Who Choses? But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. 1cor. 1:27
But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, becasue God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth

 

Don't forget the sons wifes as well.

 

You are merely asking question to which you have not looked for the answer. Read the Mathew 1 1:17. It is called genealogy. Do your own research and draw you own conclusions. I could tell you the conclusions I draw but that wouldn't, you don’t believe it anyway.

Im still waiting for the holes.

Having trouble finding them?

 

As dart stated there were 8 people on the ark. As the bible states men in these times lives 600 to 950+ years old. Plenty of time to re-inhabit the earth.

You are drawing conclusions on material you have not researched. You state half truths and draw your conclusions and wait for answers in which you will not believe anyway.

God vs. Science

Most anti-God scientist are bible illiterates. Nobody has proven the bible wrong yet. If there was something wrong dont you think somebody would have found that "hole" by now?

I rest my case

God bless.

 

Well let me know when you think it would be okay for your grand kids (1st cousins) to get together and make you a great grand dad. Good enough for Noah should be good enough for you and one very good way to make sure there are no branches in your tree!

 

How radioactive ‘dating’ really works

Why does the lava dome provide an opportunity to test the accuracy of radioisotope dating? There are two reasons. First, radioisotope-dating methods are used on igneous rocks—those formed from molten rock material. Dacite fits this bill. Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated radioisotopically. Second, and most importantly, we know exactly when the lava dome formed. This is one of the rare instances in which, to the question, ‘Were you there?’ we can answer, ’Yes, we were!’

The dating method Dr Austin used at Mount St Helens was the potassium-argon method, which is widely used in geological circles. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or ‘variety’ of the element potassium) spontaneously ‘decays’ into argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon).2 This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years.1 In other words, 1.0 g of potassium-40 would, in 1.3 billion years, theoretically decay to the point that only 0.5 g was left.

Contrary to what is generally believed, it is not just a matter of measuring the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample of unknown age, and calculating a date. Unfortunately, before that can be done, we need to know the history of the rock. For example, we need to know how much ‘daughter’ was present in the rock when it formed. In most situations we don’t know since we didn’t measure it, so we need to make an assumption—a guess. It is routinely assumed that there was no argon initially. We also need to know whether potassium-40 or argon-40 have leaked into, or out of, the rock since it formed. Again, we do not know, so we need to make an assumption. It is routinely assumed that no leakage occurred. It is only after we have made these assumptions that we can calculate an ‘age’ for the rock. And when this is done, the ‘age’ of most rocks calculated in this way is usually very great, often millions of years. The Mount St Helens lava dome gives us the opportunity to check these assumptions, because we know it formed just a handful of years ago, between 1980 and 1986.

The dating test
In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.

It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating, especially when it contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology of the Word of God.

Table 1. Potassium-argon ‘ages’ for whole rock and mineral concentrate samples from the lava dome at Mount St Helens (from Austin1).


Sample
Age / millions of years

1 Whole rock / 0.35 ± 0.05

2 Feldspar, etc. / 0.34 ± 0.06

3 Amphibole, etc. / 0.9 ± 0.2

4 Pyroxene, etc. / 1.7 ± 0.3

5 Pyroxene / 2.8 ± 0.6

 

Here's another web site

http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

 

Good info winkle.

 

No one has proven it correct yet either. Once again, it's all in what you believe. I could point to stories such as a burning bush not consumed by fire, Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt, a man living in the belly of a great fish for 3 days, etc.. etc.. All of these are impossibilities (in my eyes) but yet you believe them to be true. That's fine. Diversity is what makes the world go around. But please don't post stuff like "I rest my case" or taunting someone with "having trouble finding them"? (holes). There is no case to rest and I could find many holes but what purpose would that serve? I'm not here to pick apart your beliefs. I'm here, in this thread, learning about your (and everyone else's) beliefs. But you are no more correct than any of the rest of us. You believe all of this to be true but you can't prove it any more than I or anyone else on here can. It is strictly that... a belief. Luckily enough (thanks to the great membership here) this discussion has remained very civil and informative and I myself have enjoyed everyones opinions and views. Let's not do anything to get it shut down.

Take care.

Britt

 

That is a good read winkle. Can you find the same info from a non-biased source? What I mean is this... If I posted something from a site called evolution.org or .com or something like that it probably wouldn't hold as much water in your eyes correct? I could make a very strong case for my beliefs by going to more biased sites but I try to get the information that I post on here from the least biased sources that I can find. USGS, PBS, for example.

Britt

 

Britt even though we disagree you again show class with this post Kudos to you. It has definitely been an informing thread to say the least I get on here every morning to see who said something stupid and got it shut down but to my amazement its still here this is a testament to the type of members we have here at the DTR. Thanks to all of you who have posted your Beliefs

 

Thanks Troy. I can promise you, I have enjoyed it as much as you have.

Britt

 

t-15 firefighter that was exactly what I was going to say. But here we have a view from a site that has no agenda. http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/belvedere...ns/Raddate.htm
I don't know how to do the click here, wished I did.
Any way as you see there are different radioisotope clocks.
Here is another one from How stuff works can't imagine any agenda there either.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-142.htm

 

You are a 100% correct to your point. Thats why I try to look at all sides but to be quite honest everybody leans one way or the other.

 

t-15 firefighter did you just change your location description? I got a good chuckle out of it.