Another question concerning Creation and evolution?

Question

It has to do with the "Positive Scientific Proof" that the Atheist always mention. Remember 1980, and Mt. St. Helen? It was a tremendous volcano in Washington State. In 1990, some geologist went there and collected rocks. They sent these samples to various laboratories to be tested and dated, using various testing methods. These were the same laboratories, using the same methods that they use for dating fossils, and other rock samples to date the age of the earth. The dates that these laboratories came up with for the age of the rocks were as young as 10,000 years to as much as 2,000,000 years, depending on the laboratory. This is a big discrepency in dates, especially when you realize that the rocks were only 10 years old at the time!!

Can any of you Atheist in here explain the errors that these laboratories made, and why should we believe any of the old dates they have given on other samples?

I'd like to add something in response to some of the answers. When laboratories date rocks, they aren't dating the elements that make up the rock, but are dating when the rock solidified. In this case, it was 10 years, not the dates the laboratories came up with.

Answer 1

Wait... Rocks were only 10 years old??

That's news to me... and I'm not even an Atheist.

Peace be with you.

Answer 2

The rocks were not "ten years old". They had existed in either solid or molten form for millions of years. You don't date a rock from the time it solidifies. You date it from the time the material in it came into existence. If a rock is heated to its melting point, and later solidifies, it is still just as old as it was before melting.

As magma rushes from the core of the earth to the surface, it passes through many different strata, formed at many different times over the geologic history of the earth. So it is hardly surprising that rocks carried out of the earth by a magma flow, let alone a massive pyroclastic explosion, were from many different geologic time points, as evidenced by the dating performed by the laboratories. Pretty basic really.

Incidentally, I am not an "atheist". I am a born again Christian and a professional scientist.
.

Answer 3

I'm not familiar with that case. Can you cite a source? I'm not doubting you, it's just not a case I'm familiar with. Also, I'd like to know how the minerals in a rock can only be 10 years old. Any element on this planet is going to be older than 10 years old. However, I'd like to read up on it, as I have read of similar cases where dating methods used that were preported by "some" scientists as "Absolute guarantee" method of dating an object. Nothing is "guaranteed" in science

But if it's from one of those "Creationist" sites, then I'd really be wary of anything it says. Their science is pseudo science at the very BEST. And this is coming from a guy who believes in creation. I always make it clear to people that though I believe in Creation, Intelligent Design, and the Creation account of the Bible, I DO NOT accept that the earth was made in 6 literal 24 hour days, etc, etc. The earth, from everything we can see, is billions of years old, and this in now way contradicts Genesis. Talk Origins is a nice site, for showing how silly Creationist ideas are, that the earth is 6,000 years old.

What I have yet to see however, is a site that argues against the interpretation of the available data from the aspect of someone like myself, who believes in Intelligent Design, and the Creation account of Genesis. Unfortunately, due to creation-ISTS, many people who admire science think that creation-IST ideas are what the Bible as a whole actually teaches.

I have never, ever found anything in the Bible that states the earth can't be billions of years old. When Moses wrote Genesis, and was speaking of the seventh day, he wrote "He proceeded to rest" the word for "rest" is in the imperfective continuous state. In other words, Moses was saying it was still going on, the rest hadn't come to a completion yet. If it had, he would have used the "perfective tense" of the Hebrew verb. You put that together with the book of Hebrews, which tells us that we are STILL within that 7th creative "rest" day.

Obviously, the Bible's creative "days" are of much longer length. I never figured God was bound by a 24 hour clock, especially as seeing as how you probably couldn't even see the sun in the primordial earth, even as Genesis describes it. Since the first time that Genesis says: "Let light come to be", the word was used for light in a 'diffused' sense, and the second time it occurse, the word for light, is with the idea of a definite source. They had two different words for "light". We only have one.

Heck, I think of the verse in 2 Peter that talks of God's viewpoint of time being completely relativistic to our own, and his "days" of much greater length, eons in length.

Again, I've never seen any of these "attacking creation" sites address these points.

Answer 4

No matter how much scientific or experiential "proof" of any truth you come up with, we could still be wrong in how we interpret it.

All conclusions are based on "faith" to some degree. You cannot get around that; there is no unrefutable "proof" of anything. Our senses could be lying to us, the data could be wrong, our interpretations or perceptions could be false.

The only "proof" of God or anything spiritual is based on what people "agree" to accept at truth by definition. Similar to the number system -- two plus two equals four, because we "agree" to quantify and call those elements as such. It is just a matter of "agreeing" on concepts, vocabulary and semantics.

God and spiritual concepts are the same way. Whatever concepts in our nature or in creation we wish to define or discuss, we have merely to "agree" what we mean by the terms we use; and thus anything can be "proven" by agreement on an established system of defining these things.

Answer 5

Oh, as opposed to believing Bronze Age tribesman with no scienticic knowledge?

Science doesn't claim to be perfect. It's very accurate, though.
The Bible claims to be perfect. It's very innacurate, though.

Answer 6

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html

Here you go. Sick of posting quesitons verbatum from Answers in Genesis yet? Talk Origins has debunked them all.

Answer 7

Why should you use common sense when you obviously don't have any.