Why did God make Different Aged Rocks

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

No, I couldn't -- that would contradict what I believe.

Embedded Age = maturity without history.

Perhaps without realizing it you have just admitted that what you believe is self contradictory. The different ages of rocks show history. If those different ages were embedded then history or at least a deceptive appearance of history was embedding with age.

 

[AV1611VET]

The different ages of rocks show history.

And Adam and Eve being 1-year apart wouldn't?

 

[kharisym]

And what would I have to do to remain right? agree with Frumious Bandersnatch?

I'd still be wrong, wouldn't I?

Jettison embedded age for theistic evolution?

What specifically would right me?

(Please answer this.)

Can we agree that the ice columns in antarctica show what appear to be deposits of atmosphere dating back several million years, and that those values match what we'd expect from fossil records and geologic strata?

If you deny this is true, then you're wrong and simply denying reality. If you agree with this, then the earth shows history- whether real or fake, and therefore "Embedded Age = maturity without history." is false.

 

[AV1611VET]

The different ages of rocks show history.

And Adam and Eve being 1-year apart wouldn't?

* Bumped for Frumious Bandersnatch *
​

 

[AV1611VET]

And what would I have to do to remain right? agree with Frumious Bandersnatch?

I'd still be wrong, wouldn't I?

Jettison embedded age for theistic evolution?

What specifically would right me?

(Please answer this.)

* Bumped for Cabal *
​

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And Adam and Eve being 1-year apart wouldn't?

It would, this is just another example of how ebbeding age leads to the appearance of embedded history. Of coures Adam and Eve being 1 year apart is just an ad hoc AV addition is not even alleged Biblically.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would, this is just another example of how ebbeding age leads to the appearance of embedded history.

So, in order to avoid this charge from you:

If those different ages were embedded then history or at least a deceptive appearance of history was embedding with age.

... God would have had to have made everything the same age?

 

[Gracchus]

And Adam and Eve being 1-year apart wouldn't?

So why couldn't god have "embedded" enough age in Eve to make her much older than Adam?

We needn't go into the horrific implications of a man having children by his clone!

 

[Freodin]

... God would have had to have made everything the same age?

As your "embedded age" is explained by the need of "maturity" of the age-embedded object, there is no need at all to embedd different ages into objects of the same sort.

 

[Skaloop]

And yes there is ample proof for the Flood

Citation needed. Please feel free to provide references to this "ample" proof. Because in my experience, there isn't even ample evidence, let alone ample proof.

 

[AV1611VET]

... there is no need at all to embedd different ages into objects of the same sort.

Are you telling me, Freodin, that if all the rocks of the 'same sort' were the exact same age today, there would be no appreciable change in the environment?

Can life exist as we know it, if all the rocks of the 'same sort' (kinds?) were the same age?

God is not a God of variety?

Can't He put variety on this earth w/o being accused of being deceptive?

 

[Freodin]

Are you telling me, Freodin, that if all the rocks of the 'same sort' were the exact same age today, there would be no appreciable change in the environment?

Can life exist as we know it, if all the rocks of the 'same sort' (kinds?) were the same age?

Yes and no.

Yes, because "life as we know it" does not depend on different ages. If it did, that would invalidate your whole idea.

No, because "life as we know it" is life that was born, aged and died. We do not "know" a single example of "life" that was "created with embedded age".

God is not a God of variety?

Can't He put variety on this earth w/o being accused of being deceptive?

Depends what that variety is. A variety in ages is exactly what you deny exists: history... and that would mean that God created a state without history that includes history. That is either contradictory or... deceptive.

But you should really be carefull with that "can God" questions... or else someone might ask you "can God create the world in a certain way and then present a poetical account about that creation that is not to be taken literally without being deceptive?"

 

[dad]

But it is the Subject of This Thread.

Age differences of a few thousand years don't matter. The rest is in your imagination.

 

[AV1611VET]

We do not "know" a single example of "life" that was "created with embedded age".

Adam and Eve come to mind, but since they don't pass science's Turing test, I guess they wouldn't come to mind in a laboratory.

I suppose current scientific paradigms would filter them out.

A variety in ages is exactly what you deny exists:

Not.

Adam was 30, Eve was 29, earth was 4.57 billion, the universe was 13.7 billion, the sun 5 billion, etc.

history... and that would mean that God created a state without history that includes history. That is either contradictory or... deceptive.

I don't know where you came up with that part that I highlighted in red, but I suspect it was done to make your last comment valid.

God created a state without history -- period.

Not: God created a state without history that includes history.

 

[Mike Elphick]

...earth was 4.57 billion, the universe was 13.7 billion, the sun 5 billion, etc.

And here was I brought up to think the sun and Earth were part of the universe. No?

 

[Freodin]

Adam and Eve come to mind, but since they don't pass science's Turing test, I guess they wouldn't come to mind in a laboratory.

I suppose current scientific paradigms would filter them out.

Yes, this is what you do... suppose. But because you don´t have anything to go further, you don´t know.

This is a point that is important in the answer to your Adam and Eve depiction in the "Genesis 1" thread that you so graciously ignored even after repeated requests to comment on it from my side: You don´t know. Creationists don´t know. They use the "uniformitarism" that they accuse science of to extrapolate what they know (or think to know) to what they don´t. And they usually get it wrong.

Not.

Adam was 30, Eve was 29, earth was 4.57 billion, the universe was 13.7 billion, the sun 5 billion, etc.

You have to consider that I, as almost anyone except you, use "age" as "time in existence". And here a variance of age - at least in the proportions science portraits - is something you deny.

And thus your concept of "age" loses all meaning. Adam was 30, Eve 29? Why? Why not Adam 22, Eve 35? Because it offends your sense of propriety?
Earth was 4.57 billion years, the sun 5 billion years? But the sun was created after the earth! Can something be older, when it came later?

You say: yes, it can... that is the base of your embedded age. So why can´t Eve be older than Adam? And how the heck would you know?

I don't know where you came up with that part that I highlighted in red, but I suspect it was done to make your last comment valid.

God created a state without history -- period.

If you would drop your habit of selectively ignoring posts for once you would understand.

I wrote: "A variety in ages is exactly what you deny exists: history."
This is what "age" allows to us to... to find out when (in relation) something happened. You are aged 56... I am aged 41. That means that you were born 15 years before me. It does NOT mean that you were born 2 years after me, but with 17 years of embedded age.

This is what age means. You are in the mature state of being 56, because you have existed for 56 years. If you hadn´t, the age "56" would have no meaning.

Not: God created a state without history that includes history.

History is events happening (at different times, mostly). Age tells us something about when an event happened. Different ages mean history.

 

[AV1611VET]

And thus your concept of "age" loses all meaning. Adam was 30, Eve 29? Why? Why not Adam 22, Eve 35?

Fair enough -- it's still exemplary of the point being made in the OP.

The difference is that the OP uses rocks, and you're using people; but the concept is the same: God created two "objects" with different ages.

Earth was 4.57 billion years, the sun 5 billion years? But the sun was created after the earth!

Yup -- the order of the creation events is a different story altogether and has nothing to do with this thread.

Can something be older, when it came later?

Yes.

You say: yes, it can... that is the base of your embedded age. So why can´t Eve be older than Adam? And how the heck would you know?

Either way, Adam older or Eve older, it exemplifies the OP.

You are aged 56... I am aged 41. That means that you were born 15 years before me. It does NOT mean that you were born 2 years after me, but with 17 years of embedded age.

Adam and Eve though, weren't born.

This is what age means. You are in the mature state of being 56, because you have existed for 56 years. If you hadn´t, the age "56" would have no meaning.

This is also AD2010 -- I'm talking BC4004.

History is events happening (at different times, mostly).

Unless history didn't exist yet.

Embedded Age = maturity without history.

You keep wanting to inject history into the equation for some reason.

Age tells us something about when an event happened.

The OP deals with one day during the creation week -- day three.

Genesis 1:9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

This is where rocks appear.

As the atoms in the ocean get together and form the dry land in obedience to God's command, this dry land comes to the surface as a single, giant landmass called Eden or Pangaea with multiple-age layering in its rocks.

Different ages mean history.

Only if it grew that old, but embedded age is not something "growing old".

 

[Split Rock]

I usually don't address topics about what the human authors knew and didn't know; they were glorified secretaries writing for the Creator of the universe and were not inhibited by lack of knowledge like today's writers are.

Then why is it that Genesis reads like the author(s) didn't know what he(they) were writing about? Why is it so apparant that they didn't understand the nature of the sun, or the moon, or even the earth? If the author were God, the moon would have been described as a mirror, the earth would have been described as a ball, and Joshua would have stopped the earth from moving around the sun, not the other way around.

No, I couldn't -- that would contradict what I believe.

Embedded Age = maturity without history.

We understand that, AVET. What you continue to ignore is that there is more history than can be accounted for with your 6,100 year timeframe.

And what would I have to do to remain right? agree with Frumious Bandersnatch?

I'd still be wrong, wouldn't I?

Why would you still be wrong?

Jettison embedded age for theistic evolution?

That is certainly one possibility. You can at least jettison embedded age, considering the fact it simply doesn't work.

What specifically would right me?

(Please answer this.)

AVET, you have to decide what is right for you. You have to decide if embedded age doesn't work, what, if anything, you should replace it with. If nothing else, you can say, I don't know. I don't believe a 6,100 year planet is viable in any form. I do not believe that the geneologies in scripture are complete, nor do I believe they were ever intended to be complete. That is one starting point you might want to reconsider. Without the 6,1000 year timeframe you are imposing on your understanding of scripture, there really isn't any problem at all with our estimation of the age of the earth... is there?

 

[Split Rock]

Are you telling me, Freodin, that if all the rocks of the 'same sort' were the exact same age today, there would be no appreciable change in the environment?

I see no reason why this would change the environment, and I see no reason why it would be necessary or even desirable for them to have different ages.

Can life exist as we know it, if all the rocks of the 'same sort' (kinds?) were the same age?

Yes.

God is not a God of variety?

Ah..... the old creationist standby.... God is a god pf variety. Why so many beetles? Why so many ages? Variety!

Can't He put variety on this earth w/o being accused of being deceptive?

He didn't just create variety, he created the appearance of history. He made it look like the rocks on the bottom of the geological column were not just older, but billions of years older. He made His creation scream, "I am very old!" Why, if not for deception?

 

[Freodin]

Fair enough -- it's still exemplary of the point being made in the OP.

The difference is that the OP uses rocks, and you're using people; but the concept is the same: God created two "objects" with different ages.

Yup -- the order of the creation events is a different story altogether and has nothing to do with this thread.

Yes.

Either way, Adam older or Eve older, it exemplifies the OP.

Adam and Eve though, weren't born.

This is also AD2010 -- I'm talking BC4004.

Unless history didn't exist yet.

Embedded Age = maturity without history.

You keep wanting to inject history into the equation for some reason.

The OP deals with one day during the creation week -- day three.

Genesis 1:9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

This is where rocks appear.

As the atoms in the ocean get together and form the dry land in obedience to God's command, this dry land comes to the surface as a single, giant landmass called Eden or Pangaea with multiple-age layering in its rocks.

Only if it grew that old, but embedded age is not something "growing old".

The last sentence sums up all the problems in your idea. "Embedded age is not something growing old". So you say. But "age" IS something growing old. Without the "growing old", there is no age.

And THIS is exemplified throughout the thread. Age is determined by time passing, nothing else. Now the passing of time is connected with several observable events... like "maturing". Or "radioactive decay".

But if you divorce these two concepts - divorce "age" and "time passing" - the concept of "age" becomes meaningless.

I´d really like to go back to our (cut short by your ignoring my requests to comment) conversation in the "Genesis 1" thread.

You posted a pic of "Adam and Eve". How old were they? Well, Eve was 5 and Adam 75. Or Eve 102 and Adam three weeks. Or whatever. Why? Because if there is no relationship between "age" and "passing of time", there is no way to connect "age" with "state that is usually reached by the passing of time".

You cannot circumvent this by simple denial or redefining terms. It is a basic fact of existence.

So you have three options:
You can accept the difference between "age" and "appearence of age". Adam and Eve were one-day-olds, but looked like 30-year-olds. This is because age does not equal looks.
Or you can keep to the concept that Adam and Eve really were of that age - having it "embedded" into them. And now you have to accept that they also had embedded "history", if they (or the created stones or whatever) have different ages. Difference in ages means history.

Or you can take the easy way out, claiming that this is a special concept that is real, but has nothing to do with anything else that is real and this depart into La-La-Land where everything anyone else may say can take a hike.


Who will take a bet on what option AV will take?