Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Hans Blaster]

No. When the 'after' is way back near creation we do not know. Your interpretation of what happened after a rock was formed is also based on the same principles and foundation. How would you know, for example if the way a rock and isotopes in it are were not partly or wholly a result of being created?

Radiometric dating is not about how the rock was formed or what the composition was initially, it is about using the properties of nuclei to measure the time *since* it was formed.

Then there is the issue of what God might have done since the rock was formed. If God's action against Sodom, for example, resulted in rocks being affected (as of course it did) and His spirit was involved and angels, why would we assume that the physical forces were the only thing that made the ratios and etc they way they are?

How do these things alter the properties of nuclei. Cite sources.

Or, how would we know what spiritual forces God exerted upon the planet since creation that would have affected radioactivity, or processes and etc?

Show how 'spiritual forces' affect nuclear decays.

You, once again assume that there was no creation or God that affected anything and do so for no apparent reason.

Nope. Just applying the physics that is to things that are.

How would we know if God, after the fall, or the flood, or other times did not move in ways that affected this little world and it's little processes, normal ways etc?

What purpose would this god have for altering the properties of matter to alter how we measure ages in the current era, assuming it could be done?

Bible believers should know better. When Jesus returns all sorts of changes will happen that could never be explained by current natural physical realities or science.

Cool.

What does science say about the sun, for example?

There is a whole branch call "stellar astrophysics" that explains in great detail how stars like the Sun work and how they change over time.

There is no reason that is should increase suddenly in heat like bible prophesy says will happen in the end.

"increase suddenly in heat" doesn't make any sense. Do you mean get brighter? Well, if so, we do know why the Sun will get brighter at the end of its existence thanks to stellar astrophysics.

There is no reason that science knows or claims, that the stars and sun will go out, yet humans will still be alive and doing things on earth!

Stars "go out" all the time and they do not affect us here on Earth.

God is bigger than the universe and fills it all. By Him all things consist. The only way to read the isotopes or rocks or anything else correctly is to realize God made it all, and runs it all, and changes things all the time as needed. Leaving Him out of dating is blindness and ignorance.

I get it. Your god can change the properties of matter as it wills to trick us into false conclusions. (How do you cope in a world without the regularity of physical laws? I'm not sure I could deal with arbitrary changes to reality.)

As above, nuclear physics is a drop in the bucket in the big picture and reality of why things are the way they are. It is not the be all end all and is totally inadequate to explain creation or time or ratios etc.

The nuclear physics of radioactive decays covers two of the four fundamental forces. It is not nothing and it is used to understand how those isotopic ratios evolve with time. What elements and isotopes are present in a rock when it forms is a matter of geochemistry and mineralogy.

 

[David Lamb]

And again: you clearly don't know what allegory and poetic writing is.

Why does everything in the Bible NEED to be 100% literal? Why?

Certainly there are passages in the bible that are poetic, and others that are allegorical. When Jesus told His disciples that He was the vine and they were the branches, He clearly wasn't saying that He and they had exchanged their human bodies for trunks, twigs and leaves. However, when we read Genesis 1, or John 1, there is not hint of allegory.

 

[BCP1928]

Certainly there are passages in the bible that are poetic, and others that are allegorical. When Jesus told His disciples that He was the vine and they were the branches, He clearly wasn't saying that He and they had exchanged their human bodies for trunks, twigs and leaves. However, when we read Genesis 1, or John 1, there is not hint of allegory.

Not a hint. And if there was a hint you had better stamp it out right away. Otherwise, who knows what might happen? You might go all Romish, there would be a smell of incense about your clothes, you would start to think about gun control and single-payer health care, doing something about global warming, you might even stop believing that the Democrats stole the 2020 election, you might as well stop believing in God if you did that. No, stamp it out, I say.

 

[David Lamb]

Not a hint. And if there was a hint you had better stamp it out right away. Otherwise, who knows what might happen? You might go all Romish, there would be a smell of incense about your clothes, you would start to think about gun control and single-payer health care, doing something about global warming, you might even stop believing that the Democrats stole the 2020 election, you might as well stop believing in God if you did that. No, stamp it out, I say. anyway),

I don't know why "going all Romish", starting thinking about gun control (I already live in the UK where very few people own guns), or about single payer health care, or any of the other things you mention, would follow if there was an indication in the bible that the Creation account in Genesis, and in John 1 were not in fact literal.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Certainly there are passages in the bible that are poetic, and others that are allegorical. When Jesus told His disciples that He was the vine and they were the branches, He clearly wasn't saying that He and they had exchanged their human bodies for trunks, twigs and leaves. However, when we read Genesis 1, or John 1, there is not hint of allegory.

Then why does the world, the world that God created, show billions of years of history when it was only created 6,000 odd years ago?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Literal is meaningless. True is meaningful. Jesus said not the tiniest word of prophesy could possibly fail. Prophesy started in Genesis you know! Do you think the prophesy about the woman's seed did not come true? If Jesus was not the seed of Eve, then the bible is false. Where does that leave people who do not even believe in Eve? Do you think she was really monkey spawned?

False. In a myriad of ways, posters here have claimed the things in the bible are wrong and that most of the old testament is basically garbage.

How would we call it belief when someone dismisses MOST of the bible? How could we say they, for example, believe Jesus was the seed of Eve when they do not believe Eve existed? How could we say they believe Jesus created when they do not believe in creation? How could we say He came to give us life and deliver us from sin, when they do not believe sin entered the world the way the bible says?

Then why does the world, the world that God created, show billions of years of history when it was only created 6,000 odd years ago?

 

[David Lamb]

Then why does the world, the world that God created, show billions of years of history when it was only created 6,000 odd years ago?

I am no scientist, though there are scientists who believe that God created the Universe thousands, rather than billions of years ago. They obviously could state the arguments more scientifically than I can but I do know some of the things they say. For example, when God created, the things He created were mature. He didn't create Adam as a baby, so if we were able to time-travel back to Adam's lifetime, and meet Adam, we would say, "He must be 30 or 40 years old." If we had arrived just one day after creation, Adam would be only one day old. The trees God created are said in the bible to have their seeds in themselves, so they were mature trees. The sun, moon and stars were created "to give light upon the earth." So God created them with their light already reaching the earth, no matter how many light years away they may be. The light didn't need millions of years to reach the earth. So I would says that whether the earth shows billions of years or thousands depends on our presuppositions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am no scientist, though there are scientists who believe that God created the Universe thousands, rather than billions of years ago. They obviously could state the arguments more scientifically than I can but I do know some of the things they say. For example, when God created, the things He created were mature. He didn't create Adam as a baby, so if we were able to time-travel back to Adam's lifetime, and meet Adam, we would say, "He must be 30 or 40 years old." If we had arrived just one day after creation, Adam would be only one day old. The trees God created are said in the bible to have their seeds in themselves, so they were mature trees. The sun, moon and stars were created "to give light upon the earth." So God created them with their light already reaching the earth, no matter how many light years away they may be. The light didn't need millions of years to reach the earth. So I would says that whether the earth shows billions of years or thousands depends on our presuppositions.

I very much doubt that any serious scientist believes that God created the universe and earth thousands of years ago. But ignoring that, even if God did create everything thousands of years ago but made it specifically to look billions of years old, how can that not be said to be deceptive?

 

[David Lamb]

I very much doubt that any serious scientist believes that God created the universe and earth thousands of years ago. But ignoring that, even if God did create everything thousands of years ago but made it specifically to look billions of years old, how can that not be said to be deceptive?

It isn't deceptive (for example) to create the stars, moon and sun already giving light to the earth, then to tell us that He created them for that very purpose. It would be deceptive if God had said they were to be created to give light to the earth, but the light, particularly from the stars, then taking a long time to actually reach the earth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It isn't deceptive (for example) to create the stars, moon and sun already giving light to the earth, then to tell us that He created them for that very purpose. It would be deceptive if God had said they were to be created to give light to the earth, but the light, particularly from the stars, then taking a long time to actually reach the earth.

I'll repeat what I said: even if God did create everything thousands of years ago but made it specifically to look billions of years old, how can that not be said to be deceptive?

 

[David Lamb]

I'll repeat what I said: even if God did create everything thousands of years ago but made it specifically to look billions of years old, how can that not be said to be deceptive?

Well, I'll do the same, and repeat what I said, that it only looks billions of years old if we believe that it is that old.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, I'll do the same, and repeat what I said, that it only looks billions of years old if we believe that it is that old.

But it's not a fact of BELIEVING it's old. All of the evidence gathered points to it BEING billions of years old.

 

[David Lamb]

But it's not a fact of BELIEVING it's old. All of the evidence gathered points to it BEING billions of years old.

Well, the scientist who believe in a comparatively young earth have the same evidence, but they interpret it differently, as they have different presuppositions. But I expect you will just say that if they believe in a young earth, they can't be serious scientists.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, the scientist who believe in a comparatively young earth have the same evidence, but they interpret it differently, as they have different presuppositions. But I expect you will just say that if they believe in a young earth, they can't be serious scientists.

It does render many findings of theirs questionable, especially in the fields of geology and geography. And archaeology.

 

[David Lamb]

It does render many findings of theirs questionable, especially in the fields of geology and geography. And archaeology.

Geography? Really? I'm not talking about conspiracy theories like the flat earth believers who try to tell us that the Garden of Eden was at the North Pole!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Geography? Really? I'm not talking about conspiracy theories like the flat earth believers who try to tell us that the Garden of Eden was at the North Pole!

Geography covers more topics than just continents. You've got the makeup of the continents in relation to each other, tectonic drift, the migration of human populations.
A young earth doesn't make modern geography make sense, but an old earth does.

 

[David Lamb]

Geography covers more topics than just continents. You've got the makeup of the continents in relation to each other, tectonic drift, the migration of human populations.
A young earth doesn't make modern geography make sense, but an old earth does.

I am not qualified scientifically to comment on that, so I'll leave it to somebody who is. Despite you statement about no serious scientist believing the earth is young, such scientists do exist, and many are highly qualified.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am not qualified scientifically to comment on that, so I'll leave it to somebody who is. Despite you statement about no serious scientist believing the earth is young, such scientists do exist, and many are highly qualified.

Oh, I know they do, and I bet they are qualified. But unfortunately, many of them are not qualified in the things they like to make claims about.

 

[David Lamb]

Oh, I know they do, and I bet they are qualified. But unfortunately, many of them are not qualified in the things they like to make claims about.

I don't know about "many of them." Certainly not all of them. For example, Professor Stuart Burgess. His subject is engineering. On his website, he lists some of the spacecraft etc., which he has been involved with:

"
I designed the solar array deployment system for the following four earth observation spacecraft (with launch date):

• Envisat (2002)
• Metop A (2006)
• Metop B (2012)
• Metop C (2018)

These four spacecraft have a value of about $5 billion. Envisat was the world’s largest solar array (14m x 5m) on an earth observation satellite at the time of launch. I designed a special gearbox for Envisat and Metop called a double-action worm gearset which has a world patent and received two national design awards.

HUBBLE TELESCOPE AND SKYLARK ROCKET

I also worked on the Hubble Space Telescope and the Skylark Rocket. I even spent some time working on military satellites."

He writes much about the design of the universe pointing to the Creator, and not to billions-of-years evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know about "many of them." Certainly not all of them. For example, Professor Stuart Burgess. His subject is engineering. On his website, he lists some of the spacecraft etc., which he has been involved with:

"
I designed the solar array deployment system for the following four earth observation spacecraft (with launch date):

• Envisat (2002)
• Metop A (2006)
• Metop B (2012)
• Metop C (2018)

These four spacecraft have a value of about $5 billion. Envisat was the world’s largest solar array (14m x 5m) on an earth observation satellite at the time of launch. I designed a special gearbox for Envisat and Metop called a double-action worm gearset which has a world patent and received two national design awards.

HUBBLE TELESCOPE AND SKYLARK ROCKET

I also worked on the Hubble Space Telescope and the Skylark Rocket. I even spent some time working on military satellites."

He writes much about the design of the universe pointing to the Creator, and not to billions-of-years evolution.

The funny thing is... this 100% proves my point on "But unfortunately, many of them are not qualified in the things they like to make claims about."

Why is an engineer who designed spacecraft qualified and considered an expert enough to talk about evolution and the age of the earth? It's just an appeal to authority.