Wisdom of Solomon regarding exact age of earth/universe [Archive]

kendemyer

October 26th 2004, 09:27 PM

TO: Rogero

Here is something I wrote in the archeology forum:

I think some individuals have some misperceptions regarding Bible chronologies in terms of the date of the Biblical flood:

I cite the following:

"....What is often forgotten is that in Hebrew tradition many generations are unreported. Often only the famous or infamous are counted. A comparison of the biblical genealogies confirms this technique (compare 1 Chronicles 3:10-12 with Mathew 1:8 and Genesis 5 with Genesis 11 and Luke 3).2 Also, the Hebrew words for “father” and “son” are less specific than modern usage. For example, the Hebrew for “father” could mean “grandfather” or “great-grandfather,” (in other words “father” can mean ancestor). Young-earth scholars do not deny these gaps, especially before the time of Abraham, out of necessity to make sense of the chronology of events in the Bible.3 Some accounts, such as those describing Adam, his life and children, only make sense if the verses are compressing time."

taken from: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4264/cr3.html

I cite the following supporting information although this webpage takes a different interpretation other than the gap in genealogy position:

"1. Gaps in Genealogies

"He first mentions the fact that in some of the "begatitudes" of the Bible, generations are left out for some reason or other. Matthew 1:8 and 11, for instance, each skip a generation or two. Ruth 4:18-22 is incomplete."

taken from: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/ch/ch5_06.htm

TO: All

My position is not hyper historical skepticism. I think that would be overstating the spirit of what Solomon said in my first post. I merely think that the EXACT age of the earth/universe is extremely hard to ascertain. The creationist attack the assumptions used in the evolutionists dating of the universe and the evolutionists attack the assumptions the creationists take in their dating methodologies.

kendemyer

October 26th 2004, 09:34 PM

addendum to my previous post

TO: ALL

I guess the real question is whose dating methodologies have the best assumptions.

By the way, if anyone wants to see the creationist dating methodologies here are some common ones cited (I do not attest to the accuracy of all of them)

YOUNG EARTH ARGUMENTS FOR YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM

http://www.age-of-earth.com/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/2001/dd-01-16.htm

rogero

October 26th 2004, 09:37 PM

...

My position is not hyper historical skepticism. I think that would be overstating the spirit of what Solomon said in my first post. I merely think that the EXACT age of the earth/universe is extremely hard to ascertain. The creationist attack the assumptions used in the evolutionists dating of the universe and the evolutionists attack the assumption the creationists take in their dating methodologies.

Sincerely,

Yeah, the EXACT age is hard to determine, but the empirical data point to an age of Earth close to 4.53 billion years (could be off by 10 million years or so) and NOT 6007 years (nor 10000 years, nor 100000 years.) This is not a philosophical issue. It's based on observed data in a consistent paradigm.

R

rogero

October 26th 2004, 09:41 PM

TO: Rogero

Here is something I wrote in the archeology forum:

I think some individuals have some misperceptions regarding Bible chronologies in terms of the date of the Biblical flood:

I cite the following:

I cite the following supporting information although this webpage takes a different interpretation other than the gap in genealogy position:

"1. Gaps in Genealogies

...

So, I take it your point is that the Ussherian 6007 years may be wrong -- the "real" age could be 10000, 15000, maybe even 30000, depending upon how one adds up the begats and accounts for discrepancies in genealogical language? All of these are WAY off the mark from the date range obtained from empirical data, through which I believe God does not intentionally deceive.

My surmise is that you believe otherwise.

kendemyer

October 26th 2004, 09:44 PM

One Bad Pig

October 26th 2004, 09:54 PM

How much do you know about such events? You are referring to events in human history, no? Most details of this are not known. Agreed.

On the other hand, when one is considering history of Earth and Cosmos, it is important to consider the broad outline and what it tells us. The evidence of geology, chemisty, physics, astronomy point to an ancient (billions --- not thousands, not millions, not trillions, not quadrillions of years). The data are most assuredly not complete -- is that your point? But they are complete enough to conclude such an age (+/- a few percent). Do you think we need to have all the data to conclude this? Do you think that any reasonable person could take the scientific data we have now and come up with a wildly different interpretation --- say that the Cosmos is 6007 years old?

It seems your attempt at an argument from the relaying of human knowledge over the generations could better be used against a literal inerrant infalliable reading of Scripture, since it is a document written by various individuals over many years and whose original writings are in dispute or non-extant. Such cannot be said for the history left behind in the rocks and stars and seas and atmosphere.

It was a nice try at an argument though.

R
Interesting, since I wasn't trying to argue either way. I was trying to point out that, from Solomon's point of view, 3,000 years or 3 billion doesn't make much difference; both times are too far in the past to know much at all about. That was ken's point, which you (and geochron) missed the first time around. Apparently, you were too busy slamming YEC to think about my question.

rogero

October 26th 2004, 10:17 PM

Interesting, since I wasn't trying to argue either way. I was trying to point out that, from Solomon's point of view, 3,000 years or 3 billion doesn't make much difference; both times are too far in the past to know much at all about. That was ken's point, which you (and geochron) missed the first time around. Apparently, you were too busy slamming YEC to think about my question.

3,000 0r 3 billion years doesn't make much difference? Ok, whatever you say, Pig. My point was that we CAN know ENOUGH about the physical history of Earth and Cosmos to rule out the few thousands of years option. You can argue the semantics and poetry of Solomon (which I find very beautiful and spiritually meaningful) all you want, it's not going to change the facts of nature. If you want to debate those, go right ahead.

R

rogero

October 26th 2004, 10:26 PM

TO: Rogero

I think part of the issue involves the Big Bang theory issue. The site www.apologeticspress.org did a superb article on the big bang question. It is the last link given and the article is so long and comprehensive I could not do it justice here. I offer it to if you have any interest though. I think it is the best anti big bang articles that I have seen so far.

BIG BANG THEORY PROBLEMS AND CRITICISMS

Brief webpages:

http://www.origin-of-the-universe.com/

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/december99.htm

http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2001/dc-01-04.htm

Excellent Comprehensive Essay:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305ad3.htm

The Big Bang or an alternative origin theory is not the point here, at least as I can see it. But, it's rather can we know ENOUGH about the past history of the Earth and Cosmos to rule out the fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture which includes (incredibly) a 6000- (maybe) 20000 or so year old Universe.

Ultimate origins are not something that science can address well. The Big Bang is still the most widely accepted theory (at least back to 10^(-43) second) but other ideas are being advanced. None of these have the least bit to do with geological, physical, and paleontological evidence for a billions years old Earth, which completely obviates an chronology based on a fundamentalist/fideistic interpretation of Scripture.

To reiterate --- a billions years old Earth and Cosmos does NOT depend on the Big Bang, which is/was a tentative conclusion based on the best available data over past few decades. If the Big Bang is discarded or modified by more observation, this does NOTHING to change the data for an a billions-year old Earth.

R

sylas

October 27th 2004, 01:23 AM

"What has been is remote and exceedingly mysterious. Who can discover it?"

- Ecclesiastes 7:24

I consider this to be a poor translation of the verse. The verse is not particularly refering to inference of events in the past; but to the impossibility of attaining wisdom.

I don't recognize the translation used above, but here is the verse in some more well known translations.

All this I tested by wisdom and I said, "I am determined to be wise" -- but this was beyond me.
24Whatever wisdom may be, it is far off and most profound -- who can discover it?

All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but it was far from me.
24That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it out?

All this have I tested by wisdom: I said, "I will be wise"; but it was far from me.
24That which is, is far off, and deep, very deep, who can find it out?

The whole discussion here seems to be based on the mistaken premise the Solomon, (or "the philosopher") was speaking of finding out empirical details of past events.

If that were the case, I would have no hestitation in saying that the Philosopher was wrong. We can find out details of the past. Not every last detail, but plenty to get real and exciting insights into events in the long history of our universe.

The giant strides in understanding that have been made with the development of science over the last few centuries does not, however, undermine the real point of Ecclesiastes. We have learned a lot about how the world was formed, and how old it is, and what materials it is made of, and much else besides.

But we have not learned wisdom; Glenn's posts on oil show this plainly. We have not learned how to live; and the futility seen by the philosopher is only deepened by the bare scientific account of the universe.

The retreat behind the bible, in a futile attempt to deny all that we have learned about the universe and continue to learn, is intellectual suicide. But more to the point, it is rarely fair to the themes and issues considered in the bible.

Cheers -- Sylas

geochron

October 27th 2004, 04:27 AM

I thought we weren't supposed to argue by weblink.

Following some of Kendemeyer's links above leads to some hilarious arguments...

"In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people. "

"Saturn's rings are not stable. They are drifting away from Saturn. If Saturn is billions of years old, why does it still have rings? "

I think you'd have to have your brain liquidised not to laugh at those two, for instance.

shunyadragon

October 27th 2004, 05:05 AM

One Bad Pig

October 27th 2004, 11:19 AM

sylas

October 27th 2004, 11:38 AM

I agree. The bible is not a textbook, let alone a science textbook. However, what scientific advances stand or fall with a theory of origins? What can we do today that would be impossible without the theory of evolution?

My apologies; I have just noticed that I am in the wrong forum. I would be happy to take up that question in another forum, if you would like to ask there. It is a good question, but off topic in this thread. Mainly I wanted to suggest a closer look at the bible verse and its context; and I am happy for you folks to tackle that without further input from me.

Cheers -- Sylas

kendemyer

October 27th 2004, 12:54 PM

One Bad Pig

October 27th 2004, 01:08 PM

If anyone wants to address my question to sylas, please do so here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=764886).

:obp:

geochron

October 27th 2004, 05:45 PM

TO: ALL

I think the translation discussion was helpful.

On the science issues concerning the age of the earth there seems to be two things happening:

1. The evolutionists giving bare assertions with no supporting evidence.

2. Kendemyer offering links.

I really do not think that anyone has either the time and/or commitment to do much more at this point.

My review of the thread shows it was actually...

1. Kendemyer offering links
2. Me pointing to a couple of the more ridiculous arguments to be found there.

You don't claim to stand behind all of the arguments at your links, so you can hardly expect anyone to waste effort refuting all of them (especially since the ones I reviewed were all trivially ridiculous or multiple refuted already). If you'd like to pick one you do like, we could discuss it.

rogero

October 27th 2004, 06:25 PM

TO: ALL

I think the translation discussion was helpful.

On the science issues concerning the age of the earth there seems to be two things happening:

1. The evolutionists giving bare assertions with no supporting evidence.

2. Kendemyer offering links.

I really do not think that anyone has either the time and/or commitment to do much more at this point.

I concur with Geochron's analysis of your backwards assessment of your thread. You never made it clear what you wanted to discuss since your OP was vague. I made the assumption you were thinking about Origins -- since this is in the distant past, we can't know much if anything about. When I pointed out that we DO know ENOUGH to discard a YEC view on scientific grounds, I was upbraided for Pig for misunderstanding his (as well as your) post, the relevance of which to this forum I still don't understand.

Many of us here have the committment and will make the time, provided a cogent question is posed and explained. Ken did neither of these.

R

kendemyer

October 28th 2004, 07:37 PM

shunyadragon

October 28th 2004, 08:44 PM

A Beautiful Truth

October 28th 2004, 11:10 PM

TO: ALL

Given the heckling and jeering of YEC with no real evidence offered against it I cannot say I want to debate any thread participants in this matter. What is being offered is the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule (see: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Appeal_to_ridicule ). Why would I want to debate people who are acting illogical?

Sincerely,

Ken

There is real evidence against it. I think YEC's have to decide if they care about evidence that goes against their Bible interp. They usually don't care to hear it but just ignore the evidence and then turn around and say that there is no evidence against their position. Perhaps a shell game, always changing the rules.

This is what I've seen Christians do. Christians accept secular knowledge in those realms in which secular evidence supports them. I think of the Case for Christ. Christians have excellent evidence for the historical reliability for the documents, of the truth of the accounts and of the resurrection itself. They use such evidence in their apologetics. But when it comes to creationism, no longer is secular support touted, no--the exuse comes up that the unspiritual man cannot ascertain accurate knowledge of the physical world because his mind is darkened and needs to be enlightened by the scriptures. It is a circular argument. You first have to believe a certain Bible interpretation (YEC) in order to see the evidence in nature. So nature can never really convince somebody, the convincing is soley because "the Bible says." And again, this is a double standard for we do use the secular knowledge to bolster and support our claims of the resurrection. We Christians pride ourselves that we do not rely on "Peter Pan Theology" (a term coined by William Lane Craig) meaning, we do not rely on "if you believe enough"--no, we rely on the evidence as Paul himself made quite a point of when naming the witnesses who were still alive at the time his letter was written. The point is, it is not just believing, it is believing in something TRUE. If Christ did not raise, then no matter how much "belief" you have, it means nothing, it is nothing, it is hopless and vain. Just having enough faith isint good enough--all the cults have faith. But we have faith with evidence.

YEC do not rely on evidence, they rely on faith and "you just gotta believe." This is the exception in our apologetics, this YEC seems to be a special case.

Lion

October 29th 2004, 04:13 PM

I wonder how much the folks that posted on ths thread actually believe what they said. It's a matter of faith in what they were taught, whether it was in church or in school. By and large, popular education is geared to atheistic, no god, philosophy. It's a matter of who to believe, to put it in simple terms, God or Satan. According to the Bible, God created, and Satan is the enemy.

In the annals of human history, the play and counterplay of nations is made to appear as due to man's ambition, power or caprice. But in the word of God the curtain is drawn aside and we behold behind all the battles of nations the guiding hand of God.

Evolution would have us think man is improving, but is the world getting better? Most emphatically no. All the nations are angry and terrorism is getting worse. That was predicted long ago in the Bible. It is almost time for the return of Christ.

Jorge

October 29th 2004, 05:45 PM

There is real evidence against it. I think YEC's have to decide if they care about evidence that goes against their Bible interp. They usually don't care to hear it but just ignore the evidence and then turn around and say that there is no evidence against their position. Perhaps a shell game, always changing the rules.(1) Perhaps there are some out there that do as you say ... perhaps. But speaking for myself and most YECs that I know, what you've just said is a complete falsehood. It's as plain as daylight that you are calling YECs dishonest (e.g., "playing a shell game") and that is slanderous. Please try and educate yourself on this matter before lashing out against other Christians.

This is what I've seen Christians do. Christians accept secular knowledge in those realms in which secular evidence supports them. I think of the Case for Christ. Christians have excellent evidence for the historical reliability for the documents, of the truth of the accounts and of the resurrection itself. They use such evidence in their apologetics. But when it comes to creationism, no longer is secular support touted, no--the exuse comes up that the unspiritual man cannot ascertain accurate knowledge of the physical world because his mind is darkened and needs to be enlightened by the scriptures. It is a circular argument. You first have to believe a certain Bible interpretation (YEC) in order to see the evidence in nature. So nature can never really convince somebody, the convincing is soley because "the Bible says." And again, this is a double standard for we do use the secular knowledge to bolster and support our claims of the resurrection. We Christians pride ourselves that we do not rely on "Peter Pan Theology" (a term coined by William Lane Craig) meaning, we do not rely on "if you believe enough"--no, we rely on the evidence as Paul himself made quite a point of when naming the witnesses who were still alive at the time his letter was written. The point is, it is not just believing, it is believing in something TRUE. If Christ did not raise, then no matter how much "belief" you have, it means nothing, it is nothing, it is hopless and vain. Just having enough faith isint good enough--all the cults have faith. But we have faith with evidence.(2) True - it's not just belief, it's belief in the right "object" (i.e., anchored in truth). To say, however, that belief in the creation account does not have any support from natural ("secular") science is untrue. You're confusing the actual science from the interpretation of that science - a common error.

YEC do not rely on evidence, they rely on faith and "you just gotta believe."GOTO (1) ...

Jorge

rogero

October 29th 2004, 06:53 PM

(1) Perhaps there are some out there that do as you say ... perhaps. But speaking for myself and most YECs that I know, what you've just said is a complete falsehood. It's as plain as daylight that you are calling YECs dishonest (e.g., "playing a shell game") and that is slanderous. Please try and educate yourself on this matter before lashing out against other Christians.

All YEC apologists are dishonest (ok, maybe some of them are simply ignorant.) At least you are -- I'll let the viewers decide which.

(2) True - it's not just belief, it's belief in the right "object" (i.e., anchored in truth). To say, however, that belief in the creation account does not have any support from natural ("secular") science is untrue. You're confusing the actual science from the interpretation of that science - a common error.

GOTO (1) ...

Jorge

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You've listened to your own lies for so long you don't have an objective basis for decision.

Have you seen any evidence for YEC presented in this thread? Can YOU present any evidence FOR YEC? --- Nope, I didn't think so.

Better go back to indoctrinating the young teen youth group at your independent Fundy-mentalist church. I'm sure they will be impressed by your unsupported rhetorical nonsense.

R

P.S. You're always a source of a good laugh. Thanks!

Jorge

October 29th 2004, 09:06 PM

All YEC apologists are dishonest (ok, maybe some of them are simply ignorant.) At least you are -- I'll let the viewers decide which.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You've listened to your own lies for so long you don't have an objective basis for decision.Ignoring your infantile and deluded blatherings, I want you to post here and now one - just one - instance of my "dishonesty and lies".

BTW, it has to be a bona fide case and not just something that you happen to disagree with and, as such, call it a "lie". In the expectation that you will be unable to conjure up an example, please start preparing a retraction, otherwise I'll start calling you 'Kerry'. :lmbo:

Have you seen any evidence for YEC presented in this thread? Can YOU present any evidence FOR YEC? --- Nope, I didn't think so.You question the existence of evidence for YEC? You have GOT to be kidding! Either you are one of the most ignorant Christians I have ever come across or the label of "dishonest" that you thrust upon me was merely a psychological projection.

There is a third alternative : you are so utterly confused on this issue that you no longer know 'up' from 'down'.

Let me explain it to you (I'll try and not use too many big words): Christianity derives its authority from Scripture (i.e., the revealed, precious and truthful Word of God). Many Christians are confused and/or don't have the proper guidance and believe that whenever a conflict appears between Scripture and "science" (falsely so called) then Scripture has to be re-interpreted or something has to be added to it in order to make God's Word compatible with the edicts of the ruling Naturalistic paradigm. People such as yourself have got it all backasswards, rogero. In areas of your own choosing your 'authority' is the world and Scripture is forced to accomodate whatever this 'authority' has decided is the 'truth'. Please, don't be an ignoramus and stop confusing the less-experienced Christians with your claptrap. For your own edification, I encourage you to try practicing Proverbs 17:28 a bit more often.

Back to the main topic : so we begin with Scripture and that is our primary source of evidence (which apparently has gone SWOOSH!! right over your head). Then we turn to natural science - our secondary source - and find that there is nothing that undeniably contradicts our primary source. That there are apparent problems, yes! That there are unanswered questions, yes! So what? Naturalistic "science" has far more problems and unanswered questions and yet Atheists and their comrades don't seem to mind -- a double-standard, maybe?

However, a great deal of these seeming difficulties disappear when one takes the false "science" out of the true science. For instance, uniformitarian thought is not part of the Biblical world view and yet is part of the Naturalistic view. Hence, some of "science's" conclusions - derived from a uniformitarian assumption - will be found to be in conflict with Scripture. Such cases, then, are pseudo-conflicts with Scripture, not a true ones.

Am I going too fast? Sorry! :teeth:

Better go back to indoctrinating the young teen youth group at your independent Fundy-mentalist church. I'm sure they will be impressed by your unsupported rhetorical nonsense.Say to me whatever you will - when Christ spoke the truth the Pharisees accused Him of speaking blasphemy.
Shall the servant be greater than the Master? I'll take your accusations and let Him be the Judge.

P.S. You're always a source of a good laugh. Thanks!You're always a source of pity so I guess that this makes us even ... you're welcome. :rofl:

Jorge

rogero

October 29th 2004, 09:56 PM

kofh2u

October 30th 2004, 12:25 AM

Ignoring your infantile and deluded blatherings, I want you to post here and now one - just one - instance of my "dishonesty and lies".

BTW, it has to be a bona fide case and not just something that you happen to disagree with and, as such, call it a "lie". In the expectation that you will be unable to conjure up an example, please start preparing a retraction, otherwise I'll start calling you 'Kerry'. :lmbo:

You question the existence of evidence for YEC? You have GOT to be kidding! Either you are one of the most ignorant Christians I have ever come across or the label of "dishonest" that you thrust upon me was merely a psychological projection.

There is a third alternative : you are so utterly confused on this issue that you no longer know 'up' from 'down'.

Let me explain it to you (I'll try and not use too many big words): Christianity derives its authority from Scripture (i.e., the revealed, precious and truthful Word of God). Many Christians are confused and/or don't have the proper guidance and believe that whenever a conflict appears between Scripture and "science" (falsely so called) then Scripture has to be re-interpreted or something has to be added to it in order to make God's Word compatible with the edicts of the ruling Naturalistic paradigm. People such as yourself have got it all backasswards, rogero. In areas of your own choosing your 'authority' is the world and Scripture is forced to accomodate whatever this 'authority' has decided is the 'truth'. Please, don't be an ignoramus and stop confusing the less-experienced Christians with your claptrap. For your own edification, I encourage you to try practicing Proverbs 17:28 a bit more often.

Back to the main topic : so we begin with Scripture and that is our primary source of evidence (which apparently has gone SWOOSH!! right over your head). Then we turn to natural science - our secondary source - and find that there is nothing that undeniably contradicts our primary source. That there are apparent problems, yes! That there are unanswered questions, yes! So what? Naturalistic "science" has far more problems and unanswered questions and yet Atheists and their comrades don't seem to mind -- a double-standard, maybe?

However, a great deal of these seeming difficulties disappear when one takes the false "science" out of the true science. For instance, uniformitarian thought is not part of the Biblical world view and yet is part of the Naturalistic view. Hence, some of "science's" conclusions - derived from a uniformitarian assumption - will be found to be in conflict with Scripture. Such cases, then, are pseudo-conflicts with Scripture, not a true ones.

Am I going too fast? Sorry! :teeth:

Say to me whatever you will - when Christ spoke the truth the Pharisees accused Him of speaking blasphemy.
Shall the servant be greater than the Master? I'll take your accusations and let Him be the Judge.

You're always a source of pity so I guess that this makes us even ... you're welcome. :rofl:

Jorge

Ignorant Christians need be reminded that, prior to Darwin, over many ages, the ends of a saved "psyke" was justification for Literal Interpretation.

Christ-like behavior is recommended in conttasting the seven interpretative approaches.
Let the shoe fit the right soul, but Theistic Evolution is for the unsaved, not the saved.

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).

sylas

October 30th 2004, 02:44 AM

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).

That is not the bible. It is not Matthew. You are quoting without proper attribution your own book, which you call the Freudian Bible; consisting of the KJV interleaved with your own text. Such extracts should not be cited as if from the bible itself.

geochron

October 30th 2004, 06:53 AM

(I'll paraphrase my open question here, since the answers might illuminate what the YECs mean by their distinction)

If you believe that there are two different kinds of science, consider the following thought experiment...

1. 129I decayed in the early solar system (4.5 billion years ago) with a half life of 16Ma. We know this by contrasting it with other radioisotopes in the same minerals.

2. 129I decayed in the 1950s with a half life of 16Ma. We know this because we have records on paper of people comparing its activity with mechanical clocks.

Now explain how relying on (1) is different in kind from relying on (2). If I test the half life today and compare it with (1) is that origins or operation science? If I compare it with (2), is that origins or operation science?

Jorge

October 30th 2004, 09:55 AM

Ok, you despicable rhetoric-spewing jerkwad, since you're so fond of content-less generalities, as an example of your dishonesty and lies -- "here and now one - just one - instance of my "dishonesty and lies" -- I'll throw one right back at you....Temper ... temper ... May I suggest that you take a laxative and maybe you'll be better by tomorrow. :lmbo:

Please explain to the peanut gallery here..."Peanut gallery"? Is that how you see TWebber's - as "peanuts"?

"... what you mean by your unfounded distinction of "operational" vs. "origins" science?I'll be happy to do so but not in this post and here's why: my previous post asked for ONE thing : a clear example of my "dishonesty and lies". When that has been fulfilled then and only then will we move on. In the meantime, your name is beginning to sound like "berry" except maybe the first letter may need to be changed to, say, a 'K'. :rasberry: :rofl: :lol:

No scientist (other than the YEC "scientists" -- of which you are not even one) makes such a distinction.Lessee ... I've already informed you (in other posts) of my background (and I'm not going there again) so you are engaging in falsehoods here, rogero. You know that I served in a scientific capacity for many years with the Air Force, in private industry and elsewhere. So I guess that my notion that you were merely projecting when you accused me of "lies" wasn't so far off, was it.

Why can't you answer the simplest questions about that distinction, such as those posed by Wattsr1 in several threads in Natural Sciences?I have separate issues with wattsr1 which may be resolved before the next ice age. Concentrate on your problems.

I may have to apologize for the "lie" comment, since what you say comes from stupidity, ignorance, and unbridled pride rather than intentional deception -- although only God can judge what's really going on in your heart. To be honest, you're not so much of a liar as a slippery rhetorician, which is actually WORSE than a liar, since you're then able to influence even more of your audience.Methinks that's about as close to an apology as I may expect from you, rogero. May I suggest that you work on the 'pride' aspect of your soul.

You are a disgrace to Christendom.If I am then I'll have to answer to Christ for that. I certainly do not have to answer to you (thank God!).

I stated this when you first started to post in February 2004, and I find it even more true today. I apologize to all for finding your spew amusing and getting a cheap laugh from it, when all along I should have been opposing it at every turn.Then, by all means, oppose away! I always welcome good, critical input since it serves to polish my thinking.
Do take note that you employ the word "oppose" and, furthermore, "at every turn". IOW, you're saying that nothing - nada - that I (YECs?) promote is worthy from the Christian perspective. Reflect on that, rogero, and even you ought to be able to figure out that this is raving fanaticism and not an objective, scholarly reaction.

Jorge

Jorge

October 30th 2004, 10:49 AM

That is not the bible. It is not Matthew. You are quoting without proper attribution your own book, which you call the Freudian Bible; consisting of the KJV interleaved with your own text. Such extracts should not be cited as if from the bible itself.So that's what that was. This kofh2u sounds like he's not playing with a full deck. Say it isn't so... :no:

Jorge

kendemyer

October 30th 2004, 12:33 PM

Re: trying to kill my own thread

I cannot kill what was already dead. I argued by weblink and many if not all the evolutionist used the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule. It appears that ad hominems about honesty are now the soup de jour of illogical argumentation of some evolutionists in this thread. If I am not mistaken the integrity/honesty of creationist now the "issue".

In short, I came not to honor this thread but to bury it.

kofh2u

November 2nd 2004, 03:31 AM

That is not the bible. It is not Matthew. You are quoting without proper attribution your own book, which you call the Freudian Bible; consisting of the KJV interleaved with your own text. Such extracts should not be cited as if from the bible itself.

Yeah, but do you have an alternative interpretation?

Lion

November 2nd 2004, 03:47 PM

Someone said that quotation was not Bible. Matthew was quoting Isaiah.
Is. 42:3 “A bruised reed He will not break
And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish;
He will faithfully bring forth justice.

That shows the ignorance of some people.

What I really wanted to know was technical question related to the age of fossils. It belongs in this thread because we are discussing the age of the earth. Perhaps Geochron can answer it, since he is a geoligist professor.

I understand the idea of nuclear decay and the idea of how long it takes for half life. The question is this: How do we know the decay products were not there in the original sample? This is important, because if the decay products were in the original sample the whole dating scheme is wrong. The half life is so long that even a small bit would introduce millions of years error.

kofh2u

November 3rd 2004, 04:28 PM

I consider this to be a poor translation of the verse. The verse is not particularly refering to inference of events in the past; but to the impossibility of attaining wisdom.

I don't recognize the translation used above, but here is the verse in some more well known translations.

All this I tested by wisdom and I said, "I am determined to be wise" -- but this was beyond me.
24Whatever wisdom may be, it is far off and most profound -- who can discover it?

All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but it was far from me.
24That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it out?

All this have I tested by wisdom: I said, "I will be wise"; but it was far from me.
24That which is, is far off, and deep, very deep, who can find it out?

The whole discussion here seems to be based on the mistaken premise the Solomon, (or "the philosopher") was speaking of finding out empirical details of past events.

If that were the case, I would have no hestitation in saying that the Philosopher was wrong. We can find out details of the past. Not every last detail, but plenty to get real and exciting insights into events in the long history of our universe.

The giant strides in understanding that have been made with the development of science over the last few centuries does not, however, undermine the real point of Ecclesiastes. We have learned a lot about how the world was formed, and how old it is, and what materials it is made of, and much else besides.

But we have not learned wisdom; Glenn's posts on oil show this plainly. We have not learned how to live; and the futility seen by the philosopher is only deepened by the bare scientific account of the universe.

The retreat behind the bible, in a futile attempt to deny all that we have learned about the universe and continue to learn, is intellectual suicide. But more to the point, it is rarely fair to the themes and issues considered in the bible.

Cheers -- Sylas

To cut to the chase, you seem to be saying your own understanding would read more in line with this interpretation:

Ecc 7:24 (KJV)
All this have I, ("the philosopher"), proved, (tested), by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but, (the futility is only deepened by the bare scientific account of the universe), it was far from me (in that, we have not learned wisdom).
24 That which is far off, (how to live), and exceeding deep, (for we have not learned how), who can find it out?

geochron

November 3rd 2004, 06:16 PM

I understand the idea of nuclear decay and the idea of how long it takes for half life. The question is this: How do we know the decay products were not there in the original sample? This is important, because if the decay products were in the original sample the whole dating scheme is wrong. The half life is so long that even a small bit would introduce millions of years error.

Take an igneous rock and split it into the minerals that make it up. Measure (for example) the concentration of potassium, the concentration of 40Ar and the concentration of 36Ar in each mineral. If the argon was incorporated as argon, you will see a constant ratio of 40Ar/36Ar. If the argon-40 formed by decay of 40K, you will find a constant 40Ar/K ratio.

sylas

November 3rd 2004, 07:25 PM

To cut to the chase, you seem to be saying your own understanding would read more in line with this interpretation:

Ecc 7:24 (KJV)
All this have I, ("the philosopher"), proved, (tested), by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but, (the futility is only deepened by the bare scientific account of the universe), it was far from me (in that, we have not learned wisdom).
24 That which is far off, (how to live), and exceeding deep, (for we have not learned how), who can find it out?

Not really, kofh2u. Your interpretation contains too many unargued random insertions, disconnected from the passage and its own context.

As far as I can tell, your "interpretation" is based on a rather sad and possibly schitzophrenic view of yourself as the messiah who is able to reveal hidden secrets (the seven seals, for example) to a select few who will recognize your special status. Your inability to make a normal argument, or even to recognize where arguments might be needed, is not troubling to you; since you work by a kind of assumption of special revelation.

Now in fact, some of the notions expressed in the above could indeed be part of a more serious study or exegesis of Ecclesiastes. But I don't think you have the capacity to express your thoughts in a coherent form, and you appear to lack any appreciation of the need for something more that simple assertions. You prefer to express yourself as a kind of new bible; a new revelation, which is a divine challenge to others to accept or reject as given.

Cheers -- Sylas

kofh2u

November 3rd 2004, 09:37 PM

Not really, kofh2u. Your interpretation contains too many unargued random insertions, disconnected from the passage and its own context.

As far as I can tell, your "interpretation" is based on a rather sad and possibly schitzophrenic view of yourself as the messiah who is able to reveal hidden secrets (the seven seals, for example) to a select few who will recognize your special status. Your inability to make a normal argument, or even to recognize where arguments might be needed, is not troubling to you; since you work by a kind of assumption of special revelation.

Now in fact, some of the notions expressed in the above could indeed be part of a more serious study or exegesis of Ecclesiastes. But I don't think you have the capacity to express your thoughts in a coherent form, and you appear to lack any appreciation of the need for something more that simple assertions. You prefer to express yourself as a kind of new bible; a new revelation, which is a divine challenge to others to accept or reject as given.

Cheers -- Sylas

Cheers sylas,
Let see if I got your point:

1) You are a confirmed and openly admitted anti-Christ-ian.

2) You read my simple assertion, call me names, denigrate me.

3) You ignor the point made, and charge me with the same crime they used to silence Jesus.

3) You invite me to argue the point of what I said with you, an anti-Word person well versed in baiting other Christians with both exegesis, science, and rational opposition.

4) You suggest that if the verse can be supported elsewhere in the scriptures, then it COULD mean what YOU already claimed it DID mean.

Am I misunderstanding you?

You are suggesting that I find scripture to support scripture, when as Pig said, you know the orthodoxy better than me.

Why is it soooooo "crazy" that I confront yoj and science with your own words, as above, and ask that you oppose me, not using my scripture, but you rational sense of the interpretation?

On the other hand, I wecome believers to find contradiction in scripture which nullifies these points of view.l

PS
Re: "who is able to reveal hidden secrets (the seven seals, for example)"

Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego):

One Bad Pig

November 3rd 2004, 09:44 PM

Someone said that quotation was not Bible. Matthew was quoting Isaiah.
Is. 42:3 “A bruised reed He will not break
And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish;
He will faithfully bring forth justice.

That shows the ignorance of some people.

Lion,

Please pay closer attention to what exactly is being said. Sylas was pointing out that what kofh2u posted was not the Bible, per se. Rather, it was the KJV with kofh2u's interpretation smuggled in and presented as part of the text.

:obp:

sylas

November 3rd 2004, 10:02 PM

Let see if I got your point:

1) You are a confirmed and openly admitted anti-Christ-ian.

No. I am a non-Christian; but I try (and I think I succeed) in demonstrating a respect for Christianity and an acknowledgement that Christian insights can be an important and constructive input into many aspects of life. I reject the notion that holding different views is the same as being "anti" those views you don't share.

2) You read my simple assertion, call me names, denigrate me.

I have not called you by any names other than your own. I consider my criticisms made of your Freudian bible and the manner in which you present and use it are valid, which is why I have made them. I think just about all the Christians here would agree with me in this. You do not, of course; and there may be one or two others. That's fine. It is a debate forum.

3) You ignor the point made, and charge me with the same crime they used to silence Jesus.

I gave a brief answer to your question. I have not charged you with any crimes. I do think you are quite irrational, and don't mind saying so. I also consider that the way in which you keep introducing the Freudian Bible lacks integrity. You should identify it when quoting extracts, rather than just label them as if from the real bible. You should acknowledge that it is your own work. You should not describe it as a translation.

3) You invite me to argue the point of what I said with you, an anti-Word person well versed in baiting other Christians with both exegesis, science, and rational opposition.

No... I am not actually at all interested in debating your interpretations. I merely point out that you also appear not to be interested in debating your claims; or else that you don't quite understand what would be involved in such a project.

I am very impressed with this web site for the open way in which they permit mutually respectful discussion of divergent view points; and am very happy to find that most people here welcome discussion, and don't merely label disagreement as baiting. That is surely a misrepresentation.

4) You suggest that if the verse can be supported elsewhere in the scriptures, then it COULD mean what YOU already claimed it DID mean.

I don't think that is sufficiently coherent to be worth a response. I have suggested that this verse is not speaking of the exact age of the earth/universe, or indeed anything related to empirical matters addressed by science; but rather the question of wisdom more generally. That is, I gave my answer to the question posed in the thread title.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Yes. You've got bits of it, but overall a distortion.

Remainder ignored. Cheers -- Sylas

kofh2u

November 4th 2004, 03:52 PM

Lion,

Please pay closer attention to what exactly is being said. Sylas was pointing out that what kofh2u posted was not the Bible, per se. Rather, it was the KJV with kofh2u's interpretation smuggled in and presented as part of the text.

:obp:

Smuggled?

Clearly, the so called "modern interpretations do the "smuggling."

It is very difficult to read them and keep in mind what is actually changed, or to constantly refer back to the KJV and note the different connotations.

Who can tell what subtle inferences follow the discourse in UNBRACKETED changes from the Word of KJV?

For instance, Pig just offered this which he said can be found in the HCSB:

I HAVE BRACKETED HIS CHANGES AND CAPITALIZED WHAT HE REMOVED:

Ecc 7:23-4
ALL THIS I have PROVED (tested all this) by wisdom. I SAID (resolved), "I will be wise," but it was FAR FROM, (beyond), me. 24 THAT WHICH IS FAR OFF, (What exists) AND IS EXCEEDINGLY DEEP, (is beyond [reach] and very deep). Who can FIND IT OUT, (discover it)?

kofh2u

November 4th 2004, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by kofh2u
1) You are a confirmed and openly admitted anti-Christ-ian.

SYLAS: You denied it here:

"No."

" I am a non-Christian;

KOFHY:
Sylas , you e-mailed me the following admission, fid you not?:

"I'm an atheist,...
... if it matters."

PLEASE NOTE THAT ACCORDING TO GOD THIS IS HIS MESSAGE TO YOU:

Is 32:5 In those days the ungodly, the atheists, will not be heroes!...

Is 32:6 Everyone will recognize an evil man when he sees him,...

.... and hypocrites will fool no one at all.

Their lies about God and their
cheating of the hungry will be plan for all to see.

2John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus (the) Christ is come in the flesh.
This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

One Bad Pig

November 4th 2004, 05:54 PM

Smuggled?

Clearly, the so called "modern interpretations do the "smuggling."

It is very difficult to read them and keep in mind what is actually changed, or to constantly refer back to the KJV and note the different connotations.

Who can tell what subtle inferences follow the discourse in UNBRACKETED changes from the Word of KJV?

For instance, Pig just offered this which he said can be found in the HCSB:

I HAVE BRACKETED HIS CHANGES AND CAPITALIZED WHAT HE REMOVED:

Ecc 7:23-4
ALL THIS I have PROVED (tested all this) by wisdom. I SAID (resolved), "I will be wise," but it was FAR FROM, (beyond), me. 24 THAT WHICH IS FAR OFF, (What exists) AND IS EXCEEDINGLY DEEP, (is beyond [reach] and very deep). Who can FIND IT OUT, (discover it)?
:shocked: Oh, my. You're a KJV-onlyist! You're the first one I've run into that interweaves his own interpretations into the text and calls the result a "Bible". :lolo:

Tell me, how does the HCSB differ in meaning from the KJV?

kofh2u

November 4th 2004, 08:26 PM

:shocked: Oh, my. You're a KJV-onlyist!

1) You're the first one I've run into that interweaves his own interpretations into the text...

... and calls the result a "Bible". :lolo:

2) Tell me, how does the HCSB differ in meaning from the KJV?

1) The use of brackets to emphasize and separate a written opinion concerning scripture interpretation is not unusual:

barryrob:

Daniel 7:13-14 son of man [Jesus] happened to be coming;

barryrob:
...and to the Ancient of Days [Jehovah] he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One.

2) Now, note how much change barrybob accepts in this following verse, where the interpretation of KJV is augmented by the more modern product he reads from.

(The brackets separate what was changed, while the caps emphasize what was omitted.)

Legend:
1) (.....) changed or added to KJV

2) CAPITALS= KJV omitted from the verse.

1 Corinthians 15:24-26
Then, (Next), COMETH the end, when he SHALL HAVE DELIVERED UP, (hands over) the kingdom to (his) God and Father, when he SHALL HAVE PUT DOWN ALL RULE, (has brought to nothing all government) and all authority and power. For he must REIGN, (rule as king until [God]) TILL HE has put all enemies under his feet.

One Bad Pig

November 4th 2004, 09:19 PM

1) The use of brackets to emphasize and separate a written opinion concerning scripture interpretation is not unusual:

No, it is not. What is unusual is calling the result a "bible".

2) Now, note how much change barrybob accepts in this following verse, where the interpretation of KJV is augmented by the more modern product he reads from.

:shocked: Is that what you think? All modern translations are interpretations of the KJV? :no: Most modern translations are fresh translations from the original Hebrew (most of the OT), Aramaic(portions of Daniel), and Greek(NT). Others, like the RSV, KJV21, etc., are more properly called revisions of the KJV (which itself (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1823) has undergone several revisions, and is in essence a revision of Tyndale's translation). Which revision of the KJV do you use? Are the others wrong because they're different? Why or why not?

kofh2u

November 5th 2004, 05:43 PM

No, it is not. What is unusual is calling the result a "bible".

:shocked: Is that what you think? All modern translations are interpretations of the KJV? :no: Most modern translations are fresh translations from the original Hebrew (most of the OT), Aramaic(portions of Daniel), and Greek(NT). Others, like the RSV, KJV21, etc., are more properly called revisions of the KJV (which itself (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1823) hasundergone several revisions, and is in essence a revision of Tyndale's translation). Which revision of the KJV do you use? Are the others wrong because they're different? Why or why not?

Oh...

Oh, oh...

Gosh, no wonder you are giving me such a hard time.

You think the Freudian... Bible Interpretation.... What for short is FBI...

You misread the Bible Interpretation to read Freudian Bible.

Sorry.

Here I thought the non-traditional, concise, clear form of what the interpretation is was too unorthodox and in context for you.

From now on,... thought I can't remember if I actually attributed my posts to a source in this thread... I will Note the source to read The (Freudian) Bible Interptation.

One Bad Pig

November 6th 2004, 12:47 AM

From now on,... thought I can't remember if I actually attributed my posts to a source in this thread... I will Note the source to read The (Freudian) Bible Interptation.
That would be great. Thanks for clearing that up.

kofh2u

November 6th 2004, 05:36 PM

That would be great. Thanks for clearing that up.

My pleasure.

I was particularly impressed by the signature you so cleverly contrast for us, as contradictory human perspectives.
No disrespect, I am certain to the good rabbi, or our friend Shunydragon, but you are so right!

The rabbi insists we patronuze the now growing archaic "wisdom" of sages, and ignor modern hypothesis on Bible meanings. While Shunydragon suggests we do no such a thing.

Shuny tells us that the Truth will come upon us as a thief, and a cloud of gradual understanding will envelope us without laboring in research of ideas from other, now long past generations of believers.

How clever you are indeed to contrast each with the real Truth:

Matthew 11:27 ... No one knows the Son except (he be as prophesied by) the Father, (the Word, which is God), and no one knows, (or interprets) the Father, (the Word, which pre-existed written scripture), except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him

One Bad Pig

November 7th 2004, 02:18 PM

I was particularly impressed by the signature you so cleverly contrast for us, as contradictory human perspectives.
No disrespect, I am certain to the good rabbi, or our friend Shunydragon, but you are so right!

The rabbi insists we patronuze the now growing archaic "wisdom" of sages, and ignor modern hypothesis on Bible meanings. While Shunydragon suggests we do no such a thing.

Shuny tells us that the Truth will come upon us as a thief, and a cloud of gradual understanding will envelope us without laboring in research of ideas from other, now long past generations of believers.

How clever you are indeed to contrast each with the real Truth:

Matthew 11:27 ... No one knows the Son except (he be as prophesied by) the Father, (the Word, which is God), and no one knows, (or interprets) the Father, (the Word, which pre-existed written scripture), except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him
Actually, I agree with the good rabbi. Replace "Torah" with "Bible", and you get my position exactly. I am illustrating two opposing points of view in my .sig, though. One measures the text against itself to discern the proper interpretation, and the other uses any interpretation that furthers its point of view, no matter what violence it does the text under consideration.

kofh2u

November 7th 2004, 03:14 PM

Actually, I agree with the good rabbi. Replace "Torah" with "Bible", and you get my position exactly. I am illustrating two opposing points of view in my .sig, though. One measures the text against itself to discern the proper interpretation, and the other uses any interpretation that furthers its point of view, no matter what violence it does the text under consideration.

"I agree with the good rabbi."

You DO?

Strange.

The rabbi in general have applied their methodology for thousands of years, even quoting one another from generation to generation, using the Talmud...

... and, they missed their own messiah!

They attacked what he said was the correct understanding of the Torah, modelled it in the flesh, ...then, they crucified him EXACTLY as Psalm 22 described they would.

Still, their same methodology defends their behavior and evidences no remorse to this very day.

"Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true."

(Matt. 23:2; John 8:13)

I must say that our opinion of one another is mutual.

brett

November 7th 2004, 06:04 PM

...please start preparing a retraction, otherwise I'll start calling you 'Kerry'. :lmbo:
Now just hold it right there. I don’t know where you get off likening rogero to John Kerry. To compare him with anyone less than Michael Moore is outrageous. :noid:

Ok, you despicable rhetoric-spewing jerkwad,.....

Trust me rogero, you’re no John Kerry. :smug:

rogero

November 7th 2004, 06:28 PM

Ah, cute li'l soccer baby Brett, who has experienced one too many headers in his career. :lol:

Isn't he just the cutest little thing!!??? :lol:

P.S. For all who haven't read his abortive attempt at reasoning in Natural Sciences a few months ago, this is the fella who can't see the difference between Christ's miracles as signs and YHWH creating Earth and Cosmos with the appearance of age and change over time.

Actually, he's just like Jorge, just less articulate and a poorer speller and less trained in science -- and English is his first language. Oh, ... and he thinks the NIV is the inerrant translation of Genesis.

All in all, the complete package!

kendemyer

November 7th 2004, 10:20 PM

I keep hoping this thread will die but it doesn't!

At least the thread is off topic though rather than on topic logical fallacies by non-YECs. We are making progress.

rogero

November 7th 2004, 11:35 PM

I keep hoping this thread will die but it doesn't!

At least the thread is off topic though rather than on topic logical fallacies by non-YECs. We are making progress.

Kendy,

Don't forget the logical fallacies by YECs as well -- like just about every one of your posts. :lol:

Hey, didn't you leave TWeb a few weeks ago? What gives?

R

brett

November 8th 2004, 01:57 AM

kofh2u

November 8th 2004, 10:45 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by One Bad Pig:

Actually, I agree with the good rabbi.

Replace "Torah" with "Bible", and you get my position exactly.

I am illustrating two opposing points of view in my .sig, though.

One measures the text against itself to discern the proper interpretation,...
(JUST AS ORTHODOXY TRIES TODAY)

... and the other uses any interpretation...
(THEORIES)

...that furthers its point of view,...

(ORIGINAL HYPOTHESIS:
Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego):

... no matter what violence it does the text under consideration.

(THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)

KOFHY:
YOU SAY:
"I agree with the good rabbi."

You DO?

Strange.

The rabbi, in general, have applied this methodology for thousands of years, ...even quoting one another from generation to generation,... like using the Talmud...

... and, they missed their own messiah!

They ATTACKED what HIM EXACTLY on the same grounds!
Jesus answered:
Saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:"

The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true."
(What's a messiah to do? Quote others?)

(Matt. 23:2; John 8:13

One Bad Pig

November 8th 2004, 01:27 PM

"I agree with the good rabbi."

You DO?

Strange.

The rabbi in general have applied their methodology for thousands of years, even quoting one another from generation to generation, using the Talmud...

... and, they missed their own messiah!

They attacked what he said was the correct understanding of the Torah, modelled it in the flesh, ...then, they crucified him EXACTLY as Psalm 22 described they would.

Still, their same methodology defends their behavior and evidences no remorse to this very day.

The Pharisees of Jesus' day placed entirely too much weight on the Mishnah and "hedge laws" that were designed to keep people from accidently breaking the Torah. Jesus repeatedly excoriated them for doing so. After Jesus' crucifixion, the Jewish leaders were determined to separate themselves from His teachings, and their commentary was colored by this. Because rabbis today rely in part on that commentary, they are likely to draw the wrong conclusions. Most Jews who become Christians today do so after studying the scriptures for themselves.

kendemyer

November 8th 2004, 07:10 PM

kofh2u

November 8th 2004, 08:37 PM

The Pharisees of Jesus' day placed entirely too much weight on the Mishnah and "hedge laws" that were designed to keep people from accidently breaking the Torah. Jesus repeatedly excoriated them for doing so. After Jesus' crucifixion, the Jewish leaders were determined to separate themselves from His teachings, and their commentary was colored by this. Because rabbis today rely in part on that commentary, they are likely to draw the wrong conclusions. Most Jews who become Christians today do so after studying the scriptures for themselves.

Predictable response.

And say, If we, (the orthodoxy of our own generation, to include the Christian bible experts), had been in the days of our fathers, (32AD), we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the (solitary, self-proclaiming) prophets.

Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, (vain Bible lawyers), that ye are the (genetically related) children of them (who think so common to this Modern Homo sapien species) which killed the (solitary, self-proclaiming) prophets.
Matt. 23:30-31

Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego):

rogero

November 8th 2004, 08:52 PM

Rogero,

You have yet to cite let alone demonstrate one logical fallacy that you alledge I committed in this thread.

I cannot fathom why a Christian YEC would succumb to using illogical argumentation. The Torah is a evidential fortress. Have you looked at my Macht study at "THE MOSAIC DIETARY CODES SHOW DIVINE INTELLIGENCE" at: http://www.web-ministry.com/linearpost.php?postID=9714 ?

Sincerely,

Ken
Kendy,

When did I allege that you committed a logical fallacy? You have to be the most paranoid individual on Tweb. I'm asserting that you have contributed nothing of substance to this thread which was begun with your vague and undirected OP.

Now as to why a Christian YEC would succumb to using illogical argumentation? Simple -- they have absolutely no scientific data to support their POV, and must immediately succumb to petitio principii. "The Bible sez the earth is 6000 years old and wuz created in six 24-hours daze, so science must be wrong -- it's as simple as dat!" Nope, no logical fallacy there.

As far as the Mosaic dietary code bizness, you already brought that up in another thread, and IIRC, the idea of "toxic animals" and whatnot was totally demolished. But, apparently you're still convinced. Go figure...

R

sylas

November 8th 2004, 09:01 PM

Every now and again it is worth pointing this out to have it on record. Although kofh2u labels his quotes as being from books of the bible, they actually are from his own "interpretation", which is the KJV interleaved with random thoughts of his own. He calls this "The Freudian Bible Interpretation".

The "interpretation" is nonsense. For example, he frequently posts his interpretation of Rev 1:16.

Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego)

Of course, the real interpretation of the stars is in the bible itself, and bears no relation the Freudian Bible nonsense. kofh2u omits half the verse, adds his own gibberish, and ignores the context that gives the biblical interpretation.

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

kendemyer

November 8th 2004, 09:25 PM

TO: rogero

You just wrote to me, kendemyer:

When did I allege that you committed a logical fallacy? You have to be the most paranoid individual on Tweb.

You previously wrote to kendemyer:

Don't forget the logical fallacies by YECs as well -- like just about every one of your posts.

I found the rest of your last post was full of vague bluster and not worth responding to at length (I will let TWEB readers decide for themselves regarding this matter).

Please do not expect your next post in this thread to be responded to.

Sincerely,

Ken

rogero

November 8th 2004, 09:52 PM

TO: rogero

You just wrote to me, kendemyer:

You previously wrote to kendemyer:

I found the rest of your last post was full of vague bluster and not worth responding to at length (I will let TWEB readers decide for themselves regarding this matter).

Please do not expect your next post in this thread to be responded to.

Sincerely,

Ken
Fine. Have it your way. However, you accusing me of vague bluster is another logical fallacy: "The pot calling the kettle black."

BTW, Kendy is cute nickname. Don't be so sensitive.

R

brett

November 9th 2004, 03:04 AM

Ah, cute li'l soccer baby Brett, who has experienced one too many headers in his career.

Isn't he just the cutest little thing!!???

BTW, Kendy is cute nickname. Don't be so sensitive.

R

Yikes! This is precisely why we shouldn’t allow PC’s in prison cells. :uhoh:

Jorge

November 9th 2004, 09:06 AM

Now as to why a Christian YEC would succumb to using illogical argumentation? Simple -- they have absolutely no scientific data to support their POV, and must immediately succumb to petitio principii.

"The Bible sez the earth is 6000 years old and wuz created in six 24-hours daze, so science must be wrong -- it's as simple as dat!" Nope, no logical fallacy there."Thank you, rogero, for giving us a concise, unequivocal statement of how you view the YEC position.
With this you have erased any doubts that remained as to why you are so antagonistic towards YEC - in short, you haven't a clue (i.e., clue-less) as to the extent and validity of the YEC position.

You have no regard for me so I'll use another YEC that any objective person should value:

"John Baumgardner was working on a Ph.D. in electrical engineering when he discovered the reality of Jesus in a dramatic way through a group Bible study of the Gospel of John.

After a four-year tour of duty at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, where he was engaged in gas dynamic laser research, he joined the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ.

Observing the deliberate use of evolution to assault and destroy the faith of Christian college students, Dr Baumgardner began to develop and present classroom lectures and evening forums to expose evolution's false claims.

Upon realizing that Noah's Flood involved a planetary-scale tectonic catastrophe, he left Campus Crusade to begin a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA in order to obtain the expertise and credentials to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific level. His Ph.D. thesis research involved the development of a 3-D spherical-shell finite-element model for the earth's mantle, a program now known as TERRA.

Upon completing his Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics, he accepted a position as a staff scientist in the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he has continued his research in planetary mantle dynamics, including the potential for catastrophic mantle overturn. He has presented papers describing this mechanism for the Genesis Flood, now known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics,' at three International Conferences on Creationism held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dr Baumgardner’s current technical work at Los Alamos includes development of a new global ocean model for investigating climate change."

(the above is from AiG - bolded emphasis mine)

Now, here's one simple question for you to think about: do you honestly believe that a person such as Baumgardner is as naive and/or scientifically ignorant as you constantly and dogmatically state that YECs are? There are only two possible answers: yes or no. If you answer yes then you're truly hopeless. If you answer no then you should keep quiet on this matter since clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

[As a passing note, did you know that Baumgardner's finite element model of the Earth's mantle, TERRA, is still considered to be the best available today? What's that - a YEC developing a scientific model that's the de facto standard? Say it isn't so :lol: ]

Interestingly, Dr. Baumgardner and I shared many work experiences. We both worked on finite element models (in different applications), we both worked with the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, we both worked with the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory (he still does). Oh, I almost forgot, we're both YECs! :smile:

Get a clue, rogero.

Jorge

rogero

November 9th 2004, 01:04 PM

Thank you, rogero, for giving us a concise, unequivocal statement of how you view the YEC position.
With this you have erased any doubts that remained as to why you are so antagonistic towards YEC - in short, you haven't a clue (i.e., clue-less) as to the extent and validity of the YEC position.

You have no regard for me so I'll use another YEC that any objective person should value:

"John Baumgardner was working on a Ph.D. in electrical engineering when he discovered the reality of Jesus in a dramatic way through a group Bible study of the Gospel of John.

After a four-year tour of duty at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, where he was engaged in gas dynamic laser research, he joined the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ.

Observing the deliberate use of evolution to assault and destroy the faith of Christian college students, Dr Baumgardner began to develop and present classroom lectures and evening forums to expose evolution's false claims.

Upon realizing that Noah's Flood involved a planetary-scale tectonic catastrophe, he left Campus Crusade to begin a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA in order to obtain the expertise and credentials to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific level. His Ph.D. thesis research involved the development of a 3-D spherical-shell finite-element model for the earth's mantle, a program now known as TERRA.

Upon completing his Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics, he accepted a position as a staff scientist in the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he has continued his research in planetary mantle dynamics, including the potential for catastrophic mantle overturn. He has presented papers describing this mechanism for the Genesis Flood, now known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics,' at three International Conferences on Creationism held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dr Baumgardner’s current technical work at Los Alamos includes development of a new global ocean model for investigating climate change."

(the above is from AiG - bolded emphasis mine)

Now, here's one simple question for you to think about: do you honestly believe that a person such as Baumgardner is as naive and/or scientifically ignorant as you constantly and dogmatically state that YECs are? There are only two possible answers: yes or no. If you answer yes then you're truly hopeless. If you answer no then you should keep quiet on this matter since clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

[As a passing note, did you know that Baumgardner's finite element model of the Earth's mantle, TERRA, is still considered to be the best available today? What's that - a YEC developing a scientific model that's the de facto standard? Say it isn't so :lol: ]

Interestingly, Dr. Baumgardner and I shared many work experiences. We both worked on finite element models (in different applications), we both worked with the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, we both worked with the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory (he still does). Oh, I almost forgot, we're both YECs! :smile:

Get a clue, rogero.

Jorge This would be the same Baumgardner with the idiotic "Hydroplate" Theory and "runaway subduction?" Apparently he's very good at compartmentalizing areas of knowledge -- a very good modeller perhaps -- but a wishful thinker at best when it comes to YEC geology. Did he ever figure out where all the heat from the runaway subduction would go? Guess he forgot about the laws of thermodynamics. :blush:

The answer to your bolded question above is "yes." :teeth:

Hopelessly yours,

R

One Bad Pig

November 9th 2004, 07:16 PM

Predictable response.

And say, If we, (the orthodoxy of our own generation, to include the Christian bible experts), had been in the days of our fathers, (32AD), we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the (solitary, self-proclaiming) prophets.

Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, (vain Bible lawyers), that ye are the (genetically related) children of them (who think so common to this Modern Homo sapien species) which killed the (solitary, self-proclaiming) prophets.
Matt. 23:30-31

:ahem: That's not an interpretation. That's co-opting Jesus' words wholesale to advance your own agenda. Who are "Christian bible experts" advocating the death of? How is the "orthodoxy of our own generation" different from orthodoxy of generations past?

You need to label your "interpretations" as such.

Lion

November 9th 2004, 09:39 PM

Some time ago I asked geochron how they determined the age of something, say a lava rock.

He answered my question in a very simple way, but I want to ask him another more down to earth question. Why do the long ages dating guys reject any samples that give young ages? Are they afraid to tell the truth?

The carbon 14 half life is on the order of 5700 years. It is easy to see why they don’t like carbon 14 dating, because the half life is so short they can’t get the millions of years evolution demands. If the entire earth were solid carbon 14, it would be all gone in a million years, down to the last atom. The Half life resolves down to a decimal point with 77 zeroes ahead of 1.157 . Are they so stuck on long ages they can't see anything else? There is plenty of sample material available. The peer review journals won't publish anything but long ages stuff.

rogero

November 9th 2004, 09:59 PM

Some time ago I asked geochron how they determined the age of something, say a lava rock.

He answered my question in a very simple way, but I want to ask him another more down to earth question. Why do the long ages dating guys reject any samples that give young ages? Are they afraid to tell the truth?

The carbon 14 half life is on the order of 5700 years. It is easy to see why they don't like carbon 14 dating, because the half life is so short they can't get the millions of years evolution demands. If the entire earth were solid carbon 14, it would be all gone in a million years, down to the last atom. The Half life resolves down to a decimal point with 77 zeroes ahead of 1.157 . Are they so stuck on long ages they can't see anything else? There is plenty of sample material available. The peer review journals won't publish anything but long ages stuff.

You are aware that there are numerous dating methods besides C-14?

Forgive me, but you seem to be arguing from a standpoint of nearly complete ignorance of geochronology, and, if I may so bold, such is unbecoming of a Christian Lion.

R

George Murphy

November 9th 2004, 11:03 PM

The carbon 14 half life is on the order of 5700 years. It is easy to see why they don’t like carbon 14 dating, because the half life is so short they can’t get the millions of years evolution demands. If the entire earth were solid carbon 14, it would be all gone in a million years, down to the last atom. The Half life resolves down to a decimal point with 77 zeroes ahead of 1.157 . Are they so stuck on long ages they can't see anything else? There is plenty of sample material available. The peer review journals won't publish anything but long ages stuff.A little familiarity with the web, & Tweb in particular, reveals an interesting - albeit depressing - selection effect. In any medium that exercised peer review at the level of a good 8th grade science project a comment like the one above would never get through because a decent junior high science student would know that determining the age of the earth has nothing to do with C-14, and that abundances of uranium & lead isotopes (among others) are be used for this purpose. But since anyone who can type can pretend to be an expert on the internet, we have to put up with silliness like this.

A yet more horrible thought occurs: Can he think that the presence of C-14 with a halflife ~5700 yr shows that the earth is young? Does he not know how C-14 is formed?

Shalom,
George

Shalom,
George

kofh2u

November 10th 2004, 12:41 AM

:ahem: That's not an interpretation. That's co-opting Jesus' words wholesale to advance your own agenda. Who are "Christian bible experts" advocating the death of? How is the "orthodoxy of our own generation" different from orthodoxy of generations past?

You need to label your "interpretations" as such.

Back to square one?

John 8:13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.

As concerning the second part your signature, in regard to the wisdom expressed by open-minded Shunydragon, the book of scripture is locked. He wisely refrains from forced conclusions of his own and the arguments evidenced here on Tweb.

Rev. 10:7 But in the days of (Christian Humanitarism) the voice of the seventh angel, (the spirit of human Harmony), when he, (that awakening subconscious apparatus of mind), shall begin to sound (consciously in the thoughts of men), the MYSTERY of God, (to be revealed in phylogenetic memory), should be finished, as he hath informed his servants the prophets (as recorded in scripture).*

*Cautious readers ought note: The KJV contains no brackets and those offered above are editorial comments.

Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego):
and out of his mouth went a two-edged sword (cutting both secular and theological understandings):

One Bad Pig

November 10th 2004, 01:04 PM

Jorge

November 10th 2004, 01:44 PM

This would be the same Baumgardner with the idiotic "Hydroplate" Theory and "runaway subduction?" Apparently he's very good at compartmentalizing areas of knowledge -- a very good modeller perhaps -- but a wishful thinker at best when it comes to YEC geology. Did he ever figure out where all the heat from the runaway subduction would go? Guess he forgot about the laws of thermodynamics.Brooooother ... you truly are one lost puppy, aren't you. Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that Baumgardner's Hydroplate Theory is completely wrong. Does that imply, as you conclude below, "total scientific ignorance"? Well, let's see : the late Francis Crick proposed the non-scientific, off-the-wall notion of Directed Panspermia (aliens seeded the Earth with DNA). Did that "scientific" proposal magically turn Crick into a scientific ignoramus? As another example, Einstein later spoke of his cosmological constant (lambda) as his biggest scientific blunder. Did that mistake magically transform Einstein into a scientific ignoramus?

If you haven't caught on, rogero, I'll spell it out for you : even IF I grant you (and I don't) that some of Baumgardner's work may be completely wrong, that is a very far cry from supporting your assertion, summarized with your "yes" below, about his (and other YECs) scientific competence. IOW, your opinion stems from fanatical prejudice and nothing more.
The answer to your bolded question above is "yes."

Hopelessly yours,"Hopeless" - indeed! I rest my case, Your Honor. :no:

Jorge

rogero

November 10th 2004, 06:55 PM

Brooooother ... you truly are one lost puppy, aren't you. Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that Baumgardner's Hydroplate Theory is completely wrong. Does that imply, as you conclude below, "total scientific ignorance"? Well, let's see : the late Francis Crick proposed the non-scientific, off-the-wall notion of Directed Panspermia (aliens seeded the Earth with DNA). Did that "scientific" proposal magically turn Crick into a scientific ignoramus? As another example, Einstein later spoke of his cosmological constant (lambda) as his biggest scientific blunder. Did that mistake magically transform Einstein into a scientific ignoramus?

If you haven't caught on, rogero, I'll spell it out for you : even IF I grant you (and I don't) that some of Baumgardner's work may be completely wrong, that is a very far cry from supporting your assertion, summarized with your "yes" below, about his (and other YECs) scientific competence. IOW, your opinion stems from fanatical prejudice and nothing more.

Did I say "total scientific ignorance"? Don't think so. You're so fast to spew your fanatical rhetoric that you don't read carefully. I was answering your (leading) question honestly.

Baumgardner's "runaway subduction" is nonsense, since it would produce heat at a rate that would evaporate the oceans and kill poor Noah and crew. I admitted that he could very well be a very good computer modeller (and perhaps) even a good scientist (I wonder how much respect he has for you as a "scientist"), but that he apparently compartmentalizes his knowledge and methodology and acquiesces to his rabid YEC belief when the science doesn't fit.

He's doing EXACTLY what you accuse naturalists or "evolutionists" of. He's forced an ad hoc explanation of the evidence of Plate Tectonics and orogeny to a YEC paradigm, ignoring the conflict with laws of thermodynamics -- as well as many other empirical observations, such as magnetic reversals and their correlation with radiometric age of seafloor basalts symmetrically distributed across mid-ocean spreading ridges. Of course, he could say that YHWH miraculously removed the heat, created the appearance of magnetic reversals and misleading radioisotope ratios --- I have no idea what goes on in Baumgardner's noggin, but my "YES" answer to your question (repeated below) is perfectly honest.

"Hopeless" - indeed! I rest my case, Your Honor. :no:

Jorge
This was meant to be a humorous riposte to your false dichotomous question quoted below, but I guess the point went "SWOOSH" right over your head. :lol:

"Now, here's one simple question for you to think about: do you honestly believe that a person such as Baumgardner is as naive and/or scientifically ignorant as you constantly and dogmatically state that YECs are? There are only two possible answers: yes or no. If you answer yes then you're truly hopeless. If you answer no then you should keep quiet on this matter since clearly you don't know what you're talking about."

geochron

November 10th 2004, 09:30 PM

Some time ago I asked geochron how they determined the age of something, say a lava rock.

If it is the post I remember, you asked me how they know the rock didn't form with the daughter product in place. I explained an isochron in a very rudimentary way. Is that what you are referring to?

He answered my question in a very simple way, but I want to ask him another more down to earth question. Why do the long ages dating guys reject any samples that give young ages? Are they afraid to tell the truth?

It's not clear to me what you're talking about.

Clearly some rocks are young. The existence of many old rocks rules out YEC. I'm not aware than anybody in the mainstream disputes that some rocks have young ages.

The carbon 14 half life is on the order of 5700 years. It is easy to see why they don’t like carbon 14 dating, because the half life is so short they can’t get the millions of years evolution demands. If the entire earth were solid carbon 14, it would be all gone in a million years, down to the last atom. The Half life resolves down to a decimal point with 77 zeroes ahead of 1.157 . Are they so stuck on long ages they can't see anything else? There is plenty of sample material available. The peer review journals won't publish anything but long ages stuff.

In fact there are lots of 14C ages in peer reviewed journals. Many of them substantially older than anything the YEC model can account for.

I guess I don't get your point. But you have a track record of fundamental misconceptions about geological matters in general and radioisotope dating in particular, so perhaps a little humility would be in order before you accuse us of wilful blindness.

Lion

November 14th 2004, 03:03 PM

The question of the age of the earth revolves around whether the Bible story in Genesis is true or not. Did the earth exist long before God decided to create living things on it, or did the living things just evolve over vast eons of time? When did it all start? There are two opposing theories of origins, special creation by a God who made things much as they are at the present time and Evolution. Most public school textbooks teach evolution, not necessarily as a fact but the prevalent emphasis on long extinct dinosaurs and other giant creatures certainly lead one to think they just evolved over millions of years.

We need to examine how the dating systems work. But first we need to learn something about the earth. When the oil men drill into the earth they find that the deeper they go, the hotter it gets. Even the oil from Alaska in the far arctic comes up hot. In fact it is still warm after traveling 800 miles to the terminal at Valdez. What is down there, anyway?

Earthquake sensing seismographs give part of the answer. To make it simple, the earth has a crust, the part we live on. The crust varies in thickness. Mountain ranges are thickest and the crust is thinnest under the sea. Beneath the crust is a layer called the mantle. The mantle is several hundred miles thick and is semi-molten. We know quite a bit about the mantle, because this is the stuff that comes out of volcanoes.

There are a number of systems for dating various mineral and animal things. There is a wide range of dates assigned to various items from fossils to living things. The technique for dating depends on the material involved. Basically there are two main methods, both of them use a radioactive decay.

Radioactive decay relies on the fact when a radioactive substance decays, it is no longer the same element. There are a host of different elements that differ in the number of neutrons in the nucleus of the atom, but they act the same. In other words, carbon is carbon even if it has six or seven or eight neutrons, but when carbon has eight neutrons it is unstable and decays to a more stable state. It seems the there is a limited ratio of an excess of particles in their nucleus. Carbon likes six neutrons but eight is radioactive.

All radioactive elements seem to decay at some fixed rate, known as the half life. By half life is meant that if some amount was in the original sample, half would be gone in one half life. Half of the remaining part would be gone in another half life, and so on. This gives a covenient way to measure. Half life may be extremely long or extremely short. There is a complex formula for dating, involving how much of the “parent” and how much “daughter” material there is.

The method of dating varies with the material to be dated. Potassium 40, atomic number 19, looses an electron and becomes argon 40, number 18. The half life of potassium 40 is 1.26 billion years. This has become the standard way of dating long times for evolutionists. The problem is to “set the clock” to zero. The theory is that the heat of a volcanic eruption allows the argon gas to escape. How much argon is in the material emitted to begin with is not thought to be a problemsince in theory it is all gone. However, it seems to be a problem, because many datings have been carried out with varying results. A volcano in New Zealand that erupted 49 years before but the lab gave a date of 270,000 to 3,500,000 +/- 200,000 years. This is but a sample. Others are
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD1800–1801) 1.600,000 ± 0.160,000years
Mt Etna basalt, Sicily (122BC) 0.25 ± 0.08 million
Mt Etna basalt, Sicily (AD1792) 0.35 ± 0.14 Million
Mt Lassen plagioclase, California (AD1915) 0.11 ± 0.03 million
Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD1064–1065) 0.27 ± 0.09 Million
Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii (Pleistocene) 32.3 ± 7.2 million
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD1959) 8.5 ± 6.8 million
Mt Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (Sept. 23, 1963) 2.4 ± 2 million
Mt Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964) 0.7 ± 0.01 million
Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian, Glass Mountains, California (<500 years old) 12.6 ± 4.5 mllion
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD1800–1801) 22.8 ± 16.5 Million
Rangitoto basalt, Auckland, NZ (<800 yrs old) 0.15 – 0.47 million
Alkali basalt plug, Benue, Nigeria (<30 Million
Olivine basalt, Nathan Hills, Victoria Land, Antarctica (<0.3 Ma) 18.0 ± 0.7
Anorthoclase in volcanic bomb, Mt Erebus, Antarctica (1984) 0.64 ± 0.03 million
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<200 yrs old) 21 ± 8 million

Clearly, the amount of argon remaining as the lava cooled has a great deal to do with the date assigned. It also seems evident that the locale of the eruption may have something to do with the amount of original argon in the eruption. Dalrymple and Moore reported in an article in Science 161, 1968 pp 1132-1135 that undersea pillow lava from Kilauea volcano that the 1 cm glassy rim contained more than 40 times more excess 40AR than the basalt interior just 10 cm below. Dymond reported similar results on four on four deep sea basalt pillows. Dalrymple and Moore found systematic increases in 40AR as depth increased. Is this showing a bias toward evolutionary time scales? Any data this wild should be thrown in the trash and the method scrapped. It appears the problem is that the earth existed long before life began to be created. This seems to account for the long time scales the evolutionists want to claim of proof of an ancient earth.

This data was presented at the fourth annual conference on creationism,Pittsburgh Aug 3-8, 1998. by Andrew A Snelling, Ph. D. References available.

CARBON 14 DATING

In contrast to the long times of the foregoing, carbon 14 provides a short time scale. C14 has a half life of 5,730 +/- 30 years. A million years would be over 170 half lives. If a lump of c14 as big as the earth were present, after a million years it would all be gone.

There are some assumptions.
1. The rate of decay is constant.
2. The 14C/C ratio is constant
3. The object to be dated was in equilibrium with the environment.
4. The object to be dated has not gained any carbon since T(0)
5. We can measure the present 14C/C ratio

Originally the procedure required a long time and special shielding plus a fairly large amount of sample. Recently, however, a method that requires a few milligrams of sample has been developed. An ionizing source and focussing electrodes produce a beam of ionized particles aimed at a magnet that separates the particles by weight. A counter counts how many particles of carbon 12 and carbon14 are obtained, and the ratio is measured from the count.

The result is a measure of radiocarbon years. The time scale is much less than the potassium-argon results. Instead of measuring in milions of years, we measure less than fifty thousand at the extreme. This method allows repeated testing of a sample. it is faster and it is incompatible with any other evolutionary time scale.

This creates a divide between the evolutionary scientists who are used to thinking in millions of years and the creationist short chronology scientists. A test was run by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography on some fresh water mussel shells from corings retrieved from the Black sea.

The corings by Bob Ballard and Walter Pitman showed that the Black sea was at one time was a fresh water lake. The raw data showed a date of 7500 years.. This was reported in the book, Noah’s Flood. It should be noted that Ballard and Pitman are not creationists, and according to YEC ideas the Black Sea flood does not fit the story of the flood as recorded in Genesis.

geochron

November 15th 2004, 03:11 AM

The mantle is several hundred miles thick and is semi-molten. We know quite a bit about the mantle, because this is the stuff that comes out of volcanoes.

Looks like you still haven't checked the thickness of the mantle, in spite of some unsubtle hints previously. Also, the relationship between "the mantle" and volanoes is somewhat more complex that you imply.

[snip silly implicaiton that K-Ar and 14C are the "two main methods of dating", and some half-baked stuff about radioactive decay.]

[snip the reference to the supposedly complex formula for dating.]

[snip the bit where you make the same mistake about 40K beta decaying that you made weeks ago.]

...A volcano in New Zealand that erupted 49 years before but the lab gave a date of 270,000 to 3,500,000 +/- 200,000 years. This is but a sample. Others are...

Tired repeats of the same old twaddle about K-Ar being unreliable because sometimes there is inherited 40Ar. For some reason you still ignore all the isochron work, all the other chronometers, all the answers you've had about the problem of using an inappropriate tool...

CARBON 14 DATING

In contrast to the long times of the foregoing, carbon 14 provides a short time scale. C14 has a half life of 5,730 +/- 30 years. A million years would be over 170 half lives. If a lump of c14 as big as the earth were present, after a million years it would all be gone.

There are some assumptions.
1. The rate of decay is constant.
2. The 14C/C ratio is constant
3. The object to be dated was in equilibrium with the environment.
4. The object to be dated has not gained any carbon since T(0)
5. We can measure the present 14C/C ratio

Originally the procedure required a long time and special shielding plus a fairly large amount of sample. Recently, however, a method that requires a few milligrams of sample has been developed. An ionizing source and focussing electrodes produce a beam of ionized particles aimed at a magnet that separates the particles by weight. A counter counts how many particles of carbon 12 and carbon14 are obtained, and the ratio is measured from the count.

The result is a measure of radiocarbon years. The time scale is much less than the potassium-argon results. Instead of measuring in milions of years, we measure less than fifty thousand at the extreme. This method allows repeated testing of a sample. it is faster and it is incompatible with any other evolutionary time scale.

In what way is it incompatible? How is the existence of young things incompatible with the existence of old things? Does the existence of babies suggest to you that there are no 80-year-olds?

This creates a divide between the evolutionary scientists who are used to thinking in millions of years and the creationist short chronology scientists. A test was run by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography on some fresh water mussel shells from corings retrieved from the Black sea.

The corings by Bob Ballard and Walter Pitman showed that the Black sea was at one time was a fresh water lake. The raw data showed a date of 7500 years.. This was reported in the book, Noah’s Flood. It should be noted that Ballard and Pitman are not creationists, and according to YEC ideas the Black Sea flood does not fit the story of the flood as recorded in Genesis.

So what?

Lion

November 15th 2004, 12:43 PM

I was sure I would get a rise out of Geochron. He hasn't got a clue about where that lava comes from, or what the excess argon in the lava means. He is stuck in the rut of the geological ages and refuses to even try to look at why he might be wrong by a few million or billion years.

He is the direct fulfilment of the prophecy of 2 Peter.

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:3-7

One Bad Pig

November 15th 2004, 01:05 PM

:doh:

kendemyer

November 16th 2004, 12:07 AM

geochron

November 16th 2004, 06:24 AM

I was sure I would get a rise out of Geochron.

Not much of a prophecy, since you've posted substantially the same assertions without evidence before. In your mind, however, it seems this response prevents you from having to answer the questions. I doubt anyone else agrees.

He hasn't got a clue about where that lava comes from, or what the excess argon in the lava means.

Let's take your last assertion. Excess 40Ar (over an atmpospheric 40Ar/36Ar ratio) comes from the mantle (I assume you agree?). The conventional view is that it has been produced in the mantle over geological time by 40K decay. What's your story?

Primordial argon has a lower 40Ar/36Ar ratio than terrestrial air, incidentally. How did it get that way in your view? 40K decay can increase the ratio, but never decrease it no matter what half life is adopted.

(I don't really expect an answer, but you never know...)

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:3-7

I'm not mocking the promise of His coming, I'm mocking the random assertions you post and your inability to defend them. I'm also mocking your simply repeating things that you weren't able to defend last time you posted them. Do you hope we've all forgotten?

All prophets may be mocked, Mr Lion, but not all people who are mocked are prophets.

Lion

November 16th 2004, 03:36 PM

Geochron, you are mocking the story of the flood. You are mocking the evidence I present that contradicts your premise that the created life is only about six thousand years old, give or take a bit. I agreed that the earth was probably in existence long before that, and I presented evidence from pillow lava that showed anomalous argon 40, but you never did answer that assertion. I challenge you to explain that. I said, and I say it again, where does the lava come from if it is not from that semi-molten mantle? You claim to be a professor at some college. What do you know about the earth's interior? I was quoting from recognized sources about the thickness of the mantle and the source of lava, not YEC sources.

Let's discuss things like civilized men instead of prattling about how much you know and running down how little someone else who may hold a different opinion knows. You don't have all knowlege and neither do I. Instead of mocking my knowledge, put up or shut up.

Solly

November 17th 2004, 05:40 AM

off topic: everytime I see the title of this thread, I think it's about me :lol:

lucaspa

November 17th 2004, 12:32 PM

addendum to my previous post

TO: ALL

I guess the real question is whose dating methodologies have the best assumptions. This isn't it at all. We have two competing hypotheses: the earth is young; the earth is old. Now, what we also have is evidence that is present TODAY for us to study. The object now is to examine that evidence, see if it is valid, and see which of the hypotheses is wrong. Because, in deductive reasoning, you can always show an idea to be wrong. You can't, strictly speaking, "prove" it. But true statements cannot have false consequences.

It turns out that young earth has false consequences. The earth was recognized to be very old by 1831. The people who found that data that falsified a young earth were all Christians, many of them were ministers. So much for "assumptions" or bias. They started out thinking the earth was young, but the evidence God left them in His Creation convinced them that the earth could not possibly be young.

Now, YECers have used the Noah's Flood as a way to account for all the geological evidence that shows the earth is old. By Flood Geology, all geology is caused by the Flood. So, in the terminology of science, the Flood becomes an ad hoc hypothesis to save young earth from falsification. Now, ad hoc hypotheses must be tested independently of the theory they are designed to save. Flood Geology got tested in the period 1790-1831. And was falsified. There never was a world-wide Flood at all.

http://www.age-of-earth.com/ I'm going to discuss this page. If you want, we can discuss the other pages in detail. Now, first mistake:
"A look at the "Age of Earth" query reveals that there are really only two possible solutions as to how everything came into existence -- Creation or Evolution. Creation is the concept that Someone apart from the universe created the universe. Evolution is essentially the atheistic explanation of origins. "

Evoution is NOT atheism. Never has been. Both evolution and special creation are different ideas about how God created. So the site has violated the 9th Commandment right at the beginning.

"There are approximately 5 times the Natural Chronometers (http://www.allaboutcreation.org/How-Old-Is-The-Earth.htm) indicating a Young Earth than those indicating an Old Earth. Today's student is not aware of ANY Natural Chronometers indicating a Young Earth, and is therefore ignorant of 80% of the total data."

This is the big mistake. The philosopher of science Karl Popper noted that you can find support for any theory, if that is all that you are looking for. What really counts is the evidence that can't possibly be there if the theory is correct. Remember, true statements can't have false consequences. So we don't decide the validity of theories by stacking up evidence and seeing which stack is taller. Now, all the supposed "natural chronometers" have flaws in them. They can all be explained by other hypotheses than that of a young earth. So they don't even work as evidence exclusive to a young earth. We can go into that in detail, also.

"All data is interpreted through presuppositions." Notice that they never documented that one, just asserted it. That's because it is not true. Data is interpreted in regard to hypotheses, but that is not the same as presuppositions. If this were true, then young earth never would have been falsified to begin with, since young earth was the operative presupposition for people like Rev. Buckland, Rev. Sedgwick, Rev. Baden-Powell, and other geologists in the first 2 decades of the 1800s.

"Uniformitarianism is taught as scientific fact, but is merely an Evolutionist presupposition to explain sedimentary layers (http://www.allaboutcreation.org/Geologic-Time-Scale.htm). "

Uniformitarianism is simply that processes present today also were working in the past. It is not the idea that everything happens at a uniform slow rate. There are catastrophes, after all. Notice the other false witness, that uniformitarianism is an "Evolutionist" idea. WRONG! The person most associated with it is Charles Lyell. Lyell published his Principles of Geology between 1828-1830. While Darwin was on the Beagle and before he had any idea of evolution! At the time, Lyell was a special creationist. That is, he believed that all plants and animals were specially created. This is from his Principles:
"Each species 'was endowed at the time of its creation, with the attributes of organization by which it is now distinguished'. Only limited variations within a type have ever occurred. Each species, itself immutable, probably takes its origin from a single pair, such pairs having "been created in succession at such times and in such places as to enable them to multiply and endure for an appointed period, and occupy an appointed place on the globe." CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology 130-131. Sounds like it could come from the AiG website, doesn't it? So AiG has committed false witness about the the relationship of uniformitarianism and evolution.

"What are the presuppositions and how were they reached? (an example would be the assumptions fundamental to Radiometric Dating (http://www.allaboutcreation.org/Radiometric-Dating.htm)). " They misrepresent the "assumptions". But here is what another prominent YECer, Duane Gish, says about radiometric dating.

"Furthermore, it will be maintained that even though any given age measurements may be completely erroneous due to leaching or emanation or some other effect, there are many cases now known where the age estimate has been checked by two or more different methods, independently. It would seem improbable that the elements concerned would have each been altered in such a way as to continue to give equal ages; therefore, such agreement between independent measurements would seem to be strong evidence that alteration has not occurred and that the indicated date is therefore valid." Duane Gish, The American Biology Teacher, March 1973, pg. 136.

"There is an alternative to Uniformitarianism - Catastrophism -- which is validated by ancient manuscripts, poly-strata fossils, fossil clams (in the closed position) found on Mt. Everest's peak,"

Here Flood Geologists forget their other hypotheses. By Flood Geology, there should be no clams on Mt. Everest! Remember, the Flood comes from bottom up and the more mobile animals (mammals) escape to the higher elevations. That's why, according to Flood Geology, we find mammals in the uppermost strata! Well, you can't get any more uppermost than the top of Mt. Everest. According to the statements of Flood Geology, we should find human, deer, antelope, mountain goats, and other mammalian fossils on Mt. Everest, as these animals fled the rising Flood waters. NOT CLAMS who can't move! So, instead of supporting evidence, the presence of clams -- closed indicating living clams -- on Mt. Everest falsifies a Flood!

Now, if the Flood were so violent as to lift clams to the top of Mt. Everest, then it is so violent as to mix up all animals into one blended mix. So we should find humans and other mammals in the lower strata also. But we don't. Flood Geology has 2 contradictory ad hoc hypotheses to explain the distribution of fossils. But the consequences of the hypotheses contradict. Flood Geology is hoping that you won't use any critical thinking skills and notice the contradiction. They are relying on your stupidity. A theory can't survive this way.

geochron

November 17th 2004, 06:28 PM

Geochron, you are mocking the story of the flood. You are mocking the evidence I present that contradicts your premise that the created life is only about six thousand years old, give or take a bit.

In this case, I'm mocking your behaviour on this board and nothing else. Though I agree that the YEC defence of the flood is pretty much laughable.

In this case you referenced some work on inherited argon. You alluded to 14C. You muttered something implying 40Ar and 14C data were inconsistent. None of which addreses this point that you now make.

I agreed that the earth was probably in existence long before that, and I presented evidence from pillow lava that showed anomalous argon 40, but you never did answer that assertion.

You presented inherited 40Ar as if it was a problem. It isn't. I explained where it comes from.

But this is good. Do we now agree that the Earth is 4.5 Ga old, as in the conventiobal view?

I challenge you to explain that. I said, and I say it again, where does the lava come from if it is not from that semi-molten mantle? You claim to be a professor at some college. What do you know about the earth's interior? I was quoting from recognized sources about the thickness of the mantle and the source of lava, not YEC sources.

Wikipedia, for instance, will begin to straighten out some of your most rudimentary misconceptions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_%28geology%29

I suggest focusing on the depth and the solidity, to start with. After that, something about partial melting would probably help.

Let's discuss things like civilized men instead of prattling about how much you know and running down how little someone else who may hold a different opinion knows. You don't have all knowlege and neither do I. Instead of mocking my knowledge, put up or shut up.

OK, why don't you go back and answer the questions you ducked in the other threads rather than posting repeat lectures here. I'd appreciate an acknowledgement that your opening critique of geochronology was completely incorrect, for instance. That would be a nice start.

Until then, demonstrating how little you know shows how much confidence should be placed in your opinion. Science is grounded in reality, after all, it isn't simply a matter of opinion.

Lion

November 17th 2004, 11:20 PM

Ok I read your referenced encycolopedia quote.

from the encyclopedia
The convection of the Earth's mantle is a chaotic process (in the sense of fluid dynamics), which is thought to drive continental drift. The movements of the continents and the Earth's mantle are thereby partially decoupled, since due to the rigidity of the crust, a tectonic plate can only move as a whole. Continental drift is therefore only a diffuse image of the movements at the upper limit of the Earth's mantle. The convection of the mantle is not yet clarified in detail. There are different theories, according to which the Earth's mantle is divided into different floors of separate convection.

I referred to the current thought about volcanic activity and never once said how deep the volcanic material came from The question was, how do the ages obained by numerous samples from different places have such widely variant supposed ages for recent lava flows when we know the date of the flow? The question has not escaped the notice of different scientists who noted the "excess argon" problem, many of whom were seeking honest answers to a dating problem. These were not all YEC scientists. The only conclusions I have been able to reach are these:
1. The K-Ar method is not capable of detecting the very small, approaching zero amounts of AR40, or
2. There was some residual argon from some previous test. Or
3. the whole system is flawed.

There was some hint of explanation when it was explained that the cooling process affected the escape of Argon. Given the length of time the flow of the St. Helens debris took to cool, and the probability of rain, it seems likely some argon was probably retained in the flows mentioned. St Helens was not one of them.You said there were other methods, but this one seemed the most widely used.

I'd like an explanation of the seemingly great number of anomalous dates by this method.

lucaspa

November 22nd 2004, 05:09 PM

The question was, how do the ages obained by numerous samples from different places have such widely variant supposed ages for recent lava flows when we know the date of the flow? The question has not escaped the notice of different scientists who noted the "excess argon" problem, many of whom were seeking honest answers to a dating problem. These were not all YEC scientists. The only conclusions I have been able to reach are these:
1. The K-Ar method is not capable of detecting the very small, approaching zero amounts of AR40, or
2. There was some residual argon from some previous test. Or
3. the whole system is flawed. Replace 3. with: sampling error.

1. is correct. All methods have their limitations. K-Ar can't be used to date anything less than a million years old, because the amount of Ar produced in that time is less than the amount that the analyses can measure. In addition, all analytical procedures have error bars. That is, you get 12 people to measure a meter line with a meter stick and you get 12 answers. The mean should be at a meter, but some measurements will be 1.05 meters and other .995 meters. So, you get a mean +/- the standard deviation or the error in measurement. In the case of dating Mt. St. Helens or other recent flows, the error bars for K-Ar is in the range of 50,000 years. Now, if you are measuring a 5 million year old piece of rock, 50,000 years either side is only a 1% error. However, if the flow is 25 years, then an age of 20,000 +/- 50,000 years puts the actual age within the error bars. So K-Ar was an inappropriate technique. They actually got the right age, since 25 years was within the error bars of the measurement. But, of course, they didn't tell you about the error bars and only reported the mean.

2. Residual Ar is related to sampling error. For the K-Ar clock to be reset, the rock crystals must be completely melted. If you have some of the crystals that are not melted, and you take melted and unmelted crystals, you are getting an age that incorporates both 5 million year old crystals and 25 year old crystals. If you read Austin's and other creationists papers carefully, you find that they simply scooped up material indiscriminantly without careful examination to see if the material consisted only of fresh crystals. There are ways to tell by looking, if you look. But they didn't.

So, the Mt. St. Helen's measurements were bad science from beginning to end. Bad sampling, bad choice of experimental technique, deliberate refusal to tell the lab about the source so that the lab could check for contamination, etc. They wanted the wrong results and conducted the experiments in such a manner that they were guaranteed to get the wrong results! Which, of course, were what they wanted. Talk about bias!

lucaspa

November 22nd 2004, 05:22 PM

You said there were other methods, but this one seemed the most widely used.

I'd like an explanation of the seemingly great number of anomalous dates by this method.Define "seemingly great number", please. K-Ar is one method. Sources for studying the various radiometric methods are:

1. http://www.c14dating.com/
2. http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
3. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html
4. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
5. http://www.californiaprehistory.com/radiodb3.html
6. http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
7. http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html K-Ar dating intro
8. http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch1/Ch1-4.htm K-Ar pressure quote
9. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

Pay particular attention to that last one -- isochron dating. Because the method 1) does away with assumptions and 2) internally detects sampling and other methods flaws.

Lion

November 23rd 2004, 02:24 PM

Hello, Lucaspa. Welcome.

It’s refreshing to hear from someone who doesn’t denigrate the opinions of someone who doesn’t necessarily agree with a particular philosophy like some whom I could name.

I happen to believe the Bible story of creation and the flood implicitly. But that doesn’t make us enemies, does it? I graduated from college in 1950 with a physics major, so that was a long time ago, wasn’t it? Atomic physics was in its infancy then.

You asked me to define many. I was referring to a previous post where I listed a number of lava flows of recent known dates that were in error by thousands of years, but you explained the built in error adequately.

It seems the k-ar dating system has flaws built into the method because of the crystal inclusions that are difficult to detect and therefore lead to uncertanty.

I am a person who looks at all sides of a problem and tries to harmonize the difficulties. For instance, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible story of recent creation can be harmonized by realizing that this planet could have been here billions of years before the creation by the creator some 6 or 7 thousand years ago. That concept erases the conflict between the millions of years and the thousands of years of scripture.

C14 seems to prove that there is a short chronology that fits the creationist story.

Ken

shunyadragon

November 23rd 2004, 07:34 PM

TO: Jorge

I am glad this thread did not die. I like Dr. John Baumgardner's http://globalflood.org/ website very much. Thank you.

I especially liked his age of earth argument at: http://globalflood.org/earthage/index.html which I had never heard before.

Sincerely,

Ken
Ken,

I am surprized to hear you say you had never heard these arguments before since they are the same arguments on AIG and other sites. Several very simple disasterous weakness in the article you cited are:

(1) The fundimental historical belief in an old earth by Geologists rests in strategraphy and not radiometric dating. A review of the history of Geology will confirm this. Radiometric data only made dating more accurate. Since my specialty is geomorphology and sedimentology I can easily prove the sedimentary rocks of the world were not deposited in a world flood and the overwhelming evidence, like the lake sediments in Japan, supports uniformitarianism.

(2) To talk about the age of the earth and jump to false refutation of Carbon radiometric is puzzling, since C14 dating has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth.

(3) The rapid occurance of the events leading to continental drift, mountain building and subduction of the plates violates every known law of phisics. This false argument exists in some way in all the YEC sites.

Reruns of the misuse of science, previously refuted on Tweb and many other sites are only more bombing runs by Gooney birds.

Lion

November 25th 2004, 09:22 PM

lucaspa, you mentioned fossil clams on the top of Mt Everest as evidence that the earth is older than creationists think it is. There is much more to the story than that. Not only are there fossil marine creatures on Everest but the Canadian rockies are full of them. But the strange part of the puzzle is that there are fossil animals that, according to the evolutionary reasoning should be on top, but are lower down. The problem is that the whole mountain range is upside down.

Evolution tells us that the simpler creatures came first and then the more complex forms. Then came mammals and finally man. So they developed a system of index fossils by which to date the strata. So the evolutionists date strata by the fossils and the fossils by the strata. Talk about circular reasoning!

The creationist, on the other hand, believes that all kinds of creatures came from the creator’s hand fully formed. This is the contrast that divides the two beliefs.

The evolutionists developed a fossil evolutionary column, the simpler forms and then the complex ones. That seems logical, and to a degree intuitive. But where did all the material that the fossils were buried in come from? Years ago there was a theory that stardust somehow piled up and buried the creatures and they became fossilized. Sorry, that’s not how fossils are formed. Fossils require rapid burial and a special acid-base PH to replace animal matter in the bone. Fossil bones often have a metallic sound where bone does not.

You mentioned fossil bivalves on Everest. You said they were closed and full of crystals, showing they had been buried alive. That is typical of fossil shells. If you walk along the beach after a storm you can tell a live creature from a dead one at a glance. Dead shells are open and live ones are closed.

The question is not whether they were buried alive, but how they get buried up there? A look at the map of southeast Asia reveals that India seems to have pushed up aginst the Asian land mass and wrinkled up the Himalayas and possibly the Tibetan highlands as well. This is plate tectonics and has nothing to do with the creation story but it has everything with the story of the catastrophe of the flood.

Evolutionists are schooled in unformitarianism and cannot conceive the disaster of a worldwide flood. There is little use trying to convince either side of the correctness of the other’s viewpoint unless they are willing to listen to the arguments of the other side. If you are willing to listen, I am willing to tell the creationist story from the evidence we find in the earth.

sylas

November 25th 2004, 09:28 PM

lucaspa, you mentioned fossil clams on the top of Mt Everest as evidence that the earth is older than creationists think it is.

Quick quibble... lucaspa is mistaken. He was commenting on a creationist source, which was in turn factually incorrect. The creationist source was repeated a widely repeated claim, which appears to have grown in the telling. It would be an interesting study to see how this story developed.

There are no fossil clams on top of Mt Everest. The top of Mt Everest is a marine limestone, and there are fossil crinoids. But no clams or bivalves of any kind, as far as I know.

Cheers -- Sylas

Lion

November 26th 2004, 04:12 PM

I had never heard what fossils were on Everest, if any. I was quoting his post. Thanks for clearing that up. I wouldn't have been surprised if there were. Stranger things than that are around this world.

I don't know what you would call them but the rocks I dig up in my yard have all kinds of worm tunnels in them Somebody said they were crinoid tunnels.

A few miles from here is Little River canyon The road goes past a sandstone rock with thousands of marine snail shells in it. It sits on the top of a cliff. How did it get up there? A few miles from there at the head of the canyon there was a sandstone layer that had animal tracks in it. They were pointed toward a cliff. The animal was evidently frightened, judging by the length of stride. But why would he run toward a cliff? The sand was mud then.

The only explanation I have for this phenomenon is the flood of Genesis. An 800 foot canyon, obviously water washed, with snails at the top of sandstone cliffs. No other explanation makes sense.

sylas

November 26th 2004, 04:45 PM

Lion... my apologies. I had written a reply, but I see I am not meant to be in this forum. My previous comment on clams was a simple datum of interest without arguing interpretations, so I suggest it can stay. But for me to make a longer interpretative reply, as originally written, would be inappropriate. I may consider this in another forum. Sorry! -- Sylas

Lion

November 26th 2004, 07:22 PM

Sylas, you have nothig to apologize for. As a matter of fact, you have aided my contention that many people make uninformed statements. I had no knowledge of what fossils are on Everest, so I was quoting Lucaspa.

I am much concerned about the breakdown of morality in our schools We have forced God out of our schools and eliminated the ten commandments from our judicial system. When we did that we eliminated the standard of right and wrong from our society.

The teaching that there is no God, that man evolved, has been followed by the idea that there are no standards. If it feels good, do it, no matter who you hurt.

rogero

November 26th 2004, 08:48 PM

...

The only explanation I have for this phenomenon is the flood of Genesis. An 800 foot canyon, obviously water washed, with snails at the top of sandstone cliffs. No other explanation makes sense.

How could the flood of Genesis explain an 800-foot canyon gouged into established sedimentary layers. Were the layer contemperaneous with the cutting of the canyon? Why would distinguishable layers be established before an erosion event took place? Why are there distinguishable layers at all -- sandstone, conglomerate, shale, limestone, etc.? What is the source of the erosion if not the stream that now exists in this canyon? Are you thinking that this stream existed during the raging Mabbul?

I'm quite confused as to how you can confidently assert that the Genesis Flood is the source of the topography and stratigraphy in this canyon.

In God's Peace,

Roger

Lion

November 28th 2004, 01:46 PM

rogero

November 28th 2004, 08:47 PM

That's a good question. There is a question of Philosophy here. Evolution presupposes that all these strata were laid down, one on top of the other. I have a question for the evolution guys. The strata, there are hundreds, even thousands of feet of them in places. Were did the material for those many feet of strata come from? Was there some sort of creation going on to make the the vast amount of limestone we see in places? The limestone making up the strata must have been in solution to deposit the strata. Where was the water to make the solution?

The so-called geologic column presupposes the presence of lower forms of creatures, then the next strata is supposed to be a more complex form. If that is true, did the less complex forms die off so there were none to be deposited in the next layer? It doesn't make sense. We still have those simpler forms today. If evolution is a fact, it seems to me that there should be a progression of forms in each layer, simple to complex, with the simpler forms on the bottom.

Then there is the idea that this all happened by chance, an accidental meeting of molecules that formed life. The theory that there is no God has created all kinds of problems. It leaves mankind wthout a moral compass to guide them, no sense of right or wrong. We have eliminated God from our schools, and have reaped the result in the breakdown of morality in society.

Dear Lion,

I understand completely the position you're coming from. Our God is a God of reason and can't be mocked. I also feel strongly (and I realize this is an axiomatic position, ergo can't be supported with data) that God does not deceive us intentionally with the evidence He allows us to study in the record of the rocks and cosmos.

First of all, your question for "all the evolution guys" regarding the source of sediment for the observed layers --- there is a fairly well established historical geology involving numerous mountain-building events (aka "orogenies") and consequent isostatic stabilizations in Earth's lithosphere. To wit, there were times in Earth's history when parts of the crust were in different configurations than today, producing topographical differences resulting in erosional sources and concommitent base levels for deposition. The standard view is that Earth's lithosphere is dynamic and many such uplifts and degradations have occured over deep time,

Your geologic column question is fairly simple to deal with. The vast majority of observers realize that lower sedimentary layers were deposited before higher ones (this is Hutton's Law of Superposition.) I'm not an expert in biology, but I think your assertion of higher "complexity" with higher layers is a gross oversimplification. There certainly is a change in life forms up the geological column, that's difficult to refute, although the "complexity" concept is a bit of a red herring.

Your final paragraph is the typical conflation of old Earth/Cosmos/Biological evolution with abiogenesis. No one has more than a vague clue as to how life originated from non-life, but that issue is most assuredly separate from the age issues and change in the biosphere over time.

How any of this is related to a putative moral breakdown in society is a whole 'nuther issue altogether.

In God's Peace and to a sincere search for the Truth,

Roger

Lion

December 2nd 2004, 11:11 PM

Quote Rogero'
Your final paragraph is the typical conflation of old Earth/Cosmos/Biological evolution with abiogenesis. No one has more than a vague clue as to how life originated from non-life, but that issue is most assuredly separate from the age issues and change in the biosphere over time.

How any of this is related to a putative moral breakdown in society is a whole 'nuther issue altogether.

----------
I happen to believe in a divine literal creation and a literal world wide flood that destroyed all living breathing land creatures, especially humans. Your statement that no one has more than a vague clue how life originated from non-life is correct. I would go a step further and say they haven't the beginnings of a clue. Yes, they seem to have been able to synthsize a few chemicals, but they are stopped cold when they try to put DNA together.

Speaking of DNA and life, Here is a suggestion. Why doesn't some brilliant scientist try to resurrect some animal that has just died? All the right cells are there, the DNA and the ribosomes, everything, is there. All it lacks is the little spark of something called LIFE. I bet he could be the richest man on earth. Of course he would have to divulge his secret because he might die! It will never happen.

Speaking of the decline in moralty. When we take the principles of the ten commandments out of society we deprive man of a moral compass, a sense of right and wrong. Evolution does exactly that. Man has nothing to guide him because the philosophy of right and wrong is gone.

lucaspa

December 5th 2004, 10:51 AM

Hello, Lucaspa. Welcome. It seems the k-ar d...ating system has flaws built into the method because of the crystal inclusions that are difficult to detect and therefore lead to uncertanty. The technique does not have flaws, because partially melted crystals can be detected. You need to look under a magnifying glass or a low power microscope. THe problem was that the creationist scietnists did not bother to do this. The flaw is in the scientists, not the method.

Which creation story? There are at least 3 in the OT, and they contradict if you read them literally. Also, are you aware that Christians, many of them ministers, showed that a world-wide Flood never happened? Also that the Flood proposed by Morris, Ham, Hovind, and other creationists is not the same as the one depicted in Genesiss? See The Genesis Flood by Davis A. Young. Young is a professional geologist (professor at Calvin College) and an evangelical Christian.

I am a person who looks at all sides of a problem and tries to harmonize the difficulties. For instance, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible story of recent creation can be harmonized by realizing that this planet could have been here billions of years before the creation by the creator some 6 or 7 thousand years ago. That concept erases the conflict between the millions of years and the thousands of years of scripture.[/quote]Ah, the Gap Theory. I've seen that one and, IMO, it does not work. After all, Genesis 1 talks about the sun, moon, and stars being formed on Day 4. That would have to fit within the 7,000 years, but you can't have a billions year old earth but a sun or stars that are only 6,000 years old.

In general, I agree that God's Creation and the Bible should be in harmony. However, I don't agree that your idea will achieve that. You must examine your idea in regard to God's Creation. I think that the harmony is achieved when you stop trying to impose your ideas that the Bible is a scientiffic document and read it as the people of the time understood it. They understood Genesis 1-3 as theology, nto literal history.

C14 seems to prove that there is a short chronology that fits the creationist story.How do you figure that? C14 will date objects back to 50,000 years ago. That means that living things are far older than the 6-7,000 years your theory is allowing.

In terms of radioactivity, C14 is generated by the raction of cosmic rays with N14 in the atmosphere to make C14. But consider all the short-lived isotopes that are NOT generated by reactions such as these. Are there any of these on the earth other than man-made? NO. NONE. ZIP. Zilch. The only radioisotopes we find on earth are those with half-lives greater than 50 million years. All the reast have decayed because the earth is very, very old. Best measurement is 4.55 +/- 0.05 billion years.

Ken[/QUOTE]

lucaspa

December 5th 2004, 10:57 AM

lucaspa

December 5th 2004, 11:19 AM

lucaspa, you mentioned fossil clams on the top of Mt Everest as evidence that the earth is older than creationists think it is. I actually said that fossil clams on Everest falsifies the Flood. A Flood could not have put the clams there.

There is much more to the story than that. Not only are there fossil marine creatures on Everest but the Canadian rockies are full of them. But the strange part of the puzzle is that there are fossil animals that, according to the evolutionary reasoning should be on top, but are lower down. The problem is that the whole mountain range is upside down. Not really. Not whole mountain ranges. You have been mislead by your creationist sources here. A bit of false witness on their part, I'm afraid. Akin to the false witness of misleading K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens. Have you ever heard of thrust faulting or folding? As the mountains were pushed up, the layers folded. In places, if the folding is on the side, there are going to be layers that are "upside down" due to the folding. HOwever, geologists can detect the folding independently of the fossils.

Evolution tells us that the simpler creatures came first and then the more complex forms. Then came mammals and finally man. So they developed a system of index fossils by which to date the strata. So the evolutionists date strata by the fossils and the fossils by the strata. Talk about circular reasoning! More misinformation. The sequence of fossils were noted by a guy named Smith in the period 1790-1810. Smith was a creationist, since Darwin would not publish Origin of the Species until 1859 and creationism was THE accepted theory of the time. Smith's observation were pure empiricism. Fossils in England always appeared in a particular order. Smith could stand on one hill and predict, when the railroad cut was dug on teh next hill, the relative order of fossils in the strata. No evolution. It was also noted that some fossils were only in certain strata, not in others. So ... strata in France with those fossils would be the same strata in England and teh same strata in the United States. Again, pure empiricism with nothing to do with evolution. Marks on the rocks would have served teh same purpose.

The creationist, on the other hand, believes that all kinds of creatures came from the creator’s hand fully formed. This is the contrast that divides the two beliefs.[/qutoe] And God in HIs Creation tells us this is not so. No "belief" in evolution, but acceptance of what God left for ALL of us to see. I never understand why creationists supposedly beleive God created, then turn around and deny God's Creation.

[quote]But where did all the material that the fossils were buried in come from? Years ago there was a theory that stardust somehow piled up and buried the creatures and they became fossilized. Sorry, that’s not how fossils are formed. Fossils require rapid burial and a special acid-base PH to replace animal matter in the bone. Fossil bones often have a metallic sound where bone does not.Rock, actually, not metal, but bone is 60% rock to begin with. Hydroxyapetite to be exact. THe material came from erosion of other rocks or previous sedimentary rocks.

You mentioned fossil bivalves on Everest. You said they were closed and full of crystals, showing they had been buried alive. No, the creationist poster I quoted said this.

That is typical of fossil shells. If you walk along the beach after a storm you can tell a live creature from a dead one at a glance. Dead shells are open and live ones are closed.

The question is not whether they were buried alive, but how they get buried up there?And that's where I said that the Flood could NOT explain it. Fossil clams on Everest actually falsify the Flood as a explanation of fossils and the geological column. According to Flood geology, the highest peaks should have fossils of humans and deer, and raptors and other animals that went to higher ground as the Flood waters rose. There should not be clams on Everest, because clams can't move.

This is plate tectonics and has nothing to do with the creation story but it has everything with the story of the catastrophe of the flood. Plate tectonics do explain how clams got on Everest, but plate tectonics have nothign to do with the Flood. THe Flood in Genesis 6-8 is a gentle Flood that does not change the geography of the planet. Eden in Genesis 2 is pre-Flood, but its location is identified by post-Flood rivers. THis can't happen if the Flood is as violent as you say.

Evolutionists are schooled in unformitarianism and cannot conceive the disaster of a worldwide flood.Sure we can. A world-wide flood was the theory to explain geology from 1700-1831. Geologists, all of whome were Christian and most of whom were ministers, showed that there was no world-wide Flood by 1831. God's Creation told these Chistians that He did not have a world wide Flood. Modern creationists simply refuse to listen to God.

If you are willing to listen, I am willing to tell the creationist story from the evidence we find in the earth. you can find evidence for ANY theory, if that is all you are looking for. Instead, what you have to look for is evicence that shows a thoery to be WRONG. If you are willing to listen, I will show you evidence that shows the creationist story to be wrong. Starting with the volcanic cones in Auvergne France and metamorphic rock.

Lion

December 5th 2004, 02:39 PM

Lucaspa, you never did answer my challenge to take an animal that had just died and resurrect it when all the parts are there. That should be much easier than trying to construct a simple one celled creature from amino acids anD then putting life into it.

What is life, anyway? You tell me what life is, and THEN I will attempt to answer you. I don't mean the effect by which we know something is alive, but what IS life?

BTW, you said something about generating life from my own back yard. How, pray tell?

And another thing. The moral degeneration in society today is directly traceable to the rise of teaching evolution in our schools. When we kicked God out of school, morality flew out the window. The teaching that there is no God deprives man of a moral compass to tell right from wrong

Constantine

December 5th 2004, 02:51 PM

And another thing. The moral degeneration in society today is directly traceable to the rise of teaching evolution in our schools. When we kicked God out of school, morality flew out the window. The teaching that there is no God deprives man of a moral compass to tell right from wrong

The moral degeneration of American society accelerated in the 1960's. More than a century after Darwin. Why would evolution not have such a drastic effect for so long? It was not evolution that caused the problem but instead moral relativism that was imposed on our society by the far left. That was unconnected with evolution. Moral decadence has been with us since the begining. People have been depraved long before Darwin. The Greeks believed in many gods and they were so immoral that even the Romans looked down on their society.

Creationists rightly see the symptoms, but blame the wrong cause. The decline of Christianity's influence is the problem but that started before (and would have continued without) Darwinian evolution. I would even venture to say that it can be taced back to *gasp* the Reformation. But that is the topic of another thread entirely.

lucaspa

December 6th 2004, 10:16 AM

A few miles from here is Little River canyon The road goes past a sandstone rock with thousands of marine snail shells in it. It sits on the top of a cliff. How did it get up there? A few miles from there at the head of the canyon there was a sandstone layer that had animal tracks in it. They were pointed toward a cliff. The animal was evidently frightened, judging by the length of stride. But why would he run toward a cliff? The sand was mud then.

The only explanation I have for this phenomenon is the flood of Genesis. An 800 foot canyon, obviously water washed, with snails at the top of sandstone cliffs. No other explanation makes sense.The "only" explanation you have is the Flood? What a poor imagination you have that cannot make another explanation.

Let's try another hypothesis.
1. A flat plain that is sand. Animals running over the sand and then the tracks being covered up by more windblown sand. Then more layers piled on top and the pressure consolidates the sand and turns it into sandstone. A process that takes several million years. Also snails living in the sand that die there and are fossilized.

2. Erosion removes the layers above the sandstone layer so that it is now on the surface. Then streams carve an 800 foot canyon thru the sandstone. Thus, the canyon comes about millions of years after the animals lived there. Now the tracks are coincidentally pointed to a canyon.

This also explains the data without reference to a Flood that has already been falsified because there are formations that simply cannot have been formed by a violent Flood -- such as the salt deposits under Lake Erie or the various rhythmites around the planet.

Hypothesis formation requires using your imagination to formulate scenarios that can explain the data you observe. Failure to imagine alternate hypotheses is a comment on you, not a comment on the lack of alternative hypothese. What is safer is to make deductions based on the hypothesis of data that should be there, and then look for data that contradicts what should be there. IOW, try to falsify a hypothesis. This lets you test an existing hypothesis without exposing your faults of imagination.

lucaspa

December 6th 2004, 10:37 AM

Lucaspa, you never did answer my challenge to take an animal that had just died and resurrect it when all the parts are there. That should be much easier than trying to construct a simple one celled creature from amino acids anD then putting life into it.Sorry, but limited time. Actually, what you request is done every day in hospitals. It is called "resusitation". We do it for humans all the time that have died due to cardiac failure. With the appropriate chemicals, ventilation, and electrical stimulus we bring these people back to life.

What is life, anyway? You tell me what life is, and THEN I will attempt to answer you. I don't mean the effect by which we know something is alive, but what IS life?1. Life is defined as an entity that has all the following characteristics:
a. Catabolism
b. Anabolism (together these are metabolism)
c. Growth
d. Response to stimuli
e. Reproduction

2. Life is the sum of a chemical reactions. Hate to disappoint you, but that's it. That's what the whole discipline of biochemistry (in which I've worked for the last 30 years) has shown. If you have a set of chemical reactions you have life.

BTW, you said something about generating life from my own back yard. How, pray tell?Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7020 MEM amino acids solution. it will cost you $11.95 plus shipping for a 100 ml. bottle. Empty the bottle into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 5 more minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. They are alive. If this is too "artificial" for you, then put the solution out on a hot rock for the afternoon and let it evaporate. Then add water (rain).

And another thing. The moral degeneration in society today is directly traceable to the rise of teaching evolution in our schools. When we kicked God out of school, morality flew out the window. The teaching that there is no God deprives man of a moral compass to tell right from wrongLOL! :lol: Don't you read your Bible? Societies had moral degeneration long before the discovery of evolution!

1. Evolution, properly taught, does not teach that there is no God. A teacher teaching that evolution proves there is no God is injecting his faith into the classroom just as much as a teacher trying to teach creationism. Please document such instances and tell me and the National Center for Science Education so we can correct the situation.

2. Your premise is that there is a "moral degeneration". I question the premise. In most ways, our society is much more moral than it has ever been. As just one example, when evolution was barred from being taught, it was also OK for husbands to abuse their wives and blacks were segregated and routinely lynched. Was that moral?

3. Let me ask you the question Plato once asked: is something good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good? Let me know your answer so we can discuss that "moral compass" a bit more.

lucaspa

December 6th 2004, 10:55 AM

That's a good question. There is a question of Philosophy here. Evolution presupposes that all these strata were laid down, one on top of the other. Actually, that is Steno's hypothesis, made long before evolution (1600s). It is simply common sense: in a column of strata, the strata on the bottome were laid down before the strata above it. It's the same kind of common sense used when looking at a brick wall. The lower layers of bricks were laid down before the upper layers. You have a problem with that?

Was there some sort of creation going on to make the the vast amount of limestone we see in places? The limestone making up the strata must have been in solution to deposit the strata. Where was the water to make the solution? In a sense, it was creation. After all, limestone comes from the calcium carbonate shells of sea creatures. Such shells were being "created" by reproduction. As the creatures died in the ocean, the shells were deposited on the bottom of the ocean. Eventually, the ocean (or sea) was filled up with sediments -- both the shells and sediments brought by erosion to the sea. Or, subduction carried the shells and sediments into the crust where heat and pressure converted the shells to limestone. Then tectonics and erosion combined to bring the limestone to the surface as in the White Cliffs of Dover. All this is discussed in an elementary geology textbook. Instead of using the Argument from Ignorance here, why don't you read one of those textbooks? Shoot, my daughter's high school Earth Science textbook covered this.

The so-called geologic column presupposes the presence of lower forms of creatures, then the next strata is supposed to be a more complex form. If that is true, did the less complex forms die off so there were none to be deposited in the next layer?1. The geologic column makes no such presupposition. Originally, geologists did not use any fossils in constructing the column, but looked only at the composition and texture of the layers. Later, it was noted that some fossils (most of them "simple" foraminifera) were present in only some layers. They served as marks on the rocks with no reference to evolution (since Darwin's Origin lay 50 years in the future and all the geologists were creationists) to help correlate the same rocks in different geographical areas.

2. At the Cambrian, 90% of species were single celled. Today 90% of species are single celled. All layers contain "less complex" forms -- foraminfera, worms, crustaceans, etc. It's just that the tail end of the curve that is intuitively known as "complexity" has extended to the right on the graph. A long asymptotic tail.

We still have those simpler forms today. If evolution is a fact, it seems to me that there should be a progression of forms in each layer, simple to complex, with the simpler forms on the bottom.Evolution is not a "progression". That's a misunderstanding a strawman. Evolution is more like a branching bush. As long as an organism can earn a living, it is successful. So, plankton earn just as good a living today as they did in the Cambrian. So do worms. It's just that in addition to those, some plants and animals can earn a living by being more complex. So we have what you call "more complex" plants and animals in addition to the simple ones because they have found additional ways to make a living.

Then there is the idea that this all happened by chance, an accidental meeting of molecules that formed life. NOT CHANCE. Abiogenesis is chemistry, which is not chance. The selection part of natural selection is not chance. It is pure determinism. No wonder you have problems with evolution. You aren't really talking about evolution.

lucaspa

December 6th 2004, 11:01 AM

I am much concerned about the breakdown of morality in our schools We have forced God out of our schools and eliminated the ten commandments from our judicial system. When we did that we eliminated the standard of right and wrong from our society.

The teaching that there is no God, that man evolved, has been followed by the idea that there are no standards. If it feels good, do it, no matter who you hurt.:sigh: Our Constitution separates church and state. Originally, this was to protect theists from other theists, specifically Christians from Christians. However, since atheism is also a faith, it also protects atheists from theists. Is right and wrong really determined only by belief in God?

Again, is something good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good? Most Christians believe the second. In that case, morals and ethics have an existence independent of God and can be determined the same way God determined which behaviors were "good" and which were "bad" -- through reason and experience. Thus, even without God, morals are not relative. (actually, if you say that something is good only because God commands it, then morals do become relative.)

In any case, none of this has anything to do with how God created. God can create by evolution just as much as by zapping species into existence. Whether evolution is true and whether God does or does not exist is independent of morals. If God does not exist, then God does not exist, and no wringing your hands over "moral decay" is going to change that.