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.
Good grief, every time I try to tell you about how radioactive decay rates are mentioned you keep talking about rocks. There are no rocks involved. Is there any point in continuing this "conversation"?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)
Well, God did act on earth after the flood. Remember He caused a great wind to help make the water recede. We also know He interceded over at babel, causing major effects worldwide because all men were affected in their mind and body somehow. (languages and lifespans) So you seem to have a problem imagining that the presence and working of the Almighty on earth could affect fundamental aspects of nature and the world that could have also had an effect on the rocks. I don't see why not!World wide. I used the Yellowstone only as a single example because you and I have crossed that path.
Imagine if you will the mess that a Biblical type of flood would have caused world wide. Now imagine God cleaning it up afterwards. And in the process God embedded old age into His Creation. Thus "embedded age". AV even has Biblical scripture to back up his belief.
The only deception is on your end. When believers of Scripture look at it, it looks fine. Who cares how it was at creation and how it was affected perhaps many times since!? That would not deceive me. I am not the one demanding that all things have to have remained the same since Noah or Adam!The implied deception of looking older than it is no different.
Isotopes are in rocks. It is by those that your ages come. Yes, it is in a lab where rates are measured of course. Did you think we thought that scientists had to live in rocks to measure decay??Good grief, every time I try to tell you about how radioactive decay rates are mentioned you keep talking about rocks. There are no rocks involved. Is there any point in continuing this "conversation"?
The why not is that God is not a deceiver.Well, God did act on earth after the flood. Remember He caused a great wind to help make the water recede. We also know He interceded over at babel, causing major effects worldwide because all men were affected in their mind and body somehow. (languages and lifespans) So you seem to have a problem imagining that the presence and working of the Almighty on earth could affect fundamental aspects of nature and the world that could have also had an effect on the rocks. I don't see why not!
What a concidence--the same year I graduated from college. Of course YECism was always taught in some Bible schools, but as far as when it mainstreamed among Evangelicals, that would make the timeline about right.YEC has been the belief of far more than fringe Protestant sects. YEC has been taught in Baptist and Christian colleges for longer than I have been alive. YEC is also the most common belief concerning creationism as found in the independent Baptists and the Evangelical church websites of local churches.
We all of us believers trust it. This discussion is about literary genres.In other words, it appears that you don't trust what the writers of the original manuscripts of the Scriptures wrote and said about this topic.
Still, you should be careful. YECs can turn some pretty odd corners. Many of them are even DispensationalistsI do not have any theological difficulties at all in believing the inerrancy of the original manuscripts of the Scriptures.
And not a word of Scripture can fail and Jesus fulfilled it and verified it is from God. Believe it.
If the will and/or presence/or act/operation of God via creation or subsequently changed how things were, that is not a deception. The deception lies in being led to believe that such changes were the result of natural processes or something else in a way that makes Him a liar about creation or the flood etc.The why not is that God is not a deceiver.
What I want to see are the rocks and study you keep bringing up. Until than I call hogwash on your part. Warden has on several times corrected your statement. I'm wanting to actually see what your talking about.Isotopes are in rocks. It is by those that your ages come. Yes, it is in a lab where rates are measured of course. Did you think we thought that scientists had to live in rocks to measure decay??
I assume you are talking about the oldest rocks and example I posted. There was a link I thin for that. Those rocks contained some material that they claimed only existed for 500 million years after the world was 'formed'.What I want to see are the rocks and study you keep bringing up. Until than I call hogwash on your part. Warden has on several times corrected your statement. I'm wanting to actually see what your talking about.
"This dating method is based upon the decay of radioactive potassium-40 to radioactive argon-40 in minerals and rocks;"And going back to the dating of the Yellowstone Hotspot eruptions that you laughed at, those were dated using radioactive isotopes of Potassium-Argon. It's very accurate with the dating of basalt. Which brings up the question, is the use of radioactive isotopes OK with your rock but not OK with the rocks of a volcanic eruption?
Y'know, if there was no potassium-40 around in the minerals, things would look mighty odd. Possibly a sign of recent creation there.So if a rock that was here around the time of creation, for example, and contained an amount of argon-40 in it already, that would not have gotten there as a result of decay from potassium-40. Can you explain how a scientist could date that if she or he were right there a few days after creation??
Right, and regardless of how much was present on day 1 of creation, the scientific method would explain it another way. Religiously. So let's extend that though several thousand years. If we now look at that same rock sample, the scientific method looks at much the same components of the rock, but dates it billions of years old.Y'know, if there was no potassium-40 around in the minerals, things would look mighty odd. Possibly a sign of recent creation there.
No. It was the way it was for other reasons of which poor little man has no possible idea. What do we know of what creating a universe with a word out of nothing involved? What would we know of what happened to matter or anything else in, say, that four hours it was brought to exist and then formed in various ways? In what way could we possibly call God a deceiver for the way it ended up? Any deception would come from enemies of His that ignore creation totally, and try to use the processes now happening in that rock to explain how that rock came to exist 'naturally'.On the other hand, if God created a mix of Postassium-40 and Argon-40 to make it look like things were really old, then God would be a pretty deceptive Guy.
We are done if you can't discuss rationally.Isotopes are in rocks. It is by those that your ages come. Yes, it is in a lab where rates are measured of course. Did you think we thought that scientists had to live in rocks to measure decay??
If you think that creation and how it had to have left rocks a certain way that would be religiously misinterpreted by science is irrational, that is not my problem. That is the topic, what science would consider age that was already there at creation. You have provided no 'rational' reason why creation would not leave rocks somewhat as we see some of them. It sounds like you want to define rational as 'baseless doubting of creation and God, and spitefully ensuring He cannot enter into the discussion of creation'!We are done if you can't discuss rationally.
You clearly don't even attempt to understand (do you even care?) what I have written in this sub-sub-sub thread about measuring decay rates in laboratories. (A topic you brought up irrelevantly while discussing something else you brought up.)If you think that creation and how it had to have left rocks a certain way that would be religiously misinterpreted by science is irrational, that is not my problem. That is the topic, what science would consider age that was already there at creation. You have provided no 'rational' reason why creation would not leave rocks somewhat as we see some of them. It sounds like you want to define rational as 'baseless doubting of creation and God, and spitefully ensuring He cannot enter into the discussion of creation'!
I'm not sure you're grasping the concept here. You proposed finding some argon-40 inside a mineral deposit shortly after a creation event, right? I then considered the idea that there was no potassium-40 in that same deposit. Several thousand years later, there will still be argon-40 and no potassium-40, which is still going to look mighty odd and possibly a sign of a recent (thousands of years ago) creation event. It can't look billions of years old in this case.Right, and regardless of how much was present on day 1 of creation, the scientific method would explain it another way. Religiously. So let's extend that though several thousand years. If we now look at that same rock sample, the scientific method looks at much the same components of the rock, but dates it billions of years old.
We know that radioactive potassium-40 decays into argon-40. So if we find a deposit that contains both isotopes in ways that look like the potassium has been decaying into the argon, it's a reasonable conclusion that the potassium has been decaying into the argon. It's like 1+1=2. It just adds up. And in that case, it makes the mineral deposit look very old. There's no reason to put the two together like that besides trying to make things look really old.No. It was the way it was for other reasons of which poor little man has no possible idea. What do we know of what creating a universe with a word out of nothing involved? What would we know of what happened to matter or anything else in, say, that four hours it was brought to exist and then formed in various ways? In what way could we possibly call God a deceiver for the way it ended up? Any deception would come from enemies of His that ignore creation totally, and try to use the processes now happening in that rock to explain how that rock came to exist 'naturally'.
Irrelevant totally to the topic here. Who cares what materials in rocks do now, after they were created? That would have nothing to do with creation, it is after the fact. It cannot explain the majority of what exists in that rock. You are talking about some processes (that you determined happen in a lab) in the rock as if the mere fact of having a decay process going on it them matters! It has nothing to do with a created rock and how or when it goth there. If you tested that rock on day 2 of creation, it would have the same materials in it one assumes. You just come after the fact of the rock being created and try to explain how it came to exist BY some processes that now exist.You clearly don't even attempt to understand (do you even care?) what I have written in this sub-sub-sub thread about measuring decay rates in laboratories. (A topic you brought up irrelevantly while discussing something else you brought up.)
OK (since this is getting boring) let us assume for purposes of argument that "imbedded age creationism" is true. So what? What was God's purpose that He created the world in that way? What does it get you?Irrelevant totally to the topic here. Who cares what materials in rocks do now, after they were created? That would have nothing to do with creation, it is after the fact. It cannot explain the majority of what exists in that rock. You are talking about some processes (that you determined happen in a lab) in the rock as if the mere fact of having a decay process going on it them matters! It has nothing to do with a created rock and how or when it goth there. If you tested that rock on day 2 of creation, it would have the same materials in it one assumes. You just come after the fact of the rock being created and try to explain how it came to exist BY some processes that now exist.
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?