In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[Hammster]

I disagree, you are not considering all the possibilities with respect to what we know today and what the person(s) knew that day. Lets begin with context and translation. When one speaks of light that does not necessarily mean visible light in which one can see. Example, I saw the light; or in light of. And especially, it does not necessarily mean life giving. And how about dividing it into light and darkness? If the light was life giving as in the sun, then why was the sun created? If you are going to be literal, then the sun is only an object to view, it does not cause day and night to happen. Was light the proper word to use in translation, did it have the same meaning then as now? Example, when one say "hey that's really bad", it quite often means good; or "gay" used to mean happy and having fun. Another consideration is that when translations were made they involved the context of the time. That is when practically nothing was known about the physical world.

In earlier posts it was suggested that science is myopic. What I just presented was showing how open and all inclusive science is as opposed to the myopic view that there was life-giving light that on day one.

You are still arguing against something I'm not arguing for. I'm not saying that the Sun isn't necessary for us, it that it doesn't give off light. All I'm saying is that it's not necessary for light. I have no doubt that God can create light apart from the Sun.

But let's assume that the light on Day 1 was just enlightenment, or whatever you want it to be. That still doesn't change anything because even if plant life was created without the Sun, it was only in existence for one day. I'm fairly certain an omnipotent God can sustain plant life for a day without the sun.

 

[RickG]

Is it possible that this conclusion is incorrect?

No it is not incorrect, it a description of what the scientific community means when they use the word "assumption". I am not just expressing my opinion with this, rather experience as a life-long member of the scientific community. Another misused word is that of a "theory" with respect to a "scientific theory". Another misused word by laypeople with respect to science is "proof".

 

[RickG]

Because we 'know' no such thing. Were you there?
Was any scientist? God was.

More Ken Ham rubbish, "were you there". How do you know scripture is what is says it is, were you there?

 

[tatteredsoul]

Why do people think the earth was made in six days? Honestly asking... God clearly starts making days when He starts making stuff. Separation of "light," and "darkness" was the first day - and by the Hebrew a lot of things happened before this separation. In other words, the words "was void" means it became [/b] void - from a creation of God to something else. After that, He creates for a "week."

The debate about how long 6 days is should be fore the week of created things in earth and heaven, but earth itself, and heaven itself existed in the beginning. Earth, and heaven are older than literal God-appointed time.

 

[Hammster]

No it is not incorrect, it a description of what the scientific community means when they use the word "assumption". I am not just expressing my opinion with this, rather experience as a life-long member of the scientific community. Another misused word is that of a "theory" with respect to a "scientific theory". Another misused word by laypeople with respect to science is "proof".

You keep assuming I'm using terms that I'm not using. I never said anything about proof. I asked if it was possible that this conclusion is incorrect. In other words, is it possible that later evidence could arise that would change this conclusion?

 

[RickG]

That specific isotope has been studied all of what?
20 minutes comparatively to a decay rate in the
billions of years? And yet, the rates of all radioactive
elements have been shown to be variable.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5619954/the-...ive-decay-and-breaking-the-rules-of-chemistry

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5619954/the-...ive-decay-and-breaking-the-rules-of-chemistry

Might I suggest that you review the context of my signature and ask yourself, have you done any fact checking of original sources. What is described in your link is an oscillation (sine curve) due to the position of the earth with respect to the sun, not a decay rate change. It is also very minor and specific only to cosmogenic radionuclides.

This being true, there is nothing saying that all of
the atomic clocks could not have run faster years
ago, or that everything we know about radiation
today did not work the same in the past.

Sure, never fact check your sources and ignore all the facts that show that comment to be wrong.

1. Emery, G. T., 1972. Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review Nuclear Science 22: 165-202.
2. Fujii, Yasunori et al., 2000. The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago. Nuclear Physics B 573: 377-401.
3. Greenlees, Paul, 2000. Theory of alpha decay. http://www.phys.jyu.fi/research/gamma/publications/ptgthesis/node26.html
4. Knödlseder, J., 2000. Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astronony Reviews 44: 315-320. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9912131
5. Krane, Kenneth S., 1987. Introductory Nuclear Physics. New York: Wiley.
6. Meert, Joe, 2002. Were Adam and Eve toast? http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm
7. Nomoto, K. et al., 1997a. Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706025
8. Nomoto, K. et al., 1997b. Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706024
9. Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications. Nature 391: 51-54. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9712212
10. Prantzos, N., 1999. Gamma-ray line astrophysics and stellar nucleosynthesis: perspectives for INTEGRAL. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9901373
11. Renne, P. R., W. D. Sharp, A. L. Deino, G. Orsi and L. Civetta, 1997. 40Ar/39Ar dating into the historical realm: Calibration against Pliny the Younger. Science 277: 1279-1280.
12. Shlyakhter, A. I., 1976. Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants. Nature 264: 340. http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/~ilya_shl/alex/76a_oklo_fundamental_nuclear_constants.pdf
13. Thielemann, F.-K. et al., 1998. Nucleosynthesis basics and applications to supernovae. In: Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics, J. Hirsch and D. Page, eds., Cambridge University Press, p. 27. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9802077

 

[KWCrazy]

Let me get this clear. The Lord creates a world as a habitat for man. To be a fit habitat it has to be mature; meaning that it needs trees, grasses, fruits and vegetables, and wildlife. He gives a step by step, day by day account of how He did it and makes that account the foundation of His great book. Then someone comes along, rejects how He said the world was created, comes up with a completely different narrative about creation taking millions of years, and then they accuse God of deceiving us because the mature world He created looks mature.

So if God's word doesn't agree with your teacher's version of creation then your teacher is right, God is a liar and a deceiver. That's what you're supposed to believe to be "enlightened" these days.

 

[RickG]

You keep assuming I'm using terms that I'm not using. I never said anything about proof. I asked if it was possible that this conclusion is incorrect. In other words, is it possible that later evidence could arise that would change this conclusion?

Okay, I understand what mean now, that was not clear to me. Yes, science is open to everything changing, especially when new information is discovered. That is how science works. In the same respect, are you open to your religious beliefs as well?

 

[Hammster]

Okay, I understand what mean now, that was not clear to me. Yes, science is open to everything changing, especially when new information is discovered. That is how science works. In the same respect, are you open to your religious beliefs as well?

I've changed somewhat as scripture has become clearer. But some things won't change.

 

[RickG]

I've changed somewhat as scripture has become clearer. But some things won't change.

I agree.

Meanwhile back to the topic of the thread, what verifiable information exists, if any, that supports embedded age and how do we test the hypothesis?

 

[Hammster]

I agree.

Meanwhile back to the topic of the thread, what verifiable information exists, if any, that supports embedded age and how do we test the hypothesis?

That's not the thread topic.

 

[RickG]

That's not the thread topic.

Ahhh, excuse me?


Thread title: "In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,"

OP: "Why would God do such a thing, knowing that it would sow the seeds of confusion and disbelief?
My God would do no such thing.
Please keep with the OP and keep it civil."

 

[Hammster]

That's different from what you asked.

To the OP I'd say this. Our God is in the Heavens and does whatever He pleases. He owes us no explanation. He doesn't explain why He doesn't just regenerate everyone, when certainly He could. He doesn't explain why justification is dependent on faith. He doesn't explain why there's not a third or forth option besides Heaven or Hell.

 

[RickG]

That's different from what you asked.

What I asked deals directly with the OP concerning "Apparent Age".

To the OP I'd say this. Our God is in the Heavens and does whatever He pleases. He owes us no explanation. He doesn't explain why He doesn't just regenerate everyone, when certainly He could. He doesn't explain why justification is dependent on faith. He doesn't explain why there's not a third or forth option besides Heaven or Hell.

This thread first appeared in the Physical & Life Sciences of the Discussion and Debate Forums. A day or so later it was moved the the Creation & Evolution Forum. Either way, these are science forums where science is the topic of discussion. So far I have seen almost nothing but apologetics presented which is forbidden in the Discussion and Debate forums according to CF rules. If science is not going to be discussed then I suggest that this thread needs to be moved to the apologetics area of the CF.

 

[AV1611VET]

Meanwhile back to the topic of the thread, what verifiable information exists, if any, that supports embedded age and how do we test the hypothesis?

What I asked deals directly with the OP concerning "Apparent Age".

Make up your mind what you want, please.

 

[RickG]

Make up your mind what you want, please.

If it is made where all physical aspects show ages and processes to be greater than 6,000 years, but is actually only 6,000 or less years old, it is embedded. As I have previously stated, I am in agreement with the OP, "My God would do no such thing."

 

[Hammster]

What I asked deals directly with the OP concerning "Apparent Age".



This thread first appeared in the Physical & Life Sciences of the Discussion and Debate Forums. A day or so later it was moved the the Creation & Evolution Forum. Either way, these are science forums where science is the topic of discussion. So far I have seen almost nothing but apologetics presented which is forbidden in the Discussion and Debate forums according to CF rules. If science is not going to be discussed then I suggest that this thread needs to be moved to the apologetics area of the CF.

You are more than welcome to report the thread and let the mods decide.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it is made where all physical aspects show ages and processes to be greater than 6,000 years, but is actually only 6,000 or less years old, it is embedded. As I have previously stated, I am in agreement with the OP, "My God would do no such thing."

What is embedded?

The physical aspects (whatever you meant by that), or the age?

I define embedded age as "maturity without history."

Apparent age is "the look of maturity without history."

 

[RickG]

What is embedded?

The physical aspects (whatever you meant by that), or the age?

Physical aspects not only show age, but the processes involved that attribute to that age.

I define embedded age as "maturity without history."

Last Thursdayism. You are essentially saying that everything in the past 6,000 years is embedded as well.

Apparent age is "the look of maturity without history."

Again, you are essentially saying that everything in the past 6,000 years is embedded as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

apparent age = dressed to look older than he is

embedded age = dressed his age