The earth is 13,000 years old and it is soon to be renewed when Christ comes

[DeepShadow]

For the Niagra Fall's theory to be incorrect, the bed of Lake Erie would've had to have been dry land at one time, being at least the same level as the two sides of the mouth of the river, which spills into Lake Erie (see map of area posted/provided earlier in thread).

If this were the case you would see a river carved out in some other area, where the water chose a lower or lesser path of resistance. There is no such evidence, unless you believe that the earch was literally bulldozed every x number of years which there is no evidence of on any planet...

That lake being in the middle of a continent that may have broken apart from another continent would still not change the topography of that area...

Show me proof of the Niagra River ever having changed it's course since the creation of the earth.

Edit: I didn't realize that this was a throwback to my old question about falsifiability of the Niagra Falls hypothesis. I have edited a comment that you were dodging the question from this post, and apologize for saying so.

Very well, you're almost there. Please separate the "coulds," and while you're at it, please tell me what lab created pseudogranite, I really want to know. I've been collecting stories like this for a while now--another reason I was insulted at your insinuation that I didn't know any of the creationist arguments--and I'd like to research it further.

Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong about the instantaneous creation of granite.

EDIT: Thanks for the last one, FFH. I'll ponder that for a while.

 

[DeepShadow]

No, of course not.

The earth was formed/organized with unorganized matter...

Okay, then that should also apply to the radioactive matter that created these radiohaloes. Could the granite not have formed quickly millions of years before the earth was formed, and then been incorporated into the earth with haloes already in it? In this case, the haloes could be from U-238.

 

[FFH]

DeepShadow, if the granite had formed or cooled over millions of years, there would be more of a smooth texture found within at least part of the rock, as seen in volcanic rock.

Granite has texture just the opposite of that, it being very grainy. If it had been molten for millions of years it would not appear this way.

Also granite has crystalline structures embedded within, which is not indicative of molten rock...

I've observed crystalline structures form rapidly on various objects, especially when there is a high concentration of some sort of metal in that object...

I recognize that I'm the "ignorant" one here, but I can and will become quickly educated on any given subject if I see the need...

It's not unlike me to fixate on one thing until I find the truth...

 

[FFH]

Okay, then that should also apply to the radioactive matter that created these radiohaloes. Could the granite not have formed quickly millions of years before the earth was formed, and then been incorporated into the earth with haloes already in it? In this case, the haloes could be from U-238.

Yes, that could have happened, but according to the Bible it did not...

The evolutionists would say that the rocks were created then assembled themselves together to form the earth, as with the Nebula theory. This is contrary to the Biblical account..

I'm sure there is a way to date granite, by looking at the clear crystalline forms found within it...

In this way, I believe that scientists may be intellectually dishonest, by witholding certain information that would go against their particular beliefs...

Creationists have nothing to hide but the truth, evolutionists do the opposite, by doing all in their power to hide scientific truths that would discredit their evolutionary theories..

Creationists don't need to hide any true scientific facts, but do the the opposite, which is to try and publish/propogate these true scientific facts that everything contained within and on the earth is young.

The matter, of which granite was formed, has always existed, and has no date of creation, but the formation of granite has a date, and a length of time it took to form/create, which we need to explore.

These halos suggest a relatively instant creation..

Could it be that granite, the bedrock of the earth, was formed/organized instantly or relatively instantly ???

 

[FFH]

If we look at bricks and concrete, we see that they are grainy and crumble easily, so is the structure of granite, only it has been supernaturally formed by God and obviously much stronger than any brick or concrete...

If granite had formed over millions or billions of years would we see this grainy textrue and the many crystaline structures observed within ??? This may be a key to dating granite...

If the crystaline structures were heated for millions of years why did they not mix with the other elements of the rock over those supposed millions and billions of years of cooling ???

Rock soup...

 

[painted wolf]

FFH you are trying to use science to prove your ideas... you can't just throw in 'supernatrual' whenever to suit your needs.
So no there is no good reason that Polonium and the rest just 'piffed' into existance in a way other than the natrual method.

and just as we cannot destroy or create water, so we cannot destroy or create matter, but can only change it's form.

yes, we can distroy water. That is the big part of Hydrogen fuel cell tecnology.
Not to mention the fact that water is broken up into its Hydrogen and Oxygen componants in labs all over the world.

Please supply the name of the lab that clames to have made Granite, I've never heard of such a thing published in a science jurnal.

Another thing you have to consider when looking at your halo's is that Radon is a Gas, it is not garenteed to stay with the solid mass of Uranium that formed it. Thus you can get your Uranium-less halo's without the need of the supernatural.

I think you may find this assesment of the Geology of the area the halo's were found useful.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

wa:do

 

[FFH]

Also if these haloes were formed in slowly cooling granite over millions of years then movement would be observed and the haloes would be all but non-existant...

Is it possible to slowly freeze bubbles in water over millions of years ???

Of course not, then how could we assume the same with these haloes.

So even if these haloes were Uranium-238, for example, it would be impossible that they could have remained perfectly symmetrical in shape, there would have been some movement due to the rock being molten...

Then if you say the rock cooled quickly, then so did the formation of that rock occur quickly...

Thus we see perfectly shaped radio-spheres and cross-cut haloes...

 

[Tiberius]

DeepShadow, if the granite had formed or cooled over millions of years, there would be more of a smooth texture found within at least part of the rock, as seen in volcanic rock.

Granite has texture just the opposite of that, it being very grainy. If it had been molten for millions of years it would not appear this way.

The crystalline nature of Granite explains this.

Also granite has crystalline structures embedded within, which is not indicative of molten rock...

A substance can be liquid for a long time and still form crystals when it solidifies. happens with ice all the time.

I've observed crystalline structures form rapidly on various objects, especially when there is a high concentration of some sort of metal in that object...

No one ever said magma was a pure material.

I recognize that I'm the "ignorant" one here, but I can and will become quickly educated on any given subject if I see the need...

It's not unlike me to fixate on one thing until I find the truth...

Start your research here.

 

[FFH]

So no there is no good reason that Polonium and the rest just 'piffed' into existance in a way other than the natrual method.

I'm not saying that anything on this earth was formed out of nothing, all I'm saying is that granite formed quickly from eternally existing matter, by a supreme being, otherwise we would not see perfectly shaped spheres encased within granite.

Let's just suppose these Uranium decay spheres, which you claim they could be, which are millions of years old, were like bubbles in water/molten rock, how is it that they remained so perfectly formed for so long....

The only possible explanation is that Polonium particles can exist outside the decay chain and they were instantly frozen/encased in granite within the short time frame they were decaying...

Edit: Some portions of the rock would cool quicker than others and we would see at least some distortion in the spheres..

Yes, we can destroy water. That is the big part of Hydrogen fuel cell technology.

We can change it's form but the same amount of water that existed in the beginning of earth's creation still exists today. We cannot destroy it but can only change it's form temporarily...

 

[FFH]

A substance can be liquid for a long time and still form crystals when it solidifies. happens with ice all the time.

So then the crystals would distort the halo/sphere and there would be irregularities.

 

[painted wolf]

I don't have much time I'll answer more later...

but for now one hugely important fact for you.

Its not a volcanic rock it is Metamorphic. (woops I ment its Intrusive not Volcanic, it is Igneous :slap: )
Thus your demands for its formation are way off. It is also a well known fact that if kept hot and underpressure things stay liquid longer. They certenly act fluid far longer than they stay liquid.
And Granite isn't formed in millions of years anyway, it is formed in the 100,000 year range.

Yes we can distroy water.... it is a molicule thus we can distroy it. Oxygen and Hydrogen are seperated... no water anymore.
Ps. Your body requires this process to survive. :bonk:

wa:do

 

[FFH]

please tell me what lab created pseudogranite

This guy, Dr. Larry Taylor, stands up and confronts Dr. Gentry, at one of his lectures, and explains that attempts have been made to imitate granite, and have come close to it, but the composition not being quite the same.

Just watch the video he explains it better than I could and there is more to this somewhere just haven't found it yet.

Can granite be synthesized? "It only takes a week."
A portion of a larger presentation.
273K
118K
24K

 

[DeepShadow]

I'm sure there is a way to date granite, by looking at the clear crystalline forms found within it...

In this way, I believe that scientists may be intellectually dishonest, by witholding certain information that would go against their particular beliefs...

Creationists have nothing to hide but the truth, evolutionists do the opposite, by doing all in their power to hide scientific truths that would discredit their evolutionary theories..

Creationists don't need to hide any true scientific facts, but do the the opposite, which is to try and publish/propogate these true scientific facts that everything contained within and on the earth is young.

I'm deeply disappointed, FFH.

You continue to malign scientists with such a broad brush, claiming everyone is conspiring against you. The scientists you accuse of hiding facts include many honest, hardworking, sincere people, and not a few of your fellow Latter-Day Saints.

When we try to point out errors in logic, you justify them by the flimsy claim that "everyone does it," which contradicts not only common courtesy, but also the precious Gospel you claim to uphold.

I found some merit in your data, but your refusal to scrutinize it fairly undermines your argument and belittles your audience. You've had your chance; I'll re-evaluate these data in my own threads, where they can get the attention they deserve. Feel free to stay here and brainstorm.

EDIT: In case you still care, none of the above was ad hominim. I've criticized your methods, not you. This is but one of the reasons I was insulted at your accusation that "everyone" uses ad hominims.

 

[FFH]

DeepShadow, my belief of a young earth is something that was inborn in me, just as I was born with a knowledge that the LDS church is true....

It makes no difference to me whether others believe it or not...

Remember I'm not working on commission, just from the heart...

No ulterior motives here...just your average Joe who senses truth and lies when he hears/reads them...

There are plenty of evidences proving this earth to be very young...the matter, the earth is made of being eternal...the construction/formation being young.

 

[painted wolf]

The problem with dating Granite by the cristals is that they form differently from the matrix they are in.

But some information on Granite forming in the 100,000 year range
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-12/UoT-Eclm-0612100.php
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/granite-dec00.htm

information on early tectonic activity and the oldest surviving piece of the Earths crust.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070324/fob1.asp

Scientists read rocks' history with unprecedented precision using custom-built Ultrachron

wa:do
Radioactive crystals help identify and date ore deposits

 

[FFH]

From the article you posted Painted Wolf....

Magma is formed[FONT=&quot] by partial melting in the lowermost crust, resulting from upwelling of hot mantle material. In many cases this would occur above a subduction zone. It is estimated that a granitic melt layer two-thirds as thick as a 950º C mafic intrusion could be produced in as little as 200 years.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The magma is then segregated from the source rock and ascends along a fracture or other conduit, over time periods as short as years to hundreds of years.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The magma is emplaced in the upper crust (within kilometres of surface) by lateral spread along planes of weakness, and then by vertical thickening. The time scale is hundreds to thousands of years.

[/FONT]http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/granite-dec00.htm

Things can and did happen fast geologically in the beginning of creation...

 

[nutshell]

No ulterior motives here...just your average Joe who senses truth and lies when he hears/reads them...

How do you reconcile the fact that other average Joe's sense truth and lies different from yours?

 

[FFH]

How do you reconcile the fact that other average Joe's sense truth and lies different from yours?

Many hear what they want to hear and never give it a second thought, others study it out in their mind, dig up the truth, and then listen to the spirit dictate to their hearts and minds, whether any given matter is true or false...

Study the facts/evidences, then study it out and see if a young or an old earth theories and/or evidences bring more peace to your heart and mind.

Did God create the foundation of the earth, then sit back and wait a gazillion years to created every living thing on it, no, he immediately created every living thing on the earth...

Adam was created relatively instantly and so was Eve, why should we assume the rest of creation, earth and everything in it, were created any other way...

God does not measure time the way we do, but if we were to measure the time frame of creation, I think it would be safe to assume it happened within the time frame I have theorized...

The 6,000 year old earth creationists are obviously wrong, due to the fact that Niagra Falls has been eroding for 12,500 years, minus some years for the faster rate of runoff due to the flood...

Search it out for yourself and decide for yourself what makes sense and what does not...

 

[SoyLeche]

Great stuff from Henry Eyring (emphasis added):

http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/EyringReflections.html

The radioactive clocks, together with the orderly way many sediments containing fossils are laid down, result in agreement by most scientists on an age for the earth of about four-and-one-half billion years. On the other hand, the exact age of the earth is apparently of so little import religiously that the scriptures sketch earth history in only the briefest terms. The present heated religious controversies on the subject will undoubtedly be resolved in time and will then appear as quaint as the medieval arguments on the shape of the earth seem to us now.

In my judgment, anyone who denies the orderly deposition of sediments with their built-in radioactive clocks places himself in a scientifically untenable position. Actually, the antiquity of the earth was no problem for two of our greatest Latter-day Saint leaders and scientists, John A. Widtsoe and James E. Talmage. However, there are vast differences in the training and background of members of the Church. Therefore, I am completely content that there is room in the Church for people who think that the periods of creation were twenty-four hours, one thousand years, or millions of years. I think it is fine to discuss these questions and for each individual to try to convert others to what he thinks is right. It is only fair to warn parents and teachers that a young person is going to face a very substantial body of scientific evidence supporting the earth's age as millions of years, and that a young person might "throw the baby out with the bath" unless allowed to seek the truth, from whatever source, without prejudice.

The Lord made the world in some wonderful way that I can at best only dimly comprehend. It seems to me sacrilegious to presume that I really understand him and know just how he did it. He can only tell me in figurative speech that I dimly understand, but that I expect to more completely comprehend in the eternities to come. He created the world, and my faith does not hinge on the detailed procedures he used.

 

[SoyLeche]

And some more:

We should keep in mind that scientists are as diligent and truthful as anyone else. Organic evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability. From my limited study of the subject I would say that the physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable from a scientific viewpoint.

In my opinion it would be a very sad mistake if a parent or teacher were to belittle scientists as being wicked charlatans or else fools having been duped by half-baked ideas that gloss over inconsistencies. That isn't an accurate assessment of the situation,and our children or students will be able to see that when they begin their scientific studies.

"Now wait a minute," you say. "I thought you weren't an 'evolutionist'!" I'm not. I'd be just as content to find out that God stirred up some dirt and water and out stepped Adam, ready to occupy the Garden of Eden. The only important thing is that God did it. I might say in that regard that in my mind the theory of evolution has to include a notion that the dice have been loaded from the beginning in favor of more complex life forms. That is, without intelligent design of the natural laws in such a way as to favor evolution from lower forms to higher forms of life, I don't think the theory holds water. I can't see randomly generated natural laws producing these remarkable results. So, in my mind, God is behind it all whether we evolved or not.

Probably one of the most difficult problems in reading the scriptures is to decide what is to be taken literally and what is figurative. In this connection, it seems to me that the Creator must operate with facts and with an understanding that goes entirely outside our understanding and our experience. Because of this, when someone builds up a system of logic, however careful and painstaking, that gives a positive answer to this difficult question, I can't help but wonder about it, particularly if it seems to run counter to the Creator's revelations written in the physical world. At least I would like to move slowly in such matters.

The really awful thing about me is that I really don't care one way or the other. Sometime, a billion years from now, it may come up in some heavenly science class and I'll be glad to know, but until then I'll be content.

That last paragraph describes me pretty well.