Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Kylie]

If you can get the cause, you don't need the effect.

How then do we get the effect if there is no cause?

Or are you saying things can be uncaused?

 

[Aaron112]

God already talked with who He Chose about the FLOOD. So if there was another "interview" it would not be exclusive.
Also, if God granted information/revelation to someone, He might not talk with an unbeliever. See in Scripture the ones who pray who God Says He does not even hear their prayers.

If you can get the cause, you don't need the effect.
Suppose God grants you an exclusive interview with Him to discuss the Flood.
What are you going to ask Him?

 

[Kylie]

If it is something in the natural world, you do use natural means to look at evidence. Not sure what such a simple and obvious concept launches you into word game mode.

But the problem is that if you have something in the supernatural, then you need to use the supernatural to verify it. But this relies on the supernatural to exist in teh first place. If it does not exist, then there's no way to verify it.

Let me put it another way:

I can't use Star Trek to verify something from Star Trek. That would mean I could verify that Klingons are real, yet clearly this is ludicrous.

Likewise, using the supernatural to verify supernatural evidence is also ludicrous, because it starts from the assumption that the supernatural is real.

Well, you would not pay a psychic to program it would you?

But if you don't know how to program a computer, being told to program the computer is not going to help you, is it?

A piano is physical and needs to be operated accordingly. What does that have to do with the creation of the world by God? You would not bang on piano keys to find out how He did it. Just like you would not look at a rock to find out how He did it.

Being told to do something that you don't know how to do doesn't help, that's the point I am trying to make.

If I say to you, "Truthpls, just do the thing," and you say, "But I don't know how to do the thing," it won't help you at all if I say, "It doesn't matter if you don't know how to do the thing, just do the thing!"

Not applicable to creation. Whatever He did in making the universe exist with a word is not testable by natural science

And there you are starting from the assumption that the supernatural is real. Just like I said earlier.

Except if that rock was here at creation 6000 years ago, the ratios in any part of the rock do not matter. They were all there when the rock came to exist. (assuming that rock was there at creation. All natural science can do is look at the various isotope ratios in a rock and how they undergo a decay process. That has zero connection to How or when God created them. You just try to grasp at straws and grasp at the processes going on now, as if they are what brought the rock into being! That is not verifying anything except that the way God created things now works a certain way.

Notice that big IF in your argument there?

You need to show that the IF is an IS.

Unless the rock was made after creation, which was something like 6000 years ago, then none of what you say applies. If a pattern of more or less isotopes of a certain kind exist in a rock, and each are undergoing processes, that does not mean the top part created the lower part or etc!

And there you are starting from the assumption that the supernatural is real. Just like I said earlier.

No. It shows it is uselessly bad. It is just an exercise to say the rock formed it's little self and was not created by God. You see if that rock was created, it came to exist as is more or less 6000 years ago.

And there you are starting from the assumption that the supernatural is real. Just like I said earlier.

All you are doing is saying, "It is wrong because it disagrees with what I have already decided is true."

That is not a valid argument, so don't use it again.

No. You just do not learn from your mistakes and do not even know you are making mistakes. The ratios are not dates! They only would/could/should/we believe be dates IF the rock was not created. That says nothing, except you choose to view a created rock as NOT created!

You do not understand how radiometric dating works. You are completely wrong about it, and I do not think you understand enough science to be able to understand an explanation of it.

Declaring the created ratios in a created rock to have actually come to exist BY the natural processes going on is absolutely nothing more than a statement of faith.

Except it is testable and the tests show that it is accurate.

Except you gave no actual example. No link. No support. You might be thinking of a formation like the grand canyon where the layers consist of different isotope ratios with more daughter material lower down or some such?
IF so, then, no. Sorry! Let's just use an example where we say that the area that got (some say quickly) carved out was laid down in creation week. Let's say that when God created the world, over the hours involved (or minutes or seconds or whatever it was that day) that each layer ended up with different ratios! Or, possibly we might add the day where He separated the water from land and there was massive movements and changes in the planet. There also, possibly a difference in ratios of various layers could have happened. Bottom line is that we do not know all that the creation itself, and subsequent forming and finishing and separating happened! The end result though, was the layers in this example, came to exist as they are! (later having a giant canyon carved out in them)
Obviously there is no need for anyone to claim that the different layers and ratios occurred 'naturally' over great time. Such declarations are just ways to insult and explain away creation and God.

Do you not understand what a HYPOTHETICAL is?

But there are plenty of places all over the world where rocks higher in the geologic column date to younger than those rocks below them.

In the example of the Grand Canyon, the only prediction from science is that the various layers will have different ratios (that they mistakenly associated with ages) in them. Nothing is falsifiable about that regarding whether the rocks were actually created or not! Testing the layers and verifying that there are different ratios in them does NOT mean they got there by natural processes!

There is plenty of falsifiable claims.

If the rocks at the top date to be OLDER than the rocks underneath them, then that would falsify it just fine.

You have no idea what you are talking about

 

[Aaron112]

Creation Shows God's Reality
According to Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

God’s existence is evident through the natural world, and as such, humanity has no justification for denying His reality. The “invisible qualities” referred to are God’s eternal power and divine nature, which are not tangible or directly observable. However, they are revealed through the creation itself.

KJ21
For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
ASV
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
AMP
For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense.

 

[truthpls]

But the problem is that if you have something in the supernatural, then you need to use the supernatural to verify it. But this relies on the supernatural to exist in teh first place. If it does not exist, then there's no way to verify it.

Yes we verified it billions of times. Every which way except the natural only. Don't blame us if you want to use nothing but the natural.

Let me put it another way:

I can't use Star Trek to verify something from Star Trek. That would mean I could verify that Klingons are real, yet clearly this is ludicrous.

Likewise, using the supernatural to verify supernatural evidence is also ludicrous, because it starts from the assumption that the supernatural is real.

You cannot use the supernatural so how do you propose using it to verify something? Wisdom is justified of her children. We verify Him every day. History verifies it by fulfilled prophesy. Answered prayer verifies Him. Miracles for some prove there is more than the natural world. Hundreds of people saw Jesus after He rose from the dead. The gospel writers knew Him, and some were friends and family. The supernatural is not an assumption but a fact of life and history for most of the world. You don't get to wave it all away because it is not natural and then demand that the only criteria for 'verification' is the physical and natural only. God does not cast His proof pearls before swine. Nor does He move and work through natural science exclusively (if at all)

Man is a spirit and a body. You do not send a woman in for x rays to check the health of her soul.

But if you don't know how to program a computer, being told to program the computer is not going to help you, is it?

If you don't know a rock was created with ratios intact, then dating it by the ratios older than it's creation is not going to help you is it?

If I say to you, "Truthpls, just do the thing," and you say, "But I don't know how to do the thing," it won't help you at all if I say, "It doesn't matter if you don't know how to do the thing, just do the thing!"

And if that thing was to explain the minutia of how God created the universe with a word in a day, no, it would not help me, you, or natural science to do so

And there you are starting from the assumption that the supernatural is real. Just like I said earlier.

You assume it isn't. Then you set up the natural only criteria to 'verify' everything. Just admit science can't verify anything outside it's little scope of abilities and jurisdiction. Sorry if you imagined that it's jurisdiction included knowing where the universe came from and how. No. Science at best can tell us a bit about how it currently works.

Notice that big IF in your argument there?

You need to show that the IF is an IS.

Don't we all? The way to show that God is is to get our hearts right with Him and ask. For the poor naturalonlyists they have no possible way of knowing by their own little wisdom. As the heaven is high above the earth, so great is His wisdom above natural only science's.

All you are doing is saying, "It is wrong because it disagrees with what I have already decided is true."

The attribution of the existence of rocks to the current processes in the rocks is wrong because all you have done is decided that was true and the way to explain creation

You do not understand how radiometric dating works. You are completely wrong about it, and I do not think you understand enough science to be able to understand an explanation of it.

I suggest it is not I with that particular challenge. I know you act like you do and talk a big talk. However, we have seen no real nitty gritty understanding demonstrated here yet from you on that score.

Except it is testable and the tests show that it is accurate.

All that is accurate is that the ratios exist in the rock and processes. Why and for how long etc is all in the realm of speculation and belief.

But there are plenty of places all over the world where rocks higher in the geologic column date to younger than those rocks below them.

I agree. How much younger is the question! Could it be milliseconds in the hour of creation that caused the ratios? Or maybe acts of the creator in creation week in separating the land and waters? etc. Who could know?

There is plenty of falsifiable claims.

If the rocks at the top date to be OLDER than the rocks underneath them, then that would falsify it just fine.

If you interpreted the ratios that were there at creation as 'dates' you might have a point. Sorry, they are different ratios, not so much older by any great time.

 

[Kylie]

Yes we verified it billions of times.

It has never been verified once.

If you disagree, please show me a way in which it can be independently verified. That is, show me a way of checking it such that every person reaches the same conclusion about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

God already talked with who He Chose about the FLOOD. So if there was another "interview" it would not be exclusive.
Also, if God granted information/revelation to someone, He might not talk with an unbeliever. See in Scripture the ones who pray who God Says He does not even hear their prayers.

Point taken!

 

[truthpls]

It has never been verified once.

If you disagree, please show me a way in which it can be independently verified. That is, show me a way of checking it such that every person reaches the same conclusion about it.

Define 'independently verified'? Something tells me that really mean 'natural only stamped checked and approved' That means in plain English that 'you have no possible chance of verifying' That is exactly how science wants to treat believers and God and history. The poor sods think they are the world's only arbiters of what can be accepted as real. So the first lifeform is in. The big bang is in. Man's evolutionary ascent from animals is in. String theory alternate universes are in. God is out. Heaven is out. Eternal life is out. Miracles are out. Spirits are out. Historical supernatural occurrences are out. The bible is out...etc.

If someone told us this would be the future 200 years ago, it would probably have sounded unbelievable that the world could be captive to such a hostile cult like philosophy and tyranny

 

[Kylie]

Define 'independently verified'?

"Independently verifiable" means someone else can come and examine the same thing you have examined and they reach the same conclusions.

For example, if there is a flagpole, you can measure the height of that flagpole.

Someone else can come and measure the height of the flagpole as well.

But you and the other person will reach the same result. It doesn't matter if you use the same method as the other person or if you each use a different method. You will still get the same result.

Again, I will ask you to show me how the supernatural has been independently verified.

 

[truthpls]

"Independently verifiable" means someone else can come and examine the same thing you have examined and they reach the same conclusions.

That is true for almost any belief system. If I say that most bible prophesy is not history, millions of people can examine, and have examined that and agree.

For example, if there is a flagpole, you can measure the height of that flagpole.

Someone else can come and measure the height of the flagpole as well.

But you and the other person will reach the same result. It doesn't matter if you use the same method as the other person or if you each use a different method. You will still get the same result.

That applies to a physical object. We cannot measure the first lifeform claimed by science. We cannot measure what it was like before the claimed big bang that science preaches. WE can no more speak about what that pre big bang was like than we could speak about the universe before anything existed here and God created it.

Again, I will ask you to show me how the supernatural has been independently verified.

How do you define 'independent'? Do you mean verified by people who cannot see the supernatural and don't believe in it and have no ability to deal with it?

The prophesy of a virgin conceiving and giving birth to Messiah was spoken by Isaiah. It was independently verified long after his death by many many people.
Moses saw God write the commandments on tables of stone. No one else was there to see it. Yet billions have heralded the wisdom and value of that writing.