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.
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?
Yes, whatever was there in a particular rock, in this case we said the rock contained some argon.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?
Why would there be no potassium-40? How about it was all there? (save some shorter half life stuff)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.
No. Forget that entirely! That was not something that applied in the (in my example of creation day one) four hours from when it came to exist and then went through some changes and forming etc. Why would there not also have been potassium-40 in the end result on day 1 or 2? Just because after it came to exist, it slipped into a relationship and situation where there was now radioactivity etc. That says nothing of those first hours when it came to exist on earth at all.We know that radioactive potassium-40 decays into argon-40.
No. On day one how much decaying if any would you claim had went on in four hours?? However the stuff in the newly created rock was after it was all created and already here does not matter.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.
How would we know what reasons there were for materials (that now must exist a certain way in this world) to have been here on day 1? Are you saying that the creation of God could never have included potassium-40? Why not? Just because in the world after creation certain rules went into being? I cannot limit what God may have used or what materials may have resulted from Him creating and forming things. Whatever He did, the final results were rocks that included certain materials, some of which are not doing certain things like decaying etc.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.
I referenced the potassium-argon decay method for dating "basalt". For example the eruption path of the Yellowstone Hotspot that you laughed at.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??
It gets me to realize that what we see is what we got! Regardless of what processes go on today. You cannot trace back how a rock that was here at creation got here by natural means such as decay.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?
What it gets us is a deceitful God. Which just doesn't work for me and makes the whole embedded age line as crazy thinking.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?
Basalt that was a result of creation and maybe the forming later would not be subject to how basalt forms today! In creation who knows what heat was involved and what cooling in the moment of creation or hours or day after when God put finishing touches on things? Basalt need not have came to exist as some 'eruption'!!I referenced the potassium-argon decay method for dating "basalt". For example the eruption path of the Yellowstone Hotspot that you laughed at.
The same dating method was also used for dating the over 300 basalt flows of the Columbia River Basalt Group. As an aside, it's beyond me how that many lava flows could have happened in a short time. Here's the stratigraphy of the groups. Please take notice of the "Isotopic Age" column. Molten blended rock in the creation event need not have been lava as we know it at all. The same would be true if this was long after creation, for example in some move of the plates worldwide or something. If God was here (as we know He was, for example at Babel, because He came down here) who is to say how things would have been affected such as atoms, forces or etc? Like the creation rock example, here again we would have the presence and will of God possibly affecting how things were. So anything could have happened in a short time!
Yes, I agree. What I want to know is why truthpls think's it's a good idea.What it gets us is a deceitful God. Which just doesn't work for me and makes the whole embedded age line as crazy thinking.
Not crazy if there really is a God and there really was a creation. It would only blow the minds of those who believed the deception that natural processes really created all things.What it gets us is a deceitful God. Which just doesn't work for me and makes the whole embedded age line as crazy thinking.
Do you think God limited how He created the universe to how unbelievers in the end of time interpret material in rocks wrong!? Do you think He said 'Gee, I better create things so they end up looking just like so called science expects by using false and unbelieving assumptions'?Yes, I agree. What I want to know is why truthpls think's it's a good idea.
It seems like you are going to a lot of trouble just to blow the minds of a few atheists. Is that all you really care about?Not crazy if there really is a God and there really was a creation. It would only blow the minds of those who believed the deception that natural processes really created all things just to blow the minds of atheists.
If you want to know how long ago that "creation" was, then you might.Irrelevant totally to the topic here. Who cares what materials in rocks do now, after they were created?
Yes because we are not talking about measuring creation. We are talking about measuring the age of the rock. When did it form? That is the question.That would have nothing to do with creation, it is after the fact.
Radioactive decay doesn't measure how the rock got there. It measures the time since formation.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.
We can't do that, now, can we?If you tested that rock on day 2 of creation, it would have the same materials in it one assumes.
Nope. Again -- radioactive dating doesn't tell you how a rock came to exist. It tells you how old it is.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.
Mind not blown.It seems like you are going to a lot of trouble just to blow the minds of a few atheists.
The Columbia River Basalt's very clearly came from fissures in the ground called "dikes". I've seen them. Both the eruption path of the Yellowstone Hotspot as clearly seen in any map of Idaho and the Columbia River Basalt flows would have happened long after any supposed Biblical Creation or Flood event or there would be piles of sediment covering it all. That's not happening. Regardless of the denial, the isotope age is accurate.Basalt that was a result of creation and maybe the forming later would not be subject to how basalt forms today! In creation who knows what heat was involved and what cooling in the moment of creation or hours or day after when God put finishing touches on things? Basalt need not have came to exist as some 'eruption'!!
For this Lover of God...there really is God and there really IS Creation. Just not at all in the way your going with it.Not crazy if there really is a God and there really was a creation. It would only blow the minds of those who believed the deception that natural processes really created all things.
It would be nice if Christians also would honour God for creation and realize that natural science is useless to tell us about that creation or oppose it.It seems like you are going to a lot of trouble just to blow the minds of a few atheists. Is that all you really care about?
No, because there is no possibility of using radioactive dating or any scientific method on a newly created rock.If you want to know how long ago that "creation" was, then you might.
No you are talking about dismissing creation and God and Scripture and supplanting them with some little natural process did it all theory and so called dating method. None of the isotopes in a created rock would be there due to decay. Therefore trying to use decay to tell us where the rock came from or when is impossibleYes because we are not talking about measuring creation. We are talking about measuring the age of the rock. When did it form? That is the question.
No it measures stuff existing in the rock that is in this natural world and involved in some processes. You assume that there was no creation so that all the stuff in the rock and what it is now doing would tell us how long ago it started to exist.Radioactive decay doesn't measure how the rock got there. It measures the time since formation.
No. Not if that rock and all that it contains was created.Nope. Again -- radioactive dating doesn't tell you how a rock came to exist. It tells you how old it is.
So tell us, when God separated the water from the land on the planet could that have involved some fissures? Also if it was not an eruption but just molten rock moving or some such then would there not also be a path? Now you are claiming that the event was long after creation. Fine. Firstly, prove it. Then we can go from there.The Columbia River Basalt's very clearly came from fissures in the ground called "dikes". I've seen them. Both the eruption path of the Yellowstone Hotspot as clearly seen in any map of Idaho and the Columbia River Basalt flows would have happened long after any supposed Biblical Creation or Flood event or there would be piles of sediment covering it all. That's not happening. Regardless of the denial, the isotope age is accurate.
Since God is a spirit, how is it that you look only to physical processes to find out when He made all things? That seems to be a contradiction in termsFor this Lover of God...there really is God and there really IS Creation. Just not at all in the way your going with it.
Christians who are not YEC honor God for creation by understanding what creation itself, God's first and only direct book, is telling them.It would be nice if Christians also would honour God for creation and realize that natural science is useless to tell us about that creation or oppose it.
No, I'm not going to forget that radioactive potassium-40 decays into argon-40. It's something that potassium-40 does. If we find a pinecone under a pine tree with no other pine trees in miles, we're going to assume that the pinecone fell from that particular pine tree. Sure, both could have been created out of thin air by God days ago, but we know that pinecones fall from pine trees. If we find argon-40 mixed in with potassium-40 and know that argon-40 comes from potassium-40, then unless indicated otherwise it's safe to assume that the argon-40 got there by decay of potassium-40.No. Forget that entirely!
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?