Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[dlamberth]

Speak for your own posts and what you though was being discussed.

Embedded Age. That's the belief that this Creation is only 6000 years old, but God made it appear to be billions of years old complete with geological history that affirms the false old age that is embedded into His Creation.

 

[Vambram]

Instead of the results you want them to get.

No. I have absolutely zero doubts that passages of the Scriptures throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament concerning creation, the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve; all teach that the Lord God did NOT use the process of evolution to create the earth and the universe.

 

[truthpls]

What I blame are those who make God out as a deceiver by saying that God Creates false age and false geological history into His Creation. Thus says I, a Lover of God.

My God created the world. He is the creator of heaven and earth. My God does not lie and sent the Scripture to man and fulfilled it. People ignoring that who interpret ratios and everything using assumptions that there was no creation and no Great Spirit cannot blame their confusion or delusion on anyone else. What leads certainly to deception and being deceived is disrespecting His word. Man likes to think that everything must be explained and explainable by his small and limited knowledge and concepts and what he can touch or taste or see etc. By leaving out God science simply cannot possibly ever come to know the truth, period.

 

[Aaron112]

No. I have absolutely zero doubts that passages of the Scriptures throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament concerning creation, the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve; all teach that the Lord God did NOT use the process of evolution to create the earth and the universe.

The seekers of truth, including scientists in every field, the lovers of truth, everywhere, agree completely ! (with JESUS! )

They did disprove even the possibility of evilution centuries ago; but money, love of money, and evil, drew more audience.

 

[Vambram]

It's kind of sounding like your not an embedded age person. An embedded age person would say that the datings are correct, but that's only because God not only embedded appearing old age into His 6000 year old Creation but also geological history.

But in looking for more clarity in your believes using another examples, this time with galaxies. If I understand you correctly you believe those more than 100 Billion galaxies are only 6000 light years away from Earth? Is that correct?

God did create with an embedded age in His creation. However, to suggest that He is attempting to deceive us implies that we ought not believe by faith all the various passages in the Bible concerning God's creation. Genesis chapters 1-3 clearly show that the Lord God created living adult creations.

 

[truthpls]

Embedded Age. That's the belief that this Creation is only 6000 years old,

I would agree that accepting the times the bible indicates is a part of what is called embedded age. I think it refers to how things would look old that were just created. I do not see how the concept would extend to fossils or things that got changed after creation.

but God made it appear to be billions of years old complete with geological history that affirms the false old age that is embedded into His Creation.

God never said it was any such age. Man says that based on unbelief and a system of explaining the world and life and universe origins using anything but God!

 

[David Lamb]

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.

Although he does sometimes talk about the question of origins generally, he particularly speaks and writes about origins from the point of view of an engineering designer.

 

[truthpls]

If all you want to do is make theological claims you should find a different part of CF instead of one where science is part of the discussion.

Science is part of the discussion. However so ids God when it comes to embedded age, obviously. Perhaps you should find a thread about pretending people are talking about something other than what they are

There is no fun to be gained from discussing something with those who have a fixed mind. You might have had fun, but I would not.

Great so do not support the 12,000 year old claim then. Pretend you could if you like. As for minds being 'fixed' both the believers in Scripture and God, and the unbelievers have their minds fixed. Believers have their minds stayed on Jesus and resting in faith that He is the creator and not a liar. The unbelievers have their minds fixed to keep God and creation out of the picture and their little calculations.

Measuring the rate of radioactive decay has nothing to do with how much of an isotope was in something "created".

That depends if we were looking at a rock so old it was here 6000 years ago or some isotopes with short half lives etc. We were talking here about ages and the age is a factor when looking at ratios! If you assume, for example that a rock that was here from the first days of creation got it's ratios some other way, then you miss the forest for the trees. So you don't get to use the phrase 'radioactive decay' as if it is something that helps you in any discussion of creation or how things were at creation. Maybe we should add the term 'embedded isotope ratios' here! If there were intact ratios at creation (and how could there not have been?) then any old dates assigned to them would be laughable. Yes, we see that today, the same sort of isotopes are produced by radioactive decay but that does not mean that the original ratios got there that way if they were created! (or affected later by God in something He did)

It involves gathering a bunch of a specific isotope and measuring the number of decays per second per unit mass of the isotope.

We know. Take a rock in Eden, that was just created yesterday, and look at it's ratios! Then would you tell us that some of these isotopes got there over millions of years?

I'm not interested in any of these religions claims. I am here to discuss the scientific claims of "embedded age".

The problem is that those who leave God out in their thinking are as much 'religions' as anyone else. If a rock was created yesterday no scientific method could work. Creation and the way things were at creation had nothing to do with science and science would be unable to know why the rock had ratios if a team of top scientists would have been in Eden. (or anywhere in the world the day after creation)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did you ask them?

I'd prefer to ask the rocks since they have a better testimony of history than a bush does.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Although he does sometimes talk about the question of origins generally, he particularly speaks and writes about origins from the point of view of an engineering designer.

I say again: 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.
Notice the bolded part.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Science is part of the discussion. However so ids God when it comes to embedded age, obviously. Perhaps you should find a thread about pretending people are talking about something other than what they are

Great so do not support the 12,000 year old claim then.

I have not read the paper, so I don't have an informed conclusion. However, without evidence in contrary, I will not assume that other scientists are wrong because someone else (you) doesn't like their conclusions.

Pretend you could if you like. As for minds being 'fixed' both the believers in Scripture and God, and the unbelievers have their minds fixed. Believers have their minds stayed on Jesus and resting in faith that He is the creator and not a liar. The unbelievers have their minds fixed to keep God and creation out of the picture and their little calculations.

Belief or non-belief is irrelevant to the analysis of data.

That depends if we were looking at a rock so old it was here 6000 years ago or some isotopes with short half lives etc. We were talking here about ages and the age is a factor when looking at ratios! If you assume, for example that a rock that was here from the first days of creation got it's ratios some other way, then you miss the forest for the trees. So you don't get to use the phrase 'radioactive decay' as if it is something that helps you in any discussion of creation or how things were at creation. Maybe we should add the term 'embedded isotope ratios' here! If there were intact ratios at creation (and how could there not have been?) then any old dates assigned to them would be laughable. Yes, we see that today, the same sort of isotopes are produced by radioactive decay but that does not mean that the original ratios got there that way if they were created! (or affected later by God in something He did)

I'm not sure how I could state it more clearly. Measuring the decay rate of an unstable isotope doesn't involve the past at all. It is an experiment conducted in a lab today using a sample of the specific isotope being meaured (Mn-53 in the original example.) The experiment could be done today and certainly some such experiments (but on which isotopes, I don't know) are certainly being done today. Creation has literally nothing to do with how we measure decay rates in modern laboratories.

We know. Take a rock in Eden, that was just created yesterday, and look at it's ratios! Then would you tell us that some of these isotopes got there over millions of years?

Where is this rock in Eden. Show me one.

The problem is that those who leave God out in their thinking are as much 'religions' as anyone else.

No. Not considering a god or believing in one is not "religion". This is a false narrative.

If a rock was created yesterday no scientific method could work. Creation and the way things were at creation had nothing to do with science and science would be unable to know why the rock had ratios if a team of top scientists would have been in Eden. (or anywhere in the world the day after creation)

This is nothing more than "Last Thursday"ism. Show that the world wasn't created on Thursday with an embedded history. That is the logical extension of embedded age creationism.

 

[BCP1928]

No. I have absolutely zero doubts that passages of the Scriptures throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament concerning creation, the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve; all teach that the Lord God did NOT use the process of evolution to create the earth and the universe.

The Bible actually says very little about the details of the processes involved. From the introduction of old Earth geology and the biological theory of evolution up until the early 1960s the general Christian position was that only the evolution of human beings posed any real problem. Tennessee's 1925 Butler Act, which John Scopes was found guilty of violating, only forbade the teaching of human evolution, not any other kind. YECism was only popular with fringe Protestant sects; the Jehovaha's Wittnesses, Sevent Day Adventists, Dispensationalists, erc.

 

[truthpls]

I'd prefer to ask the rocks since they have a better testimony of history than a bush does.

Since the bible says the creation knows and responds to Him, that is a far cry more than we can say for science. A mushroom knows more than all of science combined about creation and God! An ant! A rat! A monkey! A baboon. They are not so foolish as to totally misread rocks by casting the creator away. Men of science can come to a knowledge of the truth, and that would be by believing in and including God. Until then, they remain fumbling blindly in the dark talking big.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Since the bible says the creation knows and responds to Him, that is a far cry more than we can say for science. A mushroom knows more than all of science combined about creation and God! An ant! A rat! A monkey! A baboon. They are not so foolish as to totally misread rocks by casting the creator away. Men of science can come to a knowledge of the truth, and that would be by believing in and including God. Until then, they remain fumbling blindly in the dark talking big.

All I can say on this is... says you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It does put things into a very weird perspective that modern creationism came about in the 1960s.

 

[truthpls]

I have not read the paper, so I don't have an informed conclusion. However, without evidence in contrary, I will not assume that other scientists are wrong because someone else (you) doesn't like their conclusions.

Great. I should have picked an example that goes back to the time when science say the world was new. That way we could have focused more on the topic of what ratios existed already in rocks dating to creation.
Since we are talking about this here is an example of the wild leaps of faith taken in getting the 'dates' of the oldest rocks on earth. Better make sure you are sitting down and not drinking hot coffee as it is a belly buster.

"In the case of this original crust, scientists were measuring neodymium-142, which is produced by the alpha decay of samarium-146. The calculation for this piece of crust was not as complex as dating some other rocks, as 146Sm is an extinct isotope, and only produced 142Nd during the earths first 500 million years. As this crust has 142Nd present, we know that this piece of crust must have been formed about 4.3 billion years ago"

Where In The World Are The Oldest Rocks? - Science World

Canada, Australia and Greenland have been the top contenders for being home to the Earth’s oldest geological specimens: Greenland: Oldest fossils found in rock, Iusa Specimens, 3.7 billion years oldAustralia: Oldest minerals, Jack Hills Zircon, 4.36 billion years oldCanada: Oldest rock, Canadian...

www.scienceworld.ca

Need I flesh out the huge assumptions here for you? Let's look at a few questions that cannot be answered by science about this. -If this was a rock dating to creation, could it have had 146Sm in it when created? - Could most of the isotopes in the rock have been there from the time it was made? - In other words, embedded age as far as science is concerned.
What we have then is the absolute omission of creation and God by science in all scenarios and explanations of what could have happened. They proceed to form conclusions based solely on a godless speculation model and nothing but a godless speculation model (religiously)

Belief or non-belief is irrelevant to the analysis of data.

As just explained it is all that matters actually. If someone looks at a rock that was created by God and then tries to explain why it has what it has in it using a belief that is totally without the actual cause of the rock existing, that is both non belief and belief!

I'm not sure how I could state it more clearly. Measuring the decay rate of an unstable isotope doesn't involve the past at all.

Yes, when you attribute the existing isotope's existence wholly to that process that happens today it very much involves the past. You use this to 'age' the whole rock and of course ages mean the past.

Creation has literally nothing to do with how we measure decay rates in modern laboratories.

As just proven in the example of a rock dating to the time of creation whatever decay that now happens in that rock basically doesn't matter or tell us when or how it came to exist! Neither could or would it tell us it's future! Science could not say that, for example, in another billion years, this same rock would have x and y and z components in it! They know nothing of the sort. The bible tells us that very rock will be burned up and a new earth will exist! Science can tell us neither about the future or the past.

Where is this rock in Eden. Show me one.

I posted an example of a rock that science claims dates close to the the time earth started to exist. I also provided a thought experiment for a rock that was created for sure, and how science would explain it.

No. Not considering a god or believing in one is not "religion". This is a false narrative.

Says you. Beliefs are used in dating. In the example above, they used a belief that certain material in a rock meant that the rock had to come from a time when they theorize the earth 'still' had such material! Are you calling that more than a belief?

This is nothing more than "Last Thursday"ism. Show that the world wasn't created on Thursday with an embedded history. That is the logical extension of embedded age creationism.

If this was creation week, and Thursday, then science would look like buffoonery if it tried to tell us where the rocks or anything else like man came from! For anyone to actually ask today, thousands of years after creation, to be shown the universe was not created last week also looks like buffoonery.

 

[truthpls]

All I can say on this is... says you.

Says God.

 

[truthpls]

It does put things into a very weird perspective that modern creationism came about in the 1960s.

It was never an issue before that possibly? Science started to really go to town on alternate creation claims about then.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Says God.

Except it's not really God saying it. It's man saying what God said.

 

[truthpls]

Except it's not really God saying it. It's man saying what God said.

Jesus disagrees. He even specifically promised that He would send to men His words from heaven when He returned using the Holy Spirit. We all should remember to be very very careful not to blaspheme against this.