Why do YECists have such a low opinion of God?

[MrGoodBytes]

Right --- those too.

Like I say, for all I care, chimp DNA could be 100% like ours.

An organism with 100% human DNA would be a human.

 

[gamespotter10]

You wouldn't call "embedding" age - however that is supposed to work - in a 6100-year old planet to make it look like a 4.5 billion-year old planet artificial aging. Fine.

You claimed that making this planet look older than it really is is not deceptive because God "documented" what he did. All I am asking you is to show us where we can find this documentation.

in the bible of course, but thats only if you take it literally.

 

[AV1611VET]

then why have meteorites been dated to be 4.5 billion years old?

For the same reason the earth is, I imagine.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

in the bible of course, but thats only if you take it literally.

If I take the Bible literally, I am led to believe that this planet is approximately 6000 years old. I have never seen anything in there coming close to AV1611VET's embedded age hypothesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

You wouldn't call "embedding" age - however that is supposed to work - in a 6100-year old planet to make it look like a 4.5 billion-year old planet artificial aging. Fine.

As I have shown with my bicycle example, it's far from being "artificial".

You claimed that making this planet look older than it really is is not deceptive because God "documented" what he did. All I am asking you is to show us where we can find this documentation.

The Bible gives us 4000 years of history, starting from the beginning --- history gives us another 2000 years from there --- radiometric dating gives us 4.57 billion years of age.

Put the three together, and you have the doctrine of embedded age.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

As I have shown with my bicycle example, it's far from being "artificial".

Unfortunately in order for your bicycle analogy to make sense, you'd be required to believe that God made this planet from parts of other, older planets.

The Bible gives us 4000 years of history, starting from the beginning --- history gives us another 2000 years from there --- radiometric dating gives us 4.57 billion years of age.

Put the three together, and you have the doctrine of embedded age.

I understand that - but where is this documentation God supposedly left us? Where in the Bible does it say that God embedded age?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where in the Bible does it say that God embedded age?

As far as I know --- it doesn't.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You've lost me here, MrGoodBytes. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I have never claimed --- or ever will --- that God artificially aged this planet.

So, since you believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, then you believe it's aged 6,000 years?

No, wait, you think it's aged 4.5 billion years.

Does this even make sense to you, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, since you believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, then you believe it's aged 6,000 years?

No, wait, you think it's aged 4.5 billion years.

Does this even make sense to you, AV?

This is what I believe:

1. This earth came into existence ex nihilo some 6100 years ago.
2. This earth could be any age from 6100 to 6100[sup]6100[/sup] years old --- it makes no difference to me.

 

[Vene]

As far as I know --- it doesn't.

Then why do you believe it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why do you believe it?

For two reasons:

1. It doesn't contradict the Scriptures.
2. I give scientists the benefit of a doubt.

If the Bible says that we have only been here for 6100 years, and science says this earth is 4.57 billion years old, I see no contradiction between science and the Scriptures; so long as I make the distinction between existential years and physical years.

The mistake "scientists" are making, in my opinion, is that they look at an object, and see that it is 4.57 billion years old, and assume it has 4.57 billion years of history in it.

Zircon, I believe, is the oldest known substance on the earth.

If Zircon has gone around the sun with the earth 4.57 billion times, why isn't everything else 4.57 billion years old?

I conclude therefore, that "scientists" are confusing age with history, but God didn't.

 

[Vene]

AV, history is the number of years something has existed. That was gibberish. It looks like you are holding the paradoxical belief that the Earth is both billions of years old and at the same time less than 10,000 years old.

Existential years vs. physical years? Are you saying that their is a difference between physical reality and some sort of pseudouniverse?

 

[AV1611VET]

Existential years vs. physical years? Are you saying that their is a difference between physical reality and some sort of pseudouniverse?

Not at all:

​

 

[Vene]

There's no link there.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's no link there.

Try it now.

 

[Vene]

So, the Earth was made out of parts from ~4billion years ago, but the current Earth is ~6000 years old?
But the components would still be ~4 billion years old making the Earth ~4 billion years old.

I'm curious where your hypothesis came from. It isn't in any scripture that I know of (and you said it isn't either) and it is completely against the physical evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, the Earth was made out of parts from ~4billion years ago...

No --- the only point I'm making in that thread is to show that something can have two different ages at the same time.

That bike is one day old existentially and 35 years old physically.

God's method is different from my analogy, in that He didn't make a bicycle from 35-year-old bicycle parts --- He spoke the bicycle into existence --- from nowhere.

It's what we call ex nihilo creation.

I'm curious where your hypothesis came from. It isn't in any scripture that I know of (and you said it isn't either) and it is completely against the physical evidence.

No, it wouldn't be completely against the physical evidence.

In fact, the physical evidence tells us how much age was embedded into something - (Zircon, for instance).

How old do you think Adam was in Genesis 1?

 

[Vene]

I don't accept the Bible as fact. I look at it as a writing of the beliefs of a culture that existed thousands of years ago that didn't have the knowledge we do today (not that we're infailable).

There's a reason I don't have a cross as an icon. Genesis itself has two different accounts of creation where in Genesis 1 humans were created after all other animals, but in Genesis 2 humans were created first. And in Genesis 1 the first humans (male and female) were formed at the same time, but in Genesis 2 woman is made from Adam's rib. (I know that this is a bit off topic, I just wanted to give a reason as to why I rejected the Bible)

 

[AV1611VET]

And in Genesis 1 the first humans (male and female) were formed at the same time, but in Genesis 2 woman is made from Adam's rib. (I know that this is a bit off topic, I just wanted to give a reason as to why I rejected the Bible)

Vene, please don't reject the Bible because of that weak argument.

Genesis 1 is the account of the Creation --- in chronological order.

Genesis 2 has nothing --- I repeat --- nothing to do with creation.

It is the account of how Adam came about getting his wife.

If it helps, simply look at Verse 9 as parenthetical, and the problem clears up.

Here's what Adam is telling us:

• Verse 7 = God made me.
• Verse 8 = God put me in Eden.
• Verse 9 = This is how the Garden came to be.
• Verses 10-14 = parenthetical
• Verse 15 = Meanwhile, back to my story.
• Verses 16-17 = Warning about the Tree.
• Verse 18 = Now comes my bridal story.

Now --- verse 19, up to the semi-colon, is simply parenthetical. Since it is apropos to the story, he's retelling it.

God creates the animals and marches them past Adam so he could name them --- but God is also doing something unique.

As Adam sees Mr and Mrs Gorilla, Mr and Mrs Giraffe, Mr and Mrs Bear, he starts to realize something:

• Where is Mrs Adam?

It is then that God proceeds to put Adam to sleep, etc.

Notice that Genesis 2:4 is a palindrome?

It is a neat little literary device that effectively halts anyone who tries to take all of Genesis 2 in chronological order.

Neat, huh?

 

[MoonLancer]

He knew in His omniscience that someday people would accuse Him of this, and we have His written testimony of what really happened.

so god must resort to circular logic instead? i don't get it.