Did God create a 4 billion year old Earth in 7 days?
- TimLv 72 months agoFavorite Answer
The dome that formed on Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and Surtsey Island that formed in the 1960's are millions of years old so I suppose so.
- PaulLv 72 months ago
Obviously, the term "days" in this biblical text simply means "periods of time". "Day" doesn't mean a period of 24 hours anywhere in the universe but on Earth? Do you really think God timed the creation of the entire universe on the length of the period of revolution of one little planet in one solar system in one galaxy out of millions?
- DavidLv 72 months ago
You are conflating naturalism/materialism with Creation in Genesis? Why not combine Hitler and Ghandi? Your Uniformitarian bias is showing. Long Ages, slow deposition over millions/billions of years? It merely shows that you confirm nothing, have no basis for truth or have any idea how to arrive there.
Instead of millions/billions of opinions, let’s try reality, facts in evidence in the detail and integrity of truth, shall we?
The eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 is often regarded as the most significant geologic event of the twentieth century; only two hours from Portland, scientists could document the eruption in unprecedented detail.
When the volcano initially erupted, the top 1,300 feet (395 m) of its summit was blasted away and slid down the slopes, leaving an enormous horseshoe-shaped crater. Within days the release of pent-up pressures allowed lava to flow out of the vent so that a dome began to build and harden.
Five times in subsequent months, eruptions destroyed each growing lava dome. The sixth dome was formed in the six years between October 18, 1980, and October 26, 1986. Seventeen lava flows, consisting of more than 2.6 billion cubic feet (74 million m3) of lava, built this new dome, which towered 1,150 feet (350 m) into the air.
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.
The original number of unstable atoms can be known. Scientists assume how many unstable (parent) atoms existed at the beginning based on how many parent and daughter atoms are left today. This is a claim that requires evidence of proof, but cannot possibly be "known." First fail.
The rate of change was constant. Scientists assume that radioactive atoms have changed at the same rate throughout time, ignoring the impact of Creation or changes during Noah's Flood. It's like saying the weather was constant or the earth was constant and stable, unshifting, 2nd Fail. Nothing is constant over millions/billions of years.
The daughter atoms were all produced by radioactive decay. Scientists assume that no outside forces, such as flowing water, contaminated the sample. There is no way to "know" what the situation was a billion years ago, let alone since. 3rd fail, or strike, whichever you prefer.
As you can plainly see, these assumptions cannot be proven in the present with facts, so how can you call the result a fact? Only a liar would represent unfounded opinion as truth. The conclusions are pointless if the assumptions are messed up.
The process of fossilization replaces organic material with minerals so a fossil has no carbon to date. The age of fossil layers was estimated in the 19th century long before the discovery of radiation or radiometric dating. The dates were estimated based on the assumed time it would take for evolution to produce the fossils observed. (again, that is called circular reasoning, because the age of the fossils was based on the assumption of evolution it cannot also be used to argue evidence of evolution). In most cases nobody went back to conduct radiometric dating on existing finds because of the expense so we really don't have an objective date.
Geology, just like evolution itself, radiometric dating has fallen prey to circular reasoning. What is dated using radiometric methods are rocks in the layer or immediately above or below the layer most times. The problem is, nobody knows what the proportion of parent to daughter element was when the rock was formed. So you could have a rock from today with 50% parent element and 50% daughter element and if you were to estimate the date by that assuming the rocks were formed with 100% parent element your test would indicate the rock is millions or billions of years old depending on which dating method were used.
Geologists agree there is no way of knowing the proportion of parent or daughter elements when the rock was formed so they use an isochron to estimate that based on other information.. Guess what that other information is? Did you say Index fossils! Yes, another assumption. Thats right, they will measure the proportion of Parent and Daughter element, then based on the index fossils establish the estimated age the rock should be and then they will calibrate the isochron (adjust the ASSUMED proportion of daughter element) to match.
So you see the radiometric dates are in fact 'calibrated' to match the assumed age based on index fossils which were established by the assumption of evolution and what you actually have is just another layer of circular reasoning. Now they have come up with another approach that can be applied on about 15 to 20% of specimens that have multiple products of decay, but this approach has additional assumptions that are not very likely to be valid and still uses index fossils for calibration so even though it sounds more objective at the end of the day it really is more assumptive than the existing method.
Don’t believe me? Talk to any Certified Radiographer in your area where there’s a thermal ionization mass spectrometer, probably at a university. Not one of those operators believe what you do, that some machine can measure an absolute ancient date from a rock. Maybe you’re thinking of carbon dating which only works out to a few thousands of years, not millions.
Here’s a post on Radiometric Dating by a Certified Radiographer
In the end, evolutionists have an arbitrary (not absolute) OPINION about millions/billions of years, not a time machine that measures time.
The “deep time” idea flows out of naturalistic assumptions, not scientific observations. Old age of millions/billions of years is not a scientific measurement or observation, but an assumption about the past.
Atheists actually believe the nonsense they have been spoon fed or want to believe so badly they have become willfully stupid and are blind to how nonsensical evolution is.
Empirical science (that which is observable, testable and reproducible) ultimately leads to creation and the creator. All of the scientific claims asserted to challenge creation and so the creator lack empirical support.
And I want to thank everyone here for demonstrating in such a simple and elegant manner the real nature of most of the evidence used to support abiogenesis or evolution or even millions/billions of opinions about millions/billions of years by nutjob atheists: Pure fantasy!
- Ernest SLv 72 months ago
How old was Adam when he was created?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- TrilobitemeLv 52 months ago
- Anonymous2 months ago
^ Radiometric dating failure
- 2 months ago
The magic god fairy created nothing.
Here in the 21st century we have something called "science". Look it up.
- 2 months ago
According to the Bible, no he didn't, But I know of a man that made a 1,000 year old chair in two days.
- ?Lv 72 months ago
See for yourself in Exodus 20:11.