Unless you want to change your idea to Embedded Age and History, its really dead in the water. You are internally inconsistent with your idea because of willful or accidental ignorance.

The earth has scars like belly buttons all over.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Gosse can take a hike and take his belly-button with him.

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.

If Gosse has you so enamored, why aren't you Omphalos?

I'm not enamoured by Gosse, far from it, but it's was necessary to go back to the source material to counter your charges against him. Of course no one can BE Omphalos (confirming how little you know about it).

I see he's really got you convinced, eh?

No, I just like learning — something that obviously doesn't interested you.

 

[AV1611VET]

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2005-03/12741.htmlDepends on the atom but between

13.7 BY - 1 MY

That sure narrows it down, doesn't it?

 

[MoonLancer]

That sure narrows it down, doesn't it?

13.7 BY > 6100 Y. There is chiness pottery from 6000 bce with writing on it. I guess thats embedded age right?