Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[sandwiches]

I disagree.

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

I have read your other posts and threads about this but I still don't understand what you're saying by "history." Is it a written record by sentient beings?

 

[Psudopod]

I disagree.

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

But it’s not the same at all. Tree rings are formed because trees do not grown in constant conditions, they are the result of seasonal changes. And changing seasons shows the passage of time. Teeth are not formed in this manner. Besides, an adult human needs teeth to function, a tree does not need tree rights, they server no purpose for the tree.

 

[hangback]

It's what AV1611VET believes, it's not important that it be true or not, in fact AV1611VET is not in the least bit interested in truth, as he says 'truth can take a hike', he has said it himself, dense is how he was born and dense is how he will die, (they are not my words they are his) and he thinks his God will love him all the more because he has kept himself as dense as possible by keeping as far away from the truth as he could.

 

[Psudopod]

See, I don’t see AV as dense (though he does claim to be ignorant). When he’s not being infuriatingly obtuse about science, he’s actually a nice guy. I think he’s got hang-ups about needing the bible to be literal, but if he took the time to look at the questions we are asking and understand the implications without the assumption that this means Christianity is in vain, he’d see where we are coming from. I just don’t like the idea that anyone could be proud to be ignorant, especially when they are clearly not stupid. (The whole embedded age thing is one of the more internally consistent creationist ideas I’ve seen.)

 

[Psudopod]

Double post

 

[AV1611VET]

I have read your other posts and threads about this but I still don't understand what you're saying by "history."

You don't need to understand it --- it doesn't exist.

Take any definition out of the dictionary you want, but it won't apply at the moment of creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tree rings are formed because trees do not grown in constant conditions, they are the result of seasonal changes.

The trees in the Garden of Eden were supernatural trees --- exceptions to all the current laws of science and nature.

 

[Mike Elphick]

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

You're obviously not aware that teeth have growth patterns too — like trees, teeth grow in layers. These can be examined microscopically and with x-rays, and by counting the layers you can estimate how long it took a tooth to grow.

An extended period of childhood evolved [in] people at least 160,000 years ago, according to a new analysis of a fossil child's teeth. That's the earliest evidence to date of a modern-human life history requiring intensive parental care and a wide range of early-life learning opportunities, the researchers say.

<...>

Tanya Smith's team examined an erupted molar, an incisor in the process of erupting, and a canine that had yet to erupt in the jaw of the Jebel Irhoud child. Tallies of enamel layers that typically form every 7 to 9 days as teeth develop, as well as counts of daily growth bands in the enamel, enabled the scientists to estimate that the child died at age 7 years, 10 months.
From here.

So. if trees are permitted to have growth rings, then Adam is permitted to have growth layers in his teeth too. If not, why not?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're obviously not aware that teeth have growth patterns too — like trees, teeth grow in layers. These can be examined microscopically and with x-rays, and by counting the layers you can estimate how long it took a tooth to grow.

Adam also had height, something a newborn is deficient in, and is a result of the passage of time.

 

[Psudopod]

The trees in the Garden of Eden were supernatural trees --- exceptions to all the current laws of science and nature.

Sure, okay. So why would they have tree rings in then? Tree rings are evidence of the passing of seasons, there obviously have been no seasons in Eden, and trees, supernatural or otherwise, have no need for tree rings. It's not as if Adam was going to be chopping them down, and even if he did, he wouldn't know trees are going to get rings after the fall.

 

[Freodin]

You don't need to understand it --- it doesn't exist.

Take any definition out of the dictionary you want, but it won't apply at the moment of creation.

Let´s all take a step back for a moment and relax.

AV, this is a thread you made to answer questions people have on your "embedded age" hypothesis. You should have been aware before you made this thread that people will ask questions on the problems they perceive with this system.

This is also something YOU should do: ask yourself the questions that could present problems for your system and try to answer them.

What you do here is not very helpful. You don´t even try to answer - you ignore, evade, ignore again, derail, and ignore for the third, fourth and fifth time.

And now you are not even willing to explain what the heck you are talking about! You claim that there was no "history" in Genesis 1... but you cannot or will not explain what you mean by that term. People SHOW you the history that predates the alledged time of Genesis 1... and you go back to your routine: ignore, evade, derail.

If you are not able to explain your hypothesis, perhaps you should first find a way to do that, before you offer to answer questions on it.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Adam also had height, something a newborn is deficient in, and is a result of the passage of time.

Why do you avoid answering people's questions? One can deduce that height, being the result of growth, involves the passage of time, but, as far as I am aware, it does not leave a record of daily/weekly/monthly/annual growth intervals. Teeth and trees do. So why don't you have another go at answering my question:-

If trees are permitted to have growth rings, then Adam is permitted to have growth layers in his teeth too. If not, why not?

 

[BananaSlug]

I disagree.

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

Wrong. If a tree had 32 rings that would signify it has a 32 year history because each tree ring represents seasonal changes over the tree's life span. Seasonal changes= history. Did Adam's teeth have layers of growth signifying the passage of time?

human teeth =/= tree rings

 

[AV1611VET]

So why would they have tree rings in then?

Beats me.

I have a feeling tree rings serve more of a purpose than just to pose for dendrochronologists.

In my opinion, one of two scenarios are correct: either the trees had tree rings, or they didn't.

I'll go with whatever scientists say they had.

 

[hangback]

Beats me.

I have a feeling tree rings serve more of a purpose than just to pose for dendrochronologists.

In my opinion, one of two scenarios are correct: either the trees had tree rings, or they didn't.

I'll go with whatever scientists say they had.

I must say AV1611VET you do have the ability to get people to argue for days about nothing without any trouble what so ever, it must be a gift.

 

[Freodin]

Beats me.

I have a feeling tree rings serve more of a purpose than just to pose for dendrochronologists.

In my opinion, one of two scenarios are correct: either the trees had tree rings, or they didn't.

I'll go with whatever scientists say they had.

Tree rings don´t have the purpose of "posing for dendrochronologists". But they have a cause: changing seasonal growth.

 

[AV1611VET]

I must say AV1611VET you do have the ability to get people to argue for days about nothing without any trouble what so ever, it must be a gift.

That's because people try so hard to disprove something they know nothing about.

I can mention something that would be considered "deep theology" to an atheist, only to see him or her respond w/i minutes (or less) with a "no way".

(Yes, sometimes I do take response time into consideration.)

And what is really sad, is when I say something, and someone tells me I'm wrong, but they quoted just the opposite of what I said; and when I point it out, they acknowledge their error by telling me I'm still wrong.

Another thing that is equally sad, is when I counter a point with a point, and they [incorrectly] argue against my counterpoint, just so they can justify their main point.

The Crusades are an excellent example.

Someone says the Crusades are a black eye in Christian history; yet when I point out that the Crusades were done in spite of the Bible, not in respect to It --- even backing it up with Jesus' very words --- people still want to argue about the interpretation.

I have an excellent comeback for that though: If these people ran the world like they interpret the Bible, we'd all be in trouble.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tree rings don´t have the purpose of "posing for dendrochronologists".

Good --- I didn't think so.

But they have a cause: changing seasonal growth.

God is also Cause.

 

[Freodin]

God is also Cause.

So God not only embedded age into trees, but also tree rings.

Scars - signs of growth, history, passing of time.

 

[AV1611VET]

So God not only embedded age into trees, but also tree rings.

Again --- if tree rings are essential to the tree's existence, I'm sure He did.

Scars - signs of growth, history, passing of time.

... all non-essential.

Except, maybe, for the signs of growth.

I can picture you being in the Garden, coring a tree and asking God why it has rings.

Whereupon God answers, "These rings are a testimony of what growth will one day look like."

And, of course, I could be all wrong.