Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

AV1611VET said:

Ask the 5000 who were fed with a sack lunch.

Or anyone who gets a loaf of fresh, warm, raisin bread, made ex materia in an instant.

Click to expand...

I'd be happy to ask them about it.

What were their names? show me anything to indicate they actually existed in reality and not just as characters in a story.

AV1611VET said:

Miracles can't be falsified, can they?

Click to expand...

If you understand that they can't be falsified, why did you ask me to speak to them? Surely, if I spoke to people who were allegedly there for a miracle and they all told me that the claims were all nonsense, then that would count as falsification.

Kylie said:

Do you think dishonesty is a good thing?

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Ask the 5000 who were fed with a sack lunch.
Or anyone who gets a loaf of fresh, warm, raisin bread, made ex materia in an instant.

Click to expand...

Are these people experts in dishonesty?
Can you introduce us to any of these people?

Kylie said:

Do you think dishonesty is a good thing?

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Ask the 5000 who were fed with a sack lunch.

Or anyone who gets a loaf of fresh, warm, raisin bread, made ex materia in an instant.

Click to expand...

Kylie said:

I'd be happy to ask them about it.

What were their names? show me anything to indicate they actually existed in reality and not just as characters in a story.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Miracles can't be falsified, can they?

Click to expand...

It is not about falsifying miracles. It is about performing the order you gave.
You used the imperative - ask - so it's an order. But to execute that order we need one of these 5000 miraculously fed people. Or someone fed with a " loaf of fresh, warm, raisin bread, made ex materia in an instant" .
That is not falsifying miracles - as you erroneously suggest. But somehow you seem to suggest that these people can comment on your dishonesty.

Kylie said:

Do you think dishonesty is a good thing?

Click to expand...

Kylie, I notice you keep getting into it with AV. But remember what Einstein said...?

But since I like crazy, I'm going into the rabbit hole............wish me luck!

AV1611VET said:

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation here.

I define Embedded Age Creation as: maturity without history.

Click to expand...

ok. Here are my questions: Why should I assume that the world has embedded age? And what makes the reason you'd give for that assumption a good one in your estimation?

AV1611VET said:

Would you know it if I was honest?

Click to expand...

Rereading what was written, I have to correct myself. Kylie's question was "Do you think dishonesty is a good thing?"
To which you answered: "
Ask the 5000 who were fed with a sack lunch.

Or anyone who gets a loaf of fresh, warm, raisin bread, made ex materia in an instant."
Do you think these people can comment on dishonesty being an good thing?

AV1611VET said:

So you won't assume the world has grown to be that old.

Put another way, so you won't believe in deep time.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, brother AV, but these look like questions rather than statements. Don't answer a question about my cognitive processess when I was asking you about yours.

But if you want to pose these as questions the answer is: No, I don't assume much of anything. I will respond, however, to what my little mind thinks makes sense as I traverse and bring together various fragments and strands of human knowledge into a jaunty, however fragmented, collection.

You're just offering a particular kind of jar for those fragments and strands.

AV1611VET said:

Have you ever seen anyone argue that God was being a tyrant by putting two innocent children in a garden next to a tree that they shouldn't eat from and telling them not to?

Click to expand...

Yes. Yes I have. But being that I have certain fragments of human insight and maybe knowledge at my disposal, however imperfect and incomplete they may be, I was still able to discern (I think) that the argument was a bit unresolvable and unconfirmed.

AV1611VET said:

First of all Adam & Eve weren't children; they were husband and wife.

Second of all, they had maturity.

So the "innocent kids routine" can take a hike.

Click to expand...

Wow! That's something. I'm not sure what it means, though. So far, I see you making statements, but just saying that these things are so doesn't really make them so. Unless you're Captain Picard, of course! (Or is it Number One? I never could quite get that straight.)

AV1611VET said:

Okay ... here's a statement then:

Embedded age creation is the best explanation that melds short time with oldness.

Click to expand...

The only thing embedded here is some unsaid assumptions that haven't been born out, AV. But I can't stop you from thinking this way.

AV1611VET said:

It is the best explanation for how something can be so old it falls apart with age, yet came into existence a second ago.

It is the best explanation for how a man can appear suddenly, and be accountable for his actions.

This isn't rocket science.

Click to expand...

Yeah, what you're posing to us isn't rocket science. It isn't any kind of science. It's thinking. It's AD HOC thinking and it requires that a person at least have a Bible in hand in order to even begin to contemplate it.

Not all of us have a bible in hand nor do we assume we have to have one in order to know something accurate about the world. Apparently, you do. But hey! It's a free world. I'd say "knock yourself out with that," but it looks like you already have.

AV1611VET said:

Ya ... I think you do know what it means.

Or maybe I'm giving you too much credit for understanding?

Click to expand...

Or, here's another thought: you didn't really closely read what I said and you missed the part where I was at least partially agreeing with you about the misevaluation of ethics made by some secularists.


Maybe, try giving me the benefit that you want in return, AV. Does your church believe in that principle? If not, then your pastor and I need to have a few words.

AV1611VET said:

Okay ... here's a statement then:

Click to expand...

OK, I'll play one of your games today...

AV1611VET said:

Embedded age creation is the best explanation that melds short time with oldness.

Click to expand...

That may be, but as I would argue, there is no reason to do that. (I'll defer discussion of "oldness" to the end.)

AV1611VET said:

It is the best explanation for how something can be so old it falls apart with age, yet came into existence a second ago.

Click to expand...

What exactly is falling apart with age? I could (but won't bother for the distraction) make long lists of things that are much older than your 6000 years (in your view embedded with that age) and not falling apart and many things that are falling apart that are much younger than 6000 years. While decay takes time not all things decay at the same rate, or at all (like protons).

AV1611VET said:

It is the best explanation for how a man can appear suddenly, and be accountable for his actions.

Click to expand...

Anthropology shows that the appearance of humans isn't "sudden", but perhaps you don't care about that.

As far as "accountability" that would seem to be the theologically important thing. The theology is of no concern of mine, but having experienced it, I know there are ways to get that accountability within in the stories structure without distorting the historical and scientific record. I'm just not interested in the naked woman eating fruit. (Strike that, maybe I am...)


What we need is a serious discussion on the nature of "dating" (no not that kind, put that fruit down).

For historical documents we can take the dates quoted in them at face value (sometimes with complicated efforts to link counters that aren't identical but do overlap), but for objects (the things that we will claim are more than 6000 years old) they aren't "date stamped". (To use one of your phrases).

Instead we use processes that take time and the evidence they leave behind to demonstrate that time passed and of a certain amount.

For example, when we see the naked young man in the garden, we might assume that he took about 20 years to grow that size and appearance from a single cell based on our experience. Now you might say that this creator wanted a fully formed man capable of reason so he was created fully mature. And, that's fine, the garden story wouldn't work that well if the main character was too immature to talk or reasons.

We can look at the trees in the garden and say that not having grown from seedlings, they would not need annual growth rings in their trunks and if we found 50 rings we might take this as evidence that it had taken 50 years for the tree to grow. If it was freshly created there would be no need for it to have rings. Now it could be that the alternating pattern of denser and softer wood tissues make an ideal structure for the trunk with both strength and water transport capability. So you might say
it was better to create it that way for strength and utility. Fine.

But the garden and it's occupants aren't available for our examination. So let's examine something else. Something much older than 6000 years.

Consider a mineral that chemically incorporates potassium (K). When we examine the detailed isotopic chemistry we find that it contains K-39 and a smaller amount of the isotope K-40. Among the other things in the mineral is some argon, specifically, Ar-40. No other noble gasses (like neon) are found in the mineral. We find that there is the same amount of Ar-40 as Kr-40. (I have constructed this ratio for later simplicity.)

Because we can conduct experiments on other samples of this mineral, we know what conditions are required to from it (temperature, density, etc.) and we know that the noble gasses do not integrate into the mineral. So it should have formed with no Ar-40, but if there was some argon in the mineral it would remain trapped.

Also, from nuclear physics experiments, we know that K-40 decays to Ar-40. This gives us a possible cause -- some of the K-40 in the original mineral decayed to Ar-40 and it is still trapped. The chemistry and nuclear physics requires that the original amount of K-40 was the sum of the current amounts of K-40 plus the current Ar-40. Since these are equal, this tells us that half of the original K-40 decayed since the mineral formed. So the age of the mineral (time since formation) is the half-life of K-40 (1.25 billion years).

The formation of Ar-40 by nuclear decays within the mineral are a process that takes time. There is no "functional" reason for the mineral to have a little Ar-40 mixed in like we might excuse for Adam and the garden trees appearance of decades of growth.

There are many such markers of the passage of time that we can see today. For most of them we can't put forth a plausible structural reason for it to be so. This leaves us with only two logical conclusions:

1. The mineral *IS* 1.25 billion years old and formed without krypton, but some formed from the decay of K-40.
2. The creator of the mineral put equal amounts of K-40 and Ar-40 into the mineral so some hapless isotopic geochemist would make the measurement and be *TRICKED* into thinking the rock was 1.25 billion years old.

This is why you won't get much backing from believers trying to accept the measurements of age and the literal chronology implied by endless genealogies. It makes the creator look like the biggest liar of them all.

AV1611VET said:

This isn't rocket science.

Click to expand...

Correct. It is geology, archeology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and so many more.

AV1611VET said:

So far, I see academia wanting:

1. the Creation Week time-stamped
2. maturity without history expressed in a verse

Am I right so far?

That is correct.

There isn't a bit of science in Genesis 1.

The universe came into existence via a series of miracles that raised the amount of mass/energy from zero to its current level.

That's why creationism doesn't belong in science class.

Science can take a hike.

It's sad that, when someone quotes Scripture, he's "preaching" and should learn to "think outside the box."

Then, when someone comes along with something that isn't time stamped or expressed in writing, they're making it up.

Catch 22, isn't it?

Oh, dear.

Paul warns about looking at raw creation only, sans Jesus Christ.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Note too about his warning about your junk philosophers that you hold in such high esteem.

You're a prime example of the truth of his warning.

In fact, he uses a very strong warning: "BEWARE".

More like I fell on the Stone; but it beats the Stone falling on me.

Matthew 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sha, sha, sha......SHAK'N!!!!!!!

(And I tried to say this with the best embedded Jim Carrey impersonation I could muster.....which wasn't much, I know!)