Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

Concession noted.

I always have fun skiing, it's the second most fun thing I know how to do!!

Chess, Backgammon, Euchre here: even Parcheesi.

 

[AV1611VET]

If everything was near clean and pristine, it might be easier for other people to accept his idea.

QV please: My Dental Challenge

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

QV please: My Dental Challenge

Even before I clicked the link, I knew it was going to be about Adam.

Adam and Eve have no bearing on this whole thing. We're talking about the world.

 

[chilehed]

Chess, Backgammon, Euchre here: even Parcheesi.

Backgammon's a great game, haven't played much in a while but it was big back in college and I was pretty good at it. I never heard of Euchre until I moved to Michigan, but I've never much been in to card games.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even before I clicked the link, I knew it was going to be about Adam.

Adam and Eve have no bearing on this whole thing. We're talking about the world.

And despite over six thousand years of death, decay, and destruction -- even on a global scale -- you expect everything to be "near clean and pristine" today?

 

[AV1611VET]

Backgammon's a great game, haven't played much in a while but it was big back in college and I was pretty good at it.

I think Backgammon is a favorite in the college crowd.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And despite over six thousand years of death, decay, and destruction -- even on a global scale -- you expect everything to be "near clean and pristine" today?

Not to the same level that we see with regards to the fossil record and geological record too.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not to the same level that we see with regards to the fossil record and geological record too.

Hmmm ... okay.

You're entitled to your assumptions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hmmm ... okay.

You're entitled to your assumptions.

As are you since that's all you have.

 

[dlamberth]

Negative.

A belly button is a scar; and God didn't create the universe with scars.

Scars are needed for growth. It's part of life. No one, even the the earth is free of scars.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scars are needed for growth.

And nothing grew, did it?

Adam didn't grow to be 20 or 30.

Nor did the flowers, the trees, nor the bumble bees.

They came into existence fully mature, but without a history,

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation here.

I define Embedded Age Creation as: maturity without history.

You think the Earth was created 6025 years ago and appears to be much older. This is the appearance of age view that has been discredited long ago. For if this could be true, the same argument could be used to say the Earth was created last Thursday .

You try to get around this by inventing a parameter "physical age". But in the case of Adam, you admit that your physical age parameter "simply means that, when his FIRST birthday comes up, he gets a cake with either 21 or 31 candles in it." In other words, the "physical age" is nothing more than a fabricated number. Adam reaches his first birthday, and God reportedly chooses to call him perhaps 21 or 31. How does that resolve anything?

If someone is going to make up a fictitious "physical age" out of nothing, why not keep going? Perhaps on Adam's first birthday he had a "physical age" of 21, an Ersatz Age of 7, a Flapdoodle Age of 534, a Bullfinch Age of 4 million, and a Flatoutfabrication Age of 256 trillion. Make up all the numbers you want. They mean nothing.

Even if the 6025 year old Earth had a physical age and appearance of millions of years at creation, that in no way explains all the fossils we find down there. You admit these came later, after the flood. It is these rocks that show strong evidence of being up to 600 million years old. How did these rocks with fossils that date to many millions of years get laid down on your bedrock that existed 6025 years?

Below is a cross section of the area where the Bible reports the Garden of Eden.

Source: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol 2.pdf

We find rocks with fossils 5 miles deep, dating to hundreds of millions of years on top of the reported Garden of Eden. As long as they sit on the bedrock which you claim existed for only 6025 years, you have a problem--a big problem.

 

[driewerf]

And despite over six thousand years of death, decay, and destruction -- even on a global scale -- you expect everything to be "near clean and pristine" today?

The crucial thing is tat we see a plethora of events that are dated prior 4004 BC. We see the remnants of volcanic eruptions, like the Decan Traps, we see scratching trails and wandering stones left behind by glaciers. We see dinosaur bones with biting marks. We have a fossilized dinosaur mother protecting her eggs.
Some parts of the ocean floor have magnetic crystals that align with ancient magnetic field reversals.
Astronomers see remnants of ancient supernovae.
The list goes on and on.
This goes well beyond "God created Adam as an adult." Reducing the embedded age to "Adam was an adult" is ignoring the vast vast vast majority of the world.
But then, that is what creationists have to offer: ignorance. All your posts reinforce the idea that to become a christian is to give up my sanity. To lose everything and gain nothing.
Creationists are anti science, anti knowledge and anti education. This thread validates that assessment again.

 

[driewerf]

Not to the same level that we see with regards to the fossil record and geological record too.

Hmmm ... okay.

You're entitled to your assumptions.

These aren't assumptions. We - science lovers, knowledge embracers, education promoters - don't assume all the geology, paleontology astronomy, physics and so on. We study, investigate, test and discover.

 

[dlamberth]

And despite over six thousand years of death, decay, and destruction -- even on a global scale -- you expect everything to be "near clean and pristine" today?

In pre-fall beliefs, we are unable to really know what a clean and pristine earth might look like. So imagination takes over. Science on the other hand opens a window to earth changes over very long time frame that is much closer to reality.

 

[driewerf]

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.

Then how do we distinguish both?
To put it in infantile terms, so you can understand:
Imagine a group of archaeologists excavating some site. They find an arrowhead and radiometric date it. Each blip from the equipment makes the artefact 100 years older blip... blip... suddenly they counted and are at an age of 3906 BC. One more blip and the boundary of 4004 bc, the date of the alleged Creation. After a few seconds of silence the apparatus goes suddenly 'blip". The archaeologists uncover their heads, fall on their knees and one whispers: "Gentlemen, we just witnessed embedded age".
Or are there ways in which our imaginary archaeologists can distinguish true age from embedded age? Will their equipment blip differently?

 

[driewerf]

And nothing grew, did it?

Adam didn't grow to be 20 or 30.

Nor did the flowers, the trees, nor the bumble bees.

They came into existence fully mature, but without a history,

You keep telling that. But you can't provide any evidence. Any reason to believe that what you say is true.
So, to put it bluntly: why should we consider this as true?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then how do we distinguish both?
To put it in infantile terms, so you can understand:
Imagine a group of archaeologists excavating some site.

We don't need archaeologists and machines that go "blip".

Your myopic equipment can't even tell you what The Bloop is on the ocean floor.

All it takes to understand is to read Genesis 1 & 2.

A man comes into existence from the dust of the ground and is given a job, a wife, and told to have children.

And you can't conclude he has MATURITY WITHOUT HISTORY?

 

[AV1611VET]

You keep telling that. But you can't provide any evidence.

Ain't that a drag?

Must not be any?

Why isn't there any?

Because it was a miracle.

Any reason to believe that what you say is true.

Faith?

So, to put it bluntly: why should we consider this as true?

So you can understand better how God works in mysterious ways?

 

[driewerf]

Ain't that a drag?

Must not be any?

Why isn't there any?

Because it was a miracle.

If you try to convince an atheist of the validity of Christianity this way, you creating more hurdles than removing some. You expect that non believers accept “miracles” as an explanation when
• The non believer believes in miracles to start with
• Science provides a very adequate explanation that I much better embedded in the totality of our knowledge than “embedded age creation”.
• Worse, you apply the point you want to prove in your argumentation. That has a name: circular logic. And it is very often an indication that the point defended if fundamentally wrong.
Any reason to believe that what you say is true.

Faith?

Fail. Try again.

So you can understand better how God works in mysterious ways?

Somehow “understand” and “mysterious ways” are mutually exclusive. And again, you expect an atheist - who doesn’t believe in the existence of any deity – to reject everything we know about archaeology, geology, population genetics, astronomy, glaciology, climatology and so on for ignorance about the ways in which a non existent entity works. Because “god works in mysterious ways”, means that 1) I accept the existence of said deity and 2) giving up, any hope to get any knowledge on all these fields of sciences listed previously.
Dogmatically repeating platitudes like “God works in mysterious ways” doesn’t explain anything. It highlights the paucity of creationist thought. It validates the claim that I have mad in other posts that creationism (of whatever flavour) is anti science, anti knowledge, anti education and anti intelligence.