Sure and they have clear causes. They imply a history. Same with hair loss, or tooth decay or cartilage wear. They have a clear downside and don't seem to serve a positive purpose that you can name. So why are you claiming god would do that? What is the purpose?

The existence of a man himself implies a history. Where did he come from? Who are his parents?

What "must" a man look like in order for someone to conclude they were created from dust immediately prior?

I already said all that before. But creating him as an adult served a purpose. It was reasonable. What's the purpose of what are objectively defects?

Have you ever watched "Is Genesis History"? If not, I think you may find it interesting.

Aggrad08 said:

---

I already said all that before. But creating him as an adult served a purpose. It was reasonable. What's the purpose of what are objectively defects?

---

I can't say what "defects" he had or not, but they're part of life. I can't conceive of what a man would look like if not conceived, born, and lived 30 years. You say he must not have any scars. Can he have dead skin cells? Long hair? Urine in his bladder?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

What's lazy is trying to claim a universe is created with constants that allow an accurate determination of age

---

If the methods that are used to determine age are so accurate, why do different methods used to measure the age of a single rock result in ages that are orders of magnitude different?

Why do those same methods give an age of billions of years for rocks that we know were just created?

Why do those same methods demonstrate unreliability when we can verify them with alternative dating methods?

---

I won't pretend to be an expert.

But, if it helps, here is an analogy -

Distance can be measured. Tools to measure distance can include a microscopes, rulers, trundle wheels, odometers, telescopes, etc. If you attempt to measure the width of a cell using your cars odometer, you are liable to be wildly incorrect. If you attempt to measure the distance between galaxies using a ruler, you are liable to be wildly incorrect. Similarly, different methods are implemented in geology depending on which method is appropriate for the situation.

---

I must not be making my point clearly. What I'm trying to say is that different radiometric methods (e.g., U-Pb, K-Ar, Rb-Sr) can give different ages for the same sample. (That's straight from ChatGPT). Sometimes those differences are orders of magnitude different. Each method should be equally valid for measuring time in millions or billions or years, so the differences cannot be explained away as merely using an odometer or ruler to measure vast distances.

Our "historical" understanding demands consistency, but our beliefs insist on massive change or creation of those constants, and not only the value of the constants, but the formula in which those constants are used. What does a universe without time look like, but everything else we think of as the universe exists? What about a universe where energy does not take the form of waves we can perceive as light? We have no idea, because we literally have no reference. If we believe in a God who created time or physics, how do we reference what existed outside of those parameters that we may be looking at now?

The question itself is not answerable without a shrug of the shoulders.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

I already said all that before. But creating him as an adult served a purpose. It was reasonable. What's the purpose of what are objectively defects?

---

I can't say what "defects" he had or not, but they're part of life. I can't conceive of what a man would look like if not conceived, born, and lived 30 years. You say he must not have any scars. Can he have dead skin cells? Long hair? Urine in his bladder?

---

You were just making claims about what defects he would have. I was stating they have no positive purpose. I'm asking you the purpose of those defects.

When you can understand that providing harmful things with no reasonable argument for their necessity we start getting somewhere with the idea that the earth itself is analogous.

Could you cite your sources, please? What specific experiments or studies are you referring to?

Maybe I'm old, but "That's straight from ChatGPT!" doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me.

If the argument is simply that radiometric dating can produce incorrect results, then sure. Issues with user error or unaccounted for contamination account for almost all of that. The science behind the method is reliable, though like has been pointed out each method has it's own recognized window of usefulness and accuracy limits.

Catag94 said:

---

Have you ever watched "Is Genesis History"? If not, I think you may find it interesting.

---

I have not.

Have you ever read The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom by Schroeder?

No, but it sounds similar to the documentary I suggested. I'll look into it. Let me now if you watch IGH.

Will do.

Thanks

Aggrad08 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

I already said all that before. But creating him as an adult served a purpose. It was reasonable. What's the purpose of what are objectively defects?

---

I can't say what "defects" he had or not, but they're part of life. I can't conceive of what a man would look like if not conceived, born, and lived 30 years. You say he must not have any scars. Can he have dead skin cells? Long hair? Urine in his bladder?

---

You were just making claims about what defects he would have. I was stating they have no positive purpose. I'm asking you the purpose of those defects.

When you can understand that providing harmful things with no reasonable argument for their necessity we start getting somewhere with the idea that the earth itself is analogous.

---

I didn't make claims about what "defects" he would have. All I said is he would appear as whatever is typical for a man. There wouldn't be anything that would indicate he was anything other than a 30 year old man. His blood would be carrying nutrients and oxygen that he never ate or breathed. His bladder would have urine in it from water he never drank. He would scratch off dead skin cells that were never alive. His skin would have browning from a sun he was never exposed to.

If your typical 30 year old man has tooth decay, clogged arteries, scars, hair loss, etc., he could/would have that. I don't think your typical man has that though. Maybe a few scars.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

I already said all that before. But creating him as an adult served a purpose. It was reasonable. What's the purpose of what are objectively defects?

---

I can't say what "defects" he had or not, but they're part of life. I can't conceive of what a man would look like if not conceived, born, and lived 30 years. You say he must not have any scars. Can he have dead skin cells? Long hair? Urine in his bladder?

---

You were just making claims about what defects he would have. I was stating they have no positive purpose. I'm asking you the purpose of those defects.

When you can understand that providing harmful things with no reasonable argument for their necessity we start getting somewhere with the idea that the earth itself is analogous.

---

I didn't make claims about what "defects" he would have. All I said is he would appear as whatever is typical for a man. There wouldn't be anything that would indicate he was anything other than a 30 year old man. His blood would be carrying nutrients and oxygen that he never ate or breathed. His bladder would have urine in it from water he never drank. He would scratch off dead skin cells that were never alive. His skin would have browning from a sun he was never exposed to.

If your typical 30 year old man has tooth decay, clogged arteries, scars, hair loss, etc., he could/would have that. I don't think your typical man has that though. Maybe a few scars.

---

A typical man does have those defects. Those defects begin early and become a problem later. The point is Why would Adam have defects typical to people that have lived a full life? Blood with oxygen is required. Those examples aren't what we are talking about. We are talking about signs of history that have no other purpose you can name. And I think you know that.

Let's take this analogy further. To be consistent would you say that Adam had memories of his childhood that never happened?

No, I don't think so. I do think he was given knowledge of the things around him. He knew language, what it meant to work the garden, name animals, and to be fruitful with his wife. Even though knowledge of these things are only gained by experience.

You say he would have had food in his system from things he never ate and oxygen in his blood from air he never breathed, but not a tooth from 30 years of eating food he never ate. What should his tooth have looked like? What does a newly minted tooth in a 30 year old man look like?

Does a 30 year old man just created have crow's feet around his eyes?

You are inconsistent. Why would his brain not have evidence of history but his teeth would?

What's neural pathways of the brain of a newly minted man look like? It's the same question