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.
This is what the OP is about.Yes, if you are referring to His miracles. The fish was cooked, the bread was baked, and the wine was ready to drink.
Only science would see what was created that way, since they would try to explain what was in the rock on day one some other way. So the only embedded age is in the minds of science that insists that anything other than their godless fantasies is a deception from GodDid Jesus create embedded age into this Creation?
That is the period of modernism.It does put things into a very weird perspective that modern creationism came about in the 1960s.
"Last Thursday"ism is the notion that the Earth was created with a history (including our own memories from "before" last Thursday) no more than a week ago and that it was just made to *look* older. Does that sound familiar?If this was creation week, and Thursday, then science would look like buffoonery if it tried to tell us where the rocks or anything else like man came from! For anyone to actually ask today, thousands of years after creation, to be shown the universe was not created last week also looks like buffoonery.
Truth be told, the idea of embedded age came from a well known Creation Christian that usually hangs out in this forum. Check out the OP. Haven't seen him for a couple of months.Only science would see what was created that way, since they would try to explain what was in the rock on day one some other way. So the only embedded age is in the minds of science that insists that anything other than their godless fantasies is a deception from God
Creation was many thousands of years ago. If anyone struggles with thinking it may or may not have been last week, they are out of touch. Adam's memory was just fine. Nothing would look older to an observer on day one of creation, it would look complete. What would you prefer half of a rock and river and man in the half of a garden?"Last Thursday"ism is the notion that the Earth was created with a history (including our own memories from "before" last Thursday) no more than a week ago and that it was just made to *look* older. Does that sound familiar?
Maybe he will reappear. But I am not sure Avi was the first to mention that idea.Truth be told, the idea of embedded age came from a well known Creation Christian that usually hangs out in this forum. Check out the OP. Haven't seen him for a couple of months.
That point I was hoping to make was a reply to your post #966Maybe he will reappear. But I am not sure Avi was the first to mention that idea.
I don't see the connection. I think it is undeniable that an observer on creation day one. inspecting a rock would find that the rock looked old to him if he used the scientific methodThat point I was hoping to make was a reply to your post #966
The broad sweep of AV's embedded age would cover every inch of the Earth. For instance, the eruptions of the Yellowstone Hotspot and the multi-million year dates measured along the track of movement would all be of God's doing. Where you laughed at those event's, AV would argue that God embedded age into those eruption areas to make them to be old to geologist who studied them. That's why, according to AV's embedded age thought, there is a sequence of old to younger age eruptions following the path of the Yellowstone Hotspot. All of which happened after Noah's flood. The reason why it was after the flood is that God came along aftrwards and cleaned the mess up. That's accorcing to AV. And that's the reason why today there is no evidance of Noah's flood.I don't see the connection. I think it is undeniable that an observer on creation day one. inspecting a rock would find that the rock looked old to him if he used the scientific method
There was nothing wrong with addressing this issue with the result you brought up because I was unfamiliar with it or the method used.Great. I should have picked an example that goes back to the time when science say the world was new. That way we could have focused more on the topic of what ratios existed already in rocks dating to creation.
Faith is unnecessary and I do not drink the vile brown liquid that is coffee.Since we are talking about this here is an example of the wild leaps of faith taken in getting the 'dates' of the oldest rocks on earth. Better make sure you are sitting down and not drinking hot coffee as it is a belly buster.
That is generally the idea behind dating, the nuclei in the rock are still there from when it formed, though some may have decayed to other nuclei during the interim."In the case of this original crust, scientists were measuring neodymium-142, which is produced by the alpha decay of samarium-146. The calculation for this piece of crust was not as complex as dating some other rocks, as 146Sm is an extinct isotope, and only produced 142Nd during the earths first 500 million years. As this crust has 142Nd present, we know that this piece of crust must have been formed about 4.3 billion years ago"
Where In The World Are The Oldest Rocks? - Science World
Canada, Australia and Greenland have been the top contenders for being home to the Earth’s oldest geological specimens: Greenland: Oldest fossils found in rock, Iusa Specimens, 3.7 billion years oldAustralia: Oldest minerals, Jack Hills Zircon, 4.36 billion years oldCanada: Oldest rock, Canadian...www.scienceworld.ca
Need I flesh out the huge assumptions here for you? Let's look at a few questions that cannot be answered by science about this. -If this was a rock dating to creation, could it have had 146Sm in it when created? - Could most of the isotopes in the rock have been there from the time it was made?
Embedded age is a religious concept.- In other words, embedded age as far as science is concerned.
You can claim what ever you like about your god and religion, but science is not based on speculation and we would appreciate it if you would stop defaming us.What we have then is the absolute omission of creation and God by science in all scenarios and explanations of what could have happened. They proceed to form conclusions based solely on a godless speculation model and nothing but a godless speculation model (religiously)
Dating methods don't care how a rock was formed, they only measure the time since formation.As just explained it is all that matters actually. If someone looks at a rock that was created by God and then tries to explain why it has what it has in it using a belief that is totally without the actual cause of the rock existing, that is both non belief and belief!
Measuring the decay rate of a specific isotope in a laboratory has nothing to do with rocks at all. It is no different than measuring any property of any material in a lab.Yes, when you attribute the existing isotope's existence wholly to that process that happens today it very much involves the past. You use this to 'age' the whole rock and of course ages mean the past.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.As just proven in the example of a rock dating to the time of creation whatever decay that now happens in that rock basically doesn't matter or tell us when or how it came to exist! Neither could or would it tell us it's future! Science could not say that, for example, in another billion years, this same rock would have x and y and z components in it! They know nothing of the sort. The bible tells us that very rock will be burned up and a new earth will exist! Science can tell us neither about the future or the past.
Belief as you think of it has no place in science. I suggest that you stop trying to discuss science and go learn about it first.I posted an example of a rock that science claims dates close to the the time earth started to exist. I also provided a thought experiment for a rock that was created for sure, and how science would explain it.
Says you. Beliefs are used in dating. In the example above, they used a belief that certain material in a rock meant that the rock had to come from a time when they theorize the earth 'still' had such material! Are you calling that more than a belief?
Creation was many thousands of years ago. If anyone struggles with thinking it may or may not have been last week, they are out of touch. Adam's memory was just fine. Nothing would look older to an observer on day one of creation, it would look complete. What would you prefer half of a rock and river and man in the half of a garden?
Assuming that dated back to the time of creation. What would make anything look old long after that?The broad sweep of AV's embedded age would cover every inch of the Earth. For instance, the eruptions of the Yellowstone Hotspot and the multi-million year dates measured along the track of movement would all be of God's doing.
That is a bit hard to follow. But it sounds like you are saying Avi thinks God acted in that time close to the flood and His actions affected things like the hotspots. I wonder if that means worldwide or just God affecting the Yellowstone area?Where you laughed at those event's, AV would argue that God embedded age into those eruption areas to make them to be old to geologist who studied them. That's why, according to AV's embedded age thought, there is a sequence of old to younger age eruptions following the path of the Yellowstone Hotspot. All of which happened after Noah's flood. The reason why it was after the flood is that God came along aftrwards and cleaned the mess up. That's accorcing to AV. And that's the reason why today there is no evidance of Noah's flood.
That's OK there is a new example out there now of a rock that dates to creation and how it would look old to scienceThere was nothing wrong with addressing this issue with the result you brought up because I was unfamiliar with it or the method used.
No? What are your vile liquids of choice?Faith is unnecessary and I do not drink the vile brown liquid that is coffee.
Not applicable to the oldest rocks dating to creation.That is generally the idea behind dating, the nuclei in the rock are still there from when it formed, though some may have decayed to other nuclei during the interim.
In the mind of secular science, probably. It is not really a concept though, so much as the way it had to be right after creationEmbedded age is a religious concept.
Let's be honest. If I, for example claimed that the reason a certain material existed in rocks was because it 'used to exist on earth for the first 500 million years here' that involves a world of speculation. Godless speculation that defames Scripture.You can claim what ever you like about your god and religion, but science is not based on speculation and we would appreciate it if you would stop defaming us.
No dating method could apply on day 1 of creation. All those ratios in a rock would have been how they were created.Dating methods don't care how a rock was formed, they only measure the time since formation.
No decay would be responsible for isotopes in a rock on the day after creation (unless we were talking about very very short half lives of minutes or etc)Measuring the decay rate of a specific isotope in a laboratory has nothing to do with rocks at all. It is no different than measuring any property of any material in a lab.
? What has science got to do with embedded age?Belief as you think of it has no place in science. I suggest that you stop trying to discuss science and go learn about it first.
Truth be told 5000 years is different than 5 days.A creation 5000 years ago that looks 4.5 billion years old is no different in kind than a creation that is 5 days old and looks 4.5 billion years old. It is still an implied deception.
World wide. I used the Yellowstone only as a single example because you and I have crossed that path.Assuming that dated back to the time of creation. What would make anything look old long after that?
That is a bit hard to follow. But it sounds like you are saying Avi thinks God acted in that time close to the flood and His actions affected things like the hotspots. I wonder if that means worldwide or just God affecting the Yellowstone area?
Where is that rock and the study?That's OK there is a new example out there now of a rock that dates to creation and how it would look old to science
The implied deception of looking older than it is no different.Truth be told 5000 years is different than 5 days.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?