God did not create from nothing

dlamberth · Thursday at 2:52 PM

Platte said:
Let me help you so you don't feel you are deceived (because of your lack of knowledge)

From a purely scientific perspective, it is impossible to create a fully functional, Earth-like world that completely lacks the appearance of age.
In physics and chemistry, functionality and the appearance of age are fundamentally linked. To make a planet habitable for complex life, you must include natural systems that inherently generate the signatures of time.

The Physics of a "Brand New" Habitable World
To understand why functionality requires the appearance of age, consider what happens if you try to build an Earth-like planet from scratch using standard physics:

The Soil Problem: Functional soil is not just crushed rock. It requires broken-down organic matter, humus, and complex fungal networks. This decomposition process takes thousands of years. If you provide functional soil on Day One, it will already look old under a microscope.

The Tectonic Problem: A functional, life-sustaining planet needs a molten core and tectonic plate movement to recycle carbon and regulate global temperatures. Tectonic activity naturally creates friction, fault lines, metamorphic rocks, and mountain ranges. These are the literal wrinkles of a planet's age.

The Starlight Problem: For a planet to have a functional, stable night sky that can be used for navigation or long-term climate stability via a solar system, light from distant stars must already be touching the planet. Because light travels at a finite speed, seeing a star 100 light-years away means you are looking 100 years into the past.

<Google AI>

Now that you know this - you should understand Creation a little better and not feel deceived.

Your welcome!

Your still trying to have God make creation look old, but is not old. That's deception.

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 3:03 PM

AV1611VET said:
I've claimed several times here that too much adherence to science can create a mental block that intellectuals cannot get around.

Apparently, I have that "mental block." But, I'm still a Christian.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 3:45 PM

dlamberth said:
Looking old and actually being old are two different things.

So is that a YES or a NO?

AV1611VET · Thursday at 3:45 PM

dlamberth said:
Your still trying to have God make creation look old, but is not old.

It looked old because it was old.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 3:47 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Apparently, I have that "mental block." But, I'm still a Christian.

What's soteriology have to do with science now?

sjastro · Thursday at 3:48 PM

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

In another post you asked about the case of igneous rock not coming from molten rock???
This doesn't even require a knowledge of geology, go look up the dictionary definition for the word igneous.

If you cannot grasp the most basic early high school level of science, you are in no position to even contemplate critiquing the science.
Your 'reasons' are based on wilful ignorance.

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 3:55 PM

AV1611VET said:
What's soteriology have to do with science now?

It doesn't. My point is that the theory of evolution and the ontological perspective that the Earth, Moon and Sun, our galaxy, our Universe are extremely old and all of this doesn't prevent a person from coming to Jesus in order to become a Christian.

That's all I'm saying. However, applied pseudo-science like Transhumanism might prevent a person from coming to Christ.

dlamberth · Thursday at 3:56 PM

AV1611VET said:
It looked old because it was old.

Yes, it would "look" old, but is only a day old.

I make bird houses that look old with apparent age. It's deceptive because they are not old.

Platte · Thursday at 4:15 PM

dlamberth said:
Your still trying to have God make creation look old, but is not old. That's deception.

No it’s inherent

AV1611VET · Thursday at 4:17 PM

dlamberth said:
Yes, it would "look" old, but is only a day old.

Existentially, yes.

dlamberth said:
I make bird houses that look old with apparent age.

You mean like my canoe challenge?

dlamberth said:
It's deceptive because they are not old.

Would they be deceptive if they actually were old?

Like the earth was in 4004 BC?

sjastro · Thursday at 4:20 PM

-57 said:
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 ?

Now seriously why are you arguing about a subject matter clearly beyond your level of comprehension?

The isochron dating method serves two purposes.
(1) If the isotopic ratios fall on the isochron line, samples can be dated.
(2) If the isotopic ratios deviate from the line, factors such as contamination come into play and samples cannot be accurately dated.
To put in simple terms the isochron method is not only about dating samples but provides a go-no go decision as to whether samples can be dated.
I might get AI to write up a treatise on how isochron dating works.

Why did you side step the main point of my post about the dishonest cherry picking done by creationist websites on science such as isochron dating?
Once again as shown by other creationists in this thread it is about cognitive dissonance.

dlamberth · Thursday at 4:26 PM

AV1611VET said:
Existentially, yes.

You mean like my canoe challenge?

Would they be deceptive if they actually were old?

Like the earth was in 4004 BC?

If I told others that they have a long history that aged them, that would be deceptive.

dlamberth · Thursday at 4:28 PM

Platte said:
No it’s inherent

Inherently deceptive. That's not how God works.

-57 · Thursday at 4:47 PM

sjastro said:
Now seriously why are you arguing about a subject matter clearly beyond your level of comprehension?

At this point I stopped reading your post.

I shouldn't debate fools.

sjastro · Thursday at 5:11 PM

-57 said:
At this point I stopped reading your post.

I shouldn't debate fools.

I gather you are upset that I think the subject is beyond your level of comprehension.

Here is your opportunity of exposing me as a fool by explaining why the creationist position is accurate and the science is wrong on isochron dating.
If you refuse to do so it confirms the intellectual level you operate at by resorting to personal attacks instead of making the case for creationism.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 5:13 PM

dlamberth said:
If I told others that they have a long history that aged them, that would be deceptive.

I have no idea what you just said.

If you told me I have a long history that aged me, I would not think that deceptive.

I just turned 72 last week.

dlamberth · Thursday at 5:42 PM

AV1611VET said:
I have no idea what you just said.

If you told me I have a long history that aged me, I would not think that deceptive.

I just turned 72 last week.

If in making bird houses to look old, and I swore up and down to others they were old but were in fact made last week, that's deception.

You're a young one, Mr AV.
Sung to the tune "You're a Mean One, MR. Grinch"

Happiest of Belated Birthdays to you!

AV1611VET · Thursday at 7:51 PM

dlamberth said:
If in making bird houses to look old, and I swore up and down to others they were old but were in fact made last week, that's deception.

I guarantee you, chief, you can't make something old like God can.

dlamberth said:
You're a young one, Mr AV.
Sung to the tune "You're a Mean One, MR. Grinch"

dlamberth said:
Happiest of Belated Birthdays to you!

Thank you, my friend!

Much appreciated!

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 8:00 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
It might, but I was alluding to the fact that a number of people have various cognitive challenges stemming from either neuro-developmental issues or cognitive disorders.

There is no evidence presented on this board in millions of posts that any island dwelling retirees have any such issues.

2PhiloVoid said:
The complication I was referring to comes in the fact that when we're on a public form attempting to have a conversation (or a debate), we often don't know the psychological baggage that plays into a person's ability to reason.

It seems nothing more than a devotion to an extremist form of religion that is supported here with bad behavior.

Hans Blaster · Thursday at 8:44 PM

Platte said:
Ding ding ding!!!! And that my friend is why its all about History - not science. The Billions of year old universe that science leads you into doesn't really matter...its the 5500 year old record History that carries all the weight.

The history of humanity does not go back to the formation of the Earth. It misses by 4.6 billion years. History is irrelevant to the origin of the Earth and you've offered no actual history.

Platte said:
All the science in the world can tell you something is billions of years old...but I don't care how what the isotopic abundances or tree ring are - the universe may look billions of years old when created but it doesn't actually make him "billions"

There is no evidence the universe was "created". To the best of our knowledge it has always existed.

God did not create from nothing

Senior Contributor

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Reconstruction 3 will come

Reconstruction 3 will come

Similar threads