My Decimal Challenge

[AV1611VET]

That God indeed miraculously embedded age within the rocks such that the rocks would literally be 4.5billion years old. But that God did so 6000 or so years ago.

That is correct; and I've never said otherwise.

Can God create a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age?

That would mean that the scientists could not find the age to be anything but 4.5 billion years old because the rocks would literally be 4.5 billion years old.

I'll go with what the scientists say it is.

If tomorrow they date the rocks to be 60 quintillion to the 60 quintillionth power years old, I'll believe that God embedded 60 quintillion to the 60 quintillionth power years of maturity without history in them.

If tomorrow they date the rocks to be 11 thousand years old, I'll believe God embedded 5000 years of maturity without history in them.

Hence it would be incorrect to say the scientists erroneously "moved the decimal place".

I said God allows for 6020 years of history.

When it comes to science, scientists move the decimal place to 13.7 billion years of history.

Embedded age is: maturity without history.

Now you've turned it into a mish-mash of poor logic and confusion.

No ... you're confusing yourself by trying too hard to find flaws with something you don't even understand.

You can start (understanding) it by using the right terminology.

 

[lesliedellow]

If tomorrow they date the rocks to be 60 quintillion to the 60 quintillionth power years old, I'll believe that God embedded 60 quintillion to the 60 quintillionth power years of maturity without history in them.

Of course, we have neever had a coherent account of why God would do that.

Because Adam was created as an adult, you say zircon crystals must have been created containing uranium and lead in the right proportions to make them look far older than they really are. That somehow doesn't cut it as an exercise in logic.

 

[Obliquinaut]

That is correct; and I've never said otherwise.

Can God create a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age?

I'll go with what the scientists say it is.

WHICH MEANS the scientists are not arbitrarily moving decimal places. They are measuring EXACTLY WHAT GOD SET IT UP TO MEASURE.

Ergo: science is correct to say the earth is 4.5Billion years old. It can be no other per God's actions.

I said God allows for 6020 years of history.

While this "embedding" occured 6020 years ago, there is still 4.5 billion years worth of history embedded in the rocks. It is there. Per your suggestion that God miraculously embedded it.

When it comes to science, scientists move the decimal place to 13.7 billion years of history.

The scientists measure the age of the rock. That carries with it everything that that implies. That not only is there 4.5billion years of age in that rock, there is also 4.5 billion years of history.

If you now want to clarify your position that there is something called "age" that doesn't really have any ties to time or history of the rock then your position goes completely bonkers.

At that point (since structures in the rock record a "history") it would mean that God is being dishonest.

And since we KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE A DISHONEST GOD, you are stuck with 4.5billion years of history as well as age.

Embedded age is: maturity without history.

Here I thought your position was well-crafted to be unfalsifiable and result in an "honest God" and "honest scientists". I see it is not quite as clever as I originally thought.

Too bad.

You can start (understanding) it by using the right terminology.

You are using sui generis terminology now. Your position has gone from "clever" to "meaningless wordsalad" in just a few posts.

Again, I'm sad. It was originally an interesting game.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, we have neever had a coherent account of why God would do that.

As many times as I have posted it, you've never seen this?

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.

Or ... as I suspect ... you have, but you just slipped the word 'coherent' in there as an escape hatch?

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, I'm sad.

That's your choice.

You want to talk yourself out of understanding, go right ahead.

(Assuming you understood it in the first place.)

Some people enjoy being sad.

 

[Rubiks]

It's a rant against deep time.

The Bible only allows for 6020 years of history, but science has to move the decimal point seven decimal places to the right to account for Beelzebang (Big Bang).

How can you get from 14 billion years to 6000 years by moving the decimal point?

edit: in base 2333333 you can do this

 

[AV1611VET]

How can you get from 14 billion years to 6000 years by moving the decimal point?

Um ... don't you mean the other way around?

 

[Obliquinaut]

That's your choice.

You want to talk yourself out of understanding, go right ahead.

(Assuming you understood it in the first place.)

Some people enjoy being sad.

I'm sorry but if God embeds AGE but NOT HISTORY then it makes God into a deceiver which is completely wrong.

You see: when the scientists look at rocks they don't just measure "age", they see structures that show HISTORY, they see grains that have been elongated through long, slow pressure, they see folds that show plastic deformation, which again, requires long-slow processes.

This is why your position no longer makes sense. God may have embedded age, but He also seems to have put zillions of little indicators of HISTORY as well.

This is a good example of why you should understand the science you wish to critique.

Here's how I understood your original position:

You believed it when the scientists said "This rock is 4.5 billion years old" because you claimed that God miraculously embedded 4.5 billion years worth of age which He did 6020 years ago. But that effectively the rock HAD all 4.5 Billion Years "in" it. Including all the history etc. A feat only God could do.

NOW you are telling me it has the AGE but not the HISTORY.

But in reality as I said, the scientists don't just measure the age in years, they see the HISTORY explicit in the rock. If you divorce the history from the age it makes God into a deceiver and I know that isn't what you want.

You REALLY NEED to understand what geologists DO before you try to craft a gambit like this.

(And believe me when I say I'm seriously discussing this with you. If you wish to simply blow off my points then you are losing a significant opportunity to discuss this position. The window of opportunity is closing quickly. I honestly didn't want your position to be this messed up, but you are showing your hand. And I didn't actually think it was this poorly thought out. I had actually been impressed by it earlier.)

 

[AV1611VET]

This is why your position no longer makes sense. God may have embedded age, but He also seems to have put zillions of little indicators of HISTORY as well.

That is called the Omphalos hypothesis, a hypothesis I don't subscribe to.

If you divorce the history from the age it makes God into a deceiver and I know that isn't what you want.

So if God creates a loaf of raisin bread in a second of time, you would call it deception?

After all, raisins are aged grapes.

 

[lesliedellow]

As many times as I have posted it, you've never seen this?



Or ... as I suspect ... you have, but you just slipped the word 'coherent' in there as an escape hatch?

And precisely what use was he going to make of a rock, created at the same time as him, but with the appearance of being billions of years old?

Like I said, as an exercise in logic, that leaves very much to be desired, and that is putting it politely.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like I said, as an exercise in logic, that leaves very much to be desired, and that is putting it politely.

Soochysef.

 

[Obliquinaut]

That is called the Omphalos hypothesis, a hypothesis I don't subscribe to.

Actually omphalos wouldn't bother with the literal "embedding of age". It would be totally "appearance". Adam born with a Navel.

But your position seemed (up until a few posts ago) to be a miraculous event in which all things related to time were embedded. Now it appears that it is only the "age", and you've dissociated age from history meaning that when we see features indicating history you are back to Omphalos. It is merely the appearance of history.

So if God creates a loaf of raisin bread in a second of time, you would call it deception?

After all, raisins are aged grapes.

What you are saying is that God created a raisin bread 3 days ago from absolutely nothing. If were to somehow "date" the raisins I would find them to be a few months old, which they WOULD be because the AGE is there. But the raisins also show evidence of history, the process of aging the raisins leads to the features of the raisins.

I would honestly be less inclined to say God is being deceptive if God had also "embedded" the history as well.

Without that God becomes deceptive.

 

[Obliquinaut]

And precisely what use was he going to make of a rock, created at the same time as him, but with the appearance of being billions of years old?

Like I said, as an exercise in logic, that leaves very much to be desired, and that is putting it politely.

Actually it was (until I just learned the biggest weakness) a nearly unfalsifiable claim. A such it was an excellent gambit. Of course wholly non-scientific, but indeed it would allow AV to claim that a rock could be made 6020 years ago and actually be 4.5 billion years in every way possible. That the scientists could be "right" and God isn't being deceptive. (Why God would want to do this is anyone's guess, but just follow me here for a bit).

As such AV was allowed to agree with what the scientists say (which is handy because dating rocks also shows up in many other unrelated applications which AV may not want to completely disavow, things like radioactive decay rates as used in nuclear medicine or nuclear power, etc.) WHILE it allows AV to believe in a Young Earth. That God created the earth 4.5 billion years of age but did so 6020 years ago.

If one accepts that God can do this is gets God off the hook for being "deceptive" (there is no deception if the age is literally there) and it allows for the BIble to be technically accurate if read literally with the creation (embedding event) happening 6020 years ago.

I really thought AV had squared that particular circle, but now I'm not entirely certain.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would honestly be less inclined to say God is being deceptive if God had also "embedded" the history as well.

You're the first person I ever came across here to give Omphalos credit.

I'm sure your educated colleagues here are looking at you kinda funny.

But don't worry.

They won't say anything.

Birds of a feather.

 

[AV1611VET]

I really thought AV had squared that particular circle, but now I'm not entirely certain.

Here ... maybe this will help ... but I doubt it:



Adam was created with an appearance of age
Clearly, Adam—along with much of the rest of creation—was created with maturity, not deterioration. In fact the references to His creation being "good" and "very good" indicate that there were no imperfections, and deterioration is an accumulation of imperfections. And in order to create a viable system, the creation had to be mature. If Adam was created as a just-fertilised egg, for example, how would he survive without the womb? The apparent age that God created with was maturity, not deterioration, and there is no deceit, particularly as He told us that he created this way.

The Earth "looks" old
However, as we don't have observations of what old and young earths look like, how would we know what an old Earth should look like in order to make that judgement?

What is done by most scientists today to determine the age of the earth is to determine how old fossils and rocks are using the application of an assumption or presupposition established within their evolutionary and essentially atheistic, naturalistic worldview. It is assumed the earth is 4.6 billion years old and through that established belief, all other evidence conforms.

While evolutionists rely on assumptions and data within an evolutionary framework, essentially relying on mans word, creationists are readily acceptable to God's word that clearly details the creation and age of the earth.

SOURCE

 

[Obliquinaut]

You're the first person I ever came across here to give Omphalos credit.

No. Perhaps you didn't read my point closely enough. I'm saying omphalos as it is normally presented shows a deceptive God.

Your position with regards to history is now sounding more like Omphalos.

Your position with regards to age is still fine (no deceptive God, science is accurate, Earth is "young")

I'm sure your educated colleagues here are looking at you kinda funny.

You mean because I'm actually taking the time to understand your position? Is that a bad thing to do?

I'm giving you credit.

Birds of a feather.

Huh? So this is how you treat someone who is actually giving your position credit and perhaps moreso than it deserves? Perhaps I was completely mistaken about your position. I actually was thinking you'd thought through all of the implications.

 

[AV1611VET]

I actually was thinking you'd thought through all of the implications.

Have a good day, sir!

 

[Obliquinaut]

What is done by most scientists today to determine the age of the earth is to determine how old fossils and rocks are using the application of an assumption or presupposition established within their evolutionary and essentially atheistic, naturalistic worldview.

You should really learn the history of geology. Up until the 18th century it was quite common for people to think of the earth as "young". The necessity of an old earth and true deep time arose when it became obvious that the rocks could not be 6000 years old.

It is assumed the earth is 4.6 billion years old and through that established belief, all other evidence conforms.

You are being seriously misled here. The numeric age, what is called absolute age (rather than relative age) is derived from radiometric dating. And once they have radiometric dates they can correlate associated formations and look at faunal succession. Once all the pieces are together it is possible to assess the absolute age.

It didn't start off with "Oh the earth is 4.6 billion years old, lest start putting things in at random intervals in that span!"

SOURCE

Yeah, for a change, try seeing what science actually says about how they came to different conclusions. Don't rely on creationists. The creationist literature is replete with errors and misrepresentations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...As such AV was allowed to agree with what the scientists say (which is handy because dating rocks also shows up in many other unrelated applications which AV may not want to completely disavow, things like radioactive decay rates as used in nuclear medicine or nuclear power, etc.) WHILE it allows AV to believe in a Young Earth. That God created the earth 4.5 billion years of age but did so 6020 years ago.

If one accepts that God can do this is gets God off the hook for being "deceptive" (there is no deception if the age is literally there) and it allows for the BIble to be technically accurate if read literally with the creation (embedding event) happening 6020 years ago.

God can get off the hook for being deceptive if you simply assume that everything God does is good by definition, therefore cannot be deceptive in a bad way (if necessary, 'explained' by God Works In Mysterious Ways).

This naturally leads to 'Last Thursdayism', or '10 minutes ago-ism', where God creates the universe last Thursday or 10 minutes ago, to look like it's 13.4 billion years old, with a bible that gives a more recent date, for His own mysterious but - by definition - good reasons.

Let's face it, you can make up any story you like - if you assume an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and mysterious, God.

 

[lesliedellow]

Let's face it, you can make up any story you like - if you assume an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and mysterious, God.

Except that, if he is a Christian, other Christians will want to know where he gets his ideas from.