My Watch Challenge

[AirPo]

When it's scientists comparing the earth in Genesis 1 to the earth in 2017.

The correct word is contrast, not compare.

 

[VirOptimus]

Please show me, or feel free to retract.

You do so no, no retraction.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do so no, no retraction.

Then skip the retraction and just show me.

 

[MadotsukiInTheNexus]

Joe is wearing a watch he's had for ten years.

It has a cracked crystal, a rusted and corroded case, moisture seepage, bent stem, multiple scratches and pits, broken second hand, and a torn strap.

My question is this:

If Joe said he bought that watch brand new ten years ago, would you accuse him of being deceptive with you?

If Joe has a watch that he claims to have bought brand new ten years ago and it's got ten years worth of damage, no one's going to claim that he's being deceptive. They would have no reason to. If, on the other hand, Joe has a tree that he claims to have planted as a seed ten years ago and it has growth rings suggesting that it germinated at around the time of the American Civil War and a spike in carbon-14 from the nuclear testing that happened in the 20th century, though, then I'm going to assume that he's either lying or just not correct about that tree being that one that he planted. The latter situation is a lot more similar to what you seem to be trying to imply about the age of the Earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

The latter situation is a lot more similar to what you seem to be trying to imply about the age of the Earth.

Can God create a dress tomorrow so old, it falls apart with age the next day?

 

[MadotsukiInTheNexus]

Can God create a dress tomorrow so old, it falls apart with age the next day?

I mean, by definition, no. Asking if God could create a new old thing is kind of like asking if God could create a four-sided triangle. Most Christians would agree that God can't do things that are logically impossible, like add two and two to equal five. Something being both new and old is contradictory and logically impossible. Presumably he could make something to look old when it wasn't, but that would definitely be deceptive.

 

[AV1611VET]

I mean, by definition, no.

Perhaps then God goes by a different dictionary?

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Asking if God could create a new old thing is kind of like asking if God could create a four-sided triangle.

Then let me ask you this:

Can God create a man tomorrow so mature he can walk, talk, tend a garden, name the animals, and get married and beget children?

 

[VirOptimus]

Then skip the retraction and just show me.

How long has the earth existed?

 

[AirPo]

Perhaps then God goes by a different dictionary?

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Then let me ask you this:

Can God create a man tomorrow so mature he can walk, talk, tend a garden, name the animals, and get married and beget children?

I thought God could do whatever you imagine he can do.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought God could do whatever you imagine he can do.

That doesn't surprise me.

 

[AirPo]

That doesn't surprise me.

It wasn't meant to.

 

[VirOptimus]

That doesn't surprise me.

You cant answer post 28?

 

[AV1611VET]

You cant answer post 28?

 

[MadotsukiInTheNexus]

Perhaps then God goes by a different dictionary?

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Regardless of the dictionary that God goes by, I'm assuming that you and I use the same one when we talk about the possibility of God doing something. So, creating a new old object is still a logical impossibility, no matter how much God's thoughts aren't my thoughts. The overwhelming majority of Christian theologians would agree with the sentiment that I echoed there. The idea of God creating a new old dress is about the same as the idea of God making green ideas sleep furiously. It's grammatically correct but ultimately meaningless.

Then let me ask you this:

Can God create a man tomorrow so mature he can walk, talk, tend a garden, name the animals, and get married and beget children?

Maturity doesn't technically require age (even if it implies it because things have to age to become mature in day-to-day life), so yes, an omnipotent god could create a human being as an adult and therefore with maturity. It doesn't really apply to your idea about the age of the Earth, though, because the Earth doesn't appear to be "mature" (whatever that concept would mean when applied to a planet), it appears to be old. An omnipotent god could, theoretically, create a mature man who also appeared to be old, with false memories, scars from events that never happened, etc. That would be deceptive, though, and so it changes fundamentally the idea from your original post. If Joe has a watch that he scuffs up himself and then claims is ten years old when he bought it yesterday, then Joe is being deceptive.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, creating a new old object is still a logical impossibility, no matter how much God's thoughts aren't my thoughts.

The logical and theo-logical are two different things.

What can be illogical with man, can be theological with God: such as parting the Red Sea or any other kind of miracle that defies logic.

For the record, I call what I believe "Embedded Age Creation" and define it as "maturity without history."

I use the term "embedded age" so as to make a distinction from "apparent age."

I love what Adam Clarke says here:

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.

Some refer to what I believe as YEC, but YEC says the earth is only 6000 years old, and I don't [necessarily] believe that.

Others say I believe in Last Thursdayism or Omphalos, but I don't believe Adam & Eve had navels, let alone scars and bruises (and for the record, a navel is considered a scar ... so are tree rings).

So for lack of a better term, I call my belief "Embedded Age Creation" and believe the earth is as old as it is (be it 6,000 years or 6 billion years), but it has only been in existence for 6000.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-
So for lack of a better term, I call my belief "Embedded Age Creation" and believe the earth is as old as it is (be it 6,000 years or 6 billion years), but it has only been in existence for 6000.

So I was indeed correct. You say the earth is 6000 years old. A YEC.

 

[MadotsukiInTheNexus]

The logical and theo-logical are two different things.

What can be illogical with man, can be theological with God: such as parting the Red Sea or any other kind of miracle that defies logic.

We're talking about two very different kinds of "logical impossibility" here. Parting the Red Sea would be impossible given what we know about the world, but it doesn't create a paradox, so an omnipotent being could presumably do it. Something being both new and old, in the sense you mean here, would be a paradox since those two things contradict each other. That's logically impossible in an entirely different way that most Christian theologians accept is impossible even for an omnipotent god (just like the idea of an omnipotent being making a rock so heavy that it can't lift it; the idea isn't impossible in the same way as parting the Red Sea, it's impossible because it's nonsense).

For the record, I call what I believe "Embedded Age Creation" and define it as "maturity without history."

....

Others say I believe in Last Thursdayism or Omphalos, but I don't believe Adam & Eve had navels, let alone scars and bruises (and for the record, a navel is considered a scar ... so are tree rings).

So for lack of a better term, I call my belief "Embedded Age Creation" and believe the earth is as old as it is (be it 6,000 years or 6 billion years), but it has only been in existence for 6000.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't really resolve the problem. Most of the evidence that implies the Earth is older than 6000 years does so because it implies a history. So, the idea of the Earth just having "embedded age" doesn't help with that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most of the evidence that implies the Earth is older than 6000 years does so because it implies a history.

So if God created a loaf of raisin bread in a moment of time, you would deny it based on the fact that raisins are aged grapes?

So, the idea of the Earth just having "embedded age" doesn't help with that.

If you have a better way of describing it, I'll be glad to listen.

 

[MadotsukiInTheNexus]

So if God created a loaf of raisin bread in a moment of time, you would deny it based on the fact that raisins are aged grapes?

This is similar to your earlier question about a mature human being newly created to the point of being nearly identical. Ditto for questions about "aged" wine. Raisins are aged in day-to-day life because that's the only way of getting the qualities they have. Same for aged alcoholic beverages (although there's been research on how to simulate that in a lab). There's nothing inherent to the traits of those products that absolutely requires that they be old, though, although they obviously can't be accurately described as aged if they've just been created with all the traits of an aged product.

To move this up to the scale of a Universe, a Universe newly created with High Metallicity Stars, planets fully formed with life, etc. wouldn't be paradoxical. That's because it's "mature" without age. If you looked at those planets individually, they would initially appear to be old, but a closer look would reveal that they weren't. There would be no fossils documenting the history of life, no vestigial organs or traces of now mostly useless DNA in the organisms on its surface, and no evidence of isotope decay. When you start including those things, you start to add history, which you claim is not a part of embedded age.

If you have a better way of describing it, I'll be glad to listen.

The problem's not with how you're describing it, it's with the idea in general. The Earth doesn't reflect the planets in the earlier example, it has history. If the world has embedded history, then that has very different implications than what you're suggesting and is essentially the same as the Omphalos Hypothesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's nothing inherent to the traits of [aged wine, raisins] that absolutely requires that they be old,

But they do speak of a passage of time, do they not?

... although they obviously can't be accurately described as aged if they've just been created with all the traits of an aged product.

I agree.

"Aged" is not a very good term, as "aged" implies a passage of time.

However "age" is different.

"Age" is a noun, and nouns can be embedded in things; like stones embedded in snowballs.

Adam & Eve had maturity without a history.

They were some 20 - 30 years old when they came into existence.

To move this up to the scale of a Universe, a Universe newly created with High Metallicity Stars, planets fully formed with life, etc. wouldn't be paradoxical.

I'm going to disagree with this.

That's because it's "mature" without age.

But I'm talking about mature without history.

If you looked at those planets individually, they would initially appear to be old, but a closer look would reveal that they weren't.

What you're describing is what is called "Apparent Age Creation," and I don't believe in Apparent Age Creation, as Apparent Age Creation implies it only looks old.

In Embedded Age Creation, it looks old because it is old.

There would be no fossils documenting the history of life, no vestigial organs or traces of now mostly useless DNA in the organisms on its surface, and no evidence of isotope decay.

Correct.

When you start including those things, you start to add history, which you claim is not a part of embedded age.

That is correct.

That is why I don't include them.

At the end of the Creation Week, there were no fossils, or anything else you mentioned.

The problem's not with how you're describing it, it's with the idea in general.

Because it's a miracle of creation?