My rock challenge

RickG · Jun 12, 2014

AV1611VET said:
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?

No need to throw it into a volcano. Just melt it and allow it to solidify. The clock will start again. You can do this a million times. Each time the clock will start again.

That straight enough?

Loudmouth · Jun 12, 2014

AV1611VET said:
What's "them"?

Rocks.

Let me get this straight.

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

No. We watch a volcano erupt, waith for the lava to solidify, and then date it. As it turns out, it dates to zero, or very near zero within the limits of the methodology. For example, Dalrymple and Krummenacher:

Two extensive studies done more than 25 years ago involved analyzing the isotopic composition of argon in such flows to determine if the source of the argon was atmospheric, as must be assumed in K-Ar dating (Dalrymple 1969, 26 flows; Krummenacher 1970, 19 flows). Both studies detected, in a few of the flows, deviations from atmospheric isotopic composition, most often in the form of excess 40Ar. The majority of flows, however, had no detectable excess 40Ar and thus gave correct ages as expected. Of the handful of flows that did contain excess 40Ar, only a few did so in significant amounts. The 122 BCE flow from Mt Etna, for example, gave an erroneous age of 0.25 0.08 Ma. Note, however, that even an error of 0.25 Ma would be insignificant in a 20 Ma flow with equivalent potassium content.
Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

So, at worst, new lava dates to 250,000 years old. This is the most that the "embedded age" will carry over to the new rock. For comparison, 250k is just a tiny percentage of the millions of years measured in some volcanic ash layers that sit atop fossils.

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

Yep.

PsychoSarah · Jun 12, 2014

AV1611VET said:
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?

Well, it registers as such thanks to being contaminated with more radioactive materials. As it happens, most things that could mess up dating techniques make the err go on the younger side, not older.

Kylie · Jun 12, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Says who?

Science.

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.

No, they reset to an age of zero. Volcanic eruptions in Hawaii prove this.

Let's try a hypothetical. I have some lava that is formed after a rock that formed (was created/came into existence/don't quibble about the word because you know exactly what I mean) in creation week. It has, say 4 billion years of age embedded into it.

This rock then melts to form the lava that erupts from a volcano. I see the eruption, so I know exactly when the rock solidified, because I was there watching it. After the lava solidifies, I date it. Every single technique I use shows that the age is essentially zero (within the margin for error of that particular dating technique).

This has actually been done, so we know for a fact that this is what happens.

If your idea is correct, then the dating would show the rock is 4 billion years old. This does not happen in reality.

AV1611VET · Jun 12, 2014

KTS said:
No, they reset to an age of zero. Volcanic eruptions in Hawaii prove this.

Then it's just this simple, Kylie:

If they reset to zero, they reset to zero.
If they reset to embedded age, they reset to embedded age.
If they don't reset, they don't reset.

I will agree with whatever age science concludes these things are.

How's that?

AV1611VET · Jun 12, 2014

KTS said:
I create two rocks ex nihilo.

Okay.

KTS said:
I create one with two million years of embedded age and the other with none.

Okay ... let's say:

Rock A = 2,000,000 years old
Rock B = 0 years old

How's that?

KTS said:
When you study them, your analysis shows that one rock is new and the other rock is old,

Okay ... I study them and find:

Rock B = 0 years old
Rock A = 2,000,000 years old

KTS said:
... despite the fact they are both the same age.

... What?

KTS said:
Am I being deceptive in making it look like one rock is older than the other?

The only way that would be true, is if you are now taking existential age (time in existence) into consideration.

Now:

Rock A = 2,000,000 years old physically; 0 years existentially
Rock B = 0 years old physically; 0 years existentially

Now they are both the same age existentially, but one is 2,000,000 years older physically.

Just like the earth:

4.57 billion years old physically
6000 years old existentially

See how that works now?

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 12, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Okay.

Okay ... let's say:

Rock A = 2,000,000 years old

Rock B = 0 years old

How's that?

Okay ... I study them and find:

Rock B = 0 years old

Rock A = 2,000,000 years old

... What?

The only way that would be true, is if you are now taking existential age (time in existence) into consideration.

Now:

Rock A = 2,000,000 years old physically; 0 years existentially

Rock B = 0 years old physically; 0 years existentially

Now they are both the same age existentially, but one is 2,000,000 years older physically.

Just like the earth:

4.57 billion years old physically

6000 years old existentially

See how that works now?

OK, here's the choice: We take the evidence from the rocks that the literal years of the bible adding up to 6000 are not reliable OR we take the adding up of the ages of the bible to conclude the evidence of the rocks is merely simulated from their creations 6000 years ago.

Now share with us a logical reason for choosing your way.

Bear in mind that the evidence for the bible is not one hundred percent in favor of the bible, because some of the evidence against the bible is this rock age you are deciding to reject.

AV1611VET · Jun 13, 2014

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Now share with us a logical reason for choosing your way.

Embedded Age Creation nicely reconciles the age of things (such as rocks) with the Bible's timeline (according to Its genealogies).

2 Corinthians 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

DogmaHunter · Jun 13, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Okay.

Okay ... let's say:

Rock A = 2,000,000 years old

Rock B = 0 years old

How's that?

Okay ... I study them and find:

Rock B = 0 years old

Rock A = 2,000,000 years old

... What?

The only way that would be true, is if you are now taking existential age (time in existence) into consideration.

Now:

Rock A = 2,000,000 years old physically; 0 years existentially

Rock B = 0 years old physically; 0 years existentially

Now they are both the same age existentially, but one is 2,000,000 years older physically.

Just like the earth:

4.57 billion years old physically

6000 years old existentially

See how that works now?

Yes, I see how that works.
It works largely the same as my hypothetical religion Draconian Yesterday-ism, wherein the totally awesome 7-headed dragon created the universe yesterday with "embedded age" in aspects of the universe and "embedded memories" in all human brains.

Or like, you know... the Matrix.

It's rather silly really.

AV1611VET · Jun 13, 2014

DogmaHunter said:
It's rather silly really.

It should be.

What you did is what we call either Diabolical Plagiarism or Diabolical Mimicry, when applied to the Bible.

That is how we got the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Nimrod took Shem's account of the Flood and "Dogma Hunted" it into the Epic of Gilgamesh.

DogmaHunter · Jun 13, 2014

AV1611VET said:
It should be.

What you did is what we call either Diabolical Plagiarism or Diabolical Mimicry, when applied to the Bible.

That is how we got the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Nimrod took Shem's account of the Flood and "Dogma Hunted" it into the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The only thing you accomplish by defending your baseless statements with more baseless statements, is making your position even more silly then it allready was.

It's pretty obvious that you make it all up as you go along, just so you can match reality to what you already believe, instead of matching what you believe to actual reality.

AV1611VET · Jun 13, 2014

DogmaHunter said:
It's pretty obvious that you make it all up as you go along,

Someone's a little low on using Google, isn't he?

And you call the Hovinds out for this?

Perhaps you should make use of that mirror, eh?

DogmaHunter · Jun 13, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Someone's a little low on using Google, isn't he?

And you call the Hovinds out for this?

Perhaps you should make use of that mirror, eh?

'you' is not necessarily 'you personally'.
'you' can also be the pastor that spoonfeeds you all this nonsense, or other people that decide for you what you should be believing.

It's obvious that this is what happens.
Nobody spoke about "embedded age" nonsense before science discovered how old the earth was.

Instead of abandonning the silly idea that the world is 6000 years old when it was proven to be more then 4 billions years, your ilk made up nonsense like "embedded age", just so you could hold on to your a priori religious views.

Hence: you force reality to conform to your beliefs instead of the other way round.

Rational people don't do that.

AV1611VET · Jun 13, 2014

DogmaHunter said:
It's obvious that this is what happens.
Nobody spoke about "embedded age" nonsense before science discovered how old the earth was.

Do you suppose, O rational thinker, that that would that be because the formula for embedded age is:

Physical Age - Existential Age = Embedded Age?

DogmaHunter said:
Instead of abandonning the silly idea that the world is 6000 years old when it was proven to be more then 4 billions years, your ilk made up nonsense like "embedded age",

And why would "my ilk" abandon a solid genealogical calculation just because the earth was proven [sic] to be more than 4 billion years old?

DogmaHunter said:
... just so you could hold on to your a priori religious views.

Calculation by addition is not "a priori".

DogmaHunter said:
Hence: you force reality to conform to your beliefs instead of the other way round.

Then why am I not a YEC?

Oh, wait!

Now I know why you guys like to call me one, in spite of what I believe.

DogmaHunter said:
Rational people don't do that.

No.

"Rational people" mislabel others, so they can make themselves look right.

DogmaHunter · Jun 13, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Do you suppose, O rational thinker, that that would that be because the formula for embedded age is:

Physical Age - Existential Age = Embedded Age?

The problem here is that "existential age" IS your a priori belief.
This wasn't an issue for your religious ancestors because they had no clue that there would actually exist techniques in the future by which we can determine the age of things.

It's exactly the same "logic" employed by muslims who claim that the quran states a certain thing, and after science demonstrates it to be wrong, they come up with some excuse to "explain" why the quran is still right, eventhough the evidence doesn't agree.

But the only reason you and muslims engage in such practices is because you have already decided on the answer before you asked the question.

And why would "my ilk" abandon a solid genealogical calculation just because the earth was proven [sic] to be more than 4 billion years old?

Because your "solid calculation" is based on baseless assertions from a book from the bronze age.

Calculation by addition is not "a priori".

Your book you're basing it on, is.

Then why am I not a YEC?

Your "existential age" thingy says otherwise.

RickG · Jun 13, 2014

DogmaHunter said:
But the only reason you and muslims engage in such practices is because you have already decided on the answer before you asked the question.

AV1611VET · Jun 13, 2014

DogmaHunter said:
The problem here is that "existential age" IS your a priori belief.
This wasn't an issue for your religious ancestors because they had no clue that there would actually exist techniques in the future by which we can determine the age of things.

It's exactly the same "logic" employed by muslims who claim that the quran states a certain thing, and after science demonstrates it to be wrong, they come up with some excuse to "explain" why the quran is still right, eventhough the evidence doesn't agree.

But the only reason you and muslims engage in such practices is because you have already decided on the answer before you asked the question.

Because your "solid calculation" is based on baseless assertions from a book from the bronze age.

Your book you're basing it on, is.

Your "existential age" thingy says otherwise.

The more you post on this subject, the less sense you make.

You're more interested in ridicule, than what I believe.

Enjoy your confusion.

Loudmouth · Jun 13, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Then it's just this simple, Kylie:

If they reset to zero, they reset to zero.

If they reset to embedded age, they reset to embedded age.

If they don't reset, they don't reset.

I will agree with whatever age science concludes these things are.

How's that?

They reset to zero. That is the age science concludes because it is the age that science observes rocks resetting to.

When we find a volcanic ash or flow on top of sediments that have fossils, this means that the ash/flow is younger than the fossils.

According to you, fossil formation started just a few thousand years ago. This means that we should not find any ash/flow on top of fossil bearing strata that is over a few thousand years old, correct? The measurement of age in these rocks does not have embedded age, so we are measuring their existential age with radiometric dating.

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 13, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Embedded Age Creation nicely reconciles the age of things (such as rocks) with the Bible's timeline (according to Its genealogies).

2 Corinthians 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Yes, but why should we choose embedded age creation hypothesis as opposed to actual age being measured hypothesis?

Both notions can be consistent, but mere consistency is overrated. The paranoid schizophrenic locked up in the hospital insisting he is Jesus Christ can be consistent.

Give me another reason for taking embedded age creation hypothesis over the hypothesis that the biblical ages adding up to 6000 is not necessarily literally true.

Bear in mind there are alternate creation stories in other religions with other time lines, and logically one should also accept or discount each of them as well, for some particular reason. You might help us by supplying your reasoning for rejecting all the others as well.

After all, any one of them could be accepted, and reject the others, and still be consistent.

So mere consistency is inadequate.

DogmaHunter · Jun 13, 2014

AV1611VET said:
The more you post on this subject, the less sense you make.

You're more interested in ridicule, than what I believe.

Wut? Is this AV-language for "I don't have a response, therefor I'll just engage in ad hominem"?

You're right about 1 thing though... I'm not interested in what you believe.
I'm more interested in why you believe what you believe.

Which is something I already found out the moment I saw your signature for the first time.
And I just said it in the post you're replying to as well: you decided on the answer before asking the question.

Because of that, what you believe is irrelevant to me.

My rock challenge

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Chaotic Neutral

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Finally Old Enough

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Code Monkey

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Code Monkey

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Code Monkey

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Code Monkey

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Finally Old Enough

Code Monkey

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency