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.
God's creation was not a natural only science thing. Obviously
Claims about where we came from were made. Your claim that involves only the natural is not sufficient or supported.
Then your usage is not science based
If the universe resulted from that bang were there no rocks in the universe?
That is a process that exists in created things. Any claim that this created things would be wrong
It ended when it ended whether you care or not
Big deal, that is only several thousand years. In that rock you claim are billions of years. No nuclear decay for 6000 years or one day would produce that.
Then do you admit that natural science could never tell us where the world came from
Great, that is true we assume. So that means that the ratios had to have been there at creation. They could not have come from natural processes in a day.
Except you assign ages to that decay. Even if, apparently the stuff you thought that came from decay was created yesterday. You have no on off switch and don't know when to stop with the naturalonlydunnit stuff
? Explain how a supernatural interference in already finished and created rocks can happen and how you would recognize it if it did?
Because it is the topic?
We would not know that if we were back in Eden 6000 years ago. And what good would knowing it now do you if it was created by God 6000 years ago anyhow?
No there was not. Otherwise we would still be laughing at them and hearing about it in legends and the bible etc.
Exactly. So, if you were there in Eden looking at the isotopes in that rock, the only isotope you would see change was the Nd-149
So if radioactive decay was the same then (before the fall) the day after being created by God, I guess there would still be some Nd-149 in the rock if it takes a few days to vanish. So the scientist should be able to tell us that much!
In other words the isotopes they see would still have been there 6000 years ago
Yes, and here is the low down on nuclear physics. It has no value in the discussion of God's creation. What else matters?
Condolences
Yet science does try to figure out where the world and man and universe came from
So the ratios were there the day after God created the world. What happened 'after' that helps you the next day after creation? You still date them billions of years old I would hardly say anything helped you!
That math is after God created. That math also would lead to dating a one day old rock as billions of years old. Nice math
Decay is a process going on only after something existed.
It would not matter. You still would date it billions of years old. Moral of that story is your natural only equipment doesn't help at all
Then do not assume natural creation. Stick to what you know
So christians are arguing against embedded age in creation...why?
We know what they would say from the ratios. Ha
The reason you claim God is deceptive is because you interpret stuff using anything but Him
Exactly
He might ask you 'why do you create a rule that says what is made yesterday is old? Maybe get rid of that rule and give your head a shake
Not to Adam. So that seems to isolate where the problem lies
So unless we view the existing ratios in the rocks as naturalonlycaused we are deceptive in your book. The problem is that you can't prove they were naturally caused. So why is what you fantasize about with no proof the central measure of what is deceptive or not?
At least you can admit if you were there you would view the rock a certain way. So if the rock would not have changed significantly in 6000 years, and you still misdate it, what does that say?
The ratios were not age. Ask Adam. Just as Adam knew that it never took 40 years for his body to get full size! Just as Adam would know where Eve came from and how long ago.
We're working on it
If the scientist was back there in Eden a day after God's creation, Adam would be there too
The so called age is in your head. It is there because of the naturalonlydunnit interpreting you do. Why would I have thought the ages were a thing? Me and Adam and AV know better
No, but if you were you would misdate the rock. Why? You would use the same natural only assumptions.
Well, if you aren't considering it why are you still talking?
It's what is typically called a moral or social panic. Just some drones and some things that aren't drones being misidentified.
Since Adam was there, his opinion matters
The age is in your head, not in the rocks. You have a penchant to view all things with a natural only viewmaster on.
Regardless of when it was created Jesus let us know it was created. You might as well put the stars in your pocket as to claim it was not created.
We should, for natural things. God and His creation and miracles and the supernatural are not natural things. Give unto the natural that which is the natural's. Give unto the supernatural that which is the supernatural's. And if you don't know the difference just stay quiet.
I know what you were getting at. I have seen tougher nuts crack
Give unto the brain, that which is the brain's. Give unto God and His creation that which is God and creation's. Everything in it's place.
That could be, there are so many claims about what it might be. Some reports of the objects have them doing things that no drone we know of could ever do. Rise up from the ocean, travel thousands of miles an hour, disappear etc etc. We don't know yet what is going on. It does seem like it could involve more than what science knows about in the mainstream.
Yet your want is to reject absolutely anything "natural", even what the Earth itSelf is showing us about itSelf.
It can repent and stop being limited to the natural only. That might help
Since it is in your heads and not mine, you might consider getting free of it
What are you dreaming about now? Why would I reject the natural? It is where we live and one would have to be crazy to try and reject it. What you need to be careful about is giving just the natural credit for our very existence.
Of course not. I didn't refer to "creation" as a scientific concept because it isn't one. I refer to "creation" as your view or something like it. I have been trying to meet you on your territory, but all I get back is assertions about me claiming things I did not claim.
Let me rephrase it: Once the creation event and related events stop and the natural laws take effect, we can measure things with scientific methodology to tell us about what it was like the moment *AFTER* all the creatin' stopped, but not what happened before it stopped.
I make no claims about specific rocks because I don't have the data in front of me (and I'm not a geochemist). Claims like "No nuclear decay for 6000 years or one day would produce that." are meaningless unless made relative to *real* data.
I admit no such thing, but that is not the topic of the thread.
As I stated clearly before, that is one interpretation of the data. The other involves assuming an age from other sources and computing what the isotopic composition would have been at formation.
As a scientist, I made *no* explanations based on supernatural inference. Nor can claim
Rocks made yesterday are not the subject of the thread, nor are fantasies about scietific measurements being made 6000 years before science existed.
No, there are many other short lived isotopes, and you would have to look for signs of the decay products.
Again, no one was there to measure it.
The issue is about the implied age measured by radiometric dating. That's why it is relevant, and you know that.
It is how science works and if you can't take it, you could go off to the "christian only" equivalent of this section.
I already addressed these in this posts and addressed them in prior posts. I cannot be held responsible for your failure to comprehend what you are replying to or to ask questions you know you already got answers to.
From what I can tell it is because the think it is bad theology. You should ask them (or read their posts).
