God did not create from nothing

partinobodycular · Wednesday at 2:54 PM

AV1611VET said:
I admit that Last Thursdayism is exactly what you're advocating.

And I submit that Last Thursdayism is exactly what YOU'RE advocating, and that you're perfectly aware that 'Last Thursday' isn't meant to be taken literally, but figuratively. Which makes the following assertion extremely disingenuous, and you know it.

AV1611VET said:
And there are 314,000 reasons you're wrong.

I'm trying to have the courtesy to acknowledge your points. Please try to do the same with mine.

AV1611VET · Wednesday at 3:33 PM

partinobodycular said:
And I submit that Last Thursdayism is exactly what YOU'RE advocating,

I know you are.

And you're wrong.

partinobodycular said:
... and that you're perfectly aware that 'Last Thursday' isn't meant to be taken literally, but figuratively.

I wouldn't know.

I've never met one.

So I don't know if he does or not.

But if he does, he's in the same boat you are.

Wrong by a degree of 314,000.

partinobodycular said:
Which makes the following assertion extremely disingenuous, and you know it.

Speaking of disingenuous ...

partinobodycular said:
I'm trying to have the courtesy to acknowledge your points.

... then start by respecting what I'm saying, and not what you're hearing..

I'm not a Last Thursdayist, I'm not a YEC, and I'm not an Apparent Age Creationist.

Care to come up with something else that's wrong?

partinobodycular said:
Please try to do the same with mine.

I eat intellectuals for breakfast, nobody.

The smart ones either put me on IGNORE, ignore me, or respond to me very seldomly.

Which category are you going to end up in?

I'm not trying to be cute.

Either try to understand what embedded age is, or I'll continue to make you look ignorant.

Platte · Wednesday at 3:49 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Since you've dismissed all of radioactive dating, but claim to accept nuclear physics...

Setting aside your silly rejection of carbon-14 dating because it is hard for young objects, why do you reject *other* forms of radioactive dating? They are not affected by fossil fuel usage or nuclear testing that alter the reservoir of C-14 in the atmosphere.

C14 dating is rejected for or not considered appropriate for any item 400 years or earlier - not because they are young objects but because we know of envirornmental issues that have skewed their results - significantly - thus rendering C14 dating invalid.

sjastro · Wednesday at 4:11 PM

Platte said:
There is no connection to what you call science, that is really science fiction, and creationism. Its labeled on its own merit.

I'm not YEC

Denying you are YEC doesn't make your cognitive dissonance disappear as exemplified by your failure to explain why radiometric dating is science fiction despite being confirmed by independent methods.

Here is something else for you to deny, the reason why RC dating is so successful in forensic science is bomb-pulse RC dating. Atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s and 1960s produced a sharp increase in atmospheric carbon-14, creating a well-documented time marker. The carbon-14 levels found in human tissues correspond to the known atmospheric record and can be used to estimate when those tissues formed. The accuracy of RC dating is further supported by independent chronologies such as dendrochronology, which provides annually dated tree-ring records used to calibrate and verify the bomb-pulse radiocarbon timescale.
Furthermore dendrochronology is effective to around 12000 years ago and is yet another confirmation method for RC dating over the same time period.

It makes nonsense of your comments to @Hans Blaster that RC dating is ineffective at even small time scales.
Given you are unable to show why radiometric dating is science fiction your comment is a cheap shot at science and against forum roles.

From the SOP.

Do not flame other viewpoints. Christianity and creationism cannot be called a myth or fairytales, and evolution should not be called pseudoscience nor should evolution or science be called a religion.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 4:37 PM

Platte said:
C14 dating is rejected for or not considered appropriate for any item 400 years or earlier - not because they are young objects but because we know of envirornmental issues that have skewed their results - significantly - thus rendering C14 dating invalid.

I didn't ask you anything about Carbon-14 dating. I literally asked you about *ALL OF THE OTHER FORMS* of radiometric dating.

Christ's Bride · Wednesday at 4:56 PM

timewerx said:
If anyone reads Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew, it is more accurately told that God "fashioned" the heavens and the earth.

This means something already existed before. The "ingredients" are already there because you can't "fashion" something from nothing. The very definition of "fashion" in the context of creation forbids it.

The Bible doesn't give details on what existed prior to the heaves and the earth but it can be anything. A cloud of dust and gas, the quantum fields or space-time fabric itself. So who created these things? Who created the ingredients this world was fashioned from? The Bbile doesn't have an answer.

It gets "worse" in Genesis 1:2 in Hebrew. Because the text is referring to the Earth as a "wasteland". It can only mean the Earth wasn't a wasteland prior to Genesis 1:2 and may have had a thriving, living ecosystem OR there are other places in the universe that is NOT a wasteland (which can also implicate healthy, living alien ecosystems beyond the Solar System).

So if God did not create the ingredients from which God fashioned the heavens and the earth. This leaves a lot to speculation. What if God also spontaneously arose from the same "ingredients" He used to fashion the heaves and the earth? This could support some theories that life/intelligence is simply an emergent property of the universe or even the space-time or quantum fields.

This also implicates that some point in our technological advancement eons from now if our advanced civilization did not collapse and then advanced even further, we'd be able to create worlds from the same ingredients freely available across the Universe at which point, we'd be doing exactly the same act of "creation" that God did in Genesis 1:1. We'd be like God Himself.

The space-time fabric though unseen is just as relevant or even more relevant than the visible Universe. Something that important should have been written in the Bible, but we get no answer.

Jesus may have implicated it but if true that would also imply that His "Father" is not the same God who created the heavens and the Earth in Genesis 1:1. Because the God of Genesis 1:1 only created the visible Universe which only came after the unseen "ingredients" of the Universe. While Father of Jesus is also called the "Lord of the Unseen" as implicated by some of the teachings of Jesus.

These are all speculation. However, one thing is not, God did not create the heavens and the Earth from nothing. Something already existed before and we're not told who created what existed before.

the mind of man can not grasps existing for ever.
The two God beings have
and they are Spirit which we can not understand either.
To my mind God created all things out of Spirit. All matter from spirit. which is power.
when we begin to break down atoms etc. it just gets deeper and deeper and then realize the power within an atom from which we created the atom bomb.
on earth, nothing can exist that has not been made by man or God.
if the material which "things" are made out of have always existed -- who made that matter?
there must be a Creator.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 5:01 PM

Platte said:
I'm not YEC

Have you changed your mind?

Evolution conflict and division

Think about what you just wrote The Periodic table is not made up. The elements have grown since I was in High School - as we "discovered" new elements. None of the elements are "made up" Science discovers. And by the same token, evolving populations were discovered.

www.christianforums.com

-57 · Wednesday at 5:02 PM

dlamberth said:
How much of an error are you talking about? A decade? A thousand years? A million years? Which dating methods are you talking about?

It has been reported that ages up to 3.5 million years were obtained for lava flows that erupted in New Zealand from 1949 to 1975

From another article....The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based.

Ten samples from U.S. coal beds, conventionally dated at 40–320 million years old, were found to contain carbon-14 equivalent to ages of around 48,000–50,000 years. The laboratory did repeat analyses and confirmed that this carbon-14 in the coals was not due to any contamination either in situ in the samples or added to the samples in the laboratory.

Radiometric dating has issues.

dlamberth said:
For instance, this is the error factor that AI has with 3 different dating methods:

Typical accuracy
The accuracy depends on the method, sample quality, and age being measured:

Method Typical Age Range Approximate Accuracy
Radiocarbon (C-14) Present to ~50,000 years Often within decades to a few hundred years
Potassium-Argon Thousands to billions of years Often within 1–2% or better
Uranium-Lead Millions to billions of years Frequently better than 1% under ideal conditions

dlamberth · Wednesday at 5:47 PM

-57 said:
It has been reported that ages up to 3.5 million years were obtained for lava flows that erupted in New Zealand from 1949 to 1975

From another article....The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based.

Ten samples from U.S. coal beds, conventionally dated at 40–320 million years old, were found to contain carbon-14 equivalent to ages of around 48,000–50,000 years. The laboratory did repeat analyses and confirmed that this carbon-14 in the coals was not due to any contamination either in situ in the samples or added to the samples in the laboratory.

Radiometric dating has issues.

It look like you have not answered my question. Here again:
How much of an error are you talking about? A decade? A thousand years? A million years? Which dating methods are you talking about?

Now about the New Zealand testing: Basically with that test the wrong type of testing was used:
Here's AI on the subject of dating new lava...

The Science Behind the Claim
While radiometric dating is a cornerstone of geological science, lava flows that erupted and hardened within the last century at Mt Ngauruhoe (in 1949, 1954, and 1975) were subjected to Potassium-Argon (\(K-Ar\)) testing. The testing incorrectly yielded "ages" of up to 3.5 million years. [1, 2]

Why This Happens
Geologists and volcanologists do not view this as proof that radiometric dating is broadly invalid, but rather as a well-documented analytical limitation called the excess argon problem.

The Mechanism: When magma rises from deep within the Earth's mantle, it often carries "trapped" or "excess" ancient argon gas (\(^{40}Ar\)).
The Result: When the molten rock erupts and quickly solidifies on the surface, this pre-existing gas fails to escape and gets locked into the newly formed crystalline structure. The dating equipment detects this inherited argon and miscalculates it as "radioactive decay" that took millions of years to accumulate.

The Scientific Consensus
Volcanologists are well aware of this anomaly and therefore avoid using Potassium-Argon dating on fresh, young volcanic rocks. Instead, they rely on other methods—such as Cosmogenic Nuclide Dating or Argon-Argon (\(^{40}Ar/^{39}Ar\)) analysis—to better understand the true age of young New Zealand lavas.

About the Grand Canyon...That reflects two different events. The younger lava flows are not under the older flows, but are physically lower because erosion deepened the canyon with the youngest situated closer to the river channel while the older is stacked higher up on the canyon walls.

Your coal example...How was the testing done? How do you know that there was not Situ production? Carbon would have fully decayed. Where's the science?

partinobodycular · Wednesday at 7:53 PM

AV1611VET said:
The smart ones either put me on IGNORE, ignore me, or respond to me very seldomly.

Which category are you going to end up in?

Oh I'm definitely a member of number three, but I will occasionally poke you, in the hope that you'll show some signs of actual conscious thought... but so far no luck. In the meantime I'll continue to file you under NPC, and consider you to be further evidence for reality as a simulation. So congratulations, you're right up there with Donald Trump on the "You can't expect me to take this person seriously" scale.

AV1611VET · Wednesday at 8:14 PM

partinobodycular said:
Oh I'm definitely a member of number three, but I will occasionally poke you, in the hope that you'll show some signs of actual conscious thought... but so far no luck. In the meantime I'll continue to file you under NPC, and consider you to be further evidence for reality as a simulation. So congratulations, you're right up there with Donald Trump on the "You can't expect me to take this person seriously" scale.

I have to admit, you're really trying.

First I'm a YEC, then I'm Last Thursday, then I'm Apparent Age, and now I'm a Simulationist.

Maybe I'd better stop, before someone accuses me of believing in Embedded Age?

sjastro · Wednesday at 8:19 PM

Creationist sites such as ICR and AIG are renowned for their straight out lying of the science.
I see you have made use of them in your references.

-57 said:
It has been reported that ages up to 3.5 million years were obtained for lava flows that erupted in New Zealand from 1949 to 1975

Here is the true story, the reported dating was done using K-Ar (Potassium-Argon) where the radiometric isotope being measured was Ar-40 (Argon-40).
The Ar-40 in the lava samples was due to atmospheric argon contamination.
Atmospheric argon contains the isotopes Ar-40, Ar-38 and Ar-36, and the presence of Ar-36 in the samples confirmed Ar-40 was an atmospheric contaminant.
K-40 (Potassium 40) has a half-life of around 1.25 billion years and there would not have been enough time for radiogenic Ar-40 to accumulate that would be detectable in the most sensitive mass spectrometers used today.

-57 said:
From another article....The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based.

Do you know what an isochron dating method is, evidently ICR doesn’t know either?
For an isochron to be meaningful in this case for Rb-Sr dating, the samples must be of the same age, same initial isotopic ratios and closed-system behaviour after formation.
Given there were separate lava flows and therefore different magma sources it was not an isochron dating method but a pseudo isochron or ‘mixing line’ which gives erroneous ages.

-57 said:
Ten samples from U.S. coal beds, conventionally dated at 40–320 million years old, were found to contain carbon-14 equivalent to ages of around 48,000–50,000 years. The laboratory did repeat analyses and confirmed that this carbon-14 in the coals was not due to any contamination either in situ in the samples or added to the samples in the laboratory.

You creationists should get your stories straight, in fact contamination is the reason why there is a disparity in the ages. Carbon-14 only has a half life of around 50,000 years so after 40-320 million years there is practically nothing remaining to measure.

Like fossils, coal cannot be dated directly only an age range can be given, one method is to use U-Pb (uranium-lead) dating of zircon which allows the accumulation of U but not radiogenic Pb due mainly to different ionic sizes during the crystallization process when magma starts to cool prior to a volcanic eruption.
The deposition of volcanic ash forming layers immediately above and below the coal bed is dated which provides the age range.

-57 said:
Radiometric dating has issues.

This is where the dishonesty of creation sites comes to the fore, problems in radiometric dating are identifiable but like in the examples you have provided the complete picture is deliberately omitted so has to give the impression the problems are not solvable.

Platte · Thursday at 7:54 AM

Hans Blaster said:
I didn't ask you anything about Carbon-14 dating. I literally asked you about *ALL OF THE OTHER FORMS* of radiometric dating.

Sorry - I replied to the first statement in your message you made about C14 because you didn't represent my views correctly.

The most interesting thing to me about Radiometric dating is that its limited to when molten rock cools into igneous rock. I havn't seen any discussion about igneous rock that didn't come from molten rock.

Platte · Thursday at 8:21 AM

Hans Blaster said:
Have you changed your mind?

Evolution conflict and division

Think about what you just wrote The Periodic table is not made up. The elements have grown since I was in High School - as we "discovered" new elements. None of the elements are "made up" Science discovers. And by the same token, evolving populations were discovered.

www.christianforums.com

I don't recal ever being YEC....maybe when i was a teenager.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 8:27 AM

Platte said:
Sorry - I replied to the first statement in your message you made about C14 because you didn't represent my views correctly.

Perhaps that is because you don't state them clearly or use invective.

Platte said:
The most interesting thing to me about Radiometric dating is that its limited to when molten rock cools into igneous rock. I havn't seen any discussion about igneous rock that didn't come from molten rock.

What is the problem with that?

Platte · Thursday at 8:40 AM

sjastro said:
Denying you are YEC doesn't make your cognitive dissonance disappear as exemplified by your failure to explain why radiometric dating is science fiction despite being confirmed by independent methods.

I've given many reasons why C14 is science fiction.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 8:47 AM

Platte said:
I don't recal ever being YEC....maybe when i was a teenager.

Which is an odd thing for a poster who wrote about

"6 day creation that occured 6000 years ago"

and seems to post on nothing but creation related issues to say.

Platte · Thursday at 8:54 AM

Hans Blaster said:
Perhaps that is because you don't state them clearly or use invective.

What is the problem with that?

If Creation was 6000 years ago....wouldn't it be safe to assume that most igneous rock didn't come from molten rock

Hans Blaster said:
Which is an odd thing for a poster who wrote about

"6 day creation that occured 6000 years ago"

and seems to post on nothing but creation related issues to say.

The Bible is clear that the Earth was created 6000 years ago and took 6 days to complete - I fully believe and accept tthat.

But I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old - thats a core premise of your YEC definition.

I believe God created everything functional - using a modelistic approach - a little complicated so I'll spare those details.

I believe Adam was created as a functional human - not a baby - perhaps an 18 year old male. I believe there were full grown trees producing fruit from the beginning. There were rivers and hills from Creation - the earth was fully functionally when it was created.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 8:54 AM

Hans Blaster said:
... and seems to post on nothing but creation related issues to say.

Someone has to do it.

Else where would you know where we stand?

Are you here to have your views challenged -- or pacified?

AV1611VET · Thursday at 9:08 AM

Platte said:
If Creation was 6000 years ago....wouldn't it be safe to assume that most igneous rock didn't come from molten rock

Platte said:
The Bible is clear that the Earth was created 6000 years ago and took 6 days to complete - I fully believe and accept tthat.

But I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old - thats a core premise of your YEC definition.

Once you say the earth was created 6000 years ago, that's it.

You're a YEC in their mind -- period.

Nothing you say after that is going to change their mind.

And no matter how much you clarify, quantify, or specify, it means nothing.

They see that "6000," and that's it.

Academia trains students to become specialists and tell us laymen how the earth spins.

I look at it this way:

People spend thousands of dollars to get a good education.

They strive hard, work hard, and apply themselves assiduously to earn a trade.

And they aren't about to let a layman critique their work, without taking it personally.

As Jesus put it ...

Lu 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Method	Typical Age Range	Approximate Accuracy
Radiocarbon (C-14)	Present to ~50,000 years	Often within decades to a few hundred years
Potassium-Argon	Thousands to billions of years	Often within 1–2% or better
Uranium-Lead	Millions to billions of years	Frequently better than 1% under ideal conditions

God did not create from nothing

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Reconstruction 3 will come

Active Member

Reconstruction 3 will come

Well-Known Member

Typical accuracy​

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Reconstruction 3 will come

Well-Known Member

Reconstruction 3 will come

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Typical accuracy