"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[crjmurray]

Young Life, Old Earth

“Suggesting the universe didn’t exist until 6,000 years before the present lacks support of both Scripture and science. The Genesis account depicts the creation of life, and its supporting ecosystem, not the origin of matter—much less the concurrent beginning of the entire universe! …

The Bible specifically pictures the existence of a chunk of water-covered matter, “formless and empty,” floating in cosmic “darkness” 1 existing at the beginning of the recent week when God commanded the creation of life and the transformation of inert matter into a perfect, vibrantly alive Blue Planet. …

There is no place in the Genesis narrative, from day one through day seven, referencing the specific creation of matter, water, energy, space, or angels—much less the beginning of the entire universe. Suggesting otherwise diverts attention from the Bible’s big picture focus on the miraculous creation of life on earth. ..."

Ref.: http://genesisfile.com/?page_id=429

What is this supposed to be?

 

[Loudmouth]

Young Life, Old Earth

“Suggesting the universe didn’t exist until 6,000 years before the present lacks support of both Scripture and science. The Genesis account depicts the creation of life, and its supporting ecosystem, not the origin of matter—much less the concurrent beginning of the entire universe! …

The Bible specifically pictures the existence of a chunk of water-covered matter, “formless and empty,” floating in cosmic “darkness” 1 existing at the beginning of the recent week when God commanded the creation of life and the transformation of inert matter into a perfect, vibrantly alive Blue Planet. …

There is no place in the Genesis narrative, from day one through day seven, referencing the specific creation of matter, water, energy, space, or angels—much less the beginning of the entire universe. Suggesting otherwise diverts attention from the Bible’s big picture focus on the miraculous creation of life on earth. ..."

Ref.: http://genesisfile.com/?page_id=429

A fossil record that extends back over 1 billion years contradicts your idea of young life.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

False. First of all you made the part about why God wrote what He did.

I did? My theory is that God did not write, nor did he dictate the material we find in the Bible. Inspiration should not be confused with dictation.

The only portion of the Bible written by God is the Ten Commandments, and we have two versions of it. And the only writing by Jesus was on sand.

Do not forget that we have four Gospels. If God had written or dictated the Bible, we would have only one official version of the Gospels—not four.

 

[RickG]

Missing? None are missing are they? Science does claim many are missing, but that's another story. Another story they can't prove by the way!

 

[RickG]

Missing? None are missing are they? Science does claim many are missing, but that's another story. Another story they can't prove by the way!

NO dad, you are the one claiming a different state of past, and have yet to show anyone anything to support it, other than your imagination.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Sorry, but Morris was a lying idiot.

According to the Bible fools are those who ignore God: “The fool said in his heart: There is no God.” I conclude that those who openly ignore God—instead of in their hearts—must be super fools.

“The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).

Ref.: https://www.calvin.edu/academic/phi...ga_alvin/methodological_naturalism_part_1.pdf

 

[Loudmouth]

According to the Bible fools are those who ignore God: “The fool said in his heart: There is no God.” I conclude that those who openly ignore God—instead of in their hearts—must be super fools.

If the snake oil salesman said that you were a fool for saying that his product didn't work, would you be convinced that it worked?

It seems that your gullibility detector is malfunctioning.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Also ICR is hardly a valid source. They require their workers to abandon the scientific method.

They have said requirement for a good reason:

“The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).

Ref.: https://www.calvin.edu/academic/phi...ga_alvin/methodological_naturalism_part_1.pdf

 

[Loudmouth]

They have said requirement for a good reason:

“The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).

That is completely untrue. If God's activity had effects in the natural world then they would be considered part of the natural world and could be part of a scientific theory.

The reason that claims of supernatural causation are not part of science is that there is no evidence for them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That is completely untrue. If God's activity had effects in the natural world then they would be considered part of the natural world and could be part of a scientific theory.

The reason that claims of supernatural causation are not part of science is that there is no evidence for them.

Not coincidentally, that's the reason claims of supernatural causation are often made -- no evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So to reiterate, the so called science that claims creation was some other way than Christ, is anti Christ blather. As for your opinion of God's word, get over yourself, who cares??

In other words dad is defeated once again. Thanks dad.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They have said requirement for a good reason:

“The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).

Ref.: https://www.calvin.edu/academic/phi...ga_alvin/methodological_naturalism_part_1.pdf

So what's the difference between "a reference to God's creative activity," and "nonsense some loon made up on the spot"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to the Bible fools are those who ignore God: “The fool said in his heart: There is no God.” I conclude that those who openly ignore God—instead of in their hearts—must be super fools.

“The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).

Ref.: https://www.calvin.edu/academic/phi...ga_alvin/methodological_naturalism_part_1.pdf

Yes, but the Bible has been shown to be wrong so many times that no one with at least half a brain pay those sort of verses any attention at all. And a paper by a biased science denier is hardly what I would call "evidence".

Since this is supposed to be a scientific debate why not try to defend your beliefs with actual science, just a hint.

 

[JasonClark]

According to the Bible fools are those who ignore God: “The fool said in his heart: There is no God.” I conclude that those who openly ignore God—instead of in their hearts—must be super fools.

When you tell people lies that's the first thing you tell them, "people will call me a liar", people who do not think for themselves are easily led.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Radiometric dates allowed us to set measured dates for specific strata.

How Rocks are Dated

“Many people think scientists determine the ages of rocks by radiometric dating. Later in this article, we will discuss radiometric dating in detail in its own section. But the fact is that the dating of rocks to a particular time period in the past is not done by any sort of objective measurement. The dating of rocks is done by dating the index fossils which are found in the rocks! The scientist dates the fossils by determining when he thinks those fossils best fit into the assumed general theory of evolution. Any measurement, whether done radiometrically or otherwise, that disagrees with the assumed general theory of evolution is deemed incorrect and is discarded. The scientist then finds that when the rock samples are arranged according to the age he has determined, the fossils in them progress along the time line in accordance with the general theory of evolution. But it was the assumption that the general theory of evolution was correct that was used to date the rocks in the first place. This is circular reasoning, plain and simple. But of course the scientists will conceal enough of the facts and disguise their arguments well enough so that most people will not recognize their circular reasoning for what it is. …”

Ref.: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Before radiometric dating all we could do were estimated dates based upon minimal estimated times for deposition based upon observation.

Radiometric dating involves the process of a radioactive element, such as uranium, decaying into another element, such as lead. Uranium-lead radiometric dating would be a good clock for estimating the age of rocks if we knew the following.

(A.) The rate at which uranium decays into lead.

(B.) How much lead was in the rock when it was formed.

(C.) All of the lead that was not in the rock when the rock was formed came from decaying uranium.

(D.) There is no way any extra lead or uranium could have gotten into the rock from the outside.

(E.) There is no way any of the original lead or uranium could have gotten out of the rock, such as by differential leaching.

(F.) The process has always been uniform. In other words, A, C, D, and E have each always remained constant throughout the age of the rock.

However, most of these requirements are either unknown, or are known not to be true. But there is a flip-side to the uranium-lead dating method. Uranium decays into lead, which is a very common element on the earth. When the uranium decays, it also produces helium-4 as a by-product. But unlike lead, helium-4 is very rare. Rocks which the uranium-lead dating method estimates to be more than 100 million years old, contain only enough helium to account for a tiny fraction of that time. The evolutionists claim that the helium must have escaped from the rocks. But if that were the case, we should be able to find vast amounts of helium-4 in the atmosphere. But the tiny amount of helium-4 present on the earth indicates only a few thousand years of uranium decay, not 4 to 5 billion years. Even uranium-lead radiometric dating provides evidence that the earth is young when one considers the lack of helium-4 on the planet.

Another radiometric dating method is the Potassium-Argon method. With this method, ages found from samples taken from a single rock may differ drastically. Rocks formed from the active Kilauea volcano in Hawaii were found to increase in age as the depth of the rock increased. Lava flows known to be less than 200 years old yielded dates of up to 22 million years using this method. Part of the problem is that argon, which is abundant in the atmosphere, can be incorporated into the rocks under pressure, making the Potassium-Argon method yield older dates.

The radio-carbon (C-14) dating method is another very inaccurate dating method. Results differ greatly even in the same rock layer. In rocks that are supposed to be 110 million years old, dinosaur bones and wood were taken and dated to 19,000 years old and 890 years old respectively using this method. In addition, the shells of living mollusks regularly date to more than 2000 years old using the radio-carbon method. One other interesting note about C-14 is that its level on the earth is presently increasing exponentially, and is now 30 per cent short of equilibrium. It has been estimated that it would have taken less than 8000 years for the C-14 to reach its present level of concentration.

Ref.: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

 

[crjmurray]

How Rocks are Dated

“Many people think scientists determine the ages of rocks by radiometric dating. Later in this article, we will discuss radiometric dating in detail in its own section. But the fact is that the dating of rocks to a particular time period in the past is not done by any sort of objective measurement. The dating of rocks is done by dating the index fossils which are found in the rocks! The scientist dates the fossils by determining when he thinks those fossils best fit into the assumed general theory of evolution. Any measurement, whether done radiometrically or otherwise, that disagrees with the assumed general theory of evolution is deemed incorrect and is discarded. The scientist then finds that when the rock samples are arranged according to the age he has determined, the fossils in them progress along the time line in accordance with the general theory of evolution. But it was the assumption that the general theory of evolution was correct that was used to date the rocks in the first place. This is circular reasoning, plain and simple. But of course the scientists will conceal enough of the facts and disguise their arguments well enough so that most people will not recognize their circular reasoning for what it is. …”

Ref.: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

Boy that sure sounds like an intelligent, informed and objective individual.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

What about theories supported with evidence?

I would question the assumptions underlying the study. Here is a list of assumptions for radiometric dating:

(A.) The rate at which uranium decays into lead.

(B.) How much lead was in the rock when it was formed.

(C.) All of the lead that was not in the rock when the rock was formed came from decaying uranium.

(D.) There is no way any extra lead or uranium could have gotten into the rock from the outside.

(E.) There is no way any of the original lead or uranium could have gotten out of the rock, such as by differential leaching.

(F.) The process has always been uniform. In other words, A, C, D, and E have each always remained constant throughout the age of the rock.

However, most of these requirements are either unknown, or are known not to be true.

Ref.: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

 

[RickG]

I would question the assumptions underlying the study. Here is a list of assumptions for radiometric dating:

(A.) The rate at which uranium decays into lead.

(B.) How much lead was in the rock when it was formed.

(C.) All of the lead that was not in the rock when the rock was formed came from decaying uranium.

(D.) There is no way any extra lead or uranium could have gotten into the rock from the outside.

(E.) There is no way any of the original lead or uranium could have gotten out of the rock, such as by differential leaching.

(F.) The process has always been uniform. In other words, A, C, D, and E have each always remained constant throughout the age of the rock.

However, most of these requirements are either unknown, or are known not to be true.

Ref.: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

What you have listed is a list of assumptions for one specific method involving U/Pb. That does not apply to anything but that method, not radiometric dating as a whole as you suggest. Furthermore, NONE of that is blindly assumed. NONE! Your source is a performing "intellectual dishonesty", or even perhaps out right dishonesty. What your source provides is an excellent example of what I have previously described much earlier in this thread. They list what is well known and understood by geochemists as if they were ignorant of it, and dishonestly do not list how each of those supposed assumptions are identified and avoided. Frankly, I am really disturbed by such accusations.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Except the bible explicitly states that all life upon the entire face of the earth was killed.

You are forgetting the manner language is used in the Bible.

New International Version
"He gave me this explanation: 'The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, [emphasis supplied] trampling it down and crushing it. [Daniel 7:23]

This prophecy describes the activity of pagan Rome. Did pagan Rome rule over the Indians in America?