Lionz wrote:Masquerading fallen angels would be proof of evolution? There are angels who are going to show up and try to deceive you with lies having to do with aliens and evolution maybe.
I want to make this my new signature.
Moderator: Community Team
Lionz wrote:Masquerading fallen angels would be proof of evolution? There are angels who are going to show up and try to deceive you with lies having to do with aliens and evolution maybe.
DangerBoy wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah I hate Henry Morris Blah Blah Blah young earth creationists suck Blah Blah Blah Blah I'm an evolution expert Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah right wing conspiracy Blah Blah Blah Blah Obama's the best evah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Bible is what I say it is Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah if you REALLY knew anything about evolution Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah we must stop young earth creationists Blah Blah Blah evangelicals are liars Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah fundamentalists are wrong and I'm right Blah Blah Blah Blah nobody can ever refute me cause evolution is my field of study Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Jay, you know nothing Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah My views are all mainstream Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ICR is the devil Blah Blah Blah Blah true Christians believe in evolution Blah Blah Blah that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I wrote, NOTHING Blah Blah Blah Blah unite to save science from young earth believers Blah Blah Blah Blah
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
natty_dread wrote:This thread is stuck on an endless loop.
Lionz wrote:Tzor,
He created plants and animals before Adam and then later Adam was put into Eden and more plants and animals were created and Adam named creatures perhaps. Where is there a contradiction?
Lionz wrote:What if Genesis 2 goes into detail on the 6th day and some animals were created before Adam and some animals were created after Adam? Why would He create animals after Adam if He already did before? How about to fill up Eden and to get Adam to see Him create animals and to get Adam to name animals?
jay_a2j wrote: " ...."
Lionz wrote:Who said a Bible was supposed to be a full and complete creation list or that evolution means an absense of Him or that most or all Christians believe the earth is young? .
notyou2 wrote:So....it's decided? Everyone agrees? We achieved consensus? God is dead?
PLAYER57832 wrote:jay_a2j wrote: " ...."
About one thing I am sure. We each care about our children and their education deeply, which is why this topic is important to each of us.
I only wish you were willing to at least look at the evidence.. the full and recent evidence, not just what you learned in school years back. If you are correct, then you have lost nothing but a little time (less than you have spent debating this likely). However, if I am correct, and you don't bother to look, then it's quite likely your daughter will find out herself. Then, finding you were wrong on this.. not just wrong, but not even truly willing to think about the other side, she will question all you say in profound ways.
I have seen that happen over and over again, and had to deal with the aftermath. Only sometimes are the children (adults by then) able to return to Christ. Christ has no need of lies. So, anything young earthers say that is wrong, no matter how well intentioned is not of Christ. The same is, of course true for evolutionists. The thing is, evolutionists don't pretend anything else. Every scientific discovery comes with an "understood" challenge. Things are published, the scientist says "hey, here is what I have found and here is how I did it", sometimes, they might add in an "and this is what I believe it means" or "I suspect this will lead to...". BUT, then, they stand back (essentially) and say "OK, now just try to prove me wrong". Of coruse, only frauds publish things they don't believe are true, but it is only when the published material withstands multiple challenges, usually over many years or with pretty substantial evidence, that it gets "accepted".
Even then, the challenge is always there. Scientists only look at what evidence exists and then frame theories to match it, changing as we gain knowledge. The theories that make up the theory of evolution have changed significantly in recent years, mostly clarifications and refinements. However, the change required to allow for even a few of the young earth theories would mean doing away with most all of science, truly.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
jay_a2j wrote:Do you allow for the possibility that Carbon dating is flawed?
Do you allow for the possibility for Darwin's theory to be wrong?
Do you allow for God to accomplish what is impossible for man to even conceive much less understand?
Do you put more faith in science then the God who is responsible for it?
jay_a2j wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:jay_a2j wrote: " ...."
About one thing I am sure. We each care about our children and their education deeply, which is why this topic is important to each of us.
I only wish you were willing to at least look at the evidence.. the full and recent evidence, not just what you learned in school years back. If you are correct, then you have lost nothing but a little time (less than you have spent debating this likely). However, if I am correct, and you don't bother to look, then it's quite likely your daughter will find out herself. Then, finding you were wrong on this.. not just wrong, but not even truly willing to think about the other side, she will question all you say in profound ways.
I have seen that happen over and over again, and had to deal with the aftermath. Only sometimes are the children (adults by then) able to return to Christ. Christ has no need of lies. So, anything young earthers say that is wrong, no matter how well intentioned is not of Christ. The same is, of course true for evolutionists. The thing is, evolutionists don't pretend anything else. Every scientific discovery comes with an "understood" challenge. Things are published, the scientist says "hey, here is what I have found and here is how I did it", sometimes, they might add in an "and this is what I believe it means" or "I suspect this will lead to...". BUT, then, they stand back (essentially) and say "OK, now just try to prove me wrong". Of coruse, only frauds publish things they don't believe are true, but it is only when the published material withstands multiple challenges, usually over many years or with pretty substantial evidence, that it gets "accepted".
Even then, the challenge is always there. Scientists only look at what evidence exists and then frame theories to match it, changing as we gain knowledge. The theories that make up the theory of evolution have changed significantly in recent years, mostly clarifications and refinements. However, the change required to allow for even a few of the young earth theories would mean doing away with most all of science, truly.
It just seems to me that your thinking is 1 sided. Your side. You don't even think for a moment that the earth could be younger than some scientists believe.
Human memory, that is, verified written and assorted physical evidence shows that civilization, not just humans, go back well before that. I have to say that reading about even the divirsity of cultures within the Bible has always lead me to believe that civilization was older than archeologists thought. Recent years has born that out. More discoveries keep pushing the dates back, not ahead.jay_a2j wrote:The whole young earth thing to me is not an issue. I do hold to the belief that it has been approximately 6,000 years from ADAM to present day.
jay_a2j wrote:Do you allow for the possibility that Carbon dating is flawed?
Do you allow for the possibility for Darwin's theory to be wrong?
Do you allow for God to accomplish what is impossible for man to even conceive much less understand
Do you put more faith in science then the God who is responsible for it?
PLAYER57832 wrote:jay_a2j wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:jay_a2j wrote: " ...."
About one thing I am sure. We each care about our children and their education deeply, which is why this topic is important to each of us.
I only wish you were willing to at least look at the evidence.. the full and recent evidence, not just what you learned in school years back. If you are correct, then you have lost nothing but a little time (less than you have spent debating this likely). However, if I am correct, and you don't bother to look, then it's quite likely your daughter will find out herself. Then, finding you were wrong on this.. not just wrong, but not even truly willing to think about the other side, she will question all you say in profound ways.
I have seen that happen over and over again, and had to deal with the aftermath. Only sometimes are the children (adults by then) able to return to Christ. Christ has no need of lies. So, anything young earthers say that is wrong, no matter how well intentioned is not of Christ. The same is, of course true for evolutionists. The thing is, evolutionists don't pretend anything else. Every scientific discovery comes with an "understood" challenge. Things are published, the scientist says "hey, here is what I have found and here is how I did it", sometimes, they might add in an "and this is what I believe it means" or "I suspect this will lead to...". BUT, then, they stand back (essentially) and say "OK, now just try to prove me wrong". Of coruse, only frauds publish things they don't believe are true, but it is only when the published material withstands multiple challenges, usually over many years or with pretty substantial evidence, that it gets "accepted".
Even then, the challenge is always there. Scientists only look at what evidence exists and then frame theories to match it, changing as we gain knowledge. The theories that make up the theory of evolution have changed significantly in recent years, mostly clarifications and refinements. However, the change required to allow for even a few of the young earth theories would mean doing away with most all of science, truly.
It just seems to me that your thinking is 1 sided. Your side. You don't even think for a moment that the earth could be younger than some scientists believe.
This is because you are talking to me after years of trying, unsuccessfully, to find anything that would even begin to allow for young earth ideas. It is because after years of doing this, and, as I said, talking to more than a few biology students who saw their belief in Christ as tied to the earth being young coming into true spiritual crisis when they found that the science just plain does not support anything but that the earth is old.Human memory, that is, verified written and assorted physical evidence shows that civilization, not just humans, go back well before that. I have to say that reading about even the divirsity of cultures within the Bible has always lead me to believe that civilization was older than archeologists thought. Recent years has born that out. More discoveries keep pushing the dates back, not ahead.jay_a2j wrote:The whole young earth thing to me is not an issue. I do hold to the belief that it has been approximately 6,000 years from ADAM to present day.
jay_a2j wrote:Do you allow for the possibility that Carbon dating is flawed?
Do you allow for the possibility for Darwin's theory to be wrong?
Do you allow for God to accomplish what is impossible for man to even conceive much less understand
Do you put more faith in science then the God who is responsible for it?
Tzor already answered these pretty well.
But, I will add in this. Science revolves around people disproving one another. ANY scientific idea or theory can possibly be wrong. However, to do so requires refuting the evidence or providing a reasonable alternative explanation, one that matches what we do know. The problem with young earth creationists is not that they want to disagree, it is that they claim to have evidence they simply do not have and deny evidence that really exists. It is that they put forward ideas that plain and simply have been disproven.
Carbon-14 dating is not used to date fossils. To be used, requires presence of carbon and most fossils no longer contain carbon. (yet many creationist articles continue to refer to carbon dating errors as a reason why paleontologist dating of fossil record cannot be trusted) it is used for archeological sites. It has a wide error range ( It is more like the odometer of your car than a micrometer). Its limit is around 50,000 years. And, like many types of analysis has to be done correctly or it will be worng. Even so, it has been verified over and over to work within those ranges.
As for Darwin, not only is it not "his" theory, he was wrong a LOT. However, he got the general concepts correct (that things change over time, etc.). He is given credit for publishing the first account that became widely read and accepted in Europe and the Americas. For example, natural selection happens. However, it is not the only mover of evolution and might not even be the primary mover in evolution.
As for God. Of course God can do anything and can move people to do anything. However, God created the world we have for a reason. He told us it was for us and that it was good. Why would he create a lie? For creationism to be true means that he created this world and all its systems such that evidence shows it to be old, even when it is not. That doesn't seem consistant with how God operates. It also is not what young earth creationists assert.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.
Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.
In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).
If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.
The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.
What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.
If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....7
When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.
Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.
Lionz wrote:Tzor,
Should we not actually expect for there to be preflood things that would date way off with carbon dating if there was an earthwide flood and earth had a vastly different atmosphere and much more plantlife on it before the flood?
A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is in turn affected by variations in the Earth's magnetosphere [11]. In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changes in the Earth's climate can affect the carbon flows between these reservoirs and the atmosphere, leading to changes in the atmosphere's 14C fraction.
Aside from these changes due to natural processes, the level has also been affected by human activities. From the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century to the 1950s, the fractional level of 14C decreased because of the admixture of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, due to the excavated oil reserves and combustion production of fossil fuel. This decline is known as the Suess effect, and also affects the 13C isotope. However, atmospheric 14C was almost doubled for a short period during the 1950s and 1960s due to atmospheric atomic bomb tests.
As a consequence, the radiocarbon method shows limitations on dating of materials that are younger than the industrial era. Due to these fluctuations, greater carbon-14 content cannot be taken to mean a lesser age. It is expected that in the future the radiocarbon method will become less effective. A calibration curve must sometimes be combined with contextual analysis, because there is not always a direct relationship between age and carbon-14 content.[12]
Speleothems (such as stalagmites) are calcium carbonate deposits that form from drips in limestone caves. Individual speleothems can be tens of thousands of years old.[25] Scientists are attempting to extend the record of atmospheric carbon-14 by measuring radiocarbon in speleothems which have been independently dated using uranium-thorium dating.[26][27] These results are improving the calibration for the radiocarbon technique and extending its usefulness to 45,000 years into the past.[28]
Because uranium is soluble to some extent in all natural waters, any material that precipitates or is grown from such waters also contains trace uranium, typically at levels of between a few parts per billion and few parts per million by weight. In contrast, thorium is not soluble in natural waters under conditions found at or near the surface of the earth and so materials grown in or from these waters do not usually contain thorium. As time passes after the formation of such a material, the uranium-234 in the sample decays to thorium-230, with a half-life of 245,000 years. The thorium-230 is itself radioactive with a half-life of 75,000 years and so instead of accumulating indefinitely (as for instance is the case for the uranium-lead system) it instead approaches secular equilibrium with its parent isotope. At equilibrium, the number of thorium-230 decays per year within a sample is equal to the number of uranium-234 decays per year in the same sample.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users