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

[truthpls]

That's not a science question. That's a theological question. So you're setting up a bad premise to begin with.

Creation is not a science question if God created the world. Science only deals with the natural. Yet science preaches night and day about where the universe and man came from.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Metamictisation can be used to date certain rocks. And has certainly been used to at least relatively date rocks. If you have a rock with a known radioactive source and known zircon crystals you can find tiny grains that are more metamiced within the same rock. Which gives the a visibly older look.

The oldest rocks from our solar processes are 4,568.2 million years old. But within them are non-radioactive crystals damaged far beyond the zircons which formed as they cooled.

And yet scientists know that rocks that have undergone metamictisation will give false results so they don't use rocks that have undergone metamictisation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Creation is not a science question if God created the world. Science only deals with the natural. Yet science preaches night and day about where the universe and man came from.

Because we have evidence of how the earth and man got here through natural means. Once you involve creation, i.e. an act of God, you stop talking science and begin talking theology.

They are two different disciplines.

 

[truthpls]

Because we have evidence of how the earth and man got here through natural means.

Full stop. Name any one piece of said evidence.

Once you involve creation, i.e. an act of God, you stop talking science and begin talking theology.

They are two different disciplines.

Science talks of creation using other terms for it. So the discipline of science involves creation, but they call it something else. They look at processes that creation left us and physical things and use these to determine where it all came from. If creation happened then this is completely wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Full stop. Name any one piece of said evidence.

Evolution.

Science talks of creation using other terms for it. So the discipline of science involves creation, but they call it something else. They look at processes that creation left us and physical things and use these to determine where it all came from. If creation happened then this is completely wrong.

But when you call it 'creation', you're directly talking theology because you're referencing a creator. To the scientific method, creation and creator are not factored into it because there is no independent and sincere way to show that there was either a creator or that everything was created. It's a null hypothesis.

 

[truthpls]

Evolution.

If we were in the garden and monitoring Adam and animals, we would have seen evolution as well. That did not mean evolution caused Adam to exist. Evolution would not mean Eve was pulled from a bone in Adam's body by God. So, no. Evolution is NOT evidence that man got here by natural means!

But when you call it 'creation', you're directly talking theology because you're referencing a creator.

God calls it creation. Jesus called it creation. The whole bible calls it creation. Science has no knowledge that it was or was not creation. The example you offered of evolution was not 'evidence man got here by natural means'.

To the scientific method, creation and creator are not factored into it because there is no independent and sincere way to show that there was either a creator or that everything was created. It's a null hypothesis.

Claiming the naturaonlydunnit is the null hypothesis because there is no independent and sincere way to show that only the natural was responsible for it all existing.

 

[AaronClaricus]

And yet scientists know that rocks that have undergone metamictisation will give false results so they don't use rocks that have undergone metamictisation.

Cosmogenic nuclide dating focuses on pieces of rocks that have been altered by radiation. The crystals are still solid enough that they retain most of their gases, thus not metamiced to a point where all values are nonsense. But still quite so.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Cosmogenic nuclide dating focuses on pieces of rocks that have been altered by radiation. The crystals are still solid enough that they retain most of their gases, thus not metamiced to a point where all values are nonsense. But still quite so.

Titanium in zircon geothermometry:

Due to the abundance of radioactive elements that can be incorporated into zircons, they are also susceptible to damage from radioactive decay through the process of metamictization. As radioactive elements within the crystal lattice decay, they bombard the interior of the crystal with radioactive particles. This weakens the crystal and leave it fractured or destroyed. This increases the chance of isotopes leaking out of the crystal and affecting titanium, or other elements, measurements.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If we were in the garden and monitoring Adam and animals, we would have seen evolution as well. That did not mean evolution caused Adam to exist. Evolution would not mean Eve was pulled from a bone in Adam's body by God. So, no. Evolution is NOT evidence that man got here by natural means!

The fact you chose to ignore it does not mean it's wrong.

God calls it creation. Jesus called it creation. The whole bible calls it creation. Science has no knowledge that it was or was not creation. The example you offered of evolution was not 'evidence man got here by natural means'.

Of course God calls it creation. He is the creator. But since there is no way for science to fully scientifically verify creation through natural means, it does not look for a creator because there is no way to scientifically look for a creator.

Claiming the naturaonlydunnit is the null hypothesis because there is no independent and sincere way to show that only the natural was responsible for it all existing.

Except there is. It's called science. Trying to throw back what I said by twisting the language around without understanding what I said only shows that you don't know a darn thing you're talking about.

 

[Lost4words]

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.

Didnt they date fresh lava from a volcano and the 'scientist' dated it as billions of years old!!!

 

[Frank Robert]

Then explain away this passage?

John 1:1 -- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Christians who accept the ToE often reconcile John 1:1 by interpreting the Bible in light of modern scientific theory. They believe that the Bible's creation accounts affirm that God created, but do not provide a scientific explanation for how God created. They also believe that God used evolution as a method of creation.

John 1:2 -- He was in the beginning with God.

Christians who who accept the ToE often reconcile John 1:2, which states "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," by interpreting it as a theological statement about God's eternal existence and creative power, not necessarily a literal description of the physical process of creation, allowing room for scientific explanations like evolution to describe how God brought life into being over time

John 1:3

Christians who who accept the ToE often reconcile John 1:3 ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God") by interpreting it as a theological statement about Jesus' pre-existence and divine nature, rather than a literal description of the creation process, allowing them to believe that God used evolution as the method to create life on Earth

Yes there is if you also claim to believe man actually was not formed from the ground, but descended from animals. Yes there is if God did not created the world before the sun and moon! Etc.

Many Christians accept that God used evolution to develop and diversify life on Earth, and that God is the ultimate cause behind the evolutionary process.

According to most Christian denominations, believing in a completely literal interpretation of the Bible is not considered a requirement for salvation; the core belief in Jesus Christ as the savior is what matters most, allowing for different interpretations of the Bible's details and passages

See: The Problem With Taking The Bible Literally

 

[AV1611VET]

They believe that the Bible's creation accounts affirm that God created, but do not provide a scientific explanation for how God created.

God said how He did it.

He spoke it into existence.

What business does science have needing further information?

 

[Frank Robert]

God said how He did it.

He spoke it into existence.

Christians are interested in science because they believe that studying the natural world, or God's creation, allows them to better understand and appreciate the complexity and beauty of God's design, essentially seeing the world as a reflection of His glory; many Christians view scientific exploration as a way to worship God by learning about His creation, with a belief that the order and regularity of the universe points to a Creator

What business does science have needing further information?

ROL! I couldn't make a statement like that up.

 

[AaronClaricus]

Titanium in zircon geothermometry:

Due to the abundance of radioactive elements that can be incorporated into zircons, they are also susceptible to damage from radioactive decay through the process of metamictization. As radioactive elements within the crystal lattice decay, they bombard the interior of the crystal with radioactive particles. This weakens the crystal and leave it fractured or destroyed. This increases the chance of isotopes leaking out of the crystal and affecting titanium, or other elements, measurements.

That would be the process I'm describing. Except it also applies to all rocks near the surface of any object in the solar system. I'm not describing rocks that are completely metamiced and incapable of holding the elements that display age. It's not as accurate as other radiometric dating. But it's really important when it comes to dating rocks that preceed our solar system. The original observation was highly metamiced materials buried in asteroids that's clearly older than any materials produced in our solar system. Which is my original statement, that rocks have visible aging to them under a microscope.


Now we are in the process of developing radiometric dating for these objects. Although at present it's very difficult, similar problems as with dating zircons in the 1930s(zircon sample size was viable in the 1980s), the sample size exceeds one grain therefor you get an average which is much lower than actual but still older than anything in the solar system.

 

[dlamberth]

You can't. Sorry. Creation is a fact not an opinion. It was spoken of by Jesus. You cannot have both be true, creation and the stories of science about where we came from. Be honest

I start by rejecting your interpretations. There are other way's of bringing the Divine into this Creation other then the one your focused on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Didnt they date fresh lava from a volcano and the 'scientist' dated it as billions of years old!!!

Do you know what lava is?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That would be the process I'm describing. Except it also applies to all rocks near the surface of any object in the solar system. I'm not describing rocks that are completely metamiced and incapable of holding the elements that display age. It's not as accurate as other radiometric dating. But it's really important when it comes to dating rocks that preceed our solar system. The original observation was highly metamiced materials buried in asteroids that's clearly older than any materials produced in our solar system. Which is my original statement, that rocks have visible aging to them under a microscope.


Now we are in the process of developing radiometric dating for these objects. Although at present it's very difficult, similar problems as with dating zircons in the 1930s(zircon sample size was viable in the 1980s), the sample size exceeds one grain therefor you get an average which is much lower than actual but still older than anything in the solar system.

So are you agreeing with what the OP says or not? Because I cannot make heads or tails of which it is.

 

[truthpls]

The fact you chose to ignore it does not mean it's wrong.

If you were in the garden looking at the animals and Adam and observing some evolution going on, say some peppered moth changed a bit or something, how is that 'ignoring' it? You ignore that all evolution and adapting that happened there would have zero to do with how man or other creatures got there. Just like if we inspected isotopes in a rock there, the ratios would have nothing to do with how the rock got there or it's age.
By using strictly the natural, science ignores that God created it and seeks alternative natural explanations. Those alternative explanations are only faith based what if scenarios using their selected criteria of just natural processes to explain creation itself no less.

Of course God calls it creation. He is the creator. But since there is no way for science to fully scientifically verify creation through natural means, it does not look for a creator because there is no way to scientifically look for a creator.

The creator is not something natural based observation of what was created could see. So they are not really looking. They are proceeding as if what they see is all there ver was and is responsible for it all instead of creation

Except there is. It's called science. Trying to throw back what I said by twisting the language around without understanding what I said only shows that you don't know a darn thing you're talking about.

Science is not an independent and sincere way to show that only the natural was responsible for it all existing. Science shows nothing of the kind. Science starts off with the premise that the natural is all that will be used for all explanations.

 

[truthpls]

Didnt they date fresh lava from a volcano and the 'scientist' dated it as billions of years old!!!

Could be, since the 'dates' are just alternate ways to explain what was there already at creation. In other words a statement of faith that there is no God and creation in the form of supposed dates. If that lava was near Eden and was 'dated' by science days after the world was created, the dates would still be old. So the trick of science is that they demand that all things be explained only by the natural processes in all that was was created. Nothing else. However long it would have taken the natural processes to make that rock is the 'date' they use. A total faith based joke.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you were in the garden looking at the animals and Adam and observing some evolution going on, say some peppered moth changed a bit or something, how is that 'ignoring' it? You ignore that all evolution and adapting that happened there would have zero to do with how man or other creatures got there. Just like if we inspected isotopes in a rock there, the ratios would have nothing to do with how the rock got there or it's age.
By using strictly the natural, science ignores that God created it and seeks alternative natural explanations. Those alternative explanations are only faith based what if scenarios using their selected criteria of just natural processes to explain creation itself no less.

But I, nor you, nor anyone was in the Garden, so a reference to ancient rhetoric does nothing to help your case.

The creator is not something natural based observation of what was created could see. So they are not really looking. They are proceeding as if what they see is all there ver was and is responsible for it all instead of creation

Science is not an independent and sincere way to show that only the natural was responsible for it all existing. Science shows nothing of the kind. Science starts off with the premise that the natural is all that will be used for all explanations.

I'm going to respond to both of these the same way since they both deserve the same answer: if you can show that the supernatural, the unnatural, can be studied by any scientific method, then you would do well to get off this computer and go out and start a new brand of science. Until then, there is no way that any field of science can study the supernatural because, by its very nature as the supernatural, that which is beyond natural, there is no way anyone can study it.
So your rhetoric is really nothing more than you just ranting and raving at science for no good reason.

Or you can show everyone else wrong and actually give us an example of how science can study the supernatural. But I'm not holding my breath.