Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

"Because god said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

Actually, if God said it, it doesn't matter if I believe it or not --- that settles it.

 

[Sanguis]

Did you read the verse I quoted?

So, basically, "I read it in a bronze age storybook." is your answer?

 

[CoderHead]

Either way would be correct.My goal with that is to show that an object can have two different ages: one physical and one existential.

And I would accept it as stated, except for the fact that you clearly deny that God could have assembled the Earth out of older parts from around the universe. So your illustration fails miserably. You contradict yourself.

Either the Earth is around 6,000 years old, or it's billions of years old. Pick one and stick with it. Then, explain your theory on why it is that way in a coherent way so we may all understand. I figure that's why this thread exists.

 

[sandwiches]

Did you read the verse I quoted?

Yes, but that doesn't answer how YOU knew when you received salvation.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I would accept it as stated, except for the fact that you clearly deny that God could have assembled the Earth out of older parts from around the universe. So your illustration fails miserably. You contradict yourself.

No, I don't.

Once again --- the goal of that thread is to show that an object can be seen as having two different ages.

And that's the similarity with the bicycle and Embedded Age.

Either the Earth is around 6,000 years old, or it's billions of years old. Pick one and stick with it. Then, explain your theory on why it is that way in a coherent way so we may all understand. I figure that's why this thread exists.

Both ages are correct.

The earth is 4.57 billion years old, and yet has only gone around the sun 6012 times.

A sun that came days after the earth showed up.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

What did the earth revolve around before 'the earth showed up?'

 

[AV1611VET]

What did the earth revolve around before 'the earth showed up?'

Nothing --- it was created as a mass of seawater in the hollow of God's hand.

 

[CoderHead]

No, I don't.

Sure you do. You're saying that something has two different ages when it's comprised of other, existing things which are naturally more aged. But then you say the Earth wasn't built out of other things. It just naturally has two ages. That's nonsense.

Once again --- the goal of that thread is to show that an object can be seen as having two different ages.

You're still failing. Try harder.

And that's the similarity with the bicycle and Embedded Age. Both ages are correct.

No sir, they're not. One age is correct - 35 years. Every single part of the bike is 35 years old. Therefore, the bike is 35 years old. There's no question. Now, what about the Earth?

The earth is 4.57 billion years old, and yet has only gone around the sun 6012 times.

Because it's made out of 4.57 billion-year-old parts from other things in the universe? I don't think that's the point you're trying to make. But your illustration forces you into that position.

A sun that came days after the earth showed up.

So, the plants grew in the dark? Do you know how plants work? Or anything, for that matter? The sun is a vital component to any life on this planet.

I know you're trying to present an unconventional view and explain it to us, but I cannot (and apparently, neither can anybody else) see any merit to your theory. It's not backed by scripture. It's not backed by science. It's not backed by good old common sense. So where do we go from here?

 

[Mike Elphick]

Nothing --- it was created as a mass of seawater in the hollow of God's hand.

Ho Ho! All described "in detail in Genesis 1:1", Eh? Please show us:-

1. How do you know it was sea water without a solid interior and not just fresh water?
2. Where did the salts come from to make it "sea water"?
3. Where did the water come from?
4. Later in Genesis, God divided the water from the land. Where did the land come from and where did all the water go to? (Clue: the Earth must have expanded).
5. Where in Genesis does it tell us the "mass of water was in God's hand"?

You make too much stuff up, AV.

 

[Freodin]

No sir, they're not. One age is correct - 35 years. Every single part of the bike is 35 years old. Therefore, the bike is 35 years old. There's no question.

Sorry, there IS a question.

We have to find to an agreement what "the age of something" means. The definition I see as most useful would be something like "the time since this something has existed as a disticnt entity".

Consider: the parts of that bike are not all 35 years old, but ranging from 70 years to one week. How old is the bike?

Or, the parts were previously used in other bikes. How could our bike be 35 years old, when it didn´t exist 35 years ago, but a lot of other, different bikes did.

So there can only be one correct answer: this bike is one day old (or whatever the age was in AV´s thread).

Of course, you cannot sell this bike as "new"... but that is a problem with the impreciseness of everyday language. But in science, you have to be as precise as possible.

Sometimes, it is not possible to determine a precise starting date for the beginning of something. Sometimes, there is no precise date when something began, but it "became". Imagine you were working on this bike for the last twenty years, starting from the sadle and adding the wheels just yesterday. When did that thing become "a bike"?


But neither AV´s usage of "existencial age" nor "physical age" fits any of these descriptions.

Small wonder: he has never gotten around to explain them.

 

[AV1611VET]

You make too much stuff up, AV.

When you ask good questions, then make statements like this, Mike, it provokes me not to answer.

Especially since you're judging my answers before I even answer them.

Ho Ho! All described "in detail in Genesis 1:1", Eh? Please show us:-

1. How do you know it was sea water without a solid interior and not just fresh water?
2. Where did the salts come from to make it "sea water"?
3. Where did the water come from?
4. Later in Genesis, God divided the water from the land. Where did the land come from and where did all the water go to? (Clue: the Earth must have expanded).
5. Where in Genesis does it tell us the "mass of water was in God's hand"?

I'm going to pretend like you really want to know and go ahead and answer them:

1. Sea water contains almost every element on the Periodic Table --- (if not every element). So when it was time to command the dry land to appear, all the elements had to do was come together into the right configuration, and land would appear. This is known as creatio ex materia.
2. Those came ex nihilo when God commanded the earth (then only water) to appear.
3. The water also came ex nihilo when God commanded the earth to appear.
4. The land was dissolved in the water --- right down to the atomic level. When the time came, God called the land forth, and the atoms assembled into one giant landmass called Eden (or Pangaea). As the elements came together the earth would not have needed expand, as nothing is being added. In fact, the diameter of the earth decreased when God sheared off a layer of water and ballooned it out into space to become what we call a water canopy.
5. Isaiah 40:12

You make too much stuff up, AV.

I promise you, you're not going to get anywhere with me with that.

If you want to see some real made-up answers, ask me some ad hoc questions,* like:

1. Where did Noah live before the Flood?
2. Where are the flood waters now?
3. Why were they taken there?

I'll guarantee, the answers have a measure of entertainment value for those who won't understand.

* Not in this thread though, or I won't answer them.

 

[Cabal]

That's the spirit!

Keep dodging the question until it falls back about five pages, then someone starts in with: "What's your point, AV?"

But...wait...didn't I and several others here keep having to drag answers to our questions out of you like pulling teeth?

*muffled boom*

So help you if that's my irony meter gone again.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Once again --- the goal of that thread is to show that an object can be seen as having two different ages.

Those are two very different concepts, AV. If I build a house out of 10,000 year old wood and then I radiocarbon date the house by measuring the wood it would show up as 10,000 years old. (In case you actually care, this is why one normally does not date a sedimentary rock by radiometrically dating the individual grains.)

Now, the wood literally had been around for 10,000 real honest to goodness years. The house was assembled from the wood making the house much, much younger.

What your Embedded Age paradigm says is God created every assemblage of atoms as if it were all much much older by the passage of physical time than it actually had experienced. There was NOTHING in the assemblage that had endured the actual passage of physical time God "embedded into it".

Those are extremely different concepts.

In fact you yourself said the act of embedding age "requires omnipotence", which means you cannot come up with an analogy that will be comparable. Clearly by your own description the bike analogy cannot even be considered close to embedded age.

Now if all "embedded age" means is building something new out of old parts, then anyone can do that. And would hence not be in accord with your initial definition of Embedded Age on post #1 of this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now if all "embedded age" means is building something new out of old parts, then anyone can do that. And would hence not be in accord with your initial definition of Embedded Age on post #1 of this thread.

For, what?

The third time already?

My qv has NOTHING to do with Embedded Age.

It is ONLY to show that an object can have two different dates: one physical and one existential.

 

[sandwiches]

Those are two very different concepts, AV. If I build a house out of 10,000 year old wood and then I radiocarbon date the house by measuring the wood it would show up as 10,000 years old. (In case you actually care, this is why one normally does not date a sedimentary rock by radiometrically dating the individual grains.)

Now, the wood literally had been around for 10,000 real honest to goodness years. The house was assembled from the wood making the house much, much younger.

What your Embedded Age paradigm says is God created every assemblage of atoms as if it were all much much older by the passage of physical time than it actually had experienced. There was NOTHING in the assemblage that had endured the actual passage of physical time God "embedded into it".

Those are extremely different concepts.

In fact you yourself said the act of embedding age "requires omnipotence", which means you cannot come up with an analogy that will be comparable. Clearly by your own description the bike analogy cannot even be considered close to embedded age.

Now if all "embedded age" means is building something new out of old parts, then anyone can do that. And would hence not be in accord with your initial definition of Embedded Age on post #1 of this thread.

I've been thinking about AV's idea for a while, playing devil's advocate in my own head and how it could work. And I think a closer example of his idea would be using replicators from Star Trek.

This is how my imaginary game went:
Imagine that we replicate an apple. The apple appears to be ripe and weeks old from the initial bud in a tree to the actual fruit. However, it's only seconds old. So, while it's ripe(mature), it's also young and has no history to speak of, except for a few atoms being pushed together in a second or so. Of course, I'm assuming God could do it instantly so I thought that maybe there would be no history, as AV claims.

Now, I kept going further. What if we replicated a tree that's 40 years old. A tree would have to have the signs of growth because they're not mere signs, they're actually part of the infrastructure and foundation for more growth. So, a replicated tree, while it may be mature (40 years old) and young (only created seconds ago,) would also have to have rings, which are unmistakable signs of history embedded because a tree could not be without those stages of growth.

But again, we go back into what AV means when he uses the word history. When I asked him, he said:

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.

However when I quoted the dictionary definitions and showed him here: 331 how there is history for objects older than 6,000 years old, he ignored me. Twice.

As I'm sure he'll ignore it again or merely pick one sentence, say something like "I see how you changed from X to Y in this sentence." Anything to avoid or dodge the point.

 

[MoonLancer]

For, what?

The third time already?

My qv has NOTHING to do with Embedded Age.

It is ONLY to show that an object can have two different dates: one physical and one existential.

i agree two dates are possible with an example of a bike. and the replicator.

However if you try to use this to defend Embedded age this will follow

My qv has NOTHING to do with Embedded Age.

 

[MoonLancer]

About the replicator. I would think that if looked at microscopically, It would differ from apple, at least when it is dated it would show that it is as old as when it was created, not older. In the show they consistently point out that replicator food is not the same as cooked food, and that cooked food tast's much better.

In av's bike analogy, god simply crafted the world out of stuff that already existed, and did not create it from nothing. If god DID create from nothing then the age of that creation would be what scientists detect as the worlds age. In other worlds embedded age a way to avoid the problems he faces when reconciling science and the bible.

If god did emended age into the world he would be doing so deceptively. The replicator is much the same. It is deceptively trying to pass for something it is not.

 

[sandwiches]

About the replicator. I would think that if looked at microscopically, It would differ from apple, at least when it is dated it would show that it is as old as when it was created, not older. In the show they consistently point out that replicator food is not the same as cooked food, and that cooked food tast's much better.

In av's bike analogy, god simply crafted the world out of stuff that already existed, and did not create it from nothing. If god DID create from nothing then the age of that creation would be what scientists detect as the worlds age. In other worlds embedded age a way to avoid the problems he faces when reconciling science and the bible.

If god did emended age into the world he would be doing so deceptively. The replicator is much the same. It is deceptivly trying to pass for something it is not.

I'm not sure how you would date an atom, to be honest.

 

[sandwiches]

If god did emended age into the world he would be doing so deceptively. The replicator is much the same. It is deceptivly trying to pass for something it is not.

Well on that subject, you don't have to be deceptive to make a replicated apple. I mean, a replicated apple, assuming a perfect copy, would be an apple just like any others. There's no deception there. It is, in fact, an apple and it is in fact mature. If you're saying that you try to pass it off as an apple that fell from a tree, then that's specific intent. We would have to show that this Christian god had the intent of deceiving people into thinking the Earth is 4.5billion years old. And more to the point, it really would be, in the sense that it would have gone through all the transformations that it would have if it had taken 4.5billion year to get to this point. However, there's still history.

If, as AV is claiming, his god, through the Bible, indicated that world is only 6,000 years old, then there'd be no deceit as he would've specifically told us that the world is only 6,000 years old even though it appears much older.

I think that AV's idea would be more accurately described as Embedded Maturity: Maturity without Age. History is an inseparable part of maturity, however. No way around that.

 

[Split Rock]

No --- but what if I did?

Are you against prayer?

I am not against prayer. I am interested in determining why you will not give up on E.A. when it should be clear to you by now that it does not work. If I am correct about why, is it possible that you are mistaken about God providing the answer you sought out? Could E.A. be wrong?