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.
It would be nice if you would be honest and admit what is obvious to all of US--the you are not arguing in favor of God and His authorship of are being, but only in favor of your interpretation of scripture.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.
If God created the rock and science looked at that rock the next day, they would claim old ages. Yet that would not be understanding. It would be foolishness. All understanding we have of creation honours God. The attribution of existence to natural processes is not 'understanding' anythingChristians who are not YEC honor God for creation by understanding what creation itself, God's first and only direct book, is telling them.
Yes you need to forget that when looking at a rock that was created on day one that has such material in it. Obviously it could not have come by old age or any natural process! It has no bearing or connection or relation to a rock on the day after creation.No, I'm not going to forget that radioactive potassium-40 decays into argon-40. It's something that potassium-40 does.
If that particular tree was in the garden of Eden, then sure, why not assume it fell? (unless Eve pulled it off the tree for a look or decoration for her home etc)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.
The tree in the example of Eden would have been created days ago! Seeing a cone on the ground days later does not mean much. Unless you were thinking the tree came from the cone or some such!Sure, both could have been created out of thin air by God days ago, but we know that pinecones fall from pine trees.
No. Not the day after creation. Any of those things would exist independent of any processes of nature. They did not come to exist by natural means but by the will and creation of God.If we find argon-40 mixed in with potassium-40 and know that argon-40 comes from potassium-40,
Absolutely false in any age! There is too much of the daughter material present to possibly have come to exist by decay! You simply observe a process happening today and attribute the existence of the materials, all the materials, to that process. You did not know when to stop. There are some isotopes of that kind being produced by decay today of course as well. You give all the credit to the processes and miss the forest of GOD for the trees.then unless indicated otherwise it's safe to assume that the argon-40 got there by decay of potassium-40.
You should admit that all the bible speaks of the creation and refers to Genesis as well often. Jesus also mentioned the beginning and first couple etc. Your attempt to obfuscate this has no currency whatsoever.It would be nice if you would be honest and admit what is obvious to all of US--the you are not arguing in favor of God and His authorship of are being, but only in favor of your interpretation of scripture.
Because God is straight up and honest in all He does. God is incapable of being otherwise. That included His Creation. When God through His Creation is showing us when and how a geological event's happened, that's when and how it happened. Period! God doesn't mess around with His Creation.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 terms
Natural sciences have opened a window into how God Creates. I see that as deserving the highest honors.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.
God did not do any such thing. He told us He made it all. You 'go though' it using something else other than God or creation. The methodology of science does not see God in any aspect of creation, quite the contrary.Because God is straight up and honest in all He does. God is incapable of being otherwise. That included His Creation. When God through His Creation is showing us when and how a geological event's happened, that's when and how it happened. Period! God doesn't mess around with His Creation.
Which God? Jesus created the heavens and earth, all things. Jesus created Adam and Eve. Jesus told us that they were there at the beginning. Anyone that tells you anything else is either lying or delusional.Spiritually, everywhere I look, there God is. It's all in the blessings of His Creation, if we know how to look.
Natural science claims that nature created man and all things including the universe. That is not the creation of God! That is vain imagination casting God into the gutter and blaspheming by claiming He is not the creator and the Scripture Jesus verified and fulfilled is a filthy lie.Natural sciences have opened a window into how God Creates. I see that as deserving the highest honors.
Nope. The lava dykes are rock.So tell us, when God separated the water from the land on the planet could that have involved some fissures?
Yes, there are paths. One runs 300 miles to the Oregon Coast.Also if it was not an eruption but just molten rock moving or some such then would there not also be a path?
I'm just trying to correct your comment in post#1006 about basalt at the imagined time of Creation with an examples of basalt not at all related to that imagined time. Which is basalt dated back to 16 million years ago.Now you are claiming that the event was long after creation. Fine. Firstly, prove it. Then we can go from there.
The Bible teaches a young earth roughly 10,000 years or lesswe can show that the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth is real and not the result of embedded age.
Of course what was formerly molten rock would become rock. Why pretend I suggested something else?Nope. The lava dykes are rock.
There are no physical examples of your suggestion.
So? How does that help you?Yes, there are paths. One runs 300 miles to the Oregon Coast.
So your point is that these rocks were not from the time of creation. I have no problem with that, lots of things happened and formed long after creation. However you have not proven that it was not at the time of creation here. You simply showed tall rocks and noted there also were paths. In what way must we deduce that there could have been no molten rock when God separated the waters from the land on day 2? In what way can you prove this was long after creation exactly?I'm just trying to correct your comment in post#1006 about basalt at the imagined time of Creation with an examples of basalt not at all related to that imagined time. Which is basalt dated back to 16 million years ago.
God's own Creation shows us a multi-billion year old earth.The Bible teaches a young earth roughly 10,000 years or less
I for one do trust the Creator. What I do not trust is the creation story of an ancient middle-eastern tribe of desert dwellers.Trust and Seek the Creator; do not trust mankind!
I don't think the Earth, as Created by God would disagree though. The Earth has a way of showing the truth of itself. Being of God, the Earth can't lie.I disagree, the God hating humanist atheist would agree with you
Rocks less than 2000 years old have been accurately dated with radiometric dating. Why couldn't they date rocks created 6000 years ago or so? (Or whatever actual date creation is in your personal theology.)No, because there is no possibility of using radioactive dating or any scientific method on a newly created rock.
I'm talking about what happens *AFTER* creation, not during.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.
No. As I said above, a rock created by a creator 6000 years ago could be dated depending on if it started with any radioactive isotopes or not. This is true if you believe in a creator or not.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 impossible
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.
No. Not if that rock and all that it contains was created.
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?