Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[truthpls]

Then please provide the evidence that the Bible was written by God.

Why? How does than relate to things looking old at creation? Please provide evidence there is no God or that there is? The thing is, that science proceeds as if there is not. Then builds conclusions accordingly. God is not in any of their thoughts.

And yet the Bible disagrees not only with reality, but with itself.

Example of the bible not agreeing with itself? I do think we would find any attempted examples would be a lack of comprehension. But science disagrees among itself also, so that we can establish.

You seem to be having trouble understanding what I am trying to tell you.

You claim there is a God.

You provide absolutely no evidence to support your claim.

Irrelevant. God is not evidenced by or with science and your concept of evidence is.

In short, you claim that God exists, I said, "Prove it," and you've given me nothing but more of the same claims.

The proof lies outside the pudding of science. The example here was the rock from day two of creation and how the natural only folks would view the ratios in it. In no way did I suggest the ratios in such an old rock were supposed to tell us how it was created or when. That would be you.

Yes I can dispute it.

You cannot dispute Jesus did miracles with intelligent of fact based arguments. Just doubt based on nothing.

The support is that IT WORKS.

So we inspect a rock from day two of creation after time travelling to the scene. We find it has isotope ratios inside the rock. The fact that processes that 'work' existed in that rock we inspected does not mean they worked to tell us actual time or how the rock came to exist.

I can use a scientific theory to make a prediction about the future, and that prediction turns out to be right. That only happens when it is an accurate theory.

We will find out if science of the bible is right soon. The events to happen in the end times defy science predictions! We will see who was right.

Actually, assuming that there is no God is not required in order to use the scientific method.

I disagree, because if we assumed there was, we would not be limiting ourselves to something God is not (the nature, physical). They are not including Him in their knowledge at all. In fact the method and philosophy they use excludes creation and God entirely.

Again, you are still starting from the assumption that you are right.

I am. Science starts from an assumption that the natural world can tell us about creation and deep time. They are wrong if there is a God. Since you cannot say there is or is not a God, you just don't know.

If you want me to work from that position, you will have to provide evidence to support your claim.

That is what you believe, but you have given me no reason to believe it.

Again, this is only because you are starting from the assumption that your interpretation of the Bible is right.

I do not start from that assumption, so you're going to need to provide evidence before I accept that position.

There are lots of religions that have lots of different accounts of how the world was created. You haven't given me anything to make me think the Christian account is more likely than any of the others.

Yes and science has an account based on nothing but the natural. That would be different from other beliefs of course. Certainly different from what the creator did and said.

Well, you are Human, and I believe you are wrong, so there's that...

I can read fairly well, so there's that. He wrote it for us to read, so there's that.

No, you accept the word of people who claim to be speaking for God. It's not the word of God. People have just told you that it is the word of God.

You accept the word of people doubting God used people to speak!

 

[BCP1928]

The earth's study is a secondary issue, proclaiming the gospel to the unsaved world is of much higher concern

Why don't you do it, then?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why don't you do it, then?

In a different sub-forum, preferably.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I don't know.

That is the only important question and you do not have an answer.

 

[Truth7t7]

You didn't answer the question, so I'll ask again: Why is it a secondary issue when A) God has entrusted us with the stewardship of the Earth, and B) We live here?

Ask all ya want you've been answered with my opinion loud and clear in post #1070 above

 

[AV1611VET]

That is the only important question and you do not have an answer.

From Google AI:

What is aged cheese? Aged cheese is cheese that is left to ripen for several weeks to several years to develop more flavor and, in the case of many aged cheeses, a firmer and more crystalline texture.

Age is an important ingredient in a lot of things in this universe.

Without age, some things just wouldn't work right.

 

[Kylie]

What kind of evidence would satisfy the scientific method?

Something that clearly and unambiguously describes something that the people at the time could not possibly have known. That would go a long way towards it.

Show me what physical evidence would convince you that the God of the Bible wrote the Bible.

Moving Mount Everest to the middle of the Australian outback. You know, like the Bible says in Matthew 17:20.

If He suddenly appeared in front of you and sat down and wrote tomorrow's Sydney Morning Herald in advance, how would that satisfy science's myopic method that that Person sitting in front of you is JEHOVAH God, and not some time traveler?

A time travelling human is still a human. Medical science from the year 3000 is still science and will operate on scientific principles which could be explained.

If He waved His hand and every person walked out of the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital in perfect health, including restored organs that had been previously removed or transplanted, how would that satisfy the scientific method that that Person sitting in front of you is JEHOVAH God, and not Hygeia?

Because such events contradict the known laws of science.

When people say, "There's no evidence for this or that in the Bible," I say tell your scientific method to take a hike; and then you'll be one step closer to understanding divine Truth.

So to understand divine truth we must abandon the concept of verifying claims?

 

[Kylie]

Why? How does than relate to things looking old at creation? Please provide evidence there is no God or that there is? The thing is, that science proceeds as if there is not. Then builds conclusions accordingly. God is not in any of their thoughts.

Trying to get out of answering the question, and shifting the burden of proof.

You claimed that God exists, I asked you to prove it, and now you are trying to get around it by pretending that I have to prove that God doesn't exist.

No.

You have to back up your own claim.

Example of the bible not agreeing with itself? I do think we would find any attempted examples would be a lack of comprehension. But science disagrees among itself also, so that we can establish.

What were the last words spoken by Jesus on the cross?

1. Were they, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" as claimed in Matthew 27:46-50?
2. Were they, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," as claimed in Luke 23:46?
3. Were they, "It is finished," as claimed in John 19:30

Which is it, option 1, option 2, or option 3?

That's just one, I've got plenty more if you want.

Irrelevant. God is not evidenced by or with science and your concept of evidence is.

So you make a claim and can't do a single thing to show your claim is true.

And you expect me to believe your attempts to handwave away your inability to provide support?

The proof lies outside the pudding of science. The example here was the rock from day two of creation and how the natural only folks would view the ratios in it. In no way did I suggest the ratios in such an old rock were supposed to tell us how it was created or when. That would be you.

You seem to have trouble understanding my point.

My point is that the ratios are EXACTLY what we would expect if the earth was old.

If the earth was young and the ratios came about through some other method, why would they JUST SO HAPPEN to PRECISELY MATCH the exact ratios we'd expect in an old earth?

You can't answer that. And from what you've said, I am beginning to think you don't even understand why this is a crippling blow against your argument.

You cannot dispute Jesus did miracles with intelligent of fact based arguments. Just doubt based on nothing.

Yes I can.

There's no evidence that those alleged miracles ever took place.

So we inspect a rock from day two of creation after time travelling to the scene. We find it has isotope ratios inside the rock. The fact that processes that 'work' existed in that rock we inspected does not mean they worked to tell us actual time or how the rock came to exist.

Then why would they work in the first place?

You literally do not have the understanding of what I am talking about.

We will find out if science of the bible is right soon. The events to happen in the end times defy science predictions! We will see who was right.

Yeah, yeah, people have been saying that for the last 2000 years.

It ain't gonna happen.

I disagree, because if we assumed there was, we would not be limiting ourselves to something God is not (the nature, physical). They are not including Him in their knowledge at all. In fact the method and philosophy they use excludes creation and God entirely.

You seem to not grasp the concept that we know that physical things exist.

I am. Science starts from an assumption that the natural world can tell us about creation and deep time. They are wrong if there is a God. Since you cannot say there is or is not a God, you just don't know.

And can you show me any part of the natural world that disproves this?

No you can't. All you can do is hold up your Bible and shout, "But science disagrees with my interpretation of this book!"

Yes and science has an account based on nothing but the natural. That would be different from other beliefs of course. Certainly different from what the creator did and said.

Again, you miss the point that we know for a fact that natural things are real.

I can read fairly well, so there's that. He wrote it for us to read, so there's that.

No, ordinary people wrote it and then later other people showed it to you and claimed that God wrote it.

You accept the word of people doubting God used people to speak!

I accept the EVIDENCE.

Show me evidence for your position and I will accept it.

But you can't. All you have done is repeatedly say what your beliefs are. Holding beliefs is not evidence.

 

[Kylie]

From Google AI:

What is aged cheese? Aged cheese is cheese that is left to ripen for several weeks to several years to develop more flavor and, in the case of many aged cheeses, a firmer and more crystalline texture.

Age is an important ingredient in a lot of things in this universe.

Without age, some things just wouldn't work right.

And you'll note that in this case, the cheese is required to actually exist for that length of time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Something that clearly and unambiguously describes something that the people at the time could not possibly have known. That would go a long way towards it.

But not satisfy it ... right?

I asked what would satisfy it.

"Going a long way towards it" is just code for years and years of arguments back and forth, with no resolution.

Moving Mount Everest to the middle of the Australian outback. You know, like the Bible says in Matthew 17:20.

I see.

So moving Mount Everest to the middle of the Australian outback would convince science that JEHOVAH God wrote the Bible?

Hmmm ...

A time travelling human is still a human.

Did you understand my question?

I said "If He suddenly appeared in front of you."

Humans don't just suddenly appear in front of people.

(Unless they're driving. )

Medical science from the year 3000 is still science and will operate on scientific principles which could be explained.

Because such events contradict the known laws of science.

And that would convince science that JEHOVAH God wrote the Bible?

So to understand divine truth we must abandon the concept of verifying claims?

Verify all you want.

But when you reach a point that your methods are myopic, you need to admit it.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you'll note that in this case, the cheese is required to actually exist for that length of time.

Missed the point, didn't you?

 

[Vambram]

@AV1611VET welcome back to these forums. I am very pleased that you have returned and that I can read more of your posts again.

 

[truthpls]

Trying to get out of answering the question, and shifting the burden of proof.

It is plain that creation believers do believe in God and that the naturalworlddunnit folks do not have God in their thinking. You cannot prove there is no God and should not ask others to prove there is. If they did offer the world of historical proofs and fulfilled prophesies and witnesses etc, you would reject it anyhow. Why waste time?

You claimed that God exists, I asked you to prove it, and now you are trying to get around it by pretending that I have to prove that God doesn't exist.

As above, science uses only the natural world to tell us where we came from and when. They cannot prove there is only a natural world. This is not about proof it is about what models of the way man and the universe came to exist are based on. In case you have the strange idea that you can exclude God and force us to consider only the natural, no. Sorry. We all believe what we like. The concept of embedded age is that if things were created by God, then the scientific method would be looking at ratios of isotopes that suddenly came to exist, and then trying to assign old ages etc to them.

No.

You have to back up your own claim.

Not if we want to use science as part of the discussion here. That does and cannot deal with God. Rather than admit that a newly created rock could never be interpreted properly by science, you try to obfuscate

What were the last words spoken by Jesus on the cross?

1. Were they, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" as claimed in Matthew 27:46-50?
2. Were they, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," as claimed in Luke 23:46?
3. Were they, "It is finished," as claimed in John 19:30

Yes

Which is it, option 1, option 2, or option 3?

You thought Jesus could only say one sentence?

That's just one, I've got plenty more if you want.

You failed so don't embarrass yourself further. Maybe we should look at the topic

So you make a claim and can't do a single thing to show your claim is true.

It is more than a claim that if God created everything, we could never use science on day 2 to date the rock or tell how it came to be. You seem to want to force a default of using only the physical to determine how we were created. You could never show that a model based on only the natural spoke truth about creation.

My point is that the ratios are EXACTLY what we would expect if the earth was old.

And if you said that 2 days after creation about more or less the same rock and ratios in it, you know how foolish that would be? The rock would be 2 days old and you would date it over 4 billions years old! (using the rock I cited for an example earlier in the thread)

If the earth was young and the ratios came about through some other method, why would they JUST SO HAPPEN to PRECISELY MATCH the exact ratios we'd expect in an old earth?

The same reason you would be totally wrong about dates you derive from a rock on creation day 2.

Yes I can.

There's no evidence that those alleged miracles ever took place.

None you will accept. So?

Yeah, yeah, people have been saying that for the last 2000 years.

It ain't gonna happen.

Thanks for the prophesy

You seem to not grasp the concept that we know that physical things exist.

Of course we do. We also know more than that exist. To look at a rock using only the natural processes in it is to make a statement of faith that only that natural was involved. Prove it.

And can you show me any part of the natural world that disproves this?

Why would anyone want to argue that physical things do not exist? God created physical things, like Adam and Eve.

Again, you miss the point that we know for a fact that natural things are real.

We do not, however know that only natural things exist.

No, ordinary people wrote it and then later other people showed it to you and claimed that God wrote it.

Ordinary people told you God did not write it. Extraordinary people told us He did.

I accept the EVIDENCE.

Then show evidence there is and was nothing but the natural? After all that is what you want to use to tell us about creation!

Show me evidence for your position and I will accept it.

But you can't. All you have done is repeatedly say what your beliefs are. Holding beliefs is not evidence.

You holding a belief that there is only the natural is not evidence there is nothing else. Rather than going back and forth about beliefs, why not tell us what a scientist would say about a rock 2 days after creation week? If you can't I will for you. They would look at the ratios of isotopes in that rock and declare it billions of years old.

 

[truthpls]

@AV1611VET welcome back to these forums. I am very pleased that you have returned and that I can read more of your posts again.

Yes. And we hope God was with you in the heavy trials your family went through

 

[AV1611VET]

@AV1611VET welcome back to these forums. I am very pleased that you have returned and that I can read more of your posts again.

TYVM, Vambram! God bless you!

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. And we hope God was with you in the heavy trials your family went through

Thank you, truthpls!

Yes, God was with us every step of the way!

And still is!

 

[dlamberth]

It is plain that creation believers do believe in God and that the naturalworlddunnit folks do not have God in their thinking.

It seems to me that you are looking through very small window into what Lovers of God do believe. About God or the natural world, we are not all like you in our thinking.

 

[Kylie]

It is plain that creation believers do believe in God...

Yes, I know that believers in God believe in God...

and that the naturalworlddunnit folks do not have God in their thinking.

This is just false. There are plenty of people who believe in God and still believe in science. My husband is one of them.

You cannot prove there is no God and should not ask others to prove there is.

If you come and make a claim, then you better believe I'm gonna ask you to prove it.

If they did offer the world of historical proofs and fulfilled prophesies and witnesses etc, you would reject it anyhow. Why waste time?

Ah yes, the old, "I'm not going to bother because you won't believe it anyway" excuse.

If the evidence stands up to scrutiny, yes, I will accept it.

But go ahead and justify why you won't produce this evidence. Nevermind the fact that this evidence never appears to anyone. You're not the only believer to use this excuse and I'm not the only atheist to hear it.

As above, science uses only the natural world to tell us where we came from and when. They cannot prove there is only a natural world. This is not about proof it is about what models of the way man and the universe came to exist are based on.

And you can't prove there is more than the natural world.

Yet science has proven that the natural world exists.

In case you have the strange idea that you can exclude God and force us to consider only the natural, no. Sorry. We all believe what we like.

Yes, you can believe whatever you want.

But if you can't provide any actual support for your claims, don't be surprised when your claims are met with disbelief.

The concept of embedded age is that if things were created by God, then the scientific method would be looking at ratios of isotopes that suddenly came to exist, and then trying to assign old ages etc to them.

And if that were the case, then they would all be random and we'd NEVER be able to make them fit an old earth.

You need to think about this some more, because you are obviously completely missing the point I am trying to make.

Not if we want to use science as part of the discussion here. That does and cannot deal with God. Rather than admit that a newly created rock could never be interpreted properly by science, you try to obfuscate

Yes. You claim there is a God, so you need to back up that claim.

This is a simple concept. You need to learn it.

Yes

Option 1, option 2, or option 3 please.

Each of them is different, they can't all be true.

You thought Jesus could only say one sentence?

That's what the Gospels have. NONE of them shows him saying more than one of these.

You failed so don't embarrass yourself further. Maybe we should look at the topic

Yeah, let's go back to the discussion I was having with AV when you decided to insert yourself. You know, when you said radiometric dating was unreliable.

Provide evidence to support your claim that radiometric dating is unreliable.

It is more than a claim that if God created everything, we could never use science on day 2 to date the rock or tell how it came to be. You seem to want to force a default of using only the physical to determine how we were created. You could never show that a model based on only the natural spoke truth about creation.

No, you are making a claim because you read that claim in a book.

And if you said that 2 days after creation about more or less the same rock and ratios in it, you know how foolish that would be? The rock would be 2 days old and you would date it over 4 billions years old! (using the rock I cited for an example earlier in the thread)

No.

This is the point you simply do not understand.

If what you say is true, then one radiometric dating method would show the age as 4 billion years. A second method would show the age is 1 million years. A third method would show the age as 50 million years. A fourth method would show the age as 10,000 years. A fifth method would show the age as 200 million years.

Yet this NEVER HAPPENS.

The different methods ALWAYS AGREE.

You can't explain why.

The same reason you would be totally wrong about dates you derive from a rock on creation day 2.

This doesn't come close to answering my question.

None you will accept. So?

If it can withstand scrutiny, then I will accept it.

You seem to be afraid to expose your alleged evidence to scrutiny.

Thanks for the prophesy

No prophecy, just a fact.

After 2000 years of "any day now," this claim from believers is way past tired.

Of course we do. We also know more than that exist. To look at a rock using only the natural processes in it is to make a statement of faith that only that natural was involved. Prove it.

Once again, you claim that there is more than the natural world, yet you are completely unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to support your claims.

And let's not ignore the ridiculousness of you demanding that I prove my position while at the same time you've stated that you aren't required to provide proof for yours.

Why would anyone want to argue that physical things do not exist? God created physical things, like Adam and Eve.

Your lack of comprehension skills is astounding.

I was not claiming that physical things do not exist.

I was saying that there is nothing in the natural world which disproves the idea that the natural world can tell us about reality.

We do not, however know that only natural things exist.

You have been utterly incapable of proving that anything supernatural exists.

Ordinary people told you God did not write it. Extraordinary people told us He did.

And they were still people. And people can be wrong.

Then show evidence there is and was nothing but the natural? After all that is what you want to use to tell us about creation!

I am asking you for evidence, why do you keep trying to switch the burden of proof?

Honestly, you have the debate form of a child.

You holding a belief that there is only the natural is not evidence there is nothing else.

And you holding a belief that there is the supernatural is not evidence that it exists.

Rather than going back and forth about beliefs, why not tell us what a scientist would say about a rock 2 days after creation week? If you can't I will for you. They would look at the ratios of isotopes in that rock and declare it billions of years old.

There was no creation week.

The fact that you don't understand the ridiculousness of your position--asking me to assume the thing I am arguing against--shows that your are woefully lacking when it comes to the use of logic.

 

[Kylie]

But not satisfy it ... right?

I asked what would satisfy it.

"Going a long way towards it" is just code for years and years of arguments back and forth, with no resolution.

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

Honestly, AV, you've been debating this long enough to know this. Don't go back to these old PRATTs.

I see.

So moving Mount Everest to the middle of the Australian outback would convince science that JEHOVAH God wrote the Bible?

Hmmm ...

Well, it would be hard to ignore, wouldn't it?

And it fits in EXACTLY with a Biblical claim too.

Did you understand my question?

I said "If He suddenly appeared in front of you."

Humans don't just suddenly appear in front of people.

(Unless they're driving. )

Well, you said he was from the future, and that he time travelled. It's entirely possible that in the future there is some kind of teleportation technology. And he's certainly going to appear from nothing if he arrives in my time from some future time. After all, it's not like he was here all along, was he?

But none of that would prove that he is God.

Sufficiently advanced technology indistinguishable, and so on...

And that would convince science that JEHOVAH God wrote the Bible?

It would go a long way towards it.

Verify all you want.

But when you reach a point that your methods are myopic, you need to admit it.

It's ironic that you accuse others of being myopic when you are the one who looks at everything through Bible-tinted glasses...

 

[Kylie]

Missed the point, didn't you?

I would ask you what point you mean, but I get the feeling it's the same point I've refuted several times over the years.

Age requires existence.