So in your mind, Adam could never fossilize, but Eve or Cain or Abel could fossilize.
Well, that idea makes as much sense as anything else you ever posted.
Upvote
0
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Radioactive dating
- Thread starter dad
- Start date
So in your mind, Adam could never fossilize, but Eve or Cain or Abel could fossilize.
Well, that idea makes as much sense as anything else you ever posted.
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
No. The change in laws and nature as indicated and suggested by Scripture was long after Cain and Abel. Look at the lifespans. Did Abraham have the same lifespan as Adam? No.
Upvote
0
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
To recap, then, in the different laws of the former nature, the world was different in many ways, presumably. Who knows what former state bacteria, and/or small creatures may have specialized in getting rid of certain remains? Today we see certain worms for example in the sea who specialize in disposing of whale remains.
Quite possibly, and I would say even likely, God had created life on earth complete with a great natural disposal and recycle system. Some creatures for whatever reasons could fossilize. The mistake of science seems to be to assume that those relatively few types of creatures were all the life on earth at that time!!!!
Radioactive decay is a feature of this present state. It is directly caused by OUR forces and laws. Unless this same exact state or nature existed in the unknown far past, there is NO reason to assume decay existed at all, or in the way we now know! All dates are off.
God was right all along.
Upvote
0
Still waiting for an answer to this question:
Would an Ar/K ratio of 0.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 qualify as "some isotopic signature"?
It is a simple yes/no.
Upvote
0
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Are you claiming this is some real isotope ratio found on earth? Ha.
Upvote
0
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
No. I am asking if your example has any semblance of reality. Where is this sample found? Country? Layer?
Upvote
0
dad (post 980): As for tektites if some of them were caused by violently erupting fountains of the deep, then of course they are expected!! Naturally, they would have some isotopic signature at the time, . . .
Me: Would an Ar/K ratio of 0.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 qualify as "some isotopic signature"?
Answer the question.
Upvote
0
Just to repeat for the rest of the world, actually there are reasons to assume the same radioactive decay took place in eons past as takes place now. We observe radioactive decay taking place in the remnants of supernova observed millions of light years distant, hence millions of light years past; it turns out to act the same. We observe today decay remnants that would, under today's radiocative decay rules, indicated millions and billions of years of decay having taken place; analysis indicates it happened in the same way. We observe some decay events such as fission tracks from the rare but consistent exploding uranium atoms . . . when there are many tracks, indicating great age, we don't see the tracks showing weaker or stronger explosions, they are consistent.
This is therefore SOME REASON, not NO REASON, for accepting that the forces and laws were the same for millions and billions of years back.
On the other hand, you have NO REASON to assume they were different, except one . . . which is to preserve your interpretation of the Bible. With no evidence to help you.
Upvote
0
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Not true. The age of the little star or SN is determined by beliefs only. Where we see the decay is here. Only here. Nowhere else ever. Here we do have decay so we cannot start deducing the rest of the universe is a certain way because of the way it is here in the fishbowl.
Time has to exist where the star is and you do not know it does. Otherwise NO distances or sizes are known.
That leaves us with something like this
'we see a little star that got bright, and we know not how big it is. It may be a football stadium size or bigger than a sun. It may be 800,000,000,000,000,000 miles away or it may be less than a light year in real distance away. We see decay here...we think. Something that may be close and small is decaying at least appears to be from here.'
Pathetic.
Because of that belief in imaginary time and distances, you claim all sorts of stuff. Of course things we see here will exist in a way that we know here.
You do not know what may have laid tracks in the former state. So you preach and preach..
NO reason whatsoever in any way except blind godless insane faith.
I do not need to know or prove any state at all since it is science that claims one not I. It is no mere interpretation of Scripture that says the future and past have differences from the world today.
In all ways you lose.
Upvote
0
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
The tektites like other materials would have existed in the past and been changing in the ratios of isotopes. This I refer to as a signature.
Upvote
0
Readers, we see here a man who, after having explained we observe supernova wax and wane, can seriously contend we cannot know the supernova experiences time. And he thinks he is conducting a rational discussion.
Upvote
0
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
It waxes here. Wanes here. WE see it all here. Seriously. Whether time exists there as we know it is not known.
Upvote
0
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
He confesses his belief. Observing a supernova wax and wane, we still can't tell if it experiences time, he says. We all know what this means about his reasoning abilities.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
