|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/22/2009 2:57:23 AM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 93
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis debated Hugh Ross in December, 2004. In this debate about the age of the earth, Jason Lisle said that the rocks that came from the Mt. Saints Helens volcanic eruption in 1980 were measured to be hundreds to thousands to millions of years old. I have some questions about this. Jason Lisle did not give enough detail. Who collected and measured the age of these rocks and how did he know that they were actually from the eruption that occured in 1980? When were these rocks collected and measured? What type of radiometric dating was used? Does anyone know about this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/22/2009 11:53:22 AM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
cih92 - Jason Lisle did not give enough detail. Who collected and measured the age of these rocks and how did he know that they were actually from the eruption that occured in 1980? When were these rocks collected and measured? What type of radiometric dating was used? Does anyone know about this?
Here is a link that refutes the various Creationist websites. I've just recently returned to the forums but am surprised to see some of the same bogus arguments still being passed around....
http://www.answersincreation.org/dacite.htm
Hope this helps ...
_____________________________
In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/22/2009 1:26:40 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4575
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Frontporch
quote:
cih92 - Jason Lisle did not give enough detail. Who collected and measured the age of these rocks and how did he know that they were actually from the eruption that occured in 1980? When were these rocks collected and measured? What type of radiometric dating was used? Does anyone know about this?
Here is a link that refutes the various Creationist websites. I've just recently returned to the forums but am surprised to see some of the same bogus arguments still being passed around....
http://www.answersincreation.org/dacite.htm
Hope this helps ...
There is a lot of good information in the article you linked to but be careful and check out everything in this article and in other articles on this site. This site plays just as fast and loose with the facts as does "Answers in Genesis" and every references should be checked for reliability or simply dismissed if you don't have the time to do so. An example of the kind of gross errors in articles on this site can be seen in this article describing the use of 'yom' in biblical Hebrew; this article is even more fraudulent than the one counter to it provided by "Answers in Genesis." Here is one of the many, many examples of fraudulent information provided in this article:
quote:
ORIGINAL: AnswersinCreation
Always
Four times yom is translated as "always," in Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7. Always here can be interpreted as a lifetime...for instance, we are to keep the commandments of the Lord always (Deut. 5:29)."
The problem is that the use of 'yom' in these passages is not simply 'yom/יום' but rather the construct 'kol-hayamim/כל־הימים' and that literally means "all of the days" or "always" (even in English!); this kind of glaring mistake is the rule rather than the exception in this article (and many others articles on this site). Many, many of the other supposed 'yom' references are references to the plural 'yamim' and not the singular 'yom' i.e. the example from 1 Ki. 11:42, "And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem..." of literally "And the days which Solomon reigned" is an idiom that we treat in English as they do in Hebrew i.e. as an undefined time period. The kind of gross error in this article is often the result of "Strong's theology" i.e. looking up references in a Strong's (or other similar) concordance and not understanding that the root provided in the reference is not the form used in the text and this kind of error demonstrates a complete lack of any knowledge of the Hebrew language. In other words, even basic knowledge in the field of study related to the topic being written about is not a requirement for articles published on this site.
FYI - I have pointed out the numerous errors in this article to the administrators of "Answers in Creation" and yet they have chosen to continue to publish this factually inaccurate information without review or comment. Like "Answers in Genesis" it appears that if something supports their viewpoint, factual errors are irrelevant.
Remember to be just as critical in your examination of the evidence when the evidence provided appears to support your own point of view.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 10/22/2009 1:41:21 PM >
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/22/2009 5:54:41 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
This is the source paper about Mt. Saint Helens:
This was part of the ICR RATE project. ICR now makes the entire 2 volume work available online here in .pdf format. Spend some time with these, and then decide for yourself if it appear Austin or the othe Phd's involved are ignorant (as claimed) about radiometric dating.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/22/2009 6:11:18 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 863
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
From the article:
quote:
Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples.
......
Notice that only one of Austin's dates is above the lower dating limit of approximately 2 million years established by Geochron Laboratories. However, rather than dealing with this issue and critically evaluating Austin's other procedures (including the unacceptable mineral and glass impurities in his 'fractions'), YECs loudly proclaim that the results are discrepant with the 1986 AD eruption. They then proceed to assault the validity of the K-Ar method. That is, rather than rejecting Austin's bogus 'message,' YECs unfairly attack the K-Ar 'messenger.'
Fascinating that a PhD would call another PhD "inexperienced". That was a foolish word to use. Austin did not submit the Mt St Helens rocks because he thought that it would be properly dated by the machine, he submitted them to show that young rocks, when the date is unknown, date as old rocks. He's making the point that when the date is unknown, it is assumed that the old date is correct.
quote:
Without properly referencing Bartelt et al.'s report, Swenson comments on one of the many criticisms of Austin's 'research':
'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'
This is the old YEC 'only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories' scam. Obviously, Swenson, like many YECs, fails to realize that scientists can successfully unravel past events without witnessing them. Forensic scientists frequently send criminals to prison without eyewitness testimony. To be exact, the recent hideous actions of the Washington DC area (USA) sniper(s) illustrate how unreliable eyewitnesses can be and how important forensic science is in solving crimes and stopping killers.
Can I just let this one speak for itself? Really, doc? This is a refutation? I'm sorry, I don't normally comment on geology topics because I'm a biologist, but this is just silly. He didn't actually answer the refutation, and I find this quality of answers from a PhD to be absolutely repulsive. The statement made Swenson was a perfectly reasonable one, and at the very least, Henke's refutation did nothing to shoot it down, if not actually confirm it by failing to give an answer.
For the record, forensic scientists use methods that can be tested against knowns and control groups.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/22/2009 6:19:08 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Frontporch
quote:
cih92 - Jason Lisle did not give enough detail. Who collected and measured the age of these rocks and how did he know that they were actually from the eruption that occured in 1980? When were these rocks collected and measured? What type of radiometric dating was used? Does anyone know about this?
Here is a link that refutes the various Creationist websites. I've just recently returned to the forums but am surprised to see some of the same bogus arguments still being passed around....
http://www.answersincreation.org/dacite.htm
Hope this helps ...
Thanks for the link, FP. I checked it out a little, tried to wade past all the ad hominem comments (that I'm sure in no way reflects on the commentor's professionalism and objectivity), to get to his explanation of why Austin's results showed such old dates. His answers were that either:
1. Argon failed to degas from the minerals before the lava hardened, or
2. The 3rd-party lab that did the testing used dirty, contaminated equipment, or
3. The lava was contanimated as it rose from the mantle.
This, of course, should raise the question as to how can we know that ANY K-Ar date does not also suffer from this? In fact, if you read the RATE material above, you'll find that is pretty much the point that the ICR team makes.
So, even though this link spends a lot of electrons debasing Austin as a person and the results of his work, his explanation for the old dates AGREES with the RATE team conclusions. The difference he seems to make is that we should not trust the dates radiometric dating gives for rocks of KNOWN AGE, but for rocks of unknown age, EVEN IF THEY GIVE THE SAME DATES as our known sample, those we should trust.
His argument seems to come to this: Austin knew the rocks were young, so he shouldn't have used K-Ar dating.
It makes one wonder, if Austin could have claimed to be ignorant of how old the samples were, would that make his results valid?
< Message edited by demolay -- 10/22/2009 6:26:57 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/22/2009 6:46:01 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 863
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
It makes one wonder, if Austin could have claimed to be ignorant of how old the samples were, would that make his results valid?
Demolay, I should buy you a beer for this one sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/23/2009 12:44:49 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4575
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
2. The 3rd-party lab that did the testing used dirty, contaminated equipment
This is a far more significant problem than you seem to realize. All radiometric dating methods are far more sensitive to the contamination of background radiation at the extreme limits of the test. This is because all radiometric dating methods work by measuring ratios and at the extreme limits a mis-measurement causes a far greater percentage of error. The reason the lab chosen wasn't certified to perform the test requested is because they didn't have the means available to "clean" the equipment.
quote:
, or
3. The lava was contanimated as it rose from the mantle.
Again, there are methods for dealing with this kind of contamination, the issue was raised because it was not demonstrated that proper methods were used to deal with this well known problem.
While there are considerable issues that should be looked at critically in the rebuttal paper provided by "Answers in Creation" and every reference should be checked, the paper wasn't entirely without merit.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/23/2009 10:00:04 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
While there are considerable issues that should be looked at critically in the rebuttal paper provided by "Answers in Creation" and every reference should be checked, the paper wasn't entirely without merit.
I generally agree with your skepticism about any work of man. It is good to critically examine all such works.
Regarding this thread on Mt St Helens though, I think its important to remember that this was not an isolated work by 1 man, but part of a concerted evaluation of radiometric dating by a team of PhD scientists. Together they conducted a plethera of radiometric tests by many different 3rd party labs, yet in every case SERIOUS questions were raised as to the reliability of the reported dates compared to "conventional wisdom" about the age of the Earth.
This is like the team of young invetigative journalist that conducted the sting operation on ACORN. If all they had was 1 example of a corrupt ACORN employee, perhaps all they found was a rotten edge of the organization. But time after time, in EVERY place they went, corruption was found; perhaps a valid conclusion should be that the whole nut is rotten.
I would also invite folks to check out the Ackowledgements section of RATE volume I here, where the list of peer reviewers of the work are listed. I counted 14 PhD reviewers in addition to the 7 PhD scientists who conducted the research and collaborated in publishing the RATE works.
For long years, evos debased creation scientists as not being "real" scientists because the didn't publish their works for peer review, and then refused to publish any work that even hinted at not toeing the evolutionary line of long ages. Now the field of creation science has grown large enough for creation scientists to organize and create their own journals and their own publications, and they are doing just that. I think RATE is a good example of how that old evo argument is wearing very, very thin.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/23/2009 10:26:16 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4575
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
For long years, evos debased creation scientists as not being "real" scientists because the didn't publish their works for peer review, and then refused to publish any work that even hinted at not toeing the evolutionary line of long ages. Now the field of creation science has grown large enough for creation scientists to organize and create their own journals and their own publications, and they are doing just that. I think RATE is a good example of how that old evo argument is wearing very, very thin.
The problem is that "peer review" that is only performed by those who agree with your presumptions is not really peer review. Yes, both sides are often guilty of choosing to only examine studies for which the conclusion are ones of which they already agree, however, this is not really genuine peer review. A good example of a genuine peer review can be seen in the peer review of Michael Behe's work on irreducible complexity; his work has been peer reviewed by those who staunchly disagree with his conclusions and has stood the test of real scrutiny.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/23/2009 1:49:52 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 863
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
For long years, evos debased creation scientists as not being "real" scientists because the didn't publish their works for peer review, and then refused to publish any work that even hinted at not toeing the evolutionary line of long ages. Now the field of creation science has grown large enough for creation scientists to organize and create their own journals and their own publications, and they are doing just that. I think RATE is a good example of how that old evo argument is wearing very, very thin.
The problem is that "peer review" that is only performed by those who agree with your presumptions is not really peer review. Yes, both sides are often guilty of choosing to only examine studies for which the conclusion are ones of which they already agree, however, this is not really genuine peer review. A good example of a genuine peer review can be seen in the peer review of Michael Behe's work on irreducible complexity; his work has been peer reviewed by those who staunchly disagree with his conclusions and has stood the test of real scrutiny.
Wow, so you checked the faith statement and credentials of all of the reviewers and found that they all agree with the Rate Project folks? I just sorta glanced at the acknowledgment section and looked at the names and places of employment. By the way, what I hear you saying is: if they would only get some honest evolutionists to review it rather than the questionable creationists that reviewed it, then maybe we'd have some real science. They all had the word Dr. in front of their name and worked in a related field. They had the credentials to review the work.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/23/2009 3:06:08 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4575
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
what I hear you saying is: if they would only get some honest evolutionists to review it rather than the questionable creationists that reviewed it, then maybe we'd have some real science. They all had the word Dr. in front of their name and worked in a related field. They had the credentials to review the work.
If this is what you heard, you are not listening very well. What I really said is that when the requirement for peer review is that my peers already agree with my conclusions (whether the peers are evolutionist reviewing the work of other evolutionists, or creationists reviewing the work of other creationists) the process of peer review is already flawed.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/23/2009 3:18:42 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 863
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
what I hear you saying is: if they would only get some honest evolutionists to review it rather than the questionable creationists that reviewed it, then maybe we'd have some real science. They all had the word Dr. in front of their name and worked in a related field. They had the credentials to review the work.
If this is what you heard, you are not listening very well. What I really said is that when the requirement for peer review is that my peers already agree with my conclusions (whether the peers are evolutionist reviewing the work of other evolutionists, or creationists reviewing the work of other creationists) the process of peer review is already flawed.
The major purpose of peer review is not a matter of whether or not the reviewer agrees with your conclusions it's a matter of whether or not you've properly applied your methods. The conclusion that follows "...therefore radioisotope data does not necessarily reflect an old earth," is not necessarily a requirement for a peer reviewer to agree with in judging whether or not the team properly applied scientific methodology. What matters is credentials, experience, foundational knowledge. Yes, we find prior agreement on the age of the earth because most people who will be willing to examine this team's work WILL BE creationists of some kind, but apparently not necessarily young-earth because not everyone who reviewed the work was a young-earth creationist.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/23/2009 3:23:25 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
For long years, evos debased creation scientists as not being "real" scientists because the didn't publish their works for peer review, and then refused to publish any work that even hinted at not toeing the evolutionary line of long ages. Now the field of creation science has grown large enough for creation scientists to organize and create their own journals and their own publications, and they are doing just that. I think RATE is a good example of how that old evo argument is wearing very, very thin.
The problem is that "peer review" that is only performed by those who agree with your presumptions is not really peer review. Yes, both sides are often guilty of choosing to only examine studies for which the conclusion are ones of which they already agree, however, this is not really genuine peer review. A good example of a genuine peer review can be seen in the peer review of Michael Behe's work on irreducible complexity; his work has been peer reviewed by those who staunchly disagree with his conclusions and has stood the test of real scrutiny.
I think you're on to something here, benelchi!  By this standard, most evolutionary published articles have NOT REALLY BEEN PEER REVIEWED!! Regarding the RATE publications, I guess you missed this part of the Acknowledgements section:
quote:
We thank the technical reviewers who read the early manuscripts and made comments to the authers. Most reviewers are young-earth creationists, but several do not agree with some of the positions or conclusions reached by the authors. However, all were gracious in offering their comments to make this book the best technical resource possible.
Not all scientists who hold long-ages opinions are as maniacally, rabidly so as Kevin Henke, PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins, it seems.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/23/2009 4:58:43 PM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Does anyone know about this?
Here is a further review:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/Education/origins/rate-ri.htm
For anyone interested...an excellent site:
http://www.asa3.org/
_____________________________
In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/28/2009 3:08:39 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6717
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cih92
Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis debated Hugh Ross in December, 2004. In this debate about the age of the earth, Jason Lisle said that the rocks that came from the Mt. Saints Helens volcanic eruption in 1980 were measured to be hundreds to thousands to millions of years old. I have some questions about this. Jason Lisle did not give enough detail. Who collected and measured the age of these rocks and how did he know that they were actually from the eruption that occured in 1980? When were these rocks collected and measured? What type of radiometric dating was used? Does anyone know about this?
How ever old the rocks are, what does that have to do with whether Genesis is correct or not.
In the Begining means in the Begining no matter when that Begining was.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/28/2009 4:02:59 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
How ever old the rocks are, what does that have to do with whether Genesis is correct or not.
Well, for openers, everyone who thinks that the rocks are billions of years old also has to think that there was no flood of Noah, or at least that it was a small, local event. Because if the sedimentary layers were layed down over 500 million years or more, then there was no single world-wide flood that created them. Then it follows that God is a liar when He promised in Genesis to never repeat such a flood, since there have been many local floods since then.
Then there are the geneologies given from Adam to King David: God either outright lied again or you have to think the Earth was around for billions of years before man, in which case God only "stretched the truth" in talking about marriage or prophets being killed "since the beginning of creation" or "from the foundation of the Earth".
Of course, a view of ancient rocks also usually comes complete with an entire worldview based upon naturalism (a universe without God), which says there was a Big Bang that created stars before planets (Genesis lied again), and that the Earth began as a molten rock (Genesis lied again).
And that's just the beginning. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/28/2009 7:23:36 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6717
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
How ever old the rocks are, what does that have to do with whether Genesis is correct or not.
Well, for openers, everyone who thinks that the rocks are billions of years old also has to think that there was no flood of Noah, or at least that it was a small, local event. Because if the sedimentary layers were layed down over 500 million years or more, then there was no single world-wide flood that created them. Then it follows that God is a liar when He promised in Genesis to never repeat such a flood, since there have been many local floods since then.
Then there are the geneologies given from Adam to King David: God either outright lied again or you have to think the Earth was around for billions of years before man, in which case God only "stretched the truth" in talking about marriage or prophets being killed "since the beginning of creation" or "from the foundation of the Earth".
Of course, a view of ancient rocks also usually comes complete with an entire worldview based upon naturalism (a universe without God), which says there was a Big Bang that created stars before planets (Genesis lied again), and that the Earth began as a molten rock (Genesis lied again).
And that's just the beginning. Hope that helps.
you do not present a very convincing argument, but one full of generalities and guesses about what might happen.
If the rocks from Mt. St. Helens are proved to be millions of years old how would that somehow counter the truth of Scrpture?
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/30/2009 9:52:46 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
you do not present a very convincing argument, but one full of generalities and guesses about what might happen.
If the rocks from Mt. St. Helens are proved to be millions of years old how would that somehow counter the truth of Scrpture?
Thanks
RC
Well, then let's try another perspective from what HAS happened. Too many Christians have accepted the idea that the Bible can and should be judged according to our experiences (including science) of the world, rather than judging our experiences of the world according to the Word of God. I have no doubt that you believe that you can somehow wedge together knowldedge that is fundamentally derived from the presumption that "there is no God", with the "truth" (little T) of scripture. You may even go your whole life with such a faith, and I'm not saying you won't go to heaven, this is not a salvation issue.
However your children, grandchildren, or perhaps the flock of your church will also see that the Bible is NOT Holy, that it can be judged by man just as you have done. Only, when THEY judge the Word, they may take it a little further (Satan willing) and decide more things in the Bible are "out of date". Thus the Jesus Seminar group forms and proclaims most of what the Gospels quote Jesus as saying, He didn't really say. Pastors decide that the Word does not really speak against homosexuality. And our children, having been shown that man's knowledge trumps scripture, go to college, learn "science" disproves the Bible entirely, and walk away from ALL saving faith.
This has been going on for a couple hundred years, and the Church has mostly folded against the onslaught of secularism that has raised what should rightfully be our servant, science, to a place equal to or above God, our Lord. And what HAS BEEN the result? Is America more Christian today than 100 or 200 years ago? Is Europe? How secure do you see your own flock?
You are incorrect to think this a dispute over the truth of scripture, it is about the authority of scripture. Jesus said "All authority in heaven and Earth has been given to me." How can this be if His Word is not supremely authoritative? His Word should be like the Supreme Court; the final judge, the last appeal of all Truth. In fact, Holy. Jesus said "You cannot serve two masters" and "Every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed." Every so-called "scientific" explanation of history that is based solely upon naturalism must, by necessity, deny a place for God in our past and, in so doing, denies a place for Him in our present and future. Here is a truth: you cannot give Lordship of your beliefs to such AND scripture, and not BE a house divided against itself.
In the last 40 years, the Church has seen a revival of young-Earth creation thinking; proclaiming that science, when properly submitted to the authority of scripture, does indeed confirm the truth of all scripture. Regarding your rhetorical question about Mt. St. Helens rocks, God's Word has already spoken that no rocks are "millions of years old", by the history of the world that it gives us. Everything else YEC's do regarding such dating is a labor of apologetics and evangelism; the truth has been settled. Sounds prejudiced? Yes, but you would be foolish to think that the other side is not just as much.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/30/2009 11:15:35 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6717
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
Demolay, would you please give me your opinion of an approximate for Genesis 1:1?
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/30/2009 12:11:27 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Demolay, would you please give me your opinion of an approximate for Genesis 1:1? I think I will hop in here for a bit, RC. Please clarify your last question - do you want our (YEC) interpretation of Genesis 1:1 or the date which this verse describes or what?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/30/2009 2:53:56 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6717
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Demolay, would you please give me your opinion of an approximate for Genesis 1:1? I think I will hop in here for a bit, RC. Please clarify your last question - do you want our (YEC) interpretation of Genesis 1:1 or the date which this verse describes or what?
Certainly drmark, It seems to me (at least until I have further explanantion) that if the rocks from St Helens do date back millions of years that it must be a lie. or otherwise will this knowledge will cancel the truch of Scripture.
My Question is when in Histor does Genesis 1:1 take place.
I personally feel that it was "In the Beginning"; whenever "In the Beginning" happened.
From my usderstanding of so far of Demolay's postion is that the Beginning must coinside with some date set in Scripture.
As I have never found a date for in the Beginning in Scripture; I am asking for clarification and Scriptureal evidence of that date.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/30/2009 3:14:23 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Okay, I think I got what you're looking for. I believe Genesis 1:1 is a simple summary statement which introduces the first of ten toledoths in Genesis. The passage includes 1:1 through 2:4, the latter verse also representing a summary statement of Creation week. I'm sure that other interpretations of Genesis 1:1 are reasonable, but this one makes the most sense to me and is widely held by many Hebrew scholars.
Now, what about your question regarding a "specific date" for the beginning of creation. Since all calendars and dating systems are based on human observations and Genesis 1:14 states that the celestial bodies were created to mark calendar time, then I think it would be pretty much impossible to derive a date for the very initial instant of creation's beginning. However, using the genealogies of Genesis and the Chronicles and Luke, it is relatively easy to deduce the creation of Adam and Eve to be about 4000 years before the Incarnation. Furthermore, we have no reason from the original Hebrew text to think that the duration of the first three days of creation were of any different length than the last three days of creation. Thus, "in the beginning" is logically deduced to be about 6000 years ago from the present, but no specific calendar date is in Scripture. Which makes perfect sense to me since there was no calendar around then!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Radiometric dating of recent volcanic rocks - 10/30/2009 3:57:56 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6717
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Okay, I think I got what you're looking for. I believe Genesis 1:1 is a simple summary statement which introduces the first of ten toledoths in Genesis. The passage includes 1:1 through 2:4, the latter verse also representing a summary statement of Creation week. I'm sure that other interpretations of Genesis 1:1 are reasonable, but this one makes the most sense to me and is widely held by many Hebrew scholars.
Now, what about your question regarding a "specific date" for the beginning of creation. Since all calendars and dating systems are based on human observations and Genesis 1:14 states that the celestial bodies were created to mark calendar time, then I think it would be pretty much impossible to derive a date for the very initial instant of creation's beginning. However, using the genealogies of Genesis and the Chronicles and Luke, it is relatively easy to deduce the creation of Adam and Eve to be about 4000 years before the Incarnation. Furthermore, we have no reason from the original Hebrew text to think that the duration of the first three days of creation were of any different length than the last three days of creation. Thus, "in the beginning" is logically deduced to be about 6000 years ago from the present, but no specific calendar date is in Scripture. Which makes perfect sense to me since there was no calendar around then!
I logically disagee that "In the beginning" denotes about 6000 year past.
To use that 6000 years means that God started Genesis 1:2 the day after Genesis 1:1, and there is no Scriptural evidence that this is true.
As a matter of Scriptural understanding when God said this;
(Gen 1:28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Replinish? to restore or replace; restore or replace what???
Or when Scrpture says;
(Gen 1:24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
(Gen 1:25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
I think that these Scriptues in and of themselves (and there are plent of others) indicate that something was takeing place on earth between Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2. Now how long did that take; I don't have a clue, but there does seem to be a time period there.
I certainly understand that many do not see, nor wat to see this; but this reading does not do anything to corrupt our understanding of Biblical Creation, but do a lot to explain other questionable passages.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
