Hypothetical for Scientists

[Freodin]

He wasn't born --- he was created. Also, it would serve as a powerful testimony to his progeny of who he was.

Huh? I guess you confused questions somewhere. Please reread my above question and answer it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Huh? I guess you confused questions somewhere. Please reread my above question and answer it.

Oops! Sorry! I got you mixed up with Loudmouth.

If you created a coin stamped 1807, that would not "mean" you created it 200 years ago.

(I focused on that word "mean".)

To convince me it was 200 years ago, you would have to leave me written documentation.

 

[Freodin]

Oops! Sorry! I got you mixed up with Loudmouth.

If you created a coin stamped 1807, that would not "mean" you created it 200 years ago.

(I focused on that word "mean".)

To convince me it was 200 years ago, you would have to leave me written documentation.

Ok, written documentation follows:

"Today, I created ex nihilo a 200 year old coin."

 

[monkeypsycho62]

I repeat: I am God, your father in heaven. No one can refute this. Worship me!

 

[AV1611VET]

This means that instead of having other means of knowing God -- such as the Holy Spirit or Creation -- people are supposed to listen scripture.

I'll tell you what, Lucapsa: you ask the Holy Spirit the names of Jesus' twelve disciples, and I'll consult the Bible, and we'll see who learns faster, okay?

Oh, wait, you said "knowing God", sorry!

Okay, you ask the Holy Spirit to give you just one of His natural (or moral) attributes, and I'll consult the Bible, and we'll see who learns about God faster, okay?

 

[Tomk80]

And once again the hypothetical question in the OP completely jumps over the appearance of history. As always in these 'challenges', AV1611VET treats the problem of the old age of the earth as if there is just one piece of evidence that just (coincidentally?) points to an old earth. If this would indeed be the case, I would happily agree with him that there might be an appearance of age and that this might have some kind of purpose.

The problem is that this does not reflect the evidence. The evidence is not just a few rocks that we have dated to old ages. The evidence is that these rocks correlate quite precisely with quite a lot of other rocks of different substances. And that all these rocks correlate with organisms that once have lived, events that once happened etc etc quite remarkebly well. This collected bundle of evidence not only indicates an old age, it indicates a very specific history of this earth, where we can mark out relatively precisely when some creatures lived, what they did, what environment they lived in, what happened in that environment and what and when and why they became extinct.

For an example, it not only looks as if certain rocks are 65 million years old, it looks as if dinosaurs lived before that time, then a meteorite struck, then the dinosaurs died out. We can find the dinosaur fossils, the site where the meteorite struck, the specific layer of iridium where we should find it if this historical event would have happened. To take it to the Adam-analogy, if the earth is Adam, the coming into existence and subsequent extinction of dinosaurs due to a meteorite strike is one of the many proverbial 'navels' of the earth, together with all the nicks and scratches it has to indicate events that, according to AV1611VET, never happened..

 

[AV1611VET]

I repeat: I am God, your father in heaven. No one can refute this. Worship me!

I can:

[bible]Deuteronomy 5:7[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, written documentation follows:

"Today, I created ex nihilo a 200 year old coin."

No, you didn't:

[bible]Genesis 2:1-2[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

As always in these 'challenges', AV1611VET treats the problem of the old age of the earth as if there is just one piece of evidence that just (coincidentally?) points to an old earth.

Please tell me what I claim that evidence is, or admit I never said that.

The Bible does not tell us how old this earth is --- science does.

 

[Tomk80]

I can:

[bible]Deuteronomy 5:7[/bible]

Deuteronomy is just a book written by the devil to lure people away from the one true God whos name is monkeypsycho62.

 

[Tomk80]

Please tell me what I claim that evidence is, or admit I never said that.

The Bible does not tell us how old this earth is --- science does.

The age of the earth doesn't enter into it, AV, its history does. Please respond to my complete point, instead of irrelevancies.

Again, you pretend in your OP that the only thing that is a problem here is the appearance of age (and yes, I know your pretense about how the earth can actually be 4.5 billion years old but only in existence for 6000 years, but since you have yet to define age as anything other than the passage of time, I you and I can safely ignore that discussion for the pretense it is). This is not the case. That becomes apparant when you talk about a single element or object that was created looking older than it actually is and asking us whether it is old or not.

But as I already explained in my post, you know, in the part you didn't quote, it is not the problem of a single object that has a certain age, and thus your "challenge" has very little to do with the real situation. The problem is the extreme good correlation between a large number of different objects of different ages, showing not just an appearance of age, but a history. Earth's 'navel' if you wish.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is the extreme good correlation between a large number of different objects of different ages, showing not just an appearance of age, but a history. Earth's 'navel' if you wish.

And you know exactly where I stand on this too. I don't need to justify myself.

Where the Bible differs with science --- science is wrong.

I suggest, if you have evidence of history beyond 6100 years, you re-evaluate said evidence.

If you'd rather go with said evidence, do so; but don't think you're going to convince me, et.al. to be as devoted to your god as you are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Deuteronomy is just a book written by the devil to lure people away from the one true God whos name is monkeypsycho62.

And what? You're his disciple here to warn us?

 

[Freodin]

And you know exactly where I stand on this too. I don't need to justify myself.

Where the Bible differs with science --- science is wrong.

I suggest, if you have evidence of history beyond 6100 years, you re-evaluate said evidence.

If you'd rather go with said evidence, do so; but don't think you're going to convince me, et.al. to be as devoted to your god as you are.

Then I would ask you to stop asking those incredibly stupid hypothetical questions.

No, you didn't:

[bible]Genesis 2:1-2[/bible]

You started this thread, with a hypothetical question that has absolutely no biblical backing. People accepted your hypothetical question and gave answers from that hypothetical point.

Now why cannot you simply return the courtesy and, in the same way, answer a hypothetical question of my own?


I´ll try again: the long version this time.

Your hypothetical situation had an object created with signs that humans attribute to age. This is what is usually defined as "apperance of age". It does NOT mean that this object HAS that age. Age is an existence in time.

According to your understanding, would God today create a coin marked "1807", this coin would be 200 years old... AND THAT EVEN WITHOUT WRITING ABOUT IT IN THE BIBLE.... after all, he didn´t write anything about Dalite either, did he?

So, in this HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION... how old would this coin be?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

And you know exactly where I stand on this too. I don't need to justify myself.

Where the Bible differs with science --- science is wrong.

I suggest, if you have evidence of history beyond 6100 years, you re-evaluate said evidence.

If you'd rather go with said evidence, do so; but don't think you're going to convince me, et.al. to be as devoted to your god as you are.

human civilization is older than 6100 years. is that part of the "embedded age" too?

So all of science and history is wrong in the face of a error laden book written by people living 5,000 years ago?

 

[Nathan Poe]

human civilization is older than 6100 years. is that part of the "embedded age" too?

So all of science and history is wrong in the face of a error laden book written by people living 5,000 years ago?

Of course, because in matters of reading the Bible, its absolutely impossible for AV1611VET to be in error. Scripture's infallibility is transferred to him.

 

[FishFace]

So if a man leaves a note with the police saying he murdered someone, would you convict the man if there was absolutely no evidence that the man had done the crime - in fact, it appeared to every possible method of study that she died from organ failure due to old age?

Of course, when asked about this, the man simply said, "keep looking."

It may be worth mentioning that, at the start of the note, the man predicts precisely how the note will finish, and this prediction is 100% correct. (Or should that be 300%, using Bible-maths?)

 

[cerad]

Of course, because in matters of reading the Bible, its absolutely impossible for AV1611VET to be in error. Scripture's infallibility is transferred to him.

So AV1611VET is the pope? I thought so especially after he started channeling Dad.

 

[TheBear]

CHAPTER ONE​

You hold in your hand a rock known as, let's call it, Dalite.​

This Dalite emits one particle called a Dalon every year on January 1.​

Analysis shows that the Dalite you're holding has 10 particles of Dalon embedded in it.​

CHAPTER TWO​

Absolutely without fail, observation shows that every time Dalite is formed (keyword: formed), it always forms with 100,000 Dalons embedded --- irregardless of the size of the rock.​

CHAPTER THREE​

Chris T. Ian claims that, according to The Book, this universe has only been in existence for 100 years, and the following converstion ensues:​

YOU: Not so --- I have a Dalite rock with only 10 Dalons left. This is evidence that this rock is 999,990 years old.​

CHRIS: Not so --- when God created (keyword: created) Dalite, He must have created it with only 110 Dalons (embedded age); but when it forms, it forms with a process that embeds 100,000 Dalons into it.​

QUESTION​

Would you be willing to admit that your evidence is inconclusive?​

Bad example.....real bad.

But let's set that aside, and cut to the chase of the underpinnings of your overall premise. Absolutely nothing in science is finalized, clung to, unchangeable, or dogmatic. There is no "admit" about it. The term "willing to admit", implies intention to cling to an idea, dogmatically. Science doesn't work that way. Scientific journals are wide open to peer review and are available to the public, and scientific hypotheses and theories are always subject to being modified or overturned in the light of new evidence.

There is no "willing to admit" about it. (Perhaps some projection is occurring?)

 

[Tiberius]

I dare AV1611VET to prove his point without referring to the Bible or anything based upon the Bible.

If you can do that, I'll convert.