Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[River Jordan]

And let me guess, in Genesis 2, He took all their ribs and made womankind?

If you take that as a literal scientific report, then you must believe Eve was a clone of Adam.

To repeat, not every Christian reads Genesis that way. Shoot, most Jews don't read it that way either.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, absolutely not! The truth of scripture is not one bit dependent on the earth being created 6,000 years ago (a number that doesn't appear in the Bible at all).

Nu 1:21 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Reuben, were forty and six thousand and five hundred.
Nu 2:9 All that were numbered in the camp of Judah were an hundred thousand and fourscore thousand and six thousand and four hundred, throughout their armies. These shall first set forth.
Nu 2:11 And his host, and those that were numbered thereof, were forty and six thousand and five hundred.
Nu 3:34 And those that were numbered of them, according to the number of all the males, from a month old and upward, were six thousand and two hundred.
Nu 31:38 And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and twelve.
Nu 31:44 And thirty and six thousand beeves,
Jg 20:15 And the children of Benjamin were numbered at that time out of the cities twenty and six thousand men that drew sword, beside the inhabitants of Gibeah, which were numbered seven hundred chosen men.
1Sa 13:5 And the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, thirty thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the sea shore in multitude: and they came up, and pitched in Michmash, eastward from Bethaven.
2Ki 5:5 And the king of Syria said, Go to, go, and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel. And he departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment.
1Ch 7:40 All these were the children of Asher, heads of their father's house, choice and mighty men of valour, chief of the princes. And the number throughout the genealogy of them that were apt to the war and to battle was twenty and six thousand men.
1Ch 12:24 The children of Judah that bare shield and spear were six thousand and eight hundred, ready armed to the war.
1Ch 23:4 Of which, twenty and four thousand were to set forward the work of the house of the LORD; and six thousand were officers and judges:
Ezr 2:67 Their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty.
Ne 7:69 Their camels, four hundred thirty and five: six thousand seven hundred and twenty asses.
Job 42:12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you take that as a literal scientific report, then you must believe Eve was a clone of Adam.

I don't take that as a literal scientific report though.

It was a miracle of God, not a process of nature.

To repeat, not every Christian reads Genesis that way.

And not every Christian reads Genesis your way either.

And for the record, would it really matter if they did?

I mean, virtually every single Christian who ever lived, alive today, and will be here tomorrow, believes IN THE BEGINNING GOD.

Yet, despite 100% agreement, it doesn't mean a thing to atheists and unbelievers.

So as far as I'm concerned, scientific consilience and consensus can take a hike.

 

[River Jordan]

I don't take that as a literal scientific report though.

It was a miracle of God, not a process of nature.

Ok.

And not every Christian reads Genesis your way either.

Correct.

And for the record, would it really matter if they did?

In the grand scheme of things, no.

I mean, virtually every single Christian who ever lived, alive today, and will be here tomorrow, believes IN THE BEGINNING GOD.

Yet, despite 100% agreement, it doesn't mean a thing to atheists and unbelievers.

So as far as I'm concerned, scientific consilience and consensus can take a hike.

Ok.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Show me where I assert that.

Do you know the difference between "apparent age" and "embedded age"?

Okay, "embedded age" if that is your specifically chosen nomenclature................ The point is, the Bible doesn't teach embedded age, so stop shaming those of us who affirm the Theory of Evolution along with our valuing of prophetic polemic (as found in the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis).

If you don't stop shaming the rest of us for having a difference of viewpoint, then I'll begin to put the rational pressure of accounting for the justification of your viewpoint upon you as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which brings more shame?

I "shaming" those who don't agree with me?

Or those who don't agree with me "shaming" me by saying I came from Magilla Gorilla?

I'm not shaming you. But I don't expect to be roundly "corrected" for my view of what it is I think the purpose of the book of Genesis is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Affirmative.

YEC.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How is It a lie, when It doesn't say how old God created it?

I didn't say it was, but many YECs do treat the idea of the Bible being incorrect in a literal sense as it being a lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

YEC.

Can you support that with Wikipedia and/or the dictionary?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can you support that with Wikipedia and/or the dictionary?

You'll still disagree but I'll humour you:
Young Earth Creationism - Wikipedia:
Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism which holds as a central tenet that the Earth and its lifeforms were created by supernatural acts of the Abrahamic God between about 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.

Bolding is mine.

You are a YEC, AV. You just have more bells and whistles self-attached to it, but it's definitely YECism.

 

[Kylie]

wow OK so list the things science is all about and studies OTHER than the natural!?

Why are you ignoring me?

I said science is all about and studies THAT WHICH CAN BE TESTED.

I have told you many times, and you keep saying that science only deals with the natural. You are wrong, you know you are wrong because I have told you many times you are wrong and yet you keep saying it.

Like I said, you have no desire for actual discussion.

That is nonsensical. What else can be tested by science that is NOT natural?

Not my fault if your ideas aren't testable.

As soon as you offer support for the claim that science is not limited to the natural, we can look at that. Until we see evidence for that claim it remains your belief and obviously you are trying to push it.

You have no desire for discussion and if I present such support you are likely to ignore it yet again, so I don't see why I should waste my time.

 

[Kylie]

I noted this with Professor Dave Explains (who was very rude, and I pray for him to seek peace with himself and with those around him, and to calm his tongue ) during his debate with Dr. James Tour; I do not understand why a secularist like Dave cannot be kind, respectful, and not demeaning or 'holier than thou' in lieu of contrary opinion.

Can you provide a link to this discussion?

I think a lot more people on CF would be open to secular science if secularists like Dave did not frame creationism as 'illogical,' rather just as a different worldview. In vein of Professor Dave Explains having nothing good to say about Dr. James Tour, I ask you Kylie: what is a good thing you can say about AV, or truthpls, or other creationists who happen to disagree with your proposition?

I don't see why this is required. I'm not talking about AV, or Truthpls, I'm talking about the points they raise.

I say this about secularists is that they are wonderful, passionate but misguided people who will help you in a time of need, I cherish them with all my heart as I do all others, they are the most intelligent, logical, and memorable people and I have great respect for that. I have great respect for you too Kylie, as you are all of the previously quoted compliments and more, and even more than that to Our Lord! God bless!

I could just as easily say that you are misguided. You need to learn that just because someone holds a position different to yours, they are not misguided. To just assume that they are wrong and you are right is, I think, an arrogant position. We must all be open to the idea that our position is wrong. I know that I'm willing to look at evidence that I am wrong, are you?

 

[truthpls]

Why are you ignoring me?

I said science is all about and studies THAT WHICH CAN BE TESTED.

Can be tested - BY the natural. That means it cannot study creation or the supernatural.

I have told you many times, and you keep saying that science only deals with the natural. You are wrong, you know you are wrong because I have told you many times you are wrong and yet you keep saying it.

I am right. You are wrong. Science is all about the physical world, the natural. Nothing else.

Like I said, you have no desire for actual discussion.

You say nothing, interspersed with insults

Not my fault if your ideas aren't testable.

We can test whether science deals with the natural or not. Easy. Just show us anything that is not natural that science tests??

You have no desire for discussion and if I present such support you are likely to ignore it yet again, so I don't see why I should waste my time.

It is our time that you waste when all you do is insult and say nothing almost. When you do say something like 'you are wrong by saying science only studies the natural' it is ridiculously false.

 

[dlamberth]

So if Adam had been created as a foetus, trees as seeds, and rocks as the substances geologists say rocks are formed from, that would be OK? I repeat, how is it deceptive for God to create Adam as a fully adult man, trees sufficiently mature to have seeds already in them, and rocks as rocks? We certainly don't get the idea from the bible that (for example) God created Adam as a fully mature man, but failed to reveal that fact, thus tricking people into thinking he was 20 or 30 years old. There was no deception or trickery involved in the elements of creation such as Adam, trees and rocks having an apparent age.

It's not about Adam. This is about what the Earth is showing us about itself TODAY. To make claim that the Earth is young yet God made it appear old IS deception. That deception would have affected and led astray the whole world of geoscience. Examples of which are geologist, paleontologist, seismologist, meteorologist, volcanologist, hydrologist, oceanographer, and more...all deceived by God.

 

[Aaron112]

What sinful men tell us "the Earth is showing us about itself TODAY" is total sin apparently wrong.

 

[Kylie]

Can be tested - BY the natural. That means it cannot study creation or the supernatural.

Stop applying your own ignorance to science.

I am right. You are wrong. Science is all about the physical world, the natural. Nothing else.

There's no getting through to you is there? You're determined to believe what you believe, and no amount of discussion is going to change that.

You say nothing, interspersed with insults

Just observation.

We can test whether science deals with the natural or not. Easy. Just show us anything that is not natural that science tests??

Science is a process. It is not limited to the natural. It can be applied to ANYTHING that can be testable.

Why, there are testable claims in the Bible! How about we use the scientific method to test those claims?

 

[Kylie]

Just a snippet:

Well, since I don't know everything that Dr Tour has said regarding Dave Farina,. I can't comment on whether Dr Tour's claims are lies or not.

Can you show that they are not lies?

In any case, I've seen Dave's recap of it, and James Tour spent a lot of time screaming and ranting...

Yes, but you have to understand that harsh, condemning, or demeaning language can imply a demeaning tone to that individual as well. It was not a criticism but rather just a loving comment .

Well, I don't set out to be rude, but sometimes there just isn't a polite way to say, "You are completely wrong and it is painfully obvious to everyone who has even a basic knowledge about this particular subject that you are too ignorant of this topic to have a reasonable discussion regarding it."

It gets even harder when people have to deal with the same PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) again and again.

Well, you have to remember I'm the youngest one in this thread, as I am 18, so I have not had much experience in the world nor the wisdom that many of you have, rather I work off my study and experience with God and Mary; I am always skeptical of my positions, and always look to converse with people of the opposite opinion (but never in bad will, as that goes against my pacifistic spirit), but I am young and perhaps do not have the wisdom

Working off your study and experience with God and Mary isn't going to be of any help when it comes to science.

Absolutely! And you could be right, you could be wrong, we don't know until the end!

But for me to just say, "You're just misguided," comes across as rude.

And yet this is exactly what you said about secular people. So it seems to me that you have absolutely no justification for claiming that I and other secular people are "misguided." All you have is the fact that you hold a particular belief that secular people do not. And because of that, you just conclude they must be wrong and misguided.

Misguided was referring to the personal belief, not the intellectual one.

Are you suggesting that your religious beliefs have no intellectual basis?

Remember, we are Christians, and scripture tells us that the word of God is written on our hearts, so many of us (literally and exegetically) take our faith to heart. Though I try to look at things that I know and find interest in (all within Christianity) with a tone that is rather intellectual and emotionally indifferent...

I find this hard to believe. Are you really indifferent to Christianity? If so, then why are you a Christian?

And if you are not indifferent to Christianity, then isn't it possible that your beliefs are biasing your views? How then can you claim indifference?

...but when it comes to Christianity as a whole, it is very difficult to communicate one-on-one with a Christian by introducing yourself as the "Defeater of Illogic", as our faith is extremely important to us, if not most important, and thus to try to shake that is like trying to chisel the foundation of a castle with a toothpick.

Only if you think that Christianity is illogical. Do you think that?

It would be better to present yourself in peace as our Lord did, and if they still reject you, then...I would say pray for them but...wish them luck, I guess?

And what exactly does this mean? Does it mean to present myself to believers and just sit there without disagreeing as they tell me their position?

Why can't it be the believers who go and present themselves in peace to the scientists?

I agree, and I apologize if you took it that way, I was rather speaking on your style of conversation as being relatively misguided in relation to your audience, the Christians.

So in what way exactly am I misguided? What have I said that indicates to you that I am misguided?

It was just a request to sprinkle a little peace and conciliarity. Always try to make peace wherever you go, much love!

It would also take this thread off topic.

 

[truthpls]

Stop applying your own ignorance to science.

Stop pretending that science uses more than the natural

Science is a process. It is not limited to the natural. It can be applied to ANYTHING that can be testable.

Great so test God. We wait for your results using natural science. By the way, it is a process involving only the natural.

Why, there are testable claims in the Bible! How about we use the scientific method to test those claims?

Name a testable claim (using science) from the bible then?

 

[Kylie]

Stop pretending that science uses more than the natural

Great so test God. We wait for your results using natural science. By the way, it is a process involving only the natural.

Once again you cling to this claim despite being told that it is untrue. You show once more that you have no interest in rational discussion.

Name a testable claim (using science) from the bible then?

In Matthew 17:20: "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Jesus himself said that if you have even the smallest amount of faith, then you can pray for a mountain to move from one place to another place, AND IT WILL HAPPEN.

This claim can very easily be tested. I assume you have at least some amount of faith in Jesus? So please pray for Mt Everest to be transported to the middle of the Australian outback. If the Bible's claim is true, then Mt Everest will move, and I will immediately become a Christian. If it does not move, then it has failed the test.

Oh, and I should point out that since there is absolutely no natural mechanism by which a mountain can move like this in response to prayer, there MUST BE some supernatural mechanism. So, this is testing a SUPERNATURAL CLAIM.

So you can drop this "science doesn't consider the supernatural" idea. This is a case where a specific supernatural claim is being tested by science, and it proves you wrong.

 

[truthpls]

In Matthew 17:20: "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Jesus himself said that if you have even the smallest amount of faith, then you can pray for a mountain to move from one place to another place, AND IT WILL HAPPEN.

This claim can very easily be tested.

Great so let's see the test? Who was that for and when? Did you think it was for anyone? No. It said 'ye' Believers. Then there is the when, How about in the world to come? Adam had that power you know. Over nature. Jesus also demonstrated it. So, one day believers will do that sort of thing. Now, could this also apply to believers today? Sure, IF they had the faith as Jesus said. So you need a believer with the faith to test anything. I also think this is mostly future because He is growing us up in faith.

Offering that promise as something science can test is foolishness. Even if I had faith today, and had a mountain in California slide into the ocean, do you think science could tell why it really moved?? Ha. You might as well ask an ant

I assume you have at least some amount of faith in Jesus? So please pray for Mt Everest to be transported to the middle of the Australian outback. If the Bible's claim is true, then Mt Everest will move, and I will immediately become a Christian. If it does not move, then it has failed the test.

For you to assume anyone had the same faith level as Jesus tells us you are not debating honestly here

Oh, and I should point out that since there is absolutely no natural mechanism by which a mountain can move like this in response to prayer, there MUST BE some supernatural mechanism. So, this is testing a SUPERNATURAL CLAIM.

Correct, and the supernatural reasons the mountain would move would not be seen or known by science. They would do as they usually do, piddle around in natural only puddles for reasons. Never able to come to a knowledge of truth

So you can drop this "science doesn't consider the supernatural" idea. This is a case where a specific supernatural claim is being tested by science, and it proves you wrong.

Science not only does not consider the supernatural, it considers the natural the only thing it works with and admits it is all it can test or observe.