In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[AV1611VET]

Last Thursdayism. You are essentially saying that everything in the past 6,000 years is embedded as well.

Last Thursdayism is "maturity with history."

Embedded Age is "maturity without history."

 

[RickG]

That does not suggest an apparent age.

 

[AV1611VET]

That does not suggest an apparent age.

That's the best I could do at the moment in presenting something that only looks old, but without age.

 

[Hammster]

That's the best I could do at the moment in presenting something that only looks old, but without age.

An example would be a 12 year old girl who looks 21?

 

[RickG]

That's the best I could do at the moment in presenting something that only looks old, but without age.

Let's just leave it at that, we both understand what the other is saying. What physical evidence is there to suggest apparent age?

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's just leave it at that, we both understand what the other is saying.

* cough *

What physical evidence is there to suggest apparent age?

None.

 

[HitchSlap]

None.

Well there you have it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well there you have it.

Let's hope RickG gets it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Let's hope RickG gets it.

I think he does, hence your problem.

 

[RickG]

I think he does, hence......

The bottom line is whether "apparent" or "embedded" age, both suggest God to be a deceiver.

 

[Hammster]

The bottom line is whether "apparent" or "embedded" age, both suggest God to be a deceiver.

Is the any reason that the original readers/hearers of Genesis woukd think creation was anything other than six days? At face value, is that what it says? Keep in mind before you reply that they already had the Ten Commandments.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bottom line is whether "apparent" or "embedded" age, both suggest God to be a deceiver.

Translation:

Anything not to your endorsement suggests God to be a deceiver?

 

[HitchSlap]

Translation:

Anything not to your endorsement suggests God to be a deceiver?

But this has nothing to do with Rick, AV, HitchSlap, or anybody else, but has everything to do with the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

But this has nothing to do with Rick, AV, HitchSlap, or anybody else,

What happened to God?

You left Him out of Rick's comment.

 

[Loudmouth]

Gen 1:2 states that God said let there be light. Then later on it says that God created the Sun on day four.

If you want to claim that this is just my interpretation of the bible, then so be it. But I'm not sure how else to interpret it. It seems fairly strait forward, even if you disbelieve it.

You can interpret it as a parable or allegory.

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

It contains embedded age that has been in existence for 6000 years.

Are you saying that rocks date old by radiometric dating because of this embedded age?

 

[Loudmouth]

You keep assuming I'm using terms that I'm not using. I never said anything about proof. I asked if it was possible that this conclusion is incorrect. In other words, is it possible that later evidence could arise that would change this conclusion?

There is absolutely no reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of radiometric dating methods. In order for the methods to be wrong you would have to change the fundamental forces of nature, and then change the resulting evidence to match the current laws we have. Using astronomical observations we can test the consistency of the forces that govern radioactive decay well into the past. We also have systems here on the Earth that can test the consistency of decay rates.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE410.html

The initial conditions can also be tested, and we have plenty of evidence demonstrating how these rocks formed and how much parent/daughter isotope was present when they formed.

If by assumption you mean something assumed to be true without any evidence, then there are no assumptions used in radiometric dating. The only assumption used in this thread is the assumption that the Bible is true no matter what.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are still arguing against something I'm not arguing for. I'm not saying that the Sun isn't necessary for us, it that it doesn't give off light. All I'm saying is that it's not necessary for light. I have no doubt that God can create light apart from the Sun.

That would be an assumption.

But let's assume that the light on Day 1 was just enlightenment,

Let's not assume it. Where is the evidence demonstrating that this claim is true?

 

[Loudmouth]

Last Thursdayism is "maturity with history."

Embedded Age is "maturity without history."

Embedded Age, as you present it, is no different than Last Thursdayism. Embedded age, as you propose it, requires God to do things like bury fake fossils in the ground.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's the best I could do at the moment in presenting something that only looks old, but without age.

What makes Earth look old is the history of radioactive decay in rocks. You claim that this history was put into those rocks by God as part of the creation event. Those rocks sit on top of fossils, which means that God would also have to create the fossils that sit under these rocks with embedded age. God making fake fossils just to fool us into thinking that the Earth is old. How is that not a deceiver?