I didn’t say that I read ANY of the articles that you linked. @Chris_Falter said he read your articles. He also said he has spent hundreds of hours reading creationist literature. He’s more patient than I am.
I don’t need to read your 600-page book because its entire premise has been disproved years ago. I’m also not going to read books on the “science” of phrenology or flood geology or flat Earth. I don’t call that a “bias filter.” I call it common sense.
Looks like I stand corrected on who said what, but now you have said it in different words.
I guess I could say that I do not wish to read any books which claim to turn frogs to princes whether it be via billions of years, or a kiss, or flat earth/old earth claims and be on our different ways.
I do find it interesting that you acknowledge the fact that radioactive clocks can be sped up 1 billion fold in laboratories, without having to heat up the whole earth and melt it.
Yet, you resort to the idea of that these radioactive clocks could not have been sped up Via the piezoelectric effect in isolated areas in Mother Nature ‘labs.’(specific areas at different times)
I am going with the latter idea. More reasonable and down to earth than slow ticking clocks over billions of years from exploding stars n such.
It seems to me that the problem that faces is that it would have to universal, not isolated areas, as rocks (meteorites, moon rocks for example) from everywhere on earth and off earth are consistent with each other in showing an ancient universe and earth, far different that the effect on a few nanograms under extreme conditions.
I’m curious if you see how your expectations for others are much higher than yours for yourself.
When one skims for keywords so that he can paste links to articles in response, without reading, it is clear that he intends to teach and not to learn. Jeremiah 29:13, as you quote above, says this:
You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.
Note that there is a condition for “finding”… It is when one searches with all his heart. That doesn’t mean skimming for words to inspire the next volley. It means practicing the Golden Rule. If you are asking others to read a 600 page book, why will you not read the entirety of a long article?
Why did god not have One of the authors of scripture compile the genealogies?
But now that we have done so, it is more than clear the ‘first Adam’ was created several thousand years ago.
‘ it is the glory of God to conceal a thing, and the honour of kings to search out a matter’
https://biblehub.com/kjv/proverbs/25-2.htm
From my research over the years, there seems to be zero consistency whether dating the rocks using radioactive decay methods or using fossils. This article highlights a few examples like finding carbon in diamonds.
Actually, inconsistencies with fossils are so common that terms like stratigraphic leaks and reworked specimens are used to explain this phenomenon.
Here are a few examples of human anomalous artefacts dated at several hundred million years to billions of years old.
http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/
‘Iron sharpens iron’
I guess this could mean a good sword fight with my Christian brothers from a different mother, and sisters from different misters. On guard! Haha.
Looking forward to an eternity with ppl like yourselves:smiley:
Do you mean "Why did God have one of the authors compile the genealogies?
In your ask, you presume to know the mind of God. You are suggesting (I’m assuming) that God had a purpose in articulating the genealogies through scripture, and that the purpose was to convey a very young creation.
In the verse that you quote, one can see that God is mysterious and that we should search things out. This searching out process can be very rewarding if you spend time reading the resources that these wise Christian brothers and sisters are recommending. You will find that your faith is increased, along with the breadth and depth of scripture, as you are able to better reconcile God’s general and special revelations.
There are so many good, Christian resources available for you to read. So many of us have been exposed in years past to the very same information that you are sharing here. Many of us, too, found it to be compelling for a short-while, but there are so many inconsistencies, logical errors, math errors, conspiracy theories, and mental gymnastics needed for it to make sense, that one can conclude that it just doesn’t hold water.
But, there is a better way. It is not necessary to give up your faith or to dethrone the King in your pursuit of the truth. It is, however, the “honour of kings to search out a matter” and and an effort worthy of searching “with all your heart” (both scriptures you have quoted here) as well.
I implore you to not just hit-and-run. Don’t just parrot what someone has told you, but read and learn. There are many resources (such as https://thenaturalhistorian.com/) that help to explain exactly why what you are repeating is not the truth.
As always, you are a nice guy but you do not understand the science. In the least.
The “laboratory” is a particle accelerator that imparts the energy of a small city to a single atom. The decay rate of that one atom is measured, and then the research paper is written.
Well, if the earth consisted of one enormous quartz structure, and experienced a global, crushing compression event orders of magnitude greater than the pressure at the center of the earth, the hypothesis might be worth exploring.
Since both the condition and the event are utterly implausible, I think we can safely discard the idea.
Look, if you just want to say that God created the earth to look like it is billions of years old, and the one thing that supports your claim is your belief that your hermeneutical approach to Genesis is the only valid one, then I could respect that stance. Contending for absurdities is not a winning apologetic, so I am not sure why you persist in doing so.
Best,
Chris
Ahem. A diamond is almost 100% carbon.
That article on giraffids was interesting.
I can definitely say I don’t agree with all AIG interpretations, some of this included.
Why are mammals for the most part in the ‘upper layers’ of strata.
A: Liquefaction and hydrologic sorting.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction4.html
‘buoyancy in the days following death depended on their density while living, the buildup and leakage of gases from their decaying bodies, the absorption or loss of water by their bodies, and other factors.’
Other factors like *where a creature lived (ie ocean dweller) during the flood would determine its burial ‘order’ …not *when it lived (separated by time of millions of years)
Again, All about interpretations.
Ever heard of living fossils? Creatures like the Coelacanth or trees like the Wollemi Pine have been interpreted by evolutionists to have gone extinct 65+ million years ago because their fossils have Never been found in other rock layers yet they have been discovered alive and well😎 there are thousands of such examples.
I see the overwhelming picture the fossil record demonstrates is liquefaction and hydrologic sorting processes, NOt evolution processes.
I believe the earths crust does consist of apx 20%quartz, and this link expands on the idea of a ‘fluttering crust’ generating massive compression required.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity3.html
Despite what is stated in YEC literature, there is no evidence at all that diamonds contain any C-14. The half-truth which led to this full falsehood was essentially a calibration exercise for AMS (accelerator mass spectrometry) designed not to find C-14, but to establish a technique to zero the instrument - in other words to find the point where signal is completely subsumed into noise. This noise, mathematically, equated from 65,000 to 80,000 years of age, but this is just the sound of static; it does not demonstrate any presence of C-14 in the sample whatsoever. 50,000 years of age is widely regarded as the limit for carbon dating.
That something thought to be extinct is found, means that someone was wrong about an extinction. I doubt, however, that the lungfish of 65 mya is the same as the lungfish of today. That said, this lends no credibility whatsoever to a 6000 y/o earth. It speaks of a very old planet instead.
You must imagine this, then, because it does not exist in reality. See, for instance, the Green River Formation in Utah, which is over a mile thick of annual varves the thickness of a potato chip. There are billions of fossils found there, all in perfectly flat layers… not a single one is polystrate, because an inch of thickness represents 75 - 125 years.
Imagine the Hawaiian Islands, Hawaiian Seamount and Emperor Seamount extending from the current exit point for the hot spot at Kilauea and extending several thousand miles, nearly to the Aleutian Islands. The Pacific Plate is moving at ~10 cm per year, north and west, and the three sets of islands in the chain are correlated by their radiometric dates and their distances over time. The chain represents ~75 million years of geological history.
Or, maybe like AiG, you see overwhelming evidence that the Pacific Plate moved at meters per second and not centimeters per year.
From wikipedia
In other words, they are not living fossils.
I read this, and it is not even remotely up to the task.
First, the anonymous author mentions that quartz constitutes 27% of granite. Then he asserts that a crust consisting of 27% quartz was fluttering like a wave.
Surely you can see the fundamental mistake he made, @Helloandgoodbye. Think about it. What big mistake does that scenario contain?
Hint: step outside your door. How much of what you see is granite?
Second, the author invents something that does not even exist, “unusually compressible water.” We are squarely in the realm of science fiction here.
Third, the earth’s crust is not a phone book. Contrary to the author’s ill-informed assertion, it won’t keep fluttering. It will in fact fracture. Under vastly lower forces today, the crust does in fact fracture. We experience this as earthquakes.
Finally, I do not see any calculations of the force of the waves that would be required to generate the amount of piezoelectric effect necessary to account for the observed radioactive decay. This could be done, but the author has not done it. Why not? I suggest the author is afraid that the calculation will show just how absurdly implausible the scenario is. In any case, unless the author can provide this calculation, he cannot possibly claim to have accounted for the observed radioactive decay. And you cannot claim to have accounted for it either.
Like I said previously: why do you keep advancing such utterly absurd accounts? Wouldn’t it be better to admit there is no scientific way to account for your beliefs, and instead assert that for some inscrutable reason God chose to make the earth look billions of years old?
…Or easier yet, God could just create the world with no rocks that date earlier than six thousand years when subjected to the various radiometric dating methods.
Busy weekend. Got a few more things for u guys to consider.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity5.html
Lineaments (massive vertical cracks) are evidence of Earths crust ‘fluttering’ (like a phone book as u put it) near the bottom of that link explains more.
‘The GRF is famous for the immense number of generally excellently preserved fossils, especially fossil fish (figure 3). The fish fossils are found in abundance in the Green River supposed varves. Such an observation indicates that these thin laminae are not varves since fish will rot in only a few weeks, even on the oxygen-less bottom of a deep, cold lake.17 Such well-preserved specimens indicate rapid burial, not the slow burial one would expect in a lake.’
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview4.html
Yes, I do see that the evidence suggests that in the distant past the continental plates were moving rapidly, giving rise to buckled/folded/compressed mountain ranges(while the sediments were still water quite saturated) like the above link photos. Hydroplaning plates which crashed into earths distorted mantle, giving rise to mountain ranges in a sort period of time too.
Again, all about interpretations. The best way I have found to interpret all such physical data is through the biblical lens of 6,000 years and a global flood.
Rot requires bacterial growth. Bacterial growth requires oxygen. In anoxic water decomposition is greatly slowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.