Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AveChristusRex]

...unless they obviously subscribe to your extra-Biblical 'embedded age' claim.

It is not extra-biblical per se, though not explicitly stated. As I said in a previous thread, I lean towards the Omphalos hypothesis, but it is the perfect substitute for Creationists [in the event of proving natural evidence of an old earth] for scientific evidence of YEC in my mind. The foundation of the philosophy that embedded age would be a delusion by God comes from 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12: "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." If He did it once; why can't this be an example? Moreover, here are a few examples of it being used in a biblical context: First, 55 years before Henry Gosse's book, François-René de Chateaubriand's Génie du christianisme (The Genius of Christianity, 1802) in defense of the Catholic faith, wrote: "God could have, and undoubtedly did, create the world with all the signs of its antiquity and perfection that it now displays." Second, in the Talmud, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania states that the world was created in Nisan, during spring, citing the verse "trees yielding fruit," indicating that trees were created in their fruit-bearing state. The Talmud elaborates: "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the acts of creation were created in their full stature, with full understanding, and with their full beauty. As it says: "And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their hosts" – do not read "hosts" but "beauty"" (תלמוד בבלי, מסכת ראש השנה, דף י"א, עמוד א'). Thirdly, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson wrote in response to a question about fossils: "Even if the time given by the Torah for the age of the world seems too short for fossilization processes (though I see no way to prove this definitively), we can easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear—bones or skeletons (for reasons known to Him)—just as He could create fully formed organisms, Adam in his entirety, and ready-made products like coal or diamonds, without any developmental process" (Tevet 5722, printed in "Faith and Science," p. 89).

Here are a few more examples from Church Fathers to show its possible implicit meaning in the Scriptures:

• Regarding Genesis, St. Ephrem the Syrian described a world in which divine creation instantly produced fully grown organisms: "Although the grasses were only a moment old at their creation, they appeared as if they were months old. Likewise, the trees, although only a day old when they sprouted forth, were nevertheless like ... years old as they were fully grown and fruits were already budding on their branches."
• John D. Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research wrote in 1990 about the "appearance of age," saying that: "...what [God] created was functionally complete right from the start—able to fulfill the purpose for which it was created."
• Aristotle's concept of "Potentiality and Actuality" is the notion of a created world that appears to have undergone natural processes (actuality) despite being brought into existence fully formed (potentiality realized instantly by God).
• St. Augustine proposed that God created the world with "seeds" (rationes seminales) that would unfold over time, similar to Gosse (through the potential of embedding the appearance or potential of development within creation).

As Schneerson said, even if the fossilization processes proves the time for the age of the world seems too short, we can easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear without any developmental process. I heavily lean on the Omphalos hypothesis, though the age of the earth that was made old is unknown. Still, the earth is 7,539 years old, give or take. The earth appears to have undergone natural processes (actuality) despite being brought into existence fully formed (potentiality realized instantly by God) during the six day period; however, the "old" that was made is unknown in how actually "old" the "old" is. (Note, as AV has pointed out, I accept more of the idea of the Omphalos hypothesis, not the word-for-word meaning of Gosse's work.)

I think it is possible that it is implicitly stated in the Scriptures, and therefore nor purely extra-biblical.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is not extra-biblical per se, though not explicitly stated. As I said in a previous thread, I lean towards the Omphalos hypothesis, but it is the perfect substitute for Creationists [in the event of proving natural evidence of an old earth] for scientific evidence of YEC in my mind. The foundation of the philosophy that embedded age would be a delusion by God comes from 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12: "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." If He did it once; why can't this be an example? Moreover, here are a few examples of it being used in a biblical context: First, 55 years before Henry Gosse's book, François-René de Chateaubriand's Génie du christianisme (The Genius of Christianity, 1802) in defense of the Catholic faith, wrote: "God could have, and undoubtedly did, create the world with all the signs of its antiquity and perfection that it now displays." Second, in the Talmud, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania states that the world was created in Nisan, during spring, citing the verse "trees yielding fruit," indicating that trees were created in their fruit-bearing state. The Talmud elaborates: "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the acts of creation were created in their full stature, with full understanding, and with their full beauty. As it says: "And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their hosts" – do not read "hosts" but "beauty"" (תלמוד בבלי, מסכת ראש השנה, דף י"א, עמוד א'). Thirdly, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson wrote in response to a question about fossils: "Even if the time given by the Torah for the age of the world seems too short for fossilization processes (though I see no way to prove this definitively), we can easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear—bones or skeletons (for reasons known to Him)—just as He could create fully formed organisms, Adam in his entirety, and ready-made products like coal or diamonds, without any developmental process" (Tevet 5722, printed in "Faith and Science," p. 89).

Here are a few more examples from Church Fathers to show its possible implicit meaning in the Scriptures:

• Regarding Genesis, St. Ephrem the Syrian described a world in which divine creation instantly produced fully grown organisms: "Although the grasses were only a moment old at their creation, they appeared as if they were months old. Likewise, the trees, although only a day old when they sprouted forth, were nevertheless like ... years old as they were fully grown and fruits were already budding on their branches."
• John D. Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research wrote in 1990 about the "appearance of age," saying that: "...what [God] created was functionally complete right from the start—able to fulfill the purpose for which it was created."
• Aristotle's concept of "Potentiality and Actuality" is the notion of a created world that appears to have undergone natural processes (actuality) despite being brought into existence fully formed (potentiality realized instantly by God).
• St. Augustine proposed that God created the world with "seeds" (rationes seminales) that would unfold over time, similar to Gosse (through the potential of embedding the appearance or potential of development within creation).

As Schneerson said, even if the fossilization processes proves the time for the age of the world seems too short, we can easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear without any developmental process. I heavily lean on the Omphalos hypothesis, though the age of the earth that was made old is unknown. Still, the earth is 7,539 years old, give or take. The earth appears to have undergone natural processes (actuality) despite being brought into existence fully formed (potentiality realized instantly by God) during the six day period; however, the "old" that was made is unknown in how actually "old" the "old" is. (Note, as AV has pointed out, I accept more of the idea of the Omphalos hypothesis, not the word-for-word meaning of Gosse's work.)

I think it is possible that it is implicitly stated in the Scriptures, and therefore nor purely extra-biblical.

No, embedded age IS extra-Biblical.

 

[AveChristusRex]

No, embedded age IS extra-Biblical.

I respect that, but what is your evidence?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I respect that, but what is your evidence?

I don't need evidence to say so. Embedded age is a claim made by a man (AV1611VET) solely to try and justify having an old world AND also allowing him to continue believe in Young Earth Creationist viewpoints. Simple as.

 

[AveChristusRex]

I don't need evidence to say so. Embedded age is a claim made by a man (AV1611VET) solely to try and justify having an old world AND also allowing him to continue believe in Young Earth Creationist viewpoints. Simple as.

If by AV you mean Gosse, Morris, Chateaubriand, Rabbi Hanania, Schneerson, St. Ephrem, St. Augustine, and even St. Paul, all combined into one, then yes. If not, then no. What is your evidence that it is not scriptural besides "I don't need evidence, AV believes it so no dice"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If by AV you mean Gosse, Morris, Chateaubriand, Rabbi Hanania, Schneerson, St. Ephrem, St. Augustine, and even St. Paul, all combined into one, then yes. If not, then no. What is your evidence that it is not scriptural besides "I don't need evidence, AV believes it so no dice"?

Don't care, since I do not believe that God would intentionally deceive us by creating the world 6000 years ago but put in billions of years of history into His creation. That's not my God, but if that's yours and AV's God, then that's on you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And since we're bringing Augustine into this:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

 

[AveChristusRex]

And since we're bringing Augustine into this:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Right, but I am asking you what evidence you have that embedded age is not biblical, if you can't then that's okay, but please say that you can't and leave it there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Right, but I am asking you what evidence you have that embedded age is not biblical, if you can't then that's okay, but please say that you can't and leave it there.

Because the fact that nowhere in the Bible is the age of the Earth talked about and that the findings from God's actual creation show that the Earth couldn't be formed 6000 years ago. That's my evidence.
God and His creation do not lie.

And to be fair, buddy, I don't need to justify anything to you. Embedded age is a concept made by man, not by God.

 

[dlamberth]

If by AV you mean Gosse, Morris, Chateaubriand, Rabbi Hanania, Schneerson, St. Ephrem, St. Augustine, and even St. Paul, all combined into one, then yes. If not, then no. What is your evidence that it is not scriptural besides "I don't need evidence, AV believes it so no dice"?

The evidence I'd give is in the nature of God Himself. God is honest and upfront. Its impossible for God to be any other way. When, as AV says, the earth is 4000 years old, but God made it to appear billion of years old and with history that matches, that paints God as not honest and upfront with His own Creation. A decepter I think describes it well. That's the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't care, since I do not believe that God would intentionally deceive us by creating the world 6000 years ago but put in billions of years of history into His creation.

Embedded Age = maturity WITHOUT history.

Seems you'll never get this right.

 

[AV1611VET]

The evidence I'd give is in the nature of God Himself. God is honest and upfront. Its impossible for God to be any other way. When, as AV says, the earth is 4000 years old, but God made it to appear billion of years old and with history that matches, that paints God as not honest and upfront with His own Creation. A decepter I think describes it well. That's the evidence.

Embedded Age = maturity WITHOUT history.

Seems you'll never get this right.

 

[BCP1928]

Embedded Age = maturity WITHOUT history.

Seems you'll never get this right.

Because we don't really care--it's just another gimmick to preserve the literal inerrancy of Genesis from findings of science which you would otherwise agree with.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because we don't really care--

No argument there.

Maybe if you did care though -- at least enough to see another POV -- you would understand.

I don't care about the many theories about how we got our moon, but I understand them.

 

[BCP1928]

No argument there.

Maybe if you did care though -- at least enough to see another POV -- you would understand.

I don't care about the many theories about how we got our moon, but I understand them.

I'm sure at least some people here understand the distinction between imbedded age and apparent age and regard both as deceptive.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sure at least some people here understand the distinction between imbedded age and apparent age and regard both as deceptive.

What's YOUR excuse for not understanding, even though you don't care for it?

I thought you academians were trained to at least ... at least ... respect other points of view?

(And it's "embedded age," not "imbedded age.")

 

[BCP1928]

What's YOUR excuse for not understanding, even though you don't care for it?

I thought you academians were trained to at least ... at least ... respect other points of view?

(And it's "embedded age," not "imbedded age.")

Certainly I respect your point of view, and as far as that goes I think that embedded age is a cleverer gimmick than apparent age, but I really have no use for either one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Certainly I respect your point of view,

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Certainly I respect your point of view, and as far as that goes I think that embedded age is a cleverer gimmick than apparent age, but I really have no use for either one.

Well, its not necessarily a gimmick.

 

[BCP1928]

Well, its not necessarily a gimmick.

Well the, it's an unfalsifiable proposition. Is that more to your liking?