That is Martin Luther and it’s taken out of context. 
2 Likes
Five things you should notice:
- The article you cite is 10 years old and in a secondary (or tertiary) source.
- It refers not to climate but to solar neutrino flux.
- It affects beta decay only.
- The effect, if it exists, is small, much too small to give the factor of millions required by YEC.
- The effect may be an artifact; it’s still controversial.
4 Likes
Correct. And for that reason, it should not be included as a scientific discipline (“discipline” is the very thing it does not possess). I am thinking that radioactive nuclides were tools of the Creation God used for aging purposes. And of course we know they provide the heat inside the earth for life to exist here. Say he really did create just 6000 years ago, an idea we would like to find ultimately true. God would employ radioactivity as a sliding clock-aging mechanism to inject great age, and all that accompanies that process, into the system. No physical mechanism has yet been found other than the one you point out, which actually may end up being more significant than first thought, to engage the aging process.
Is this what you are trying to rebuff?
I will stick with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, rather than your interpretation, thank you very much.
Aging purposes???
Why would God deliberately take steps to put the false appearance of extremely old ages in virtually everything in geology and physics?? Has it ever occurred to you maybe, just maybe God is honest, the planet really is 4.5 billion years old, and life has been here on the planet evolving for well over the last 3.5 billion of those years?
3 Likes
I am honestly baffled by how you view God. I highly doubt that He sat at a great Creation drafting table to calculate this and that and invent stuff that would be “employed” in some great time scale deception system.
3 Likes
Please give an example.
Hopefully that was really badly worded on the part of @r_speir . 
2 Likes
The above comments were not directed at @thoughtful but rather at @djkriese. These silly forum formats get so confusing sometimes.
I was affirming @thoughtful 's choice of the Billy Graham Bible interpretation and rejecting @djkriese 's approach.
This is precisely what we mean by “making God deceitful.” I’m certain that this isn’t merely a problem of wording…
2 Likes
One would need to show why God, in creating a differentiated planet like earth, would start all the radio-nuclides at zero in the crust and deeper. Why rather would he not draw from pre-aged material to lay the foundation of a differentiated planet?
If you think that you will be able to discover the “why” behind God’s creation, you make yourself an authority over God. You are then deceiving yourself, limiting the Word of God and representing God not as sovereign, but as a being that is subject to your wisdom. Science discovers the “how”, not the “why”, when you try to claim to know why God does anything, you misrepresent the gospel of Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:20-25 - 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the [h]disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a [i]stumbling block and to the [j]Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Like
Radiometric data is done on igneous rocks - the ones that originate from solidifying magma. Magma doesn’t contain crystals but is a fluid made up of atoms and molecules moving independenlty from one another. Radioactive decay products will move away from the parent molecules so you cannot date magma.
Dating only becomes a thing once these atoms and molecules form a crystal lattice in which decay products accumulate. The radiometric dates always only show the time since crystallisation (technically, since closure, but that is detail for this discussion). ‘Pre-dating’ of rocks that once were liquid magma is a nonsense concept.
2 Likes
Well let’s turn that around and see what pops out. The Scriptures lay out a fairly connected genealogy comprising around 6000 years from Creation to current. Say we take that as truth. Now we discover what we believe to be very old material erupted from deep within the planet. Is deception the right conclusion? Or rather should we be prudent and more carefully consider what God’s creation processes might have involved?
Certainly makes sense to me. That’s what leads us to the GAE. Except in the GAE it isn’t a false history, but a true history.
2 Likes
Sure,
Matthew 17:10 - 13, Jesus discussing John the Baptist
Romans 5:14 Adam and Christ
Hebrews 9:8-9, 23 Holy Spirit & the Law
John 3:14 Jesus and lifted snake
There are more examples especially of symbolism.
1 Like
Except that contamination is never fully eliminated in the lab process of dating. The very fact that the labs cannot arrive at a focus date is due to contamination. Here is a great resource concerning that.
"#2. Because all but one of the dates in the above table are below the 2 million year lower dating limit established by Geochron Laboratories, the dates may be nothing more than contamination artifacts from the mass spectrometer at Geochron Laboratories. The 2.8 million year old date also may have largely or entirely resulted from contamination.
#3. If the Geochron mass spectrometer was exceptionally clean on the day that Austin’s samples were run (that is, IF hypothesis #2 is not a factor), the dates may be approximately accurate. Even if the absolute values of the dates are highly erroneous, the relative order of the fractions’ dates from oldest to youngest may be roughly correct. That is, the various minerals (phenocrysts) in the dacite may have grown in the parent melt at different times and the entire crystallization process may have taken as much as a few million years. Additionally, somewhat older xenoliths (foreign rocks) and xenocrysts (foreign minerals, for example, Hyndman, 1985, p. 250) from the surrounding rocks may have been incorporated into the melt as it rose to the Earth’s surface."
https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm
Wait. Who is deceiving whom? How do you know that I am self-deceived and not you? My age of the planet may be accurate. If your age of the planet is inaccurate then perhaps you are deceiving yourself by believing the current science which may not go deep enough to plumb the depths of how God really created. Maybe science should look beyond the apparent rather than settling for the first data set. In reality, there is an entirely different set of data available.
Hi R_Speir,
The entire Christology of the Old Testament breaks several of their interpretative strategies laid out (context, literalism, and single meaning). Many NT authors/Jesus explicitly discuss with this view in mind.
1 Like
- I recall at least one physics journal stating that even six years later no other scientists had managed to duplicate the findings reported in that 2010 study. They also posited that the tiny differences were probably seasonal “drift” in the lab equipment used in that 2010 study.
In any case, I’m never surprised when a science editor at Forbes (a business magazine) emphasizes the sensational—even at times getting excited about something which Young Earth Creationist ministries have touted as some major “gotcha” they can try to use against the science fundamentals they reject.
Nevertheless, @thoughtful, I’m fascinated by these types of topics—especially when they give me updates on some of the arguments I used back in the 1960’s and 1970’s when I was a hard-core YEC advocate (and even championing the cause of “creation science” in campus debates.)
2 Likes