For whatever - your insult, and radioisotope dating

If this was from a volcanic eruption that cooled underwater, where is the evidence of pillowing?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

kjv Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

---

Do you know what a metaphor is? There's no reason to not read genesis literally, but then go and read a clearly metaphorical sentence (note the "as") literally.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Well, if you do indeed prefer fantasy to reality as you claim, that's your right. Please stop claiming that your babblings correspond with reality in some way.

mark24, There is a lot of mysteries, not sure how Walt explains your Tektites, though he seemed to believe a lot of sediments got launched into the upper atmosphere, explaining the sediments that buried the fossils, mud flows, sediment stratification, etc... however, he mentions basalt comprising 35 percent of the sediments coming out of the fountains of the deep, perhaps some of these basalt lava's cooled to form your Tektites, that they came out from the inner earth, iridium, shocked quartz, etc...

HI, thanks for the reply. OK, there seems to be a few problems with your counting that perhaps you could clarify for me.I am quite happy to go with a day being a thousand years to God, I have no problem with that. But the sun was created on day 4, which would make it, by your calculations, 10,000 years, that being 4 ‘God Days’ of a thousand years plus the 6000 of the genealogies.Also, if a day is like a thousand years to God then why isn’t a year like 365,000 years to God?Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the universe is the 7 creation days plus 6000 x 365 days which would total 2 190 000, plus the 7000 years of creation week = 2 197 000 years? (I haven’t bothered about leap years because I hate maths!)I don’t see how you can have a day equalling a thousand years for one part of the Bible then suddenly taking a day to be 24 hours in the rest of the Bible, why the inconsistency?Thanks.Brian.

Whatever, I don't care what Walt Brown believes, I care what you can show. Can you provide a single example of tektites being formed by volcanic activity? If not I suggest you drop it, wishful thinking ain't evidence.http://mineral.galleries.com/...neralo/tektites/tektites.htm

quote:

---

Tektites are still poorly understood. They are irregularly- and at times intricately-shaped nodules and blobs of a glassy substance. They have no crystal structure, and are therefore similar to obsidian, but are not associated with volcanic processes. Their chemistry is unique and somewhat unexplained.

---

Tektites are glassy spherules & are not associated with volcanism, period. You would find tektites concentrated around volcanoes if that were so, & they aren't. The Iridium levels in magma/lava is at too low a concentration to explain the Iridium spike caused by any level of volcanism. Shocked quartz isn't associated with volcanism, either, it is normal quartz subjected to immense pressure during impacts, this is why it is found in & around impact craters & not volvanoes. OK?Moreover, you have failed to explain why these particulartektites all date to 65myo, & so does the Iridium spike, & so does the shocked quartz. All are found layered together so perfectly. There was a flood going on, remember, or did you forget that 65% of your alleged sediments were scoured from the surface by water? Strange that layering of differently sized particles is possible in circumstances where hydrodynamic sorting should render it impossible, wouldn't you say?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-06-2004]

Brian, This is how I see it, God positioned the sun and the moon to be of equal size in the sky to provide light for the creatures he created on day 5, I believe the sun became a star on Gods first creation day, however, on day 4, he set the sun in the firmament, I interprete this to mean that he set the earth at a certain distance from the sun and moon so they are the same size in the sky, this is how God made the sun and the moon to be lights unto the earth, the stars were already shining but he positioned the orbit around the sun to set the stars in the night sky, he did all this for lights, for signs and seasons,and to measure days, months, and years, etc...
P.S. I'm not a theologian, but just feel that the first 3,000 years were for the melting of the waters, the separation of the waters, and for the stablishing of plant life, but on day 4 he positioned the lights in the sky, for the creatures he created on day 5 and day 6, and when God was done he saw that it was good, etc..[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-06-2004]

quote:

---

I believe the sun became a star on Gods first creation day

---

Once again, I have to ask you to define "became a star", since there is no moment when a star is born, it's a process stretched over millions of years. Furthermore, our sun shows all evidence of being a main sequence star about halfway through its fuel which would occur for a star like our sun at 4 1/2 billion years.

quote:

---

P.S. I'm not a theologian, but just feel that the first 3,000 years were for the melting of the waters, the separation of the waters, and for the stablishing of plant life, but on day 4 he positioned the lights in the sky, for the creatures he created on day 5 and day 6, and when God was done he saw that it was good, etc..

---

And the plants were growing using what energy source..... ?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Hi, thanks again for the quick reply.I do not want to nitpick but your interpretation is in conflict with scripture. To believe that the sun became a star on the first day is contrary to what the Bible says, it specifically says that the sun didnt become a star until the 4th day. Remember the Bible says God 'created' the sun on day 4 the sun is a star, so if was created on day one, why create it again on day 4?One fatal flaw for your theory about dating the age of man is that man was created on day 6, according to your theory the 7th day would have been a thousand years, yet Adam died aged 930 years, he would have died before God placed him in Eden.There are quite a few other things wrong with this post, but as you say this is your interpretation of the Bible text then I cannot argue with it, you can interpret it any way you wish, it is your faith not mine.What I can say is that I haven't heard this interpretation before and that there are internal errors in your interpretation, and I think that your interpretation is a very unusual one, but it is up to you what you want to believe.Thanks for answering my questions.Brian.

I think we get the gist of what you believe, it is what you can prove with actual evidence that is lacking. I hold the belief that the Bible was written by Men. Whether it is inspired by God or not is left to the theologians, but the fact remains that it was written by men. Men are fallible and God often speaks using symbolic language, refer to Revelations for endless examples. So, we have a book written by men who are inspired by a diety that almost always uses symbolic language. I say look to the creation to find the age, not the writings of man, and that is what science does. You take a literal interpretation as true without anything to back it up and expect us to swallow it whole while we have real rocks we can date that say otherwise. I will take physical reality over conjecture from scripture anyday when it concerns the natural world. The Bible is a book of theology and philosophy, not natural history.

quote:

---

I think we get the gist of what you believe, it is what you can prove with actual evidence that is lacking

---

I personally don't care if Whatever proves it or not, I would just like to see *any* evidence at all, since we've been presenting piles and piles of counterevidence.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Brian, Your right it seems the geneologies theologians calculate that the earth is 6,000 years, however, since Adam was born and the flood took place 1,656 years elapsed, this would place the flood happening 4,344 years ago. But this is likely different from the creation week, meaning possibly almost 6,000 year passed before God created man,and Gods day of rest likely blended into the theologians 6,000 years, so the earth is likely between 11,000 to 12,000 years old, since the sun became a star, I don't see a problem when Adam died, it mattered not if he died in God's day of rest, likely the biblical flood, happened after God rested 1000 years, up to 1656 years after Adam was created, placing the flood happening, 4,344 years ago, just thought it was interesting, etc...Adam 130 years when he begat Seth
Seth 105 years when he begat Enos
Enos 90 years when he begat Cainan
Cainan 70 years when he begat Mahalaleel
Mahalaleel 65 years begat Jared
Jared 162 years begat Enoch
Enoch 65 years begat Methselah
Methuselah 187 years begat Lamech
Lamech 182 years begat Noah
Noah 500 years begat Shem
Shem 100 years begat Arphaxad
Total 1,656 yearsNoah was 600 years old when the flood happened.
total 1056 years + 600 years= 1656 years since Adam was created.Arphaxad 35 years begat Salah
Salah 30 years begat Eber
Eber 34 years begat Peleg
Peleg 30 begat Reu
Reu 32 years begat Serug
Serug 30 years begat Nahor
Nahor 29 year begat Terah
Terah 70 years begat Abram
total 290 years1656 + 290 = 1946 years to Abraham's BirthAbraham was probably around 100 years old when he begat Isaac so we need only approximately 2000 years from Abraham to Jesus Birth to satisfy the 6,000 years from Adams birth to the present.[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-06-2004]

Although I'm not an admin, I request that you take such discussion to an appropriate topic. This topic is on the subject of your claims about radioisotope dating.Still waiting for some evidence and an apology for your insult about "rigged" dating.

JonF, Snellings wood fossil is not petrified, it was found in sandstone encased in basalt, shielded from water contamination, until you prove that C-14 can be generated in the sediments, you really are being untruthful, this fossil can not be old and young, and given how unstable C-14 is, even you should realize the fossil record has been proven young, or at the least you can not date them by the basalt sediments, etc...
P.S. The paleontologist rely on your faith that the fossils can be dated by the sediments that buried them, however, you believe you can date fossils by the sediments, in spite of the evidence that the basalt that entombed Snellings fossil dated 20 + million years, this surely should confirm you can not date the fossils by dating the basalt lava's, unless of course you can prove that C-14 can be formed with in the basalts that entombed the sandstone the fossil was found, etc...

whatever, where is your support of your claim that "the argon potassium dating half life scale is rigged so all rocks will date millions of years old"?Snelling's making the positive claim about what he has; it's up to him to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.He has yet to prove that his sample is wood ... until he does, there is no reason to believe that it is wood, since an expert who has investigated the sample and has no axe to grind has said that it isn't. From Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?, the manager of the laboratory the did the dating wrote:

quote:

---

I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample. I think maybe this concretion was formed significantly later than Triassic period and I do not think that is a very rare case when you can find younger formation in the old deposits especially if it is sand or sandstones which could be easy infiltrated with oil solutions.

---

There's no need to worry about contamination in situ. It is up to Snelling to establish that the sample was not comtaminated after being removed from the Earth; that may be impossible now, since he has handled the sample very casually. It's easy to add enough carbon to a sample that has none or near none just by careless handling and inadequate isolation from the environment. It is also known that the procedure employed in preparing Snelling's sample does not remove all organic contamination (see the link posted above).If Snelling actually has a sample of wood encased in rock that dates to millions of years, he has a scientific revolution in his hands. However, he's acted like a man who knows that his claims won't stand up to close scrutiny. He's published only in his vanity press¹ and made no attempt to duplicate the results. He has refused to let others examine the sample.He hasn't provided appropriate evidence for his claims, and he isn't trying to do so. All in all, the best explanation of the evidence is that it's just one more in a long list of creationist frauds. He's preaching to the gullible who want to believe and don't know enough to be appropriately critical; he can't cut the mustard in a real scientific forum.Snelling's "wood" is not sufficient to call our dates into question. If he wants to be heard, let him bring real evidence to the table.--------------------¹Don't trot out the old chestnut about creationists being unable to publish in mainstream journals because of prejudice unless you include a list of articles that have been submitted and rejected for invalid reasons, and the evidence that they were rejected for invlaid reasons. If Snelling's sample is really what he says it is, he could get published in any of a hundred journals.[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-06-2004]