Does this support Creationism or Evolutionism?

[37818]

Well you are an old earther and believe in millions of millions of years, which is science that dates back to the Enlightenment although the idea goes back to the Greeks and the Hindus.

Please pay attention here. As a new Christian I originally could not accept the literal 6 day account. 1962 on. As an older Christian, after I understood the implications of a global flood, I came to understand that the 6 day account where actual earth days. This is 1968 on. What ever the truth is in the matter, as I am able to understand it I will believe it. Now matching evidence for the global flood view is on both sides of the Atlantic. Now the radiological dating, as I understanding it makes the current separation of the continents to be over a span of about 300 million years. Now I am open to the idea that they separated in year of the flood itself. What evidence can you present to account for the graduated dating the solidifed rock from bottom of the Atlantic trench to the coasts? As for OEC who hold to a universal flood, fine. What they have not produced is the geographical identity of that universal local flood.

 

[Reformed1689]

Now the radiological dating, as I understanding it makes the current separation of the continents to be over a span of about 300 million years.

Surely you know that radiological dating is not accurate. You do different radiological dating methods on the same rock and you will get two very different "ages."

This is also based on a lot of assumptions that the chemical makeup of that rock has always been the same as well as other assumptions.

We also know that we have shown live dinosaur tissue. If they were millions of years old, as claimed, then there is no possible way for this to occur.

 

[Yeshua1]

Surely you know that radiological dating is not accurate. You do different radiological dating methods on the same rock and you will get two very different "ages."

This is also based on a lot of assumptions that the chemical makeup of that rock has always been the same as well as other assumptions.

We also know that we have shown live dinosaur tissue. If they were millions of years old, as claimed, then there is no possible way for this to occur.

We also have dating from Mt St Helen that should be decades old, but pulls up thousands of years old!

 

[Reformed1689]

We also have dating from Mt St Helen that should be decades old, but pulls up thousands of years old!

Exactly

 

[37818]

We also have dating from Mt St Helen that should be decades old, but pulls up thousands of years old!

Is there a known igneous rock incurion into the Mount Saint Helen sediment which radiologically dates before the event?

 

[church mouse guy]

Please pay attention here. As a new Christian I originally could not accept the literal 6 day account. 1962 on. As an older Christian, after I understood the implications of a global flood, I came to understand that the 6 day account where actual earth days. This is 1968 on. What ever the truth is in the matter, as I am able to understand it I will believe it. Now matching evidence for the global flood view is on both sides of the Atlantic. Now the radiological dating, as I understanding it makes the current separation of the continents to be over a span of about 300 million years. Now I am open to the idea that they separated in year of the flood itself. What evidence can you present to account for the graduated dating the solidifed rock from bottom of the Atlantic trench to the coasts? As for OEC who hold to a universal flood, fine. What they have not produced is the geographical identity of that universal local flood.

We know that the sediments at the bottoms of the oceans are in line with a young earth. The problem with millions and millions of years is that half-life dating assumes that the rates of decay are unchanged but there is no evidence to prove that. Also, such dating has been proven to be unreliable as others have shown above in the thread.

 

[Yeshua1]

We know that the sediments at the bottoms of the oceans are in line with a young earth. The problem with millions and millions of years is that half-life dating assumes that the rates of decay are unchanged but there is no evidence to prove that. Also, such dating has been proven to be unreliable as others have shown above in the thread.

The biggest objections to the extremely old earth/Universe is that it fails to see genesis as an historically literal account of history, and fails to explain how there can be death before there was the Fall!

 

[37818]

. . . that half-life dating assumes that the rates of decay are unchanged . . .

The evidence has been that half-life has not changed. The evidence is it is not affected by heat or pressure.

 

[Reformed1689]

The evidence has been that half-life has not changed. The evidence is it is not affected by heat or pressure.

Evidence can't show this because it has not been observed for millions of years to confirm.

 

[church mouse guy]

The evidence has been that half-life has not changed. The evidence is it is not affected by heat or pressure.

Thanks.

There is no chain of custody to show this one way or another, which is the reason that it is not reliable. As was pointed out, it missed Mt. St. Helen's samples totally.

Secondly, the Genesis Flood was catastrophic on a massive scale and no one knows exactly what that altered but much was altered because people now have to eat meat as veganism makes one ill whereas plants alone nourished life before. The world we live in is the wreck of the Genesis Flood.

 

[37818]

. . . it missed Mt. St. Helen's samples totally.

Where is the molten rock incursion at Mt. St. Hellen into the sediment that was or was not radiologically dated? Sedimentry rock is always dated by such incursions. That solidified rock is dated using its radioactive isotopes. The sedimentry rock is of course older than the incursion of molten rock into it.

 

[church mouse guy]

Where is the molten rock incursion at Mt. St. Hellen into the sediment that was or was not radiologically dated? Sedimentry rock is always dated by such incursions. That solidified rock is dated using its radioactive isotopes. The sedimentry rock is of course older than the incursion of molten rock into it.

Thanks!

As I understand it, they sent samples of the molten rock from the volcano to several different labs and all of them came back with long periods of time.

"In June 1992 a large sample was collected from the surface of one of the last lava flows, probably from the year 1986. Samples were sent to a laboratory in 1996 to be radiometrically dated using the potassium-argon method. This method measures the amount of argon atoms that presumably formed from the radioactive decay of potassium atoms in the lava after it cooled. The rock was a mere ten years old, but the potassium-argon “clock” dated the rock at 350,000 years old, and minerals within it dated at up to 2.4 million years old...."

Lasting Lessons from Mount St. Helens

"Because of the Mount St. Helens eruption, scientists know that sedimentary rock layers can form in only hours, rather than requiring millions of years. It also showed that radiometric dating is not necessarily accurate and that God gave animals and plants the ability to rapidly re-colonize barren land. And the improved seismic prediction techniques that Mount St. Helens facilitated have also increased scientific understanding of earth's geologic activities."

30 Years Later, the Lessons from Mount St. Helens

"Rock samples from a lava dome within the Mount St Helens crater, USA, were dated using the potassium-argon method. Whole-rock samples gave an age of 350,000 years.3 When some of the amphibole minerals in the rock sample were extracted and analyzed separately, their age was more than double at 900,000 years. Two mineral samples of a different mineral, pyroxene, gave an age of 1,700,000 and 2,800,000 years. Which age is right? None, actually. The lava dome formed after Mount St Helens exploded in 1980 and the samples were just 10 years old. Here are more conflicting results between dating methods."

Radioactive dating anomalies - creation.com

 

[Kathryn Ahl]

Genesis 1:1 and the known expanding universe at the rate measured for Hubbles Law ran backwards calculates to 13.7 billion years time.

Genesis 1 states the gods made the universe out of existing matter. Matter did not exist until about 800,000 years after the Big Bang started.

 

[Reformed1689]

Genesis 1 states the gods made the universe out of existing matter. Matter did not exist until about 800,000 years after the Big Bang started.

No it doesn't say anything like that at all. Where does it say that?

 

[37818]

Genesis 1 states the gods made the universe out of existing matter. Matter did not exist until about 800,000 years after the Big Bang started.

No, it says God (in the plural) yes. Matter is another form of energy. E=mc^2 as I think you know. Now think, assuming the expanding universe based on it coming from some kind of singularity. As we look back in time the universe was smaller, Effectively as we look in any direction we are looking toward its center. Everywhere else it has no center. Except were we supposed it to have began. Now whether it has an unique origin or it is from preexistent matter as you argued there has to be an uncaused existence. Notice I am not saying uncaused "cause." Now uncaused existence is fundamentally the identity of God, the self Existent One. Uncaused Existence has no cause. And any cause whether unique or having no first cause needs an uncaused existence. Which happen, as I said, to be God.

 

[37818]

Genesis 1 states the gods made the universe out of existing matter. Matter did not exist until about 800,000 years after the Big Bang started.

Now Genesis 1:1, starts off with :"In the beginning God [Hebrew plural] created . . . ." It has long been my understanding that "created" here has the explicit connotation of an ex nihilo origin for the "heaven and earth." That the "heaven [Hebrew plural] and earth" where not made from anything preexisting.