Why I'm not a young earth creationist...

The Righterzpen said:

But how do you (or they) know that the timescale (the 40,000 years) that they say Mt. St. Helens is; is accurate? They don't know that; because they have no way of testing how "old" magma is.

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

They make assumption using something like carbon 14 dating after it's erupted and cooled; but how much does the process of molting rock change the elemental composition of that rock? They can't answer that.

Click to expand...

• The order in which minerals precipitate out of a wide variety of magma types
• The way in which elements are partitioned between the minerals
• The change in the composition of the melt as those minerals crystalise
  
• The change of chemical stability of each element with changes of melt composition and temperature
• The effect of removal of crystals by sinking, or rising in the melt because of density contrasts
• The extent and nature of post solidification changes upon minerals that are no longer stable
• The extent and nature of zoning in crystals that have grown across a changing range of melt composition and temperature.

Estrid said:

What makes you think that you personally have the
ability to actually know exactly what is the word
of God, and infallibly interpret it?

Don't try to speak for science when
you have no idea at all what you are
talking about.
It never goes well.

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

I'm not convinced that Scripture says the earth is only 6000 years old though.

There are different ways of calculating the genealogies than what Usher said. If you line up the patriarchs "end on end" except where you see "and called his name" than you get an earth that's a little more than 13000 years old.

Which also makes more sense to history and what we know of accuracy / "reliability" (or not) of scientific dating. There's a lot of ways to date stuff; (not just carbon 14; which has it's own issues).

I certainly agree that God is capable of suspending laws that govern the cosmos; but I also don't believe God "made something look" other than what it is. That's why I say the issue isn't the evidence; it's the interoperation there of.

"Suppress the truth in unrighteousness" is a very real phenomenon. I mean look at the news. Look at politics. Even look at recorded history. How much of what we're told happened in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, 9/11 etc; that they say happened didn't really happen.

Evil is real and so are lies. It's not always as simple as one person's interoperation against another's. Yeah, honest mistakes happen; but not all withholding of information is so benign.

And God doesn't lie. So there is a distinct line between for example how God wrote Scripture with the requirement of human diligence to "know these things are so" (I.E. the Berean searchers!) To make one dig to find the answer is not the same as lying.

So yeah, there's a degree of parable in the Bible; but God being deceptive is not in His character.

Click to expand...

BNR32FAN said:

What makes me think I can understand what is plainly written? I can read, that’s what.

What exactly did I say about science? That science indicates that the earth is older than 6,000 years? I think that is indisputable and the very position that you yourself hold. So stop being such a jerk about it.

Click to expand...

The Righterzpen said:

Well OK. I'm female too and I'm 50; so are you actually older than me?

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

By publicly expressing your views on a discussion forum you implicilty invite other members to reply to you. If you were unaware of that, you are now duly informed. (No need to thank me. )

Click to expand...

coffee4u said:

Yes I am, I checked your profile before I posted. But shh a lady shouldn't tell her age which is why I keep mine undisclosed.

Click to expand...