Is fossil evidence that strong of a case for evolution?

[RickG]

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.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

My apologies if I misrepresented you.

Thank you ... that was refreshing.

However, your claim of embedded age without history then needs further explanation if I am to understand it.

Oh, now I claim "embedded age without history"?

For the millionth-and-one time:

Embedded age = maturity without history.

What on earth is "embedded age without history"?

You have stated that the embedded age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years (approx).

Yes.

How was this embedded age determined?

QV please: 10

Embedded age = physical age minus existential age.

 

[AV1611VET]

I stand by what I said.

It's your integrity ... not mine.

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.

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?

 

[Loudmouth]

For the millionth-and-one time:

Embedded age = maturity without history.

What on earth is "embedded age without history"?

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.

 

[RickG]

Question AV. How many years ago was "the fall"?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Thank you ... that was refreshing.

Oh, now I claim "embedded age without history"?

For the millionth-and-one time:

Embedded age = maturity without history.

Thank you. That still brings up questions.

What on earth is "embedded age without history"?

A mistakenly worded phrase in an attempt state what you meant.

Embedded age = physical age minus existential age.

Ok

You accept that there is a physical age for the Earth that is different than the existential age. You also accept that God embedded age into the Earth such that the physical age is purposefully different than the existential age.

How is the physical age determined?

 

[bhsmte]

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?

in·teg·ri·ty
inˈtegritē/
noun
noun: integrity

1. 1.
   the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
   "he is known to be a man of integrity"
   synonyms:honesty, probity, rectitude, honor, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness More
   
   
   
   

 

[HitchSlap]

It's your integrity ... not mine.

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.

 

[Strathos]

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.

If you could care less, it means you do care.

 

[AV1611VET]

You accept that there is a physical age for the Earth that is different than the existential age.

Yes

You also accept that God embedded age into the Earth such that the physical age is purposefully different than the existential age.

Okay

How is the physical age determined?

Physical Age = Embedded Age minus Existential Age

 

[Naturalism]

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.

Yeah but AV says that logic can take a hike so...

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

QV please:

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.

SOURCE

 

[HitchSlap]

QV please:


SOURCE

Thus demonstrating there's at least two people in the world with ad hoc explanations.

 

[Naturalism]

QV please SOURCE

I see few issues with this already.

...then He must have created the plants and animals in a fully grown state so that they could serve as a food source.

If the plants and animals being created earlier are being used as food source that would imply said plants and animals were dying. 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.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yes

Okay

Physical Age = Embedded Age minus Existential Age

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

Thus demonstrating there's at least two people in the world with ad hoc explanations.

You didn't read the whole article, did you?

Here's more from the link.

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).

And you act like I made this up?

 

[AV1611VET]

I see few issues with this already.

Do you see an issue with this:

Said the guy who constructs ad hoc explanations to ease his mind.

Or did you forget he said it?

If the plants and animals being created earlier are being used as food source that would imply said plants and animals were dying.

I've even used Adam Clarke's Commentary ... several times to explain maturity without history.

Here it is again:

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.

Plants were made for food.

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.

There was no death of man or animals prior to the Fall.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

You didn't read the whole article, did you?

Here's more from the link.


And you act like I made this up?

You mentioned polonium halos. It is interesting that these supposed rocks made with the appearance of age intrude into fossil bearing strata, meaning that the fossils were there before the rock.

"A little detective work by Wakefield (1988) showed that at least one set of rock samples studied by Gentry are not from granites at all, but were taken from a variety of younger Precambrian metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins in the region around Bancroft, Ontario. Some of these rock units cut or overlie older, sedimentary and even fossil-bearing rocks."
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

So once again, you are trying to claim that embedded age includes fossils already in the ground when the Earth was created.

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

The conclusion is that the Earth's physical age is 4.5 billion years, which you agree with.

Geophysicists conclude that means the Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, which you disagree with.

The process used was radiometric dating, which you disagree with.

You disagree with the process of radiometric dating but not the results of that process?

Please explain.