Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,021
- 7,397
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Right, thank you. Your commentary has been a little bit ambiguous.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Rocks aren't created supernaturally. The apparent age of rocks is an indication of time passage.
Different radiometric methods apply to different temperatures.Didnt they date fresh lava from a volcano and the 'scientist' dated it as billions of years old!!!
Lead is a chalcophilic element; it does not occur naturally in silicate minerals such as zircons. (The chief ore of lead is the sulfide mineral galena.) Do you think that God would put lead into uranium-bearing zircons in order to deceive geologists into thinking that the lead had been produced by the radioactive decay of uranium?Carrying on a topic from another thread, the question is what would a scientist dating isotopes in a rock that was sitting there a day after the creation of the world by God claim the age of that rock was?
Here is an example of an old rock
"Zircon is a small but mighty mineral. It is one of Earth’s little timekeepers. Zircon typically forms during the crystallization of magma where radioactive uranium can substitute for zirconium in the mineral lattice. Following crystallization, the radiometric clock starts ticking. The unstable radioactive uranium atoms break down through a process known as “decay.” The atoms lose subatomic particles and emit energy. Particle loss includes a decrease in the number of protons which ultimately changes the uranium to lead. The rate of this decay is well known and allows scientists to very accurately date the zircon. Radiometric dating analysis of the Jack Hills detrital zircon grains yield dates as old as 4.404 Ga! This is the oldest Earth material discovered to date, formed merely ~150 Ma after the inception of Earth."
If this rock is there 2 days after God created it, then the zircon in it did not form 'typically'! Any lead in the rock would not be there because of decay! So the known rate of decay would not even be a factor in any true dating of this rock the day after it was created.
The rock would be 2 days old. Yet the crystals and isotopes in that rock would appear to the scientists to be billions of years old.
If we extend this several thousand years to a scientist looking at that rock today, the same principle applies. The stuff in the rock would not have changed all that much. Yet the rock, now being something like 6000 years after the time it was created, would be (and is) dated to be billions and billions of 'years' old.
By expelling God from the picture, then, and using ONLY natural processes to date the rock and tell us how it was 'formed' that is nothing more than a statement of preferences and faith. The preference is to use only the natural to explain creation. Faith comes in because no one can prove there is no God or that there is, so using the one belief (only the natural) cannot arrive at the truth.
Something else that's not being considered is the history of the rock. What kind of rock is it? Is it igneous? Sedimentary? Metamorphic? You know, science stuff that can tell us a lot about the rock and where it came from.Answer the question put to you: Why would God create a rock 5999 years and 363 days ago, but specifically make it look to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes?
Something else that's not being considered is the history of the rock.
What kind of rock is it?
Is it igneous?
Sedimentary?
Metamorphic?
You know, science stuff that can tell us a lot about the rock ...
... and where it came from.
In other words, yet more levels of deception.That's because the rock has no history.
Any kind.
(See how easy this is?)
Sure -- why not?
Sure -- why not?
Sure -- why not?
Go for it.
Tell us its color, texture, hardness, grain size, density, porosity, mineral composition, cleavage, luster, and crystal structure.
Tell us what benefits it provides.
Just don't tell us its history, or my great nephew will tell you you're wrong.
That one's a no-brainer.
It came from God.
Why does the earth and rocks look nice and not like the fantasy sci fi godless dream you seem to have embedded in your head? I guess even the animals know that God created them. The poor scientists have yet to find that out. Guess I should be patient. God came into the world that first Christmas so there is hope for all men of good willThat's not an answer in the slightest.
Why would God create a rock 5999 years and 363 days ago, but specifically make it look to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes?
In other words, creation week involved a lot. The coming into existence from Him speaking. Then who knows what the next hours could have been like that day? God changed the planet with a lot of movement planet wide. Water separating from land etc. That might have resulted in all sorts of rock. metamorphic etc. Then He made a huge garden and rivers. Shortly after He changed the world again with the curse, affecting everything.In other words, yet more levels of deception.
NOTHING occurred naturally in creation! He formed it and made it and established itLead is a chalcophilic element; it does not occur naturally in silicate minerals such as zircons. (The chief ore of lead is the sulfide mineral galena.)
Fair question. So how does words bring a universe into existence? Answer that one and I may have some small clues as to why some things ended up the way they didDo you think that God would put lead into uranium-bearing zircons in order to deceive geologists into thinking that the lead had been produced by the radioactive decay of uranium?
Why does the earth and rocks look nice and not like the fantasy sci fi godless dream you seem to have embedded in your head? I guess even the animals know that God created them. The poor scientists have yet to find that out. Guess I should be patient. God came into the world that first Christmas so there is hope for all men of good will
Appeal to God's word is the answer. Natural only is not the answer.An appeal to rhetoric is not an answer.
So when we combine the original creation itself with the forming of seas and land and hills and mountains and rivers and then add in the curse that changed it all in ways we do not know either, there is plenty of explaining power available as to why the naturalonlydunnit science crowd would get hopelessly muddled, deceived, and confused. I think those deceived like that should man up and be honest rather than blaming it on 'mommy' or GodWhy would God create a rock 5999 years and 363 days ago, but specifically make it look to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes?
Appeal to God's word is the answer. Natural only is not the answer.
So when we combine the original creation itself with the forming of seas and land and hills and mountains and rivers and then add in the curse that changed it all in ways we do not know either, there is plenty of explaining power available as to why the naturalonlydunnit science crowd would get hopelessly muddled, deceived, and confused. I think those deceived like that should man up and be honest rather than blaming it on 'mommy' or God
No. Watch thisExcept that you're not appealing to God's word at all. You're just making a claim all by yourself.
When we combine the original creation itself with the forming of seas and land and hills and mountains and rivers and then add in the curse that changed it all in ways we do not know either, there is plenty of explaining power available as to why the naturalonlydunnit science crowd would get hopelessly muddled, deceived, and confused. I think those deceived like that should man up and be honest rather than blaming it on 'mommy' or GodWhy would God create a rock 5999 years and 363 days ago, but specifically make it look to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes?
In other words, yet more levels of deception.In other words, creation week involved a lot. The coming into existence from Him speaking. Then who knows what the next hours could have been like that day? God changed the planet with a lot of movement planet wide. Water separating from land etc. That might have resulted in all sorts of rock. metamorphic etc. Then He made a huge garden and rivers. Shortly after He changed the world again with the curse, affecting everything.
Psalms 95:5
The sea belongs to him, for he made it. His hands formed the dry land, too.
Then there was the mountain building in creation week
Psalms 65:6
You formed the mountains by your power and armed yourself with mighty strength.
We can add all hills to what He formed on the planet in that short time as well. One assumes that hills and mountains were after the initial creation of the world, because there was as yet no land on the earth then.
So we can see there were some stages involved
Jeremiah 33:2
"This is what the Lord says—the Lord who made the earth, who formed and established it, whose name is the Lord :
No. Watch this
Acts 4:24 -- So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: "Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them,
Acts 7:50 -- Has My hand not made all these things?'
Now we know where all these things come from. I never invented that. Nice try
When we combine the original creation itself with the forming of seas and land and hills and mountains and rivers and then add in the curse that changed it all in ways we do not know either, there is plenty of explaining power available as to why the naturalonlydunnit science crowd would get hopelessly muddled, deceived, and confused. I think those deceived like that should man up and be honest rather than blaming it on 'mommy' or God
Try to stop projecting your naturalonlydunnit mental constructs onto rocks. You head would clear up pretty quick I think. Meanwhile try not to blame God for your confused and made up mind.
The curse part was deception related. Eve bought into doubts about God.In other words, yet more levels of deception.
Why would admittedly deceived people ask the same question over and over when they rejected the answer long ago? I get a chuckle when people in a thread resort to mindless parroting.Why would God create a rock 5999 years and 363 days ago, but specifically make it look to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes?
Why would admittedly deceived people ask the same question over and over when they rejected the answer long ago?
So you don't like the way God created things. Nor the way He formed and established the world or the effects of the curse etc. You want to give the credit for what we see, for example a rock, to the natural only and nothing but the natural. We get itBecause A) I do not accept embedded age as anything close to being called valid science or theology, I only see it as something close to being profane on God's word and God's creation,
I gave the answer and it was more than a single thing. Can you tell us why science would comically mis date the rock right after it was created? I think your answer so far here (correct this if need be) is that you insist on saying it was not created and that you only will accept naturalonly dates come hell or high water. Even if you were right there in Eden looking at a newly created rock. I would have to call that belief set extremeand B) no-one has given a single answer as to even why God would do it in the first place.
Why do dyed in the wool naturalonly disciples abandon reason and get to mindless parroting rather than address the creation/making and forming by separating land and water, and curse effects on the world etc. I think you answered that already. Apparently because you religiously refuse to consider that it may have been created and cling with bloody fingernails to the natural only paradigm.So I'll ask again: Why would God create a rock 5999 years and 363 days ago, but specifically make it look to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes?
So you don't like the way God created things. Nor the way He formed and established the world or the effects of the curse etc. You want to give the credit for what we see, for example a rock, to the natural only and nothing but the natural. We get it
I gave the answer and it was more than a single thing. Can you tell us why science would comically mis date the rock right after it was created? I think your answer so far here (correct this if need be) is that you insist on saying it was not created and that you only will accept naturalonly dates come hell or high water. Even if you were right there in Eden looking at a newly created rock. I would have to call that belief set extreme
Why do dyed in the wool naturalonly disciples abandon reason and get to mindless parroting rather than address the creation/making and forming by separating land and water, and curse effects on the world etc. I think you answered that already. Apparently because you religiously refuse to consider that it may have been created and cling with bloody fingernails to the natural only paradigm.
I think we covered things then. Thanks for playing. Happy Christmas
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?