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

[truthpls]

But then why would the rocks be dated to billions of years old and not two days?

Because the rocks were created the way they are. The decay that may have been going on in the ratios would not much matter. The reason that you would date it billions of years old is because you looked at the decay and rate etc and assumed that the rock got to be the way it was because of THAT
That reason would not be valid. Any decay effects in the rock in a few days of existing would not much matter. So the rock isotopes were seemingly designed to have a natural process kick in after they came to exist. You look ONLY at that processes as if it caused the rock to come to exist.

No one asked you to obsess on the ratios and attribute creation to them. Once you do so there is no one else to blame for the deceptive results.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Only because you can't understand it.

No, I understand it fully, I just refuse to accept your idea as logical or even theological. When you say that God made the world 6000 years ago, but made the rocks to be billions of years old, you are directly saying that God is deceptive.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because the rocks were created the way they are. The decay that may have been going on in the ratios would not much matter. The reason that you would date it billions of years old is because you looked at the decay and rate etc and assumed that the rock got to be the way it was because of THAT
That reason would not be valid. Any decay effects in the rock in a few days of existing would not much matter. So the rock isotopes were seemingly designed to have a natural process kick in after they came to exist. You look ONLY at that processes as if it caused the rock to come to exist.

No one asked you to obsess on the ratios and attribute creation to them. Once you do so there is no one else to blame for the deceptive results.

And here we see your true colours. You are ignorant of the science and instead of wanting to learn, you want to shunt it all away and pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Frank Robert]

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.

It is not clear that the order of male or birth has any value. According to current scientific understanding, in the evolution of sex, females are considered to have evolved first;

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.

That should obvious.

The bible says God formed rather than hid behind a tree and watched man be born from a monkey like creature. The Bible rules.

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.


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.

 

[dlamberth]

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?

How many times have you asked this question? I have yet to see an answer.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How many times have you asked this question? I have yet to see an answer.

Too often.

 

[truthpls]

And here we see your true colours. You are ignorant of the science and instead of wanting to learn, you want to shunt it all away and pretend it doesn't exist.

The ignorant ones would be the scientists one day after creation that thought the one day old rock was billions of days old.

 

[truthpls]

It is not clear that the order of male or birth has any value. According to current scientific understanding, in the evolution of sex, females are considered to have evolved first;

That should obvious.

Right and females did not evolve first and evolving had nothing to do with Eve. So any believer tossing out what Jesus and the bible says in favour of evolution, or claiming to believe both is not telling the truth.

 

[dlamberth]

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?

The subject is about a rock supposedly 2 days old yet test as several billion years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

The subject is about a rock supposedly 2 days old yet test as several billion years old.

Ya -- just like the bread, it's called embedded age.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The ignorant ones would be the scientists one day after creation that thought the one day old rock was billions of days old.

No, your argument in the OP which reads as this:

"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."

Paints God as deceptive by creating a rock on the second day of Creation 6000 years ago with a fake age of billions of years.

Only those ignorant of science will put forward such a thing and say that God is sincere and honest in His creation.

 

[truthpls]

No, your argument in the OP which reads as this:

"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."

Paints God as deceptive by creating a rock on the second day of Creation 6000 years ago with a fake age of billions of years.

There was no reason to ignore that God had just created the rock and use just natural processes that went on in that newly created rock as the sole measure of how old it was. In fact dating was impossible using the natural only methods. All of the scientific methods are wrong and would all give absurdly wrong 'dates'. That means that the only way to have gotten the the date for that rock a day after it was created would be to admit it was just created. None of the processes going on naturally in the rock on day two could tell you where it came from or when.

Only those ignorant of science will put forward such a thing and say that God is sincere and honest in His creation.

I just explained how science ignorantly used natural only processes to date the rock. None could have gotten the right date in the OP example. Trying to call the natural decay processes in that rock some sort of deception is ridiculous. Creation was designed to have plenty of processes go on. That does not mean that the processes in the already created rock are what made the rock exist! I hope I never hear you again accuse God of the deception you have brought on yourself by religiously using ONLY the natural and natural processes that exist in created things. Give God a break and be honest

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There was no reason to ignore that God had just created the rock and use just natural processes that went on in that newly created rock as the sole measure of how old it was. In fact dating was impossible using the natural only methods. All of the scientific methods are wrong and would all give absurdly wrong 'dates'. That means that the only way to have gotten the the date for that rock a day after it was created would be to admit it was just created. None of the processes going on naturally in the rock on day two could tell you where it came from or when.

I just explained how science ignorantly used natural only processes to date the rock. None could have gotten the right date in the OP example. Trying to call the natural decay processes in that rock some sort of deception is ridiculous. Creation was designed to have plenty of processes go on. That does not mean that the processes in the already created rock are what made the rock exist! I hope I never hear you again accuse God of the deception you have brought on yourself by religiously using ONLY the natural and natural processes that exist in created things. Give God a break and be honest

Why would God create a rock 5999 years and 363 days ago, but specifically make it look to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes?

 

[truthpls]

Why would God create a rock 5999 years and 363 days ago, but specifically make it look to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes?

It did not look old to Adam or me. Just to you. That is the price you must pay for limiting your interpretation of all things to just the natural. There is no way to prove that only the natural was involved in making the world and man exist. What is natural is what goes on after it all came to exist. But what processes happen in already created things are not what make those things exist in the first place. Stuff that goes on in created things is after the fact of being created. THEN processes start to happen. The natural things that go on are NOT what caused the rock to pop into existence

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It did not look old to Adam or me. Just to you. That is the price you must pay for limiting your interpretation of all things to just the natural. There is no way to prove that only the natural was involved in making the world and man exist. What is natural is what goes on after it all came to exist. But what processes happen in already created things are not what make those things exist in the first place. Stuff that goes on in created things is after the fact of being created. THEN processes start to happen. The natural things that go on are NOT what caused the rock to pop into existence

Answer the question put to you: Why would God create a rock 5999 years and 363 days ago, but specifically make it look to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes?

 

[truthpls]

Answer the question put to you: Why would God create a rock 5999 years and 363 days ago, but specifically make it look to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes?

It is strange that you pretend it was not clearly answered many times here. It does not look old. It looks like a rock. For people assuming that processes happening in the rock are what caused the rock to be created, you get seriously confused and deceived. That is worshipping the creation (created thing) more than the creator.

The bible does say about this end of the world period that millions of people feel may be starting or at the doors, that 'none of the wicked shall understand'. The key is to get saved so we are not wicked any more but get forgiven. Then we fall into the other category


Daniel 12:10
Many will be purified, cleansed, and refined by these trials. But the wicked will continue in their wickedness, and none of them will understand. Only those who are wise will know what it means.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, "He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is strange that you pretend it was not clearly answered many times here. It does not look old. It looks like a rock. For people assuming that processes happening in the rock are what caused the rock to be created, you get seriously confused and deceived. That is worshipping the creation (created thing) more than the creator.

The bible does say about this end of the world period that millions of people feel may be starting or at the doors, that 'none of the wicked shall understand'. The key is to get saved so we are not wicked any more but get forgiven. Then we fall into the other category


Daniel 12:10
Many will be purified, cleansed, and refined by these trials. But the wicked will continue in their wickedness, and none of them will understand. Only those who are wise will know what it means.

You sure as heck have not answered my question in the slightest. You've made claims but have given no answers.

Why would God create a rock 5999 years and 363 days ago, but specifically make it look to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes?

 

[truthpls]

You sure as heck have not answered my question in the slightest. You've made claims but have given no answers.

Yes and here it is again. The rock on day 2 was not deceptive. It looked like a rock. When you come along and claim the rock 'formed' over billions of years it is you who are deceived. We have covered why you are deceived. The reason is using only the natural and natural processes as if they were responsible for creation the rock. You do not know that it was just the natural that created the rock.

Growing toenails and teeth did not create Adam. Digesting food did not create Eve. Chewing the cud did not create the cow. Rain did not create the oceans. Speaking did not create languages. Eating bananas did not create the monkey. Sun spots did not create the sun...etc

Maybe read this several times before parroting the falsehood that God is the one that deceived us.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes and here it is again. The rock on day 2 was not deceptive. It looked like a rock. When you come along and claim the rock 'formed' over billions of years it is you who are deceived. We have covered why you are deceived. The reason is using only the natural and natural processes as if they were responsible for creation the rock. You do not know that it was just the natural that created the rock.

Maybe read this several times before parroting the falsehood that God is the one that deceived us.

That's not an answer in the slightest.

Why would God create a rock 5999 years and 363 days ago, but specifically make it look to be billions of years old for all intents and purposes?

 

[AaronClaricus]

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

Rocks aren't created supernaturally. The apparent age of rocks is an indication of time passage.