Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[dlamberth]

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 have no idea what rock your talking about.

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.

Your not understanding. I'll repeat one more time:
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.

 

[truthpls]

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.

Only when they extend that to tell us ages based on no creation or alternate creation stories that oppose the truth. Adam was not 'our being' He was a creature God formed from the ground and gave life to one day that He called man, and named Adam. Eve was taken from this man after God put him under in a deep sleep. So if hospitals today put someone under, that would be naturalism. When God put Adam under, that was more because firstly, a Spirit did the operation. Also, a whole new fully grown person was the result.

 

[truthpls]

I have no idea what rock your talking about.

An example was given of a rock that scientists inspected 2 days after the creation of the world. This rock was created and they would say it was formed billions of years ago and was billions of years old. This is because the ratios of isotopes in that rock, in their mind would have taken billions of years to 'form' If they were told the rock was 2 days old they might say God deceived them and that age was embedded in the rock.

 

[dlamberth]

An example was given of a rock that scientists inspected 2 days after the creation of the world. This rock was created and they would say it was formed billions of years ago and was billions of years old. This is because the ratios of isotopes in that rock, in their mind would have taken billions of years to 'form' If they were told the rock was 2 days old they might say God deceived them and that age was embedded in the rock.

Can you provide a link?

 

[truthpls]

Can you provide a link?

Post 914

Here is a little quote from it

""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"



The rock talked about was one of the oldest rocks on the planet. Therefore, I used it as an example, because science itself places this near the time of the formation of the earth

This rock, if someone inspected it two days after God created the world, would have had more of less the same ratios of isotopes in it because the long half lived isotopes would not change much in 6000 years

 

[dlamberth]

Post 914

Here is a little quote from it

""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"



The rock talked about was one of the oldest rocks on the planet. Therefore, I used it as an example, because science itself places this near the time of the formation of the earth

This rock, if someone inspected it two days after God created the world, would have had more of less the same ratios of isotopes in it because the long half lived isotopes would not change much in 6000 years

I have no idea how this means anything other than the rock in question is yet another means that proves the Earth is 4.3 Billion years old.

 

[truthpls]

I have no idea how this means anything other than the rock in question is yet another means that proves the Earth is 4.3 Billion years old.

The idea was that if you looked at this rock 2 days after creation, it would look about the same. The ratios in it would NOT mean it was billions of old, obviously since it was just created a day earlier.

But AVI is back now, and this issue seems to warrant another thread. So, I'll go see about starting one....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The idea was that if you looked at this rock 2 days after creation, it would look about the same. The ratios in it would NOT mean it was billions of old, obviously since it was just created a day earlier.

But AVI is back now, and this issue seems to warrant another thread. So, I'll go see about starting one....

But why would God create a rock two days after Creation but embed with billions of years of age? What is the point if not to deceive?

 

[AV1611VET]

But why would God create a rock two days after Creation but embed with billions of years of age?

I'm sure He has His reasons.

Had He created the sun without maturity, we wouldn't be here.

What is the point if not to deceive?

If God wanted to deceive us, He would have written Genesis 1 & 2 differently.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm sure He has His reasons.

Had He created the sun without maturity, we wouldn't be here.



If God wanted to deceive us, He would have written Genesis 1 & 2 differently.

Well you're the ones who seem to know God and His creation better than anyone else does, even Himself.

Since you're the ones who have been putting forward the idea of embedded age so much that it's near enough a tenet for you, surely you'd know the answer.

 

[truthpls]

But why would God create a rock two days after Creation but embed with billions of years of age? What is the point if not to deceive?

Maybe AVI could take that question

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe AVI could take that question

You're the one who made the claim.

 

[truthpls]

You're the one who made the claim.

OK, we could not know what God's creating a universe involved. So when we see a rock that was just created, how could we say what is in the rock was 'deceptive'? That is just how the finished product was.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

OK, we could not know what God's creating a universe involved. So when we see a rock that was just created, how could we say what is in the rock was 'deceptive'? That is just how the finished product was.

Just for the record, I have asked the same question over on your other thread.

 

[BCP1928]

Only when they extend that to tell us ages based on no creation or alternate creation stories that oppose the truth. Adam was not 'our being' He was a creature God formed from the ground and gave life to one day that He called man, and named Adam. Eve was taken from this man after God put him under in a deep sleep. So if hospitals today put someone under, that would be naturalism. When God put Adam under, that was more because firstly, a Spirit did the operation. Also, a whole new fully grown person was the result.

Right, So saying that scientific naturalism denies God's authorship of our being is a lie. Scientific naturalism merely denies a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis.

 

[truthpls]

Right, So saying that scientific naturalism denies God's authorship of our being is a lie. Scientific naturalism merely denies a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis.

Well, it denies that man came from the earth and was formed by God etc. One cannot say that Adam or creation is a 'shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation'. It is a bible wide truth.

 

[dlamberth]

Well, it denies that man came from the earth and was formed by God etc. One cannot say that Adam or creation is a 'shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation'. It is a bible wide truth.

Like all religions, their Creation story sets the key to their religious beliefs. For Christianity the story of Adam is central to the need for salvation and the Saving Grace of Jesus. The Earth itSelf is telling a very different Creation story, one that does not include a Biblical type Creation or a historic Adam. Which directly impacts beliefs in the Fall. And that's a tough hurdle for Christians to accept. The way I see it, there in lies the crux of the matter. Personally I lean heavily towards taking what the Earth is showing us at face value. Which means no historic Adam and no Fall as believed. What I do acknowledge is a spiritual Adam and an evolutinary awakening of conscousness.

 

[truthpls]

Like all religions, their Creation story sets the key to their religious beliefs.

Like science that uses only the natural world, that sets the key to their belief that only the natural was involved.

For Christianity the story of Adam is central to the need for salvation and the Saving Grace of Jesus.

Yes, it tells us why we are in a mess now.

The Earth itSelf is telling a very different Creation story, one that does not include a Biblical type Creation or a historic Adam.

It is not telling it to me. Some people think a voice in their head tells them there is no god. Others think the earth and heaven declare the glory of God. The only ones telling the story that the physical and natural were all that was involved in creation are modern science. When you look only at one part of an equation it is not really giving you the answer. You just insist on making the result obedient to that one part of the equation at any cost.

Which directly impacts beliefs in the Fall. And that's a tough hurdle for Christians to accept.

No. It is easy to accept that modern science rejected God and must cook up ages and creation scenarios that leave Him out. Not tough at all, but expected and even prophesied.

The way I see it, there in lies the crux of the matter. Personally I lean heavily towards taking what the Earth is showing us at face value.

The earth does not say you should keep God out of creation. The godless method of science says that. They are incapable of reading what creation and the earth really says!

Which means no historic Adam and no Fall as believed.

Inside your little godless natural only paradigm that may be the case. From what Jesus said and Scripture, that is a lie. So we should ask ourselves, who would want to lie and cause doubt about creation and God? We might ask ourselves if there is any historical precedent of such lying. Gen quickly tells us that the serpent did exactly that.

What I do acknowledge is a spiritual Adam and an evolutinary awakening of conscousness.

The serpent told Eve her eyes would be opened if she believed his doubts. That sounds a lot like your little 'evolutinary awakening of conscousness' claim. Nothing new to see here.

 

[Aaron112]

Personally I lean heavily towards taking what the Earth is showing us at face value.

Too bad. The flesh profits nothing. Here today, gone tomorrow as is written (of humans).

 

[Aaron112]

Once upon a time, The Ultimate Almighty All-wise Creator

Created a Nursery for new beings.

He hand-made a few million cribs, with invincible sheets and pillows that cannot be burned or destroyed.

Then He Created a few million itty bitty teeny weeny ANGELS! One for each Crib .......

They were SOOOOO CUTE ! Laying there in the endless rows of cribs.....