Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[MoonLancer]

AV, explain how fossils are encased in earth that are well over 6100 years old? It seems to me this shows history much older then 6100 years.

 

[hangback]

Carry on, my friend, my brother in Christ, and son of the Most High God. May He spark your wisdom and discernment evermoreso, to carry on, in His name, and may His righteous right hand guide you in all you do and say, my friend.

At a guess I would say you simply lack confidence in yourself Brinny.

 

[BananaSlug]

You can't have a man walking on water either, can you?

Man implies weight, weight implies gravity, water implies buoyancy --- get the picture?

Jesus isn't so special now is he?


Seriously, you claim that the earth was created 4.5 billion years old 6100 years ago. You claim there is no history older than 6100 years. We have a few hundred million years of fossils, major geologic events, and even asteroid strikes. "Embedded age" claims none of that happened yet the evidence is there. If "embedded age" cannot explain the evidence that seems to contradict it then it is seriously flawed.

So, AV, how would your "embedded age" hypothesis explain all of the evidence that shows the earth has had a long tumultuous history?

So is this 250 million year fossil really 250 million years old? Why or why not? Why do you accept the age of the earth but never accept the age of the fossils found in it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus isn't so special now is he?

I wasn't talking about Jesus, or I would have capitalized 'man'.

Seriously, you claim that the earth was created 4.5 billion years old 6100 years ago.

Yes, and there's the major difference.

I claim it was created 4.57 billion years old, and you claim it was created 4.57 billion years ago.

You claim there is no history older than 6100 years.

That's not the subject of this thread.

We have a few hundred million years of fossils, major geologic events, and even asteroid strikes.

Not in Genesis 1, you don't.

"Embedded age" claims none of that happened yet the evidence is there.

No, Embedded Age does not claim none of that happened.

Major geologic events and asteroid strikes came well after Genesis 1.

If "embedded age" cannot explain the evidence that seems to contradict it then it is seriously flawed.

No --- how do you guys like to put it --- you can't prove a negative?

Embedded Age left no evidence behind --- none.

So, AV, how would your "embedded age" hypothesis explain all of the evidence that shows the earth has had a long tumultuous history?

It shouldn't even touch the subject.

So is this 250 million year fossil really 250 million years old? Why or why not? Why do you accept the age of the earth but never accept the age of the fossils found in it?

What is this you're showing me?

(Nevermind --- not in this thread.)

If my glasses were in that white stuff (chalk, calcium, marble?), would you say I'm 250 million years old?

If that 250-million-year-old stuff was gooey in Genesis 6, or gooey in 1750, or gooey in 1812, then whatever that thing is got stuck in it, are you saying that animal is 250 million years old?

Take a look at this --- how old is Clint Eastwood here?

​

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Then rocks would be the perfect test. The crystals in granite do not need specific ratios of isotopes in order to function as mature crystals. However, granites which have experienced a history of radioactive decay will have specific ratios of isotopes consistent with the time since the crystals formed. Therefore, according to "maturity without history" we should not see isotopic histories consistent with cooling over millions of years. The problem for you is that we do see this history of cooling and isotope decay in granites.

One of the main objections to radiometric dating

 

[BananaSlug]

Major flaw with your argument:

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:20.

You are saying there is no evidence for "embedded age", yet this verse clearly says God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen SINCE THE CREATION. If God hid all of the evidence for creation, then Romans 1:20 is wrong. Which is wrong, Romans 1:20 or your "embedded age" interpretation?

That's not the subject of this thread.

But it is an important part of your "embedded age" scenario, therefore it is a subject of this thread.

Not in Genesis 1, you don't.

I do not ever remember reading about God "embedding age" in Genesis 1 either...

No, Embedded Age does not claim none of that happened.

Did you really have to have a triple negative?

Major geologic events and asteroid strikes came well after Genesis 1.

Funny, none of that is mentioned in the Bible either....

No --- how do you guys like to put it --- you can't prove a negative?

Embedded Age left no evidence behind --- none.

You forgot that an important part of your little idea is that earths history is only 6100 years despite it being over 4.5 billion years old. Any evidence for history older than 6100 years nullifies your hypothesis (if you could even consider it a hypothesis). We find loads of historical events in the geologic record.

It shouldn't even touch the subject.

It should touch the subject considering a history older than 6100 years automatically falsifies your idea.

If my glasses were in that white stuff (chalk, calcium, marble?), would you say I'm 250 million years old?

If your glasses were embedded in actual rock, I would want to borrow your time machine. The "white stuff" is most likely sandstone, though it looks relatively fine grained.

If that 250-million-year-old stuff was gooey in Genesis 6, or gooey in 1750, or gooey in 1812, then whatever that thing is got stuck in it, are you saying that animal is 250 million years old?

Why would rock be gooey? The animal's bones are fossilized, meaning they have been turned into rock as well. God called it a "firmament" in Genesis 1, not a "gelatinous".

Take a look at this --- how old is Clint Eastwood here?

​

Based on the size of his hands I'd say an adult. The Grauman's Chinese Theater has been taking handprints since the 1920's. Clint Eastwood was born in the 30's. He became most popular in the late 70's/early 80's. I'd say he was in his late 40's to early 50's.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then rocks would be the perfect test. The crystals in granite do not need specific ratios of isotopes in order to function as mature crystals. However, granites which have experienced a history of radioactive decay will have specific ratios of isotopes consistent with the time since the crystals formed.

And what of these, Loudmouth?

19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;
20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

Are any of these going to show passage of time?

This city will be brand new.

 

[The Lady Kate]

And what of these, Loudmouth?Are any of these going to show passage of time?

This city will be brand new.

God has all of Creation to gather materials from... surely He'll be able to find enough precious stones for such a garish display of superficial wealth.

 

[Loudmouth]

And what of these, Loudmouth?Are any of these going to show passage of time?

You tell me. What is the isotope content in the rocks? Real rocks contain an unmistakeable history of cooling and isotope decay. Therefore, these rocks have features inconsistent with maturity without history.

 

[AV1611VET]

God has all of Creation to gather materials from... surely He'll be able to find enough precious stones for such a garish display of superficial wealth.

Nope --- according to Peter, God is going to relax the Strong Nuclear Force, and every element on the Periodic Table is going to dissolve.

 

[AV1611VET]

You tell me. What is the isotope content in the rocks? Real rocks contain an unmistakeable history of cooling and isotope decay. Therefore, these rocks have features inconsistent with maturity without history.

I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of stuff inconsistent with science as we know it in the New Heaven and the New Earth.

 

[Deadbolt]

Nope --- according to Peter, God is going to relax the Strong Nuclear Force, and every element on the Periodic Table is going to dissolve.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that obliterate all matter? And where in Peter does it say this? I don't recall much of anything in the New Testament being scientifically relevant.

I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of stuff inconsistent with science as we know it in the New Heaven and the New Earth.

The way you say that makes it sound like some kind of ghoulish non-euclidean nightmarescape out of H.P. Lovecraft. No thank you, sir! I'll take Damnation over that, and Oblivion over both.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of stuff inconsistent with science as we know it in the New Heaven and the New Earth.

No, I think you said this wrong. I think you meant you hope there's going to be a lot of stuff inconsistent with science as we know it in the New Heaven etc. Because otherwise it might lend credence to the idea that God might actually like science!

And that is probably the greatest fear of any Creationist around.

What if God actually values science? What then?

 

[MoonLancer]

or that god values intellectuals

 

[Split Rock]

Originally Posted by BananaSlug
You claim there is no history older than 6100 years.

That's not the subject of this thread.

And that's why your Embedded Age Model is worthless. You cannot even back it up and you are the only supporter of it here.

Nope --- according to Peter, God is going to relax the Strong Nuclear Force, and every element on the Periodic Table is going to dissolve.

According to Peter??? NO. According to AVET.

 

[BananaSlug]

Nope --- according to Peter, God is going to relax the Strong Nuclear Force, and every element on the Periodic Table is going to dissolve.

The "elements" mentioned by Peter were the classical Greek elements, fire, earth, water, and air. The modern Periodic Table was not formed until much later.

And remember, according to Paul, you don't have to be a Christian to be saved, you just have to be married to one.

 

[BananaSlug]

I posted this for you again AV, since you seemed to have missed it...


Major flaw with your argument:

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:20.

You are saying there is no evidence for "embedded age", yet this verse clearly says God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen SINCE THE CREATION. If God hid all of the evidence for creation, then Romans 1:20 is wrong. Which is wrong, Romans 1:20 or your "embedded age" interpretation?

That's not the subject of this thread.

But it is an important part of your "embedded age" scenario, therefore it is a subject of this thread.

Not in Genesis 1, you don't.

I do not ever remember reading about God "embedding age" in Genesis 1 either...

No, Embedded Age does not claim none of that happened.

Did you really have to have a triple negative?

Major geologic events and asteroid strikes came well after Genesis 1.

Funny, none of that is mentioned in the Bible either....

No --- how do you guys like to put it --- you can't prove a negative?

Embedded Age left no evidence behind --- none.

You forgot that an important part of your little idea is that earth's history is only 6100 years despite it being over 4.5 billion years old. Any evidence for history older than 6100 years nullifies your hypothesis (if you could even consider it a hypothesis). We find loads of historical events in the geologic record.

It shouldn't even touch the subject.

It should touch the subject considering a history older than 6100 years automatically falsifies your idea.

If my glasses were in that white stuff (chalk, calcium, marble?), would you say I'm 250 million years old?

If your glasses were embedded in actual rock, I would want to borrow your time machine. The "white stuff" is most likely sandstone, though it looks relatively fine grained.

If that 250-million-year-old stuff was gooey in Genesis 6, or gooey in 1750, or gooey in 1812, then whatever that thing is got stuck in it, are you saying that animal is 250 million years old?

Why would rock be gooey? The animal's bones are fossilized, meaning they have been turned into rock as well. God called it a "firmament" in Genesis 1, not a "gelatinous".

Take a look at this --- how old is Clint Eastwood here?

​

Based on the size of his hands I'd say an adult. The Grauman's Chinese Theater has been taking handprints since the 1920's. Clint Eastwood was born in the 30's. He became most popular in the late 70's/early 80's. I'd say he was in his late 40's to early 50's.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Nope --- according to Peter, God is going to relax the Strong Nuclear Force, and every element on the Periodic Table is going to dissolve.

You mean according to your interpretation of Peter through a scientific viewpoint, don't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I posted this for you again AV, since you seemed to have missed it...

Well, I guess I may as well consider this thread over and done with, since I can't keep the focus in Genesis 1, so I may as well just start answering all your questions again.

Major flaw with your argument:

Of course there is.

You guys know the flaws before you even understand the concepts.

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:20.

And what do you understand about His creation from science, that is included in Embedded Age Creation, that I happen to agree with?

I've only said it (as a formula) twice, so here it is a third time: the age of the earth.

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.

Since Paul said God's invisible qualities, or what I called "omnipotence" in the OP, are demonstrated by something seen in His creation: age.

You are saying there is no evidence for "embedded age", yet this verse clearly says God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen SINCE THE CREATION. If God hid all of the evidence for creation, then Romans 1:20 is wrong. Which is wrong, Romans 1:20 or your "embedded age" interpretation?

But God didn't hide it, did He?

You guys found it with your radiometrics.

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

But it is an important part of your "embedded age" scenario, therefore it is a subject of this thread.

I have a feeling embedded age is the furthest thing from you guys' minds.

What tells me that, is the fact that you guys critique it before you even understand it.

I do not ever remember reading about God "embedding age" in Genesis 1 either...

Again, embedded age melds science (specifically the age of the earth) with the Scriptures.

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

Did you really have to have a triple negative?

I'd put a quadruple negative in there, if I thought it would help.

Funny, none of that is mentioned in the Bible either....

A global flood, taking three chapters in Genesis, and you say it's funny that the Bible doesn't mention major geologic events.

Mamma mia.

You forgot that an important part of your little idea is that earth's history is only 6100 years despite it being over 4.5 billion years old. Any evidence for history older than 6100 years nullifies your hypothesis (if you could even consider it a hypothesis). We find loads of historical events in the geologic record.

Yes, a history of more than 6100 years would falsify Embedded Age creation.

I suppose this makes it a viable hypothesis now.

But the geologic record is based on an interpretation called 'uniformitarianism', not 'catastrophism', and therefore I don't trust what scientists claim the geological record tells them.

It should touch the subject considering a history older than 6100 years automatically falsifies your idea.

Yes, a history of more than 6100 years would automatically falsify Embedded Age Creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

The "elements" mentioned by Peter were the classical Greek elements, fire, earth, water, and air.

They were, huh?

So God is going to destroy just the earth, the air, the fire, and the water, and with that recreate a New Heaven and a New Earth?

What's going to happen to the rest of the old universe?

The modern Periodic Table was not formed until much later.

The Periodic Table of the Elements, as I understand it, is open-ended.

It isn't complete.

This doesn't mean that God is going to take only the elements discovered --- He's taking them all.

So if you want to have a completed table before the Day of God, you'd better get busy.

And remember, according to Paul, you don't have to be a Christian to be saved, you just have to be married to one.

I covered that before, but since you guys love to accuse me of inflating my post count, I'll repeat for about the third or fourth time.

As one evangelist put it, God is not anyone's Father-in-Law.