Existential Age vs Physical Age

[mzungu]

I have no idea what you just said here.

That's because it is British slang. "Pull the other one it's got bell on" is a common humorous phrase and it means that what you said is not believed. In short, you have not been convincing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hehe! Give it time AV and science will soon be playing God:

-- Soon!?

Remember what the serpent-beast said to Eve?

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Instead of 'being as gods', she became a scientist; which was suitable, since she appealed to her empirical senses (sight & taste) to override God.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's because it is British slang. "Pull the other one it's got bell on" is a common humorous phrase and it means that what you said is not believed. In short, you have not been convincing.

OIC -- thank you, sir!

And when have I ever been convincing?

 

[Nostromo]

I have no idea what you just said here.

And you're not so lacking in self-discipline that you can't answer my two questions, are you?

Already did that once, AV.

 

[mzungu]

And when have I ever been convincing?

Stop cheating you asked two questions; This is a third and thus is disqualified from the thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stop cheating you asked two questions; This is a third and thus is disqualified from the thread.

-- Hoist by my own petard!

 

[mzungu]

-- Hoist by my own petard!

"The prayers of the Saints ascending with you, will Petarr your entrances through heavens Portcullis".

 

[Eudaimonist]

How old is the car?

If this question means: "How long ago was the car assembled?" -- it is about a day old.

Are the atoms that make up the car older?

If this question means: "Did the atoms that make up the car acquire their current number of protons (as Sagan's star stuff) earlier than the car was assembled?" -- then the answer is yes, the atoms are older than the car.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TheReasoner]

If the atoms that make up the car are older, what does that prove, or suggest to you? Are you saying that God created the earth 6000 years ago out of already available atoms? Without being a geologist I couldn't give you a scientific answer. However, from the little I know about evolution I would guess that if all life on earth is 6000 years old then the rate of mutation would have to be remarkably (dare I say fictionally?) fast. Around 95% of human DNA is junk - duplicates and redundant code we no longer need. This alone proves we are the result of millions of years of evolution. How can we have lived for millions of years on an earth that is only 6000 years old?

Also, I don't really see why it matters to Christians how old the earth is. Many Christians seem able, these days, to believe in some kind of theistic evolution without it destroying their faith.

Most, in fact. Creationism is a minority belief. A very large minority in the US, but still less than half according to the statistics I have seen. It's significantly smaller in other countries. So, AV, dad etc. are really representatives of a minority conviction. Given how some creationists love to say creationism=christianity I love to point it out that they actually only represent a minority

 

[Delphiki]

In a lot sits a newly-built Dodge Challenger; it just came off the floor yesterday.

In your opinion:

1. How old is the car?
2. Are the atoms that make up the car older?

1. ~1 day old.
2. Yes, the atoms that make up the car are older than their arrangement as a car.


Haven't you already done this one before using a tree in your question?

 

[AV1611VET]

1. ~1 day old.
2. Yes, the atoms that make up the car are older than their arrangement as a car.


Haven't you already done this one before using a tree in your question?

Yes.

I cut down a 1000-year-old tree, hollow it out and make a canoe out of it; all in a day's time.

How old is the canoe when I'm finished?

See also:

Let's say you have a parking lot full of brand new, just built, shiny bicycles.

You leave them outside for 35 years, until they are old and rusty.

Now you remove the handlebars from one, the seat from another, the chain from another, etc., and build a brand new bicycle from the parts of all these other bicycles.

Question: How old is this brand new bicycle?

• If you say it's 35 years old, you would be right - yet wrong.
• If you say it's brand new, you would be wrong - yet right.

Sometimes we have to make up terminology (like existential age) in order to clarify - not cloud - an issue.

Two questions:

1. Wouldn't the new bike show an appearance of age?

• Yes --- it would appear old, because it is old.

2. Wouldn't the new bike show a history of being in existence for 35 years?

• Yes --- it would seem to do so --- therefore documentation to the contrary would be needed - (again, to clarify the issue - not cloud it).

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Most, in fact. Creationism is a minority belief. A very large minority in the US, but still less than half according to the statistics I have seen. It's significantly smaller in other countries. So, AV, dad etc. are really representatives of a minority conviction. Given how some creationists love to say creationism=christianity I love to point it out that they actually only represent a minority

I keep hearing that YEC are in the minority these days but they certainly do talk loud. Whenever I check Christian debate forums it's the YEC people who are making the most noise. I rarely hear from those Christians with an Old Earth opinion.

What I don't understand, to address AV's questions again, is why would God use "old" atoms to create earth 6000 years ago? If he's God, why not just make it with new atoms? If the earth is 6000 years old, radiometric testing would clearly show this, but it doesn't. Why the discrepancy AV? What was God's intention, in your opinion, in creating a newer earth out of older materials?

 

[mzungu]

Most, in fact. Creationism is a minority belief. A very large minority in the US, but still less than half according to the statistics I have seen. It's significantly smaller in other countries. So, AV, dad etc. are really representatives of a minority conviction. Given how some creationists love to say creationism=christianity I love to point that out

As Science began to replace the scriptures as the means to explain our physical world so did the fundamentalists who lacked any scientific knowledge resort to aggressive methods to keep science from "infecting" the minds of the faithful.

This fear of loosing power and in many a case moneys earned through evangelising creationism has grown into a movement that until recently was a purely American product. Since American evangelists decided to preach abroad especially Africa; Creationism has taken some foothold albeit a small one amongst the ignorant and mostly uneducated in the sciences poor.

Creationists dismiss science while at the same time enjoying the fruits of science and above all using the very science they dismiss to preach and evangelise (TV, Internet, Air travel and all modes of mechanical transportation, use of satellite services, and also medical care).

This is what I mean by "HYPOCRISY"!

Americans tend to degrade much that has been arduously built or refined through the ages: Food, religion, English language.

I am surprised at how anyone would ever want to live in a country like that. If my child was taught creationism in school then the first thing I would do is have the teacher reprimanded and fight to have the law changed. I thank God that I live in Europe where sanity prevails and Christianity has no problems with Evolution and science.

 

[Delphiki]

So, care to expound on my answers to your questions? Any part you still don't understand after proposing the same question more than once?

As with the canoe (and I may have said this in that thread as well): The canoe is only as old as when the wood was formed into a canoe. The tree it was made from is older. When you make a tree into a canoe, it's now a new object, consisting of old wood.

Do you realize, that if you are hinting that the canoe is as old as the tree and the car is as old as it's atoms, then this would be analogous to the opposite of your embedded age idea. The universe, as it is now, would be created using much older components... Which is actually correct - all the known elements in the known universe came from hydrogen, until they were fused into others. Even the carbon atoms in your very flesh.

In short, you seem to be insinuating that God created the universe from older, already existing components... And that's actually not what I would call embedded age. Embedded age, I would think, would mean the universe suddenly coming to be, but with all the evidence in the material for an older universe.... With no reason whatsoever except maybe to deceive its inhabitants.

 

[AV1611VET]

I keep hearing that YEC are in the minority these days but they certainly do talk loud.

I'm not a YEC.

Whenever I check Christian debate forums it's the YEC people who are making the most noise.

Psalm 98:4 Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.

I rarely hear from those Christians with an Old Earth opinion.

Are you rejoicing or complaining?

What I don't understand, to address AV's questions again, is why would God use "old" atoms to create earth 6000 years ago?

He didn't -- (But I'm sure it's not going to make a difference, is it?)

He created the earth ex nihilo -- from nothing -- not ex materia.

In other words, it's not that He used old atoms to created the earth; that presupposes the atoms were in existence, waiting to be assembled -- rather, He created the earth with atoms containing 'maturity without history.'

If he's God, why not just make it with new atoms?

I'm sure this principle applies somehow:

Luke 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

Probably in the form of the Anthropic Principle.

If the earth is 6000 years old, radiometric testing would clearly show this, but it doesn't.

No, it wouldn't.

Radiometric dating shows physical age, not existential age.

Radiometric dating cannot tell us how many times the earth revolved around the sun in its lifetime.

Why the discrepancy AV?

I've just corrected you on two major points; I find it hard to believe the discrepancy lies on my end.

What was God's intention, in your opinion, in creating a newer earth out of older materials?

As I said, He created the earth ex nihilo with age embedded for anthropic reasons.

I like the way Adam Clarke puts it, in his commentary on Genesis 2:5...

It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

I'm also fond of this post:

Interesting theory being worked on now that could account for the age differences between science and theology.  Just wondering what you all think?

(from biblephysics.com)

 

Q: How can Christians believe that God created the universe 6,000 years ago (plus or minus), when there are galaxies millions, even billions of light years away?

<B>A:</B> One of my favorite questions. Research is underway in physics and mathematics that may prove there are actually two timelines: atomic, and dynamic (sometimes referred to as 'orbital'). Atomic time is measured by the motion of the electron around the nucleus of the atom, which, if the cDK (light speed decay) hypothesis is proved correct, has been slowing down since matter was first created. If this is the case, then all processes that depend on the behavior of the atom, including atomic dating, would be affected. The net result would be a much higher age indicated in the analysis of rocks and fossils, than would be indicated using dynamic time -- measured by the orbit of the earth around the sun -- which has not changed.

The cDK hypothesis may not be correct. But it happens to make better sense than any other theory regarding the vast discrepancy in time between the scientific view and the theological view. The cDK hypothesis also solves a majority of other problems that presently plague our best cosmological theories of the origin of the universe.

 

[mzungu]

So, care to expound on my answers to your questions? Any part you still don't understand after proposing the same question more than once?

As with the canoe (and I may have said this in that thread as well): The canoe is only as old as when the wood was formed into a canoe. The tree it was made from is older. When you make a tree into a canoe, it's now a new object, consisting of old wood.

Do you realize, that if you are hinting that the canoe is as old as the tree and the car is as old as it's atoms, then this would be analogous to the opposite of your embedded age idea. The universe, as it is now, would be created using much older components... Which is actually correct - all the known elements in the known universe came from hydrogen, until they were fused into others. Even the carbon atoms in your very flesh.

In short, you seem to be insinuating that God created the universe from older, already existing components... And that's actually not what I would call embedded age. Embedded age, I would think, would mean the universe suddenly coming to be, but with all the evidence in the material for an older universe.... With no reason whatsoever except maybe to deceive its inhabitants.

Knock knock knocking on a deaf man's doooor.. ooo ooo ooo!

 

[TheReasoner]

I keep hearing that YEC are in the minority these days but they certainly do talk loud. Whenever I check Christian debate forums it's the YEC people who are making the most noise. I rarely hear from those Christians with an Old Earth opinion.

Ideological or perceptional minorities often are very loud. As a mostly unrelated example we can take the language debate in Norway. Bokmål is used by 85+% of the population, the other major language Nynorsk (new norwegian) is used by ~10%. (The rest is Saami and immigrant languages)
However: The nynorsk advocates are extremely verbal. You hardly ever find a loud bokmål advocate, but not only do the nynorsk interest groups sport higher member numbers and more activities, they also tend to be far far louder. I remember one of their main advocates (a guy who is completely off his rocker) pulling a Godwin, comparing Bokmål with naziism on national TV. Insane. And of course he was dismissed as such as well. Yet: Note how many creationists use the same "rationale": Non-creationism is often compared with naziism or Hitler.

One reason is that the minority truly does believe in what they support, and if this should be losing ground - which is the case with both YEC and Nynorsk - they feel threatened. And people who feel threatened tend to respond by getting louder to compensate.

So... The majority - non-creationist christians usually don't see the need to speak up. I've spoken to many (who aren't on online boards I should add) who were totally unaware of the "controversy". I've worked in a (conservative) missions agency for five years. And I didn't run into a single creationist while there. To my knowledge anyway. Before that I have been involved in various missions organizations from YWAM to the Santal Mission - and grew up as a missionary kid. Even in those areas I seldom met creationists. I met some, but those few were usually Americans or they were in the Word of Faith charismatic movement. So... They really are few. Just loud.

 

[AV1611VET]

As Science began to replace the scriptures as the means to explain our physical world so did the fundamentalists who lacked any scientific knowledge resort to aggressive methods to keep science from "infecting" the minds of the faithful.

And that, to me, is something they should never had done.

They should just stick to their faith and not try to placate the inquisition with goofy stuff about peanut butter and bananas and Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity and Punctuated Equilibrium and whatever else they try to use.

It makes them look silly.

I am surprised at how anyone would ever want to live in a country like that.

Maybe they don't like being shot at with plastic bullets, or having their tuition tripled?

 

[AV1611VET]

In short, you seem to be insinuating that God created the universe from older, already existing components...

No, I am not. I never have, and I never will.

I cannot emphasize enough that the earth was created ex nihilo -- not ex materia.

Embedded age, I would think, would mean the universe suddenly coming to be, but with all the evidence in the material for an older universe.... With no reason whatsoever except maybe to deceive its inhabitants.

Some would call that Last Thursdayism.

And for the record, I defined embedded age, and it's not the same as your definition.

It's certainly your prerogative to redefine it your way, but don't expect me to agree.

 

[TheReasoner]

And that, to me, is something they should never had done.

They should just stick to their faith and not try to placate the inquisition with goofy stuff about peanut butter and bananas and Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity and Punctuated Equilibrium and whatever else they try to use.

It makes them look silly.

*blink* *rubs eyes* *blink*

If I am not misunderstanding what I read I completely agree.