Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[truthpls]

Off topic.

The topic is embedded age as a result of creation. Nothing could be more on topic

 

[dlamberth]

The topic is embedded age as a result of creation. Nothing could be more on topic

It seems to me that the subject is of a deceptive God.

 

[truthpls]

No, not "says me", that is how radioactive dating works.

It works by basing things on a false premise. The premise that there is no God no creation. All that we see is attributed to having come to exist as is, by, well, all that we see.

I don't address supernatural speculation.

It is fact. Not speculation. Jesus rose from the dead. It is only speculation that some music is beautiful if you cannot hear. It is only speculation some art is beautiful if you cannot see. So for you, yes it may be speculation

The details are in the underlying paper, not the PR article, but even from the bit you quoted you clearly don't understand it because...

You have a detail that you think is topical? Don't be shy.

As someone with a little familiarity with nuclear physics theory, I can tell you without looking the the half-life of Mn53 (3.7 million years) most definitely comes from experiments rather than theoretical calculations.

Such as?

I'm not really interested in your claims about how your god is trying to deceive us.

Assuming He does not exist and coming up with theoretical dates accordingly is not being deceived by God.

Stellar structure and evolution work quite well to explain the observed properties of stars.

In your mind, that omits the truth of creation and His pretense, maybe. In God's mind and mine and even the beasts, we disagree.

All stars are far more massive than Earth and could not "fall on it". In fact they are all far more massive than the largest planet in our system -- Jupiter.

I know what science claims and why. Too bad they have no inkling.

If your god did indeed create all that is and the rules by which things interact (physics) as you seem to claim, then it also gave the Earth properties such that a careful application of the very best understanding of those rules would yield an age of 4.5 billion years for the Earth and 13.7 billion years for the whole of the Universe. That's not on me, that is on this creator.

False. He changes anything as desired when desired. Your business as usual philosophy that is godless does not apply.

My personal guess is that none of those things happened so I don't have any need to explain them.

Your guesses do not overrule God

 

[truthpls]

It seems to me that the subject is of a deceptive God.

I actually read the name of the thread. I suggest you start there.

 

[truthpls]

This has nothing to do with animals knowing they were created. This passage is about God's hand behind everything in Creation, if one would only look. It just seems to me like your making things up.

Job 12:7
"But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you;

Job 12:8
or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you.

Job 12:9
Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?

Job 12:10
In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.

So answer us then, of the bushes and animals and fish, which of these does not know the hand of God did it?

 

[dlamberth]

Job 12:7
"But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you;

Job 12:8
or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you.

Job 12:9
Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?

Job 12:10
In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.

So answer us then, of the bushes and animals and fish, which of these does not know the hand of God did it?

Your still making things up.
Again these passages are about being aware of God's hand in His Creation. And how God's Creation can teach wisdom and Divine experience. It's not about "animals know they were created compared to science."

 

[dlamberth]

I actually read the name of the thread. I suggest you start there.

It seems what we are actually discussing though is a God that deceives. And God, at least how I know Him, is incapable of deception. What God's own Creation shows us is straight up and honest. When Creation, as Created by God shows us a multi-billion year old universe, that's what we have and with no monkeyin around by the Creator.

 

[BCP1928]

The topic is embedded age as a result of creation. Nothing could be more on topic

The existence of God is not on topic in this forum. Some of us believe in God, some don't but it has no bearing on science, which is the same for believers and non-believers alike.

 

[truthpls]

Your still making things up.
Again these passages are about being aware of God's hand in His Creation. And how God's Creation can teach wisdom and Divine experience. It's not about "animals know they were created compared to science."

Says you. You forgot to tell us which of the creatures/plants listed did not know? Animals talked to us in the garden. A donkey talked to a man long after that. The fish knew to obey God and come to Peter's area to be caught. A cow knew to take the ark to a precise address even abandoning her calf to do so! A crow knew to bring Elijah food. Fish know how to praise Him.
“Sing to the Lord a new song, his praise from the end of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that fills it, the coastlands and their inhabitants.”
The bible is not making stuff up, sorry.

 

[truthpls]

It seems what we are actually discussing though is a God that deceives.

Speak for your own posts and what you though was being discussed.

And God, at least how I know Him, is incapable of deception.

You misreading rocks due to leaving Him out of the picture is not Him deceiving anyone. It is what the bible calls willing ignorance that leads to deception.

What God's own Creation shows us is straight up and honest.

Like the bible doesn't also?

When Creation, as Created by God shows us a multi-billion year old universe, that's what we have and with no monkeyin around by the Creator.

God does whatever He pleases. It is not money business. It does change realities and affects the world and universe as needed. We cannot assume that He never oversaw or orchestrated major changes in the world and heavens!

 

[truthpls]

The existence of God is not on topic in this forum. Some of us believe in God, some don't but it has no bearing on science, which is the same for believers and non-believers alike.

I agree it is a given absolute. He is totally involved in this thread though of course. You do know what embedded age means? Also the word creation, as in the OP totally involves God.

 

[Vambram]

For the life of me I'm just not at all understanding a deceptive God. That makes no sense to me.

The Lord God is not deceiving me. I believe in YEC because of all of the Scriptural evidence for it. Also, evolutionists and theistic evolutionists are misinterpreting scientific evidence because they want to believe that the earth and the universe is billions of years old.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It works by basing things on a false premise. The premise that there is no God no creation. All that we see is attributed to having come to exist as is, by, well, all that we see.

It is fact. Not speculation. Jesus rose from the dead. It is only speculation that some music is beautiful if you cannot hear. It is only speculation some art is beautiful if you cannot see. So for you, yes it may be speculation

I see no reason to find these claims to be true. They are also not relevant to the topic at hand.

You have a detail that you think is topical? Don't be shy.

I have not read the paper, nor did I know about it until you linked the press item about it. Details of methodology are included either directly or as references to methodology papers in any scientific paper. That's how it works.

Such as?

Decay experiments that measure the decay rate of any isotope. They are fairly common things. The links are in the article you quoted. (And radioactive decay had nothing to do with that measurement method.)

Assuming He does not exist and coming up with theoretical dates accordingly is not being deceived by God.

In your mind, that omits the truth of creation and His pretense, maybe. In God's mind and mine and even the beasts, we disagree.

I know what science claims and why. Too bad they have no inkling.

We know lots of stuff. That your interpretation of your scripture requires you to write the character of your god as intentionally deceiving us and our instruments.

False. He changes anything as desired when desired. Your business as usual philosophy that is godless does not apply.

There you go with the vision of a god that deceives. That is your position, not mine and not that of most Christians here or elsewhere.

Your guesses do not overrule God

 

[dlamberth]

The Lord God is not deceiving me. I believe in YEC because of all of the Scriptural evidence for it. Also, evolutionists and theistic evolutionists are misinterpreting scientific evidence because they want to believe that the earth and the universe is billions of years old.

I have a question for you I hope your able to answer for me. How is it not a deception when, as some say, God created the Earth 6000 years ago, but made it appear to be 4 Billion years old complete with geological history of their very old age?

 

[Vambram]

I have a question for you I hope your able to answer for me. How is it not a deception when, as some say, God created the Earth 6000 years ago, but made it appear to be 4 Billion years old complete with geological history of their very old age?

The evolutionists, and also those who believe in Theistic evolution, are misinterpreting the evidence while also assuming that their dating methods with the evidence are correct. They are interpreting the evidence while doing so from a OEC, or perhaps evolutionists, perspective. Therefore, I believe that the scientists are getting the results that they want to get.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I believe that the scientists are getting the results that they want to get.

Instead of the results you want them to get.

 

[truthpls]

I see no reason to find these claims to be true. They are also not relevant to the topic at hand.

Jesus created it all so is the only thing relevant to creation. As for your personal preferences to accept what God records in the bible as untrue or not has no real weight here. Once again we see you try to render Jesus/God irrelevant here in whatever way you think you can. Just like unbelievers try to do with creation and interpreting it.

I have not read the paper, nor did I know about it until you linked the press item about it. Details of methodology are included either directly or as references to methodology papers in any scientific paper. That's how it works.

Great so you cannot defend the fantasy dates or method. No problem. Too bad it could have been fun

Decay experiments that measure the decay rate of any isotope.

Totally irrelevant if the stuff in there decaying was already there at creation, or affected by acts of the creator since creation.

They are fairly common things. The links are in the article you quoted. (And radioactive decay had nothing to do with that measurement method.)

I saw nothing in the article that supported their claim. If you want to follow links and come up with a cohesive point, do so

We know lots of stuff.

You think you do

That your interpretation of your scripture requires you to write the character of your god as intentionally deceiving us and our instruments.

Creation is not an interpretation. It is a declaration by God themed in His word.

There you go with the vision of a god that deceives.

As repeated several times here now, those who forget God and exclude Him from their knowledge cannot blame Him for their deception

That is your position, not mine and not that of most Christians here or elsewhere.

No one gets a vote on whether Jesus created as per the bible. The only choice they get is to believe it or not.

 

[dlamberth]

The evolutionists, and also those who believe in Theistic evolution, are misinterpreting the evidence while also assuming that their dating methods with the evidence are correct. They are interpreting the evidence while doing so from a OEC, or perhaps evolutionists, perspective. Therefore, I believe that the scientists are getting the results that they want to get.

It's kind of sounding like your not an embedded age person. An embedded age person would say that the datings are correct, but that's only because God not only embedded appearing old age into His 6000 year old Creation but also geological history.

But in looking for more clarity in your believes using another examples, this time with galaxies. If I understand you correctly you believe those more than 100 Billion galaxies are only 6000 light years away from Earth? Is that correct?

 

[dlamberth]

As repeated several times here now, those who forget God and exclude Him from their knowledge cannot blame Him for their deception

What I blame are those who make God out as a deceiver by saying that God Creates false age and false geological history into His Creation. Thus says I, a Lover of God.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Jesus created it all so is the only thing relevant to creation. As for your personal preferences to accept what God records in the bible as untrue or not has no real weight here. Once again we see you try to render Jesus/God irrelevant here in whatever way you think you can. Just like unbelievers try to do with creation and interpreting it.

If all you want to do is make theological claims you should find a different part of CF instead of one where science is part of the discussion.

Great so you cannot defend the fantasy dates or method. No problem. Too bad it could have been fun

There is no fun to be gained from discussing something with those who have a fixed mind. You might have had fun, but I would not.

Totally irrelevant if the stuff in there decaying was already there at creation, or affected by acts of the creator since creation.

Measuring the rate of radioactive decay has nothing to do with how much of an isotope was in something "created". It involves gathering a bunch of a specific isotope and measuring the number of decays per second per unit mass of the isotope.

I saw nothing in the article that supported their claim. If you want to follow links and come up with a cohesive point, do so

I'm not surprised you were blind to it.

You think you do

Creation is not an interpretation. It is a declaration by God themed in His word.

As repeated several times here now, those who forget God and exclude Him from their knowledge cannot blame Him for their deception

No one gets a vote on whether Jesus created as per the bible. The only choice they get is to believe it or not.

I'm not interested in any of these religions claims. I am here to discuss the scientific claims of "embedded age".