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.
Okay ... Christ's virgin birth.
I'd probably vomit at that since I'm not a big fan of blood and there would have been blood.
Just being 100% on this one.
Well, don't worry.
All the scientists in China wouldn't be able to help you here.
It was a miracle, wasn't it?
So let's do another one ...
The parting of the Red Sea.
What specific equipment would you use at the bank(s) of the Red Sea to test this miracle?
God's creation was not a natural only science thing. ObviouslyNo. 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.
Claims about where we came from were made. Your claim that involves only the natural is not sufficient or supported.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?
Then your usage is not science basedNo. The only usage of "creation" I have used is the same as yours: supernatural creation by a god.
If the universe resulted from that bang were there no rocks in the universe?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.
That is a process that exists in created things. Any claim that this created things would be wrongI am using science, particularly the science of nuclear decays. Science does not use supernatural causation as part of the method.
It ended when it ended whether you care or notThere is a lot of "not on day 1". I don't care when the "creation event" ends.
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.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.
Then do you admit that natural science could never tell us where the world came fromI 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.
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.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.
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 stuffI'm not discussing "assumed age", only how decays occur.
? Explain how a supernatural interference in already finished and created rocks can happen and how you would recognize it if it did?If the supernatural interference in physical processes have started, then radioactive decays will occur.
Because it is the topic?And why are we even discussing rocks created yesterday.
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?We all know the Earth wasn't created yesterday,
No there was not. Otherwise we would still be laughing at them and hearing about it in legends and the bible etc.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.
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-149It 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.
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!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.
In other words the isotopes they see would still have been there 6000 years agoGeologists use isotopes with million to billion year half-lives because shorter lived isotopes (as measured in physics laboratories) are not found in rocks.
Yes, and here is the low down on nuclear physics. It has no value in the discussion of God's creation. What else matters?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.
CondolencesAs a scientist, I only work with the natural. As I said before:
Yet science does try to figure out where the world and man and universe came from1. I am not trying to figure out how creation happened or what happened during creation.
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!2. I am only discussing what happened *after* creation ended and regular, non-supernatural behavior begins/resumes.
That math is after God created. That math also would lead to dating a one day old rock as billions of years old. Nice mathMy math is basic radioactive decay laws for unstable nuclei.
Decay is a process going on only after something existed.I am not discussing those, only radioactive decay.
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 allAgain, it depends on the isotope and no one with the equipment to make such a measurement was around.
Then do not assume natural creation. Stick to what you knowWhat 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.
So christians are arguing against embedded age in creation...why?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.
We know what they would say from the ratios. HaPerhaps there is a clue there... Particularly if we talk about lab samples...
There were no scientists then, so your statement is moot.
There is gechemistry. I agree There are also milkshakes. So?And than we have geochemistry. No imagination there.
The reason you claim God is deceptive is because you interpret stuff using anything but HimNope, because we're sticking this solely on you wanting to keep God being deceptive.
ExactlyIf 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.
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 shakeBut 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?!
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 liesNo, I claim that embedded age is deceptive because the claim of embedded age is inherently deceptive.
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?I'm not calling God deceptive, I'm calling the people who claim embedded age is a thing claim He is deceptive. Aka you and AV.
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?If I was there, but I wasn't there and no-one else was.
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.Nope, I would still ask him why he would create a rock instantaneously but put billions of years of age into the rock. Because why would He do that if not to be deceptive?
We're working on itBecause at the end of the day, I have no reason to the believe that God is deceptive. And there is nothing that you nor anyone else can say that can make me change my mind on that matter.
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 tooAdam's got nothing to do with it. This purely a you problem.
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 betterNo, the problem is entirely that you can't prove that embedded age is a thing nor why anyone should take your seriously on it.
No, but if you were you would misdate the rock. Why? You would use the same natural only assumptions.But I wasn't there and no-one else was.
Well, if you aren't considering it why are you still talking?Don't quit your day job.
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.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.
Since Adam was there, his opinion mattersBut the question is about rocks not Adam.
The age is in your head, not in the rocks. You have a penchant to view all things with a natural only viewmaster on.The age is in the rocks themselves. And if ages aren't a thing, then why does embedded age matter to you?
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.You might as well claim that all of this was created on the Tuesday and everything that happened in the past was put there by God just because.
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.Because you've still not given me a reason why I SHOULDN'T use natural assumptions.
I know what you were getting at. I have seen tougher nuts crackNot what I said at all. When I said "Don't quit your day job" I was saying that your attempts at trying to convince me that embedded age is worth considering are so stunningly poor that you'd be better off sticking your actual job, because you'd be worthless as a teacher.
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.I live to be proven wrong, because it means I can grow and learn and expand what I know, because I use the brain and intellect (meager as it is) that God gave me for that reason. You... not so much.
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.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.
Yet your want is to reject absolutely anything "natural", even what the Earth itSelf is showing us about itSelf.God's creation was not a natural only science thing. Obviously
It can repent and stop being limited to the natural only. That might helpAnd in the end, you've still got no way of showing how science can study the supernatural without invoking ridiculous demands (like being directly at the Creation in Genesis)
Since it is in your heads and not mine, you might consider getting free of itnor can you even show why I nor anyone else should consider embedded age as a serious thing to consider.
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.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
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.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
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.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
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.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.
I admit no such thing, but that is not the topic of the thread.Then do you admit that natural science could never tell us where the world came from
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.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
As a scientist, I made *no* explanations based on supernatural inference. Nor can claim? Explain how a supernatural interference in already finished and created rocks can happen and how you would recognize it if it did?
Rocks made yesterday are not the subject of the thread, nor are fantasies about scietific measurements being made 6000 years before science existed.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.
No, there are many other short lived isotopes, and you would have to look for signs of the decay products.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
Again, no one was there to measure it.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
The issue is about the implied age measured by radiometric dating. That's why it is relevant, and you know that.Yes, and here is the low down on nuclear physics. It has no value in the discussion of God's creation. What else matters?
It is how science works and if you can't take it, you could go off to the "christian only" equivalent of this section.Condolences
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.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
From what I can tell it is because the think it is bad theology. You should ask them (or read their posts).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
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?