Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[driewerf]

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation here.

I define Embedded Age Creation as: maturity without history.

Is there an empirical way to distinguish embedded age from real age?

 

[driewerf]

Would you know it if I was honest?

That depends on your skill at being dishonest.

 

[Larniavc]

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation here.

I define Embedded Age Creation as: maturity without history.

What are the benefits of building a universe with embedded age?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I define Embedded Age Creation as: maturity without history.

Ah, yes, the old "maturity without history" argument. What does that even mean?

There is an old argument, from the book Omphalos, that says the Earth was created with all those fossils in it. To followers of that view, "maturity without history" supposedly explains all those fossils. The Earth had all those fossils planted down there but the history never happened.

Thankfully, you tell us you do not fall for the Omphalos argument. I understand you agree that the Earth was not created with all those fossils implanted in it.

We find fossils in organized layers throughout the Earth's crust, often over 2 miles deep. Where did they come from? You have told us that they came from a massive cleanup after the flood. But this has been shown to be unreasonable. ( Flood Geology)

That's the issue. "Maturity without history" was at one time used to argue for how those fossils got there. Since you disagree with that argument, how does "maturity without history" mean anything to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there an empirical way to distinguish embedded age from real age?

Good question.

I'll say NO to that, since everything around us has been in a state of entropy for over six thousand years, as well as subjected to constant abuse on a grand scale.

Have you seen my dentist challenge thread?

 

[AV1611VET]

What are the benefits of building a universe with embedded age?

Some things don't work without age.

Like some cheeses or wines, or even a loaf of raisin bread made instantaneously.

No embedded age, and Adam couldn't have been given the responsibilities he was given.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, yes, the old "maturity without history" argument. What does that even mean?

That means Adam & Eve had no belly buttons.

That means Adam & Eve were fully responsible for their actions.

That means life on the earth came into existence in an instant as adult life, without growing to adulthood.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That means Adam & Eve had no belly buttons.

That means Adam & Eve were fully responsible for their actions.

That means life on the earth came into existence in an instant as adult life, without growing to adulthood.

Ok, but how does any of that matter to us?

Again, I say the Earth began 4.5 billion years old, and sure enough, we see everything looks like the Earth is indeed that old.

You say the Earth began in 4004 BC. That is falsified by things like:

a) trillions of fossils down there.
b) fossils sorted into rocks of the same geologic period worldwide.
c) volcanic intrusions amidst all those rocks with fossils.
d) Consistent rock ages when using multiple techniques and measuring many places. Further, the dates are consistent with the order that had already been established before the dating methods were in use. They regular show ages of many millions of years.

And no, "massive cleanup after the flood" does not explain any of this.

Again, the Omphalos argument says all this was created this way at creation. You have opposed that view. You use their terminology "maturity without history" but you are opposed to what they mean by it. Why even bother to use their terminology?

 

[dlamberth]

d) Consistent rock ages when using multiple techniques and measuring many places. Further, the dates are consistent with the order that had already been established before the dating methods were in use. They regular show ages of many millions of years.

It's the physical structure of the earth itself with plate tectonics, the types of rocks formed by melting, cooling, eroding, deforming and such, mountain building process and the list goes on that tell the story of a very old earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, the Omphalos argument says all this was created this way at creation. You have opposed that view. You use their terminology "maturity without history" but you are opposed to what they mean by it. Why even bother to use their terminology?

Well, I see lamberth gave you a THUMBS UP on your post.

Now you've confused him into thinking I'm espousing Omphalos.

Your confusion is contagious.

 

[dlamberth]

Well, I see lamberth gave you a THUMBS UP on your post.

Now you've confused him into thinking I'm espousing Omphalos.

Your confusion is contagious.

It was actually to the geological process references that I gave a thumbs up to.
The Earth can't lie... remember?

 

[AV1611VET]

It was actually to the geological process references that I gave a thumbs up to.

Okay ... sorry about that.

It's just that you seem to confuse easily in my opinion.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well, I see lamberth gave you a THUMBS UP on your post.

Now you've confused him into thinking I'm espousing Omphalos.

Your confusion is contagious.

What can I say at this point? I am emphatically, emphatically saying the opposite of what you say.

I am not saying you are espousing Omphalos. Emphatically saying you are not espousing it.

I have been emphasizing how your views are different from Omphalos. Emphatically.

And yet you just keep repeating the same false representations of what I say.

If I am emphatically saying one thing, and yet you keep on saying I am saying the opposite, how can any productive conversation occur when you act like this?

 

[AV1611VET]

What can I say at this point? I am emphatically, emphatically saying the opposite of what you say.

I am not saying you are espousing Omphalos. Emphatically saying you are not espousing it.

I have been emphasizing how your views are different from Omphalos. Emphatically.

And yet you just keep repeating the same false representations of what I say.

If I am emphatically saying one thing, and yet you keep on saying I am saying the opposite, how can any productive conversation occur when you act like this?

Okay.

My apologies to you and lamberth.

I misread your post.

Sorry about that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay.

My apologies to you and lamberth.

I misread your post.

Sorry about that.

Let's move on.

As I understand it, both you and Phillip Gosse (who wrote Omhalos) agree that the Earth was created in 4004 BC, Gosse thought that this meant the world was about 6000 years old, but you somehow argue the Earth may have a physical age much older than that. That is plain nonsense. If the Earth was created 6000 years ago, then its physical age is 6000 years. That is what "6000 years ago" means. If someone says it "is 4.5 billion years old" then, by definition, it was not created 6000 years ago. You somehow say God is able to change that. But it is simply impossible for the words "is 4.5 billion years old" to apply to something that began 6000 years ago.

If the Earth was created 6000 years ago, and God says it is 4.5 billion years old, then he is lying.

You also differ with Gosse on where the fossils came from. Gosse claimed they were implanted at Creation. You have them occurring mostly in a massive cleanup after the flood. As I have shown elsewhere, a massive cleanup cannot reasonably explain the fossil record.

As long as the massive layers of the fossil record exist, and you have no credible explanation for how they got there, then your view of a recent creation is not credible.

 

[dlamberth]

If the Earth was created 6000 years ago, and God says it is 4.5 billion years old, then he is lying.

As AV can confirm, that's been my line of reasoning with him this whole time.

I'd also add the the earth can not lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's move on.

K

As I understand it, both you and Phillip Gosse (who wrote Omhalos) agree that the Earth was created in 4004 BC,

Yup.

Gosse thought that this meant the world was about 6000 years old, but you somehow argue the Earth may have a physical age much older than that.

Yup.

And why did you say "somehow"?

Why don't you show me you understand what I believe and say I believe it's a miracle; rather than making it look like I'm glossing over an important point?

That is plain nonsense.

It's called a "miracle" -- but you used "somehow," which shows me you're still in the dark about this.

If the Earth was created 6000 years ago, then its physical age is 6000 years.

-- Here we go again.

You started out okay, but quickly faded.

That is what "6000 years ago" means.

6000 years ago means "6000 years ago" -- that's when God started a series of MIRACLES that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to what it is today.

If someone says it "is 4.5 billion years old" then, by definition, it was not created 6000 years ago.

Says you -- in your limited arena of understanding the mighty power of God.

You somehow say God is able to change that. But it is simply impossible for the words "is 4.5 billion years old" to apply to something that began 6000 years ago.

Here you go with that "somehow" again.

It's almost like "miracle" isn't even in your vocabulary.

Which I fully understand, since I'm sure "miracle" is on academia's list of taboo terminology.

If the Earth was created 6000 years ago, and God says it is 4.5 billion years old, then he is lying.

Or maybe you are confused.

You also differ with Gosse on where the fossils came from.

That's right.

Gosse claimed they were implanted at Creation.

Gosse is wrong, isn't he?

You have them occurring mostly in a massive cleanup after the flood.

I have WHAT occurring?

The fossils? or the fossil layers?

As I have shown elsewhere, a massive cleanup cannot reasonably explain the fossil record.

Yes it can.

As long as the massive layers of the fossil record exist,

Ya.

... and you have no credible explanation for how they got there,

My level of credibility is your shortsighted opinion.

... then your view of a recent creation is not credible.

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

As AV can confirm, that's been my line of reasoning with him this whole time.

I'd also add the the earth can not lie.

I notice too that Merle is using the term "fossil record," which is keeping him confused.

The "fossil record" is an interpretation of the "fossil layers" -- written down on paper.

Merle should -- (but probably won't) -- us the term "fossil layers" to avoid confusing himself.

 

[chilehed]

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation here.

I define Embedded Age Creation as: maturity without history.

Do you believe that God created the universe in that manner? With an embedded age?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you believe that God created the universe in that manner? With an embedded age?

Yes.