Existential Age vs Physical Age

[AV1611VET]

Whatever. In this case, you claim that the physical age of the earth is different from it's existential age.

That's right.

How would you measure the physical age?

As I have been saying for over five years, I will accept whatever age scientists say it is, since 4.57 billion or 4.57 trillion is moot to the fact that whatever it is, it was embedded.

How would you measure the physical age of the car in your OP?

Again, I will go with whatever scientists say it is; be it 10 days old, or 10 million years old -- I won't argue the point.

What I will argue though, and argue ... (what's that word someone used?) ... loudly, is its existential age.

 

[Freodin]

That's right.

As I have been saying for over five years, I will accept whatever age scientists say it is, since 4.57 billion or 4.57 trillion is moot to the fact that whatever it is, it was embedded.

Again, I will go with whatever scientists say it is; be it 10 days old, or 10 million years old -- I won't argue the point.

What I will argue though, and argue ... (what's that word someone used?) ... loudly, is its existential age.

So you don't know how it is measured, or could be measured. Based on the tautological defintions "physical age is the amount of age" it seems you don't even have an idea what is that you are talking about.

So how then can you make the statement that any kind of "age" is embedded?

I have asked this question also some times before: how would you distinguish "embedded age" from the appearence of age?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Ya -- now it's time to start acting like you guys don't have enough information, isn't it?

Well, you asked the question.

"Age" typically means how long something has existed. Something can appear to be a different age than what it really is, but it only has one age. In this case, perhaps a 6,000 year old planet looked 4.57 billion years old, but its age is 6,000 years nonetheless -- the planet does not has two "ages", only one age and one appearance of age.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you don't know how it is measured, or could be measured.

I have a very superficial exposure to some idea.

Radiometric and the like.

I don't know how the depth of the Mariana Trench is ascertained, but I will go with what scientists tell us.

It's no big deal to me; as I'm fond of saying: I'm easy like a Sunday morning.

Based on the tautological defintions "physical age is the amount of age" it seems you don't even have an idea what is that you are talking about.

How you came to this conclusion, I don't know; but if you're ridiculing me for agreeing with science, then by all means, go right ahead.

So how then can you make the statement that any kind of "age" is embedded?

I think you're trying to argue yourself into thinking I'm 'way out there'.

I have asked this question also some times before: how would you distinguish "embedded age" from the appearence of age?

I would say you can't.

If you came across Adam the day he was created, you would not be able to distinguish him from someone who had grown that old.

(Unless, of course, you want to confuse yourself by factoring in tooth decay and whatever in order to keep yourself from understanding.)

 

[AV1611VET]

"Age" typically means how long something has existed.

I said it was definition #4, and I'm sticking to that story.

Something can appear to be a different age than what it really is, but it only has one age.

Says you.

In this case, perhaps a 6,000 year old planet looked 4.57 billion years old, but its age is 6,000 years nonetheless -- the planet does not has two "ages", only one age and one appearance of age.

Try using the Bible's case, instead of making up your own.

 

[Freodin]

I have a very superficial exposure to some idea.

Radiometric and the like.

I don't know how the depth of the Mariana Trench is ascertained, but I will go with what scientists tell us.

It's no big deal to me; as I'm fond of saying: I'm easy like a Sunday morning.

How you came to this conclusion, I don't know; but if you're ridiculing me for agreeing with science, then by all means, go right ahead.

I think you're trying to argue yourself into thinking I'm 'way out there'.

I would say you can't.

If you came across Adam the day he was created, you would not be able to distinguish him from someone who had grown that old.

(Unless, of course, you want to confuse yourself by factoring in tooth decay and whatever in order to keep yourself from understanding.)

I am not trying to confuse myself... you are doing quite a good job on it without my help.

I am trying to understand your concept. In order to do that, I have to ask questions. I have to ask someone who understands the concept and can explain it to me. As you are the only one I know who is talking about "embedded age", you are the person to ask.

I am also not always certain that you understood my questions correctly... some of your answers seem to imply that... so I have to repeat and rephrase. I know that flamewars are more fun, and that all this pesky question asking is keeping you from enjoying your icecream... but if you want people to understand you, you should be a little more helpful - especially as this topic seems to be of some importance to you. You wouldn't keep talking about it and making these threads if it weren't, would you?

So back to the physical age... and to one of the things I think you misunderstood in my question.

"If you came across Adam the day he was created, you would not be able to distinguish him from someone who had grown that old."

If I understood your position and its implications correctly, an object can aquire "physical age" in two ways. It can "grow that old", or it can have "physical age" embedded.
So these Adams would indeed be undistinguishable, because they would have the same "physical age", the one aquiring it by "growing that old", the other by having it embedded.

But I am talking about a third Adam: one that is physically identical that the other two, but does not possess the "physical age".

How would you distinguish these?

 

[AV1611VET]

If I understood your position and its implications correctly, an object can aquire "physical age" in two ways. It can "grow that old", or it can have "physical age" embedded.

That is correct -- and only God can embed physical age.

So these Adams would indeed be undistinguishable, because they would have the same "physical age", the one aquiring it by "growing that old", the other by having it embedded.

Correct.

But I am talking about a third Adam: one that is physically identical that the other two, but does not possess the "physical age".

Why do you want to bring a "third Adam" into the picture, when you can't get the first Adam right; if not to "muddy the water"?

How would you distinguish these?

I don't think you would be able to distinguish this 'third Adam'.

If there was a 'third Adam', whose existential age is the same as his physical age, then he would have had to have grown that old.

If he didn't grow that old, and his age wasn't embedded, yet he is that old, then I believe that would be a good example of a 'Last Thursday Adam.'

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

That an object can -- and does -- have two ages: one existential and one physical.

God created the earth 4.57 billion years old, 6000 years ago

What if you're wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

What if you're wrong?

Then it's science's fault.

You want me to let you in on a little secret?

I do [secretly] wish I'm wrong -- nevertheless, I want to accept the Truth.

If tomorrow, science says they were wrong, and that the universe and everything in it are only 6000 years old, then I'll become a YEC; but because I adhere to what science says about the age of the universe and the things in it, I prefer Embedded Age over YEC.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Then it's science's fault.

You want me to let you in on a little secret?

I do [secretly] wish I'm wrong -- nevertheless, I want to accept the Truth.

If tomorrow, science says they were wrong, and that the universe and everything in it are only 6000 years old, then I'll become a YEC; but because I adhere to what science says about the age of the universe and the things in it, I prefer Embedded Age over YEC.

What if your beliefs are wrong? Would you be willing to reject YEC/EA if you came to the conclusion that the only reason you hold these to be true because it helps assuage the inconsistencies of what you know to be true, and what you hope to be true?

 

[Nathan Poe]

That is correct -- and only God can embed physical age.

And only you can command Him to do so.

 

[thaumaturgy]

And only you can command Him to do so.

Oh dear, is AV still on this "embedded age" thing? He must be awfully proud of that one!

I'm surprised it's still alive.

Now here's a puzzler: if God crams a lot of age into something is there an age limit beyond which even God himself cannot cram more age into that thing?

OOOoooooh, that sounds deep.

 

[thaumaturgy]

What if you're wrong?

Are you out of you mind? How could AV's brilliant concept of embedded age be wrong?

I'm confused.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Are you out of you mind? How could AV's brilliant concept of embedded age be wrong?

I'm confused.

I guess if you don't think your wrong, you're not?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Then it's science's fault.

That's good. At least someone else is on the hook!

You want me to let you in on a little secret?

No, I really hope you keep your secrets.

I do [secretly] wish I'm wrong -- nevertheless, I want to accept the Truth.

"Truth"? What does "truth" mean if something literally IS one age by every conceivable metric but is actually another age?

Seems like "Truth" is the last thing involved in this discussion.

 

[Jazer]

Now here's a puzzler: if God crams a lot of age into something is there an age limit beyond which even God himself cannot cram more age into that thing?

OOOoooooh, that sounds deep.

I think that is the definition for grandparents.

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once." Einstein

 

[Eudaimonist]

There's nothing 'logically contradictory' about two men walking on water?

That's correct. It may not be physically possible for human beings to do this, but it is not the same kind of impossibility as square circles or something being older than it has been around for.

(I could make this much harder, you know? like resurrecting?)

That is in the same category as walking on water.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, you asked the question.

"Age" typically means how long something has existed. Something can appear to be a different age than what it really is, but it only has one age. In this case, perhaps a 6,000 year old planet looked 4.57 billion years old, but its age is 6,000 years nonetheless -- the planet does not has two "ages", only one age and one appearance of age.

Exactly my point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Why do you want to bring a "third Adam" into the picture, when you can't get the first Adam right; if not to "muddy the water"?

Did you "muddy the water" when you introduced the second Adam?

Your ultra-literalism gets annoying sometimes. You know quite well that we are not talking literally about Adam here... we are talking about methods of "aquiring age". Adam was used as an example. You brought up two examples... I brought up a third, because you missed it the first time.

Number 1 is "growing that old".
Number 2 is "embedding age".
Number 3 is "making an identical copy of having grown that old"

I don't think you would be able to distinguish this 'third Adam'.

But that wasn't the question. The question was: how would YOU distinguish this identical copy, this "third Adam".

If there was a 'third Adam', whose existential age is the same as his physical age, then he would have had to have grown that old.

If he didn't grow that old, and his age wasn't embedded, yet he is that old, then I believe that would be a good example of a 'Last Thursday Adam.'

Or of the "Star Trek replicator Adam". Or whatever method we could find to make molecular copies of things. And that is our problem.
Science would determine the age of all three Adams and come to the same conclusion. And you would stand there and say "I agree with science!"... and you would be wrong, without any way of knowing why.

That is the rub, and the core of our disagreement: you do NOT agree with science! In science, there is only one age: what you call "existential age". This is because you cannot measure "an amount of age". (Until you can come up with an idea, which you already sidestepped.)
What science does is counting regular events, starting from an intial event. Events happen.

You deny that. Thus you do not agree with science.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Good, because I've clearly labeled myself "Embedded Age".

Perhaps you could show me the same courtesy you show yourself?

No, you've clearly labelled yourself "Baptist" in the little icons under your name. My little icon says "Agnostic".