Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[David Lamb]

Large language model. Large language models are the basis for AIs like ChatGPT or Gemini. I was just speculating that truthpls might be an AI.

Thanks for explaining.

 

[truthpls]

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.

I was looking at the entirety of the bible. Angels believe in creation. Everyone who was anyone in the bible does as well. So tell us, as a lover of god, do you think that the natural processes science can work with and observe tell us how we came to exist as well as how long ago? On the matter of that pesky rock that was here (in the example) a few days after creation, do you claim science could inspect it and tell us how old it was and where it originated or not? Be clear

 

[truthpls]

Thanks for explaining.

Ha. I don't think AI is a bible believer or Christian. I read recently that multiple AI programs have been caught lying.

 

[dlamberth]

I was looking at the entirety of the bible. Angels believe in creation. Everyone who was anyone in the bible does as well. So tell us, as a lover of god, do you think that the natural processes science can work with and observe tell us how we came to exist as well as how long ago? On the matter of that pesky rock that was here (in the example) a few days after creation, do you claim science could inspect it and tell us how old it was and where it originated or not? Be clear

The natural sciences has opened a window into how God Creates.

I'll repeat: 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]

Angels believe in creation. Everyone who was anyone in the bible does as well.

So what?

Everyone in the movie "The Incredibles" believes in the existence of actual superheroes, that doesn't mean that superheroes are real.

 

[truthpls]

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

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

Me too. Believing in science does not mean accepting that their natural only based creation stories are valid.

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

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.

The evidence in the rock example on day two of creation would say to you and your science believing husband that the rock was billions of years old and came to exist some other way than creation by God. Right? Yet that rock would only have been created the day before. Is that science working to you?

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

And you can't prove there is no more than the natural world. Here is a little secret though, God proves to those who sincerely seek and accept Jesus that there certainly is! That does not mean He proves it to science or doubters.

Yet science has proven that the natural world exists.

As if that was in some doubt?? I think we could have asked a toddler of Adam's if the world existed and they would know. No brownie points for science there.

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.

If you reject the support God gave us, then don't be surprised if your problem of unbelief is not met by God

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.

There is nothing random about how rocks were the day after creation. If they had isotope ratios, those ratios would be similar to what we see today. Why? Because how many changes in long half lived isotopes could there be in 6000 years?

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

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

He did that. If some did not receive it, that changes nothing for the billions of us to whom He revealed and proved Himself over and over. It just means that such people cannot prove anything! Neither that there is or is not a God. Therefore if they model the creation of man and universe on one or the other position, it is baseless. And they do base it on one position and that is the naturalonlydunnit

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

Option 1, option 2, or option 3 please.

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

He said all those things, and each of the writes recorded some of it.

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

Combined though we are shown! Notice God used four gospels? Did you think that was because it would all be told in one?

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.

As far as creation goes, it is useless at best. Look at that day after creation rock and see!

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

You think being written in a book makes something unreliable? What does that say for science books?

If what you say is true, then one radiometric dating method would show the age as 4 billion years.

Ans so it would on day two after creation! You get why that would be wrong?

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.

If those numbers were applied to a rock 2 days old, what does this say for your methods and numbers?

Yet this NEVER HAPPENS.

The different methods ALWAYS AGREE.

The issue with the 2 day old rock is not whether several teams of dissenting scientists agreed or not. The issue is why are they wrongly dating a 2 day old rock!

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

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

It all depends who scrutinizes what. Since the bible says the god of this world blinds the minds of unbelievers, how would we expect them to be able to scrutinize things like fulfilled prophesy?

No prophecy, just a fact.

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

Assertion based on ignorance. No one knows when Jesus will return to take believers away. Christians are told to be ready as if it were today. We were not told it was some certain day. As for the general lateness of the times, well, that is a topic for another thread.

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.

Once again, you claim that there is no 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.

No one is going to prove scientifically anything about this topic. Certainly not that there in no more than the physical and natural. Just admit the science uses that belief that this natural world is sufficient to know how we were created or came to exist. There can be no denying that science uses this premise.

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.

So? There is nothing the proves the natural world can tell us about the reality of God and creation either. You are in a lose/lose situation

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

To who? God proves that to those who come to Him. Science cannot prove or disprove or even comprehend that!

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

Not if God uses them. Do you think a pen can be wrong about what is written?

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.

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

You holding a belief that it does not exist is not evidence that it does not exist.

There was no creation week.

Proof?

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.

If you are arguing against there being more than the natural, why do we see no evidence?

 

[truthpls]

The natural sciences has opened a window into how God Creates.

Then show us this window as we look at a rock that was created 2 days ago? If you were to declare the 2 day old rock 'not created' or billions of years old how would that be a window?

I'll repeat: 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.

We should all try to be like Jesus. He was under no illusion that the natural explains creation or God! He danced all over the natural world. He proved that there was more.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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

I won't say what I think on the matter since I'd probably get banned, but I wholly do not agree with your idea.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

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.

So why fake it?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Missed the point, didn't you?

I think you are.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Age requires existence.

Now there is a basic concept that alone refutes the nonsensical idea of embedded Age.

 

[AV1611VET]

So why fake it?

?

 

[AV1611VET]

Age requires existence.

And that's what God gave Adam ... existence.

Existence in the way of maturity without history.

He came into existence as a twenty or thirty year old.

Can God create a block of aged cheese tomorrow?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And that's what God gave Adam ... existence.

Existence in the way of maturity without history.

He came into existence as a twenty or thirty year old.

Can God create a block of aged cheese tomorrow?

God can.

But why would God create a world with billions of years of false history and age? And yes, I'm still not going to call it embedded because you've not shown that it isn't false.

 

[AV1611VET]

But why would God create a world with billions of years of false history and age?

Here we go again.

False history is Omphalism.

Maturity without history is not false history.

It is no history.

And yes, I'm still not going to call it embedded because you've not shown that it isn't false.

Of course I haven't shown that it isn't false.

It never existed in the first place.

Embedded Age is maturity without history.

You seem to think I'm saying embedded age is "maturity with a false history."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here we go again.

False history is Omphalism.

Maturity without history is not false history.

It is no history.



Of course I haven't shown that it isn't false.

It never existed in the first place.

Embedded Age is maturity without history.

You seem to think I'm saying embedded age is "maturity with a false history."

No, that's not what you're saying at all. We know that's not what you're saying (had to avoid accidentally typing "what you're not saying" there).

But it's rather what you suggest is what we take issue with.

If embedded age is real, that the earth was created 6000-odd years ago not 4.5 billion years ago, then by simple logic, it's obvious that all of ancient history is false then. You cannot cram billions of years of history in 6000-odd years and make it all pan out. None of the dates and locations make sense in a 6000 year old earth. Migrations, civilizations, tectonic shifts, extinct flora and fauna. None of it would make sense in a 6000 year old earth.

Because the conclusions are either:
A) God did create the world 6000 years ago, and in doing so put in all the various bits and pieces and evidence of civilization and life existing for well beyond 6000 years than what is claimed, which would be false history and thus paint God as a deceiver,

or B) God created the world 4.5 billion years ago, which lines up with the evidence that we see from studying the Earth, and which sadly puts many literal creationists in a sore spot for the view on the Bible.

...


Oh, why did it take me writing it down to realise what the whole darn problem is?

 

[AV1611VET]

If embedded age is real, that the earth was created 6000-odd years ago and 4.5 billion years ago,

The earth was not created both 6000 and 4.5 billion years ago.

The earth was created 6000 years ago.

Just like the aged cheese that God can create tomorrow.

It doesn't exist yet, but tomorrow it will, and it will be several years old.

It won't grow old ... it will come into existence old.

Mature cheese, but without a history.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The earth was not created both 6000 and 4.5 billion years ago.

The earth was created 6000 years ago.

Just like the aged cheese that God can create tomorrow.

It doesn't exist yet, but tomorrow it will, and it will be several years old.

It won't grow old ... it will come into existence old.

Mature cheese, but without a history.

I meant to say 'not' instead of and. That as a big faux pas on my part.

 

[BCP1928]

Ha. I don't think AI is a bible believer or Christian. I read recently that multiple AI programs have been caught lying.

It happens all the time in this forum. Bible believers come here and claim that scientific naturalism denies God's authorship of our being, which is a lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

I meant to say 'not' instead of and. That as a big faux pas on my part.

Been there, done that!