Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[BananaSlug]

Simply continue to ignore them.

Well it is finally nice to see you admit you have no clue what you are talking about. The questions I posted were viable questions regarding your "embedded age" scenario. The fact you are unable to answer them only shows you really don't know anything and are simply trolling.

So why did you form a thread to answer questions about "Embedded Age" yet ignore the questions asked to you?

How is C14 dating a bone to 12,000 years different from Kdating a rock to 12,000 years when scientists are using the same concept for both methods?

Why would a bone have 12,000 years of age in the first place? Did God put it there? If not, who/what did?

How does a fossil get into a rock that is 250 million years old?

How does a limestone layer get wedged between a 10 million year old layer of rock and a 5 million year old layer of rock? Based on your idea, God embedded the age into those two layers during creation. But how exactly did that limestone get in there? Limestone is made of the shells of millions of dead organisms and often has the bones of other aquatic animals. How exactly did it get between two layers of solid, embedded-age rock?

If "embedded age" is "maturity without history" what exact do all of these fossils mean?

Why did you want questions yet ignore the ones asked? Do you not know the answers? These are serious questions.

 

[BananaSlug]

FYI, if you believe the earth was created <10,000 years ago, you are a YEC no matter how much age was "embedded" when it was created.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Why would you or someone else in your congregation request (a hypothetical) Gosse to stop talking about his Omphalos hypothesis. Why would he be escorted from your church and why would you hold the door open for him?

Because God's House is not the place for someone to come in and starting harping on alternate cosmologies.

So when is someone going to escort you out for harping on about alternative cosmologies? Gosse was a devout Christian and young age creationist and actually had little to say about cosmology.

In other words, what do you find so objectionable about Gosse and his Omphalos hypothesis?

I've said all I'm going to say about Omphalos in this thread.

Well, I'm certainly not going to ask you a sixth time!

I suggest you don't like Omphalos for four reasons:-

1. You don't understand the hypothesis because you haven't been bothered to study it — that's why you thought it implied deception on God's part, when it doesn't.
2. The book Omphalos is a scholarly work at a level you could never attain.
3. It explains Earth's age, fossils and geology and gives reasons why the world is the way we find it.
4. You're jealous because Omphalos is a thousand times superior to your home-brewed version, which does not enlighten or explain anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

FYI, if you believe the earth was created <10,000 years ago, you are a YEC no matter how much age was "embedded" when it was created.

Does that go for Omphalos and Last Thursday as well?

 

[MoonLancer]

Not for last Thursday. Its something else, a

ReallyYEC

 

[BananaSlug]

Does that go for Omphalos and Last Thursday as well?

Why are you ignoring my questions? You wanted questions on "embedded age" and I gave you serious implications about the idea that you continue to ignore. Are you not able to answer them? If so, you should take some time to think about your little idea...

So why did you form a thread to answer questions about "Embedded Age" yet ignore the questions asked to you?

How is C14 dating a bone to 12,000 years different from Kdating a rock to 12,000 years when scientists are using the same concept for both methods?

Why would a bone have 12,000 years of age in the first place? Did God put it there? If not, who/what did?

How does a fossil get into a rock that is 250 million years old?

How does a limestone layer get wedged between a 10 million year old layer of rock and a 5 million year old layer of rock? Based on your idea, God embedded the age into those two layers during creation. But how exactly did that limestone get in there? Limestone is made of the shells of millions of dead organisms and often has the bones of other aquatic animals. How exactly did it get between two layers of solid, embedded-age rock?

If "embedded age" is "maturity without history" what exact do all of these fossils mean?

 

[AV1611VET]

Gosse was a devout Christian and young age creationist and actually had little to say about cosmology.

How much about cosmology is there to say, really?

I'll highlight in red the parts where Gosse and I differ:

In what Stephen Joy Gould has called "glorious purple prose," Gosse argued that if one assumed creation ex nihilo, there would necessarily be traces of previous existence that had never actually occurred. "Omphalos" is Greek for "navel", and Gosse argued that the first man, Adam, did not require a navel because he was never born; nevertheless he must have had one, as do all complete human beings, just as God must have created trees with rings that they never grew. Thus, Gosse argued that the fossil record&#8212;even coprolites&#8212;might also be evidence of life that had never actually existed but which may have been instantly formed by God at the moment of creation.

Note that in my OP, I state that there was "no scarring" --- a navel is a scar.

 

[BananaSlug]

So did trees have rings?

 

[AV1611VET]

So did trees have rings?

I don't know --- probably.

 

[BananaSlug]

Thanks. That is all I needed to know. If God created trees with rings then that would show a history. You just busted your own idea.

 

[Belk]

Thanks. That is all I needed to know. If God created trees with rings then that would show a history. You just busted your own idea.

Well, that and the fact that when you date a rock, what you are measuring is the rocks history. If God "embedded age" into things the way AV is suggesting we would not know about it because we have no way of measuring the age of something short of determining it's history.

 

[BananaSlug]

Well, that and the fact that when you date a rock, what you are measuring is the rocks history. If God "embedded age" into things the way AV is suggesting we would not know about it because we have no way of measuring the age of something short of determining it's history.

Yeah but I honestly think AV doesn't really understand what dating a rock really entails. First it start with dinner, then eventually they ask you to commit...

Tree rings definitely show a history because each ring shows a year's worth of growth.

 

[Mike Elphick]

I'll highlight in red the parts where Gosse and I differ:

In what Stephen Joy Gould has called "glorious purple prose," Gosse argued that if one assumed creation ex nihilo, there would necessarily be traces of previous existence that had never actually occurred. "Omphalos" is Greek for "navel", and Gosse argued that the first man, Adam, did not require a navel because he was never born; nevertheless he must have had one, as do all complete human beings, just as God must have created trees with rings that they never grew. Thus, Gosse argued that the fossil record—even coprolites—might also be evidence of life that had never actually existed but which may have been instantly formed by God at the moment of creation

Let me put my cards on the table. For me, Omphalos, embedded age and its ilk are ridiculous notions. However, being an anti-creationist warrior, Omphalos and similar theories provide me the opportunity of learning more about creationism and its history (and many other subjects too).

Gould, being an evolutionary biologist, thought so too, so his quote from Wikipedia makes Gosse out to be pretty stupid — coprolites, belly buttons and all the rest! But Gosse made a deduction about this, rightly or wrongly. Here is an example of his thought process:-

The course of nature is a circle. I do not mean the plan of nature; I am not speaking of a circular arrangement of species, genera, families, and classes, as maintained by MacLeay, Swainson, and others. Their theories may be true, or they may be false ; I decide nothing concerning them; I am not alluding to any plan of nature, but to its course, cursus,—the way in which it runs on. This is a circle.

Here is in my garden a scarlet runner. It is a slender twining stem some three feet long, beset with leaves, with a growing bud at one end, and with the other inserted in the earth. What was it a month ago ? A tiny shoot protruding from between two thick fleshy leaves scarcely raised above the ground. A month before that? The thick fleshy leaves were two oval cotyledons, closely appressed face to face, with the minute plumule between them, the whole enclosed in an unbroken, tightly-fitting, spotted, leathery coat. It was a bean, a seed.

Was this the commencement of its existence ? O no! Six months earlier still it was snugly lying, with several others like itself, in a green fleshy pod, to the interior of which it was organically attached. A month before that, this same pod with its contents was the centre of a scarlet butterfly-like flower, the bottom of its pistil, within which, if you had split it open, you would have discerned the tiny beans, whose history we are tracing backwards, each imbedded in the soft green tissue, but no bigger than the eye of a cambric needle.

But where was this flower ? It was one of many that glowed on my garden wall all through last summer; each cluster springing as a bud from a slender twining stem, which was the exact counterpart of that with which we commenced this little life-history.

And this earlier stem,—what of it? It too had been a shoot, a pair of cotyledons with a plumule, a seed, an integral part of a carpel, which was a part of an earlier flower, that expanded from an earlier bud, that grew out of an earlier stem, that had been a still earlier seed, that had been— and backward, ad infinitum, for aught that I can perceive.

The course, then, of a scarlet runner is a circle, without beginning or end:—that is, I mean, without a natural, a normal beginning or end. For at what point of its history can you put your finger, and say, " Here is the commencement of this organism, before which there is a blank; here it began to exist?" There is no such point; no stage which does not look back to a previous stage, on which this stage is inevitably and absolutely dependent.
"Omphalos: An attempt to untie the geological knot" (1857) by Philip Henry Gosse. pp 112 - 116

This and many other examples persuaded Gosse that God would more than likely have set things in motion as a complete working system, rather than a a sterile world that has to start from scratch. Just consider the Nitrogen and Carbon cycles and the nature of soil and you can see where he was coming from.

Note that in my OP, I state that there was "no scarring" --- a navel is a scar.

You make an assertion, sir, that lacks the least shred of evidence.

 

[Belk]

Yeah but I honestly think AV doesn't really understand what dating a rock really entails. First it start with dinner, then eventually they ask you to commit...

Your jumping ahead of yourself. First you have to find out if it is a good bible believing Christian rock.

Tree rings definitely show a history because each ring shows a year's worth of growth.

I understand, but I think it is important to show AV that it is in point of fact the same objection in both cases.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand, but I think it is important to show AV that it is in point of fact the same objection in both cases.

If tree rings serve other purposes than posing for dendrochronologists, then I would have no problem believing that trees in the Garden of Eden could have tree rings.

If a tree had 5000 rings in it the day God grew it, then it had 5000 rings --- simple as that.

But one thing it didn't have, is history.

 

[AV1611VET]

You make an assertion, sir, that lacks the least shred of evidence.

Mission accomplished ---

 

[Mike Elphick]

You make an assertion, sir, that lacks the least shred of evidence.

Mission accomplished ---

How silly! You think this confirms your no evidence feature. Eh? I can't help smiling at your naivety in this instance.

You really don't understand do you?

Let me repeat: when a "unique feature" is no evidence for it, it can only be faith or conjecture. It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE to make ASSERTIONS about it. Ok?

 

[Belk]

If tree rings serve other purposes than posing for dendrochronologists, then I would have no problem believing that trees in the Garden of Eden could have tree rings.

If a tree had 5000 rings in it the day God grew it, then it had 5000 rings --- simple as that.

But one thing it didn't have, is history.

Tree rings don't have a purpose. They are a result of the tree growing each year. you do understand that there are no "age" measuring devices, correct? That when scientists date a rock they are measuring the history of the rock, not actual years.

If your definition of "embedded age" is correct rocks would not measure beyond 6100 years ago.

 

[BananaSlug]

If tree rings serve other purposes than posing for dendrochronologists, then I would have no problem believing that trees in the Garden of Eden could have tree rings.

If a tree had 5000 rings in it the day God grew it, then it had 5000 rings --- simple as that.

But one thing it didn't have, is history.

Obviously you are incapable of answering the previous questions, so I'm still running on the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about (unless you ever decide to answer them). Since you are ignoring my questions (despite the name of the thread), I'll go along with the trees.

Each ring represents a years worth of growth which shows its history. A tree with five rings has lived for five years. A tree with 5000 rings has 5000 years worth of growth. It shows a history of the tree.

If a tree had 5000 rings in in the day God formed it, it shows the tree had existed for 5000 years. This is showing a history of the tree.

 

[AV1611VET]

If a tree had 5000 rings in in the day God formed it, it shows the tree had existed for 5000 years. This is showing a history of the tree.

I disagree.

If Adam can have 32 teeth the day he was created, a tree can have 32 rings.