• 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.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Radioactive dating

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
First, by the fact that the K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr methods all produce the same age from rocks within the same geologic layer.
That doesn't address the issue. You can't use ratios that you claim are ages to tell us how much of something was there to start!!!
"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work
Nonsense. Just because you assign imaginary dates to isotopes and then stick those dates on known layers does not mean they are that old!

It is consilience between independent evidence that demonstrates a same state past which includes how Rb and Sr behave in rocks. If you want to learn how isochrons work and why the y-intercept represents the amount of Sr that the rock started with, there are many references for you to look at:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/rbsrstep.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium-strontium_dating
So now you descend into a strange broken record syndrome type of response and avoid the question you were asked, in fact that you yourself CLAIMED!


Lest we forget, here is YOU talking..

"Did you miss part where they can determine the number of daughter atoms produced by decay?"

Now get to it.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
That doesn't address the issue. You can't use ratios that you claim are ages to tell us how much of something was there to start!!!

Yes, I can. I just showed you how. If there was not a same state past, then the ages would not agree between methods. Since they do agree, we know that there was a same state past.

Nonsense. Just because you assign imaginary dates to isotopes and then stick those dates on known layers does not mean they are that old!

The fact that independent methods agree with one another does mean that there was a same state past.

So now you descend into a strange broken record syndrome type of response and avoid the question you were asked, in fact that you yourself CLAIMED!

I will keep repeating the same answer until you deal with that answer.

Lest we forget, here is YOU talking..

"Did you miss part where they can determine the number of daughter atoms produced by decay?"

Now get to it.

First, it is the agreement between dating methodologies that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a same state past. This is the first part of the process. Until you accept this evidence, I can't explain the rest.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, I can. I just showed you how. If there was not a same state past, then the ages would not agree between methods. Since they do agree, we know that there was a same state past.
Crazy talk. You want to use religion to say how much real stuff existed! For the record you cannot tell us what part of daughter material came about by decay.


I will keep repeating the same answer until you deal with that answer.
We get it..broken record..no ability to cope with defeat or reality or the actual issue at hand.

First, it is the agreement between dating methodologies that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a same state past.

You believe and believe and believe. You preach and preach and preach. The ratios of actual isotopes have NO meaning by themselves that is remotely similar to your so called ages that you want them to represent. You have shown clearly that your claim that they can tell what daughter material came about by decay was a total hoax and bogus claim.

Thanks for that.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Let's see if we can't break this down into small chunks for dad.

Here is the basic equation:

equation.gif


The decay constant is going to be different for each method. For the Rb/Sr method, you use that equation on different Rb and Sr isotopes to create a graph, and the slope is the t in the equation.

As you can see, a different ratio will produce a different result for the equation. You don't start with the age and the change the measurements of the isotope ratios to fit the age.

You can also see that the decay constant is going to be different for each method since K, both U isotopes, and Rb have different decay constants.

A 50/50 mix of K/Ar, a 50/50 mix of 238U/206Pb, a 50/50 mix of 235U/207Pb and a 1/1 slope on a Rb/Sr isochron are all going to give you different calculated ages according to these equations. Are we agreed on that?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Crazy talk. You want to use religion to say how much real stuff existed! For the record you cannot tell us what part of daughter material came about by decay.

Since when are measured isotopes in rocks a religion? I already showed you how to test my claims using science.

The only religion here is the one keeping you from addressing my argument.

We get it..broken record..no ability to cope with defeat or reality or the actual issue at hand.

Every time you refuse to address the answer you admit defeat.

You believe and believe and believe. You preach and preach and preach. The ratios of actual isotopes have NO meaning by themselves that is remotely similar to your so called ages that you want them to represent.

They do have meaning together. That is the argument you keep refusing to address.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Let's see if we can't break this down into small chunks for dad.

Here is the basic equation:

equation.gif
T is not the age of anything.
ln is not the algorithm it is religion. You cannot have that unless the state was the same. You impose it.
The so called decay constant is a belief. You are claiming that a same state past existed along with decay.

The decay constant is going to be different for each method. For the Rb/Sr method, you use that equation on different Rb and Sr isotopes to create a graph, and the slope is the t in the equation.
Irrelevant. That so called imaginary 'constant' is just invented and represents belief in a constant state...the present state!

So, what we have is the isotopes. We also have you running silly numbers on them as if some imaginary constant tied them together.
As you can see, a different ratio will produce a different result for the equation. You don't start with the age and the change the measurements of the isotope ratios to fit the age.
?? Why would anyone expect a different ratio????? Strawman.
You can also see that the decay constant is going to be different for each method since K, both U isotopes, and Rb have different decay constants.
Decay rates have nothing to do with it. You use that number to molest the ratios we actually do have and try to get them to represent ages. All because you are assuming the decay existed.
A 50/50 mix of K/Ar, a 50/50 mix of 238U/206Pb, a 50/50 mix of 235U/207Pb and a 1/1 slope on a Rb/Sr isochron are all going to give you different calculated ages according to these equations. Are we agreed on that?

If one assigned 'ages' to the ratios, of course we would get a different 'age'! Creation ratios are different in different materials. No one says they are supposed to be the same? The issue is what the small amounts of material represent, but how YOU take present state decay, and try to use that to credit where all the daughter stuff came from.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
T is not the age of anything.
ln is not the algorithm it is religion.

This is how we know that you are defeated. You refuse to address the science.

?? Why would anyone expect a different ratio????? Strawman.

If that is your argument, then it is easily refuted. Different geologic layers have rocks with different K/Ar ratios. All of these ratios vary between geologic layers.

Decay rates have nothing to do with it. You use that number to molest the ratios we actually do have and try to get them to represent ages. All because you are assuming the decay existed.

You still can't address the argument.

If one assigned 'ages' to the ratios, of course we would get a different 'age'! Creation ratios are different in different materials.

But we don't get different ages for rocks in the same geologic layer. That's the whole point.

As you have just said, with a different state past we would expect different isotope pairs to produce different ages since they wouldn't have been created by radioactive decay. Since they are the same, it is proof that there was a same state past.

No one says they are supposed to be the same? The issue is what the small amounts of material represent, but how YOU take present state decay, and try to use that to credit where all the daughter stuff came from.

You haven't produced a single reason to doubt the results.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This is how we know that you are defeated. You refuse to address the science.
I addressed how it was really a belief.


If that is your argument, then it is easily refuted. Different geologic layers have rocks with different K/Ar ratios. All of these ratios vary between geologic layers.
Ratios vary. That seems to tell us that the isotopes were here and doing something in the former state.



But we don't get different ages for rocks in the same geologic layer. That's the whole point.
You assign ages to ratios. The ratios are different, so your invented ages would also be different with different layers!
As you have just said, with a different state past we would expect different isotope pairs to produce different ages since they wouldn't have been created by radioactive decay. Since they are the same, it is proof that there was a same state past.
False. The ratios do not represent ages. Why would I expect different ratios? There were ratios in the former state also. Those ratios had nothing to do with decay though, and your dating methods have nothing to do with anything else!


You haven't produced a single reason to doubt the results.
Results of beliefs have no value when they are not in the real world. You failed to do as you claimed. You could not prove what part of the daughter material was caused by decay after all.

Might I suggest getting some friends from EVC to help you out here? I realize you may not want to admit failure when asking for help. Perhaps you could say something like..'there is a crazy poster over at another forum...maybe someone could straighten them out..' etc go ahead save face.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
I addressed how it was really a belief.

No, you didn't. Bare assertions do not address the argument.

Ratios vary.

"?? Why would anyone expect a different ratio?????"--dad

So which is it? Do they vary or not vary? You need to choose one.

That seems to tell us that the isotopes were here and doing something in the former state.

They were doing "something"? That's it? Your explanation is "something"?

Surely you can understand why this does not explain the relationship between these ratios.

You assign ages to ratios. The ratios are different, so your invented ages would also be different with different layers!

Why are they the same within the same layer, even when looking at different isotopes?

False. The ratios do not represent ages. Why would I expect different ratios?

Why would you expect those ratios, the only ratios that could produce the same age?

As shown earlier, if the K/Ar ratio in a rock is 50/50, the Fe/Ni ratio could be 1/50 or 50/1. The Fe/Ni ratio doesn't stay the same just because the K/Ar ratio stays the same. So why should the U/Pb ratios stay the same for any given ratio of K/Ar? Why? Why would this happen in a different state?

There were ratios in the former state also. Those ratios had nothing to do with decay though, and your dating methods have nothing to do with anything else!

Then why would they produce the same age when put into those equations?


Results of beliefs have no value when they are not in the real world. You failed to do as you claimed. You could not prove what part of the daughter material was caused by decay after all.

The agreement between methods demonstrates that they aren't beliefs. They are supported science. Therefore, they do have value.

Might I suggest getting some friends from EVC to help you out here? I realize you may not want to admit failure when asking for help. Perhaps you could say something like..'there is a crazy poster over at another forum...maybe someone could straighten them out..' etc go ahead save face.

Save what face? You are the one who can't decide if ratios should stay the same or vary. You still can't understand that ratios are not beliefs. You still can't understand why consilience between ratios is such a problem for you argument. All you can offer is that "something" happened. Talk about religion.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, you didn't. Bare assertions do not address the argument.
Name the bare assertion?


"?? Why would anyone expect a different ratio?????"--dad

So which is it? Do they vary or not vary? You need to choose one.
In different layers...that represent different times, of course ratios should be different. In the same layer, why would they be?


They were doing "something"? That's it? Your explanation is "something"?
Sorry I am not predisposed to make stuff up like so called science is.

Why are they the same within the same layer, even when looking at different isotopes?
As mentioned above, in the same layer means in the same time. Naturally the processes at work in a certain time should have some resemblance!

As shown earlier, if the K/Ar ratio in a rock is 50/50, the Fe/Ni ratio could be 1/50 or 50/1. The Fe/Ni ratio doesn't stay the same just because the K/Ar ratio stays the same. So why should the U/Pb ratios stay the same for any given ratio of K/Ar? Why? Why would this happen in a different state?
See above. The ratios moved...changed and there were processes at work. Naturally when we zoom in on a certain layer, we should see a similar ratio.


Then why would they produce the same age when put into those equations?
Because the age is meaningless. The ratios would bve similar in similar layers!
The agreement between methods demonstrates that they aren't beliefs. They are supported science. Therefore, they do have value.
What your methods are based on demonstrates they are belief!


Save what face? You are the one who can't decide if ratios should stay the same or vary. You still can't understand that ratios are not beliefs. You still can't understand why consilience between ratios is such a problem for you argument. All you can offer is that "something" happened. Talk about religion.
Seek help...fast.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Name the bare assertion?

You claim that the radiometric dates are just beliefs. You have nothing to back up that allegation.

In different layers...that represent different times, of course ratios should be different. In the same layer, why would they be?

You tell me. Why couldn't different zircons in the same igneous formation have different U/Pb ratios? Why couldn't tektites at the K/T boundary have K/Ar ratios that produce an age of 10 million years while zircons have U/Pb ratios that produce an age of 100 million years old in a different state past?

Sorry I am not predisposed to make stuff up like so called science is.

All you have done is make stuff up. You claim that the isotopes were doing "something" in the different state past. You claim that U/Pb ratios should be influenced by K/Ar ratios for absolutely no reason. You are making it up.

As mentioned above, in the same layer means in the same time. Naturally the processes at work in a certain time should have some resemblance!

You are making stuff up again. Why should those processes cause K/Ar ratios in tektites to affect U/Pb ratios in zircons. Why should those ratios produce the same age when we plug them into equations based on modern decay rates? You still can't explain this.

See above. The ratios moved...changed and there were processes at work. Naturally when we zoom in on a certain layer, we should see a similar ratio.

Why? You are making this up as well. What you are describing is what happens in a same state past. Only in a same state past would K/Ar determine the ratio of U/Pb.

The ratios would bve similar in similar layers!

Why?

What your methods are based on demonstrates they are belief!

If they were just beliefs then they wouldn't produce the same ages.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You claim that the radiometric dates are just beliefs. You have nothing to back up that allegation.
Show us how you determine daughter material was all brought into existence by present state decay!? Otherwise the ratio to age belief is a belief.


You tell me. Why couldn't different zircons in the same igneous formation have different U/Pb ratios?
Why would they? The age you don't know anyhow. You assume certain things about zircons.


Why couldn't tektites at the K/T boundary have K/Ar ratios that produce an age of 10 million years while zircons have U/Pb ratios that produce an age of 100 million years old in a different state past?

Because the so called age is really just a ratio of created material misinterpreted.


All you have done is make stuff up. You claim that the isotopes were doing "something" in the different state past. You claim that U/Pb ratios should be influenced by K/Ar ratios for absolutely no reason. You are making it up.
?? I claimed what?? Where did I claim U/Pb ratios did anything? You are making stuff up again.

Why should those processes cause K/Ar ratios in tektites to affect U/Pb ratios in zircons.
??

The forces of nature and laws determine that. Not other ratios of created isotopes!
Why should those ratios produce the same age when we plug them into equations based on modern decay rates? You still can't explain this.
When you plug something into your same state past belief system and label them 'dates' you are being religious. The ratios are different in different layers. only when you plug in a same state past belief do they represent so called ages.

Why? You are making this up as well. What you are describing is what happens in a same state past. Only in a same state past would K/Ar determine the ratio of U/Pb.
It happens in this state also. Howbeit under different rules and with different forces and nature. creation is fluid...it moves...changes...does stuff. Here it does present state stuff. how simple do I have to make it here for you?

Because whatever processes were at work then in that former state were involved in doing something. That something in the former nature would be determined by that former nature not our present state.


If they were just beliefs then they wouldn't produce the same ages.

The ages so called are arbitrary impositions made up whole of cloth and based solely on your unproven same state past.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Show us how you determine daughter material was all brought into existence by present state decay!? Otherwise the ratio to age belief is a belief.

I determined that by comparing the radiometric age of rocks in the same geologic layer.

Why would they? The age you don't know anyhow. You assume certain things about zircons.

If the assumptions are wrong, why do different radiometric dating methods produce the same ages?

Because the so called age is really just a ratio of created material misinterpreted.

If it is misinterpreted, why do independent radiometric dating methods produce the same age for rocks in the same geologic layer?


?? I claimed what?? Where did I claim U/Pb ratios did anything? You are making stuff up again.

Why would K/Ar ratios in tektites determine the U/Pb ratios in zircons in the same geologic layer in a different state past?

The forces of nature and laws determine that. Not other ratios of created isotopes!

What are these forces of nature, and why would K/Ar ratios in tektites determine the U/Pb ratios in zircons in the same geologic layer in a different state past?


When you plug something into your same state past belief system and label them 'dates' you are being religious.

I am being scientific. The only religion here is your denial of science in favor of religious dogma.

The ratios are different in different layers.

Why?

It happens in this state also. Howbeit under different rules and with different forces and nature. creation is fluid...it moves...changes...does stuff. Here it does present state stuff. how simple do I have to make it here for you?

If it is fluid, then why do we consistently get the same ages using different methods?

Because whatever processes were at work then in that former state were involved in doing something. That something in the former nature would be determined by that former nature not our present state.

Something? That's it? Just something?

The ages so called are arbitrary impositions made up whole of cloth and based solely on your unproven same state past.

If they are arbitrary, why do completely independent methods produce the same ages?
 
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
97
✟21,415.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
When fables of universe origins or first life forms or human origins are recited, they inevitably do so as if they were talking facts.


It is imaginary to leave God out. They live in fantasy land.


No problem. A panel of scientists cooked up this dark comedy..

" A panel of scientists at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science described the situation in 2000, and it still holds true. Astronomers generally agree that the sun will burn up its hydrogen fuel supply sometime in the next 5 billion to 7 billion years. As it does, gravity will force the sun to collapse into its core, which will ratchet up the heat on the remaining hydrogen and cause the sun to expand into a red giant.

At this point, the sun will swallow the Earth.

"Earth will end up in the sun, vaporizing and blending its material with that of the sun," said Iowa State University's Lee Anne Willson. "That part of the sun then blows away into space, so one might say Earth is cremated and the ashes are scattered into interstellar space."

By then, the sun will be hot enough to burn all its stored helium and the sun will fluctuate in size. The sun isn't quite massive enough to explode in an awesome supernova, so it will merely collapse into a relatively cool white dwarf.

Perhaps a moot point, though, because we'll most likely be long dead before this occurs. As the sun revs up to its red giant phase, it's getting about 10 percent brighter every billion years. At that rate, scientists estimate that all the water on the planet will evaporate in the next billion years."

http://www.livescience.com/32879-what-happens-to-earth-when-sun-dies.html

Hoo ha.

Silly, silly boy. You can't even see the evidence in your own source, can you?

Look at the words used: "generally agree" "most likely" "estimate" "sometime" "might say" "perhaps" "about". These are the words of science. They don't pontificate, they don't assert.

They humbly explain, noting that any explanation can always be revised.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Silly, silly boy. You can't even see the evidence in your own source, can you?

Look at the words used: "generally agree" "most likely" "estimate" "sometime" "might say" "perhaps" "about". These are the words of science. They don't pontificate, they don't assert.

They humbly explain, noting that any explanation can always be revised.
I don't think it is honest to ignore the unending flood of science articles, text books, documentaries, and other science based things, and the matter of fact way they are usually presented.
 
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
97
✟21,415.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
I don't think it is honest to ignore the unending flood of science articles, text books, documentaries, and other science based things, and the matter of fact way they are usually presented.

Well, I don't think it honest to make outlandish claims like altered past states, without a shred of evidence to support them.

But, there we are - some people's standards are more exacting than others, I suppose.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, I don't think it honest to make outlandish claims like altered past states, without a shred of evidence to support them.

But, there we are - some people's standards are more exacting than others, I suppose.
There is no evidence to support a same state past. God tells how the past was, and a sane look at what He says will tell one it was different.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
There is no evidence to support a same state past.

Yes, there is. The evidence is agreement between at least 3 different and independent radiometric dating methodologies.

20_3radiometric-f3.jpg

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

God tells how the past was, and a sane look at what He says will tell one it was different.

You are referring to the Bible which is not a deity. Also, the Bible was written by men.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, there is. The evidence is agreement between at least 3 different and independent radiometric dating methodologies.
Heck the disagreement in things you claim agree is bigger than the age of the earth itself! Example one 'dating' claims 66 million years. Another one claims 63.7 years. The difference is about...2.3 million years!!!! What a farce. That means the error margin alone is something like 380 times the age of the earth!!! (2.3 million divided by 6000)


The so called meteorite tektites actually may not even be that for all you know. In a case where a big fountain of the deep suddenly released water and opened up, the impact would be from BELOW! The Ar business is a joke. You apply present state laws as to what we should expect ..such as what heat would do, and etc etc. Biotite is found in lava, so the whole belief system used on the 'ages' there are nothing but same state past hooey. In all ways, you are peddling belief only.

You are referring to the Bible which is not a deity. Also, the Bible was written by men.
Jesus says otherwise. His words are truth and spirit and life. He also validated the old testament.
 
Upvote 0