My Ultimate Diamond Challenge

[TheBear]

Giving you the benefit of a doubt and assuming diamonds can form on their own in the first place, they would both be real.

Question is - How can you tell the difference between the naturally formed diamond taking millions of years to form, from the diamond poofed into existence by God 5 minutes ago? For the sake of this exercise, they are raw, uncut diamonds, and let's assume they both have similar inclusions, color and clarity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Question is - How can you tell the difference between the naturally formed diamond taking millions of years to form, from the diamond poofed into existence by God 5 minutes ago? For the sake of this exercise, they are raw, uncut diamonds, and let's assume they both have similar inclusions, color and clarity.

In that case, you can't tell.

 

[Kylie]

Here is a list of diamond flaws.

The older diamond will have at least one of these flaws.

The newer one will not.

In fact, the newer one, created by God, will have no flaws whatsoever in it.

On the other hand, if both diamonds exhibit flaws, then the one created by God would be an Omphalos diamond, and it would be nearly impossible to tell them apart, unless the one that came from God came with documentation.

"The diamond created by God won't have any flaws, unless it does."

 

[AV1611VET]

"The diamond created by God won't have any flaws, unless it does."

God doesn't make junk.

 

[Ronald]

Sitting on a table are two diamonds that look almost identical. One diamond was formed over millions of years, the other diamond was created by God 5 minutes ago.

How can you tell which one is which?

Actually, there is only one diamond on that table created by God, the other one is an illusion.

 

[Kylie]

God doesn't make junk.

Like people who can't obey a simple rule, like, "Don't eat the fruit of this tree"?

(If God creates a new moon right now, is he capable of making it look like it's been hit by lots of asteroids over many years, with craters and all that?)

 

[AV1611VET]

Like people who can't obey a simple rule, like, "Don't eat the fruit of this tree"?

That fruit of the tree was not meant for human consumption.

It probably bore manna, which was meant for the angels at the time.

(If God creates a new moon right now, is he capable of making it look like it's been hit by lots of asteroids over many years, with craters and all that?)

Of course He is.

The one in Genesis 1, however, was more than likely smooth as the surface of a mirror -- barring mountains, that is.

It may even have contained the water that came to earth in Noah's time.

 

[-57]

Sitting on a table are two diamonds that look almost identical. One diamond was formed over millions of years, the other diamond was created by God 5 minutes ago.

How can you tell which one is which?

The diamond formed over 1million years ago is the diamond with the problems. The problem is with the false age assigned to it.
We can know the age is unrealistic because the diamond still has C14 in it....which should all be gone in some 50K years.

 

[RickG]

The diamond formed over 1million years ago is the diamond with the problems. The problem is with the false age assigned to it.
We can know the age is unrealistic because the diamond still has C14 in it....which should all be gone in some 50K years.

First, the 14C is "in situ", not atmospheric which is used in the radiocarbon dating process.

Second, the carbon aspect of a diamond is not dated, it is the inclusions that are dated.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...f_diamonds/links/540f8b110cf2f2b29a3de060.pdf

 

[Nithavela]

Sitting on a table are two diamonds that look almost identical. One diamond was formed over millions of years, the other diamond was created by God 5 minutes ago.

How can you tell which one is which?

I cast "detect magic" and look for residual creation auras.

 

[Kylie]

That fruit of the tree was not meant for human consumption.

It probably bore manna, which was meant for the angels at the time.

So then God DID create junk. I mean, they disobeyed, right? They lacked the ability to follow a simple instruction (I've seen dog videos on Youtube where they don't eat the meat placed in front of them, so Adam and Eve were apparently less obedient than dogs), and I would have expected that God would be able to create them so they could obey a simple command if he wanted them to.

So, either God just didn't want them to obey the command, or he messed it up, and they were junk.

Of course He is.

So God is capable of creating something so that every single test indicates that it is much older than it actually is. Is this what you are saying?

The one in Genesis 1, however, was more than likely smooth as the surface of a mirror -- barring mountains, that is.

But, you're just guessing here, aren't you?

It may even have contained the water that came to earth in Noah's time.

More guessing.

 

[AV1611VET]

They lacked the ability to follow a simple instruction

Adam & Eve were created, having maturity without history.

They did not 'lack the ability to follow a simple instruction.'

 

[-57]

First, the 14C is "in situ", not atmospheric which is used in the radiocarbon dating process.

Second, the carbon aspect of a diamond is not dated, it is the inclusions that are dated.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...f_diamonds/links/540f8b110cf2f2b29a3de060.pdf

Once again..LISTEN...the C14 is there and it shouldn't be there.

 

[RickG]

Once again..LISTEN...the C14 is there and it shouldn't be there.

57, do you not read anything that you quote from me? I explained specifically how 14C can be in a diamond. I also provided a link as to how diamonds are dated. They are not dated by the radiocarbon dating method, only an idiot would try to date a diamond that way.

 

[-57]

57, do you not read anything that you quote from me? I explained specifically how 14C can be in a diamond. I also provided a link as to how diamonds are dated. They are not dated by the radiocarbon dating method, only an idiot would try to date a diamond that way.

Has it not been expalined to you clearly enough...the C14 and diamonds have not been found in the places you suggest?

 

[RickG]

Has it not been expalined to you clearly enough...the C14 and diamonds have not been found in the places you suggest?

It doesn't matter where they were found. Any 14C in a diamond will be of the "in situ" variety which is due from decay of Uranium or Thorium. No radiocarbon lab has ever dated a diamond, NEVER EVER, nor will they ever. Anyone suggesting any such thing is doing nothing more than making stuff up.

 

[-57]

It doesn't matter where they were found. Any 14C in a diamond will be of the "in situ" variety which is due from decay of Uranium or Thorium. No radiocarbon lab has ever dated a diamond, NEVER EVER, nor will they ever. Anyone suggesting any such thing is doing nothing more than making stuff up.

I kinda think you're making up your stuff.

 

[AV1611VET]

I kinda think you're making up your stuff.

It's been made up for him, and he believes it.

That's how we got a generation of Thalidomites.

Scientists made it up in a lab ... other scientists believed it ... and the rest is history.

 

[RickG]

I kinda think you're making up your stuff.

No 57, you are talking with someone who has actually been in a radiocarbon lab. Diamonds contain absolutely no organic material unless it is contamination on the surface. Radiocarbon dating can only date organically formed material which received it 14C from the carbon cycle. Your argument is beyond silly.

 

[RickG]

It's been made up for him, and he believes it.

That's how we got a generation of Thalidomites.

Scientists made it up in a lab ... other scientists believed it ... and the rest is history.

For one who calls the creation science literature the devils toolbox, once again you seem to support it.