Creation scientists

[Amo]

Based on what chapter and verse???

None. If there was scripture I knew of, I would have quoted it. It is simply, "I would think".

[4WD]

The concept of getting older will be no more, as we presently understand it. The concept of growing spiritually and intellectually is certain for all of us. I can think of no good reason for God to bypass the process of growing up for children physically as well. Especially in the atmosphere of heaven which will no doubt be an absolute delight. For children and their parents.

There are no parents in heaven.  There are no husbands or wives in heaven (Matt 22:30). Any attempt at making heaven an abode of the physical will always introduce questions for which any answers will only give rise to even more questions.

But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain (1Co 15:35 -37).

[Amo]

Obviously, not much at all.  But there is no indication that I see that there is anything physical about or in heaven or about eternal life. It fact it seems to me that Paul's discussion of all of that in 1 Corinthians 15 would suggest to me that everything there is not physical but rather spiritual.  I have books in my library that try to convince me otherwise, but they haven't succeeded.

Luk 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

Jesus who is the resurrection, and the life, was raised with a physical body. Which as He stated, spirits do not have. He ascended in physical form, and He will return in physical form. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

1Co 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Seems pretty basic to me. What do you make of the quoted verses? What do they mean to you?

[4WD]

Luk 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

Obviously, Jesus was not in heaven then.

Jesus who is the resurrection, and the life, was raised with a physical body. Which as He stated, spirits do not have. He ascended in physical form, and He will return in physical form. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

He left the earth in a physical body, you have no idea whatsoever His "form" upon entering heaven.

John 17:5  And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Are you seriously suggesting that the glory that Jesus had with the Father before the world existed was a physical body?  Oh you foolish person (1 Cor 15:36).

And you have not the slightest Idea what a "spiritual body" even is.  And neither did Paul or he would have described it with considerably more detail than he did. And we know that it is not composed of flesh and blood (1 Cor 15:50), and flesh and blood is the sum total of the physical body.

[DaveW]

There are no parents in heaven.  There are no husbands or wives in heaven (Matt 22:30). Any attempt at making heaven an abode of the physical will always introduce questions for which any answers will only give rise to even more questions.

But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain (1Co 15:35 -37).

Except our ultimate abode is NOT heaven, but the New Earth.  All physical here.  See Rev 20 and 21

[DaveW]

He left the earth in a physical body, you have no idea whatsoever His "form" upon entering heaven.

Actually perhaps we do:

Rev 1:12
Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; 13 and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. 14 His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. 15 His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. 16 In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.

[4WD]

Actually perhaps we do:

Rev 1:12
Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; 13 and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. 14 His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. 15 His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. 16 In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.

I am sorry, Dave, I can't help it.
 
Think what you will.

[4WD]

Except our ultimate abode is NOT heaven, but the New Earth.  All physical here.  See Rev 20 and 21

But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" You foolish person!

[4WD]

Given that nearly the entire field of transgressions and sins is the result of a physical body, are you really sure you want another one?  I know I don't. Eighty plus years with this one has been quite enough for me.  I am looking forward to something a lot different.

[Texas Conservative]

What's the next topic?  How many angels can fit on the the head of a pin?

[Alan]

What's the next topic?  How many angels can fit on the the head of a pin?

Literally or figuratively?

[Rella]

What's the next topic?  How many angels can fit on the the head of a pin?

How about the fairy dancing in the back yard that both my parents saw when I was around 6?

Or maybe she was an angel dancing on a blade of grass?

[DaveW]

I am sorry, Dave, I can't help it.
 
Think what you will.

If you don't take it seriously, not my problem. 

[4WD]

If you don't take it seriously, not my problem.

Oh, I do take it seriously.  I just don't take your interpretation of it seriously.  You are starting to sound a bit like Amo; if I don't believe as you believe, then I must not be taking it seriously and I have no faith in God, the Bible, Jesus, the Gospel or whatever else you might come up with.

Look, if you want to believe that eternal life is another case of physical existence, then that is OK with me.  Many of my best and closet friends and brothers in Christ believe as you do.  I don't believe it and I don't think the Bible tells me what I believe is wrong.

[Amo]

Obviously, Jesus was not in heaven then.

Show us where the bible says Jesus and the saved will be raised with one kind of body here on earth, and then changed into another or turned bodiless on the way to heaven. You ignore much and make it up as you go along I reckon. To make it fit what you wish. so be it.

[Amo]

I am sorry, Dave, I can't help it.
 
Think what you will.

You laugh too much about quoted scriptures. I've already told you, that isn't healthy.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

When you say that Genesis is not literal, that is your opinion.

Most of Genesis IS literal.  I've only said the bit about Adam and Eve is not.  If you're going to engage in "you say," please try to be accurate with your statements.  Nobody likes having words put in their mouth.

It is not a proven fact, so there is no logical fallacy.  I can say it is literal, but the farthest I can go is to say that is my opinion.  Since we are not the original authors we cannot know either position with 100% certainty one way or another.

Literature isn't about proving things with 100% certainty.  It does involve opinions, but those opinions can be supported with evidence.  Not all opinions are equal.

I realize there is a theory out there that the Pentateuch was written by multiple authors.  I give that about as much credence as I do anything else that comes for the so-called "higher biblical criticism" hacks.  Just yet another effort to rob the Bible of its power.

I assume you're talking about the Documentary Hypothesis.  That is NOT what I've been talking about here in this thread, although I suppose the idea of analyzing Genesis is related.  Same topic.  Different conclusions.

Jarrod

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I will say that the style changes somewhat through out the first five books, but that could just be from Moses not having sat down and penned it straight through.  Longer breaks make one's general form alter some. I have seen that with my own writings from a long time back.

Come on.  It's more than that.  Genesis divides itself into separate books, with their own titles and headings.  "These are the generations of..."

So, unless we are told that something is an allegory or a parable (as Jesus often did) I say it is literal.

I don't want to quote a whole chapter here, but could I get you to read Ezekiel chapter 31?

It sure looks to me like the prophet Ezekiel is treating some part of Genesis as not-literal in this chapter. 

Jarrod

[DaveW]

I don't want to quote a whole chapter here, but could I get you to read Ezekiel chapter 31?
It sure looks to me like the prophet Ezekiel is treating some part of Genesis as not-literal in this chapter.

Of course.  But don't forget PaRDeS.  It can be both literal and allegorical at the same time; and even teaching, hinting and mystical as well.  All applying to the exact same text.

[Rella]

Come on.  It's more than that.  Genesis divides itself into separate books, with their own titles and headings.  "These are the generations of..."
I don't want to quote a whole chapter here, but could I get you to read Ezekiel chapter 31?

It sure looks to me like the prophet Ezekiel is treating some part of Genesis as not-literal in this chapter. 

Jarrod

More then that... I agree... but no matter what I say... be it Moses as the only author or other authors with Moses I will be countered so I no longer and getting into specifics on this and I will bow to those who say Moses because it is simply easier.

OK... Read Ezekiel 31..... And of course I disagree.

Prophesy: Literal or Figurative.?

I opt for literal even though it is often quite difficult to understand, if one just glosses over. 

Example ...   Nebuchadnezzar had those dreams. He knew they meant something but no one could tell him what. Enter Daniel and the puzzle was solved.

Certainly there was no one else to be found to tell N (sigh... when will they make shorter names?) their meaning and if
Daniel was not there... to this very day.... it is most likely that no one would understand.

Were  Nebuchadnezzar dreams literal or figurative? Some would say figurative however, I believe that for every prophet who talks in figurative parables or allegories they possess the understanding to clarify the meaning of whatever to those to whom it is needed, therefore their prophesies through parables or allegories are figurative and it is by design that not everyone is to understand.

We could get into all sorts of reasons for this but I believe God certainly provides a future outlook to some... that people just assume were figurative examples .... because there is NO NEED TO KNOW to the majority.

Remember:

The Gospel of Mark also records a time when the disciples asked Jesus why he spoke in parables. He answered, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables" (Mark 4:11)

22 For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.

23 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Nothing is hid and neither is there in prophesy except that clarity may escape the hearer until it is time

So literal is accurate... including those of all the parables because their example  always make sense ...perfect sense
upon careful examination once they are explained. And it is the wiseman who would understand that the revealing will come when it is time.

So Ezekiel used the Garden of Eden's foliage as a comparison to the splendor of Assyria. To emphasize her magnificence.

Nothing said in Ez 1-9 is anything that is not a true parallel.

Back in the day...( meaning time span and nor 24 hours) the author of Genesis gave us the basic outline of creation without embellishment. But it was impressed upon all that Eden had to have been the most perfect spot on earth, until the fall of man.

By comparison we are told that the prophesies of Ezekiel (31) that God had allowed such splendor and might that not even those within the garden of Eden could rival them...

But just as in the Garden of God man failed and brought it down.

Perfectly understandable and to me very literal..

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Of course.  But don't forget PaRDeS.  It can be both literal and allegorical at the same time; and even teaching, hinting and mystical as well.  All applying to the exact same text.

Multiple layers of meaning are possible in many places, but... you didn't read the chapter, did you?

The literal meaning here would require that the King of Assyria was a tree.  It's pretty tough to rule the world when you're dealing with root-rot.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

OK... Read Ezekiel 31..... And of course I disagree.

Prophesy: Literal or Figurative.?

I opt for literal even though it is often quite difficult to understand, if one just glosses over. 

Example ...   Nebuchadnezzar had those dreams. He knew they meant something but no one could tell him what. Enter Daniel and the puzzle was solved.

Certainly there was no one else to be found to tell N (sigh... when will they make shorter names?) their meaning and if
Daniel was not there... to this very day.... it is most likely that no one would understand.

Were  Nebuchadnezzar dreams literal or figurative? Some would say figurative however, I believe that for every prophet who talks in figurative parables or allegories they possess the understanding to clarify the meaning of whatever to those to whom it is needed, therefore their prophesies through parables or allegories are figurative and it is by design that not everyone is to understand.

We could get into all sorts of reasons for this but I believe God certainly provides a future outlook to some... that people just assume were figurative examples .... because there is NO NEED TO KNOW to the majority.

Remember:

The Gospel of Mark also records a time when the disciples asked Jesus why he spoke in parables. He answered, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables" (Mark 4:11)

22 For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.

23 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Nothing is hid and neither is there in prophesy except that clarity may escape the hearer until it is time

So literal is accurate... including those of all the parables because their example  always make sense ...perfect sense
upon careful examination once they are explained. And it is the wiseman who would understand that the revealing will come when it is time.

So Ezekiel used the Garden of Eden's foliage as a comparison to the splendor of Assyria. To emphasize her magnificence.

Nothing said in Ez 1-9 is anything that is not a true parallel.

Back in the day...( meaning time span and nor 24 hours) the author of Genesis gave us the basic outline of creation without embellishment. But it was impressed upon all that Eden had to have been the most perfect spot on earth, until the fall of man.

By comparison we are told that the prophesies of Ezekiel (31) that God had allowed such splendor and might that not even those within the garden of Eden could rival them...

But just as in the Garden of God man failed and brought it down.

Perfectly understandable and to me very literal..

Ezekiel 31:3  Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches

I'm pretty sure we at least agree that the Assyrian was not literally a tree.    So then, this is a metaphor.

Ezekiel 31:9  I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

Did literal trees experience envy?  No.  So either Ezekiel has created two metaphors here and then related them to each other, mixing his metaphors.  Or...

Perhaps the trees of Eden were always metaphorical, and that is how the prophet Ezekiel understood Genesis to begin with.

Jarrod

[Rella]

Ezekiel 31:3  Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches

I'm pretty sure we at least agree that the Assyrian was not literally a tree.    So then, this is a metaphor.

Ezekiel 31:9  I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

Did literal trees experience envy?  No.  So either Ezekiel has created two metaphors here and then related them to each other, mixing his metaphors.  Or...

Perhaps the trees of Eden were always metaphorical, and that is how the prophet Ezekiel understood Genesis to begin with.

Jarrod

I'm pretty sure we at least agree that the Assyrian was not literally a tree.    So then, this is a metaphor.

  I agree that the Assyrian was not literally a tree.... you want to call it a metaphor  I merely call it as one of those times something of importance is used in a description of something or someone else.

"Perhaps the trees of Eden were always metaphorical, and that is how the prophet Ezekiel understood Genesis to begin with."

Nah.    Most likely, he understood the spiritual significance of trees.

Now.. do trees experience envy? I know they, as well as all plants have feelings. Any gardener will tell you to talk to your plants. Will one flourish if talked to and the other not.

Plants "Listen" to the Good Vibes of Other Plants. A new study found that plants grown next to certain other plants are healthier than those grown in isolation.

Do potted plants talk to each other?
In the last 10 years, scientists have discovered that plants absolutely do communicate with each other, with "friends," with "enemies," with everyone they encounter in their little piece of the world. They have a full, rich life of constant communication.

Read the short article in the link.... AND THEN TELL ME IF YOU THINK THAT A TREE CAN BE ENVIOUS..... (Yes, this is about plants, but trees are allso plants.)

https://www.hoeandrake.com/do-plants-grow-better-together-or-separate/#:~:text=Sound%20is%20perceived%20as%20vibrations.%20There%20is%20no,haven%E2%80%99t.%20Do%20potted%20plants%20talk%20to%20each%20other%3F

If the Assyrian was compared to another person would you still call it a metaphor. I do not think comparing to a living something that is known for its being strong and durable is any different....

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

If the Assyrian was compared to another person would you still call it a metaphor?

It depends on how the comparison was made.  If you say that a person IS something-that-they-are-literally-not, that's a metaphor.

Also, the Assyrian WAS compared to other people.  You just haven't realized it yet. 

Jarrod

[Alan]

I agree that the Assyrian was not literally a tree.... you want to call it a metaphor  I merely call it as one of those times something of importance is used in a description of something or someone else.

Sounds like you are describing a metaphor. 

[Rella]

Sounds like you are describing a metaphor. 

Is this your understanding?

Metaphor:

noun

1.
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable:

I have always understood that a  metaphor likens one thing to another , and It equates those two things not because they actually are the same, but for the sake of comparison or symbolism.

I also have always understood that a metaphor with in.... ummmm... say a story would be that something that was related to the subject or the object of the story.

While I can see why you would read Ez 31 in a metaphorically light... I dont. Not if you are using the "tree" and its reference to those in Eden as your basis for a metaphor....

If anything the metaphor here is "the Assyrian" because the entire chapter is against Egypt, and designed for the humbling and mortifying of Pharaoh.

Verse 2 says ... Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness?

IF anything.... since this comparison was directed by the Lord...to be told to Pharaoh, "the Egyptian... if you will" ...And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the third month, in the first day of the month, that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness?

But being that is was from the Lord, and any person who reads the holy words with care knows the Lord has a great fondness
for the use of Parables... I say the the Assyrian / tree analogy ( my understanding, a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on a resemblance of a particular aspect) is a perfect example of an analogous parable 

IOW...A  "parable" is an illustrative story, where a familiar idea is used beside an unfamiliar idea in such a way that the comparison helps others to better understand grasp the unfamiliar idea. At least that is the way a parable is to work and what better way then to use the Assyrian with a tree description and references to Eden and how the cedar was so much better then the perfection that was made in Eden. (Pharoe would be quite familiar with Eden and it's splendors as the story got passed down.)

Therefore.... ( dang I wish we were talking math)...( math is so much easier then trying to get a point across for me )

Therefore we have here in EZ 31 A simple story that is told, of which  certain features of which are analogous or parallel to the points or principles one wishes to drive home.

And as I see it ... nothing could have been said that would be more literal in explanation to drive a point home.

[Amo]

https://www.icr.org/article/young-earth/

Article below at link above. The table mentioned can be viewed at the link. The article is quite dated, but interesting nonetheless. It expresses points which I have expressed as well, in mathematical terms, concerning the uncertainties of the past. And the assumptions which must be made by any attempting to date the world and or universe. Let alone anything else for that matter, which has existed longer than the ones dating it, without any historical record concerning such. I am no mathematician, perhaps some of you are, and will understand that side of the article better than I. The principles being addressed though, are sound. Both Creationists and deep time Evolutionists must make assumptions according to their faiths as it were, to conclude as they do.

The Young Earth

BY HENRY M. MORRIS, PH.D.  |
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 01, 1974

It should be recognized that it is impossible to determine with certainty any date prior to the beginning of historical records—except, of course, by divine revelation. Science, in the proper sense, is based on observation, and we have no records of observation except historical records. Natural processes can be used to estimate prehistoric dates, but not to determine such dates. The accuracy of the estimates will depend on the validity of the assumptions applied to the use of the processes in making such calculations.

Assume, in the general case, a simple process in which there are two main components, one "parent" and one "daughter" component—call them A and B, respectively. The initial magnitudes of these components at zero time (that is, the time when the particular system came into existence) are A0 and B0. After an additional time T these magnitudes have changed to AT and BT. The average time-rate at which A changes into B during the time T is RT. The instantaneous rate may either be constant or may change in some fashion with time, in which case it may be expressed in functional form as:

(1)

rt = f (A0, B0, t),

since it may possibly depend on the process components as well as on time.

If the process is not a closed system, then there may be changes in A and B which result from extraneous influences, other than those expressed in the normal rate function. Let such changes be represented by the quantities D a and D b where D a may be either positive or negative and represents the modification in A brought about during the time T by such external influences. A similar definition applies to D b.

Putting all these quantities together, the following equations express the effect of these changes in A and B.

(2)

A0 ± Da - (RT)T= AT

(3)

B0 ± Db + (RT)T = BT

Subtracting equation (3) from equation (2):

(4)

(A0 - B0) ± (D a ± D b) - 2RT(T) = (AT - BT)

from which the time T is calculated as

follows:

(5)

T =     (BT - B0) + (A0 - AT) ± (D a ±D b) 
2RT

This equation is relatively simple, involving only two components in the chronometric system. Many processes would involve more than this. Some, of course, might involve a change in only one component.

To solve the equation and obtain the duration T, it is obvious that all the terms on the right-hand side of equation (5) would have to be known. The problem, however, is that only AT, BT, and rT (the present magnitudes and rate) can actually be measured.

There is no way by which the average rate RT can be determined unless the functional relationship expressed in equation (1) is known. Mathematically this average rate could be expressed as follows:

(6)

RT =     ò0T rt (dt) 
T

This cannot be calculated, however, unless the equation for rt is known. It is customary simply to assume that RT = (rt) as it is measured at present. In other words, it is arbitrarily assumed that the process rate has been constant throughout the period T. This is an unrealistic assumption since, in the real world, there is no such thing as a process rate which cannot be changed.

Furthermore, there is no way by which D a and D b can be determined, since there is no way of knowing what extraneous influences may have affected the system in the prehistoric past. The common assumption is that the system has always been a closed system and thus both D a and D b are zero, but this assumption is likewise unrealistic since, in the real world, all systems are open systems.

Similarly, there is no way of knowing the initial magnitudes of the parent and daughter components, A0 and B0, since no scientific observers were present to measure them at the time. Again, however, it is commonly assumed that there was no daughter component present initially, so that BO is zero, and that the initial parent component has been modified only by the amount corresponding to the present daughter component, so that A0 = BT + AT.

If all these assumptions are made, then equation (5) becomes:

(7)

T =    (BT - 0) + (BT + AT - AT) + (0+0)    =     BT 
2RT   RT

Since both BT and rT can be measured, it is thus easily possible to calculate T. However, the resulting date is obviously only as accurate as the assumptions.

To recapitulate, any geochronometric calculation is based on at least the following assumptions:

1. Constant process rate (or known functional variation of process rate).

2. Closed process system (or known external effects on the open system).

3. Initial process components known.

It is significant that not one of these three vital assumptions is provable, or testable, or reasonable, or even possible! Therefore, no geochronometric calculation can possibly be certain, and most of them are bound to be vastly in error.

Since the magnitude of the error in the assumptions obviously will vary quite widely from process to process, one would expect to get a wide range of "apparent ages" from different processes.

In Table I have been listed 76 different processes for calculating the age of various integral parts of the earth and, thus, presumably of the earth itself. All of them yield an age of much less than a billion years, whereas the present standard evolutionary estimate is approximately five billion years.

The presently-favored geochronometric methods (that is, those that give long ages, such as uranium-lead, rubidium-strontium, and potassium-argon) have not been included in the tabulation, nor are they discussed in this paper. However, it has been shown elsewhere (1, 5, 6, 7) that these can also easily be reconciled with young-age concepts.

The most obvious characteristic of the values listed in the table is their extreme variability—all the way from 100 years to 500,000,000 years. This variability, of course, simply reflects the errors in the fundamental uniformitarian assumptions.

Nevertheless, all things considered, it seems that those ages on the low end of the spectrum are likely to be more accurate than those on the high end. This conclusion follows from the obvious fact that: (1) they are less likely to have been affected by initial concentrations or positions other than "zero"; (2) the assumption that the system was a "closed system" is more likely to be valid for a short time than for a long time; (3) the assumption that the process rate was constant is also more likely to be valid for a short time than for a long time.

Thus, it is concluded that the weight of all the scientific evidence favors the view that the earth is quite young, far too young for life and man to have arisen by an evolutionary process. The origin of all things by special creation—already necessitated by many other scientific considerations—is therefore also indicated by chronometric data.

Finally, the reader should note that these conclusions were reached with no reference at all to the testimony of the Bible relative to chronology. It is, therefore, all the more significant that these results correspond closely to the brief chronology of terrestrial and human history given long ago by divine revelation in the Holy Scriptures.

[Amo]

https://www.youngearth.com/magnetic-field

Quoted article below from link above.

Earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly

Earth's Magnetic Field Decay: As summarized by University of Maryland geophysicist Daniel Lathrop, "In particular, over the last 150 years or so, the Earth's magnetic field has declined in strength about ten percent, and continues to decline in strength [as is evident] every time people go and make new measurements." Creationists point out that this rapid decay is not expected in such a brief snapshot in time if our planet were 4.6 billion years old. On the other hand, these careful, long-term, and worldwide measurements that document the rapidly decreasing strength of Earth's magnetic field are consistent with a young Earth. Lathrop, not surprisingly, is an old-earth geophysicist who nonetheless acknowledged this data at the opening of and midway through the 2013 program Magnetic Shield, an episode of The Weather Channel's Secrets of the Earth with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical), Michio Kaku.

Creationist physicist Russell Humphreys of Sandia National Labs has updated his previous work by publishing Earth's Magnetic Field Is Decaying Steadily, which includes global data through 2010. Humphreys observes that, "in 1968 the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy (IAGA) began more systematically measuring, gathering, and analyzing geomagnetic data from all over the world. This group of geomagnetic professionals introduced a 'standard spherical harmonic representation' of the field called the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, or IGRF. Every five years starting in 1970, they have published both dipole and non-dipole components of the field. Using older data, the IAGA also extended the model back to the beginning of the twentieth century. With the issuance of the latest data set, IGRF-11, we have a standardized set of geomagnetic data from 1900 to 2010. You can download it free of charge as an ASCII file..." (Incidentally, Humphreys also published accurate predictions of the magnetic fields of Neptune and Uranus before NASA's Voyager mission confirmed his work.)
​
The steady and rapid decay of the energy of the Earth's magnetic field as documented by the most careful measurements over the forty-year period from 1970 to 2010 is also consistent with previous published results using data going back to 1835, and by inference from other observations, apparently, going back to the 1100s A.D. Further, as with forensic accounting and statistical analysis, numbers can often tell a lot about data, and in this case, analysis of the field strength measurements helps to confirm the validity of the data. Humphreys writes further that the decay patterns, "weigh heavily against the idea that there is currently a 'dynamo' process at work in the core that would ultimately restore the lost energy back to the field. Without such a restoration mechanism, the field can only have a limited lifetime, in the thousands of years." For example, if the energy of the field has been dissipating at the current rate, going back only a million years would produce such heat that the oceans would have burned off the Earth, which clearly they have not.
​
See also the Real Science Radio Mercury Report at rsr.org/mercury#magnetic-field for an example of another planet experiencing rapidly decaying magnetic field strength and hear Bob Enyart and Fred Williams talk about the Earth's decay rate at RSR's Spiders & Termites & Magnets.
​
Here's the point: A four-billion year old Earth would have reached stasis long ago whereby changes in something as globally significant as its magnetic field would occur only very slowly. And since the Earth could not sustain the necessary increased energy backward in time for even a million years, let alone billions, to explain its current strength and decay rate, this is significant, worldwide evidence that appears to undermine the alleged great age of the Earth.

[Cobalt1959]

Quoted article below from link above.

You can keep posting this stuff and I well understand why you do so.  And I applaud you for your dedication and tenacity.  But the ones who want to substitute a religious belief in evolution over God's inspired narrative of how the Earth, the Solar System and the Universe came to be will never get it.  They can't grasp something that simple.  They have to gum it up.  Mankind is smarter now.  No need to believe God.  We can stick our own humanistic wisdom in place of God's dictates.

[4WD]

The YECs spend most of their time lambasting science and the rest of their time posting stuff they think is science.  Go figure.

The earth's magnetic field has flipped many times in the past.  It flips on average every 300,000 years or so.  One would expect that in the process of flipping the strength of the field might change.

[Rella]

The YECs spend most of their time lambasting science and the rest of their time posting stuff they think is science.  Go figure.

The earth's magnetic field has flipped many times in the past.  It flips on average every 300,000 years or so.  One would expect that in the process of flipping the strength of the field might change.

The YECs spend most of their time lambasting science and the rest of their time posting stuff they think is science.  Go figure.

The earth's magnetic field has flipped many times in the past.  It flips on average every 300,000 years or so.  One would expect that in the process of flipping the strength of the field might change.

One would expect???   IOW one does not know... definitively. It is guesswork based on someone playing with their scientific toys in their labs.

[4WD]

It is mostly by analysis of physical evidence.

[Rella]

It is mostly by analysis of physical evidence.

Well, as I am a quasi-YEC, it is that evidence that I would call into question. In light of something like earth's magnetic field having flipped many times in the past ... on average every 300,000 years or so, it is not what has happened to the magnetic field... but a call that it happens on average every 300,000 years or so..... MANY times in the past.

I just cannot wait for their conclusions on the "ice" that they have now found on Mars. Perhaps they will tell us that our ice is older or younger then that on Mars.... "especially" now they have said it can be used for watering things like plants.

"According to a news release, "subsurface ice will be a vital resource for astronauts, who could use it for a variety of needs, including drinking water, agriculture, and rocket propellant. Buried ice has never been spotted this close to the Martian equator, which, as the warmest part of Mars, is an appealing location for astronauts."

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/28may_marsice/

Some good pictures here...

https://news.yahoo.com/mars-lander-discovers-massive-crater-213335503.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Yeppers... holding my breath now til we know which is older.... Mars or Earth.... not 

[Texas Conservative]

There can be an iterative nature to science that one might call guesswork.  Sometimes it could be called guesswork.  But that pursuit of knowledge leads to deeper understanding.

[Alan]

... holding my breath now til we know which is older.... Mars or Earth.... not 

Mars, Earth, and the rest of the planets in our solar system are the same age, that isn't even a question, it's a well known fact.