The definition of EMBEDDED AGE

[AV1611VET]

Then clearly you would rather walk blindly imagining your own fantasy world.

And you're out of line, too.

 

[Tomk80]

Well, whoop-tee-la-la. Then you either haven't lurked when I've begged over and over for a specific event that occurred 4.57 billion years ago, or gave me a circular answer like:

• Earth is 4.57 billion years old, because Zircon is 4.57 billion years old; and Zircon is 4.57 billion years old, because Zircon formed 4.57 billion years ago.

When I get answers from you guys like, "We see...we see...we see," that shuts me down quick.

I walk by faith --- not by sight.

1. You show above that you have no idea what you are talking about when talking about Zircon.

2. I have showed you towards one of the answer to your questions about this. Isochron dating. I offered to explain this. After some of your usual blather, I asked you whether it would be any use explaining, whether you would actually consider the evidence. You admitted you wouldn't, that you would ignore it just as you do all the other evidence.

3. People (including me) have pointed out to you that what makes the earth show history is what happened between it's start and now. Again, you never discussed this but just dismissed that with a lot of handwaving and a number of your idiotic analogies that actually proved our point.

Basically, the above makes you dishonest, a liar. That is what it comes down to, isn't it AV. Claiming that noone has answered you on this is a lie, claiming that you would actually try to understand the evidence is a lie. It's a lies and dishonesty from you. Ultimately, that is all you have to offer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Basically, the above makes you dishonest, a liar. That is what it comes down to, isn't it AV. Claiming that noone has answered you on this is a lie, claiming that you would actually try to understand the evidence is a lie. It's a lies and dishonesty from you. Ultimately, that is all you have to offer.

I am not going to discuss Isochron dating with you, then apply it to the earth's history as a valid refutation of YEC, until you show me that He didn't embed that age in the first place.

I'm just like you.* You start from the premise that God didn't --- I start from the premise that God did --- and neither one of us is going to budge.

* Except I don't call you a liar.

 

[Dragar]

Yup --- real crafty.

That's why He documented what He did, when He did it, why He did it, how He did it, where He did it, and who the eyewitnesses were. Then, on top of that, preserved His Documentation throughout all history; and on top of that, commands us to spread that Documentation around. That's real crafty!

In addition, this crafty God warns us not to walk by sight, but to walk by faith.

That is real craft in action!

The Qur'an is hardly good evidence to leave behind.

 

[Tomk80]

I am not going to discuss Isochron dating with you, then apply it to the earth's history as a valid refutation of YEC, until you show me that He didn't embed that age in the first place.

That would require you to discuss isochron dating. Seems you've reached an impasse. The evidence is there to show that God didn't embed age, yet you are not interested in discussing that evidence but at the same time require me to discuss it with you. So we find ourselves in an impasse created by you, from which only you can move us further but for which you have no interest. That is what makes you dishonest.

I'm just like you.*

No, you're not. You are so unlike me that we could be inhibiting different universes.

You start from the premise that God didn't ---

Wrong. The earth shows a history whether God exists or doesn't. I did not arrive at that conclusion starting from the premise that God doesn't exist and I do not need that premise to show that the earth has a history. I have always approached this discussion from the standpoint that if God exists, He does not lie. This position makes the conclusions from the evidence the same, regardless of whether God exists or not.

That is why both theists (Christians and non-christians) and atheists who actually look at the evidence reach the same conclusion on this. I can be persuaded to a different viewpoint given if the evidence for this is shown.

I start from the premise that God did ---

You don't. You start from the premise that your own little viewpoints that you love and worship are correct.

and neither one of us is going to budge.
Well, you are correct if you state that I am not going to budge with the semantic games you are playing. Unlike you though, I can be persuaded from my current position if you actually present some evidence. That is what brought me to this position in the first place.

I have reached my current position from a position were I thought that the history of the earth as reconstructed, as well as the theory of evolution, were not based on sound scientific footing. This position was one I was taught by my father and grand father. Especially for the latter I had (and have) great respect because he was very knowledgable. He is one of the people that persuaded me to go into science. But discussion with them, as well as with friends who had the same ideas and people on this forum, showed that they were wrong, that the evidence was against them. I can be persuaded to a different position, but you actually need to bring more to the table than a dishonest attitude where you will not look at the evidence presented and silly semantic games. But that is all you have to offer so far.

*

Except I don't call you a liar.

Because unlike you, I am honest in this discussion. I do not ask for evidence which I subsequently will not look at, and I will do more than just play semantic games (if the person I am discussing with will do so too).

 

[Virtuoso]

We see a universe with history.

Which means God has made the universe to look like it has a history, even though it doesn't have one.

What a crafty deceiver he is!

I see someone else has been reading Strata.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I am not going to discuss Isochron dating with you, then apply it to the earth's history as a valid refutation of YEC, until you show me that He didn't embed that age in the first place.

So, the way to shake you loose from YEC is to convince you that God's not yanking your chain?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

AV, I know this has been explained to you several times, but I'll take one more crack at it... by quoting someone that can't be accused of having Tomk80's evil atheist agenda:

"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

- C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

Emphasis added to remind you of your first point ("Only God can do it"). What you have proposed is essentially a contradiction in terms. And when you try to explain it, you end up doing semantic tapdances. God can make Adam look just like me physiologically, but Adam's still one day old, since age means time in existence; to say otherwise is just changing the definition, and you might as well say that Adam was created as a rhinoceros (where, of course, "rhinoceros" means, in AVspeak, "having the physiology of a typical 30-year-old"). So effectively this is Omphalism, because Adam appears in all ways to be 30 but is actually 1 day old.

Omphalism, while theologically horrible, is (in Lewis's beautiful phraseology) intrinsically possible. Being created yesterday actually 30 years ago* is intrinsically impossible since it is a contradiction in terms. It is a rock so big God can't lift it; it is a four-sided triangle; it is gibberish.

*Which, before you accuse me of a strawman, is actually what you're claiming. Otherwise we're back to the problem of "30 years old" meaning something other than "having existed for 30 years" -- if you want to play silly buggers with the English language, go ahead, but I consider that argument to be reduction of purple essence with sausage of generous that. (See, isn't it fun to redefine words? It really aids communication!)

 

[AV1611VET]

Being created yesterday actually 30 years ago* is intrinsically impossible since it is a contradiction in terms.

MOK, I've used this example before only once --- I'll bring it up again, since you seem to be sincere in trying to convince me that I'm wrong.

Let me state beforehand that I do not think this is how God did it. This example is just to show you one way that it can be done logically.

If a second dimension of time existed, one could go out at 10:00:00, enter the 2nd dimension, mow his lawn, take a shower, read the paper, then return and resume his duties.

While his watch may say 17:00:00 (5pm), a clock on the wall of his house would still read 10:00:00. Yet the lawn is mowed, he has taken a shower and read the paper.

God could have created Adam on the 6th day at 06:00:00, entered him into a 2nd dimension of time for 30 years, then returned him to 06:00:00 --- and voila --- a 30 year-old-man in the blink of an eye.

HOWEVER --- there's a problem with this. Adam, in those 30 years has acquired a memory of things he did then. He may have a few scars. Tooth decay - (okay skip that one). Longer hair. A deeper voice, etc.

So, to circumvent this, God could have created Adam on the 6th day at 06:00:00. Entered him into the 2nd dimension for 30 years, then brought him back to 06:00:00 in pristine, perfect condition, with no memory of events, no longer hair, no cuts or bruises, no nothing.

And while I do believe in a 2nd (and 3rd) dimensions of time, I emphatically do not believe God used them to embed age into His Creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

And while I do believe in a 2nd (and 3rd) dimensions of time, I emphatically do not believe God used them to embed age into His Creation.

Then how do you explain the history apparent in everything we see around us?

Zircons millions of years old, by isochron dating, are found in and around fossils. So were these fossils also put there by God during the creation of the Earth? Did God order these fossils so that they would appear to evolve over time? Did God also change the isotope concentrations in the Zircons to once again indicate change over millions of years, change that never occured to creatures that never existed?

 

[Psudopod]

Well, whoop-tee-la-la. Then you either haven't lurked when I've begged over and over for a specific event that occurred 4.57 billion years ago, or gave me a circular answer like:

• Earth is 4.57 billion years old, because Zircon is 4.57 billion years old; and Zircon is 4.57 billion years old, because Zircon formed 4.57 billion years ago.

Nobody gave you a circular answer. People were trying to explain how the earth is dated and the concept of history. The oldest thing we have found is Zircon at about 4.5 billion years old. Therefore the youngest the earth can be is 4.6 billion years old.

Now you might say God created that zircon with the exact radioactive signiture of something 4.5 billion years old because for some reason a mature earth needs zircon like this for life to live. Debatable, but a different debate I feel. However, are all the impact craters scattered accross the face of the planet necessary for life? What about tens of thousands of years of varves? Is that pattern of events necessary for life?How about cave paintings from 30 thousand years ago? Why create those?

When I get answers from you guys like, "We see...we see...we see," that shuts me down quick.

Why, because you can't address it? We keep giving you examples which you can't deal with and then you either /thread or claim we haven't given you any.

Would you like me to bring up my house analogy again? I never did get to discuss that with you.

 

[milkyway]

MOK, I've used this example before only once --- I'll bring it up again, since you seem to be sincere in trying to convince me that I'm wrong.

Let me state beforehand that I do not think this is how God did it. This example is just to show you one way that it can be done logically.

If a second dimension of time existed, one could go out at 10:00:00, enter the 2nd dimension, mow his lawn, take a shower, read the paper, then return and resume his duties.

While his watch may say 17:00:00 (5pm), a clock on the wall of his house would still read 10:00:00. Yet the lawn is mowed, he has taken a shower and read the paper.

God could have created Adam on the 6th day at 06:00:00, entered him into a 2nd dimension of time for 30 years, then returned him to 06:00:00 --- and voila --- a 30 year-old-man in the blink of an eye.

HOWEVER --- there's a problem with this. Adam, in those 30 years has acquired a memory of things he did then. He may have a few scars. Tooth decay - (okay skip that one). Longer hair. A deeper voice, etc.

So, to circumvent this, God could have created Adam on the 6th day at 06:00:00. Entered him into the 2nd dimension for 30 years, then brought him back to 06:00:00 in pristine, perfect condition, with no memory of events, no longer hair, no cuts or bruises, no nothing.

And while I do believe in a 2nd (and 3rd) dimensions of time, I emphatically do not believe God used them to embed age into His Creation.

Did anyone, anywhere, suggest the idea of embedded age before scientists discovered how old the Earth is?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did God also change the isotope concentrations in the Zircons to once again indicate change over millions of years, change that never occured to creatures that never existed?

Let me put it this way. If He did - (and I'm not convinced He did) --- but if He did, then I'm thankful for the fact that He documented Genesis 1, which shows us that evolution did not occur.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did anyone, anywhere, suggest the idea of embedded age before scientists discovered how old the Earth is?

I'd never heard it before until my pastor mentioned it in one of his sermons.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Maturity without history.

And now on to the next items:
Invisible pink unicorns
Colorless green ideas
Square circles

(Whatever got into me anyway. *Unsubscribes*)

 

[AV1611VET]

And now on to the next items:
Invisible pink unicorns
Colorless green ideas
Square circles

You guys are a digm a dozen.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let me put it this way. If He did - (and I'm not convinced He did) --- but if He did, then I'm thankful for the fact that He documented Genesis 1, which shows us that evolution did not occur.

IOW, if He deceived us, you're so glad He left behind the magic book that says, "Everything I did is a deception -- except this book, of course."

 

[Psudopod]

Let me put it this way. If He did - (and I'm not convinced He did) --- but if He did, then I'm thankful for the fact that He documented Genesis 1, which shows us that evolution did not occur.

a) nothing in Genesis says that the alles of a population doesn't change over time

b) there is nothing that says God wrote the bible

c) why make your creation and your creation account differ so wildly?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'd never heard it before until my pastor mentioned it in one of his sermons.

So "Embedded Age" is a man-made doctrine that you worship. Interesting...

 

[Tomk80]

So "Embedded Age" is a man-made doctrine that you worship. Interesting...

Say it isn't so!