Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[truthpls]

That is not the same as saying that it's 100% literal.

Literal is meaningless. True is meaningful. Jesus said not the tiniest word of prophesy could possibly fail. Prophesy started in Genesis you know! Do you think the prophesy about the woman's seed did not come true? If Jesus was not the seed of Eve, then the bible is false. Where does that leave people who do not even believe in Eve? Do you think she was really monkey spawned?

No-one is talking about it being wrong, or false or pretend except you, so kindly stop putting words in our mouths.

False. In a myriad of ways, posters here have claimed the things in the bible are wrong and that most of the old testament is basically garbage.

Let me try a different tact: is the belief of a person who doesn't accept a 100% literal reading of the Bible less than the belief of someone who does accept a 100% literal reading of the Bible, and if so, why?

How would we call it belief when someone dismisses MOST of the bible? How could we say they, for example, believe Jesus was the seed of Eve when they do not believe Eve existed? How could we say they believe Jesus created when they do not believe in creation? How could we say He came to give us life and deliver us from sin, when they do not believe sin entered the world the way the bible says?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Exactly and even if it was known, He would not allow you in there.

It is a test for science itself as to what they can and do know. They know nothing, but act upon a faithless foundation that starts with no God or creation or spirit realm etc. They are, as the bible says, ignorant and only profess themselves to be wise.
2 Peter 3:5
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Then how is this "garden of eden" at all relevant to the efficacy of radioactive dating methods?

 

[truthpls]

Then how is this "garden of eden" at all relevant to the efficacy of radioactive dating methods?

How is radioactive dating relevant to embedded age?

 

[Hans Blaster]

How is radioactive dating relevant to embedded age?

Because I replied to post #795 where you were dismissing the example in post #793 illustrating how different methods giving the same result increase confidence. Plus, you were going on about how any one know the isotopic composition of the rocks in the garden of eden when it formed so they could know how old it really was. (Exactly what this whole "embedded age" stuff is about, how to trick those evil scientists.)

 

[truthpls]

Because I replied to post #795 where you were dismissing the example in post #793 illustrating how different methods giving the same result increase confidence.

The method did not even apply to God and creation or real ages if He exists. Just another 'assuming there is no god and no creation, then judging by the physical processes we are aware of today, it would have should have taken so many fantasy/comedy years to make it's little self' Ho hum

Plus, you were going on about how any one know the isotopic composition of the rocks in the garden of eden when it formed so they could know how old it really was. (Exactly what this whole "embedded age" stuff is about, how to trick those evil scientists.)

So basically if there was a God and creation one week, some things would look old to people not clever or knowledgeable enough to realize what actually went on.
The funny dates from so called science are nothing but an elaborate what if scenario based on there being no God. True foolishness as the bible describes it. Science says in it's heart, there is no god.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The method did not even apply to God and creation or real ages if He exists. Just another 'assuming there is no god and no creation, then judging by the physical processes we are aware of today, it would have should have taken so many fantasy/comedy years to make it's little self' Ho hum

It's about measuring *how* a god made something, but measuring how old something is. (Time since formation)

So basically if there was a God and creation one week, some things would look old to people not clever or knowledgeable enough to realize what actually went on.
The funny dates from so called science are nothing but an elaborate what if scenario based on there being no God. True foolishness as the bible describes it. Science says in it's heart, there is no god.

No, they are about measuring what the materials demonstrate. If that is not the age because some creator made that material so that it would give an incorrect age that deception is on the creator.

 

[truthpls]

It's about measuring *how* a god made something, but measuring how old something is. (Time since formation)

No. We would need to know the ratios at creation etc to know what happened since.

No, they are about measuring what the materials demonstrate.

No, they are using godless interpretation that demonstrates their ignorance and bias.

If that is not the age because some creator made that material so that it would give an incorrect age that deception is on the creator.

It gives no age at all for creation or after. All dating that works is limited to today and the recent past. You cannot get a correct age by looking at ratios in a rock that already had ratios from the moment it existed-was created.

 

[Vambram]

FYI, my friends. In Genesis chapter 2, the Bible gives the location of the Garden of Eden. I doubt that the Garden of Eden still exists on the earth somewhere today because of the Great Flood in Genesis chapters 7-8. However, Genesis 2:8-14 gives the location of the Garden of Eden before the Great Flood.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No. We would need to know the ratios at creation etc to know what happened since.

False. There are radioactive dating methods that do *NOT* depend on knowing the ratios at formation. What happens after formation of the rock or mineral is just simple decay physics.

No, they are using godless interpretation that demonstrates their ignorance and bias.

It is a simple measurement. It is not related to a god or lack of a god.

It gives no age at all for creation or after. All dating that works is limited to today and the recent past. You cannot get a correct age by looking at ratios in a rock that already had ratios from the moment it existed-was created.

Again, this is false. There are many methods that work without knowing the initial ratios (and others that do). What happens after the rock or mineral form is known nuclear physics. Nothing fancy.

 

[BCP1928]

So a monkey sins? The descendants of apes sin? How did sin get here if not the way Scripture says? A fluke? Jesus died for nothing but a fluke?

Interesting, no you think you can toss 'the majority of the old testament' out! So what is left that is true? Abraham? Sodom? Enoch? Methuselah? David and Goliath?

What sins if there was no sin and death brought into the world by the fall in the garden? So Jesus is the son of God? Does that mean He created all things as John says? Does that mean He was right about the beginning? Does that mean He suffered for the monkey spawn imperfections that apparently came naturally on earth? Does this mean Adam would have died regardless of whether he ate the tree of life or not again?

Jesus founded it. He had no such opinion.

Don't kid yourself. They say there are millions of secret Christians in Iran, do you think they do not know God created the world? China secret believers? No. of course they believe the bible. I doubt if many of them know about or care less about some 'traditional' christians think, that toss the bible out the window.

They are almost all of them Traditional Christians and have no trouble at all believing that sin and death entered the world through one man without your hermenuetic.

 

[BCP1928]

And again: you clearly don't know what allegory and poetic writing is.

Why does everything in the Bible NEED to be 100% literal? Why?

For political reasons, apparently. Christian theology doesn't need it and all I ever see it being used for is as an apologetic for right=wing politics.

 

[truthpls]

False. There are radioactive dating methods that do *NOT* depend on knowing the ratios at formation. What happens after formation of the rock or mineral is just simple decay physics.

No. When the 'after' is way back near creation we do not know. Your interpretation of what happened after a rock was formed is also based on the same principles and foundation. How would you know, for example if the way a rock and isotopes in it are were not partly or wholly a result of being created? Then there is the issue of what God might have done since the rock was formed. If God's action against Sodom, for example, resulted in rocks being affected (as of course it did) and His spirit was involved and angels, why would we assume that the physical forces were the only thing that made the ratios and etc they way they are? Or, how would we know what spiritual forces God exerted upon the planet since creation that would have affected radioactivity, or processes and etc? You, once again assume that there was no creation or God that affected anything and do so for no apparent reason. How would we know if God, after the fall, or the flood, or other times did not move in ways that affected this little world and it's little processes, normal ways etc?
Bible believers should know better. When Jesus returns all sorts of changes will happen that could never be explained by current natural physical realities or science. What does science say about the sun, for example? There is no reason that is should increase suddenly in heat like bible prophesy says will happen in the end. There is no reason that science knows or claims, that the stars and sun will go out, yet humans will still be alive and doing things on earth!
God is bigger than the universe and fills it all. By Him all things consist. The only way to read the isotopes or rocks or anything else correctly is to realize God made it all, and runs it all, and changes things all the time as needed. Leaving Him out of dating is blindness and ignorance.

Again, this is false. There are many methods that work without knowing the initial ratios (and others that do). What happens after the rock or mineral form is known nuclear physics. Nothing fancy.

As above, nuclear physics is a drop in the bucket in the big picture and reality of why things are the way they are. It is not the be all end all and is totally inadequate to explain creation or time or ratios etc.

 

[truthpls]

They are almost all of them Traditional Christians and have no trouble at all believing that sin and death entered the world through one man without your hermenuetic.

So what man was that? The created man God made? Or some evolved imaginary man?

 

[truthpls]

For political reasons, apparently. Christian theology doesn't need it and all I ever see it being used for is as an apologetic for right=wing politics.

So is saying God made us male and female right wing politics?

 

[BCP1928]

So is saying God made us male and female right wing politics?

Yes, if you are using that line from the Bible to "prove" that there is no such thing as LGBT.

 

[BCP1928]

So what man was that? The created man God made? Or some evolved imaginary man?

Yes.

 

[truthpls]

FYI, my friends. In Genesis chapter 2, the Bible gives the location of the Garden of Eden. I doubt that the Garden of Eden still exists on the earth somewhere today because of the Great Flood in Genesis chapters 7-8. However, Genesis 2:8-14 gives the location of the Garden of Eden before the Great Flood.

We have to ask if rivers and continents and plates and etc all were in the same place back in the time of creation. If not then the present location of rivers such as the tigris in places may have greatly changed. We also could expect with all the subduction and upheavals that went on, that the site also could be deep underground today.

 

[truthpls]

Yes, if you are using that line from the Bible to "prove" that there is no such thing as LGBT.

The plot thickens.

 

[truthpls]

Yes.

Yes what? Which one? Are you saying Adam?

 

[BCP1928]

The plot thickens.

Why? Your motivation was obvious from the start. See, for Traditional Christians the Bible tells us that homosexual activity is a sin, along with fornication, adultery and cross dressing. But that's it--just sins Most of what gay and trans people do can be considered sinful. But to claim that they don't exist is political.