My Canoe Challenge

[Opdrey]

That depends where you start - the atoms and molecules that make up the tree would be much older than the tree... So, by your 'physical age' method, the canoe is billions of years (or for YECs, 6 thousand years) old physically.

"Hey! That's a cute puppy you have there! How old is he?"
"Oh, about 13 billion years old. He's not house trained yet."

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But not as a canoe.

My car is made of metal.

Is my car six thousand inherited years old?

And there we have the equivocation which your silly argument relies on. A bait and switch.

You're extremely loose with your use of the words "history" and "age". Despite your repeated misuse, they are not interchangeable. In this instance you are claiming 1000 years of history for the log which is then crafted into a canoe, so there is 1000 years of history. Of course, we don't normally include the history of the log with the history of the canoe, but that doesn't mean the log had no history. Your country only is only 245 years old, but I'm sure even you recognise that there is a lot of history prior to its founding.

 

[AV1611VET]

And there we have the equivocation which your silly argument relies on. A bait and switch.

You're extremely loose with your use of the words "history" and "age". Despite your repeated misuse, they are not interchangeable. In this instance you are claiming 1000 years of history for the log which is then crafted into a canoe, so there is 1000 years of history. Of course, we don't normally include the history of the log with the history of the canoe, but that doesn't mean the log had no history. Your country only is only 245 years old, but I'm sure even you recognise that there is a lot of history prior to its founding.

I can't tell.

Are you agreeing with me that something can have two different dates?

If so, I'll stamp this thread: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I can't tell.

Are you agreeing with me that something can have two different dates?

If so, I'll stamp this thread: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Seriously? An entire thread about how the stuff things are made of is older than they are?

How could it be otherwise?

E.T.A. In special circumstances, it could be otherwise, as in the Ship of Theseus, but that only applies to the 'existential' age of the parts, and in any case, not in general.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I can't tell.

Are you agreeing with me that something can have two different dates?

If so, I'll stamp this thread: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

No, that's not what I'm saying - apart from the fact we haven't mentioned dates before, the log and the canoe have 2 different ages. I'm saying that your equivocation is deliberately misleading.

Let me ask you this - how old is the log with 1000 years of history?

 

[Opdrey]

If so, I'll stamp this thread: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

ANOTHER win for you! Congrats! Well played. Extremely well done, you!

 

[SelfSim]

ANOTHER win for you! Congrats! Well played. Extremely well done, you!

Premature (or sarcasm?).. @Bungle_Bear did not concur.

 

[Kylie]

But not as a canoe.

My car is made of metal.

Is my car six thousand inherited years old?

No. The metal has existed for significantly longer than that.

 

[sjastro]

ANOTHER win for you! Congrats! Well played. Extremely well done, you!

Given AV's spectacular achievement in this thread a limited number of T-shirts are being issued to commemorate this event.

 

[SelfSim]

Given AV's spectacular achievement in this thread a limited number of T-shirts are being issued to commemorate this event.

Which is older, I wonder: the legend, the mind that thinks it is one, or the t-shirt which declares it? How would we know that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Seriously? An entire thread about how the stuff things are made of is older than they are?

How could it be otherwise?

E.T.A. In special circumstances, it could be otherwise, as in the Ship of Theseus, but that only applies to the 'existential' age of the parts, and in any case, not in general.

I think all he is [@av1611vet] wanting to do is accentuate that there is a Hebrew BARA/ASAH distinction in the Genesis literature.

But in line with my more skeptical inquirers here, I don't think this distinction tells us much. If true, it might simply imply that the base materials were "created" long ago and then (according to the Genesis narrative) were later handled in a more directed manner in "fashioning" our planet and inhabitants from that previous primordial "created stuff."

Of course, we all know that one little chapter or two in an ancient Near Eastern text like Genesis--one typical of its time--doesn't tell us much of anything specific for use in our scientific deliberations today.

 

[Opdrey]

I think all he is [@av1611vet] wanting to do is accentuate that there is a Hebrew BARA/ASAH distinction in the Genesis literature.

But in line with my more skeptical inquirers here, I don't think this distinction tells us much. If true, it might simply imply that the base materials were "created" long ago and then (according to the Genesis narrative) were later handled in a more directed manner in "fashioning" our planet and inhabitants from that previous primordial "created stuff."

Of course, we all know that one little chapter or two in an ancient Near Eastern text like Genesis--one typical of its time--doesn't tell us much of anything specific for use in our scientific deliberations today.

I was rather under the assumption that this was another gambit in support of @AV1611VET 's "Embedded Age"(TM) concept. But given that that is a special case where God embeds age without the thing being aged per se it is unclear what the connection could really be.

I am genuinely curious why this doesn't effectively mean that everything around us has exactly the same age: the age of the universe since matter and energy cannot be simply created out of nothing that would mean that everything has the same point in origin.

It certainly simplifies things. I am ridiculously proud that my pup here has lived 13 billion years but by the same token I'm sad that my TV is 13 billion years old and probably not as fancy as newer models (all of which are 13 billion years old).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was rather under the assumption that this was another gambit in support of @AV1611VET 's "Embedded Age"(TM) concept. But given that that is a special case where God embeds age without the thing being aged per se it is unclear what the connection could really be.

You could be right. I'm not familiar enough with AV to tell whether he believes in 'embedded age,' or he's just wanting to acentuate the BARA/ASAH distinction in the Genesis literature. I guess he'll have to tell us.

I am genuinely curious why this doesn't effectively mean that everything around us has exactly the same age: the age of the universe since matter and energy cannot be simply created out of nothing that would mean that everything has the same point in origin.

That is an interesting line of inquiry, Opdrey. Unfortunately, the authors of the first 3 chapters of Genesis died a long, long time ago in a country far, far away. I guess we'll never know for sure. Personally, I just think a few Higgs Bosons hit some fields and ... well, you know the rest of the story.

It certainly simplifies things. I am ridiculously proud that my pup here has lived 13 billion years but by the same token I'm sad that my TV is 13 billion years old and probably not as fancy as newer models (all of which are 13 billion years old).

You know, George Harrison of former Beatles fame had a song about that kind of thing (more or less) ...

... more less ...

 

[Sheila Davis]

I cut down a 1000-year-old tree, hollow it out and make a canoe out of it; all in a day's time.

How old is the canoe when I'm finished?

The canoe is one day old even the wood it was carved from is a thousand years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

The canoe is one day old even the wood it was carved from is a thousand years old.

Yes, indeed!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes, indeed!

And that’s the challenge? To state the blindingly obvious?

 

[AV1611VET]

And that’s the challenge? To state the blindingly obvious?

Yup.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yup.

Wow. What a pointless exercise. Was there any point to it other than wasting time?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow. What a pointless exercise. Was there any point to it other than wasting time?

Nope.

Just don't whine when I point out that Adam was twenty or thirty physically, but one day old existentially.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nope.

Just don't whine when I point out that Adam was twenty or thirty physically, but one day old existentially.

Huh? If Creation only took six days he cannot have been "twenty or thirty physically". Using your own logic he was, at most, 5 days old.