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

[truthpls]

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."

17.3: Earth's Oldest Rocks

geo.libretexts.org

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why would God create a rock that existed for two days, yet have it so that the radioactive isotopes within show that it has appeared to have existed for billions of years?

I cannot see how in your scenario God can't come across as deceptive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would God create a rock that existed for two days, yet have it so that the radioactive isotopes within show that it has appeared to have existed for billions of years?

I cannot see how in your scenario God can't come across as deceptive.

From AI Overview:

Old rocks offer several advantages, primarily their exceptional durability, longevity, low maintenance needs, and ability to provide a natural aesthetic in landscaping, including uses like creating pathways, retaining walls, decorative borders, and even acting as a base for planting beds while preventing soil erosion;

Also, newer rocks are harder to break up.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From AI Overview:

Old rocks offer several advantages, primarily their exceptional durability, longevity, low maintenance needs, and ability to provide a natural aesthetic in landscaping, including uses like creating pathways, retaining walls, decorative borders, and even acting as a base for planting beds while preventing soil erosion;

Also, newer rocks are harder to break up.

But why would that matter when God can create any rock when He wants to, to any degree of strength or toughness?

 

[truthpls]

Why would God create a rock that existed for two days, yet have it so that the radioactive isotopes within show that it has appeared to have existed for billions of years?

On day two to Adam they did not appear that way at all. Nor does the rock today appear that way to me. Only for people who insist on 'only the natural' is responsible for it all would be dazed and confused and even deceived.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

On day two to Adam they did not appear that way at all. Nor does the rock today appear that way to me. Only for people who insist on 'only the natural' is responsible for it all would be dazed and confused and even deceived.

I'll ask again: Why would God create a rock that existed for two days, yet have it so that the radioactive isotopes within show that it has appeared to have existed for billions of years?

 

[truthpls]

I'll ask again: Why would God create a rock that existed for two days, yet have it so that the radioactive isotopes within show that it has appeared to have existed for billions of years?

We cannot say what His creation involved. Could it result in some crystals in a rock? Of course. Could it result in isotope ratios in rocks? Of course. We have no idea how to create! Not only was there the poof day one of creation, but there was also a planetary movement of water and land in creation week. That would affect a lot of rocks as well. It would be insulting to say the result of creation was deceptive. Only in denying God in creation and trying to explain where the rock came from and when by the processes going on in the rock is one deceived.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We cannot say what His creation involved. Could it result in some crystals in a rock? Of course. Could it result in isotope ratios in rocks? Of course. We have no idea how to create! Not only was there the poof day one of creation, but there was also a planetary movement of water and land in creation week. That would affect a lot of rocks as well. It would be insulting to say the result of creation was deceptive. Only in denying God in creation and trying to explain where the rock came from and when by the processes going on in the rock is one deceived.

It's not a question of how but why? Why would God create a rock that existed for two days, yet have it so that the radioactive isotopes within show that it has appeared to have existed for billions of years?

 

[truthpls]

From AI Overview:

Old rocks offer several advantages, primarily their exceptional durability, longevity, low maintenance needs, and ability to provide a natural aesthetic in landscaping, including uses like creating pathways, retaining walls, decorative borders, and even acting as a base for planting beds while preventing soil erosion;

Also, newer rocks are harder to break up.

Good point, the world needed rocks the way they were

 

[truthpls]

It's not a question of how but why?

Yet when we read scientific articles about old rocks it invariably gets into where the earth came from and what they claim it was like here to get the rock the way it is!

Why would God create a rock that existed for two days, yet have it so that the radioactive isotopes within show that it has appeared to have existed for billions of years?

It never looked that way to anyone in history before. So the deception you speak about is recent. Do you really think the purpose for the way rocks are was to deceive people for several decades near the end of time?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yet when we read scientific articles about old rocks it invariably gets into where the earth came from and what they claim it was like here to get the rock the way it is!

Because there is no reason to believe that the rocks have no existed as science, through the various disciplines that study rocks, has studied them.

It never looked that way to anyone in history before. So the deception you speak about is recent. Do you really think the purpose for the way rocks are was to deceive people for several decades near the end of time?

What an absolutely nonsensical and gibbering comment.

I'll ask again: Why would God create a rock that existed for two days, yet have it so that the radioactive isotopes within show that it has appeared to have existed for billions of years?

 

[truthpls]

Because there is no reason to believe that the rocks have no existed as science, through the various disciplines that study rocks, has studied them.

The rock seems to exist, it is in the OP link. One of the actual oldest rocks in the world. Since they date it to near the beginning of the world, it seems fair to use it as the example.

What an absolutely nonsensical and gibbering comment.

If you claim that people living in caves thought that a rock in their cave was billions of years old, prove it? If you claim that Alexander the Great thought rocks were billions of years old, prove it?

I'll ask again: Why would God create a rock that existed for two days, yet have it so that the radioactive isotopes within show that it has appeared to have existed for billions of years?

AVI suggested that rocks were useful the way they were. I pointed out that since creation is totally an unknown thing, why would we expect rocks to be made containing nothing, and no isotopes etc? Would you Expect that Adam had no toes? That whales never swam? I see nothing wrong in the way He made things. Nothing deceptive. Modern science uses only the physical processes going on to tell us how it all came to exist. THAT is the deception.

 

[AV1611VET]

But why would that matter when God can create any rock when He wants to, to any degree of strength or toughness?

Adam, et al, had to work with those rocks.

The old ones were used for one thing, and the new ones for another.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The rock seems to exist, it is in the OP link. One of the actual oldest rocks in the world. Since they date it to near the beginning of the world, it seems fair to use it as the example.

Yes, very good. Now show that it was created in two days.

If you claim that people living in caves thought that a rock in their cave was billions of years old, prove it? If you claim that Alexander the Great thought rocks were billions of years old, prove it?

That's not what I claimed at all and you know it.

AVI suggested that rocks were useful the way they were. I pointed out that since creation is totally an unknown thing, why would we expect rocks to be made containing nothing, and no isotopes etc? Would you Expect that Adam had no toes? That whales never swam? I see nothing wrong in the way He made things. Nothing deceptive. Modern science uses only the physical processes going on to tell us how it all came to exist. THAT is the deception.

I'll ask the question again: Why would God create a rock that existed for two days, yet have it so that the radioactive isotopes within show that it has appeared to have existed for billions of years?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Adam, et al, had to work with those rocks.

The old ones were used for one thing, and the new ones for another.

Really does not answer the point since it's just begging the question: why would God create a rock with billions of years of age when he can create a rock of any hardness or toughness WITHOUT putting in radioactive isotopes that can be dated to have existed for billions of years? What's the point of it?

 

[truthpls]

Yes, very good. Now show that it was created in two days.

Show it wasn't

That's not what I claimed at all and you know it.

Clarity then?

I'll ask the question again: Why would God create a rock that existed for two days, yet have it so that the radioactive isotopes within show that it has appeared to have existed for billions of years?

Is this a game where I cut an paste the answer I gave over and over again? Are you pretending you did not read it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Really does not answer the point since it's just begging the question: why would God create a rock with billions of years of age when he can create a rock of any hardness or toughness WITHOUT putting in radioactive isotopes that can be dated to have existed for billions of years? What's the point of it?

From AI Overview:

Radioactive decay also releases heat, which contributes to the Earth's internal heat budget.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this a game where I cut an paste the answer I gave over and over again? Are you pretending you did not read it?

This is standard academic tactics.

Ask a question, then every answer generates two more questions, until the discussion goes to pot.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Show it wasn't

Your OP does it for me, and I cannot prove a negative.

Clarity then?

That your comment was nonsensical gibbering? But I'll humour you.

Ancient people only knew what they knew at the time. They would have had no concept of millions or billions of years of age since such a thing was not considered back then when human existence was measured in generations of families. While, begrudgingly, the idea of the 'deception' is recent, the concept of embedded age is even more recent, being only created by AV on this website alone, and no-one else.

But even considering that, your commentary is still nonsensical and gibbering.

Is this a game where I cut an paste the answer I gave over and over again? Are you pretending you did not read it?

No, it's me wanting you to actually engage with the question and answer it. I'll even highlight the word that I actually want you to focus on in the question:

Why would God create a rock that existed for two days, yet have it so that the radioactive isotopes within show that it has appeared to have existed for billions of years?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From AI Overview:

Radioactive decay also releases heat, which contributes to the Earth's internal heat budget.

Putting unnecessary AI Overview aside: why would God create a rock with billions of years of age when he can create a rock of any hardness or toughness WITHOUT putting in radioactive isotopes that can be dated to have existed for billions of years? What's the point of it?