Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

Like I said, it may be scar but it remains a sign of the human development process.

Show me 'human development process' in Genesis 1.

The Earth has signs of processes older than 6,000.

This earth, or Adam's earth?

This earth was different when Adam first walked it.

 

[Psudopod]

This earth was different when Adam first walked it.

Okay, so why was one of the changes to create 4.6 billion years of history? Is sin so powerful it creates as well as distroys?

 

[sandwiches]

Show me 'human development process' in Genesis 1.This earth, or Adam's earth?

This earth was different when Adam first walked it.

So, AFTER Paradise, the Earth got hit by meteorites millions of years in THE PAST?

 

[hangback]

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.

AV1611VET if everyone on this forum agreed with you about Embedded Age Creation what difference would it make?
it would still not make it true, when you have finished in your church after a service and you come out onto the street what has changed? absolutely nothing, you can think and believe what you like and it will change nothing, then you die, and life goes on and on and on without you.
Like creationism Embedded Age Creation is a dead end.

 

[Cabal]

Ok.Yes.

Ok, so we've goalpost-shifted from scars "not having a function" to it being inferior tissue, whatever.

You know trees scar too, right? As part of their growth process?

The reason why I'm persisting on this is not because denying A+E navels but not trees their growth marks is remarkably inconsistent, I think you're skirting around when different things were embedded - I think you even may have swapped different bits of your theory round unannounced, as this no-navels thing seems like a recent development.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Navels are scars --- for the tenth time.

I don't totally agree with this.

From the picture below, you will see the 'scar' tissue belongs to the umbilicus and the outside of the navel is unscarred skin.

Now it gets even more complicated, because the foetal circulation is different from that of the adult. The umbilical cord has one vein and two arteries, but unlike in adults, the vein contains oxygenated blood and the arteries deoxygenated blood. Which 'scar', in the ordinary sense of its meaning, has ever had blood vessels protruding from it?

Then there's the foramen ovale, which allows blood to enter the left atrium from the right atrium; the ductus venosus shunts blood flow of the umbilical vein directly to the inferior vena cava and the ductus arteriosis is a special connection between the pulmonary artery and the aorta.

Some of these structures, like the ductus arteriosis are seen as vestiges in adults. NOW you will be claiming that neither Adam nor Eve had these.

When will this nonsense end?

 

[Mike Elphick]

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

How many times? Omphalos hypothesis IS embedded age creation!!!!

 

[Split Rock]

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

That's funny, AVET. Even you do not understand "Embedded Age." You cannot tell us how age was "embedded." You cannot give us any practical difference between it and Omphalous. You cannot tell us why God "embedded" age in the first place. It is one of those "paradoxes" that you think are somehow holy and wise. It is just a self contradiction and a failed idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, so why was one of the changes to create 4.6 billion years of history?

Embedded Age is maturity without history.

 

[AV1611VET]

...I think you even may have swapped different bits of your theory round unannounced, as this no-navels thing seems like a recent development.

4

 

[Sanguis]

Hi, Sanguis --- --- welcome to CF!

Thanks.

I disagree:

If, just before He ascended back to Heaven, He held one last interview for scientists, and told them: What more can I do, so that you will conclude that I am God, and not someone from another planet? What would be your question and/or challenge for Him?

There's numerous things that could be done. Submit to DNA testing. If Jesus was God manifest as human, then his DNA would be human, correct? This would prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Jesus wasn't from another planet. Also, comparing his mitochondrial DNA markers with the DNA of his biological mother would show that he is, in fact, her son. On the flip side, if the same thing occurred as in the Bible, then the Y chromosomal markers, usually passed down from the father would likely be either absent or not match the DNA of any human male. Then, to make sure that he was actually performing miracles, get him to perform them under controlled conditions, where they can be observed, and recorded.

Now, how, exactly, is this "embedded age" nonsense any different from saying "I've got an F-22 Raptor, that not only looks like an old beat up tractor, it is an old beat up tractor!". It can't be both an F22 Raptor and a beat up old tractor, just as something can't be 6100 years old and still be 4.5 billion years old. It's a pretty lame attempt to make your beliefs reasonable, when the truth is, it just makes them more fail, because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

6100 or 4.5 billion. One or the other, can't be both, but all the evidence points towards 4.5 billion.

 

[chrisnu]

Just a quick question: why would God create the earth as if it had existed for billions of years, having the appearance and effects of such, when it actually was/is not? I'm not saying that God couldn't do that, but why would He? Practical joking? Anything that can be backed up with Scripture?

 

[Belk]

Not, it's not --- I deem God's creation perfect --- thus no scars.I don't --- history is full of scars.

It's history I exclude.Attitude can keep you from learning as well.

You deem?

 

[Cabal]

4

So I was mistaken on that count. My bad.

Would you mind addressing the rest of the post now? About the fact that trees scar as part of their growth processes too, and that you can't just wave things away to their perceived lack of function?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you mind addressing the rest of the post now? About the fact that trees scar as part of their growth processes too, and that you can't just wave things away to their perceived lack of function?

Okay --- trees scarred as part of their growth processes.

You're point?

That the trees in Genesis 1 went through a natural growth process?

 

[Cabal]

Okay --- trees scarred as part of their growth processes.

You're point?

That the trees in Genesis 1 went through a natural growth process?

That depends - were they scarred or not? Because you seem to have this fixation with navels.

My point is, if you want this to be consistent, you're going to have to apply it to a lot more than just the navels of two organisms.

 

[Mike Elphick]

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

I barely know it

That's what I suspected — and I guess that's the way you want to keep it.

People keep bringing up navels, tree rings, and varves, and, to be honest, if Adam had a navel (and I strongly believe he didn't), then that was God's decision, not nature's.

To put nature's interpretation over God's documentation is presumptuous to the core, and to say He is "deceptive" is blasphemy.
»

I'm assuming you consider Gosse "presumptuous to the core" for suggesting that God was deceptive — and blasphemous for putting "nature's interpretation over God's documentation".

That's what I believe you've been saying all along and this is the real reason you would escort a hypothetical Gosse from your church. It also explains your pastors' strange invention of an alternative embedded age concept that cunningly tries to avoid the deception issue.

But some of us have done a little research, which reveals there is no such implied deception in Gosse's original work. I've shown you this several times, but you slither away from dealing with it.

I have absolutely no desire for you to take up Omphalos; I only wish to bring your attention to this particular misconception of yours, regarding 'deception', and to demonstrate that, as a consequence, your particular flavour of embedded age becomes redundant.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Just a quick question: why would God create the earth as if it had existed for billions of years, having the appearance and effects of such, when it actually was/is not? I'm not saying that God couldn't do that, but why would He? Practical joking? Anything that can be backed up with Scripture?

Hi chrisnu! The argument goes something like this:-

According to the Bible, God created the world, earth, stars, light, plants and animals etc. — and man — in six days. If Adam was created as a grown man, we can safely assume that the rest of the creation was in a mature form with trees, soil, rivers, mountains and the like. We know that these things take time to form naturally, so God must have created the world as a working mature system probably not fundamentally different from how it is now (depending on your beliefs). This means that God created a world that had much more age put into it than 6 days. If you believe in a literal reading of Genesis, I can't see any other way you can explain this.

If you're a nasty evilusionist, like me, you accept the scientific dates for the age of the Earth and the universe (4-5 and 13-14 billon years) and view the creation stories as a description of the nature of the creator written in the language and cosmology of the day.

If you're a YECist, the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old and you believe the aging was a later addition, resulting mainly from the Flood.

The Omphalos hypothesis has God creating everything in mid-cycle, including geological structures, fossils and tree rings, all in the six day period using Ussher's genealogical dating of a few thousand years.

In Gosse's, day (he wrote the Omphalos book) the age of the Earth had been severely underestimated compared with modern dating — millions, not billions of years. However, no one ever liked his book, because it involved having fossils buried in rock layers and people misinterpreted this to mean Gosse was suggesting that God was being deceptive. But Gosse was actually only extending his "everything goes through a cycle" idea to rock formations and he dismissed this criticism (as I have repeatedly shown).

AV1611VET's version of the embedded age idea has been crafted to avoid anything that could remotely be called "deception". The only thing it does, as far I can see, is to marry up his instant embedded age (4.75 billion years) to modern age measurements. It can't explain anything else such as fossils embedded in rock that are known to be hundreds of times older than his creation date (6,100 years ago).

Creationists continuously endeavour to find an explanation for the discrepancies between science and the Bible. Several different ways forward have been suggested (some aggressively marketed), and that has led to multiple types of creationism, all mutually exclusive!

From my point of view there would have been no need for God to have made things billions of years older that they really are, but then I don't accept creationism.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That the trees in Genesis 1 went through a natural growth process?

Actually, they were part of a natural literary process.

 

[sandwiches]

Embedded Age is maturity without history.

If that's what Embedded Age is, then we can all lay this argument to rest as it is completely incorrect as there's plenty of history well past the 6,000 year mark.