A Parable about Age

[FrenchyBearpaw]

AV, what do you suppose would be the purpose in creating a universe that, by all evidence, seems to be much, MUCH older than it actually is?

To test your faith, of course.

 

[Jazer]

Since there are no "bank records", your analogy is hopelessly flawed.

There is no record that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Science may disagree with you there.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

You're simply Arab phoning my OP

No, I'm not. You have specifically gone on the record saying there is no possible evidence that can demonstrate the earth is 6,000 years old, despite the fact that you believe it. Your original post states that there is evidence of the earth being 6,000 years old -- the bank records.

Like another user said, there are no "bank records" for YEC or Embedded age claims that the earth or the universe is 6,000 years old (or anywhere near it). The science itself is consistent, so claims 1 and 2 should be consistent. The YECs are the ones who are drawing things out of the realm of consistency.

 

[dlamberth]

Let's say....

Your going to "Let's Say" us to death.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your going to "Let's Say" us to death.

.

Not in this thread, I'm not.

This thread is to show those that say God is being deceptive in embedding age, that it is not deceptive at all.

It's as innocent as opening a bank account with an initial deposit.

You wouldn't call that 'deceptive', would you?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let's say an account exists that has 1 dollar deposited into it once a year.

Bank records show two things:

1. The account shows a balance of $4,570,000,000.00.
2. The account was opened 6000 years ago.

Evolutionists say #1 is correct and #2 must be in error.

YECs say #1 must be in error and #2 is correct.

Embedded Agers say both are correct, because the account must have been opened with an initial deposit of 4.57 billion dollars (-6000).

There's just one problem -- the bank records don't show point #2; a unrelated party who misread the records came to that conclusion.

So, your entire parable falls flat.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's just one problem -- the bank records don't show point #2;

Maybe yours doesn't, but it's my parable --

And for the record, I already showed the fallacy of saying #2 saying '4.57 billion years ago'.

 

[dlamberth]

Not in this thread, I'm not.

This thread is to show those that say God is being deceptive in embedding age, that it is not deceptive at all.

It's as innocent as opening a bank account with an initial deposit.

You wouldn't call that 'deceptive', would you?

When a thread is started with a "let's say"...I can't help but see that the starting point is deceptive. Because the starting point is deceptive, everything that follows is also deceptive. And beside that, the OP has nothing to do with God. It has everything to do with your imagination.

.

 

[Freodin]

Not in this thread, I'm not.

This thread is to show those that say God is being deceptive in embedding age, that it is not deceptive at all.

It's as innocent as opening a bank account with an initial deposit.

You wouldn't call that 'deceptive', would you?

The accusation of deception is not based on the regular, but the irregular processes.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There is no record that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Science may disagree with you there.

That is analogous in his example to seeing billions of dollars in the bank account.

We have no direct record of the passage of time, only inference from what we see today. If the universe did spring into existence 6000 years ago, with an Earth that appears several billion years old, there would be no way for us to know this. The only way I can think of is to use a 5+ dimensional physics experiment to see a "shadow" of the universe's history in time, or to invent a time machine.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

How would you go about showing that the account was opened 6000 years ago?

Simple, just look on the first page where they printed the date of the opening deposit.

D'oh - it cant be written 4000 BC, the printing press wasn't invented yet, the rock they carved it on would've crumbled, and any banking system they had surely would've collapsed since

You're right, it's impossible.

 

[razeontherock]

AV, what do you suppose would be the purpose in creating a universe that, by all evidence, seems to be much, MUCH older than it actually is?

To make us ask questions and - no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

[razeontherock]

The accusation of deception is not based on the regular, but the irregular processes.

Oh come now, opening a bank account with a 0 balance would be both highly irregular AND deceptive!

 

[AV1611VET]

When a thread is started with a "let's say"...I can't help but see that the starting point is deceptive.

None of your Internet scientist cronies have started out their threads with "let's say"?

Have you?

And for the record, should I have started it out, "In the beginning...", so you could think it's allegory?

 

[AV1611VET]

The accusation of deception is not based on the regular, but the irregular processes.

I'm not sure what you meant by that, but I clearly called this a parable.

If that's "deceptive" to you, then I would say the problem lies on your end.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the universe did spring into existence 6000 years ago, with an Earth that appears several billion years old, there would be no way for us to know this.

How's come I know it then?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're right, it's impossible.

These guys are just talking themselves out of understanding.

That way, they don't have to answer the OP and end up agreeing with me.

 

[Eudaimonist]

How's come I know it then?

You know it for the same sort of reason that I know that Frodo tossed the Ring into the Cracks of Doom, thus starting the Fourth Age of Mankind.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AV1611VET]

You know it for the same sort of reason that I know that Frodo tossed the Ring into the Cracks of Doom, thus starting the Fourth Age of Mankind.

Don't count on it.

 

[Nostromo]

These guys are just talking themselves out of understanding.

That way, they don't have to answer the OP and end up agreeing with me.

Nobody is agreeing with you, and they don't need to talk themselves out of 'understanding'. By the end of the OP you'd already contradicted yourself.