I stand by what I said. You can't have one without the other. If you can't face up to the error I cited, then perhaps you need to withdraw the embedded age claim and join the "hike" with the other creationists.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, Rick, I'm not going to "please explain."
Not when I'm being falsely accused of something.
You want to put words into my mouth; that's your prerogative, but don't expect me to take the witness stand and let you badger me about your own mistake.
Thank you ... that was refreshing.My apologies if I misrepresented you.
Oh, now I claim "embedded age without history"?However, your claim of embedded age without history then needs further explanation if I am to understand it.
Yes.You have stated that the embedded age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years (approx).
QV please: 10How was this embedded age determined?
It's your integrity ... not mine.I stand by what I said.
Not hardly.If you can't face up to the error I cited, then perhaps you need to withdraw the embedded age claim and join the "hike" with the other creationists.
For the millionth-and-one time:
Embedded age = maturity without history.
What on earth is "embedded age without history"?
Thank you. That still brings up questions.Thank you ... that was refreshing.
Oh, now I claim "embedded age without history"?
For the millionth-and-one time:
Embedded age = maturity without history.
A mistakenly worded phrase in an attempt state what you meant.What on earth is "embedded age without history"?
OkEmbedded age = physical age minus existential age.
It's your integrity ... not mine.
Not hardly.
If you want to keep putting words into my mouth, that's your prerogative.
But I'll keep asking you for links to what I said.
Which, by the way, is conspicuous by its absence with you.
I wonder how many times you've tried to hunt something up I said and given up; but went ahead and said I said it anyway?
It's your integrity ... not mine.
Disclaimer: I could care less if we evolved or were created. The whole debate is non-sense, but some aspects of it are interesting, so no reason to go crazy over my question. I'm just curious, and looking for critiques.
YesYou accept that there is a physical age for the Earth that is different than the existential age.
OkayYou also accept that God embedded age into the Earth such that the physical age is purposefully different than the existential age.
Physical Age = Embedded Age minus Existential AgeHow is the physical age determined?
This is contradicted every time you include rocks with millions of years of history in your list of rocks with embedded age. Specifically, tuffs of ancient volcanic ash that overlay sediments carrying fossils. According to you, embedded age does not include fossils. Therefore, tuffs above fossils should not have embedded age and can be dated using radiometric dating which relies on the history of radioactive decay in the rock.
So either you accept billions of years of history, or you admit that you are including embedded history in embedded age.
QV please:Said the guy who constructs ad hoc explanations to ease his mind.
Your definition and reasons behind it's development has no support in reality, and is thus ridiculous. Expecting that adults should entertain this notion as fact is delusional.
The Garden of Eden poses other problems with the young earth model that appearance of age supposedly explains. If God created plants and animals within the same six day period as He created Adam and Eve, then He must have created the plants and animals in a fully grown state so that they could serve as a food source. In other words, according to the appearance of age theory, God must have created plants that had every appearance of having fully germinated, when in fact they had not. Also, in order to support plant and animal life the soil must be full of nutrients that normally take many years to form. Therefore God must have created the Garden of Eden with an apparent but nonexistent history in order for it to support plant and animal life.
QV please SOURCE
...then He must have created the plants and animals in a fully grown state so that they could serve as a food source.
Yes
Okay
Physical Age = Embedded Age minus Existential Age
You didn't read the whole article, did you?Thus demonstrating there's at least two people in the world with ad hoc explanations.
One such creationist who has modified Gosse's theories on appearance of age is John C. Whitcomb. In 1961 he and fellow creationist Henry M. Morris published the book The Genesis Flood. In this book they claimed that since God created the earth in six literal days, it was necessary for Him to create it with "an appearance of being 'old' when it was still new" (Whitcomb and Morris 1961:233). They then emphasized the theological importance of this "grown creation." Whitcomb (1972) published a more recent book discussing appearance of age titled The Early Earth. In it, he argues that belief in creation with an appearance of age is a necessary part of Christian theology for various reasons, including the miracles of Jesus. With the miracle of feeding the multitudes it should take time to grow the grain for the bread and for the fish to mature and be caught. When Jesus turned water into wine, there is an assumed time needed for the grapes to mature, be harvested, and reach fermentation. When Jesus cured blindness or healed Lazarus, the people being healed were given the appearance that they had lived lives free of their ailments, when in fact they had not. Whitcomb cites these stories in the New Testament as examples in addition to the creation story in Genesis of an apparent but counterfactual history in the Bible. Whitcomb takes issue with Gosse, however, because he believes that God did not create an appearance of age where it was not absolutely necessary, such as with Adam's navel (Whitcomb 1972:41-43).
Creationist Kurt P. Wise echoes Whitcomb's sentiments about Christ's miracles being further evidence of appearance of age in his book Faith, Form and Time. Wise furthermore argues that "if God's purpose in creating something is fulfilled by creating it with an appearance of age.then He will do it" (Wise 2002:58-60).
Despite the fact that the appearance of age is strictly a philosophical and theological argument, the RATE team (which has generally been focused on attempting to use scientific methodologies to back up the young earth model) has also weighed in on the issue. For example, in reference to certain rocks containing Polonium halos that appear to have a long geological history, the RATE team concludeed that according to Genesis it is theologically possible for these rocks to have been created with an appearance of age (Snelling 2000:440-441).
Do you see an issue with this:I see few issues with this already.
Or did you forget he said it?Said the guy who constructs ad hoc explanations to ease his mind.
I've even used Adam Clarke's Commentary ... several times to explain maturity without history.If the plants and animals being created earlier are being used as food source that would imply said plants and animals were dying.
Plants were made for food.Adam Clarke's Commentary on Genesis 2:5 said: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.
There was no death of man or animals prior to the Fall.This conflicts with the idea of no death prior to "the fall". The very act of organisms consuming others for energy implies other forms of life dying.
I use the physical age that is currently in vogue at the time for Occam's sake.You cannot solve a 2 variable problem using only one equation.
You have stated that the physical age of the earth is 4.5 billion years (approx). How was this determined? Did God reveal to you that He made the Earth with an embedded age of 4.5 billion - 6018 years?
You didn't read the whole article, did you?
Here's more from the link.
And you act like I made this up?
The conclusion is that the Earth's physical age is 4.5 billion years, which you agree with.I use the physical age that is currently in vogue at the time for Occam's sake.
In other words, I agree with the conclusion, but not the process that arrived at that conclusion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?