Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Michael Z]

Did Jesus create embedded age into this Creation?

Yes, if you are referring to His miracles. The fish was cooked, the bread was baked, and the wine was ready to drink.

 

[dlamberth]

Yes, if you are referring to His miracles. The fish was cooked, the bread was baked, and the wine was ready to drink.

This is what the OP is about.
Embedded Age. That's the belief that this Creation is only 6000 years old, but God made it appear to be billions of years old complete with geological history that affirms the false old age that is embedded into His Creation. Did Jesus build embedded age into Creation?

 

[truthpls]

Did Jesus create embedded age into this Creation?

Only science would see what was created that way, since they would try to explain what was in the rock on day one some other way. So the only embedded age is in the minds of science that insists that anything other than their godless fantasies is a deception from God

 

[Hans Blaster]

It does put things into a very weird perspective that modern creationism came about in the 1960s.

That is the period of modernism.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If this was creation week, and Thursday, then science would look like buffoonery if it tried to tell us where the rocks or anything else like man came from! For anyone to actually ask today, thousands of years after creation, to be shown the universe was not created last week also looks like buffoonery.

"Last Thursday"ism is the notion that the Earth was created with a history (including our own memories from "before" last Thursday) no more than a week ago and that it was just made to *look* older. Does that sound familiar?

 

[dlamberth]

Only science would see what was created that way, since they would try to explain what was in the rock on day one some other way. So the only embedded age is in the minds of science that insists that anything other than their godless fantasies is a deception from God

Truth be told, the idea of embedded age came from a well known Creation Christian that usually hangs out in this forum. Check out the OP. Haven't seen him for a couple of months.

 

[Michael Z]

Henry M. Morris, author of The Genesis Flood, also believes in this theory.

 

[truthpls]

"Last Thursday"ism is the notion that the Earth was created with a history (including our own memories from "before" last Thursday) no more than a week ago and that it was just made to *look* older. Does that sound familiar?

Creation was many thousands of years ago. If anyone struggles with thinking it may or may not have been last week, they are out of touch. Adam's memory was just fine. Nothing would look older to an observer on day one of creation, it would look complete. What would you prefer half of a rock and river and man in the half of a garden?

 

[truthpls]

Truth be told, the idea of embedded age came from a well known Creation Christian that usually hangs out in this forum. Check out the OP. Haven't seen him for a couple of months.

Maybe he will reappear. But I am not sure Avi was the first to mention that idea.

 

[dlamberth]

Maybe he will reappear. But I am not sure Avi was the first to mention that idea.

That point I was hoping to make was a reply to your post #966

 

[truthpls]

That point I was hoping to make was a reply to your post #966

I don't see the connection. I think it is undeniable that an observer on creation day one. inspecting a rock would find that the rock looked old to him if he used the scientific method

 

[dlamberth]

I don't see the connection. I think it is undeniable that an observer on creation day one. inspecting a rock would find that the rock looked old to him if he used the scientific method

The broad sweep of AV's embedded age would cover every inch of the Earth. For instance, the eruptions of the Yellowstone Hotspot and the multi-million year dates measured along the track of movement would all be of God's doing. Where you laughed at those event's, AV would argue that God embedded age into those eruption areas to make them to be old to geologist who studied them. That's why, according to AV's embedded age thought, there is a sequence of old to younger age eruptions following the path of the Yellowstone Hotspot. All of which happened after Noah's flood. The reason why it was after the flood is that God came along aftrwards and cleaned the mess up. That's accorcing to AV. And that's the reason why today there is no evidance of Noah's flood.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Great. I should have picked an example that goes back to the time when science say the world was new. That way we could have focused more on the topic of what ratios existed already in rocks dating to creation.

There was nothing wrong with addressing this issue with the result you brought up because I was unfamiliar with it or the method used.

Since we are talking about this here is an example of the wild leaps of faith taken in getting the 'dates' of the oldest rocks on earth. Better make sure you are sitting down and not drinking hot coffee as it is a belly buster.

Faith is unnecessary and I do not drink the vile brown liquid that is coffee.

"In the case of this original crust, scientists were measuring neodymium-142, which is produced by the alpha decay of samarium-146. The calculation for this piece of crust was not as complex as dating some other rocks, as 146Sm is an extinct isotope, and only produced 142Nd during the earths first 500 million years. As this crust has 142Nd present, we know that this piece of crust must have been formed about 4.3 billion years ago"

Where In The World Are The Oldest Rocks? - Science World

Canada, Australia and Greenland have been the top contenders for being home to the Earth’s oldest geological specimens: Greenland: Oldest fossils found in rock, Iusa Specimens, 3.7 billion years oldAustralia: Oldest minerals, Jack Hills Zircon, 4.36 billion years oldCanada: Oldest rock, Canadian...

www.scienceworld.ca

Need I flesh out the huge assumptions here for you? Let's look at a few questions that cannot be answered by science about this. -If this was a rock dating to creation, could it have had 146Sm in it when created? - Could most of the isotopes in the rock have been there from the time it was made?

That is generally the idea behind dating, the nuclei in the rock are still there from when it formed, though some may have decayed to other nuclei during the interim.

- In other words, embedded age as far as science is concerned.

Embedded age is a religious concept.

What we have then is the absolute omission of creation and God by science in all scenarios and explanations of what could have happened. They proceed to form conclusions based solely on a godless speculation model and nothing but a godless speculation model (religiously)

You can claim what ever you like about your god and religion, but science is not based on speculation and we would appreciate it if you would stop defaming us.

As just explained it is all that matters actually. If someone looks at a rock that was created by God and then tries to explain why it has what it has in it using a belief that is totally without the actual cause of the rock existing, that is both non belief and belief!

Dating methods don't care how a rock was formed, they only measure the time since formation.

Yes, when you attribute the existing isotope's existence wholly to that process that happens today it very much involves the past. You use this to 'age' the whole rock and of course ages mean the past.

Measuring the decay rate of a specific isotope in a laboratory has nothing to do with rocks at all. It is no different than measuring any property of any material in a lab.

As just proven in the example of a rock dating to the time of creation whatever decay that now happens in that rock basically doesn't matter or tell us when or how it came to exist! Neither could or would it tell us it's future! Science could not say that, for example, in another billion years, this same rock would have x and y and z components in it! They know nothing of the sort. The bible tells us that very rock will be burned up and a new earth will exist! Science can tell us neither about the future or the past.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

I posted an example of a rock that science claims dates close to the the time earth started to exist. I also provided a thought experiment for a rock that was created for sure, and how science would explain it.

Says you. Beliefs are used in dating. In the example above, they used a belief that certain material in a rock meant that the rock had to come from a time when they theorize the earth 'still' had such material! Are you calling that more than a belief?

Belief as you think of it has no place in science. I suggest that you stop trying to discuss science and go learn about it first.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Creation was many thousands of years ago. If anyone struggles with thinking it may or may not have been last week, they are out of touch. Adam's memory was just fine. Nothing would look older to an observer on day one of creation, it would look complete. What would you prefer half of a rock and river and man in the half of a garden?

A creation 5000 years ago that looks 4.5 billion years old is no different in kind than a creation that is 5 days old and looks 4.5 billion years old. It is still an implied deception.

 

[truthpls]

The broad sweep of AV's embedded age would cover every inch of the Earth. For instance, the eruptions of the Yellowstone Hotspot and the multi-million year dates measured along the track of movement would all be of God's doing.

Assuming that dated back to the time of creation. What would make anything look old long after that?

Where you laughed at those event's, AV would argue that God embedded age into those eruption areas to make them to be old to geologist who studied them. That's why, according to AV's embedded age thought, there is a sequence of old to younger age eruptions following the path of the Yellowstone Hotspot. All of which happened after Noah's flood. The reason why it was after the flood is that God came along aftrwards and cleaned the mess up. That's accorcing to AV. And that's the reason why today there is no evidance of Noah's flood.

That is a bit hard to follow. But it sounds like you are saying Avi thinks God acted in that time close to the flood and His actions affected things like the hotspots. I wonder if that means worldwide or just God affecting the Yellowstone area?

 

[truthpls]

There was nothing wrong with addressing this issue with the result you brought up because I was unfamiliar with it or the method used.

That's OK there is a new example out there now of a rock that dates to creation and how it would look old to science

Faith is unnecessary and I do not drink the vile brown liquid that is coffee.

No? What are your vile liquids of choice?

That is generally the idea behind dating, the nuclei in the rock are still there from when it formed, though some may have decayed to other nuclei during the interim.

Not applicable to the oldest rocks dating to creation.

Embedded age is a religious concept.

In the mind of secular science, probably. It is not really a concept though, so much as the way it had to be right after creation

You can claim what ever you like about your god and religion, but science is not based on speculation and we would appreciate it if you would stop defaming us.

Let's be honest. If I, for example claimed that the reason a certain material existed in rocks was because it 'used to exist on earth for the first 500 million years here' that involves a world of speculation. Godless speculation that defames Scripture.

Dating methods don't care how a rock was formed, they only measure the time since formation.

No dating method could apply on day 1 of creation. All those ratios in a rock would have been how they were created.

Measuring the decay rate of a specific isotope in a laboratory has nothing to do with rocks at all. It is no different than measuring any property of any material in a lab.

No decay would be responsible for isotopes in a rock on the day after creation (unless we were talking about very very short half lives of minutes or etc)

Belief as you think of it has no place in science. I suggest that you stop trying to discuss science and go learn about it first.

? What has science got to do with embedded age?

 

[truthpls]

A creation 5000 years ago that looks 4.5 billion years old is no different in kind than a creation that is 5 days old and looks 4.5 billion years old. It is still an implied deception.

Truth be told 5000 years is different than 5 days.

 

[dlamberth]

Assuming that dated back to the time of creation. What would make anything look old long after that?

That is a bit hard to follow. But it sounds like you are saying Avi thinks God acted in that time close to the flood and His actions affected things like the hotspots. I wonder if that means worldwide or just God affecting the Yellowstone area?

World wide. I used the Yellowstone only as a single example because you and I have crossed that path.

Imagine if you will the mess that a Biblical type of flood would have caused world wide. Now imagine God cleaning it up afterwards. And in the process God embedded old age into His Creation. Thus "embedded age". AV even has Biblical scripture to back up his belief.

 

[dlamberth]

That's OK there is a new example out there now of a rock that dates to creation and how it would look old to science

Where is that rock and the study?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Truth be told 5000 years is different than 5 days.

The implied deception of looking older than it is no different.