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

[truthpls]

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.

They can believe what they like. The bible, all dates aside makes it clear that woman was created after the man was already here (and other basic irreconcilable differences with science claims) It cannot be reconciled. If the world was here before the moon and sun were created days later, then all of cosmology is wrong. If man was here before any female existed on the planet, then evolution is wrong. Any claim that God created it totally opposite and different than what the bible says and confirms throughout the book is blasphemy.

It is impossible to say that Adam existed only long after all other creatures by millions of years, and then was born from ancestors that were animals AND to say God formed Adam from the ground and then brought him to life at a time when there were no females.

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

What sort of creative power would a god have that told us He did it an opposite way than the ToE that they believe?

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

What is the point of pre existing if all you are going to do is show up after the ToE fact and then lie about how you created it? When Jesus said man and women were created from the beginning male and female that was not some murky riddle.

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.

The bible says God formed rather than hid behind a tree and watched man be born from a monkey like creature. He says that He put Adam into a deep sleep and then from the man took a bone from which the first woman was created to be a partner for Adam. That is not being a cause 'behind' Eve! That is total miraculous direct creation Personally by God. The rapid evolution to man and the serpent that came after the fall had NOTHING to do with how either the animal or mankind got here! The animal changed so that oit could no longer fly or walk or whatever, to being a ground slinker. Man changed in how long he was to live instantly. Woman changed and adapted quickly to how she would have babies! Vegetation changed because the tree of life was no longer in this world. Climate changed because it was no longer paradise and was cold at times. Animals were here at the same time as Adam because God killed a sheep to make a coat for Adam and Eve! God was not 'behind' anything. He was front and centre and walked with Adam and talked with Adam in that garden.

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

A belief in what is plainly stated as fact is not a literal interpretation.

John 1:10 -- He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

To take this literally, one might say that every person alive on the planet in that year did not know Jesus. That would be a literal interpretation. We take what is clearly meant to be true and real as such. Jesus was in the world at that time. The world was made through Jesus. It is offensive to the spirit of the words to cast off the truth and clear meaning of a text with an excuse that there is something in there that may not be MEANT to be taken literally.

 

[truthpls]

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.

No one needs to bring the divine into creation. There is no other option. All attempts at leaving God out of creation are talking about something else. Mostly imaginary!

 

[dlamberth]

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

The volcano is Mt. St. Helens.

"Dr. Austin's sample was known to have solidified in 1986, its argon content was clearly well below the threshhold where an amount of argon sufficiently useful for dating could have been present."
Quoted from here:
How Old Is the Mount St. Helens Lava Dome?

And then there's this link
Why were rocks from Mt. St. Helens dated to be millions of years old when they were only 30 years old?

 

[truthpls]

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

But if creation was something like 6000 years ago, then the rock dated billions of years old would have been here, no? The OP never said you were transported to the beginning it said that IF someone were there the day after the rock was created, that they would misdate it using natural interpretation of ratios in the rock

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.

The supernatural is not natural so I can keep my physical stuff. I also can keep my spiritual stuff. Both. That is the complete man. The whole equation. The big picture.

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.

Right, I think we established that the first few posts of the thread. Explain how people who claim to believe God created all things would exclude the supernatural? As you can read, many do that here by claiming to believe, yet casting out Scripture and a real creation.

So your rhetoric is really nothing more than you just ranting and raving at science for no good reason.

Their being admittedly limited to the natural is perfect reason to laugh hard at any claims about how the universe and man got here.

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.

Who is the 'we'? Science can never do so. Impossible. Those that omit and keep God and the supernatural out cannot 'study' it. They seem to want it all to become natural for them so they then can study it! No. The supernatural is the supernatural and the natural is the natural. That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit, as Jesus put it. If you want to leave the confines of only the natural, then you need to remember that.

John 5:40
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Some people come to Him, leaving the natural only. Then they get the results of having life. They test Him.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But if creation was something like 6000 years ago, then the rock dated billions of years old would have been here, no? The OP never said you were transported to the beginning it said that IF someone were there the day after the rock was created, that they would misdate it using natural interpretation of ratios in the rock

This is really the only part of the other comment worth responding to, even though it creates the same argument that I've been bringing up repeatedly: if God created the world 6000 years ago, why did He seemingly intentionally make them appear to be millions of years old?

 

[truthpls]

if God created the world 6000 years ago, why did He seemingly intentionally make them appear to be millions of years old?

In what way would you claim that the world looked millions of years old to Adam? It was not Adam it looked old to. It was not the rest of the world till recently either. It is the natural only dunnit crowd. Can you really blame us for how that crowd looks at things? Good news, the world looks normal to believers. Just as he made it (after getting messed up by our sin)

 

[dlamberth]

No one needs to bring the divine into creation. There is no other option. All attempts at leaving God out of creation are talking about something else. Mostly imaginary!

Your not understanding that bringing the Divine into Creation IS bringing God into it. The question before us though is that your saying that what we see in God's own Creation, age wise, is a deception. And that it's way, way younger than what it's showing itSelf to be.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In what way would you claim that the world looked millions of years old to Adam? It was not Adam it looked old to. It was not the rest of the world till recently either. It is the natural only dunnit crowd. Can you really blame us for how that crowd looks at things? Good news, the world looks normal to believers. Just as he made it (after getting messed up by our sin)

Forget Adam in this scenario, we're solely talking about us in the modern day, trying to stick to the OP topic.

 

[tampasteve]

This is really the only part of the other comment worth responding to, even though it creates the same argument that I've been bringing up repeatedly: if God created the world 6000 years ago, why did He seemingly intentionally make them appear to be millions of years old?

I'll be honest, I am not YEC, and I would like an answer to this as well.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll be honest, I am not YEC, and I would like an answer to this as well.

I don't think either of us are going to like the answers given.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll be honest, I am not YEC, and I would like an answer to this as well.

The question is phrased as if God was deceptive.

Instead of:

If God created the world 6000 years ago, why did He seemingly intentionally make [rocks] appear to be millions of years old?

It should read:

If God created the world 6000 years ago, why did He intentionally make [rocks] millions of years old?

And the answer I propose is that older rocks provide benefits that younger rocks do not.

Older rocks, for instance, are not as strong as younger rocks, and they can be broken up more easily and used for construction.

Thus, during the Creation Week, God gave us both old and new rocks to serve many purposes.

It's kinda along this principle:

Matthew 9:16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

 

[truthpls]

Your not understanding that bringing the Divine into Creation IS bringing God into it.

No one needs to bring God into the creation that He created. Trying to bring men into creation is the problem

The question before us though is that your saying that what we see in God's own Creation, age wise, is a deception.

Yes, and that is because you see what was created (example some isotope ratios) and assume it was not created but came to exist only as a result of decay.

And that it's way, way younger than what it's showing itSelf to be.

Creation does not show itself to be self made by natural processes. You just added that to what we see.

 

[truthpls]

Forget Adam in this scenario, we're solely talking about us in the modern day, trying to stick to the OP topic.

The people in the OP actually were there the day after creation and interpreting the ratios in a rock created the day before. Their result was telling us the rock was billions of years old. That is what the thread is about. People from modern science showing up 6000 years ago and 'dating' a rock. Can you see how they misinterpreted it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The people in the OP actually were there the day after creation and interpreting the ratios in a rock created the day before. Their result was telling us the rock was billions of years old. That is what the thread is about. People from modern science showing up 6000 years ago and 'dating' a rock. Can you see how they misinterpreted it?

No, not in the slightest. Because all we have is your word to go on that the rock in question was created 2 days after Creation 6000 years ago, nothing else.

 

[truthpls]

No, not in the slightest. Because all we have is your word to go on that the rock in question was created 2 days after Creation 6000 years ago, nothing else.

But if that was the day after the rock was created, you have to admit it would be a day old not billions of years old.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But if that was the day after the rock was created, you have to admit it would be a day old not billions of years old.

But then why would the rocks be dated to billions of years old and not two days? Why would God create rocks with a deceptive age?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The question is phrased as if God was deceptive.

Instead of:

If God created the world 6000 years ago, why did He seemingly intentionally make [rocks] appear to be millions of years old?

It should read:

If God created the world 6000 years ago, why did He intentionally make [rocks] millions of years old?

And the answer I propose is that older rocks provide benefits that younger rocks do not.

Older rocks, for instance, are not as strong as younger rocks, and they can be broken up more easily and used for construction.

Thus, during the Creation Week, God gave us both old and new rocks to serve many purposes.

It's kinda along this principle:

Matthew 9:16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

It's still making God out to be deceptive though. There's no way to argue that.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's still making God out to be deceptive though. There's no way to argue that.

So if He made a loaf of warm raisin bread ex materia tomorrow and fed all the hungry in India with it, you'd still say it was deceptive?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So if He made a loaf of warm raisin bread ex materia tomorrow and fed all the hungry in India with it, you'd still say it was deceptive?

Not even remotely the same thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not even remotely the same thing.

Only because you can't understand it.