Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[BananaSlug]

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

Rings are not essential to trees. They merely mark periods of growth. It shows the seasonal variations of past years= history.

Except, maybe, for the signs of growth.

"Signs" of growth= history

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."

So he embedded a history in a tree to show us what tree growth will look like in the future? You are starting to lose straws.

And, of course, I could be all wrong.

Well, until you can answer the questions I asked a few post ago, I'm running on the fact that you have yet to prove you have any clue what you are talking about.

 

[Freodin]

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

But you still deny that Adam had a belly button?

Non-essential, sign of growth... and when he asked God "Huh, what´s that?" he would be answered "This navel is a testemony of what the birth of the next generations one day will look like."

Of course, I could be wrong... but I still think that you are not very sincere if you have to make up scenarioes to defend your claims.

 

[hangback]

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

When you think they should really be bowing to your superior knowledge.

The Crusades are an excellent example.

Would that be the same as going on about Pluto when you're stuck for an answer?

AV1611VET, deep deep down you must know that creationism is a dead end, short of building a wall around the place like the Russians did you can not keep the truth out indefinitely, the creationist cause will retreat and retreat until it disappears completely.

 

[BananaSlug]

So AV, if a tree can have growth rings, doesn't that mean Adam could have a belly button? Growth rings show that a tree grew from a sapling just as a belly button shows Adam was gestated. Both show a history.

 

[AV1611VET]

So AV, if a tree can have growth rings, doesn't that mean Adam could have a belly button? Growth rings show that a tree grew from a sapling just as a belly button shows Adam was gestated. Both show a history.

I don't think Adam had one.

As Wikipedia says: navels are scars.

 

[BananaSlug]

A navel shows Adam was born and had an infancy. Tree rings show a tree grew from a sapling. Both show a history. If trees had rings then it is no different from Adam having a belly button. It is not about the fact that a navel is a scar, it is about showing a history that wasn't there. If God created trees with tree rings it would be showing a history that wasn't there.

 

[BananaSlug]

AV, I want you to be honest. Why didn't you answer the questions I asked? Why did you start a thread about questions on "Embedded Age" yet refuse to answer any?

How is C14 dating a bone to 12,000 years different from dating a rock to 12,000 years when scientists are using the same concept for both methods?

Why would a bone have 12,000 years of age in the first place? Did God put it there? If not, who/what did?

How does a fossil get into a rock that is 250 million years old?

How does a limestone layer get wedged between a 10 million year old layer of rock and a 5 million year old layer of rock? Based on your idea, God embedded the age into those two layers during creation. But how exactly did that limestone get in there? Limestone is made of the shells of millions of dead organisms and often has the bones of other aquatic animals. How exactly did it get between two layers of solid, embedded-age rock?

 

[Freodin]

I don't think Adam had one.

As Wikipedia says: navels are scars.

What is the significance of a navel being a scar?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

How does a fossil get into a rock that is 250 million years old?

According to science smart guy Eric Hovind, it's called circular reasoning. For you see, silly scientists date the rock by the fossils, then date the fossils by the rocks. According to Eric, this is faith based reasoning and doesn't belong in the textbooks.

 

[BananaSlug]

What I don't get is that AV says rock was created with "embedded age". SOLID 250 million year old rock, created by God 6100 years ago. This solid 250 million year old rock has fossils in it. According to "embedded age", 250 million year old rock shouldn't have fossils because there is only 6100 years of actual history. My question is how the heck did fossils get into 250 million year old SOLID rock?

 

[sandwiches]

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.

If the earth was created instantly at around 4.5 billion years of age. Age is a function of the passage of time. The passage of time leaves signs which is what we us to deduce the age of things. These signs are its history. As people have said these include tree rings, radiation dating, soil strata, ice strata, etc.

So, the signs left by the passage of time as record of past events definitely fits with definitions 1.a below.

Also, there's written human accounts older than 6600 years of age. That fits definition 1.b below.

I thought your usage of history wouldn't fit any of those.

his·to·ry (h

s

t

-r

)n. pl.
his·to·ries
1. a. A usually chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events: a history of the Vikings.
b. A formal written account of related natural phenomena: a history of volcanoes.
c. A record of a patient's medical background.
d. An established record or pattern of behavior: an inmate with a history of substance abuse.

2. The branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events: "History has a long-range perspective" (Elizabeth Gurley Flynn).
3. a. The past events relating to a particular thing: The history of their rivalry is full of intrigue.
b. The aggregate of past events or human affairs: basic tools used throughout history.
c. An interesting past: a house with history.
d. Something that belongs to the past: Their troubles are history now.
e. Slang One that is no longer worth consideration: Why should we worry about him? He's history!

4. A drama based on historical events: the histories of Shakespeare.

 

[AV1611VET]

A navel shows Adam was born and had an infancy.

That's why I don't think Adam had one.

Tree rings show a tree grew from a sapling.

Trees didn't grow from saplings in Genesis 1.

The one exception is the Garden of Eden, which God grew in a day's time.

The trees there could have had rings, or they couldn't.

If you believe they had rings, I won't dispute it.

If you believe they didn't have rings, I won't dispute it either.

Both show a history.

I'll tell you what, if you think it shows a history, I won't dispute what you believe.

Although I probably should --- I won't.

How's that?

If trees had rings then it is no different from Adam having a belly button.

Unless God chose not to give him one.

It is not about the fact that a navel is a scar, it is about showing a history that wasn't there.

A navel being a scar might not be a big thing to you, but believing that may be what's preventing you from understanding Embedded Age.

If God created trees with tree rings it would be showing a history that wasn't there.

At least we agree on one thing: a history that wasn't there.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the significance of a navel being a scar?

Did you read my OP?

 

[BananaSlug]

So are you agreeing that tree rings show a history? What about my other questions?

 

[AV1611VET]

So are you agreeing that tree rings show a history?

Today they do.

History didn't exist in Genesis 1.

And again, I don't believe that is the primary purpose of tree rings --- to show history.

I'm sure they have a biological function apart from demonstrating [alleged] passage of time.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

What I don't get is that AV says rock was created with "embedded age". SOLID 250 million year old rock, created by God 6100 years ago. This solid 250 million year old rock has fossils in it. According to "embedded age", 250 million year old rock shouldn't have fossils because there is only 6100 years of actual history. My question is how the heck did fossils get into 250 million year old SOLID rock?

I imagine it's just like watching my two daughters play together. They come up with these elaborate and fanciful (read: 'made up') stories to entertain themselves. Mind you, when I watch and listen to them, in their own mind, they believe the entire scenario, it actually makes sense to them. Fortunately, when it's time for dinner, they bring themselves back to the real world, where things are, you know, real.

"Embedded age" is alot like this. You can make up whatever you want, and just say 'goddidit.' I don't think you'll get an honest, 'semantic free' answer to your question BananaSlug. All he would have to say is that god put the fossils there too. He's omnipotent and can do whatever he wants to do. There's an ultimate reason that will be revealed one day in heaven.

 

[Cabal]

Today they do.

History didn't exist in Genesis 1.

And again, I don't believe that is the primary purpose of tree rings --- to show history.

I'm sure they have a biological function apart from demonstrating [alleged] passage of time.

As do navels.

 

[AV1611VET]

I imagine it's just like watching my two daughters play together. They come up with these elaborate and fanciful (read: 'made up') stories to entertain themselves. Mind you, when I watch and listen to them, in their own mind, they believe the entire scenario, it actually makes sense to them. Fortunately, when it's time for dinner, they bring themselves back to the real world, where things are, you know, real.

"Embedded age" is alot like this. You can make up whatever you want, and just say 'goddidit.' I don't think you'll get an honest, 'semantic free' answer to your question BananaSlug. All he would have to say is that god put the fossils there too. He's omnipotent and can do whatever he wants to do. There's an ultimate reason that will be revealed one day in heaven.

No, what I think really bothers you guys, is that you can't make God to be a deceiver --- something even His Son was accused of when He walked the earth.

I notice that it doesn't bother you guys that Omphalos is embedded history.

You'll accept that w/o question, because even Wikipedia mentions it being deceptive.

On the other hand, Embedded Age bothers you guys because you can't bring it around and show deception --- even from Wikipedia.

It's noteworthy that you'll accept an explanation that says God did embed history, but won't accept an explanation that says God didn't embed history.

And you guys are trying --- you're trying real hard.

1. It bugs you you can't use a definitive site to link me to that says it's deceptive.
2. It bugs you you can't use the dictionary to show it's wrong.
3. It bugs you you can't use science to disprove it.
4. It bugs you you can't call it something else, like YEC or Omphalos.

And I'm not in the least bit sorry --- I make no apologies for an airtight cosmology.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No, what I think really bothers you guys, is that you can't make God to be a deceiver --- something even His Son was accused of when He walked the earth.

I notice that it doesn't bother you guys that Omphalos is embedded history.

You'll accept that w/o question, because even Wikipedia mentions it being deceptive.

On the other hand, Embedded Age bothers you guys because you can't bring it around and show deception --- even from Wikipedia.

It's noteworthy that you'll accept an explanation that says God did embedded history, but won't accept an explanation that says God didn't embed history.

And you guys are trying --- you're trying real hard.

1. It bugs you you can't use a definitive site to link me to that says it's deceptive.
2. It bugs you you can't use the dictionary to show it's wrong.
3. It bugs you you can't use science to disprove it.
4. It bugs you you can't call it something else, like YEC or Omphalos.

And I'm not in the least bit sorry --- I make no apologies for an airtight cosmology.

Actually, nothing about embeded age "bugs" me, as I have no personal reasons to accept or deny "embeded age." I am simply free to accept that which has the most credible scientific evidence, and embeded age is not it.

Other than your bible and personal faith, you have absolutely no way of proving that god created everything 6,100 years ago, but looks really old, but no deception was involved.

I think what bugs you, is that you are obligated to believe this tripe, and it bugs you, because deep down, you know it's absolute nonsense. This is your problem, having to justify reality with your faith, not mine.

 

[Split Rock]

No, what I think really bothers you guys, is that you can't make God to be a deceiver --- something even His Son was accused of when He walked the earth.

I notice that it doesn't bother you guys that Omphalos is embedded history.

You'll accept that w/o question, because even Wikipedia mentions it being deceptive.

On the other hand, Embedded Age bothers you guys because you can't bring it around and show deception --- even from Wikipedia.

It's noteworthy that you'll accept an explanation that says God did embed history, but won't accept an explanation that says God didn't embed history.

And you guys are trying --- you're trying real hard.

1. It bugs you you can't use a definitive site to link me to that says it's deceptive.
2. It bugs you you can't use the dictionary to show it's wrong.
3. It bugs you you can't use science to disprove it.
4. It bugs you you can't call it something else, like YEC or Omphalos.

And I'm not in the least bit sorry --- I make no apologies for an airtight cosmology.

Airtight?? Are you kidding??Its got more holes than swiss cheese! This is what all these posters are trying to explain to you.

You know what I think? I think you're frustrated because you're selling, but no one is buying. That isn't our fault... it is the fault of the product you are selling.

Personally I don't want God to be a deceiver. What we are trying to get you to understand is that your model either makes him out to be a deceiver, or it simply contradicts itself. You won't listen, because you have made up your mind and you have closed it shut.