The Flood

[FishFace]

So you're saying the earth has gone around the sun 4.5 billion times?

Plus a bit. That's what being 4.5 billion years old means.
Although actually I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the earth has been in existence for the duration of approximately 1.3199 x 10[sup]27[/sup] periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

The sun is irrelevant, here.

Anyway, the point I was making is not that I think the earth has been in existence for 1.3199 x 10[sup]27[/sup] caesium transitions, but that's what it means when you say you accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but that contradicts your belief that the earth has existed for 6100 years. That would mean the earth is 6100 years old. The terms are interchangeable.

 

[AV1611VET]

What part of the definition of allegory makes it impossible for Genesis to be an allegory?

allegory, a story or visual image with a second distinct meaning partially hidden behind its literal or visible meaning.

Once again, putting that definition with Paul's allegory mentioned in the Bible:

• An allegory is a secondary truth behind a literal story.

I submit that for something to be an allegory, it must first have literally occurred.

But all that aside, my job is to interpret the Bible literally, unless the context dictates otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Although actually I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the earth has been in existence for the duration of approximately 1.3199 x 10[sup]27[/sup] periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

I don't have a problem with that definition. In fact, I believe they're saying now that pulsars are even more accurate than that.

So to take my point to the next level, please explain how a rock can be measured to [only] be 50 million years old, when it went around the sun with the earth 4.55 billion times?

And for that matter [no pun intended], how can the earth itself be [only] 4.55 billion years old, when there are things out there supposedly older?

Can the earth have two different ages, as my bicycle example clearly shows?

 

[Baggins]

So to take my point to the next level, please explain how a rock can be measured to [only] be 50 million years old, when it went around the sun with the earth 4.55 billion times?

When rocks are heated up to a certain point their isotopic clocks are re-set. To be able to date something to 4.5+ billion years requires a very special set of circumastance. Most rocks have had their isotopic clocks reset much more recently than that.

So whereas the atoms making up an igneous rock may be as old of the universe, the isotopic ratios of certain elements withing that rock may have been reset a number of times.

And for that matter [no pun intended], how can the earth itself be [only] 4.55 billion years old, when there are things out there supposedly older?

because the earth is made of atoms that are older than the earth, but the earth itself has a beginning at around 4.5 billion years ago. The solar system formed then not the universe, not even the galaxy.

Can the earth have two different ages, as my bicycle example clearly shows?[

All your bicycle example showed was that you chose an analogy that proved your own beliefs to be wrong .

The earth is 4.5 billion years old, because that is when it formed, they fact that it is made of elements that pre-exist it is neither here nor there.

 

[Naraoia]

So to take my point to the next level, please explain how a rock can be measured to [only] be 50 million years old, when it went around the sun with the earth 4.55 billion times?

Because radioisotope dating gives the time of the solidification of a rock. In one case (K-->Ar decay) at least, the stable decay product is a gas. Clearly a gas can simply bubble away while a rock is molten, which it can't do so easily from a crystal. So while you have molten lava all the argon goes away, and there is no K/Ar ratio to tick the time because there's no Ar around. (Geologist people, do I know it right that radioisotope dating can't be applied directly to sedimentary rocks?). I'll leave the rest to the geologists

And for that matter [no pun intended], how can the earth itself be [only] 4.55 billion years old, when there are things out there supposedly older?

Has it occurred to you that the earth might not have been the first thing to form?

Can the earth have two different ages, as my bicycle example clearly shows?

In fact it can have many different ages, as the atoms it's made of are obviously older than it is, and might have come from different stars at different times... but the earth as an entity has only one.

 

[thaumaturgy]

(Geologist people, do I know it right that radioisotope dating can't be applied directly to sedimentary rocks?). I'll leave the rest to the geologists

Yes, you are correct. Radiometric dating is only applicable to the original mineral grain. As such a sedimentary rock, if you were to date the grains would appear older than the sedimentary rock.

Just as if I were to make a Frankenstein monster using ONLY the bodies of old people, you'd think my monster was an old person.

That's why geologists wind up having to date a primary material (like an ash layer) or some such that is related to or overlies a sedimentary rock to get an idea of the "age range" of the sedimentary rock if they want to use radiometric dating for that sort of thing.

 

[Naraoia]

Yes, you are correct. Radiometric dating is only applicable to the original mineral grain. As such a sedimentary rock, if you were to date the grains would appear older than the sedimentary rock.

Just as if I were to make a Frankenstein monster using ONLY the bodies of old people, you'd think my monster was an old person.

That's why geologists wind up having to date a primary material (like an ash layer) or some such that is related to or overlies a sedimentary rock to get an idea of the "age range" of the sedimentary rock if they want to use radiometric dating for that sort of thing.

Thanks
I should have taken second year geology modules Might be I'll do that next year... geology is interesting.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thanks
I should have taken second year geology modules Might be I'll do that next year... geology is interesting.

Geology is fun. I started off in my first year in undergrad and only once thought about switching over to Chemistry. Then it passed. I ended up working in chemistry, but I loved geology.

It's really a great thing to get some training in how the world works. Like my wife used to like to tell her students: most everything around you comes from the earth, so it's best to learn about it.

And besides, what other college classes still have FIELD TRIPS?

 

[AV1611VET]

When rocks are heated up to a certain point their isotopic clocks are re-set. To be able to date something to 4.5+ billion years requires a very special set of circumastance. Most rocks have had their isotopic clocks reset much more recently than that.

These rocks with their isotopic clocks reset, did they go around the sun 4.55 billion times?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because radioisotope dating gives the time of the solidification of a rock. In one case (K-->Ar decay) at least, the stable decay product is a gas. Clearly a gas can simply bubble away while a rock is molten, which it can't do so easily from a crystal. So while you have molten lava all the argon goes away, and there is no K/Ar ratio to tick the time because there's no Ar around. (Geologist people, do I know it right that radioisotope dating can't be applied directly to sedimentary rocks?). I'll leave the rest to the geologists

Has it occurred to you that the earth might not have been the first thing to form?

In fact it can have many different ages, as the atoms it's made of are obviously older than it is, and might have come from different stars at different times... but the earth as an entity has only one.

Here we go --- I ask a very simple question --- and I need to be a NASA scientist to figure out your answer.

That's fine --- keep that technical stuff up --- you're not convincing anyone.

 

[Inan3]

Your wife tells you what to do? Doesn't sound like submission to me. How very unbiblical of you. That aside, I think you should take her advice. I recommend about 1 month of prayer before each post.

Blue Blaze!!! That's because you don't understand the principles of the scriptures. You have the wrong interpretation. As many do.

God gave woman to man because it was good for him.

• Gen 2:18 The LORD God said, "It isn't good for the man to live alone. I need to make a suitable partner for him." CEV
  
  Pro 18:22 A man's greatest treasure is his wife-- she is a gift from the LORD. CEV
  Pro 18:22 Find a wife and you find a good thing; it shows that the LORD is good to you. GNB
  Pro 18:22 Whoever finds a wife finds something good and has obtained favor from the LORD. GW
  
  Gen 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
  
  
  A wife is given to help the husband. Sometimes that help comes by advice. It is then up to then man to weigh out the advice and see if it comes from God. It is a stupid man who would not ever listen to his wife.
  
  1Pe 3:7 In the same way you husbands must live with your wives with the proper understanding that they are more delicate than you. Treat them with respect, because they also will receive, together with you, God's gift of life. Do this so that nothing will interfere with your prayers.
  
  Eph 5:28 Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: ASV
  Eph 5:28 In the same way, a husband should love his wife as much as he loves himself. A husband who loves his wife shows that he loves himself. CEV
  
  Though, it is right and good for the wife to submit to her husband it is not wrong that we should all submit to one another.
  
  Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
  
  
  And one more. Here is a case when 1 + 1 = 1.
  
  Eph 5:31 As the Scriptures say, "A man leaves his father and mother to get married, and he becomes like one person with his wife." CEV
  

 

[MrGoodBytes]

These rocks with their isotopic clocks reset, did they go around the sun 4.55 billion times?

Unless they came from meteorites, yes.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Here we go --- I ask a very simple question --- and I need to be a NASA scientist to figure out your answer.

That's fine --- keep that technical stuff up --- you're not convincing anyone.

Are the grapes too sour again, AV?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Here we go --- I ask a very simple question --- and I need to be a NASA scientist to figure out your answer.

That's fine --- keep that technical stuff up --- you're not convincing anyone.

No, only the serious people who realize that if you want to debate science it is best to try to understand the science you are debating against.

But don't worry. We are quickly learning around here that we can't discuss science too deeply with the Creationists because they usually wind up with their eyes glazing over.

Occasionally they can be roused enough to post a random bible quote, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unless they came from meteorites, yes.

Then I have to ask, who is being deceptive --- my God or yours?

Who's being Omphalos --- my God or yours?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Are the grapes too sour again, AV?

Well AV has been quick to remind us atheists who have read the bible that just reading it doesn't make us an expert on it, especially when we disagree with his exegesis and apologetics. Regardless of our extensive time spent as religious people, or reading history of the faith and religous thought.

But we are expected to cut him some slack when he complains about science he doesn't understand.

It's only fair.

[BIBLE]Luke 6:31[/BIBLE]

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Then I have to ask, who is being deceptive --- my God or yours?

Who's being Omphalos --- my God or yours?

I don't have a god, and I cannot see what is deceptive about some rocks being younger than others.

 

[Inan3]

Here we go --- I ask a very simple question --- and I need to be a NASA scientist to figure out your answer.

That's fine --- keep that technical stuff up --- you're not convincing anyone.

Some just love ostentation...theirs.

 

[TheOutsider]

Some just love ostentation...theirs.

C'mon. Just because you didn't understand what Naraoia was saying, doesn't mean that nobody can. I'm far from a NASA scientists but I understood it. It helps that I have a background in chemistry though.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, only the serious people who realize that if you want to debate science it is best to try to understand the science you are debating against.

I don't call that "debating" when I ask how many times little Johnny went around on the Merry-Go-Round and get a lecture on Centrifugal Force.