Granite disprov a 6000 year old Earth.

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Genesis 1:1
in the summit Elohiym fattened the skies and the land,
SUMMIT: The head, top or beginning of a place, such as a river or mountain, or a time, such as an event. The best or most important. The point at which something starts; origin, source. [Strong's #: 7225]
FATTEN (Verb): To make more substantial, fleshy or plump; to fill up. The filling of the earth in Genesis 1 with the sun, moon, plants and animals. The filling of man with breath and the image of God. [Strong's #: 1254]

FATTEN (V)

The following is an excerpt from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center Website.

The Hebrew root ברא (BaRA) is a child root formed out of the parent by adding the letter ברא. As a verb this word is used 46 times in the Hebrew Bible. Below are just a couple of these occurrences in the KJV translation (the underlined word is the translation of the word ברא).

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)


Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? (1Sa 2:29)

Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps 51:10 or 12 in the Hebrew Bible)

Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; (Ecc 12:1)


The first thing to remember when researching the original meaning of a word is that you need to find the "concrete" meaning of the word. Since "create" is an abstract it would be a foreign concept to the ancient Hebrews. We find the concrete meaning in 1 Samuel 2:29 which are "fat". The actual word in this passage is lehavriyackem (LHBRYAKM). The L means "to", the H makes the verb causative (make), BRA is the root, Y (placed between the R and A is also part of the causative form and the KM is "you" (plural) or yourselves". Literally this word means "to make yourselves fat".

Now let's see how this meaning applies to the other verses listed. In Genesis 1:1 it does not say that God "created" the heavens and the earth, instead he "fattened" them or "filled" them. Notice that the remaining chapter is about this "filling" of the heavens with sun, moon, birds and and the "filling" of the earth with animals, plants and man.

The "Create in me a clean heart" of Psalms 51:10 would better be translated as "fill me with a clean heart".


The passage in Ecc 12:1 translates this verb (which is in the participle form meaning "one that fattens/fills") as "Creator" but the truth is that this word is in the plural form and they should have at least translated it as "Creators". This is often a problem when relying on a translation as the translator will often "fix" the text so that it makes more sense. But as this word means to fatten or fill, this should be understood as "fatteners" or "fillers". I believe this verse is speaking about the "teachers" (ones who fill you with knowledge) of your youth.

The following is an excerpt from the book His Name is One.

A "creator" is theologically understood as, "one who makes something out of nothing". The Hebrew for "creator", is בורא (borey), the participle form of the verb, literally meaning "one who fattens". Without an understanding of the cultural background of this word, the idea of God "fattening" the heavens and earth is as foreign to our Western mind as the idea of creating something from nothing is to the ancient Hebrews. As we have previously discovered, the Hebrews always view their world with a concrete mind rather than an abstract mind. A "creator" or "one who creates" is an abstract thought which the ancient Hebrews would have had no way of comprehending.

Through our modern Western perspective, we have read the story of creation as an account of God's miraculous creation of the universe by his command, the reason for which being unclear. This is not the concept that the author of Genesis chapter one implies in the language of the ancient Hebrews. This misconception begins with the Hebrew word ברא (bara) as found in the first verse of the chapter. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

The word ברא (bara), translated as "created" above, comes from the parent root בר (bar) which we have previously discussed, meaning "grain". The grains were very important staples to the Hebrews. They were used in making breads and feeding the livestock. This parent root also has the meaning of "fat" as livestock fed on grain become fat. The child root ברא (bara), also means, "fat" as seen in the following verse. "And the ugly cows that looked thin ate the seven beautiful cows that looked fat" (Genesis 41:4).

A "fat" cow is one that is "full"; therefore, ברא (bara) Hebraicly can mean, "to fill". When we read the first two verses of Genesis from a Hebraic perspective we can see this imagery clearly. "In the beginning God filled the sky and the land because the land was empty and unfilled" (Genesis 1:1, 2).

This "filling" up of the sky and land is also described in the days of creation, which are written in true Hebrew poetry. The first three days of creation describe the separating of the skies and the land, this is paralleled with the last three days that describe the "filling up" of the skies and the land.

The first day is the separation of light and darkness and parallels the fourth day where the light and darkness is filled with the sun and moon. The second day is the separation of the water and the sky, it parallels the fifth day where the water and sky are filled with fish and birds. The third day is the separation of water and land and it is paralleled with the six day where the land is filled with the animals and man.

The word בורא (borey) is derived from the child root ברא (bara) and literally means "one who fills". As we see in the Creation story, God is the one who fills the waters, skies and the land.

Hebrews 1:10
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Acts 17:24
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Revelation 4:11
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Nehemiah 9:6
Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Job 9:8
Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

Job 38:4
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Psalm 89:11
The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them.

Psalm 102:25
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
Jump to Previous
Beginning Created Earth First God's Heaven Heavens Preparing
Way, way, way, way, way, way ..... off topic. Come on people.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ChristianFromKazakhstan

Well-Known Member
Oct 9, 2016
1,585
575
45
ALMATY
✟29,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Genesis 1:1
in the summit Elohiym fattened the skies and the land,
In my native Kazakh language this verse sounds literally like this:

"Басында Құдай аспанмен жердi жаратты".

"In head, Quddai made appropriate heaven and soil".

But I will stress, this is literal word-for-word translation. Nobody understands it the way it sounds literally. It means, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". This is the only meaning understood.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
In my native Kazakh language this verse sounds literally like this:

"Басында Құдай аспанмен жердi жаратты".

"In head, Quddai made appropriate heaven and soil".

But I will stress, this is literal word-for-word translation. Nobody understands it the way it sounds literally. It means, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". This is the only meaning understood.
Sorry for the miscommunication, there was an error in my post where I omitted the beginning quote bracket. I was trying quote a lengthy off topic post leaving out the posters attribution. I have fixed the problem with my previous post if you wish to review it again.
 
Upvote 0

ChristianFromKazakhstan

Well-Known Member
Oct 9, 2016
1,585
575
45
ALMATY
✟29,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sorry for the miscommunication, there was an error in my post where I omitted the beginning quote bracket. I was trying quote a lengthy off topic post leaving out the posters attribution. I have fixed the problem with my previous post if you wish to review it again.

OK :)
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,280
1,525
76
England
✟233,673.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
All one needs to do is source Clemens paper cited in your link, review the paper, and most importantly the citations to his paper which show that paper to be quite an outliner.

Just to be clear, I take it that you meant an outlier, not an outliner. If not, what is an 'outliner'?

Understanding and views on how granite forms has not changed among Petrologists in the least, especially the timeline involved.

Unfortunately, my knowledge of the geology and the formation of granite is very rusty. Could you explain this in more detail, or provide some links that I could study at leisure.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Just to be clear, I take it that you meant an outlier, not an outliner. If not, what is an 'outliner'?
Yes, a typo, thanks. Should be outlier.


Unfortunately, my knowledge of the geology and the formation of granite is very rusty. Could you explain this in more detail, or provide some links that I could study at leisure.
The petrology of granite is as massive as granite itself is, as it consists of many different minerals and modes of formation. Here's an excellent source to get started. You might also check by your local library to see if they have any books on "Igneous Petrology".
http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/11/2033.full
 
Upvote 0

HowardRF

New Member
Oct 23, 2016
1
0
66
Texas
✟15,111.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
The granite may well be billions of years old, life was created six thousand years ago. All we know about the original creation is that it was 'in the beginning', life on the other hand was created six thousand years ago.
Granite, in many places, occurs within fossiliferous strata. If the granite took hundreds of thousands or millions of years to cool, the fossils must be older.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Granite, in many places, occurs within fossiliferous strata. If the granite took hundreds of thousands or millions of years to cool, the fossils must be older.
I don't have a lot of scientific knowledge in this area, just a few personal inferences. When I started pursuing the topic I had to decide between life science and geology, I spent most of my time on genetics. Still, when Mt. Saint Helens magna was tested it dated something like a million years old.

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. (Radio-Dating in Rubble AIG)
I learned of this early and haven't taken Radiometric Dating seriously since.

I was in Colorado Springs for years, used to love to hike through Garden of the Gods and the Red Rocks. It's called Red Rocks because of the reddish brown color I have always thought resembled mud. Yet the Red Rocks was a mine at one time, you can walk through a section of the mountain where blocks have been quarried out.

a08-2010-1295a.jpg



246894_10201440305709536_1302406641_n.jpg


Those rocks are granite but notice the reddish brown color. I might also add that Adam's name means red.

Adam(red earth), the name given in Scripture to the first man. It apparently has reference to the ground from which he was formed, which is called in Hebrew Adamah . (Smith's Bible Dictionary)​

At any rate, that's my take on it. If your interested in Creationist literature on the subject maybe you should google RATE. There's a lot of technical details to search through but there are a number of well read Creationists that write prolifically on the subject.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: -57
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, I think, to look so simplified, is not good. Black or white. Yes or no. Creation or evolution. Any such limitations are bad.

Because, God is so much greater. We can see it in all things. He can work in much more mysterious ways and the underlying laws of life and matter and all that there is, we know only 0.0000000000000000001% or much less than that of all that there is to know.

Evolution might be God's mechanism for creation built-in in all living organisms, we don't know. It maybe that no scientist today, for example, know the "critical ingridient X" that's in play and they strive to search with what they have and know for now and hit a glass wall. It's sort of blindness.

There is absolute intelligence in all of creation. Materialist who reject any "supernatural", which can be unknown "law of nature", is religious person. Not in particular "evolutionist" , or whatever, but more broadly, a closed-minded, self-limited person. Not to recognize the obvious. There is intelligence. Not just in design, but also in operation, in existance.

It's not rejecting a certain interpretation of creation by God, in order to establish possibility of evolving, adapting life. Anybody who reads a text and derives to certain conclusions about mechanism of life, well, also self-limiting. It's their interpretation. Made into absolute law, or another religion.

Why not observe reality, and all come to consensus? Why endlessly quarrel over how to break an egg - from thin or thick end, like Lilliputians did?

God is smarter >> 1000000000000000000000000 times than all human beings who ever lived and will live.

If anyone, anyone, anyone thinks they "have God" in their pocket, what a totally laughable delusion!!!

The bible says God formed Adam first then Eve.
The bible says God made Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams rib.
In other words the bible doesn't say God's mechanism for creation was evolutionism.

The bible say Eve was the mother of all.
The bible say from Adam God made all the nations. Another contradiction to evolutionism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ChristianFromKazakhstan

Well-Known Member
Oct 9, 2016
1,585
575
45
ALMATY
✟29,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The bible says God formed Adam first then Eve.
The bible says God made Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams rib.
In other words the bible doesn't say God's mechanism for creation was evolutionism.

The bible say Eve was the mother of all.
The bible say from Adam God made all the nations. Another contradiction to evolutionism.

I understand. "Formed" can be evolution, too. God's working. Like gravitation. We know it's God. You misuse evolutionism. Evolutionism is like religion. But actual process is evolution. It's God's working. Just many not undertsnad it
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I understand. "Formed" can be evolution, too. God's working. Like gravitation. We know it's God. You misuse evolutionism. Evolutionism is like religion. But actual process is evolution. It's God's working. Just many not undertsnad it

Nonsense. You would then have God forming all the males...then forming the females. That's not how the bible describes creation.
 
Upvote 0

ChristianFromKazakhstan

Well-Known Member
Oct 9, 2016
1,585
575
45
ALMATY
✟29,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nonsense. You would then have God forming all the males...then forming the females. That's not how the bible describes creation.

Well, woman has fewer types chromosomes then man. Nice allegory. Woman comes from "rib" (same Hebrew word means side, aspect, or like part of smth) of man. Man's 23rd chromosome pair is XY, woman's is XX. So woman is less than man in genetics.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, woman has fewer types chromosomes then man. Nice allegory. Woman comes from "rib" (same hebrew means side, aspect, or like part of smth) of man. Man's 46 chromosome is XY, woman's is XX. So woman is less than man in genetics.

So what.
Let me repeat my last comment:
Nonsense. You would then have God forming all the males...then forming the females. That's not how the bible describes creation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ChristianFromKazakhstan

Well-Known Member
Oct 9, 2016
1,585
575
45
ALMATY
✟29,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So what.
Let me repeat my last comment:
Nonsense. You would then have God forming all the males...then forming the females. That's not how the bible describes creation.

I'm not talking about literal understanding.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,799.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It shows that the granites were formed rapidly. Like the bible says.

A bit of reading shows that Gentry's findings are not accepted in the scientific community for various reasons, but let's say for the sake of argument that he is correct and that the granite he examined was formed rapidly, how does that affect the many, many lines of accumulated evidence that the Earth is over 4 billion years old? Is there anything in Gentry's experiments that in any way points to your 6000 years old figure?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I don't have a lot of scientific knowledge in this area, just a few personal inferences. When I started pursuing the topic I had to decide between life science and geology, I spent most of my time on genetics. Still, when Mt. Saint Helens magna was tested it dated something like a million years old.

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. (Radio-Dating in Rubble AIG)
I learned of this early and haven't taken Radiometric Dating seriously since.
The thing that troubles me most with creation science, with respect to geologic dating methods, is that I have an academic background in that area, and can see how not only the reasoning is flawed, but much misleading and in some cases out-right false claims are made. When reading the creation science article linked ("Radio-Dating in Rubble"), there are numerous problems with it. But for the time being, let's focus on one aspect of it, the claim that Mount St Helens is not a million years old.

One thing specific to all radiometric dating methods is that they all have limitations. That is why specific methods are used for specific minerals and of approximate age. This is due to the isotope(s) being measured with respect to their half-life and method of application. When sending samples to a laboratory, dating labs provide information sheets about the samples to be tested. This is so the lab can apply the proper test method to all samples.

Now, back to the article. One of the statements in the article is, "The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old!". The implication there is that Mount St Helens is thought to be a million years old by geologists. That is not only misleading, but an incorrect statement as well. The first eruption of Mount St Helens dated by geologists/volcanologists is 40,000 - 30,000 years. Also stated, "At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old". There it is implied that the samples sent to the testing lab were only 10 years old.

So what's the problem? The rocks dated were sent to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The paper work provided by Geochron Laboratories they had to fill out accompanying the samples included the following statement, "We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y." Now, ask yourself, why did the AiG article imply an incorrect age of Mount St Helens and why were samples sent to a laboratory that clearly states it cannot date rocks by the K-Ar method less than 2 million years of age? Would the lab have dated the rocks if they knew that were less than 2 million years old? Of course not. So, what does that imply about those seeking to get radiometric dated ages of those rocks?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums