Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[thaumaturgy]

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation:

1. Definition = maturity without history
2. Method = creatio ex nihilo
3. Unique features:
   • requires omnipotence
   • laws of science not in effect
   • occurred BC4004 (according to Ussher's dating)
     
   • no evidence left behind
   • completed in 6 days (on purpose)
4. Described in detail in Genesis 1
5. Witnessed by the angels

LOL, Thaumaturgy.

Do you see what you just did?

It's maturity without history --- not age without history.

I will point out to AV that he himself calls this "Embedded Age". If Age has nothing to do with it you should leave the word "age" out of your own title.

If you are unable to keep your strange word game straight how can we all keep it straight for you?

It's a lot simpler if you simply just assume that the rocks tell a true story.

You don't have to play games with God and you don't have to play games with words.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does that even mean? That there's no energy?

It means that the level of energy started out at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm glad you find your "word-game" as LOL-worthy.

I'm just trying to figure out why you feel the need to play such a game.

Maybe because I don't like to play the Telephone Game, like you guys like to accuse the Word of God of being.

Every time you guys point a finger at God or the Bible, there are three pointing back.

 

[hangback]

Do you know what creatio ex nihilo boils down to?

A stain on the bottom of the pot where the rubbish had been.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I love how Biblical Literalism is stronger than God himself!

Biblical Literalism is so strong that even words and logic can't stand up to it! God has to be bent into strange contortions to maintain the most holy concept that the Bible = Literal Absolute Truth.

And that is the most holy concept in this discussion. If the Bible could be in part allegorical this wouldn't even have to be a discussion.

But the HOLY IMPERATIVE that BIBLE LITERALISM UBER ALLES be upheld means God is non-decieving deciever and words which are the only way we have to communicate are gutted and rendere meaningless.

But when you gut and render words meaningless you gut and render the concept of Bible "Literalism". Because literalism only makes sense when the words make sense.

So we have to further beat logic to death.

Now we are left bereft of logic and bereft of words. How does one communicate "The Good News" when words are destroyed and logic is destroyed?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now we are left bereft of logic and bereft of words. How does one communicate "The Good News" when words are destroyed and logic is destroyed?

Do you want to discuss the OP, or do you want to play Telephone, Thaumaturgy?

My patience is wearing thin.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Maybe because I don't like to play the Telephone Game, like you guys like to accuse the Word of God of being.

Every time you guys point a finger at God or the Bible, there are three pointing back.

Oh my that's so deep! Did God inspire that phrase in you? Did he also tell you that when I point a finger at the bible there's a thumb pointing off 90 degrees? (That's pretty deep too!)

No, when I point a finger at the Bible it means God didn't do enough to make it make sense to everyone. If it only makes sense to people who are willing to gut words and logic to make it make sense then I'll gladly take all my fingers.

(NOTE: Since I have no reason to believe God wrote the Bible I'll just assume more rationally that the human beings who wrote the bible didn't tell me all there was to know.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

Do you want to discuss the OP, or do you want to play Telephone, Thaumaturgy?

My patience is wearing thin.

Oh my! Your "patience" is wearing thin? Is that because you've met a bunch of folks who won't play "sheeple" and just nod in agreement with your "word game"?

"Telephone"? So if I (and everyone else on here) points out how your word game is just a semantic play then we are somehow not discussing the topic at hand?

If your logic is so weak and thin that it can't even stand up to this level of scrutiny you better take it back where it has a good reception: those folks who believe the story before they get the explanation so the job of explaining it becomes a pointless bit of theological onanism.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Every time you guys point a finger at God or the Bible, there are three pointing back.

Like a gang sign?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

it mostly rests on AV´s definition of "age" - or rather, what he thinks it is defined.

Dictionaries can take a hike.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Dictionaries can take a hike.

When one sets out to destroy a word here or a word there, then it isn't long before we've destroyed all the words and rendered ourselves incapable of communication.

It's the same with science. Keep science from straying into the "holy of holies" and you effectively gut science. If the holy of holies cannot stand the light of day then maybe there's more to be said about the holy of holies rather than about the light.

 

[anagnostic]

This incoherent discussion reminds me of a passage from The Four Quartets by TS Eliot:

Words strain,
Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,
Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place,
Will not stay still. Shrieking voices
Scolding, mocking, or merely chattering,
Always assail them.

The proposal put forward by the OP is preposterous - evidence for an old universe is all around us, unlike the Genesis creation myth which exists as a few words on a page.

Arguing that you can have age without time is like saying tomatoes are still red after you turn the light off.

 

[Gracchus]

You bet I would.

Do you know what creatio ex nihilo boils down to?

0 → MC[sup]2[/sup]

We understand that is your position. Of course the "Big Bang" theory doesn't entail creation out of nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

We understand that is your position. Of course the "Big Bang" theory doesn't entail creation out of nothing.

Big Bang → creatio ex materia, with the impetus being considered unknown by some, and some giving the impetus to God.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Whenever I see things like "no evidence left behind" highlighted as a unique feature, I'm left thinking "how can these guys know anything about it - surely that's an impossibility?"

That's why we need something to guide us, and some prefer science to be their guide in how this universe started, and some choose the Bible as their guide as to how this universe started --- (and some use both).

When "no evidence left behind" becomes a unique feature of something, I'm sorry to have to tell you that science can't help us at all and it (AV's embedded age hypothesis, in this case) becomes a matter of faith or conjecture. And since the Bible never mentions embedded age (see below), and science does not support it, you have no guide(s) and are left floundering in the dark.

Moreover, as pointed out by others, you say that "laws of science [were] not in effect". How does that marry up with your implied acceptance of the Bible AND science? It can't, of course.

Also, I have completely failed to find anything in Genesis (not just Genesis 1) that in the least bit touches upon embedded age.

Embedded age is arrived at by taking the physical age of the universe and subtracting the number of years that have elapsed since BC4004.

You're answering a question I never asked, but since you've brought this subject up, is it the scientific age of the universe, or that of the Earth that's your reference age? Before you said it was the Earth:-

This ball of sea water is 4.57 billion years old, and yet, 1 second before Genesis 1:1, this ball of water did not exist.

Scientists have put an age for the universe between 13-14 Billion years, so which is it? The Bible says that the Earth was created first, so why has the Earth got less embedded age in it than the rest of the universe? Or maybe you can't be guided by science AND the Bible on this one .

And where does it say this embedding of age was witnessed by angels? I can't find it.

Job 38:6-7 shows the angels present and celebrating when the foundations of the earth were laid.

Nope. Poor old Job never says anything about embedded age.

So my question is this: - "Show me why this embedded age stuff is not just an excuse to explain away the thorny creationist problem of scientific age determinations being hundreds of thousand times adrift from supposed biblical chronology?"

It's not an 'excuse', it's a cosmology based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, along with what scientists agree about the age of the universe.

Put it this way. If no one had ever measured the age of the earth, or one trusts the 'standard' YECist 6,000-10,000 age model, where would you find any reference to embedded age? That's an important question, because if you can't find any, then "embedded age" a pretty transparent invention (excuse) for solving the mismatch between biblical timescales and those measured by modern science.

So again I ask, "where in the Bible is there even the tiniest hint of embedded age, AV style?"

 

[AV1611VET]

When "no evidence left behind" becomes a unique feature of something, I'm sorry to have to tell you that science can't help us at all and it (AV's embedded age hypothesis, in this case) becomes a matter of faith or conjecture.

You're sorry that science can't help us? That bothers you when something related to cosmology becomes a matter of faith or conjecture?

And since the Bible never mentions embedded age (see below), and science does not support it, you have no guide(s) and are left floundering in the dark.

And let me guess. I'm also floundering in the dark when I believe in the Rapture and the Trinity as well? And according to some, I'm "floundering in the dark" when I believe in things that are mentioned by name in the Bible.

Moreover, as pointed out by others, you say that "laws of science [were] not in effect". How does that marry up with your implied acceptance of the Bible AND science? It can't, of course.

Six days in BC4004 the universe went without science; the other 2,194,374+ it does.

You're answering a question I never asked, but since you've brought this subject up, is it the scientific age of the universe, or that of the Earth that's your reference age? Before you said it was the Earth:-

As I understand it, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and the earth is 4.57 billion years old.

Scientists have put an age for the universe between 13-14 Billion years, so which is it?

13.7 billion.

The Bible says that the Earth was created first, so why has the Earth got less embedded age in it than the rest of the universe?

As I understand it, the universe is dated to 13.7 billion years based on its size; and since I think its a fallacy that "big = old", I don't necessarily believe in my heart that this universe is that old. However, I go with 13.7 billion years for the sake of the conversation.

Put another way: just like I go with Ussher's dating, even though he could have been off by about 100 years, I go with science's dating of the universe, even though it could be off as well.

Or maybe you can't be guided by science AND the Bible on this one .

I go with what science says.

Nope. Poor old Job never says anything about embedded age.

I said Job mentions the angels singing for joy at the laying of the foundations of the earth.

Put it this way. If no one had ever measured the age of the earth, or one trusts the 'standard' YECist 6,000-10,000 age model, where would you find any reference to embedded age?

Adam is my favorite example.

That's an important question, because if you can't find any, then "embedded age" a pretty transparent invention (excuse) for solving the mismatch between biblical timescales and those measured by modern science.

Adam is my favorite example.

 

[Mike Elphick]

When "no evidence left behind" becomes a unique feature of something, I'm sorry to have to tell you that science can't help us at all and it (AV's embedded age hypothesis, in this case) becomes a matter of faith or conjecture.

You're sorry that science can't help us? That bothers you when something related to cosmology becomes a matter of faith or conjecture?

No. I'm not in the least bit sorry if something boils down to a matter of faith or conjecture. I was only expressing sorrow at having to tell you that if there's no evidence, science can't help. Period.

And since the Bible never mentions embedded age (see below), and science does not support it, you have no guide(s) and are left floundering in the dark.

And let me guess. I'm also floundering in the dark when I believe in the Rapture and the Trinity as well? And according to some, I'm "floundering in the dark" when I believe in things that are mentioned by name in the Bible.

Stick to the subject. Embedded age is neither biblical nor scientific, so you can only be taking wild guesses.

Moreover, as pointed out by others, you say that "laws of science [were] not in effect". How does that marry up with your implied acceptance of the Bible AND science? It can't, of course.

Six days in BC4004 the universe went without science; the other 2,194,374+ it does.

You keep answering questions I never asked. Let me repeat "how does suspending the laws of physics marry up with science AND the Bible?"

You're answering a question I never asked, but since you've brought this subject up, is it the scientific age of the universe, or that of the Earth that's your reference age? Before you said it was the Earth:-

As I understand it, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and the earth is 4.57 billion years old.

Scientists have put an age for the universe between 13-14 Billion years, so which is it?

4.57 billion.

So how come they've got DIFFERENT real ages, when you've only provided four and a half Billion years of embedded age?

The Bible says that the Earth was created first, so why has the Earth got less embedded age in it than the rest of the universe?

As I understand it, the universe is dated to 13.7 billion years based on its size; and since I think its a fallacy that "big = old", I don't necessarily believe in my heart that this universe is that old. However, I go with 13.7 billion years for the sake of the conversation.

No. Though size (distances) are important there are several independent types of measurements for dating the age of the universe.

Put another way: just like I go with Ussher's dating, even though he could have been off by about 100 years, I go with science's dating of the universe, even though it could be off as well.

So which is it: 13.7 or 4.57 Billion years? You can't have both!

Or maybe you can't be guided by science AND the Bible on this one.

I go with what science says, since God didn't date-stamp everything.

Ok. But using Ussher and genealogies, you do get a "date-stamp"

Nope. Poor old Job never says anything about embedded age.

I said Job mentions the angels singing for joy at the laying of the foundations of the earth.

Yes, but you told us in your definition that it [embedded age] is "described in detail in Genesis 1" and was "witnessed by the angels", but neither is true.

Put it this way. If no one had ever measured the age of the earth, or one trusts the 'standard' YECist 6,000-10,000 age model, where would you find any reference to embedded age?

Adam is my favorite example.

What's that as an answer to: you were asked where one would find any reference to embedded age?

That's an important question, because if you can't find any, then "embedded age" a pretty transparent invention (excuse) for solving the mismatch between biblical timescales and those measured by modern science.

Adam is my favorite example.

That's no answer either.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was only expressing sorrow at having to tell you that if there's no evidence, science can't help. Period.

I don't find that a matter of sorrow, myself.

Science is too myopic to be able to critique the Bible.

Stick to the subject. Embedded age is neither biblical nor scientific, so you can only be taking wild guesses.

A 4.57 billion year old planet appears out of nothing, and you don't call that embedded age?

What would you call it, then?

You keep answering questions I never asked. Let me repeat "how does suspending the laws of physics marry up with science AND the Bible?"

What law(s) was suspended during the creation week, Mike?

So how come they've got DIFFERENT real ages, when you've only provided four and a half Billion years of embedded age?

God embedded 50 million years here, 400 million there, 1 billion here, 10 billion there.

He gave Adam 30 years, the earth 4.57, and Zircon 4.404 billion.

No. Though size (distances) are important there are several independent types of measurements for dating the age of the universe.

Not a problem. I'll go with whatever you say it is for the sake of discussion.

So which is it: 13.7 or 4.57 Billion years? You can't have both!

Yes, it's obvious you can.

The universe is 13.7 and the earth is 4.57.

Ok. But using Ussher and genealogies, you do get a "date-stamp"

Not in Genesis 1, though.

Yes, but you told us in your definition that it [embedded age] is "described in detail in Genesis 1" and was "witnessed by the angels", but neither is true.

I also made it plain that you cannot have the amount of embedded age until you use the formula:

• PA - UD = EA.

What's that as an answer to: you were asked where one would find any reference to embedded age?

And I quoted 2 Peter 3:5 and Psalm 39:5.

That's no answer either.

I'm doing the best I can.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Embedded age is neither biblical nor scientific, so you can only be taking wild guesses.

A 4.57 billion year old planet appears out of nothing, and you don't call that embedded age?

What would you call it, then?

According to science, the Earth did not appear "out of nothing" — according to you and the Bible it did, so there is no accord here.

Scientists still don't know exactly how solar systems with planets are formed, but there are some very good theories, some with more faults than others.

1. The solar system begins to form as a rotating cloud, or nebulae, collapses.
   
2. Instabilities in the nebulae cause dust particles to stick together. The dust particles accrete into billions of planetesimals with diameters of about 10 meters. The planetesimals then collide and form protoplanets. Meanwhile, the protosun in the center of the nebular disk becomes massive and hot enough to "turn on" by fusing hydrogen.
   
3. The Sun begins to radiate energy and vaporize dust in the inner part of the Solar System. The remaining gas is blown away by solar winds.
   
4. To explain the transfer of angular momentum from the Sun to the planets, scientists proposed a braking action caused by the Sun's magnetic forces.

Planet Formation

Gosse would call the scientific explanation 'diachronic' (real-time, no embedded age), whereas Omphalos he called 'prochronic' (existing outside of real-time with age embedded at the moment of creation by God.)

But look, the people who wrote and contributed to Genesis were scientifically naive — they hadn't a clue how old the world was, so they had no concept of embedded age, let alone real age. And that's why there's no mention of it in the Bible.

So. I repeat: embedded age is neither biblical nor scientific.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that's why there's no mention of it in the Bible.

You're an authority on why that wasn't mentioned in the Bible, are you?

How do you know that, if it would have been, the Bible wouldn't have used that exact term?