Existential Age vs Physical Age

[Grumpy Old Man]

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.

It sounds to me like you've embraced some kind of Orwellian doublethink in order to keep believing in a 6000 year old creation. You've made your own interpretation of the evidence not based on the evidence itself, but based on mythology. This is where YEC types get it wrong; they start with a presumption and work their "science" to fit that presumption. Pure science starts with observation and eventually formulates a theory based on those observations, then that theory is tested until it produces predictable results. This is why we can say gravity works, radiometric dating works and evolution is true.

 

[Delphiki]

Was the earth created 6000 years ago? Yes or no?

Yes

Then you are a young-earth creationist. Period.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Science = the earth is 4.57 billion years old.
AV1611VET = if science says it, that's what I'll go with.

Case closed.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Science = the earth is 4.57 billion years old.
AV1611VET = if science says it, that's what I'll go with.

Case closed.

Science: The Earth is 4.57 billion years old.

AV1611VET: James Ussher said the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and since my pride hinges on him being right, I'll embrace a convoluted combination of doublethink, equivocation, and semantics to arrive at an embedded compromise which redefines the terms involved into meaningless drivel, doesn't enhance my spiritual knowledge in any way, shape, or form, but spares me the theological discomfort of admitting that an interpretation of the Bible I happen to agree with is mistaken.

Case closed -- the insanity plea is accepted.

 

[Nostromo]

Science = the earth is 4.57 billion years old.
AV1611VET = if science says it, that's what I'll go with.

Case closed.

You only agree with science in the most superficial way. Science tells us the Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago, out of the Sun's accretion disc, and has experienced the intervening passage of time.

You saying you agree with science is like me saying I believe that God exists, but by 'God' I mean 'Norway'.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Science: The Earth is 4.57 billion years old.

AV1611VET: James Ussher said the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and since my pride hinges on him being right, I'll embrace a convoluted combination of doublethink, equivocation, and semantics to arrive at an embedded compromise which redefines the terms involved into meaningless drivel, doesn't enhance my spiritual knowledge in any way, shape, or form, but spares me the theological discomfort of admitting that an interpretation of the Bible I happen to agree with is mistaken.

Case closed -- the insanity plea is accepted.

The irony is AV1611VET doesn't actually need to bother with this junk to "stay in the faith". There are millions of Christians all over the world who accept the earth is 4.5 billion years old and also accept evolution (albeit a theistic form of evolution).

 

[Nathan Poe]

The irony is AV1611VET doesn't actually need to bother with this junk to "stay in the faith". There are millions of Christians all over the world who accept the earth is 4.5 billion years old and also accept evolution (albeit a theistic form of evolution).

And of course there's nothing factually or theologically wrong with a theistic form of evolution -- of course, it takes the illusion of authority away form the Creationists, who have a Bible they define as a tool of social control.

Remember, in the Creationists' mindset:

God defines the universe,
The Bible defines God,
and creationists define the Bible.

If they surrender a worldview that they can literally make up as they go along, what's in it for them?

 

[Eudaimonist]

If they surrender a worldview that they can literally make up as they go along, what's in it for them?

I'm thinking we should offer them cookies.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AV1611VET]

There are millions of Christians all over the world who accept the earth is 4.5 billion years old and also accept evolution (albeit a theistic form of evolution).

Yup -- and I'm one of them (albeit a limited form of evolution).

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm thinking we should offer them cookies.

No, thanks -- I just deleted a bunch.

 

[mzungu]

Yup -- and I'm one of them (albeit a limited form of evolution).

Will you accept a limited form of Christianity

Evolution is a process just like any natural process it depends on the fundamental laws of chemistry, and physics in order to function, Evolution is governed by environmental conditions which dictate which form best suits this environment and thus function dictates form arises..

No biological life form has round wheels as legs simply because mechanically it is not viable on living organisms (sealing of bearings that need lubrication, friction, muscles cannot drive a wheel mechanically unless in a reciprocating motion etc). Chemical reactions allow for life forms to exist, and function.

A bird living in open spaces and needs to ride the currents in order to search for prey must have large wings that offer the best glide ration while at the same time allowing for flapping take off when needed.

A bird living in dense wooded areas with large wings would be at a disadvantage over a bird with short wings able to manoeuvre and take off at a moments notice.

These traits evolved to suit the environment these birds live in. Albeit Evolution can take a very long time to reach a satisfactory form for a life form whereupon further changes may slow down due to the lack of environmental pressure to change. A good example being Cockroaches and sharks; Both have changed very little through millions of years while other animals such as the lake Tanganyika cichlids have evolved to fill in so many differing empty niches that one may think that they are completely different species.

Evolution cannot be fully described in a few sentences but the following is what evolution is NOT:

It is not a religion.

It is not a faith based process.

It does not say how life began.

 

[theFijian]

Will you accept a limited form of Christianity

He does (he calls it Dispensationalism)

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The problem with this thread is that the non-physical speculations are philosophical or religious, so that only half the debate belongs in this forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem with this thread is that the non-physical speculations are philosophical or religious, so that only half the debate belongs in this forum.

Which half?

The car, or the atoms that make up the car?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The creationist half ("existential") with is based on the bible rather than sceintific theory and observation. You can't crash a physics conference with the bible as your source of authority. There are established methodological practices and standards in the scientific community, and referring the community to ideas based on scripture is not one of them. I am not asking you to go, just pointing out that for a "physical and life sciences" forum, from a specialist perspective, biblical authority does not belong. Then again judging by the length of threads most people probably come here to have these kinds of debate rather than properly scientific ones.

 

[Freodin]

Science = the earth is 4.57 billion years old.
AV1611VET = if science says it, that's what I'll go with.

Case closed.

Science = the earth is 4.57 billion years old. By that we mean: since the earth was formed, 4.57 billion years have passed.

AV1611VET = if science says it, that's what I'll go with. But I don't agree on what it means.

And that is what you call "to agree"? You don't agree: you play with words.

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?

So what are we talking about here? Physical age? Existential Age?

 

[Tiberius]

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?

The car-shaped arrangement of the atoms is about a day old. The atoms themselves are significantly older, but they didn't exist in the car form until yesterday.

This doesn't apply to your creationism ideas, because creationism claims that God made everything from nothing, and from the moment God made it all, it had existed for millions of years. Or something like that.

Now, if you claimed that the car was made out of atoms that didn't exist yesterday, but today every indication is that the atoms are millions of years old, maybe then your analogy would be applicable.

But I know of no such car, so such an analogy has no bearing in reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

This doesn't apply to your creationism ideas...

Yes, I know.

I didn't say it did, did I?

All I want you to see in this thread is that an object can have two different ages: one physical and one existential.

 

[mzungu]

Yes, I know.

I didn't say it did, did I?

All I want you to see in this thread is that an object can have two different ages: one physical and one existential.

No AV! An object, any object can have only one age!
It can however be made up of parts that each has its own age different to each other but as a whole; There can be only one...........Age!

Highlander - MacLeod receives The Prize - YouTube

​

 

[AV1611VET]

No AV! An object, any object can have only one age!

Suit yourself -- it's your confusion, not mine.