My rock challenge

[PsychoSarah]

Yes.

Why?

 

[juvenissun]

Why?

Wrong question. You should ask: How?

 

[juvenissun]

So you have no problem with a teacher deliberately LYING to students? Deliberately giving them and TEACHING them false information?

That's a disgusting attitude.

You have no problem in doing that? That is disgusting.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Wrong question. You should ask: How?

No, I should really ask why. If we are to assume god made these rocks, with no prior history, have traits which suggest millions of years of prior history, I have to ask why?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes.

Why?

 

[Loudmouth]

Wrong question. You should ask: How?

Answer both how and why.

Or is this another case of you making claims you have no evidence for and no intention of supporting?

 

[juvenissun]

No, I should really ask why. If we are to assume god made these rocks, with no prior history, have traits which suggest millions of years of prior history, I have to ask why?

Got you.

You assumed brand new rock should not contain fossils.
But brand new rock does contain fossils.
So, God does not create that rock brand new.

What I said is: Brand new rock IS brand new, and it DOES contain fossils. But I did not say God creates that rock.

Well, I am almost confused on myself.

 

[juvenissun]

Answer both how and why.

Or is this another case of you making claims you have no evidence for and no intention of supporting?

I don't like your attitude.

Ask me three times. Otherwise, no answer for you.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, I should really ask why. If we are to assume god made these rocks, with no prior history, have traits which suggest millions of years of prior history, I have to ask why?

Can you create a rock with no prior history?

Can you create a rose or an orange with no prior history?

I do believe the correct answer is no, as those would not then be rocks, roses and oranges as all of those would have apparent "history" if created from nothing in a fraction of a second.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't like your attitude.

Ask me three times. Otherwise, no answer for you.

That's what I thought. You have nothing.

 

[florida2]

You have no problem in doing that? That is disgusting.

So lying to students is fine? Not wanting to lie to students is disgusting?

I work as a teacher and you would swiftly be kicked out of the profession acting like that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you create a rock with no prior history?

Sure. I wouldn't have it include any fossils or uranium radiohaloes, for example. I would also not take the time to make sure the K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dates for a rock all produced the same age by using the radioactive decay rates that I create. That's just a start.

Can you create a rose or an orange with no prior history?

Sure. I wouldn't include any healed worm damage on the orange, leftover features from the flower stage that the orange through, or scars from physical damage the rose never went through.

I do believe the correct answer is no, as those would not then be rocks, roses and oranges as all of those would have apparent "history" if created from nothing in a fraction of a second.

Why would a rock need a fossil inside of it in order to be a rock? Why would a rock need a specific K/Ar ratio in order to function properly? We see new rocks form in volcanoes, and they don't have high levels of Ar. They work just fine as rocks.

 

[EternalDragon]

Sure. I wouldn't have it include any fossils or uranium radiohaloes, for example. I would also not take the time to make sure the K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dates for a rock all produced the same age by using the radioactive decay rates that I create. That's just a start.

The earth had no fossils at creation. How do you know the created rocks did not have the features you would include?

Sure. I wouldn't include any healed worm damage on the orange, leftover features from the flower stage that the orange through, or scars from physical damage the rose never went through.

And do you have the original created rock in which to test and examine for this? Or do you have rock thousands of years old that went through contamination and various other cycles?

Why would a rock need a fossil inside of it in order to be a rock? Why would a rock need a specific K/Ar ratio in order to function properly? We see new rocks form in volcanoes, and they don't have high levels of Ar. They work just fine as rocks.

Again, rocks were not created with fossils.

I do believe those rocks formed in volcanoes are different than other rocks.

 

[Loudmouth]

The earth had no fossils at creation.

If I had a rock that did contain a fossil, would that be a history of a creature living, dying, and then being preserved?

How do you know the created rocks did not have the features you would include?

I just told you how I know. I wouldn't go to the extra effort to include features that would fool people, such as fossils and uranium radiohaloes.

And do you have the original created rock in which to test and examine for this?

That's like asking to see Santa's reindeer in order to prove that they don't fly.

Or do you have rock thousands of years old that went through contamination and various other cycles?

We have no such thing. Uranium radiohaloes do not form in a few thousand years because of contamination. They take millions of years to form because of the slow decay of Uranium and other isotopes in its decay chain.

Again, rocks were not created with fossils.

How do you know? You don't seem to mind God including all of these other indications of a fake age, so why not fossils?

I do believe those rocks formed in volcanoes are different than other rocks.

You believe? That's good for a laugh.

Do you really think science is done by standing in front of a room and talking about your beliefs?

 

[Kylie]

You have no problem in doing that? That is disgusting.

What are you talking about? I've made it very clear that I think it's deceptive and wrong. That was the whole point of my OP. What are you going on about?

 

[juvenissun]

So lying to students is fine? Not wanting to lie to students is disgusting?

I work as a teacher and you would swiftly be kicked out of the profession acting like that.

You are confused. I was just kidding with KTS.
Hard test question is never a lie.

 

[juvenissun]

What are you talking about? I've made it very clear that I think it's deceptive and wrong. That was the whole point of my OP. What are you going on about?

What are YOU talking about?
Did I ever say lying to student is OK (as you accused me)?

 

[EternalDragon]

We have no such thing. Uranium radiohaloes do not form in a few thousand years because of contamination. They take millions of years to form because of the slow decay of Uranium and other isotopes in its decay chain.

That's what they assume based on today's rates, yes. It's not a fact and is in dispute.

 

[Kylie]

What are YOU talking about?
Did I ever say lying to student is OK (as you accused me)?

Well, when you said:

Whatever students think, they answer the question wrong. As a consequence, they learned. So they should not complain on anything. The teacher is trying to teach you, not to cheat you.

Whether we "think" God misleads or not, we should learn once the answer is given. No complaint. Certainly not to accuse Him misleading or cheating.

If a teacher gives students information that is false, and the teacher knows it is false and makes sure that all the information that the students have about it is false, and then the students use that information in an exam and are marked wrong, then the teacher is lying and being deceptive.

Let's say I was a teacher and told my students that the heart is the place where people think, it is where emotions are felt, and meanwhile the brain is the organ that keeps blood circulating. Then I give them an exam. Question is 1 is "What is the function of the heart?" All the students answer that the heart is where thinking occurs and where emotions are felt. Question 2 is "What is the function of the brain?" And all the students say that the brain circulates blood. I mark all the students wrong.

I'd be a horrible person for doing that, wouldn't I? I'd be a liar.

And yet, when God does it, you claim it is an opportunity to learn. If I claimed that since my students got the answers wrong they can now learn the correct answers, I'd still be horrible. After all, the students could have learned the truth right from the beginning.

And yet you make excuses to justify it. You have made it clear that you find it acceptable for someone to pass on deliberately misleading information.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, when you said:



If a teacher gives students information that is false, and the teacher knows it is false and makes sure that all the information that the ...

I am mad. I did not finish the reading ...
When did I say I gave them false information?