Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[truthpls]

Once again, you repeat the same things I have already told you are untrue.

Once again you call true things untrue

I have stated REPEATEDLY that science uses anything that is testable and repeatable.

In other words the natural and nothing but the natural. That is why it can't talk about the creation of God. That was not natural.

Why do you always ignore this? Why do you keep making the same incorrect claims when I have told you they are untrue? Do you ignore me? Or do you use false claims deliberately?

You are welcome to speak, but what you sat will be weighed in the balances and so far you have been found wanting.

 

[truthpls]

So what? It doesn't advance your case. That God exists is neither affirmed nor denied by science.

That is the point, science tells alternate creation stories based on their one belief of the naturalonlydunnit They can neither prove that the natural only dunnit nor that there is no supernatural. So what can they do exactly?

The literal inerrancy of Genesis is another story, but fulfilled prophecy does not prove it.

Yes it does. If God proved He is God by things like wild and wonderful and plentiful fulfilled prophesies, then He establish a name. Trust. We know He tells the truth and is able. So when naturalonlydunnit science comes along and tries to cast doubt on that, with no proof that only the natural exists or that there is not God or supernatural, we know they are just whistling dixie.

 

[BCP1928]

That is the point, science tells alternate creation stories based on their one belief of the naturalonlydunnit They can neither prove that the natural only dunnit nor that there is no supernatural. So what can they do exactly?

Yes it does. If God proved He is God by things like wild and wonderful and plentiful fulfilled prophesies, then He establish a name. Trust. We know He tells the truth and is able. So when naturalonlydunnit science comes along and tries to cast doubt on that, with no proof that only the natural exists or that there is not God or supernatural, we know they are just whistling dixie.

Sorry, it just doesn't follow logically. It is entirely possible logically to take the position that God exists and is author of our being and that scripture tells of fulfilled prophecy and at the same time not believe that the creation stories in Genesis are not literal and inerrant.

 

[Aaron112]

That's possible to claim it is logical to the carnal world, without God,

but not spiritually truthful abiding in Jesus from all He Says.

 

[BCP1928]

That's possible to claim it is logical to the carnal world, without God,

but not spiritually truthful abiding in Jesus from all He Says.

All we can conclude from what Jesus says is that the Scriptures are the true and authoritative Word of God. Nothing about literal inerrancy.

 

[truthpls]

Sorry, it just doesn't follow logically. It is entirely possible logically to take the position that God exists and is author of our being and that scripture tells of fulfilled prophecy and at the same time not believe that the creation stories in Genesis are not literal and inerrant.

How about the prophesy in the garden, to the serpent?

14 Then the Lord God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this, you are cursed
more than all animals, domestic and wild.
You will crawl on your belly,
groveling in the dust as long as you live.
15 And I will cause hostility between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring.
He will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel."

That was about Jesus. The seed of the woman to come one day. How do you believe prophesy and 'not believe Genesis'? Ot the prophesy to Eve that child bearing would be tough?

Then His prophesy to Adam?

 

[River Jordan]

So I've been lurking in this sub-forum for a bit and I ended up joining specifically to comment on this "embedded age" topic. Here's how I see it....

If God created the universe and earth with embedded age, it would require a lot of manipulations on a lot of fronts, for no apparent purpose other than to deceive.

For example, if God created starlight "already en route" to the earth (or some variation of that), it would mean that God created light that shows cosmic events that didn't actually happen. That light we're looking at that shows a supernova from 8 billion LY away? It was actually just created to look that way and the supernova didn't even occur.

Did God create those fruit trees in a mature state, with annual rings already in them? If He did, then isn't that deceptive since those years never actually existed?

Then there's the rock God created not only with both parent and daughter isotopes already embedded in them, but in ratios that are consistent with the rock being billions of years old. And it can't just be one type of rock, but all types of rock and all types of parent-daughter isotopes, all converging on overlapping dates, supporting the Law of Superposition, and painting a surprisingly consistent picture of 4 billion years of earth history.

There's also things like lake varves and ice cores. Were they too created with annual layers showing years and seasons that never really existed?

Altogether, that's a lot of deliberate manipulation isn't it? And to what end? What was the point? And wouldn't it make sense to at least mention it in scripture?

It just doesn't make sense.

 

[truthpls]

So I've been lurking in this sub-forum for a bit and I ended up joining specifically to comment on this "embedded age" topic. Here's how I see it....

If God created the universe and earth with embedded age, it would require a lot of manipulations on a lot of fronts, for no apparent purpose other than to deceive.

For example, if God created starlight "already en route" to the earth (or some variation of that), it would mean that God created light that shows cosmic events that didn't actually happen. That light we're looking at that shows a supernova from 8 billion LY away? It was actually just created to look that way and the supernova didn't even occur.

Did God create those fruit trees in a mature state, with annual rings already in them? If He did, then isn't that deceptive since those years never actually existed?

Then there's the rock God created not only with both parent and daughter isotopes already embedded in them, but in ratios that are consistent with the rock being billions of years old. And it can't just be one type of rock, but all types of rock and all types of parent-daughter isotopes, all converging on overlapping dates, supporting the Law of Superposition, and painting a surprisingly consistent picture of 4 billion years of earth history.

There's also things like lake varves and ice cores. Were they too created with annual layers showing years and seasons that never really existed?

Altogether, that's a lot of deliberate manipulation isn't it? And to what end? What was the point? And wouldn't it make sense to at least mention it in scripture?

It just doesn't make sense.

Layers on top of layers do not mean it took billions of years to get there. In the separation of water from land event, for example, after creation, a lot of that sort of thing went on.

For ratios, if science misreads a ratio in one rock, the same mistake will be applied to all rocks. How is it misread? They assign already existing ratios ages based on current processes.

For ice core and varves, if we divest the ages from them what is left as a problem? Lots of layers. No big deal. The whole climate system was unlike anything we know at first. No rain for example. How did water get from below to evenly water all the world? Apparently partly by using some passages called fountains of the deep may have been one of the ways. Those things erupted in the flood. Water went up, water or snow came down, climates changed fast, and etc. Anytime God wanted He would affect the world. If He wanted Pangaea to separate, it would. No 'natural' causes needed.

The mistake of modern man is to try and limit all that was done by God to natural only causes.

 

[roman2819]

Did God create the earth in 6 days x 24 hours ? Consider the following:

Did God complete the creation in six days? This has been the perpetual question. When Genesis says that He created the sky on the third day, and the sea creatures on the fourth, does it mean a twenty-four-hour timeframe? If this is true, it would mean that on the fifth and sixth day, almost a million species of sea and land animals materialize in forty-eight hours. Some say that the Creator has unlimited power to make these happen quickly, but whither the need to rush? Wouldn’t God take time to design the varieties of trees and flowers, as well as different kinds of marine creatures and land animals? Personal opinion aside, however, the question is does day mean twenty-four hours? Or is it a figurative expression?

Authors use words according to the subject matter. The way of writing and choice of words depend on the genre. For science, the contents are factual and can be interpreted in a literal manner, such as water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level. Marketing materials tend to hype or exaggerate in order to stir our interests. We write business letters formally, compared to the colloquial way we type emails or mobile texts to friends. In the Bible, the word day refers to a stage; God created light in the first stage, followed by the sky in the second phase, and so forth. The creation took place in six distinct stages, not literally in six days. However, stage would not fit the prose of religious writing; day was a more appropriate choice of word.

The creation took place in organized stages. At the first phase, light was created, followed by the sky, then the land and sea. Later, in distinct stages, God created the stars, vegetation, flying creatures, sea habitants, and finally, land animals, followed by man and woman. He did not create randomly, so to speak: He did not make the stars, then the land, some living creatures, and then create more stars again; instead, He proceeded in an orderly way.

Why did the Bible use the word day instead of stage or phase? The word day fits the prose of writing in religious scriptures. For different subjects, be it engineering, human literature, fiction, magazines or newspapers, there are different ways of writing. Chemistry books are written in a factual way, while consumer magazines use words to capture our interests and promote sales. In Chinese culture, the word day can refer to heaven or the deities that dwell in heaven -- and this is not a unique view; it is not unusual for earthly beings to look at the sky and moon, and wonder if there are gods that live far beyond the stars. In the Bible, in the context of creation, day alludes to a passage of time.

In the first chapter of Genesis, at the end of each day, the Bible said, “There was evening and there was morning.” However, if the sun and moon were created on the fourth day, how did evenings and mornings happen during the first three days? As well, notice the order: It was not morning, then evening. Instead, it was the reverse: Evening, followed by morning. I believe that evening means the end of a stage, not sunset. And morning means the beginning of another phase, not sunrise. As well, it does not mean that the amount of time for each day was the same. In all probability, to gather the land into one place would take much less time than to create the thousand kinds of sea creatures.

Moses said to the people, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” [Exodus 20:11]. But back then, could they have known that, in the context of creation, the word ‘day’ was figurative? Indeed, I believe that Moses would be amused at the thought of how thousands of kinds of living things – falcons, kingfishers, leopards, giraffe, hens, worms, ants, ant-eaters, cats and so on – would materialize suddenly in seventy-two hours, as if God had used CGI (computer graphics interface).

The abovementioned is adapted from "Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's will"

 

[River Jordan]

Layers on top of layers do not mean it took billions of years to get there. In the separation of water from land event, for example, after creation, a lot of that sort of thing went on.

It's not that simple at all. Geologic strata are more diverse and complex than merely being "layers". A lot of ancient layers are indicative of specific environments and events. Under the "embedded age" scenario, God would have had to have made those strata so that they indicate environments and events that never actually existed/happened.

For ratios, if science misreads a ratio in one rock, the same mistake will be applied to all rocks. How is it misread? They assign already existing ratios ages based on current processes.

You're missing the point. Why would God put both the parent and daughter elements in the rock, do so with all types of rock and isotopes, and do so in ways that are entirely consistent with 4 billion years of history? For example, why put higher proportions of daughter elements in rocks that are geologically below rocks with lower proportions of daughter elements?

There are also layers of volcanic ash among strata that have their own isotope ratios that are consistent with billions of years. Did the eruptions actually occur? Or did God just place the ash there, complete with just the right parent/daughter ratios to make it look old?

For ice core and varves, if we divest the ages from them what is left as a problem? Lots of layers. No big deal.

That's just hand-waving away inconvenient information. "Gee, if we just ignore most of the data, problem solved!"

The fact remains, lake varves and ice cores show very distinct and obvious signs of annual cycles of seasons, such as pollen in the spring and leaf litter in the fall, or melt/freeze cycles.

Sticking one's head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist is not how I think God wants us to behave, IMO.

The whole climate system was unlike anything we know at first. No rain for example. How did water get from below to evenly water all the world? Apparently partly by using some passages called fountains of the deep may have been one of the ways. Those things erupted in the flood. Water went up, water or snow came down, climates changed fast, and etc. Anytime God wanted He would affect the world. If He wanted Pangaea to separate, it would. No 'natural' causes needed.

The mistake of modern man is to try and limit all that was done by God to natural only causes.

But that brings us to the main question I'm asking. Why? Why would God bother with all those deliberate manipulations to make things look really old and depict times and events that never actually happened, when it isn't the truth? Why isn't any of it mentioned at all in scripture?

 

[roman2819]

So I've been lurking in this sub-forum for a bit and I ended up joining specifically to comment on this "embedded age" topic. Here's how I see it....

If God created the universe and earth with embedded age, it would require a lot of manipulations on a lot of fronts, for no apparent purpose other than to deceive.

For example, if God created starlight "already en route" to the earth (or some variation of that), it would mean that God created light that shows cosmic events that didn't actually happen. That light we're looking at that shows a supernova from 8 billion LY away? It was actually just created to look that way and the supernova didn't even occur.

Did God create those fruit trees in a mature state, with annual rings already in them? If He did, then isn't that deceptive since those years never actually existed?

Then there's the rock God created not only with both parent and daughter isotopes already embedded in them, but in ratios that are consistent with the rock being billions of years old. And it can't just be one type of rock, but all types of rock and all types of parent-daughter isotopes, all converging on overlapping dates, supporting the Law of Superposition, and painting a surprisingly consistent picture of 4 billion years of earth history.

There's also things like lake varves and ice cores. Were they too created with annual layers showing years and seasons that never really existed?

Altogether, that's a lot of deliberate manipulation isn't it? And to what end? What was the point? And wouldn't it make sense to at least mention it in scripture?

It just doesn't make sense.

I once spoke to an acquaintance who believed in evolution. He claimed that simple life forms took millions of years to evolve into the complex diversities that we see today. Evolutionists believe that the earth could be billions of years old. How do they estimate the age? One of the main methods is radiometric dating, which measures the half-life of radioactive substances, such as volcanic rocks, and derives their life spans. To estimate the age of fossils (which do not emit radiation), Carbon dating is another way, but this can only be applied to materials with organic carbon such as charcoal or wood. However, there is also a limitation: Carbon dating is thought to be accurate up to 100,000 years; beyond that, people are compelled to use estimates, which can vary a great deal.


Another common method is stratigraphy. Here, geologists study the strata or layers of earth, which is similar to looking at the cross section of a tree trunk and counting the rings to find out its age. Other ways include observing the rate at which deposits of soil particles or sedimentation takes place. Here, the main assumption is that sedimentation or earth movements would happen very slowly indeed. In truth, however, drastic earth movements such as landslides, torrential rains, and volcanic eruptions can alter the terrains suddenly. For radiometric, there are also vast differences between the theoretical and actual rate of decay. Even before radioactivity was discovered, evolutionists had postulated that the earth is millions of years old, which means that these numbers do not come from radiometry initially. The point is that geology cannot uncover the past accurately. The possibilities and variants are just too many, and materials such as fossils are too difficult to analyze due to deterioration over time.

However, believing that basic cells would take a very long time to transform into the present life forms today, evolutionists claim – without proof or credible evidence – that animal fossils are billions of years old, in order to align with their unsubstantiated conclusion. This is equivalent to making a conclusion first, then finding evidence to support a claim. Is it reasonable for the court to make a verdict first, then look for proof later?

What about the skeletal remains of mammoths or dinosaurs? There is evidence to believe that such giant creatures lived on earth before. In Canada, skeletal remains of ancient prehistoric animals can be seen at the Dinosaur Provincial Park of Alberta. In China, fossilized dinosaurs’ eggs have been discovered in Guangdong province, in Heyuan city.

While many may think that the existence of dinosaurs contradicts the Bible, the surprising truth is that the Scripture describes a creature leviathan, which was overpowering to look at; “the mere sight of it is overpowering” with its double coat of armor, fearsome teeth, and flames and fire that stream out from its mouth” [Job 41:1-19].

Exerpt from "Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's will"

 

[truthpls]

Moses said to the people, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” [Exodus 20:11]. But back then, could they have known that, in the context of creation, the word ‘day’ was figurative? Indeed, I believe that Moses would be amused at the thought of how thousands of kinds of living things – falcons, kingfishers, leopards, giraffe, hens, worms, ants, ant-eaters, cats and so on – would materialize suddenly in seventy-two hours, as if God had used CGI (computer graphics interface).

Moses knew what a day was. He was on the mountain 40 days. God was there too so I guess He knew also

 

[River Jordan]

I once spoke to an acquaintance who believed in evolution. He claimed that simple life forms took millions of years to evolve into the complex diversities that we see today. Evolutionists believe that the earth could be billions of years old. How do they estimate the age? One of the main methods is radiometric dating, which measures the half-life of radioactive substances, such as volcanic rocks, and derives their life spans. To estimate the age of fossils (which do not emit radiation), Carbon dating is another way, but this can only be applied to materials with organic carbon such as charcoal or wood. However, there is also a limitation: Carbon dating is thought to be accurate up to 100,000 years; beyond that, people are compelled to use estimates, which can vary a great deal.


Another common method is stratigraphy. Here, geologists study the strata or layers of earth, which is similar to looking at the cross section of a tree trunk and counting the rings to find out its age. Other ways include observing the rate at which deposits of soil particles or sedimentation takes place. Here, the main assumption is that sedimentation or earth movements would happen very slowly indeed. In truth, however, drastic earth movements such as landslides, torrential rains, and volcanic eruptions can alter the terrains suddenly. For radiometric, there are also vast differences between the theoretical and actual rate of decay. Even before radioactivity was discovered, evolutionists had postulated that the earth is millions of years old, which means that these numbers do not come from radiometry initially. The point is that geology cannot uncover the past accurately. The possibilities and variants are just too many, and materials such as fossils are too difficult to analyze due to deterioration over time.

However, believing that basic cells would take a very long time to transform into the present life forms today, evolutionists claim – without proof or credible evidence – that animal fossils are billions of years old, in order to align with their unsubstantiated conclusion. This is equivalent to making a conclusion first, then finding evidence to support a claim. Is it reasonable for the court to make a verdict first, then look for proof later?

What about the skeletal remains of mammoths or dinosaurs? There is evidence to believe that such giant creatures lived on earth before. In Canada, skeletal remains of ancient prehistoric animals can be seen at the Dinosaur Provincial Park of Alberta. In China, fossilized dinosaurs’ eggs have been discovered in Guangdong province, in Heyuan city.

While many may think that the existence of dinosaurs contradicts the Bible, the surprising truth is that the Scripture describes a creature leviathan, which was overpowering to look at; “the mere sight of it is overpowering” with its double coat of armor, fearsome teeth, and flames and fire that stream out from its mouth” [Job 41:1-19].

Exerpt from "Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's will"

FYI, I don't usually reply in detail to longish copy and pastes, since the person who wrote all that isn't here to respond.

Is there something in what he wrote that you'd like to discuss?

 

[truthpls]

While many may think that the existence of dinosaurs contradicts the Bible, the surprising truth is that the Scripture describes a creature leviathan, which was overpowering to look at; “the mere sight of it is overpowering” with its double coat of armor, fearsome teeth, and flames and fire that stream out from its mouth” [Job 41:1-19].

The only thing about dinosaurs some might think is against the bible is the stories that man teaches about them. The old ages for example. The imaginary chain of life that was here first...etc. The truth is that some creatures that went extinct are zero problem for Scripture.

 

[truthpls]

It's not that simple at all. Geologic strata are more diverse and complex than merely being "layers". A lot of ancient layers are indicative of specific environments and events. Under the "embedded age" scenario, God would have had to have made those strata so that they indicate environments and events that never actually existed/happened.

No. Lots of events happened in the creation. Also lots of things after.

You're missing the point. Why would God put both the parent and daughter elements in the rock, do so with all types of rock and isotopes, and do so in ways that are entirely consistent with 4 billion years of history? For example, why put higher proportions of daughter elements in rocks that are geologically below rocks with lower proportions of daughter elements?

The way rocks were when created is not a problem. If natural processes came to exist it would only be THEN that daughter and parent isotopes started to exist as such. Kind of like putting a ship in the water, and then the engine goes on and it works. One would not look at the splash it created going into the water or the chemical compositions breaking down in the water etc to know how the ship came to be there.

There are also layers of volcanic ash among strata that have their own isotope ratios that are consistent with billions of years.

That means nothing except that you make the same mistakes on various dating attempts.

Did the eruptions actually occur?

Why not? Would some rock get molten when making a planetary movement of water and land etc? Or, if God acted to separate land masses some later time, why would there not be molten rock and eruptions? Once any date goes back more than 6000 years it becomes meaningless and wrong. So, the events (though maybe not in the way you imagined them) -yes! The dates and reasons and etc...no.

Or did God just place the ash there, complete with just the right parent/daughter ratios to make it look old?

When it came to exist it was good to go and start operating under rules He set up, and that results in processes. You put the cart before the horse.

That's just hand-waving away inconvenient information. "Gee, if we just ignore most of the data, problem solved!"

Nothing to ignore and shown

The fact remains, lake varves and ice cores show very distinct and obvious signs of annual cycles of seasons, such as pollen in the spring and leaf litter in the fall, or melt/freeze cycles.

Pollen, yes. Cycles, yes. The sort of cycles and deposition methods you dictate? No

Sticking one's head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist is not how I think God wants us to behave, IMO.

You don't get to set up a fantasy scenario and then hold it up as what must be accepted or denied. No one denies fossils or layers or etc exist. Your natural only explanations though, can take a hike.

But that brings us to the main question I'm asking. Why? Why would God bother with all those deliberate manipulations to make things look really old and depict times and events that never actually happened, when it isn't the truth? Why isn't any of it mentioned at all in scripture?

None of what He did was the deception. The deception is on this end, trying to explain what was supernaturally done with only natural means.

 

[River Jordan]

No. Lots of events happened in the creation. Also lots of things after.

That's a meaningless response, amounting to nothing more than "things happen". FYI, that sort of thing doesn't fly in science.

The way rocks were when created is not a problem.

Uh, yes it is!

You're proposing a scenario where God created one set of rocks with ratios of parent-daughter elements consistent with being 400 MYO, then created another set of rocks above those first rocks with different parent-daughter ratios, consistent with being 350 MYO, then another set of rocks above that with parent-daughter ratios consisent with 325 MYO, etc.

Why?

If natural processes came to exist it would only be THEN that daughter and parent isotopes started to exist as such. Kind of like putting a ship in the water, and then the engine goes on and it works. One would not look at the splash it created going into the water or the chemical compositions breaking down in the water etc to know how the ship came to be there.

Huh? So you believe God created rocks with no parent or daughter isotopes at all, and they just showed up in the rocks later?

That means nothing except that you make the same mistakes on various dating attempts.

That's just another empty hand-waving reply.

Why not? Would some rock get molten when making a planetary movement of water and land etc? Or, if God acted to separate land masses some later time, why would there not be molten rock and eruptions?

Ok, you accept that the eruptions that produced the ash layers actually happened. Do you also accept that the events that produced other strata actually happened?

Nothing to ignore and shown

Whether or not you have the courage and humility to admit it, lake varves and ice cores really do show patterns consistent with annual cycles. You can try and wave them away, but that doesn't change reality.

Pollen, yes. Cycles, yes. The sort of cycles and deposition methods you dictate? No

That's quite a claim. Have you actually studied lake varves and ice cores?

You don't get to set up a fantasy scenario and then hold it up as what must be accepted or denied. No one denies fossils or layers or etc exist. Your natural only explanations though, can take a hike.

You're free to believe whatever you wish, and you're free to deny and wave away as much reality as you want. But that only affects you. In the real world, science will go on without a single concern about your beliefs and wishes.

None of what He did was the deception. The deception is on this end, trying to explain what was supernaturally done with only natural means.

It would have to be deception for God to put annual rings in trees for years that never happened, to place starlight already en route to the earth that depicts supernovae that never happened, to place annual layers in lake varves and ice cores for years that never happened, to place geologic strata and their parent-daughter ratios in a manner consistent with billions of years of history that never actually happened.

Those are a lot of very deliberate actions God would have to undertake, which brings up the obvious question....why? And why never mention it at all in scripture?

 

[roman2819]

Moses knew what a day was. He was on the mountain 40 days. God was there too so I guess He knew also

Back then, I believe they knew that in the context of creation, day does not mean 24 hours. When Moses said God created in 6 days, they understood that it is not literal.

 

[roman2819]

Is there something in what he wrote that you'd like to discuss?

Addressing the main assumption that sedimentation or earth movements would happen very slowly indeed. In truth, however, drastic earth movements such as landslides, torrential rains, and volcanic eruptions can alter the terrains suddenly. Meaning it didn't take millions of years as evolutionists claim.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Addressing the main assumption that sedimentation or earth movements would happen very slowly indeed. In truth, however, drastic earth movements such as landslides, torrential rains, and volcanic eruptions can alter the terrains suddenly. Meaning it didn't take millions of years as evolutionists claim.

But those events leave tell tale evidence that they aren't the same as the geological strata that geologists date to millions of years because their processes are well known.
Also, such events are always localised in single areas, not across a global layer as it were and thus are not responsible for their own geological layers.

 

[River Jordan]

Addressing the main assumption that sedimentation or earth movements would happen very slowly indeed.

Each sedimentary layer shows its own characteristics of how it was deposited. No geologist approaches them as simplistically as you're depicting. Have you ever studied or worked in geology?

In truth, however, drastic earth movements such as landslides, torrential rains, and volcanic eruptions can alter the terrains suddenly.

You honestly don't think geologists know that? Again, have you ever studied or worked in geology?

Meaning it didn't take millions of years as evolutionists claim.

Are you referring to a specific formation? If so, which one?