Did God Create Fossils?

[SkyWriting]

I'm not here to play with words. I'm interested in a serious study of Scripture . Therefore, I think it most important to be as precise as we can about what Scripture is saying. Saying "All inspired Scripture is from God" is obviously not the same thing as saying "All Scripture is inspired by God." Also, it is important to consider the problem of the canon.

Scripture is "Useful for teaching" but not critical.

 

[Riberra]

There may have been 20 children before Cain and Able.

Oh i see !,you mean that Cain and Abel were not the two first children of Adam and Eve....i suppose that you will say that the reason that the Scriptures don't tell us about that , is because that Moses who have received the Genesis account from God have forget to mention it . Hmm !

 

[Hoghead1]

Oh i see !,you mean that Cain and Abel were not the two first children of Adam and Eve....i suppose that you will say that the reason that the Scriptures don't tell us about that , is because that Moses who have received the Genesis account from God have forget to mention it . Hmm !

Well, one probably would say something like that if they believed Moses wrote the Pentateuch. But I go with modern biblical studies and so don't hold with the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, one probably would say something like that if they believed Moses wrote the Pentateuch. But I go with modern biblical studies and so don't hold with the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

Would you describe yourself as a virgin-birth-denier... bible-denier, literal resurrection and ascension of Christ--denier?? (As you seem to have stated in the past)

 

[Razare]

Things have been documented to petrify within several decades or faster in lab conditions.

As is now well known, wood can petrify rapidly. Several laboratory experiments have devised ways in which this can be done, mirroring natural settings. (See Sigleo, 1978 "Organic Geochemistry of Silicified Wood," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 42, pp. 1397-1405, and Leo and Barghoorn, 1976, "Silicification of Wood," Botanical Museum Leaflets, vol. 25, no. 1, Harvard University, 47 pp.)

http://www.icr.org/article/how-long-does-it-take-for-wood-petrify/

So I guess I don't understand the question... why must we exclude the flood for fossils??? There was plenty of time for them to form.

If you are going by radioactive decay rates, first you have to explain from physics why a given element has a decay rate vs. just any rate of decay, so you can trust the basis upon which you are calculating the rate of decay. Observing a rate of decay that has been consistent for 100 years, is insufficient to prove the decay rate has not varied at all points in human history.

In the past scientists have argued that under no conditions can the rate of radioactive decay change, and so when they applied it to fossil research, they erroneously told us it was proven constant (it wasn't proven), and that this could then be used to extrapolate into the past with proven accuracy.

However, science has recently demonstrated that decay rates are not constant, as they have observed variances due to the sun in some elements but not all elements.

And while certainly we can try to date with the elements we do not observe changes, or we can assume that the differences in the elements which do have varying rates of decay, that these differences would not affect dating... but this is called an assumption, it is not called proven science.

At the core of the problem is the ambiguity which causes the rate of decay. No one knows what causes it on a physical science level where they can give you formulas that explain what the particles are doing which cause the varying decay rates. Meaning, they do not know with absolute certainty, under what conditions decay rates would vary. We view that they change with proximity to the sun, but do they also change with other phenomena found throughout the universe? Does the universe itself have changing decay rates built into it's structure?

They couldn't tell you, because they couldn't tell you how it happens in the first place.

Therefore, all radioactive dating is a lot of guess work based on assumptions we have no reason to believe in and of themselves.

 

[BobRyan]

In the past scientists have argued that under no conditions can the rate of radioactive decay change, and so when they applied it to fossil research, they erroneously told us it was proven constant (it wasn't proven), and that this could then be used to extrapolate into the past with proven accuracy.

True - and yet fossils are not made up of the original organic material - so no radiometric for them.

Perfect illustration of this "The Triceratops dinosaur fossils are approximately 70 million years old, because they are found in shale and siltstone that contain volcanic ash radiometrically dated at 70 million years"

Notice they do not say "the fossil itself was subjected to radiometric dating". They also say the surrounding rocks are subjected to it - as if the fossil was planted there during a volcanic eruption that laid down all the surrounding rocks "brand new" along with the fossil. They do not "allow" the animal to die in a place that already has rock and volcanic ash buried in the dirt around it. Then they add to it - the fact that they don't allow the rock and ash to have some starting ratio of parent-to-daughter product from its very formation onward.

Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:

1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;512
2. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters; and
   
   
3. The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.
   

If any of these assumptions are violated, then the technique fails and any “dates” are false.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radioactive-dating-failure/

- and when the fossil is in sand - no radiometric for the sand - and when the fossil is surrounded by rock... well when you bury a dead fish in the ground - is the fish the same age as the surrounding rock?

And when you calculate the age based on radiometric values - you have to know the starting ratio of parent material to daughter product - and you need to be certain nothing affects the rate of decay.

Turns out - neutrino bombardment from the sun affects radiometric rates on earth - and no one knows how widely that could have been in variance at the time of the flood.

So A -- we don't know the starting values for ratio of parent to daughter element in the original material.

B - we don't know that nothing has affected decay rates over time.

C. does not really matter what all the flaws are - some would use any excuse to deny the Bible is "plenty good enough". Atheists certainly come by that habit honestly - we can all agree to that.

 

[Colter]

True - and yet fossils are not made up of the original organic material - so no radiometric for them.

Perfect illustration of this "The Triceratops dinosaur fossils are approximately 70 million years old, because they are found in shale and siltstone that contain volcanic ash radiometrically dated at 70 million years"

Notice they do not say "the fossil itself was subjected to radiometric dating". They also say the surrounding rocks are subjected to it - as if the fossil was planted there during a volcanic eruption that laid down all the surrounding rocks "brand new" along with the fossil. They do not "allow" the animal to die in a place that already has rock and volcanic ash buried in the dirt around it. Then they add to it - the fact that they don't allow the rock and ash to have some starting ratio of parent-to-daughter product from its very formation onward.



- and when the fossil is in sand - no radiometric for the sand - and when the fossil is surrounded by rock... well when you bury a dead fish in the ground - is the fish the same age as the surrounding rock?

And when you calculate the age based on radiometric values - you have to know the starting ratio of parent material to daughter product - and you need to be certain nothing affects the rate of decay.

Turns out - neutrino bombardment from the sun affects radiometric rates on earth - and no one knows how widely that could have been in variance at the time of the flood.

So A -- we don't know the starting values for ratio of parent to daughter element in the original material.

B - we don't know that nothing has affected decay rates over time.

C. does not really matter what all the flaws are - some would use any excuse to deny the Bible is "plenty good enough". Atheists certainly come by that habit honestly - we can all agree to that.

From Dr. Weins, "A Christian Perspective on Radiometric Dating"


Claim #11:
"There is little or no way to tell how much of the decay product, that is, the daughter isotope, was originally in the rock, leading to anomalously old ages."


"A good part of this article is devoted to explaining how one can tell how much of a given element or isotope was originally present. Usually it involves using more than one sample from a given rock. It is done by comparing the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes relative to a stable isotope for samples with different relative amounts of the parent isotope. For example, in the rubidium-strontium method one compares rubidium-87/strontium-86 to strontium-87/strontium-86 for different minerals. From this one can determine how much of the daughter isotope would be present if there had been no parent isotope. This is the same as the initial amount (it would not change if there were no parent isotope to decay). Figures 4 and 5, and the accompanying explanation, tell how this is done most of the time. While this is not absolutely 100% foolproof, comparison of several dating methods will always show whether the given date is reliable."

http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/non-staff-papers/roger_wiens_radiometric_dating.pdf


The claim that God wrote the Bible is the false claim.

 

[BobRyan]

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine"

2 Peter 1:19-21 -- "
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

The claim that God wrote the Bible is the false claim.

Quoting "you" again?

Any atheist can argue that they imagine that 2 Tim 3:16 and 2Peter 1:20-21 are wrong -- I think we can all agree to that.

 

[BobRyan]

"A good part of this article is devoted to explaining how one can tell how much of a given element or isotope was originally present. Usually it involves using more than one sample from a given rock. It is done by comparing the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes relative to a stable isotope for samples with different relative amounts of the parent isotope. For example, in the rubidium-strontium method one compares rubidium-87/strontium-86 to strontium-87/strontium-86 for different minerals. From this one can determine how much of the daughter isotope would be present if there had been no parent isotope. This is the same as the initial amount (it would not change if there were no parent isotope to decay). Figures 4 and 5, and the accompanying explanation, tell how this is done most of the time. While this is not absolutely 100% foolproof,

Sadly the "assumption" is flawed because the rb87/sr86 ratio vs sr87/sr86 ratio in a different mineral does not give you the original ratio if God created a "starting condition" of His own choosing -- so for example one could observe humans starting as infants or as zygotes a zillion times and then argue that God created Adam and Eve as "two zygotes" or as "two infants" - which of course would not have been a viable starting condition.

The assumption in that case is flawed.

 

[Colter]

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine"

2 Peter 1:19-21 -- "
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."



Quoting "you" again?

Any atheist can argue that they imagine that 2 Tim 3:16 and 2Peter 1:20-21 are wrong -- I think we can all agree to that.

LoL! One would have to wait 1,500 years for the author of Timothy to give their personal opinion that implies God wrote the scripture. But people outside of bilidolitry know that's not true due to the enormous errors.

 

[Colter]

Sadly the "assumption" is flawed because the rb87/sr86 ratio vs sr87/sr86 ratio in a different mineral does not give you the original ratio if God created a "starting condition" of His own choosing -- so for example one could observe humans starting as infants or as zygotes a zillion times and then argue that God created Adam and Eve as "two zygotes" or as "two infants" - which of course would not have been a viable starting condition.

The assumption in that case is flawed.

It's not sad in the real world, only in the fictional world of the Hebrews spectacular, exaggerated, self important diary. The 4+ billion year old earth is consistent with meteorites of our solar system.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If the flood did not produce the fossil record

If anyone , anywhere, any subject, begins with a false premise,
that's like going hunting for tigers with a water pistol,
isn't it?

 

[Aman777]

It's not sad in the real world, only in the fictional world of the Hebrews spectacular, exaggerated, self important diary. The 4+ billion year old earth is consistent with meteorites of our solar system.

Amen, since our world is NOT the world of Adam since it was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:6

 

[IamNazarene]

If the flood did not produce the fossil record, then what did in context of a young earth view? I have heard it said that God could have created coal when He formed the world. But coal comes from organic remains, pressurized over long periods of time. Also, coal seams contain fossils, such as the imprints of leaves and other organic structures. If God created this, he is essentially making detailed evidence of something alive that never lived. Would God do this?

The flood created the fossils. Fossils are no longer created. THey were done by the flood.

 

[EternalDragon]

It's not sad in the real world, only in the fictional world of the Hebrews spectacular, exaggerated, self important diary. The 4+ billion year old earth is consistent with meteorites of our solar system.

All of which were created together (In full working order) in 6 earth days. So that is no surprise.

 

[Colter]

All of which were created together (In full working order) in 6 earth days. So that is no surprise.

The Hewbrews creation story was written for a more child like mind of Bronze Age sheep hearders while the Israelites were in Babylonion captivity. They made no claims of divine inspiration. We now know the earth evolved.

 

[Aman777]

The Hewbrews creation story was written for a more child like mind of Bronze Age sheep hearders while the Israelites were in Babylonion captivity. They made no claims of divine inspiration. We now know the earth evolved.

Not so, since God is the Supreme Intelligence of Creation. God hid His Truth from ancient men and He will reveal His Truth in the last days of this Earth. That is WHY He told Daniel:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

We live today in the last days since knowledge has already increased and God tells us that He will reveal His Truth to everyone at the time of the end:

Joe 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

It is NOW the time of the last days since knowledge has increased and been made available to almost everyone, online. Peter also confirms that in the last days Scoffers will be willingly ignorant that Adam's world was totally destroyed (perished) in the flood. ll Peter 3:3-7 Do you believe that Adam's world was totally destroyed in the flood or are you a Scoffer of the last days? Amen?

 

[EternalDragon]

The Hewbrews creation story was written for a more child like mind of Bronze Age sheep hearders while the Israelites were in Babylonion captivity. They made no claims of divine inspiration. We now know the earth evolved.

The "earth evolved"?

At some point you are going to have to realize that mankind doesn't have a clue to
how things got here. Planets do not simply "evolve" and neither does life. Life comes
from life.

 

[Colter]

The "earth evolved"?

At some point you are going to have to realize that mankind doesn't have a clue to
how things got here. Planets do not simply "evolve" and neither does life. Life comes
from life.

True, life comes from life. After the Earth reached a point it could sustain life, celestials planted the life from God that evolved.

 

[BobRyan]

True, life comes from life. After the Earth reached a point it could sustain life, celestials planted the life from God that evolved.

Having admitted that you reject the Bible teaching in origins found in Genesis - do you now simply "quote you"??