Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: KING IYK
Post Volume: Total: 920,570 Year: 892/6,935 Month: 173/719 Week: 165/116 Day: 7/32 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inspecting a rock the day after creation
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 1 of 137 (921192)
01-02-2025 10:50 PM


If you were there in Eden a day after it was all done, and saw a rock, would you think it was billions of years old? The isotope ratios would be there. The thing is, the reason for their existing would not have been radioactive decay. That only could start after the rock was there. Putting aside the one day of radioactive decay because it would be too tiny to be significant, all the ratios would be there because that was how it was created.
Natural processes can only start after creation. Science has used only what we can observe in the rock, such as the radioactive decay rates etc to come up with a model of how old the rock was and how it came to exist.
Scientists examining that rock, in Eden, if they were transported there, would declare the rock to be billions of years old.
Do you agree?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2025 9:34 AM dad3 has replied
 Message 7 by Taq, posted 01-03-2025 1:26 PM dad3 has not replied
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 01-03-2025 2:28 PM dad3 has replied
 Message 21 by K.Rose, posted 01-03-2025 3:52 PM dad3 has replied
 Message 99 by popoi, posted 01-08-2025 11:22 PM dad3 has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13136
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 137 (921194)
01-03-2025 9:30 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Inspecting a rock the day after creation thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 18041
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 3 of 137 (921195)
01-03-2025 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dad3
01-02-2025 10:50 PM


quote:
the isotope ratios would be there. The thing is, the reason for their existing would not have been radioactive decay. That only could start after the rock was there. Putting aside the one day of radioactive decay because it would be too tiny to be significant, all the ratios would be there because that was how it was created.
Again this just supposes that the creator is a deceiver creating objects with faked evidence of age - for no reason other than to deceive.
Why would anyone think this a possibility worth considering?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 10:50 PM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 1:06 PM PaulK has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23135
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 4 of 137 (921197)
01-03-2025 9:44 AM


Reply To dad3's Message in Other Thread
This is a reply to dad3's Message 1512 in the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread.
dad3 writes:
The supernatural cannot be observed. So it is not actually natural. Science deals only with the natural it observes.
Yes, that's right, you've got it.
quote:
But saying that only the natural was involved is just another way of saying that only what we can observe was involved. Again, if you think the supernatural can be observed then it is actually natural.
No, I do not think the supernatural can be observed. That does not mean it is real or unreal.
If the supernatural cannot be observed, how do you know it is real?
We cannot observe God creating a universe with a few words one day.
But that is a historical event from only 6000 years ago. Things that actually happen leave evidence behind, so where is the evidence for this?
That does not mean it never happened.
One doesn't have to observe something to know it happened. If you wake up to find a wet driveway, that's evidence it rained last night, even though you didn't observe it.
Millions of people observed miracles. They happened. What caused them was not observed.
Just before you said, "The supernatural cannot be observed," so you seem to be saying that the supernatural cannot be observed, but its effects (miracles) can.
How is this any different from the indirect observations that science often makes? An electromagnetic field cannot be directly observed, but you can observe its effects on iron filings. Ancient peoples might even have believed the effects of lodestones (natural magnets) on each other to be miraculous.
For you to say that only what you observed caused the miracles would be comical.
I've never observed a miracle, let alone the cause of one.
The same is true if you claimed you saw the universe created and God did not create it.
We've observed the evidence of what happened to create the universe we see today, and there is no God in that evidence. Nor Allah, Jehovah, Brahman, Odin or Zeus.
All we see is natural processes and things. Then we use these and these alone to extrapolate backwards and form a model of how it came to exist.
Pretty much.
That is a statement of belief that the naturalonlydunnit. No proof. No evidence for the statement. You think that would be science?
Those are your words, and they don't sound very scientific to me.
The only way we know anything exists is through our senses. Existence cannot be established if there's nothing that can be detected by our senses, that cannot be observed, either directly or indirectly. Unicorns and leprechauns have the same problem of not leaving any evidence behind that would establish their existence. Bigfoot, too, though lots of people believe he exists anyway.
quote:
The correlations that point to an ancient Earth are what we observe
The natural only processes that you believe created the earth are what point to age. Unless only those processes did it, the so called ages are meaningless across the board.
I understand that you accept the existence of the indetectable, but indetectable things are as good as non-existent. For you they exist, but you can bring no evidence to bear because, as you said, the supernatural is not observable.
quote:
Everything that can be observed is considered open to scientific study, and that's what we call natural. If there's something you consider supernatural that can be observed, then it is actually natural.
Most people in science want to develop a better understanding of our universe. The question I have for you is why you're so sure that unobservable phenomena exist.
History tells us that most people on earth have always accepted the supernatural for a variety of reasons and observations and experiences. The same is true as we speak today. So there is no question that the supernatural exists.
Belief is not evidence. Don't forget that you yourself pointed out that the supernatural cannot be observed, so what are people going to base their belief on?
If we used a very rough statistic, it might be that 25 billion people over all history have experienced enough to believe the supernatural does exist.
It is estimated that since the dawn of man around 200,000 years ago that around 100 billion people have lived.
But aside from that, belief isn't what makes something likely true ("likely true" is the best we can do because of tentativity). Establishing something as likely true takes evidence.
If we counted all the natural experiments in laboratories that show the natural exists, we might only have say, a hundred million tests.
Everyone experiences a multitude of evidence every day that the natural exists.
So if we accept the one, why not the other?
I'll accept anything you have evidence for.
The supernatural tests were not observing what caused something, but only the event itself. Hundreds saw Jesus alive again after dying. They did not see how He turned a decrepit old body into a new powerful body. They just saw Him risen. So it was both observed and unobserved.
Yes, these are the Bible stories. I understand that you believe them.
If the creation by God happened, then no one observed how it was done or the event itself. Yet we do observe the results it is believed.
Our evidence of how the universe formed does not hint at any God.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 2:00 PM Percy has replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 5 of 137 (921201)
01-03-2025 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
01-03-2025 9:34 AM


no deception
In what way would you or I or Adam be deceived looking at a rock on the ground (let's say it was one of those oldest rocks in the world like in Canada) that is was not just created? How would cutting the rock open and seeing that it contained some ratios deceive us? I would think something like 'wow, the rock was made to do certain stuff in this wonderful new world He made for us' No deception at all
Now if a scientist from today was there also, she or he would look at the daughter isotopes and claim that these took billions of years to come to exist. In other words all they see is the natural processes going on and ascribe to these the very existence of the rock

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2025 9:34 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2025 1:23 PM dad3 has replied
 Message 8 by Taq, posted 01-03-2025 1:33 PM dad3 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 18041
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 6 of 137 (921202)
01-03-2025 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by dad3
01-03-2025 1:06 PM


Re: no deception
Refusing to see the deception doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. If the rock is newly created why should it show an age of 10 million or 100 million or 1000 million years ? Why should these artificial ages a;so agree with the stratigraphical ordering as determined by the relationships of the strata if it is not there. And that’s just making the simple points since you’ve not bothered to understand how radiometric dating works.
Let us consider the case of fission track dating, since it is simple. Would it not be a deception to include additional fission tracks within a rock - marks of nuclear decays that never occurred? If not, then why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 1:06 PM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 2:04 PM PaulK has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10385
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 7 of 137 (921203)
01-03-2025 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dad3
01-02-2025 10:50 PM


dad3 writes:
If you were there in Eden a day after it was all done, and saw a rock, would you think it was billions of years old?
No one concludes rocks are billions of years old by just looking at them.
The isotope ratios would be there. The thing is, the reason for their existing would not have been radioactive decay.
Then there is no reason that the isotopes ratios would be consistent with those expected from radioactive decay, correct? We wouldn't expect concordant dates from the two independent uranium to lead series: 238U/206Pb and 235U/207Pb. We wouldn't expect U/Pb concordia dating to give the same date as Ar/Ar dating, or Rb/Sr dating because none of these were produced by radioactive decay.
What we should see is no consistent date across the independent dating techniques . . . but we do.
On top of this, if you were on Earth a day after the 6th day of creation would you find an extensive fossil record under your feet? Would God just magically poof a bunch of fossils into existence? If not, then you have no explanation for the dates measured in rocks that sit above fossils, nor can you explain the consistent dates between rocks and the types of fossil species we see. For example, we don't see any non-avian dinosaur fossils above the K/T boundary which is consistently dated to 65 million years before present. How do you explain such a tight correlation between fossil species and the ratio of isotopes in the igneous rocks that surround them? Only the scientific consensus has an explanation for this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 10:50 PM dad3 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10385
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 8 of 137 (921204)
01-03-2025 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by dad3
01-03-2025 1:06 PM


Re: no deception
dad3 writes:
In what way would you or I or Adam be deceived looking at a rock on the ground (let's say it was one of those oldest rocks in the world like in Canada) that is was not just created?
The deception would come in the form of balancing all of the different isotopes so that multiple independent methods using different forms of decay would produce the same age when applying observed decay rates. For example, you would have to carefully balance the ratios of 238U/206Pb, 235U/207Pb, 40K/40Ar, and 87Rb/87Sr so that they all give the same wrong date.
PaulK also mentions fission tracks which are the physical evidence of radioactive decay and take time to build up. If you are YEC, then you also have to invoke fake fossils that God magically poofed into being, and carefully adjusted the isotopes across decay chains so that they all give a specific date when next to a specific fossil species.
That's deception.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 1:06 PM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 2:07 PM Taq has replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 9 of 137 (921206)
01-03-2025 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
01-03-2025 9:44 AM


Re: Reply To dad3's Message in Other Thread
quote:
If the supernatural cannot be observed, how do you know it is real?
That depends who the 'you' is. If you are natural only science, then you cannot. If you are spiritually minded then you can probably, a lot of the time at least.
quote:
But that is a historical event from only 6000 years ago. Things that actually happen leave evidence behind, so where is the evidence for this?
Where would the evidence that the rock was created the day before, that was sitting there in Eden be? Adam would know. God walked and talked with Him. The scientist there would noot know, because he or she misreads the evidence of the isotope ratios. Not that they really did not have a natural process of decay going on, that we assume was happening. But they would see nothing spiritual, no God, no angels, no woman taken from his body and made for him laying right there beside him, etc
quote:
One doesn't have to observe something to know it happened. If you wake up to find a wet driveway, that's evidence it rained last night, even though you didn't observe it.
Adam would have woke up and found a woman there. That was evidence. He was asleep when God made her, but he observed the naked woman right there with him now. If the scientist looking at the rock saw Eve, He would have assumed she came from some ape like animal or something, and descended from worm like little creatures before that. So it is the beliefs used on what we see, (the rock or Eve) not the observation. (observing radioactive decay processes in the rock etc)
quote:
Just before you said, "The supernatural cannot be observed," so you seem to be saying that the supernatural cannot be observed, but its effects (miracles) can.
By science, yes.All they see is the natural. Now if a Christian saw a miracle in their life happen, they would observe it was supernatural.
quote:
How is this any different from the indirect observations that science often makes? An electromagnetic field cannot be directly observed, but you can observe its effects on iron filings. Ancient peoples might even have believed the effects of lodestones (natural magnets) on each other to be miraculous.
Science would have looked at Eve, and said she was maybe 22 years old. They would say that she was born of another woman. Those 'observations' of science were not observations, they were belief based assumptions.
If a scientist were looking at the Sodom and Gomorrah event, they might say there was an asteroid bombardment or something. If a scientist could find the remains of the tower of Babel, they would cook up a scenario where people abandoned the site for some reason other than what really happened. Etc
quote:
I've never observed a miracle, let alone the cause of one.
Not to your knowledge.
quote:
We've observed the evidence of what happened to create the universe we see today, and there is no God in that evidence. Nor Allah, Jehovah, Brahman, Odin or Zeus.
The scientist looking at the newly created rock would say the same thing. They would not know who created those natural processes or the rock. They would see no God in it.
quote:

Those are your words, and they don't sound very scientific to me.

The only way we know anything exists is through our senses. Existence cannot be established if there's nothing that can be detected by our senses, that cannot be observed, either directly or indirectly. Unicorns and leprechauns have the same problem of not leaving any evidence behind that would establish their existence. Bigfoot, too, though lots of people believe he exists anyway.
Using your senses for the scientist in Eden observing the rock, and Eve would not help them have a clue what went on.
quote:
I understand that you accept the existence of the indetectable, but indetectable things are as good as non-existent. For you they exist, but you can bring no evidence to bear because, as you said, the supernatural is not observable.
Only the natural is detectable to science. For people who do not limit themselves, a lot more can be seen. Not everyone can see things that are not natural. The majority of the human race that have always accepted the supernatural did not limit themselves.
quote:
Most people in science want to develop a better understanding of our universe. The question I have for you is why you're so sure that unobservable phenomena exist.
The unobservable to natural only science does not mean the unobservable to some other people.
quote:
Belief is not evidence. Don't forget that you yourself pointed out that the supernatural cannot be observed, so what are people going to base their belief on?
What did Adam base his belief on? Why did the scientist in the garden look at evidence of creation (the rock or Eve) and think it was something else? Because the natural only thinker in that garden was imposing belief on to the woman and the rock. There he was, that scientist, in the garden, observing both the rock and the woman, yet he explained it another way. So his beliefs were not actually evidence, but merely projected on to the evidences.
quote:
It is estimated that since the dawn of man around 200,000 years ago that around 100 billion people have lived.
OK so the stats just suddenly got a lot better for the point I made
quote:
But aside from that, belief isn't what makes something likely true ("likely true" is the best we can do because of tentativity). Establishing something as likely true takes evidence.
The scientist on that day after creation, looking at Eve thought it was likely she was born of another woman. He thought it was likely that the rock was billions of years old. All for good reasons. She or he also thought the light from the stars they were seeing took billions of years to get here!
quote:
I'll accept anything you have evidence for
The scientist in the garden accepted that the rock existed. Yet he accepted that it was billions of years old as well, based on evidence. Eve, looking at the same rock with him would say she just spoke to Jesus an hour ago, and that she also was just made from a bone in the man's body yesterday by God. When people say they will accept evidence and really mean they will accept natural only evidence, and proceed to deny all other evidence and testimonies of evidence, they are basically saying they will reject evidence. We get that you are willing to accept some evidence, some part of the big picture and full equation. That is not enough to get to the truth
quote:
Our evidence of how the universe formed does not hint at any God
Well OUR evidence of how the universe formed does! Our evidence includes the supernatural, your does not. The supernatural does not sink or swim based on whether religiously natural only folks want to include it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 01-03-2025 9:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 01-07-2025 9:02 AM dad3 has replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 10 of 137 (921207)
01-03-2025 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
01-03-2025 1:23 PM


Re: no deception
The rock would be the way it was because that was how God designed it to be. If there was some radioactivity happening it would be a part of nature. Etc
As for fission tracks, I would ask if current natural processes are the only way these could come to exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2025 1:23 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2025 2:11 PM dad3 has replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 11 of 137 (921208)
01-03-2025 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taq
01-03-2025 1:33 PM


Re: no deception
Nothing took time to build up in God's creation. If there were features in the rock that normally only occur in nature one way, we obviously would know they got there another way!
Who asked anyone to assume that what are now parent or daughter isotopes got there by the processes they are now (after creation) engaged in? Then they turn around and claim they are abused and deceived because the stuff did not get there naturally?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taq, posted 01-03-2025 1:33 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 01-03-2025 3:22 PM dad3 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 18041
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 12 of 137 (921209)
01-03-2025 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by dad3
01-03-2025 2:04 PM


Re: no deceptio
quote:
The rock would be the way it was because that was how God designed it to be.
So it is an intentional deception then. I’ve already asked you to explain why the rock wouldn’t be “designed” to show its true age, and you have offered no answer. Let alone an explanation of why there are so many different “false” ages which just happen to agree with the order in which the rocks were formed.
quote:
As for fission tracks, I would ask if current natural processes are the only way these could come to exist?
Which is evading the question yet again. Why would fission tracks for decays that never occurred exist at all except to deceive scientists investigating the rock?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 2:04 PM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 2:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 6183
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 13 of 137 (921210)
01-03-2025 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dad3
01-02-2025 10:50 PM


If I may ask first, what stupid lying creationist are you getting your confused nonsense from? What is your source for your confused word salad? I need to ask that since you obviously don't understand what your source is telling you, which would necessitate our going to your creationist source to try to discover what his claims really are and what his lines of reasoning (to be extremely generous) actually are.
IOW, you are not making any sense, which makes it that much more difficult to reply. That you keep contradicting yourself does not help. And we know from decades of bitter experience that no creationist will ever answer our question of "What are you talking about?"
What you are trying to "argue for" here is nothing more than the Omphalos Argument (Greek ομφαλος = "navel"). The name derives from an old theological question (when they were taking a break from the hot topic of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin (later dropped by Baptists who believe dancing is evil) ) over whether Adam had a belly button, which would be evidence of his having been born of woman, a false event in his case, the stock answer being, "If it so pleased God to create evidence of a false event, then He would have created Adam with a navel." The argument proposed by Philip Henry Gosse in his book, Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot (1857), was that the massive geological evidence that was accumulating for an ancient earth with a long and complex was simply an illusion, false evidence planted by God. But instead of being praised for forever protecting God from science, he was met with furious backlash for depicting God as a Deceiver (come to think of it, wasn't that title already given to Satan?). And yet, creationists continue to preach that heresy as "apparent age" and here you are having joined that God-is-a-Liar chorus.
A short reading list on Omphalos:
  • Omphalos hypothesis: the Wikipedia article on the subject which I also linked to above. This will give you a good background.
  • The Return of the Navel, by Robert Price, Creation/Evolution Journal Volume 1 No. 2, Fall 1980, reposted on the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) website. This article is how I first heard of Omphalos (yes, I have been involved in studying your mishigas for that long ... well, starting a year later actually, when I was surprised that creationism was still around so I decided to take a serious look into its claims only to discover them to be pure bullshit -- refer to my Why I Oppose Creation Science (or, How I got to Here from There) for that story).
  • THE OMPHALOS ARGUMENT: my reposting of the article on the subject that I wrote and uploaded to the Science & Religion Library on CompuServe in 1990 -- I created my initial creation/evolution website primarily to repost the content I had written for CompuServe, though I have added to it since then.
    This page was researched heavily from the NCSE article above.
Now go do your homework while I run some errands.
PS
Be sure to pay attention to Last-Thursdayism which teaches that everything was actually created last Thursday, all with a false history that never happened, including our false memories of that false past. Of course, they are denounced as heretics by the Last-Wednesdayists for having gotten the day wrong.
And a more radical church preaches that that all happened just five minutes ago.
Share and enjoy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 10:50 PM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 2:43 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 14 of 137 (921211)
01-03-2025 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by dwise1
01-03-2025 2:28 PM


back you go
Go back into the corner, learn some manners, then get back to us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 01-03-2025 2:28 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by dwise1, posted 01-03-2025 2:47 PM dad3 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 6183
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 15 of 137 (921212)
01-03-2025 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by dad3
01-03-2025 2:43 PM


Re: back you go
Cut the crap and do your homework, you idiot.
Start with telling us what stupid lying creationist you're getting your stupid bullshit from.
And then DO YOUR HOMEWORK! We've all heard your nonsense many times before, so we know a lot more about it than you do. At the very least, you should make some kind of effort to try to catch up with us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 2:43 PM dad3 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025