Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why don't you giver the real answer? That the answer is whatever it has to be to preserve the literal inerrancy of Genesis against scientific evidence you are unable to refute. I would wish you a Merry Christmas, but no doubt you would take it as an insult coming from me.
What is that statement supposed to be an answer for?
I can call a Christmas truce
I didn't say anything about "creation". I was writing entirely about radioactive decay. Do you not understand the simple physics of radioactive decay? Could you explain it to anyone to demonstrate your understanding? (If you have to look it up, the answer is "no".)
Again, I said nothing of creation. If this "creation" of yours happened, then the "t=0" is "creation" and the number of unstable nuclei at creation is the value N(t=0) in the expression I gave.
First of all the equation is physics expressed in mathematical form, not "math".
What is meaningless or untestable is not subject to testing and is *useless*. It's just some formulation of your opinion.
Decay that happened to a created rock. If you believe there was no supernatural in where we came from, you do so with no evidence. In fact, despite the overwhelming evidence for the supernatural
It is irrelevant. Why? Because it had nothing to do with the creation, but is just some process that happens in this already existing universe. You want to credit it with much more than that.
Totally made up. The amount of decay in 6000 years is negligible. And you can't say what the ratios were after creation. Your whole trip is to deny creation and ignore it and replace it with natural only explanations. So you do not like to use the word creation. Everything in your mind apparently is just natural and naturally caused.
Is that your equation you refer to? If so, it has no relation to creation.
If you are talking about your radioactive decay of course it is measured. It is not measured before anything existed though! And the OP shows that if your method was used on a 1 day old newly created rock, your results would be trillions of times off!
What is meaningless and untestable is your statement of faith that there is no God or supernatural. (using ONLY the natural is precisely that) That is just your opinion! It is useless. It is not subject to testing! All natural only science can test are things that exist now and that are natural. All claims that these processes are responsible for the world and man are 100% faith and not testable!
Our views on creation differ. While knowledge is typically considered to be based on evidence and verified facts, a belief can exist even without concrete proof. People can hold strong beliefs that are not supported by accurate information due to misinformation or cognitive biases.
So God did not write the bible, and the men He chose to use to write it got it wrong according to you. I see. I guess it is no wonder the poor guy could not actually created the world and man either. I guess if a scientist strutted down a street in heaven (if you think there is such a thing as heaven even?) that God would cower in a corner and genuflect to him or her?
Not much of what He did. Most of the things they see that He did, they claim came some other way! The moon, the seas, mankind, the universe...etc! In fact can you name us one thing that God did that science actually admits or knows about?!
My God is Almighty. Creator of heaven and earth. No relation to the poor little sod that got the bible wrong and had no real or active role in creation that we know about like your god
I have no idea what you are. But apparently your god or gods did not create man and the world. Jesus did.
As stated above, whatever isotopes were in a rock when it formed, whether created or naturally formed, then decay and can indicate the time since the rock was formed/created.
(This is not germaine to the discussion, but, no I don't believe in the supernatural precisely because there is no evidence for it.)
It is relevant because the radioactive decay of the already existing rock (created or otherwise) indicates the time that has passed since it was formed. That is all this is, the physics of radioactive decay.
It is not "totally made up". Radioactive decays happen. When the isotopes in a crystal in a rock are measured, we could take two very opposite views based on the known decay of isotopes. The measured isotopes and isotopic ratios can be used to infer:
Nope. My whole "trip" is getting the nuclear physics right and insisting that you do as well.
I'm not interested in describing the mechanism of any putative creation. I leave that the "creation scientists". It does not interest me in the slightest.
I didn't claim it was related to creation. It describes a general form for radioactive decay, not creation.
You would be best sticking to describing your ideas in sentences. Your attempt to do so in equation form was not successful. The reason we use equations in physics is that it is more efficient when communicating with each other.
That is exactly what I am talking about as was clear from my prior statement.
No one claims that we could measure things before they existed. As for a newly created rock, it would show the isotopic ratios of the original creation with one day of decay. If the chemistry of the rock indicated that the product of decay wouldn't naturally form inside the rock, then using that assumption would give an age that is much larger than one day. This is at the heart of the issues pointed out with "embedded age". (New rocks continue to form as I have spent part of the day watching new rocks form.)
I made no such claim
You apparently do know what science can and can not test. As a scientist, I do not apply science outside its normal realm, but I have no qualms about applying scientific analysis to any object I can observe.
That is the case for natural only science. Their beliefs about where man and the universe came from exist with no proof whatsoever that nothing but the natural exists! Not only do they not have concrete proof but not the slightest shred of evidence.
Right, as just mentioned. The cognitive biases of natural only science are not supported by ANY information, and have led to misinformation about God and creation. They think that we must all be limited by their mental and spiritual preferences and limitations. In fact they define reality that way. Sad
Just as expected. Even though men strayed, the stories of some sort of creation, however watered down, embellished, changed, or twisted remain
Yes. The bible calls that 'unbelief'
Made up nonsense that is directly contrary to Scripture. Not cool.
That they were. The bible makes the important point that we did all trace back to Adam, but that Adam was made by God. You can't have one without the other.
Right
True, but why only at 1 AD?
Then stop it. The issue here is that natural science uses that to try and model where it all came from and when
Using the natural only religiously IS claiming that is sufficient and that no supernatural existed to also determine how things were made.
Yes, you use the word creation but it has no relation to the creation of God in Scripture. You might as well use the term bib bang or something.
Using the natural only does not include using supernatural gods or anything else supernatural. The existence of Jesus, who created all things is the core issue in creation. Maybe not the fantasy misnamed 'creation' that is meaningless that you use.
Radioactive decay is also independent of God's creation. Decay came later like all other processes that came to exist
No. They are almost totally irrelevant if God's creation happened. As the OP discusses, a scientist would date a 1 day old rock as many billions of years old. If there were 360 days in a year then, and the rock was 1 day old, that means you misdated it by billions of years
No, on day one that would not be a factor. How much decay happened in a day?!
And I do not believe in ONLY the natural because there is no evidence for IT!
Not on day 1! The radioactive decay if it then existed (being before the curse who really knows?) that happened in one day would be insignificant.
No, any crystal in the rock you looked at in the garden of Eden that just came to exist the day before would not have been there as a result of any process that now goes on
On day 2 after God's creation there could be no 'assumed age'
On day 2 after God's creation no crystal age could be deduced that way.
The decay in one single day is ridiculously insignificant. Even in the 6000 years from that day till now, how different are you claiming the ratios would be!?
I have them down pat. They are not even relevant for one day of existing in a rock. Or even very significant after 6000 years.
And I am not interested in the fantasy 'creation' that never existed that natural science claims.
How would that matter the day after the rock was created by God? Of course there is processes going on in the rock after it was created by God. Your mistake is to use the natural only belief to ascribe credit for the rock's existence to the processes now going on.
Math works. If we take the creation by God and represent it as a letter, say, R then we add letters representing other things that affected the rock since being created by God - say, F for His forming the land and seas, and C for the great change that happened from the curse we get the total of things that are the reason the rock is the way it is. In the above math it would be R = F=C And as I mentioned, we could generously add a little N as well representing the natural processes that occurred since the creation by God.
The processes science sees are used to model where the moon and sun and universe and man came from. No denying it. Not just the radioactive decay process in a rock of course.
Exactly. Which is hardly measurable. (assuming we knew there was decay before the curse as well)
God's creation has nothing to do with 'forming naturally'! Yet you could not stop that little engine of the natural only from declaring that poor one day old rock billions of years old!
It doesn't matter if a rock forms today as well. Who would look at a rock in Hawaii that formed today and say it was billions of years old?
Whether the scientist in the garden of Eden the day after the creation of God was finished had qualms or not, the age he or she assigned to the one day old rock was wrong
I have to agree they are just spinning their wheels with that natural only wind.
