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

[AV1611VET]

Then give us evidence of the supernatural to study then.

Would you recognize it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Would you recognize it?

Good question. I'd have to see it first to see if I do recognize it as evidence of the supernatural. That's how anyone recognizes anything.

 

[dlamberth]

Just out of curiosity, how should a first-grade Sunday school teacher teach her class about Adam and Eve?

They shouldn't even touch the subject.

 

[truthpls]

And still doing nothing to show that embedded age isn't a deception.

To you? Or to Adam?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To you? Or to Adam?

Since Adam didn't exist as a literal being, it's obviously to me since I'm the one saying it's a deception.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then stop it. The issue here is that natural science uses that to try and model where it all came from and when

No. I will not stop using science to do science things, particularly on the Physical and Life Sciences section of this board. You might as well ask me to stop breathing.

Using the natural only religiously IS claiming that is sufficient and that no supernatural existed to also determine how things were made.

Science only uses the natural. No claims about sufficiency have been made, nor claims about "no supernatural". Did you even read my post? Is it too hard to understand?

Yes, you use the word creation but it has no relation to the creation of God in Scripture. You might as well use the term bib bang or something.

No. The only usage of "creation" I have used is the same as yours: supernatural creation by a god. If I wanted to talk about he Big Bang I would have. That I am not using that term is because A) I am meeting you in your position to talk about what happens *after* the creation you believe in, and B) the Big Bang doesn't make rocks.

Using the natural only does not include using supernatural gods or anything else supernatural. The existence of Jesus, who created all things is the core issue in creation. Maybe not the fantasy misnamed 'creation' that is meaningless that you use.

I am using science, particularly the science of nuclear decays. Science does not use supernatural causation as part of the method.

Radioactive decay is also independent of God's creation. Decay came later like all other processes that came to exist

No. They are almost totally irrelevant if God's creation happened. As the OP discusses, a scientist would date a 1 day old rock as many billions of years old. If there were 360 days in a year then, and the rock was 1 day old, that means you misdated it by billions of years

No, on day one that would not be a factor. How much decay happened in a day?!

And I do not believe in ONLY the natural because there is no evidence for IT!

Not on day 1! The radioactive decay if it then existed (being before the curse who really knows?) that happened in one day would be insignificant.

There is a lot of "not on day 1". I don't care when the "creation event" ends. If things are still being affected by supernatural processes on day 2 or up to the fall or whenever, then when that is all done the regular operation of nuclear decay counts from that moment to the present. I am making no claims about how we could measure what was happening if supernatural interference was occurring that altered or halted the natural decay process.

No, any crystal in the rock you looked at in the garden of Eden that just came to exist the day before would not have been there as a result of any process that now goes on

I didn't say a created rock was the result of any process after it was created, I said the radioactive decay would the be operative *after* the creation event was over.

On day 2 after God's creation there could be no 'assumed age'

On day 2 after God's creation no crystal age could be deduced that way.

I'm not discussing "assumed age", only how decays occur. If the supernatural interference in physical processes have started, then radioactive decays will occur. And why are we even discussing rocks created yesterday. We all know the Earth wasn't created yesterday, or even last Thursday. Neither was there anyone with a geochemistry lab until well after the Earth formed whether it be the 6000 years after creation date or a longer date that is implied by geochemistry.

The decay in one single day is ridiculously insignificant. Even in the 6000 years from that day till now, how different are you claiming the ratios would be!?

It really depends on the isotope. For Neodymium, Nd-150 has a measured half-life of 9 billion billion years and Nd-149 of only 1.7 hours, Nd-148 is 'observationally stable" in that no decay has ever been measured, but nuclear structure theory suggests it should decay, and Nd-142 is actually stable.

Any Nd-149 in your created rock would be gone in a couple days, while virtually all of the Nd-150 would still be there even after a few billion years.

Geologists use isotopes with million to billion year half-lives because shorter lived isotopes (as measured in physics laboratories) are not found in rocks.

I have them down pat. They are not even relevant for one day of existing in a rock. Or even very significant after 6000 years.

No you don't have the nuclear physics "down pat" your lack of knowledge and understanding screams out loudly from your posts. I am willing to help you learn it.

And I am not interested in the fantasy 'creation' that never existed that natural science claims.

How would that matter the day after the rock was created by God? Of course there is processes going on in the rock after it was created by God. Your mistake is to use the natural only belief to ascribe credit for the rock's existence to the processes now going on.

As a scientist, I only work with the natural. As I said before:

1. I am not trying to figure out how creation happened or what happened during creation.
2. I am only discussing what happened *after* creation ended and regular, non-supernatural behavior begins/resumes.

Math works. If we take the creation by God and represent it as a letter, say, R then we add letters representing other things that affected the rock since being created by God - say, F for His forming the land and seas, and C for the great change that happened from the curse we get the total of things that are the reason the rock is the way it is. In the above math it would be R = F=C And as I mentioned, we could generously add a little N as well representing the natural processes that occurred since the creation by God.

That is inclusive math. Your math is biased and exclusive.

My math is basic radioactive decay laws for unstable nuclei.

The processes science sees are used to model where the moon and sun and universe and man came from. No denying it. Not just the radioactive decay process in a rock of course.

I am not discussing those, only radioactive decay.

Exactly. Which is hardly measurable. (assuming we knew there was decay before the curse as well)

Again, it depends on the isotope and no one with the equipment to make such a measurement was around.

God's creation has nothing to do with 'forming naturally'! Yet you could not stop that little engine of the natural only from declaring that poor one day old rock billions of years old!

Did you read my post carefully? I wrote it carefully. I spent a stupid amount of time doing so. Have a little respect.

What I wrote in the bit you replied to just here was about the results you would get if you *ASSUMED* natural formation, not that it must be natural. This is at the heart of this whole thread and it helps explain why so many Christians (and I think even some of the creationists) are arguing against the "embedded age" claim. I'm only here to correct errors about nuclear physics and radioactive dating.

It doesn't matter if a rock forms today as well. Who would look at a rock in Hawaii that formed today and say it was billions of years old?

Perhaps there is a clue there... Particularly if we talk about lab samples...

Whether the scientist in the garden of Eden the day after the creation of God was finished had qualms or not, the age he or she assigned to the one day old rock was wrong

There were no scientists then, so your statement is moot.

 

[dlamberth]

The rock was how it was meant to be. Your failure to be able to tell us why (and assigning only natural reasons for it's existence) does not make it look billions of years old to us at all. If someone ate a horribly large amount of magic mushrooms, and sat there looking at a dog, it might look like the dog is talking to them, and wearing a dress and has a two foot tongue.

The might be more of an acid trip sort of vision than mushrooms. Just say'n.

 

[AV1611VET]

They shouldn't even touch the subject.

Where should they start then?

Genesis 3? 10? Exodus? Jeremiah? Habakkuk? Matthew?

Where exactly?

 

[truthpls]

So you don't have anything to show how science can study the supernatural. Amazing that you finally admitted it.

Science is natural. How do you propose it 'study the supernatural'? Now if science broadened it's horizons, and accepted that there is more than the natural, well, there might be some advances possible.

It makes on wonder with all those drones being seen in New Jersey. Some say it is just advanced natural science. Maybe some sort of plasma that is entangled with something elsewhere or etc. There are other people with different explanations. We don't know yet. If what some people said was true, that they reverse engineered some 'alien' technology or something, well, that might be an example of how science could study the supernatural. That would be because the so called aliens would probably be demons.

 

[truthpls]

The might be more of an acid trip sort of vision than mushrooms. Just say'n.

OK, so we can change the formula there. Replace shrooms with acid. In either case, it was not the fault of the dog. Nor is it the fault of the rock or God if some scientist staring at a newly created rock imagined it was billions of years old

 

[dlamberth]

Where should they start then?

Genesis 3? 10? Exodus? Jeremiah? Habakkuk? Matthew?

Where exactly?

I think a good place to begin is something local to their area. A place that they can see and relate to and maybe even have been to.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science is natural. How do you propose it 'study the supernatural'? Now if science broadened it's horizons, and accepted that there is more than the natural, well, there might be some advances possible.

Well, to study the supernatural, we'd first have to have evidence OF the supernatural. Can't really 'broaden the horizons' if there's no evidence for anything.

It makes on wonder with all those drones being seen in New Jersey. Some say it is just advanced natural science. Maybe some sort of plasma that is entangled with something elsewhere or etc. There are other people with different explanations. We don't know yet. If what some people said was true, that they reverse engineered some 'alien' technology or something, well, that might be an example of how science could study the supernatural. That would be because the so called aliens would probably be demons.

Or they could just be planes. You know, those things that fly in the sky all the time, lots of twinkly lights on them?

 

[AV1611VET]

Good question. I'd have to see it first to see if I do recognize it as evidence of the supernatural. That's how anyone recognizes anything.

What criteria would you use?

 

[truthpls]

Since Adam didn't exist as a literal being,

Finally. A specific claim. So, let's see the support for your claim there was no Adam?

it's obviously to me since I'm the one saying it's a deception.

Were you there a day after God's creation? I guess we could pretend you were. Do you admit that newly created rock was only a day old or not?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think a good place to begin is something local to their area. A place that they can see and relate to and maybe even have been to.

In other words, you don't know?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What criteria would you use?

Depends entirely on what the evidence of the supernatural is.

 

[dlamberth]

OK, so we can change the formula there. Replace shrooms with acid. In either case, it was not the fault of the dog. Nor is it the fault of the rock or God if some scientist staring at a newly created rock imagined it was billions of years old

And than we have geochemistry. No imagination there.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think a good place to begin is something local to their area.

Man walks into a Christian book store.

Clerk: May I help you?

Customer: Yes, I'm looking for some first-grade Sunday school teaching materials please.

Clerk: What latitude and longitude are you looking for?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Finally. A specific claim. So, let's see the support for your claim there was no Adam?

Nope, because we're sticking this solely on you wanting to keep God being deceptive.

Were you there a day after God's creation? I guess we could pretend you were. Do you admit that newly created rock was only a day old or not?

If I was there and I saw God had created a rock in the single day, I would obviously say He created it in a single day. But if I was able to run a test on the rock and it said that it was several billion years old even though He only created the rock in a day, I would have to ask Him the same question that I have been repeatedly asking throughout this blooming thread: WHY WOULD HE CREATE A ROCK IN A SINGLE DAY BUT EMBEDDED WITH BILLIONS OF YEARS OF AGE?! WHY?!

 

[AV1611VET]

Depends entirely on what the evidence of the supernatural is.

Okay ... Christ's virgin birth.