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"?
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!
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!
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??
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.
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.
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.
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'.
"This dating method is based upon the decay of radioactive potassium-40 to radioactive argon-40 in minerals and rocks;"
www.britannica.com
Y'know, if there was no potassium-40 around in the minerals, things would look mighty odd. Possibly a sign of recent creation there.
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.
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'.
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'!
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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?
