Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[truthpls]

How do you know they are wrong?

Because Jesus' results were right and I do not operate from the starting position that there is no God and that only the natural world must explain creation. The results of their speculations based on leaving God out oppose what God said happened.

You haven't even presented a specific fossil you want to talk about, you're just talking about fossils in general and yet somehow you can claim that these hypothetical dates for the hypothetical fossils are wrong?

I don't even remember mentioning fossils.

How does that work?

It works by you pretending I mentioned fossils I guess.

You can't even present any such rocks, so don't suddenly act like it's my fault because the rocks you can't produce can't be tested.

I posted an example of one of the oldest rocks on earth actually. I guess you missed it, it is a long thread.

You are assuming that your point of view is correct and asking me to accept it as the default position.

I think this is your first post so I am not sure we could say I was asking you anything.

You must provide justification for that, and you have not.

The justification for not limiting His creation to the physical, is that there was no physical at creation and He is a spirit. Physical things came to exist then. They started to exist a certain way. The thread here has explored the possibility that the way rocks on creation day came to exist was more or less as is. Therefore the ratios in them were not due to radioactivity.

Somehow I get the feeling that trying to have a rational discussion with you about this topic is going to be fruitless.

That depends on whether you have an honest and open mind

If you want to continue, please provide support in the form of verifiable evidence that what you have said is true.

Jesus rose from the dead. That does it for me.

 

[truthpls]

So God personally spoke to you?

Yes. Bibles are pretty cheap and even free if anyone needs to read it online.

And what about when these other people say things that contradict each other?

Long as they do not contradict Jesus and Scripture why would I care? Why do people in science disagree?

Why should it when you've said nothing scientific?

Why would anyone say something scientific about how God created? It didn't involve science. Science is after the fact and only deals with the natural world

All you've done is spout a bunch of claims that anyone can make.

I did not claim God created the world. He did. I just try in my own little modest way to try and believe Him

Lots of people have believed that they were spoken to by God, and they were wrong. Why should I have a different opinion when you say God has spoken to you?

If they read Scripture, they were right. Lots of people also were spoken to, they think by demons. Some of those may be right as well.

Because they can't be independently verified.

Creation by God is not supposed to be able to be 'verified' by man. It is supposed to be believed and wondered at.

So you start with the conclusion you want and then try to fit your experiences into your predetermined conclusion.

Actually the scientific method starts with the conclusion that the natural is the tool to determine creation and where we came from. They fit all models into that foundation so that their conclusion is predetermined to be wrong.

Yeah, that's a terrible way to find the truth.

I already found the truth but do hope those still looking find it also.

You can consider them whatever you want.

As can you, and none of it matters unless it agrees with God.

But the fact is that if they produce useable and predictable results, your claims they are wrong just look foolish.

I agree. Some of the results of using natural knowledge work in the natural world. The thing is that supernatural advice from God works as well in this natural world. Why not have both?

So are you saying that you are not a Human?

At least you ended your serious sounding post with a joke.

 

[truthpls]

Since you are unwilling to engage openly, we are done.

Since you are unwilling to engage openly, we are done.

Engaging does not mean disengaging God

 

[truthpls]

Well, how far away are those several billion galaxies?

Far enough so that God can get light from them to earth fast enough to shine on a man He created two days later. The stars that science thought light must take something like 14 billion years too get to earth!

 

[dlamberth]

Far enough so that God can get light from them to earth fast enough to shine on a man He created two days later. The stars that science thought light must take something like 14 billion years too get to earth!

I agree with Hans Blaster in your unwillingness to engage openly. We are done.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi AV. Welcome back!

Honestly, was starting to get a mite bit worried. You doing all right?

I was having the same thoughts.

Thank you, my friends!

Wife had a liver transplant!

In the hospital for a month!

God got us through it though.

I pray all is well with you guys!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thank you, my friends!

Wife had a liver transplant!

In the hospital for a month!

God got us through it though.

I pray all is well with you guys!

Oh, I couldn't help but cringe at reading that. Liver problems are nastiness all the way down.

 

[Truth7t7]

Question for you then: is God's creation, the Earth, worth studying then?

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

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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

Why is it a secondary issue when A) God has entrusted us with the stewardship of the Earth, and B) We live here?

 

[Truth7t7]

Why is it a secondary issue when A) God has entrusted us with the stewardship of the Earth, and B) We live here?

It might be your primary calling but not mine

Mark 16:15-16KJV
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Luke 10:1-2KJV
After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.

 

[Kylie]

Because Jesus' results were right

A claim you have not shown to be true, you've merely asserted it.

and I do not operate from the starting position that there is no God

Then you freely admit you start from a biased opinion.

and that only the natural world must explain creation.

And yet you immediately leap to a supernatural explanation as soon as you invoke God.

The results of their speculations based on leaving God out oppose what God said happened.

The Bible is what humans claim, not God's word.

I don't even remember mentioning fossils.

I was talking about fossils in post 643, and then you barged in and claimed that the dating methods were unreliable in post 659.

Do you make a habit of barging in and commenting on things when you don't even know what you are talking about?

It works by you pretending I mentioned fossils I guess.

I was talking about fossils in the conversation I was having with AV. You know, the one you pushed yourself into and claimed that the methods we have for dating fossils are unreliable?

I posted an example of one of the oldest rocks on earth actually. I guess you missed it, it is a long thread.

Quite possibly.

I think this is your first post so I am not sure we could say I was asking you anything.

My first post?

I became a member here back in 2013, and I have made almost 15,000 posts in that time.

The justification for not limiting His creation to the physical, is that there was no physical at creation and He is a spirit. Physical things came to exist then. They started to exist a certain way. The thread here has explored the possibility that the way rocks on creation day came to exist was more or less as is. Therefore the ratios in them were not due to radioactivity.

In other words, your justification is that you assume they were different and therefore they were different.

Assume that things were created, and therefore there was a creator, and since there was a creator, that means things were created. That's circular logic and a fallacy.

That depends on whether you have an honest and open mind

I'll tell you what: You provide actual testable evidence for your claims, and I'll consider them.

But if you only tell me what your beliefs are and then claim they are true without providing anything else, then I won't believe them.

Jesus rose from the dead. That does it for me.

And your evidence for this is...?

 

[truthpls]

A claim you have not shown to be true, you've merely asserted it.

It works for me

Then you freely admit you start from a biased opinion.

As do people who start from a position that the natural processes can tell us where it all came from. If there was a creation, then you could not date anything the day after

And yet you immediately leap to a supernatural explanation as soon as you invoke God.

Creation involves God.

The Bible is what humans claim, not God's word.

We can disagree

I was talking about fossils in post 643, and then you barged in and claimed that the dating methods were unreliable in post 659.

Asking if you thought the dates you claimed were right is not barging in.

Do you make a habit of barging in and commenting on things when you don't even know what you are talking about?

I know you use dates that depend on there being no creation. In what way do you claim to 'know what you are talking about' in claiming there could have been no creation? What did you think an embedded age thread was about?

I was talking about fossils in the conversation I was having with AV. You know, the one you pushed yourself into and claimed that the methods we have for dating fossils are unreliable?

They assume no creation.. If there was a creation then the ratios you refer to are NOT dates. Have you anything else than a hunch that there was no creation here to make the ratios reliable dates rather than just stuff in rocks after creation?

In other words, your justification is that you assume they were different and therefore they were different.

No. The observation is that science uses only the natural, which is undeniable. Therefore they cannot say anything about a supernatural creation. Obviously.

Assume that things were created, and therefore there was a creator, and since there was a creator, that means things were created. That's circular logic and a fallacy.

No. You can assume what you like but you cannot claim God did not create. All science can do is look at physical realities that exist after having come into existence, after they were made. You don't get to look only at the processes going on now that are physical and claim that this is how everything had to have been created. Sorry.

I'll tell you what: You provide actual testable evidence for your claims, and I'll consider them.

We can test whether science uses only the natural. Please show us any supernatural science uses, if not? That is nothing more than a statement of faith that natural processes are all that is needed to tell us where it all came from. That has, to say the least, no more validity than claiming the supernatural is also needed.

But if you only tell me what your beliefs are and then claim they are true without providing anything else, then I won't believe them.

No we are discussing how science believes that the natural is all that ever was and all that is needed to tell us about where the universe and world and man came from. I think we all know that would be laughably impossible to prove.

And your evidence for this is...?

My evidence is the hundreds of eyewitnesses, family and friends and Scripture as well as the tested tried and proven reality of Jesus in the lives of people that accepted Him today and through all history. But for an embedded age discussion we can simply look at how those who use only the natural and physical to try and trace back to creation have no evidence that God did not create or that there is nothing but the physical etc.

 

[Kylie]

Yes. Bibles are pretty cheap and even free if anyone needs to read it online.

There's no evidence the Bible was written by God.

Long as they do not contradict Jesus and Scripture why would I care? Why do people in science disagree?

So you agree that a person can write about God and be incorrect? Why shouldn't I just make that assumption about you?

Why would anyone say something scientific about how God created? It didn't involve science. Science is after the fact and only deals with the natural world

Yeah, when your position has no support, you claim, "But that's because it's completely unsupportable," as though that's a good thing.

I did not claim God created the world. He did. I just try in my own little modest way to try and believe Him

No, humans claimed God created the world.

If they read Scripture, they were right. Lots of people also were spoken to, they think by demons. Some of those may be right as well.

Again, you are going from the faulty premise of starting with your conclusion and then trying to fit everything into proving that it is true. Reality doesn't work that way.

Creation by God is not supposed to be able to be 'verified' by man. It is supposed to be believed and wondered at.

So it's a claim that has absolutely no support. Why then should I believe it?

Actually the scientific method starts with the conclusion that the natural is the tool to determine creation and where we came from. They fit all models into that foundation so that their conclusion is predetermined to be wrong.

Yeah, how silly is it that science starts with the assumption that reality is real? I mean where do they get such silly notions?

Reality is real... What's next? Circles are round?

I already found the truth but do hope those still looking find it also.

Truth can't be known as truth until it is verified. You have already admitted that your position can never be verified.

As can you, and none of it matters unless it agrees with God.

None of it matters unless it agrees with reality.

I agree. Some of the results of using natural knowledge work in the natural world. The thing is that supernatural advice from God works as well in this natural world. Why not have both?

Lots of people have tried that and found it unreliable. When it is tested, it just doesn't work.

At least you ended your serious sounding post with a joke.

You said if God used people, that makes God wrong (since Humans could be wrong).

You also said that everything you know about God came from you, and that you are right.

So since God is using you to spread the word of God, and since you have claimed that Humans can be wrong, and since you have also claimed that you can not be wrong, then it follows that you are not a Human (since humans can be wrong, but you are not wrong).

 

[Kylie]

It works for me

That does not make it objectively true.

As do people who start from a position that the natural processes can tell us where it all came from. If there was a creation, then you could not date anything the day after

We have testable evidence that reality exists.

Creation involves God.

The formation of the universe does not need to be creation.

You assume it's creation in order to justify your belief in a creator.

We can disagree

Yes we can.

I have plenty of evidence that Humans wrote the Bible. You have no evidence that God wrote the Bible.

Asking if you thought the dates you claimed were right is not barging in.

But it DOES show that the discussion was about fossils, a fact which you claimed to be ignorant of.

I know you use dates that depend on there being no creation. In what way do you claim to 'know what you are talking about' in claiming there could have been no creation? What did you think an embedded age thread was about?

No you are trying to change the subject.

When I sapoke of knowing what was being talked about, I was referring to knowing that the discussion that I was having with AV was about fossils.

Youi apparently DIDN'T know the discussion was about fossils, since you seemed very confused when I mentioned them.

The only way that works is that you responded to my post without bothering to read what AV and I were actually talking about.

They assume no creation..

They assume nothing without evidence.

Present testable evidence for creation and it will be considered. But merely claiming that it is creation is not going to prove it.

If there was a creation then the ratios you refer to are NOT dates.

Ah, so the ratios would be the result of some completely different process?

Why then do completely unrelated dating methods agree with each other?

This may have escaped your attention, but this is what I was talking about in post 793. And you have been unable to answer it.

Have you anything else than a hunch that there was no creation here to make the ratios reliable dates rather than just stuff in rocks after creation?

Yes. The fact that the different dating methods agree (even those that are not based on radiometric dating at all) is extremely strong evidence that there was no creation. Because there is no reason why they would all agree if there was a recent creation, and the chances of them all agree by chance is mind-bogglingly small.

No. The observation is that science uses only the natural, which is undeniable. Therefore they cannot say anything about a supernatural creation. Obviously.

And you can't even show there was a supernatural creation at all.

No. You can assume what you like but you cannot claim God did not create.

Sure I can.

You're starting with the assumption that God created in order to support your conclusion that God created. That's circular logic, something I've seen several times from you now.

All science can do is look at physical realities that exist after having come into existence, after they were made. You don't get to look only at the processes going on now that are physical and claim that this is how everything had to have been created. Sorry.

I agree that science doesn't have the answers on how reality came into being. But that doesn't mean that "Goddidit" is the default answer. And you still have not provided a single shred of evidence tom support your position.

We can test whether science uses only the natural. Please show us any supernatural science uses, if not? That is nothing more than a statement of faith that natural processes are all that is needed to tell us where it all came from. That has, to say the least, no more validity than claiming the supernatural is also needed.

There is no evidence of the supernatural.

No we are discussing how science believes that the natural is all that ever was and all that is needed to tell us about where the universe and world and man came from. I think we all know that would be laughably impossible to prove.

No, I am trying to explain to you that making claims that have no support is not going to convince anyone.

You say God created the universe, and I say, "Prove it."

Until you can do that, I have absolutely no reason at all to accept that your claims are true.

My evidence is the hundreds of eyewitnesses, family and friends and Scripture as well as the tested tried and proven reality of Jesus in the lives of people that accepted Him today and through all history. But for an embedded age discussion we can simply look at how those who use only the natural and physical to try and trace back to creation have no evidence that God did not create or that there is nothing but the physical etc.

No.

There are claims there were eyewitnesses, but that proves nothing. I can claim I turned into a dragon and flew around my neighbourhood, and there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, but that doesn't make it true.

And people believing in a particular religious belief does not mean that belief is true.

 

[truthpls]

There's no evidence the Bible was written by God.

We disagree

So you agree that a person can write about God and be incorrect? Why shouldn't I just make that assumption about you?

Not a person God ordered to write His words for Scripture.

Yeah, when your position has no support, you claim, "But that's because it's completely unsupportable," as though that's a good thing.

If you claim you can support any claim there is no God, let' see it. Until then, using just the natural processes could only help you determine how we were made if there was no God. If there is, then on the day after creation, dates cannot be found in ratios of isotopes in rocks. Nor could how the world or rocks got here be discovered looking at those ratios. Do you agree?

No, humans claimed God created the world.

That is speculation. For example Jesus was more than human. You can doubt it, but not dispute it.

Again, you are going from the faulty premise of starting with your conclusion and then trying to fit everything into proving that it is true. Reality doesn't work that way.

Using just the natural processes does exactly that. So it's a claim that has absolutely no support. Why then should I believe it?

Yeah, how silly is it that science starts with the assumption that reality is real? I mean where do they get such silly notions?

Only if you define reality as 'there is no God' or anything else that ever could have been at work except natural processes. Why should we believe that?

Truth can't be known as truth until it is verified.

If God is real and true, then the only way to verify Him is to believe as He directed. One cannot hold the Great Spirit (God) to the restraints of the physical world.

You have already admitted that your position can never be verified.

By science, and that is because science is in another realm. The physical and natural. God is not there to be seen. God is verified in the hearts and minds and lives of those who invited Jesus in. Science is out of the loop. That is why as wonderful as science is, and can be, it cannot speak about creation or God. Or miracles.

None of it matters unless it agrees with reality.

God is reality.

Lots of people have tried that and found it unreliable. When it is tested, it just doesn't work.

Reminds me of an old Janis Joplin song. 'you gotta try just a little bit harder'. But even if I came to Jesus and got saved and thought He failed, He didn't. He never fails. His gift of eternal life is secure.

You said if God used people, that makes God wrong (since Humans could be wrong).

He seems to think it is OK to use sinners. He is able to do that despite the weakness of men

You also said that everything you know about God came from you, and that you are right.

Nothing came from me. I am only right because I take His word for it

So since God is using you to spread the word of God,

? I referenced His Scripture. That is after all how anyone knows about creation.

and since you have claimed that Humans can be wrong,

They are always wrong almost it seems. But God knows that and compensates for it to ensure it gets done right.

and since you have also claimed that you can not be wrong,

Only because we accept His word on it.

then it follows that you are not a Human (since humans can be wrong, but you are not wrong).

I see. Nice try. God used humans to write His words to the world. Maybe think of it as God possession. The people possessed by God to write His word can't be wrong in any meaningful way that interferes with His message to us.

 

[David Lamb]

AI, anybody? Are there creationist LLMs?

What are LLMs? I looked it up, and found it can be an American abbreviation for "Master of Laws." Is that what you meant? How does that relate to embedded age?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It might be your primary calling but not mine

Mark 16:15-16KJV
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Luke 10:1-2KJV
After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.

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?

 

[Kylie]

We disagree

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

Not a person God ordered to write His words for Scripture.

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

If you claim you can support any claim there is no God, let' see it. Until then, using just the natural processes could only help you determine how we were made if there was no God. If there is, then on the day after creation, dates cannot be found in ratios of isotopes in rocks. Nor could how the world or rocks got here be discovered looking at those ratios. Do you agree?

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.

I see that you are unable or unwilling to support your claims.

Without such evidence to support your claims, I see no reason to accept your claims.

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

That is speculation. For example Jesus was more than human. You can doubt it, but not dispute it.

Yes I can dispute it. And how can I doubt something that is not in dispute? You don't seem to understand the words you are using.

Using just the natural processes does exactly that. So it's a claim that has absolutely no support. Why then should I believe it?

Quite the opposite.

The support is that IT WORKS.

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.

Only if you define reality as 'there is no God' or anything else that ever could have been at work except natural processes. Why should we believe that?

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

You really don't seem to understand what you are trying to argue against here.

If God is real and true, then the only way to verify Him is to believe as He directed. One cannot hold the Great Spirit (God) to the restraints of the physical world.

Yeah, if.

IF.

Prove that the IF is actually an IS and we can go from there.

By science, and that is because science is in another realm. The physical and natural. God is not there to be seen. God is verified in the hearts and minds and lives of those who invited Jesus in. Science is out of the loop. That is why as wonderful as science is, and can be, it cannot speak about creation or God. Or miracles.

You still haven't given me any reason at all to believe your claims are true.

God is reality.

Prove it.

Reminds me of an old Janis Joplin song. 'you gotta try just a little bit harder'. But even if I came to Jesus and got saved and thought He failed, He didn't. He never fails. His gift of eternal life is secure.

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

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

He seems to think it is OK to use sinners. He is able to do that despite the weakness of men

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

Nothing came from me. I am only right because I take His word for 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.

? I referenced His Scripture. That is after all how anyone knows about creation.

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.

They are always wrong almost it seems. But God knows that and compensates for it to ensure it gets done right.

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

Only because we accept His word on it.

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.

I see. Nice try. God used humans to write His words to the world. Maybe think of it as God possession. The people possessed by God to write His word can't be wrong in any meaningful way that interferes with His message to us.

Another claim, and still no support whatsoever.

 

[BCP1928]

What are LLMs? I looked it up, and found it can be an American abbreviation for "Master of Laws." Is that what you meant? How does that relate to embedded age?

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's no evidence the Bible was written by God.

What kind of evidence would satisfy the scientific method?

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

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?

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?

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.