The Return of My Apple Challenge

Split Rock · Jan 31, 2008

AV1611VET said:
I'm not sure why God embedded so much age into his Creation, but I can tell you that had he not embedded age into it, then the trees couldn't bear fruit for Adam and Eve, who were mature enough to walk, talk, marry, and have children. Remember: the definition of embedded age is simply maturity without history.

AV1611VET said:
If you radioisotope-dated the earth to 6100 years, that would confirm YEC, not embedded age. After all, a reading of only 6100 years would mean that 6100 years ago the earth was 0 years old, and thus didn't have any age.

But I'm asking why did it need embedded age to make it "mature?" If He snapped his fingers and out popped a solid, stable planet with several feet of topsoil, with rivers, and lakes, etc., why would it need to have a radioisotope signature of a 4.5 billion year old planet?

AV1611VET said:
I don't believe that, myself. You're ruling out catastrophism, and it's creating a blind spot.

Catastrophism was ruled out by Christian geologists back in the early 1800s. It doesn't explain what we find in the geological record, and yes they looked!

AV1611VET said:
If you take a brand new piece of wood, submerge it under hundreds of tons of water for a year, subject it to sudden freezing on each end, then literally pull it apart into five pieces, while all the time subjecting it to meteor strikes, earthquakes, etc. for a period of time - (in other words, beat it practically to a pulp) - it's going to have plenty of scars.

Then someone comes along, looks at it and says, "Yup. Looks like normal wear-and-tear to me." Would you buy his assessment?

Too bad all the scars would look like they happened at the same time, though. Because they did. We don't see that when looking at our planet.

AV1611VET · Jan 31, 2008

Loudmouth said:
A freshly formed zircon crystal does not contain any lead. Old ones do, due to the decay of uranium (as keith 99 also mentions). So a newly formed zircon would date to 0. Why is this a problem? Why did God include a little bit of lead in zircons for no other reason than to make them look old?

The false spot is your lack of knowledge. We can date meteor impacts (like the famous Chixilub impact which coincided with the disappearance of the dinosaurs) by the rocks they form. Specifically, meteors produce tektites which are little glassy globules that form from the cooling of ejected, melted material. When the material is a liquid they outgas, including their Argon. When they reform into a solid the Potassium isotopes decay producing trapped Argon. By measuring the ratio of Potassium to Argon (K/AR dating) we can tell when the meteor impact occured. For the Chixilub impact that was 65 million years ago, or in your case the meteor impact was faked, including the tektites.

Expose it to the energies produced by these meteor impacts and you will not have any wood left.

Loudmouth, I don't mean to be rude, and I know you probably don't want to hear this, but I'm not going to sit here and respond to any lectures from the viewpoint of raw science. I couldn't care less if this earth has 10 times the meteor strikes, with 10 times the "scientific evidence" of 10 times the age that this earth is calculated as having. It means, and believe me, I cannot stress this emphatically enough, absolutely nothing to me whatsoever. Nada. Zip. Zero. I can promise you with all the veracity I can muster that science makes no dent at all in what I believe. None. And as far as I'm concerned, you can take your science and go convince those babes in Christ who don't know their Bibles that well that they should believe in some form of Theistic Evolution, as they call it; but you're not going to even make a dent in me. [shrugs shoulders] It ain't gonna happen.

UncleHermit · Jan 31, 2008

/discussion and debate

AV1611VET · Jan 31, 2008

Split Rock said:
Too bad all the scars would look like they happened at the same time, though. Because they did. We don't see that when looking at our planet.

.

AV1611VET said:
If you take a brand new piece of wood, submerge it under hundreds of tons of water for a year...

quatona · Jan 31, 2008

I´m surprised how many people seriously discuss this "embedded age" gag.

RangerJoe · Jan 31, 2008

What is amazing is that people continue to argue with the communicative/comprehensive equivalent of a stack of bricks. LoL

Split Rock · Jan 31, 2008

AV1611VET said:
.

Do you really think a year means anything in terms of geological time?

Vene · Jan 31, 2008

keith99 said:
Your wood example is good, but not as you intend it to be. Yes on the surface you see a very beat up piece of wood. So it should have taken a long time. But very simple checks with carbon 14 dating show otherwise. An expert would notice other things, like lack of rot.

The Earth has more than just large scars (that have since filled in with nicely layered strata). There are also minerals that contain the WRONG elements. There is no known way to create the mineral with that element where it is in the crystal structure. But there is a way to explain how it got there. It was a different element when the crystal was created and has since undergone radioactive decay. And that gives us a way to know just when that crystal was formed.

Now there is no reason to think God could not have done something to make the crystal 6000 years ago to look like it was much older. The question is WHY? To decieve men just for the fun of it? Or because He wants an excuse to condemn men for believeing what they can see and figure out. Worshiping such a God seems pretty close to Satinism to me.

To make an analogy out of this. A man brings his daughter to a hospital and she has serious bruising and he says that she fell down some stairs we could expect her to have bruising. But, when she is examined the doctors see marks more consistent with what is seen from child abuse what should they conclude? The "scars" of the Earth do not fit that which should be seen from any flood.

Belk · Jan 31, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Without looking it up right now - (I'm in lazy mode) - I believe Matthew gives us a triad of 14 generations in Chapter 1. In other words, he gives us three groups, consisting of 14 generations - (minus the last one, which I think only has 13). These groups, I believe, have gaps in them, but the gaps can easily be covered by Daniel 9, who mathematically calculates the exact year of the birth of the Messiah.

[bible]Daniel 9:25[/bible]

So if indeed billions of years passed somewhere between generations in the Old Testament, it would have had to occur somewhere between 1 Chronicles and Daniel 9, and that's just not even feasible.

I was not thinking billions of years, but I can see where it would be an issue since you believe in 6 day creation. So not knowing much about the bible why would it have to occur between Chronicles and Daniel?

ETA: I don't understand how the 9:25 passage is used to calculate the comming of the messiah? Or was that meant for something else?

Loudmouth · Jan 31, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Loudmouth, I don't mean to be rude, and I know you probably don't want to hear this, but I'm not going to sit here and respond to any lectures from the viewpoint of raw science. I couldn't care less if this earth has 10 times the meteor strikes, with 10 times the "scientific evidence" of 10 times the age that this earth is calculated as having. It means, and believe me, I cannot stress this emphatically enough, absolutely nothing to me whatsoever. Nada. Zip. Zero. I can promise you with all the veracity I can muster that science makes no dent at all in what I believe. None.

That's fine. We already knew that. I just wanted to make sure that you add tektites to your list of God made forgeries.

vajradhara · Jan 31, 2008

Namaste AV,

thank you for the post.

AV1611VET said:
I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

please demonstrate that you can do this or i shall have to consider your motives in quite a negative light. it would seem that you are lying but i am willing to suspend this view until such time that you can make said apple.

i think that a week shall be sufficient time for this apple to appear in my hand.

What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

since you have not demonsrated that you can make magic apples it is rather moot.

were you able to make magic apples i would have no evidence to present to any being nor, incidently, would it occur to me to make it up.

metta,

~v

quatona · Jan 31, 2008

Embedded age = Maturity without history.

Reading through this thread I have a nagging question:
Does it occasionally work the other way round:

Embedded age = Immaturity despite history ?

quatona · Jan 31, 2008

vajradhara said:
since you have not demonsrated that you can make magic apples it is rather moot.

I´m sure you couldn´t recognize an embedded apple even if it were right before your nose.

AV1611VET · Jan 31, 2008

vajradhara said:
Namaste AV,

Shalom, Vajradhara.

vajradhara said:
thank you for the post.

You are welcome.

vajradhara said:
please demonstrate that you can do this...

I don't need to. This little scenario is what we call a hypothetical. That means that it didn't literally happen. For instance, I could have said:

Hypothetically, let's say I go to the center of the sun. What would I expect to find?

vajradhara said:
or i shall have to consider your motives in quite a negative light.

You could if you wanted to, or you could take my word for it that I came up with this hypothetical after going to God in prayer and telling Him that there are people who actually think that there should be some evidence left over from what You did in Genesis 1, and please give me a clear scenario by which I can get them to admit that your creatio ex nihilo could not possibly have left any evidence behind.

vajradhara said:
it would seem that you are lying but i am willing to suspend this view until such time that you can make said apple.

Well I've got good news for you. I didn't lie. On this side of the Pacific, a lie is an untruth told with the intent to deceive. My challenge is an untruth told with the intent to hypothesize.

vajradhara said:
i think that a week shall be sufficient time for this apple to appear in my hand.

If you're talking creatio ex materia on demand, it can't be done by mental concentration - (if you are talking about what I think you are talking about) - no matter how long you wait.

vajradhara said:
since you have not demonsrated that you can make magic apples it is rather moot.

It isn't a "magic apple," even in my scenario. It is a real one.

vajradhara said:
metta,

Agapao ---

vajradhara · Jan 31, 2008

quatona said:
I´m sure you couldn´t recognize an embedded apple even if it were right before your nose.

Namaste quatona,

quite likely not.

but i'm pretty good with apples in general and i'm hopeful that i'd recognize that i didn't have one in my hand and then did, but one cannot be too sure with magic apples.

metta,

~v

vajradhara · Jan 31, 2008

Namaste AV,

thank you for the post.

AV1611VET said:
I don't need to. This little scenario is what we call a hypothetical. That means that it didn't literally happen. For instance, I could have said:

Hypothetically, let's say I go to the center of the sun. What would I expect to find?

you are right, you *could* have said that.. but you didn't. you didn't suggest this was a thought experiment as near as i can tell, you claimed that you could create apples out of nothing, if that's what your term means.

You could if you wanted to, or you could take my word for it that I came up with this hypothetical after going to God in prayer and telling Him that there are people who actually think that there should be some evidence left over from what You did in Genesis 1, and please give me a clear scenario by which I can get them to admit that your creatio ex nihilo could not possibly have left any evidence behind.

are you suggesting that God told you that you should create this hypothetical?

Well I've got good news for you. I didn't lie. On this side of the Pacific, a lie is an untruth told with the intent to deceive. My challenge is an untruth told with the intent to hypothesize.

firstly, you'd have to demonstrate that "your side of the pacific" has any claim on what lies are. speaking untruth is lying depsite how you may attempt to rationalize it, at least in my undestanding. you have, yourself, just admitted that you have told an untruth. it is a lie which you hope advances your cause but i, honestly, cannot see how lying advances any cause in a positive manner.

If you're talking creatio ex materia on demand, it can't be done by mental concentration - (if you are talking about what I think you are talking about) - no matter how long you wait.

i have no idea how you plan to make the apple appear in my hand, that's up to you.

It isn't a "magic apple," even in my scenario. It is a real one.

it seems quite magical, it can appear out of nothing, anywhere! then again, you and i probably have different ideas regarding magic fruit.

metta,

~v

Psudopod · Feb 1, 2008

How does it feel? Can't take what you guys dish out?

It feels fine. You're hardly dishing out much. I'm only pointing out why I'm choosing to respond you your beliefs.

First of all, you need to make up you mind which one I am.

Like I said. It doesn't matter which lable you ro anyone lese slaps on you. What you call yourself does not change reality. Reality is 13,7 biliion years with continuous history. I know you don't like it, but you have to show us a valid alternative for that history, or accpt that it's there. And you can't. Because you proudly claim you know nothing about sicence and how it works.

But of course, we're still wrong and you hold science to a higher standard and we should be using goldly paradigms etc. ( Of couse an explanation on how to do this is never forthcoming, now is an explanation of why it would produce better results than the current system.)

Second of all, I don't plan on improving technology or life quality, with or without the atheist icon.

I know you don't but other people do. And that wouldn't happen if everyone thought like you did.

quatona · Feb 1, 2008

AV1611VET said:
I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

I encountered this very problem a while back. It was not an apple that the guy created ex nihilo into the palm of a my hand, but a diamond the size of an apple. Whatever, makes no difference. Noone believed me. I´m sure and glad that you at least don´t doubt it. You are not one of those stubborn, willfully blind skeptics, after all.

MrGoodBytes · Feb 1, 2008

AV1611VET said:
If God was being deceptive, why did He document what He did, how He did it, where He did it, why He did it, when He did it, what order He did it in, and who the eyewitnesses were?

Where in the Bible can we find this documentation about God embedding age?

FishFace · Feb 1, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Loudmouth, I don't mean to be rude, and I know you probably don't want to hear this, but I'm not going to sit here and respond to any lectures from the viewpoint of raw science. I couldn't care less if this earth has 10 times the meteor strikes, with 10 times the "scientific evidence" of 10 times the age that this earth is calculated as having. It means, and believe me, I cannot stress this emphatically enough, absolutely nothing to me whatsoever. Nada. Zip. Zero. I can promise you with all the veracity I can muster that science makes no dent at all in what I believe. None. And as far as I'm concerned, you can take your science and go convince those babes in Christ who don't know their Bibles that well that they should believe in some form of Theistic Evolution, as they call it; but you're not going to even make a dent in me. [shrugs shoulders] It ain't gonna happen.

"La-la-la-la, I can't hear you!"

Of course, that means you don't mind believing in a deceitful God.

The Return of My Apple Challenge

Conflation of Blathers

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

"God"? What do you mean??

Regular Member

Conflation of Blathers

In memory of ChordatesLegacy

Senior Member

Contributor

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom

Godspeed, Spacebat

"God"? What do you mean??

Seeker for life, probably

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency