Oldest rock in the world 2 days after creation (embedded age)

[BCP1928]

God told us all through the bible.

To you, baseless doubts and rejecting God and His word and creation may be convincing. You have posted no logical or bible support.

God did not write the bible for people fluent in some particular language. It translates well to any language. And even for those who can't read or speak!

Do you understand they don't matter much and not at all to the bible wide narrative of creation? You do realize that Jesus spoke another language probably? Can you show us from the Greek in the new testament where Jesus promised to send His spirit from heaven to give the words in Hebrew?

Jesus did and He believed and preached them.

Inspiration is not a theory. And anyone that determines that God got it wrong and did not create as He said is of the unbelieving 'genre'

Like the Catholic teachings I grew up with that taught Adam and Eve? Or the teaching of last week from that church that preach the opposite? We have God's word for it, why would we need little doubting Thomases wearing a robe to tell us what Jesus really meant?

That really sounds like doubletalk. Is Engish perhaps not your first language?

 

[BCP1928]

So you pie parable bit the dust

Maybe, but why do you contend that studying those "finishing touches" which is what science does, denies God's creation?

 

[truthpls]

That really sounds like doubletalk. Is Engish perhaps not your first language?

Your attempt at making the bible sound so complicated and requiring scholars with ancient languages to explain it before we could see and believe simple truths like creation was shown to be a canard. Try truthin it

 

[truthpls]

Maybe, but why do you contend that studying those "finishing touches" which is what science does, denies God's creation?

Science does no finishing touches in creation week as God did in creating the world and man.

 

[BCP1928]

Your attempt at making the bible sound so complicated and requiring scholars with ancient languages to explain it before we could see and believe simple truths like creation was shown to be a canard. Try truthin it

The simple truths are plain to all--God's authorship of our being, our fall into sin and our salvation in Christ's life, death and resurrection--those truths' If you want to get much more out if it than that you're going to have to do some homework.

 

[BCP1928]

Science does no finishing touches in creation week as God did in creating the world and man.

A week, even, of profound events happening in the material universe and science--which is devoted to the study of events happening in the material unverse--is not supposed to try and find out about them?

 

[truthpls]

The simple truths are plain to all--God's authorship of our being, our fall into sin and our salvation in Christ's life, death and resurrection--those truths' If you want to get much more out if it than that you're going to have to do some homework.

If He is the author and His finger wrote the commandments on that rock And Jesus sent His words from heaven and fulfilled and verified Scripture, then He created man and the world. That means one cannot swallow the opposing tales of science based on assuming the naturalonlydunnit (and therefore being blind to creation). You want both. Choose one.

 

[BCP1928]

If He is the author and His finger wrote the commandments on that rock And Jesus sent His words from heaven and fulfilled and verified Scripture, then He created man and the world. That means one cannot swallow the opposing tales of science based on assuming the naturalonlydunnit (and therefore being blind to creation). You want both. Choose one.

I will take both because it is a false choice, based on the lie that science denies God's authorship of our being.

 

[truthpls]

A week, even, of profound events happening in the material universe and science--which is devoted to the study of events happening in the material unverse--is not supposed to try and find out about them?

Not when it casts God and the supernatural and miracles out from it's purview. They cannot then turn around and pretend they are trying to find out about creation. They are limiting themselves to only the natural and making it impossible to ever find out

 

[truthpls]

I will take both because it is a false choice, based on the lie that science denies God's authorship of our being.

By rejecting the creation spoken about all through the bible and by Jesus, you are not taking both. You have chosen the one.

 

[BCP1928]

By rejecting the creation spoken about all through the bible and by Jesus, you are not taking both. You have chosen the one.

It has become clear that you notion of what the Bible really has to tell us is worthless. Useless for instruction, useless for reproof, useless for training in righteousness.

 

[dlamberth]

You want both. Choose one.

I reject the 2 narrow options. I chose both.

 

[truthpls]

It has become clear that you notion of what the Bible really has to tell us is worthless.

I cited verses from all over the bible. None could fit evolution or cosmology. Pretending that the clear and bible spanning teaching that God created man does not make Scripture worthless. Neither does it make creation something you can dismiss or blame on a poster here.

Useless for instruction, useless for reproof, useless for training in righteousness.

John instructed us that all things were made by Jesus. Very useful to know. Science instructs us that we came from lower animals rather than from God creating us. Science says woman did not come from the man. Science says the sun predates the earth. Science says a lot of things you find useful for instruction. They are all against His spirit, which gave His word to man. Give up the pretense.

 

[truthpls]

I reject the 2 narrow options. I chose both.

You can't. Sorry. Creation is a fact not an opinion. It was spoken of by Jesus. You cannot have both be true, creation and the stories of science about where we came from. Be honest

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because He did it as He told us. He probably doesn't live for the job of ensuring that when He creates a universe, He does it the way natural science prefers.

And He told us how through His creation.

 

[truthpls]

And He told us how through His creation.

Jesus told us Personally. If your interpretation of rocks and other things results in an opposing view, understand that your interpretation was wrong. That is the problem with science firing on only 4 cylinders. They only use the natural and creation was not natural. Let me repeat that. They only use the natural and creation was not natural

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Jesus told us Personally. If your interpretation of rocks and other things results in an opposing view, understand that your interpretation was wrong. That is the problem with science firing on only 4 cylinders. They only use the natural and creation was not natural. Let me repeat that. They only use the natural and creation was not natural

Of course they only use the natural BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO THE UNNATURAL!

 

[truthpls]

Of course they only use the natural BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO THE UNNATURAL!

Exactly, not BY using the natural only! So you admit science has no way to the truth about where we came from if there is a God. Correct?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Exactly, not BY using the natural only! So you admit science has no way to the truth about where we came from if there is a God. Correct?

That's not a science question. That's a theological question. So you're setting up a bad premise to begin with.

 

[AaronClaricus]

Which is quite bogus since geologists and scientists know the difference between rocks that have undergone metamictisation and those that haven't.

Metamictisation can be used to date certain rocks. And has certainly been used to at least relatively date rocks. If you have a rock with a known radioactive source and known zircon crystals you can find tiny grains that are more metamiced within the same rock. Which gives the a visibly older look.

The oldest rocks from our solar processes are 4,568.2 million years old. But within them are non-radioactive crystals damaged far beyond the zircons which formed as they cooled.