Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AveChristusRex]

Well the, it's an unfalsifiable proposition. Is that more to your liking?

Sure, but I would prefer connundrum, because many things are that way. Take for example Helio- vs Geo- centrism, you cant prove one or the other, so you primarily base of off of philosophy; in this case, I am sticking to the Biblical account.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well then, it's an unfalsifiable proposition.

Getting it wrong by saying it's "imbedding history" doesn't help.

Methinks that's stuck in your (and Warden's and lamberth's) mind, because you guys SO WANT to make it look like embedded age portrays God as a deceiver.

 

[BCP1928]

Sure, but I would prefer connundrum, because many things are that way. Take for example Helio- vs Geo- centrism, you cant prove one or the other, so you primarily base of off of philosophy; in this case, I am sticking to the Biblical account.

From a scientific standpoint it is not necessary to "prove" it. I'll just use Kepler's equations rather than Ptolemy's because they're easier to work.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Embedded Age = maturity WITHOUT history.

Seems you'll never get this right.

You can't have age without history. No matter how much you try and think you're making a point about it, it's still wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

By proxy, do you believe that no age hypothesis is correct since it is not explicitly stated in the Scriptures?

Old Earth Creationism is the only thing that makes sense, since it does not refute the study of God's creation.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 says that "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion..." note that the word "delusion" or πλάνης (planēs, Strong's 4106) is the genitive feminine singular parsing. It is also used with the same parsing in Romans 1:27: "...the due penalty of their error (ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν)." Strong defines the word to mean "Deception, error, delusion, wandering." Bengel's Gnomen also notes it as "of error," with Meyer's NT Commentary calling it an "active power of seduction" and Vincent's Word Studies calling it "Strong delusion." Vincent also states: "The article gives the generic sense, falsehood in all its forms."

I also want to mention the aforementioned wine at the Wedding at Cana, which would presumably seem aged but was created instantaneously. Are you to say that God intended to deceive those at Cana with aged wine brought forth instantaneously by a miracle? I think it is a byproduct of the act, not directly attempting to mislead, as that would contradict Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18. The world’s "mature creation" is a reflection of God’s wisdom in establishing a fully functional environment for humanity (Job 38:4-7), not specifically a divine deception. The purpose of creation is to glorify God, not to conform to human expectations (Isaiah 55:8-9), and I think it is a greater glorification of God to say that possibly He created the world with embedded age to show that He is not bound by time, and He is literally alpha and omega.

Jesus turning the water to wine is in no way the same league as God creating the Earth 6000 years ago but implanting embedded, fake age into it.

 

[River Jordan]

No, embedded age IS extra-Biblical.

It's also an unspoken admission that the earth and the universe really do appear to be billions of years old and scientists are generally correct in their conclusions. The creationists simply argue back that while it all may look ancient, it's really just a deliberate deception by a trickster God.

IMO that's just weird and I can't think of any justification for God to manipulate so many things to create this illusory reality.

 

[River Jordan]

2 Thessalonians 2:11 says that "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion..." note that the word "delusion" or πλάνης (planēs, Strong's 4106) is the genitive feminine singular parsing. It is also used with the same parsing in Romans 1:27: "...the due penalty of their error (ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν)." Strong defines the word to mean "Deception, error, delusion, wandering." Bengel's Gnomen also notes it as "of error," with Meyer's NT Commentary calling it an "active power of seduction" and Vincent's Word Studies calling it "Strong delusion." Vincent also states: "The article gives the generic sense, falsehood in all its forms."

But scripture never says what that delusion is. That it's about the apparent/embedded age of the universe and/or earth is an assumption on your part, but is nowhere in scripture.

 

[dlamberth]

Getting it wrong by saying it's "imbedding history" doesn't help.

Methinks that's stuck in your (and Warden's and lamberth's) mind, because you guys SO WANT to make it look like embedded age portrays God as a deceiver.

Your the one who paints God as a deceiver. Because God can not deceive, that's how I know your embedded age is hogwash.

 

[dlamberth]

Embedded Age = maturity WITHOUT history.

Seems you'll never get this right.

Embedded history. How does that work for you?

 

[AveChristusRex]

It's also an unspoken admission that the earth and the universe really do appear to be billions of years old and scientists are generally correct in their conclusions. The creationists simply argue back that while it all may look ancient, it's really just a deliberate deception by a trickster God.

IMO that's just weird and I can't think of any justification for God to manipulate so many things to create this illusory reality.

No, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson wrote in response to a question about fossils: "Even if the time given by the Torah for the age of the world seems too short for fossilization processes (though I see no way to prove this definitively), we can [then] easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear—bones or skeletons (for reasons known to Him)—just as He could create fully formed organisms, Adam in his entirety, and ready-made products like coal or diamonds, without any developmental process" (Tevet 5722, printed in "Faith and Science," p. 89). If need be, it can be an appropriate response if science is correct in its current specifics.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson wrote in response to a question about fossils: "Even if the time given by the Torah for the age of the world seems too short for fossilization processes (though I see no way to prove this definitively), we can [then] easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear—bones or skeletons (for reasons known to Him)—just as He could create fully formed organisms, Adam in his entirety, and ready-made products like coal or diamonds, without any developmental process" (Tevet 5722, printed in "Faith and Science," p. 89). If need be, it can be an appropriate response if science is correct in its current specifics.

I cannot fathom how that does not make God deceptive then.

 

[River Jordan]

No, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson wrote in response to a question about fossils: "Even if the time given by the Torah for the age of the world seems too short for fossilization processes (though I see no way to prove this definitively), we can [then] easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear—bones or skeletons (for reasons known to Him)—just as He could create fully formed organisms, Adam in his entirety, and ready-made products like coal or diamonds, without any developmental process" (Tevet 5722, printed in "Faith and Science," p. 89). If need be, it can be an appropriate response if science is correct in its current specifics.

The Rabbi is actually furthering my point that this constitutes an unspoken admission that things really do appear ancient. The only reason he would need to posit this scenario in the first place is if the fossils do indeed seem to be ancient. The Rabbi deals with that by inventing, out of whole cloth, this notion that God just deceptively made them that way.

But there is absolutely nothing in scripture about fossils, let alone God creating them in such a way as to deliberately deceive us.

 

[Kylie]

Probably not enough to relocate a big mountain. Even a little hill would be a challenge

Jesus said that you only need the tiniest amount of faith. Do you not even have that?

And land masses move every day

Ah yes, I can just see it now. You pray to Jesus to move the mountain, and the prayer is answered by the process of plate tectonics, which requires Jesus to just sit down and do absolutely nothing because plate tectonics is gonna happen anyway.

Exactly, and He gives us more and more faith unto that perfect day.

And yet you say you still don't have enough faith to do it.

No one could do it even with faith. God does it. We just ask Him to

Now you are twisting the meaning of what I said. "It" refers to praying for the mountain to move.

The continent of Australia is a lot bigger than Everest. He moved it along with all continents and they all went where they were told like puppies.

WSe'll add plate tectonics to the ever-growing list of things you don't understand, shall we?

Satan asked Jesus to jump off a high cliff just because He could have done it. Jesus had more important miracles in mind. Like healing the sick, raising the dead, making wine for a party etc

More excuses to try to get out of it.

Isn't it about time that you admit that the supernatural CAN be tested, and you just don't want to do it?

I mean, I gave you a specific example of how your supernatural claim can be tested, and exactly what results we would see if your claims about the supernatural are correct. But instead of actually doing it, you make excuse after excuse to NOT do it.

Could it be because you know it will fail?

I mean, deep down, you know you have faith, right?

And you also know that no matter how much you pray, Mt Everest is never gonna move.

The test is clear. And you know it will fail.

 

[Kylie]

I feel as if you are intentionally misconstruing what I said.

Which part? You just quoted a huge slab of text and gave absolutely no indication which part of it you were refering to.

That is your view, but that is not the wording id use.

Your wording is irrelevant.

If someone tells lies, then they are a liar.

That is also your view, and you are entitled to it! However, I believe Biblical science, coming from the divine inspiration of the scriptures, is indeed divinely revealed science.

Can you give an example of science that has come through divine revelation rather than through the scientific method?

What I meant is that this is a Christian forum, specifically made for Christians in mind.

And which is open for non-Christians to participate in.

In the forum list, it clearly states that this section is open to non-believers, so I don't see why you're coming in here and complaining that there are non-believers here.

Rather than saying something that will be misconstrued, I will just point to what you said: "I am more concerned with the style of discussion rather than the substance. Hence the misguided style.

So, no, you can't show me where my judgement or reasoning has been faulty.

Your claims that I am misguided seem to be completely unjustified.

Yes.

Please tell me what the intellectual basis for your faith is. No appealing to emotions or logical fallacies.

An emotional response in a discussion is characterized by the illogical and unnecessary overreaction to a particular point that uses more personal grammar and language than what is necessary for that point. Therefore, emotional indifference = cool, calm, collected.

So emotional = overreaction.

Do you think it's possible for a person's emotions to bias them towards reaching a particular conclusion without leading them to have such an over reaction?

Nothing more was being implied.

Then why did you bring it up at all?

Yes! Exactly!

The trouble with that is that you never actually get anything done.

You're like the person who decides to go on holidays, and you sign up to the frequent flyer club, you create accounts on travel websites, follow bloggers who travel around the world to pick up tips, you subscribe to YouTube travel channels to get travel tips, you buy the fanciest luggage, you get different power adapters so you can always plug your phone charger in no matter where you go...

But you never actually go anywhere...

I did not imply that, where you got that meaning from what I said is in itself a divine revelation.

So God sent me a misunderstanding of what you said.

Really.

You really think that?

What I meant is why do you even try to debate people who you think are dead wrong, shouldn't you [if the science was sound] just ignore those who question the science and work with those who don't? Let me give a hypothetical: We developed mathematics because we found out whats after 2+2=4, we didn't spend our time debating those who questioned that, we just ignored them. (that's not calling either side wrong or either side better than another).

Just because you think such people should be ignored doesn't mean everyone should think they should be ignored.

Hence why I even mentioned it. I'm not the best in scientific discussions because of my young age, hence why I haven't spoken about science.

I wasn't talking about science, I was talking about atheists. There are plenty of atheists out there who know very little about science.

The style should be more peaceful and loving, like instead of saying "Excuses, excuses" and "More excuses," why not say "I think that answer is flawed, but I respect your view, however I will say this on the subject" or something such as.

I prefer to concentrate on the substance.

Focussing on the style over the substance is like living on a diet of deserts. You never feel satisfied and you get sick of all the sweetness.

Logically flawed points fizzle out quickly, as no one pays attention to them; if you give them attention, they only gain reputability.

If you teach people logic, then they can see the flaws for themselves.

And if the people who can point out the flaws just ignore the logically flawed arguments, then that works out just fine for the people who want to use those logically flawed arguments, as no one is exposing how they are wrong.

Well, with all respect, of course, you don't put in parentheses who you mean in those quotes, so it is easy to assume if no context is given.

Don't blame me for your assumptions.

Fair point, but what I said was related to your style, not your view. The question I originally asked was simple, can you say something good about the individuals who claim are making "excuses" and whatnot, it was not meant to be a psychoanalysis or criticism, with me speaking on dave's mentality for the first half of the original message, the other half were compliments and the question I originally asked, so I don't really know why you were unable to answer it, and just move on? It seems like a pretty simple thing, in my view, but its okay!

You really need to get your priorities straight.

Not everyone is going to have the same style as you. Deal with it. Concentrate on the substance and then maybe you can start having some DISCUSSIONS on this DISCUSSION forum.

 

[truthpls]

Isn't it about time that you admit that the supernatural CAN be tested, and you just don't want to do it?

Tell us how it can be tested using only the natural exactly?

I mean, I gave you a specific example of how your supernatural claim can be tested, and exactly what results we would see if your claims about the supernatural are correct. But instead of actually doing it, you make excuse after excuse to NOT do it.

I explained that even if one were to rise from the dead that would still not be enough for some people. I explained that if a big miracle happened science would not have any ability to see the actual reasons. It would just see the event if God allowed them to even be there.

Just like they see creation, but explain it another way..using only the natural of course! Once we have their number they lose all their power of casting doubt on God's creation. Neutered. Defanged.

 

[dlamberth]

No, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson wrote in response to a question about fossils: "Even if the time given by the Torah for the age of the world seems too short for fossilization processes (though I see no way to prove this definitively), we can [then] easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear—bones or skeletons (for reasons known to Him)—just as He could create fully formed organisms, Adam in his entirety, and ready-made products like coal or diamonds, without any developmental process" (Tevet 5722, printed in "Faith and Science," p. 89). If need be, it can be an appropriate response if science is correct in its current specifics.

Why would God want to do that? Why miss-lead? That does not at all sound God like.

 

[truthpls]

Why would God want to do that? Why miss-lead? That does not at all sound God like.

I agree. Fossils are remains of creatures that lived. That would be deception

 

[Kylie]

Tell us how it can be tested using only the natural exactly?

I explained that even if one were to rise from the dead that would still not be enough for some people. I explained that if a big miracle happened science would not have any ability to see the actual reasons. It would just see the event if God allowed them to even be there.

Just like they see creation, but explain it another way..using only the natural of course! Once we have their number they lose all their power of casting doubt on God's creation. Neutered. Defanged.

I never said testing can only include the natural.

Show me where I said that?

Testing = If you do A, you reliably get B as the result. A always leads to B, and B only happens after A.

This will work just fine with the supernatural.

 

[AveChristusRex]

So God sent me a misunderstanding of what you said.

Really.

I'm just going to ignore you, which is seriously unfortunate. It seems everyone else understood what I meant, but I will pray for you, God bless!

 

[AveChristusRex]

I cannot fathom how that does not make God deceptive then.

If God is not deceptive in regards to the wine of Cana, why then with creation? Is it because we only studied the world, and not the wine? Why not both of them being non-deceptive and our understanding of them being the deception itself?