God did not create from nothing

AV1611VET said:

I got a better idea.

How 'bout I just defend it to the best of my ability?

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

You can if you want to, but don't have a cow if your version of 'defending it' isn't what everyone else thinks is cogent to this thread.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

The thing that really irks me is dealing with mental blocks.

Click to expand...

dlamberth said:

Please clarify how any of that has anything to do with the history of rocks in a multi-billion year old Earth.

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

I had a technical writer work for me decades ago. He had a sign on his desk that read Eschew Obfuscation. I would say he and AV might be related, except my chap had his tongue firmly placed in his cheek.

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Um... eschew means to avoid something, and AV does not avoid obfuscation.

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

AV does not avoid obfuscation.

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

AV uses common words, assigning unusual meanings, or misuses them entirely, blithely unaware, it seems, that he makes no sense. He bumbles into obfuscation.

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Um... eschew means to avoid something, and AV does not avoid obfuscation.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

I like explaining how God does things that science says can't be done.

So if you ever think I'm being obfuscating, ask yourself if I'm saying "God did it".

Click to expand...

dlamberth said:

The thing is, you have no idea if God did it.

Click to expand...

dlamberth said:

Your not in God's brain so there's no way for you to know.

Click to expand...

dlamberth said:

But on the other hand, if we go to the Earth for example, and take a look we can actually see how things are done.

Click to expand...

dlamberth said:

I'm thinking of things like the history of rocks and the Earth along with their age.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

If you find this obfuscating ...

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

... then I have a feeling you'll find anything obfuscating.

Click to expand...

Done. I found the Christian Forums thread “God did not create from nothing” and set up an hourly monitor for new replies or meaningful activity. It will notify you with the page/post number, author, date, and a brief summary when there is new activity. The public thread appears to be in Creation & Evolution and has reached over 100 pages. (christianforums.com)

Click to expand...

Based on the accessible public thread pages I could review, sjastro is the most scientifically accurate, Platte raises a few real uncertainty issues but draws overbroad conclusions, and AV1611VET’s science content is mostly not scientific because it explicitly subordinates evidence to a biblical premise.

Poster	Main science content	Accuracy assessment
sjastro	Defends radiocarbon/radiometric dating as evidence-based, uncertainty-bounded, calibrated, and cross-checked. Notes that C14 results have values plus errors and that dating methods require calibration/standards.	Mostly accurate. This aligns with mainstream dating practice: radiocarbon results are calibrated against curves built from tree rings, corals, speleothems, sediments and other independently dated archives; labs also compare samples to standards. One caveat: saying all radiometric dating processes require constant calibration is broadly right in spirit, but a little imprecise, because C14 calibration curves, Ar-Ar standards, U-Pb tracers/decay constants, and non-radiometric cross-checks are not all the same kind of “calibration.” (Christian Forums)
Platte	Argues that C14 is “bad,” “ambiguous,” and can be badly wrong; uses an alleged shrimp/marine-diet example; asks what other dating methods need constant calibration; also raises “created with age” arguments.	Partly correct but scientifically weak overall. Platte is right that radiocarbon dates are not exact single calendar dates and that reservoir effects, including marine/freshwater diet, can make samples appear too old if not handled properly. But the conclusion that C14 is therefore “bad” is not justified. Reservoir effects are a known correction problem, not a refutation of radiocarbon dating. C14 dates are normally reported as calibrated probability ranges, and results are checked against context and other dating methods. (Christian Forums)
AV1611VET	States a rule like “Bible says x, Science says y = go with x,” accepts a 4004 BC creation date while suggesting things may have been created with apparent age, and speculates that C14 is popular because it can be manipulated.	Very low scientific accuracy. These are mostly theological or apologetic claims, not testable scientific claims. The claim that C14 is manipulated to get desired numbers is unsupported in the posts I saw and conflicts with the existence of lab standards, calibration curves, and independent cross-checks. A 4004 BC Earth is also incompatible with modern geochronology, which places Earth’s age at about 4.54 billion years. (Christian Forums)

Bottom line: sjastro’s science content is largely consistent with mainstream geochronology, though sometimes phrased too broadly. Platte identifies real complications such as calibration and reservoir effects, but treats those known corrections as if they invalidate the method. AV1611VET’s posts are primarily faith-first claims rather than scientific arguments, so they have little scientific reliability.

Click to expand...

sjastro said:

I asked it to summarize the scientific accuracy of the posts from Platte, AV1611VET and myself.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

If you find this obfuscating ...

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

... then I have a feeling you'll find anything obfuscating.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

Do you notice what is missing from your heuristic system that's badly needed?

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

No.

Click to expand...

sjastro said:

Big Brother is watching or rather ChatGpt-5.5 is now monitoring this thread.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

Hey chatGPT! Which bubble-stock overvalued company owns your software?

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Very good!

Now let me make a couple of comments:

1. Your Chatbot apparently doesn't know science doesn't apply in how the earth got its age. It apparently cannot differentiate between science and miracles.

2. His remark about "apparent age" that he gives me credit for "may have suggested," is actually something I deny -- not accept. Thus perhaps you should let him know the difference between "embedded age" and "apparent age" that I'm always having to correct you guys on.

Let Chatty know that AI Overview has this to say about the word "apparent:"

The adjective apparent describes something that is clearly visible, easily understood, or obvious to the mind.

However, it can also refer to something that seems to be true based on initial observation, but may not be definitively proven upon deeper inspection.

The second sentence in that definition is why I disdain using the term "apparent," as it waters down "embedded."

I'm always being treated academically as preferring the first sentence of that definition; and that's why I'm always having to clarify to academia that it LOOKS OLD BECAUSE IT IS OLD.

Tell your FIGO* friend I said to take a hike.

* Facts In, Garbage Out

Click to expand...

The distinction between “apparent age” and “embedded age” does not solve the scientific problem.

Science does not decide whether miracles can occur. Science tests physical explanations for physical evidence. Once the claim is about rocks, isotopes, fossils, stratigraphy, cooling histories, or the age of the Earth, it has entered the realm of observable physical evidence.

If “embedded age” means that rocks were created with isotope ratios, daughter products, crystal histories, geological layering, fossils, and other physical indicators that normally require long periods of time, then scientifically that is still an apparent history unless those events actually occurred.

Calling it “embedded” does not change the issue. It means the object contains physical evidence of a history. The question is whether that history really happened.

A rock is scientifically old if time actually elapsed since the relevant event, such as crystallisation, cooling, deposition, burial, metamorphism, or erosion. If it was created recently with physical properties that indicate billions of years of elapsed processes, then it is not scientifically old; it has been made to look physically old.

So the issue is not that science fails to distinguish miracles from natural processes. The issue is that a miracle claim cannot be used as a scientific rebuttal to geology or radiometric dating. It can only remove the claim from scientific testing.

In that case, the argument becomes theological, not scientific.

Click to expand...