- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,716
- 52,529
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Actually, if God said it, it doesn't matter if I believe it or not --- that settles it.
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.
Actually, if God said it, it doesn't matter if I believe it or not --- that settles it."Because god said it, I believe it, and that settles it."
Did you read the verse I quoted?
And I would accept it as stated, except for the fact that you clearly deny that God could have assembled the Earth out of older parts from around the universe. So your illustration fails miserably. You contradict yourself.Either way would be correct.My goal with that is to show that an object can have two different ages: one physical and one existential.
Yes, but that doesn't answer how YOU knew when you received salvation.Did you read the verse I quoted?
No, I don't.And I would accept it as stated, except for the fact that you clearly deny that God could have assembled the Earth out of older parts from around the universe. So your illustration fails miserably. You contradict yourself.
Both ages are correct.Either the Earth is around 6,000 years old, or it's billions of years old. Pick one and stick with it. Then, explain your theory on why it is that way in a coherent way so we may all understand. I figure that's why this thread exists.
Nothing --- it was created as a mass of seawater in the hollow of God's hand.What did the earth revolve around before 'the earth showed up?'
Sure you do. You're saying that something has two different ages when it's comprised of other, existing things which are naturally more aged. But then you say the Earth wasn't built out of other things. It just naturally has two ages. That's nonsense.No, I don't.
You're still failing. Try harder.Once again --- the goal of that thread is to show that an object can be seen as having two different ages.
No sir, they're not. One age is correct - 35 years. Every single part of the bike is 35 years old. Therefore, the bike is 35 years old. There's no question. Now, what about the Earth?And that's the similarity with the bicycle and Embedded Age. Both ages are correct.
Because it's made out of 4.57 billion-year-old parts from other things in the universe? I don't think that's the point you're trying to make. But your illustration forces you into that position.The earth is 4.57 billion years old, and yet has only gone around the sun 6012 times.
So, the plants grew in the dark? Do you know how plants work? Or anything, for that matter? The sun is a vital component to any life on this planet.A sun that came days after the earth showed up.
Nothing --- it was created as a mass of seawater in the hollow of God's hand.
Sorry, there IS a question.No sir, they're not. One age is correct - 35 years. Every single part of the bike is 35 years old. Therefore, the bike is 35 years old. There's no question.
When you ask good questions, then make statements like this, Mike, it provokes me not to answer.You make too much stuff up, AV.
I'm going to pretend like you really want to know and go ahead and answer them:Ho Ho! All described "in detail in Genesis 1:1", Eh? Please show us:-
- How do you know it was sea water without a solid interior and not just fresh water?
- Where did the salts come from to make it "sea water"?
- Where did the water come from?
- Later in Genesis, God divided the water from the land. Where did the land come from and where did all the water go to? (Clue: the Earth must have expanded).
- Where in Genesis does it tell us the "mass of water was in God's hand"?
I promise you, you're not going to get anywhere with me with that.You make too much stuff up, AV.
That's the spirit!
Keep dodging the question until it falls back about five pages, then someone starts in with: "What's your point, AV?"
Once again --- the goal of that thread is to show that an object can be seen as having two different ages.
For, what?Now if all "embedded age" means is building something new out of old parts, then anyone can do that. And would hence not be in accord with your initial definition of Embedded Age on post #1 of this thread.
I've been thinking about AV's idea for a while, playing devil's advocate in my own head and how it could work. And I think a closer example of his idea would be using replicators from Star Trek.Those are two very different concepts, AV. If I build a house out of 10,000 year old wood and then I radiocarbon date the house by measuring the wood it would show up as 10,000 years old. (In case you actually care, this is why one normally does not date a sedimentary rock by radiometrically dating the individual grains.)
Now, the wood literally had been around for 10,000 real honest to goodness years. The house was assembled from the wood making the house much, much younger.
What your Embedded Age paradigm says is God created every assemblage of atoms as if it were all much much older by the passage of physical time than it actually had experienced. There was NOTHING in the assemblage that had endured the actual passage of physical time God "embedded into it".
Those are extremely different concepts.
In fact you yourself said the act of embedding age "requires omnipotence", which means you cannot come up with an analogy that will be comparable. Clearly by your own description the bike analogy cannot even be considered close to embedded age.
Now if all "embedded age" means is building something new out of old parts, then anyone can do that. And would hence not be in accord with your initial definition of Embedded Age on post #1 of this thread.
You don't need to understand it --- it doesn't exist.
Take any definition out of the dictionary you want, but it won't apply at the moment of creation.
For, what?
The third time already?
My qv has NOTHING to do with Embedded Age.
It is ONLY to show that an object can have two different dates: one physical and one existential.
My qv has NOTHING to do with Embedded Age.
I'm not sure how you would date an atom, to be honest.About the replicator. I would think that if looked at microscopically, It would differ from apple, at least when it is dated it would show that it is as old as when it was created, not older. In the show they consistently point out that replicator food is not the same as cooked food, and that cooked food tast's much better.
In av's bike analogy, god simply crafted the world out of stuff that already existed, and did not create it from nothing. If god DID create from nothing then the age of that creation would be what scientists detect as the worlds age. In other worlds embedded age a way to avoid the problems he faces when reconciling science and the bible.
If god did emended age into the world he would be doing so deceptively. The replicator is much the same. It is deceptivly trying to pass for something it is not.
Well on that subject, you don't have to be deceptive to make a replicated apple. I mean, a replicated apple, assuming a perfect copy, would be an apple just like any others. There's no deception there. It is, in fact, an apple and it is in fact mature. If you're saying that you try to pass it off as an apple that fell from a tree, then that's specific intent. We would have to show that this Christian god had the intent of deceiving people into thinking the Earth is 4.5billion years old. And more to the point, it really would be, in the sense that it would have gone through all the transformations that it would have if it had taken 4.5billion year to get to this point. However, there's still history.If god did emended age into the world he would be doing so deceptively. The replicator is much the same. It is deceptivly trying to pass for something it is not.
No --- but what if I did?
Are you against prayer?
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?