God did not create from nothing

Platte · Thursday at 9:21 AM

AV1611VET said:
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.

Very Good point. That explains the sensitivity I'm sensing.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 9:23 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

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.

How does "functionality" change the age?

if the 6-day creation are days 1-6 and day 6 was 6000 years ago, then wasn't day 0 when there was nothing (or nothing organized) then isn't the Earth young?

AV1611VET · Thursday at 9:45 AM

Hans Blaster said:
... then isn't the Earth young?

No.

The universe can't function if everything is the same age.

Some things require age in order to work right.

Platte · Thursday at 9:49 AM

Hans Blaster said:
How does "functionality" change the age?

if the 6-day creation are days 1-6 and day 6 was 6000 years ago, then wasn't day 0 when there was nothing (or nothing organized) then isn't the Earth young?

i.e. Adam was 18 years old when he was created.

dlamberth · Thursday at 9:52 AM

AV1611VET said:
No.

The universe can't function if everything is the same age.

Some things require age in order to work right.

No God could of? I guess the miracles of Creation has limits .

partinobodycular · Thursday at 9:58 AM

AV1611VET said:
Hans Blaster said:

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

Click to expand...

Someone has to do it.

Else where would you know where we stand?

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

The problem is that you spend countless hours articulating what your position is, while ignoring the fact that you have absolutely no way of demonstrating that it's true.

It's 'Last Thursdayism' in a nutshell. The problem is, that you lack the intellectual integrity to admit it, and that's what makes your position so aggravating. It's not that people find your position to be offensive. It's that they find your attitude to be offensive. And worst of all, you don't even care. It's arrogance, blatantly worn as a badge of honor. But as I said... you don't care.

AV1611VET said:
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.

And that's exactly as it should be. What you fail to understand is that one group can rightfully be seen as being a subset of another group. You and @Platte are a subset of the 'Young Earth Creationists'. I.E. those people who believe that everything was created 6000 years ago. Now you may choose not to accept that classification, but it is none-the-less what you are.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 10:19 AM

partinobodycular said:
And that's exactly as it should be. What you fail to understand is that one group can rightfully be seen as being a subset of another group. You and @Platte are a subset of the 'Young Earth Creationists'. I.E. those people who believe that everything was created 6000 years ago. Now you may choose not to accept that classification, but it is none-the-less what you are.

Have you seen my canoe challenge thread?

Here it is:

AV1611VET said:
I cut down a 1000-year-old tree, hollow it out and make a canoe out of it; all in a day's time.

How old is the canoe when I'm finished?

That canoe is one day old existentially, and 1000 years old physically.

In other words, it has two ages.

It's a thousand years old, but it has only been in existence for one day.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 10:23 AM

dlamberth said:
I guess the miracles of Creation has limits .

Those limits are there for a reason.

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 10:45 AM

AV1611VET said:
No.

The universe can't function if everything is the same age.

Some things require age in order to work right.

AV, with all of this science talk on this and that in this thread, I'm not clear as to which epistemological framework we're supposed to be relying upon in order to interpret the Bible the way you do. Which epistemology do you tend to use?

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 10:50 AM

Platte said:
i.e. Adam was 18 years old when he was created.

"Adam" looking 18 years old when created doesn't actually make him "18". I don't care how what his isotopic abundances or tree rings are.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 10:52 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
AV, with all of this science talk on this and that in this thread, I'm not clear as to which epistemological framework we're supposed to be relying upon in order to interpret the Bible the way you do. Which epistemology do you tend to use?

I always assumed the frame was "cognitive dissonance".

-57 · Thursday at 10:53 AM

dlamberth said:
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?

The errors vary with the type of testing. I tried to show you there is no set error.

From what I understand a piece of wood dated just prior to the flood might produce an error date to be 50,000 years older than a piece of wood taken from a tree that grew just after the flood.

dlamberth said:
Now about the New Zealand testing: Basically with that test the wrong type of testing was used:

Which creates quite a problem for Old Earthers....How many erroneous dates made it into text book and were presented s fact?

dlamberth said:
Here's AI on the subject of dating new lava...

Oh goody...an AI answer.

dlamberth said:
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.

Yes, broadly invalid...is still invalid.
How many false dates have been put into text books and passed off as truth?

dlamberth said:
The Scientific Consensus
Volcanologists are well aware of this anomaly and therefore avoid using Potassium-Argon dating on fresh, young volcanic rocks.

That's nice.

dlamberth said:
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.

LOL...as you said...the so-called older is higher up.

dlamberth said:
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?

It then appears that with all this in-situ contamination the Old earthers claim exist...how do they discriminate against it?

Old-earth advocates repeat the same two hackneyed defenses, even though they were resoundingly demolished years ago. The first cry is, “It’s all contamination.” Yet for thirty years AMS radiocarbon laboratories have subjected all samples, before they carbon-14 date them, to repeated brutal treatments with strong acids and bleaches to rid them of all contamination.6And when the instruments are tested with blank samples, they yield zero radiocarbon, so there can’t be any contamination or instrument problems.

The second cry is, “New radiocarbon was formed directly in the fossils when nearby decaying uranium bombarded traces of nitrogen in the buried fossils.” Carbon-14 does form from such transformation of nitrogen, but actual calculations demonstrate conclusively this process does not produce the levels of radiocarbon that world-class laboratories have found in fossils, coal, and diamonds ref

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 10:55 AM

Hans Blaster said:
I always assumed the frame was "cognitive dissonance".

It could be, but sometimes it's even more complicated than that.

-57 · Thursday at 10:57 AM

sjastro said:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, the tweaking process is imaginative.
One moment they cry foul because of contamination then the next they say there isn't.

Have they gone back and re-dated all the old rocks and their text book reported ages with the isochron dating method ?

AV1611VET · Thursday at 11:00 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
AV, with all of this science talk on this and that in this thread, I'm not clear as to which epistemological framework we're supposed to be relying upon in order to interpret the Bible the way you do. Which epistemology do you tend to use?

Literal

AV1611VET · Thursday at 11:02 AM

Hans Blaster said:
"Adam" looking 18 years old when created doesn't actually make him "18".

That is correct.

What actually made him 18 is ... well ... beyond your pay grade to understand.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 11:05 AM

Hans Blaster said:
I always assumed the frame was "cognitive dissonance".

I'm not surprised.

That's why you don't understand it.

If my mechanic tried to explain to me how he changed my tire, and all I did was assume he had cognitive dissonance, I wouldn't understand him either.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 11:05 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
It could be, but sometimes it's even more complicated than that.

It seem to fall into the category of "whatever gets you through the night" (John Lennon said that.)

it's alright, it's alright.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 11:06 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
It could be, but sometimes it's even more complicated than that.

As I said, it's a little beyond his pay grade.

partinobodycular · Thursday at 11:07 AM

AV1611VET said:
That canoe is one day old existentially, and 1000 years old physically.

In other words, it has two ages.

It's a thousand years old, but it has only been in existence for one day.

Not the greatest analogy, but sufficient to illustrate the point that two facts can be true at the same time. In yours and @Platte's case it's that your both YEC. You believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago, so existentially it's young. Your entire argument for being non-YEC rests on the fact the earth was created with embedded age, and therefore physically it's not 'young'... hence YEC is a misnomer.

But I'm fairly certain that there's absolutely nobody who believes that Adam was created as a newborn infant. So for all of your protestations you and @Platte are exactly the same as all of the other YECers. You believe that the earth was created with embedded age... big whoop.

All of this non-YEC nonsense just seems like much ado about nothing. Just accept the categorization of YECer... with its obvious misnomer, and move on. But for gosh sakes don't spend year after year harping on a detail that only makes you look like a schlub to anyone wishing to have a constructive dialogue with you.

Yeah, I know that's it's tough to abandon a claim that you've clung to so vehemently for umpteen years now. But admit it, you're a YEC. You'll just have to find a less confrontational way to explain to people that young doesn't always mean young.

God did not create from nothing

Well-Known Member

Reconstruction 3 will come

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Reconstruction 3 will come

Reconstruction 3 will come

Well-Known Member

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Reconstruction 3 will come

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads