Define “recent”. And where have you looked for these recent zircons?
This won’t work. I am starting to believe that zircons only formed during an early epoch of earth history and no later. Thanks for your time.
Why? And what makes most zircon dates wrong, and systematically wrong in a way that counterfeits a long and layered earth history?
It’s ok, I am delving into something much deeper than a fight over dating of zircons. If I am right that zircons only formed during an early earth, then that may go a great distance in explaining some creation puzzles we face.
Our conversation won’t work, our paradigms will get in the way. Thanks again.
Is it possible that your “paradigm” is hallucinatory?
To paraphrase Rincewind: 'Ok, so you’ve had it a long time. But had you had it a long time yesterday?
1 Like
You’ve already been told: “Cretaceous and later zircon-containing granite dykes and sills intruding into older shale deposits in Myanmar”.
How do those references support your claims?
Which particular claims I made are you referring to?
Is it not Biblically valid to interpret vv. 1 and 4 as:
1 Praise the Lord from the general ‘up there’;
Praise Him, too, in the special, atmospheric sky!4 Praise Him, you special ‘up there’ of the general ‘up there’,
And you H2O in-and-above the special ‘up there’.
?
In other words, is there not the possibility that v. 4 is meant as emphasis of this view of v.1b?
I say yes. For, consider that Psalm 19:2 is referencing Psalm 19:1. In light of Psalm 19:2, there can be no mere celestial-only kind of parallelism in Psalm 19:1. This is because Psalm 19:2 is of the heavens both day and night.
The only way out of this marriage-like, binary view of Psalm 19:1, given Psalm 19:2, is to deny that the whole of Psalm 19 hinges on the psalmist’s phenomenological and personal metaphysical concerns. One could, for example, suppose that v. 1 is the exception: that the psaImist’s concern in v. 1 is that from some cosmically-celestially omnipresent frame of visual reference on the merely celestial realm. But such an exception is precedent for doing the same for various other verses, such as for the ‘tent’ in v. 4b. But what is that ‘tent’ to the Children of Israel?
First, Psalm 19 affirms the general comprehensiveness of Divine Design: its wordless ‘speech’, which the heavens declare and proclaim to all the Earth (vs. 1-4a). Verse 2 says that this ‘speech’ and ‘knowledge’ is being given both daily and nightly. This means—contrary to a Space Age view of v. 1—that v. 1 is not a double reference to the celestial realm. Rather, v. 1 is a binary reference to the total phenomenal sky. As v. 2 shows, this is for the two kinds of sky: the night sky and the daylit sky. This is the starry black, and the luminously opaque blue.
The two different words in Psalm 19:1 for things above us are thus for two very different senses of ‘sky’. The first word is for the cosmos ‘out there’. The second word is for the far more near and dear ‘sky’ of daylight: clouds, birds, even the Moon’s paleness in that luminous azure .
More importantly, therefore, as this psalm proceeds, its undeniable central concern is for a marriage-like relation between the daylight Sun and the Earth (v. 5a). This emphasizes that same daylit azure. And this is what the psalm means by a ‘tent’ for the Sun. A Space Age bias toward v. 1 tends to see the bias confirmed in the psalm’s reference to a ‘tent’. But the Children of Israel would have understood this ‘tent’ in terms of their own experience of having lived in tents during their wandering in the wilderness for forty years prior to entering the Promised Land. So, first, they would have understood this ‘tent’ in terms of a human habitation within a wider world. Second, they would have assumed that what this psalm means by the ‘heat’ from the Sun is lyrically akin to the Law of the Lord for humans .
So the ‘tent’ for the Sun in Psalm 19 is like that for a groom’s seeking the bride on his wedding day. The Sun is likened to the special man who seeks that bride in a wider cosmos: He appears repeatedly in her view as he looks for her daily, though she be hid until that Great Day.
So the suggestion which the ‘tent’ in this psalm would make in the minds of the ancient Jews is an entirely empathic one to the theology of a groom seeking his betrothed: God is implied as the groom, and the faithful of the People of Israel as the bride. This reflects the central portion of Genesis 1 (Genesis 1:14-18). That portion puts all the luminaries, even the Sun, in terms of the Earth, not in terms of any secularistic, or atheistic, notion about cosmology. Too, the Creation account outright affirms humans’ natural interest in the Earth (v. 28), but nowhere does it outright affirm humans’ interest in the luminary realm.
So if we are to defend Genesis 1 against modern, ‘science’ worshiping skeptics, we must at least see that the first and main concern of Psalm 19 is how Divine Design is comprised of the relation between the general cosmos and the special Earth. The human instantiation of that same theological ‘marriage’ relation is true cosmological understanding . So we humans are as the bride’s heart and mind in this psalm. Specifically, the psalmist is aware of his own Fallenness, and, in that, is aware of a special need, on his part, of knowing deeply of Divine Design (v. 14).
In short, I suggest that the Bible is not, repeat, not, esoterica cum Complete Idiot’s Guide on an essentially secular conception of cosmic physics and astro-geometric structure.