Inspecting a rock the day after creation

Neither the first man nor woman came that way.

Nothing dates billions of years. Your naturalonlydunnitall dogma has led you astray

No fossils are dead creature remains. Your dream dates seem to cloud the issue in your mind

What we observe was created and then affected in the last several thousand years. Happy now?

No. Things died later

Your point that creation denies creation and the creator is absurd. Do you think oranges deny oranges also?

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?And what the actual fuck are you talking about? "that way"? What way?I shared an old joke. Here's what I wrote: OK, so you cannot recognize a joke when you see one since everything you post is a joke.So what the actual fuck are you talking about? What is your "reply" supposed to have to do with anything that had been said?

I never said any such thing! Please at least try to refrain from lying. I know that lying is in your nature as a creationist, but please at least try not lying.My point is that CREATIONISM (AKA "creation science"; ie, YOUR FALSE THEOLOGY) denies THE CREATION and THE CREATOR (who I EXPLICITLY identify as NOT being your personal deceiving god).Since you are demonstrating yourself to be incapable of reading, here is what I wrote: READ IT AGAIN, you fucking idiot!And if you need to see the reasoning behind that, then read Message 56 as I already told you to do: What is wrong with you?

quote:

---

Scientists examining that rock, in Eden, if they were transported there, would declare the rock to be billions of years old.

---

Why? It doesn't seem like we can expect that there would be a ratio of isotopes that would lead to that conclusion if the rocks were freshly created. Why would God put an amount of each isotope in there that would look like billions of years, instead of millions, or thousands, or only put the parent isotope so it looks as young as it actually is?

That has to do with the first man and woman not coming by the natural only

Your claim is empty. Creation in the bible is clear from cover to cover, Capice?

Why? Because the same old rock as the example inn the OP would likely be there. Since they were created that way and there would be no way to declare it deceptive. The confusion comes when people look at the natural processes that came to exist after creation, and use those and those alone to tell us where the rock came from. Simple

Since dad3 mentioned isotopes, everyone has assumed that rock to be igneous, the only type of stone that could lend itself to radiometric dating. But couldn't it also be sedimentary or metamorphic rock?If sedimentary, then the layers in the rock would be evidence of a long process of sedimentary deposition (material being deposited into those layers) followed by lithification (turning that deposited sediment into stone) followed by erosion which broke that part of lithified strata into a separate rock then transporting it to where we found it. Of course, that leaves out where that original sediment came from, namely older geological formations with their own histories of formation which then suffered erosion followed by the transportation of that material to the stone's area of sedimentary deposition.So a sedimentary rock would be evidence of a long sequence of events that, in this scenario, had never happened, but rather dad3's god had planted in order to deceive us.A metamorphic rock would be even more troublesome, since first an igneous or sedimentary formation had to have formed and then be changed through heat and pressure. Again, a long sequence of events taking a lot of time that ends up being nothing but a lie by dad3's liar god.And even if it's igneous, it had to have solidified from a melt (which is what "resets" its radiometric "clock"), which can take a lot of time, especially if the pluton is large (like a batholith). YEC Dr. Kurt Wise stated that it takes a batholith about 10,000 years to completely solidify and cool (plus the size of its crystals, its "grain", will depend on how quickly it cooled, with finer grain indicating slower cooling, as I seem to recall) and then he took his fellow creationists to task for not being able to explain that.Plus, we're not talking about just one decay chain in igneous rock, but rather there are several that could be used, as I understand it. That they would all indicate the same age would make dad3's god's lying and deceiving far worse; just one decay chain's results could be a coincidence, but not when several independent decay chains agree with each other.And that does not even begin to address the problem of the geological formation under the Garden, with all its many layers and igneous intrusions, etc, all of which bespeak of a long and complex history that, in this scenario, never happened but rather is all part of a monstrously massive deliberate Lie.I told dad3 (Message 13) that he was using the Omphalos Argument (that God created the world with an apparent ancient age and a long complex history that had never actually happened) and how it was rejected by the public for describing God as a liar. It was a crap argument then and it still is a crap argument. I also gave him links to learn more about it. The sure bet is that he never even started to look. Instead, he not only continues to use it, but also denies that he's using it.

Your "reply" still has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that had been said.

So you can’t answer my questions and resort to silly evasions to try to hide it.