My rock challenge

[NannaNae]

If they don't need to be told anything, then why post such a thing, hmm?

I posted a link and gave some info... anyone who wants to know will .

 

[juvenissun]

That's the analogy.

God creating the world 6000 years ago and making it look a lot older is the same as a teacher knowing that Lincoln was assassinated and yet making it appear to the students that he died of old age.

When someone tells people one thing knowing full well that the thing they are saying is false, then it is deceptive. That's the point of the analogy. Don't try to twist the analogy to support your point of view if it means the analogy no longer fits.

The Bible does not say that. So the 6000-year IS a mis-information.
The Bible implies that the earth is young because creation does not take much time to do.

 

[juvenissun]

Tell me AV1611, does your deep faith in the literal and truthful nature of the Bible stem from a revelation, or your upbringing, or some other factor?

Science. Buddy, Science !
It is based on SCIENCE. It can not be more literal than that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Science. Buddy, Science !
It is based on SCIENCE. It can not be more literal than that.

Um, it was specifically directed at AV. You know, the guy who constantly says "science can take a hike".

 

[Kylie]

If I cut a 150 year old tree down and hollow it out, can I sell it as a brand new canoe?

If I bake a loaf of raisin bread, can I claim it is new, despite the fact that it has aged grapes in it?

So you are saying that God made the universe out of things that were already several billion years old? Because that's not I've seen you say.

Stop trying to muddy the waters and address the question instead of evading it.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are saying that God made the universe out of things that were already several billion years old?

No, I am not.

I'm pointing out that something can have two ages: one physical, and one existential.

Because that's not I've seen you say.

That's right.

Stop trying to muddy the waters and address the question instead of evading it.

Like you're in clear water in the first place?

 

[RickG]

No, I am not.

I'm pointing out that something can have two ages: one physical, and one existential.

I agree.

Physical = real
Existential = imagination

 

[Queller]

If I cut a 150 year old tree down and hollow it out, can I sell it as a brand new canoe?

Sure, but will you tell people the wood the canoe is made of is brand new as well?

If I bake a loaf of raisin bread, can I claim it is new, despite the fact that it has aged grapes in it?

So what? Did you create those raisins ex nihilo or did they exist as grapes for a while first before they became raisins and then you used them to make the raisin bread?

 

[Kylie]

No, I am not.

I'm pointing out that something can have two ages: one physical, and one existential.

But you haven't shown that it applies to the universe. In any case, the actual material in your example is old, it is merely the arrangement that is new. All dating techniques would indicate the actual age of it.

That's right.

So why did you bring it up? Oh yeah, to muddy the waters...

Like you're in clear water in the first place?

Given that the multitude of different dating techniques all agree, I;d say it's quite clear.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I am not.

I'm pointing out that something can have two ages: one physical, and one existential.

What about a volcanic ash layer that sits atop a sediment layer containing fossils?

The physical and existential age should be the same for such an ash layer, should it not?

 

[AV1611VET]

What about a volcanic ash layer that sits atop a sediment layer containing fossils?

The physical and existential age should be the same for such an ash layer, should it not?

As far as I know, volcanic ash "resets" itself, does it not?

 

[Kylie]

As far as I know, volcanic ash "resets" itself, does it not?

Volcanic rock is "reset", yes. So any dating technique used will show us the age of the rock since it came out as molten lava and cooled.

So if we find a layer of sedimentary rock with fossils below a layer of volcanic rock, we know that the fossils were laid down before the volcanic rock.

And since the sedimentary rock has fossils, we know it was after creation week, and anything after creation week is not part of any of this embedded age stuff.

So the volcanic rock can't possibly be affected by embedded age, can it?

So why do we find this and determine that the volcanic rock in this case is millions of years old?

 

[AV1611VET]

So the volcanic rock can't possibly be affected by embedded age, can it?

Unless the volcanic rock reset itself back to its embedded age.

The assumption, I take it, is that these rocks reset to zero?

 

[RickG]

As far as I know, volcanic ash "resets" itself, does it not?

Ahhhh.....no. Metamorphic rocks reset the clock, not igneous.

 

[Loudmouth]

As far as I know, volcanic ash "resets" itself, does it not?

If by reset, you mean starts, yes.

"Volcanic ash is formed during explosive volcanic eruptions when dissolved gases in magma expand and escape violently into the atmosphere. The force of the escaping gas shatters the magma and propels it into the atmosphere where it solidifies into fragments of volcanic rock and glass."
Volcanic ash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it goes from molten magma to tiny pieces of solid rock. The solidification starts the process of capturing daughter products from the decay of parent isotopes. Therefore, we can measure the ratio of parent and daughter isotopes to determine the history of decay in the rock since it solidified during the eruption.

Now, if fossils were not put into the ground during the creation of the Earth, then all volcanic ash layers above fossils should have been created after the creation week, and should not have embedded age, correct?

 

[Kylie]

Unless the volcanic rock reset itself back to its embedded age.

The assumption, I take it, is that these rocks reset to zero?

Yes. The rocks reset back to an age of zero. The dating techniques measure how long it has been in solid form.

But in any case, the rock can't have any embedded age in it, because it was only formed after creation week. And you've stated that the embedding of age only takes place during creation week.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. The rocks reset back to an age of zero.

Says who?

Again ... perhaps they only reset to embedded age.

If they are made of melted parts that had embedded age in them already, they would solidify as old rocks.

 

[RickG]

Says who?

Again ... perhaps they only reset to embedded age.

If they are made of melted parts that had embedded age in them already, they would solidify as old rocks.

Age of rocks - solid physics
Embedded age of rocks - pure unsupported fantasy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Says who?

We observe that the production of volcanic sets to clocks to zero in the solidified rocks. This is observed in real volcanic ash of known age.

Again ... perhaps they only reset to embedded age.

Then their embedded age is zero because that is what we observe them resetting to.

If they are made of melted parts that had embedded age in them already, they would solidify as old rocks.

Any argon in the molten lava escapes before the volcanic ash solidifies, so the embedded age is released before solidification. For isochron techniques, the embedded age would simply be the y-intercept and would be used as the zero point for the new rock.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then their embedded age is zero because that is what we observe them resetting to.

What's "them"?

Let me get this straight.

You date a rock, throw it in a volcano, then bring it out all melted down;

let it solidify, then date it again and presto, it's zero years old now?