Existential Age vs Physical Age

[Freodin]

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; thus:

1. The earth is 4.57 billion years old physically.
2. The earth is 6000 years old existentially.

My conversation with MoonLancer in another thread is what prompted me to make this thread.

What is the difference between physical age and existential age?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Ya -- with his own definition; then wondering why no one will answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

*blink* *rubs eyes* *blink*

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

I've only been saying this for five and a half years.

 

[TheReasoner]

I've only been saying this for five and a half years.

And yet you are one of the loudest people on here to insist that science contradicts faith. Why is that?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the difference between physical age and existential age?

As applies to the earth: 4,570,000 - 6000 = 4,569,400.

Put another way, the earth came into existence 6000 years ago as a 4.57 billion year old object.

Just as Adam came into existence as a 30 year old man.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet you are one of the loudest people on here to insist that science contradicts faith. Why is that?

Because science contradicts faith -- (by about 5%).

 

[TheReasoner]

Because science contradicts faith -- (by about 5%).

Does it? Or does it contradict your faith and not faith in itself? Because I do not see anything challenging mine in the least.

 

[Freodin]

As applies to the earth: 4,570,000 - 6000 = 4,569,400.

Put another way, the earth came into existence 6000 years ago as a 4.57 billion year old object.

Just as Adam came into existence as a 30 year old man.

Sorry, you misunderstood my question: what is the definitional difference between existential and physical age? I need to know that in order to answer your OP question.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does it?

Yes.

Or does it contradict your faith and not faith in itself? Because I do not see anything challenging mine in the least.

How about starting with the definition: We walk by faith, not by sight.

 

[theFijian]

How about starting with the definition: We walk by faith, not by sight.

That's not a definition of faith, but then you already knew that.

 

[TheReasoner]

Yes.

Why?

How about starting with the definition: We walk by faith, not by sight.

That's not a definition of faith AV. Besides: You might just as well conclude that we should be blindfolded every time we want to walk from A to B from that as conclude that we should react as you do to science.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

I'm not a YEC.

Yes, you are. Just a subtly different variant.

Are you rejoicing or complaining?

Complaining.

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.

I checked this out and read the simplified version of Setterfield's stuff from his website (or a website containing his full thesis and the simplified version for non-physicists like myself). He tried to submit his work to several journals and was refused (he claims because they didn't like his young earth conclusions). Also, Setterfield never finished his degree and has no published articles in any journals. Furthermore, I checked out this from a site called talkorigins.org;

"If you propose that the universe and all in it is the product of an act of creation only 6-7000 years ago, many people ask - 'How is it that objects millions of light years away can be seen? Surely such light would take millions of years to reach us.'"​

- Barry Setterfield, "The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe, Part 1," Ex Nihilo, vol. 4, no. 1, 1981

The above quote is, to my knowledge, the first salvo by Australian creationist Barry Setterfield regarding his hypothesis of "c-decay," the notion of the decreasing speed of light that has been used for years as evidence for a young universe. Setterfield's hypothesis, while initially embraced by the majority of the creationist community, received heavy criticism from the scientific establishment for several years since its introduction in 1981, and was finally rejected by the creationists themselves after it became such a major embarrassment that even the San Diego-based Institute for Creation Research rejected it.

I didn't quote the whole article from Talk Origins because it's too long to stick here. You should check it out though as it makes interesting reading.

EDIT: I can't post links yet which is really frustrating. But the article on Setterfield is easy to find on talkorigins.org. Just look for the article on "The Decay of c-decay".

 

[Psudopod]

You're speaking from a mundane point of view though.

We humans cannot embed age into an object.

Remember my bicycle thread, where I assembled a complete bicycle from parts from other bicycles that were 35 years old?

The bicycle I assembled is brand new, but it is also 35 years old.

Again, I disagree. The bike is new. It might have 35 year old tyres and gears and brakes, but the entity that is your bike only became a bike when you put it together. It's not 35 years old.

I don't think it's a matter of point of view, the only way you can have two different ages is by having two differenet definitions of age, which doesn't really work.

 

[TheReasoner]

EDIT: I can't post links yet which is really frustrating. But the article on Setterfield is easy to find on talkorigins.org. Just look for the article on "The Decay of c-decay".

This one?
The Decay of c-decay

 

[mzungu]

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.

Spoken wisely there my good man. I agree with you!

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

Saturday they did not use them just the good old fashioned tear gas, flash grenades and batons. I daresay there is a higher probability of getting shot with real bullets in the USA than you are in Greece. But that is another thing altogether. Let us stick to the creo evo stuff; We don't want any Guns God and Glory chaps coming here and spoiling our little chit chat eh

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

This one?
The Decay of c-decay

Thank you. I need to reach 50 posts before I can post links. An understandable anti-spam measure, but frustrating nonetheless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, you are. Just a subtly different variant.

Are you a Buddhist?

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, I disagree. The bike is new. It might have 35 year old tyres and gears and brakes, but the entity that is your bike only became a bike when you put it together. It's not 35 years old.

So will it last as long as a brand new bicycle, or will it last as long as a 35 year old bicycle?

I don't think it's a matter of point of view, the only way you can have two different ages is by having two differenet definitions of age...

You mean like existential and physical?

And you do realize that if we look at the word "age" on answers.com, it will have 5 definitiions?

And I can tell you, without looking, that it is definition #4 I'm using.

ETA: Looks like I was wrong -- it has 7 definitions; and #4 is the one I use:

1. The length of time that one has existed; duration of life: 23 years of age.
2. The time of life when a person becomes qualified to assume certain civil and personal rights and responsibilities, usually at 18 or 21 years; legal age: under age; of age.
3. One of the stages of life: the age of adolescence; at an awkward age.
4. The state of being old; old age: hair white with age.
5. often Age
   1. A period in the history of humankind marked by a distinctive characteristic or achievement: the Stone Age; the computer age.
   2. A period in the history of the earth, usually shorter than an epoch: the Ice Age.
   3. A period of time marked by the presence or influence of a dominant figure: the Elizabethan Age. See synonyms at period.
6. 1. The period of history during which a person lives: a product of his age.
   2. A generation: ages yet unborn.
7. ages Informal. An extended period of time: left ages ago.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Are you a Buddhist?

Erm, no. I've clearly labelled myself as "Agnostic".

 

[ivebeenshown]

So will it last as long as a brand new bicycle, or will it last as long as a 35 year old bicycle?

That depends. How long do brand new bicycles last, and how long do 35 year old bicycles last? What if the new bicycle is made of old and shoddy parts but the 35 year old bicycle is pristine from sitting in storage? What if I had a 200 year-old bike that has had constant maintenance and repair?

Silliness...