Oldest rock in the world 2 days after creation (embedded age)

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Metamictisation can make rocks look very old. It's even one of the ways we ID Prenephelean(presolar) rocks.

Which is quite bogus since geologists and scientists know the difference between rocks that have undergone metamictisation and those that haven't.

 

[BCP1928]

They do deal in claims about how we got here and that is based on the natural processes. If there is more, then all their models are useless at best. The truth is that most of the world does not accept that there is only the natural. Christians don't.

Of course they don't. But most of them aren't YECs, either. YECism is a phenomenon largely restricted to Protestantism, because of the eccentric notions that branch of Christianity has about the role of the Bible in faith.

A model of creation based only on the natural is a religion as much as any based on creation involving the supernatural because science does not know either way

Actually, it's metaphysical materialism, (as opposed to the methodological naturalism of science) which is not a religion per se

 

[AV1611VET]

Yours is nothing but post hoc logic.

Ya ... you can add trees and algae to His deception also; since trees and algae, as AI Overview puts it:

Trees and algae both significantly contribute to the environment by producing oxygen through photosynthesis, cleaning the air, regulating climate, providing habitats for wildlife, and helping to mitigate the effects of climate change; trees primarily benefit land ecosystems by providing shade, reducing erosion, and filtering water, while algae plays a crucial role in aquatic ecosystems by producing a large portion of the world's oxygen and serving as a food source for many marine organisms.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ya ... you can add trees and algae to His deception also; since trees and algae, as AI Overview puts it:

Trees and algae both significantly contribute to the environment by producing oxygen through photosynthesis, cleaning the air, regulating climate, providing habitats for wildlife, and helping to mitigate the effects of climate change; trees primarily benefit land ecosystems by providing shade, reducing erosion, and filtering water, while algae plays a crucial role in aquatic ecosystems by producing a large portion of the world's oxygen and serving as a food source for many marine organisms.

And that has anything to do with your embedded age claim... how?

 

[Frank Robert]

John didn't, so why would anyone need to explain the unexplained? No one was there and privy to how God created the universe and world with a word. How in heaven's name would anyone have 'explicit details' about that miracle?

No. John says without Jesus nothing that was made was made and that all things were made by Him. That is plainly stating that He created. When you create all things and nothing that was created was not made by you, that is not a 'role'! Being the creator is not a role. It is a title and description of God about what He did. Only for the naturalonlydunnitall folks would they begrudgingly attribute some bystander or impotent spectator sort of role to God Almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

It was planned and executed. Part of what creation was all about.

That was one reason for sure. We were meant to reproduce.

In a way we might apply that to what was done. We do not know or need to know all His reasons for doing things or creating the way He did.

Yes, Once we believe that Jesus created all things including the first man from whom He took a bone and made the first woman, that is a complete barrier to believing anything else. Particularly something directly opposite and contrary.

The stated religion of people pushing lies and contradicting Jesus and Scripture does not matter. It is one thing to try and make the natural world a better place and learning how it works. It is quite another thing to look at how it works and claim that it was therefore not created by God.

There is belief that the natural only Christ omitting, creation ignoring and denying interpretation of natural processes represent ridiculous ages pre dating creation by many billions of years. That is a choice of belief. It rests on nothing but the natural world and how it now works. I think AV framed the term for that false science aptly by calling it 'blasphemy' That is precisely what it is, open blasphemy. A Satanic inspired family of lies with zero evidence that is thrust on people as scientific fact. An insult and attack on children and people of faith and God and Scripture. Defamation of character. The lie is not that there are no processes in nature that happen. Or that if we imagine how long these and these alone would take to make all that we see, we would not come up with astronomical numbers. The lie is claiming creation was due to the natural and not God. No. The natural is due to creation!!

None at all, when it comes to what God is all about or the supernatural or the naturalonly.

You appear to to be stuck with an imaginary problem. Believing God (the trinity) initiated the creation of the universe through natural processes, as understood by science, is not inherently illogical or incompatible with religious faith, as it allows for a God who operates through established natural laws.

I have never head the term "Satanic family". I tried looking it and got blank results leading me to believe that it is strictly in YOUR imagination. If you have any doubts or questions about what I or what Catholics believe regarding creation I encourage you to refer to the Niacin Creed. In short: Catholics believe that God created the universe and everything in it including the Earth, but are not taught to take the Genesis creation story literally.

 

[Frank Robert]

Would you at least TRY to understand what I'm saying?

Perhaps I am dull but I don't know if you are agreeing or disagreeing.

 

[dlamberth]

Where you been?

I said God created the world 6000 years ago and put age into the rocks to help regulate the temperature of the earth.

I thought you've been saying that when God cleaned up the mess after the Noah flood that's when God put age into stuff.

 

[dlamberth]

Buddy, you're still putting forward a deception and thus a deceptive God. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Truth spoken!

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought you've been saying that when God cleaned up the mess after the Noah flood that's when God put age into stuff.

Negative.

When did this embedding age begin and end? Is it continuous, or did it occur just during the creation week?

Began: 4004 BC
Ended: 4004 BC

It occurred only during the creation week.

 

[dlamberth]

It's a LOT BETTER than you're suggestion that He did it to be deceptive.

You got it backwards. God did not embed old age into His Creation.
But those who are saying He did, they are the ones making God "look" like a decepter.

 

[AV1611VET]

You got it backwards. God did not embed old age into His Creation.
But those who are saying He did, they are the ones making God "look" like a decepter.

Those who say God didn't embed age into His creation had better come up with something better than "deception."

Especially since I've shown how and why embedded age is a better method than any other.

ETA: And before anyone says I have it backwards, they'd better convince me they understand it forwards first.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Those who say God didn't embed age into His creation had better come up with something better than "deception."

Especially since I've shown how and why embedded age is a better method than any other.

ETA: And before anyone says I have it backwards, they'd better convince me they understand it forwards first.

You've not once shown why or how embedded age is a better method than any other!

 

[Frank Robert]

Those who say God didn't embed age into His creation had better come up with something better than "deception."

Especially since I've shown how and why embedded age is a better method than any other.

ETA: And before anyone says I have it backwards, they'd better convince me they understand it forwards first.

"Embedded age" is a weak argument against evolution because it does not provide any mechanism for how aging could be actively selected for by natural selection. Meaning, there's no clear evolutionary advantage to having a built-in aging process that would lead to its preservation in a species. The argument is senseless as it does not explain why it would be beneficial enough to evolve and persist over time.

 

[AV1611VET]

You've not once shown why or how embedded age is a better method than any other!

Thanks for the QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

It makes sense for you not so much for others.

Isn't that just what I said?

Don't tell me something that "only makes sense to me" is "deceptive."

How do you know it's "deceptive," if it doesn't make sense to you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for the QED.

Stop it. Chapter and verse, or thread and post rather, for you showing or even saying that it's a better method. Except for the post above, since that's just you claiming that it's a better method not saying that is is a better method.

 

[truthpls]

You're the one, and also AV too, who is claiming that God created the world 6000 years ago but put age into the rocks to make it look significantly older than it is. So the deception is 1000% on your end and yours alone.

No He made rocks to be rocks. You just come along with a magic wand of natural only interpreting of all things and stick old ages on the poor rock. Presto! Then you blame God for tricking you no less. Weird

Just because you want to follow a claim put forward by American Fundamentalists in the 60s is no skin off the nose of the question of salvation.

Genesis and Isaiah and Psalms and the gospels and epistles were all written long before that actually. It is cognitive dissonance to blame belief in the creation by God on some people decades ago in the USA

We'll only really find out when we finally meet Him in the end. As long as the Mormon's aren't the ones who are right that's all that really matters.

I guess I am luck I don't know what they think

 

[truthpls]

Metamictisation can make rocks look very old. It's even one of the ways we ID Prenephelean(presolar) rocks.

Looking up the definition of your 64 dollar word I see this

"the process or condition of becoming amorphous due to the loss of crystalline structure, typically as a result of the radioactivity of uranium or thorium contained in a substance"

That would take great time. If you were in the garden of Eden with equipment and power a day after the world was created (that would still be before man was created) and told us that some rock looked old due to 'Metamictisation' that might be the first joke in the garden of Eden

 

[Frank Robert]

Isn't that just what I said?

Don't tell me something that "only makes sense to me" is "deceptive."

How do you know it's "deceptive," if it doesn't make sense to you?

I did not claim, or otherwise indicate that embedded age was "deceptive". I provided arguments that it is weak and senseless. Perhaps you are able to provide evidence otherwise. If so please do.

This is what I wrote: "Embedded age" is a weak argument against evolution because it does not provide any mechanism for how aging could be actively selected for by natural selection. Meaning, there's no clear evolutionary advantage to having a built-in aging process that would lead to its preservation in a species. The argument is senseless as it does not explain why it would be beneficial enough to evolve and persist over time.

 

[truthpls]

Of course they don't. But most of them aren't YECs, either. YECism is a phenomenon largely restricted to Protestantism, because of the eccentric notions that branch of Christianity has about the role of the Bible in faith

That is another issue. Most still accept that there is the supernatural. Science doesn't and for no reason! Science then is the odd man out here.

Actually, it's metaphysical materialism, (as opposed to the methodological naturalism of science) which is not a religion per se

As long as they realize that the natural only range and scope and jurisdiction of science cannot cover where we came from because obviously there is more, I win.