I am wondering what evidence creationists have that would make them think the earth is only 6000 or so years old.
Dec 22, 2007, 3:00 PM
Enthusiast (673 posts)
Dec 22, 2007, 3:00 PM
Post #2 of 152
Views: 7377
Not all Creationists adhere to this particular bit of stupidity but the answer to your question seems to be very complex and largely beyond even THEIR understanding.
Dec 28, 2007, 2:50 PM
Novice (27 posts)
Dec 28, 2007, 2:50 PM
Post #3 of 152
Views: 7379
Skeptic - perhaps you should change your screeen name to "insulting". I thought this forum sought to avoid just what you are doing.
By way of comment, much of life and our existance is beyond "our" comprehension, and well beyond yours, also. Our minds are finite and cannot comprehend the extent of greatness around us. To think otherwise is to sink into selfishness and pride. Avoid that, please.
If someone is actually interested in finding the evidence, and yes there plenty, regarding the young-earth theory, it is out there. Apparently you know something of the Internet since you are posting here - if you really want answers, search for them. They are there...many who are wiser that we have found them. Look instead of complain and accuse, ok??
By way of comment, much of life and our existance is beyond "our" comprehension, and well beyond yours, also. Our minds are finite and cannot comprehend the extent of greatness around us. To think otherwise is to sink into selfishness and pride. Avoid that, please.
If someone is actually interested in finding the evidence, and yes there plenty, regarding the young-earth theory, it is out there. Apparently you know something of the Internet since you are posting here - if you really want answers, search for them. They are there...many who are wiser that we have found them. Look instead of complain and accuse, ok??
Dec 28, 2007, 8:34 PM
User (103 posts)
Dec 28, 2007, 8:34 PM
Post #4 of 152
Views: 7376
Hello chrysus.
I don't have a personal opinion on this because I haven't researched it anywhere near enough, but since this is a debating forum I shall take the affirmative for a young earth, sounds like fun. I should add however, that I sort of doubt both extremes on this. I don't think the earth is a mere 6,000 yrs old, I would guess that it is much, much older. On the other hand, I do not think it is in the billions of yrs either.
So, here goes.
Since the most familiar form of dating is the c-14 method, I shall start with it. Every one knows what half life is. The amount of time it takes for half of the quantity of radioactive material to disintagrate or decay away. In reverse it would look something like 2-4-8-16-32-64, etc... Like a pie being sliced in half, then the smaller portion itself being sliced in half, and so on... It's important to note that two half lives do not equal a whole. The passing of two halflives of time leaves one quarter of the original number of atoms remaining. The number of atoms decaying at any given moment is proportional to the total number of atoms available. Because of this, the greater number of atoms present, the more decay will be occuring. The halflife law eventually breaks down as the number of remaining radioactive atoms approaches zero.
The halflife of carbon-14 is 5,730 yrs, and is usually applied to the remains of once living plants and animals. Material such as wood, bone, shell, charcoal, and fossils. The formation of C-14 is because of cosmic rays that constantly bombard the earth. I'll spare you the details, if your interested, you can look it up yourself. It's in any good college science textbook. An estimated 7 kilograms of C-14 is currently produced in the upper atmosphere each year. This is about one trillion-trillion C-14 atoms which spread across the earth annualy. It then becomes part of the cellulose strucure of organics. When this organic thing dies, it stops absorbing C-14. Now the trace of C-14 slowly starts to decay back to nitrogen.
Now there is also C-12, and there are typically a trillion C-12 atoms present for every single C-14 atom. C-12 also becomes part of the organics cellulose structure. This dating is in the determination of the amount of C-14 remaining in the sample at a later time. Usually measured as the ratio of the isotopes
C-14/C-12. This value is then compared with the assumed initial C-14 content.
Now, here is a question for old earthers. After 10 half lives of decay, any radioactive material has only 0.1% remaining of it's original content. This percentage is acheived by multiplying the fraction 1/2 by itself ten times over. For C-14 ten half lives is 57,300 yrs. If the elapsed time is extended still longer to 17 to 18 half lives, corresponding to about 100,000 yrs, C-14 decays to a negligible level undetectable by current measuring techniques. In other words, any carbon containing materials that are truly older than 100,000 yrs, should be C-14 'dead', with C-14 levels below detection limits. But in recent years, readily detectable amounts of C-14 have been the rule rather than the exception.
This is true for samples throughout the fossil bearing parts of the geological records with presumed ages extending to hundreds of millions of years. This unexpected C-14 was initially assumed to be contamination, but it was eventually realized that most of the C-14 was inherent to the samples being measured.
So, how is the presence of C-14 in 'supposedly' millions and millions of years old material explained?
Regards, Jason.
my source was Dr. Don De Young, physics professor at Grace College.
I don't have a personal opinion on this because I haven't researched it anywhere near enough, but since this is a debating forum I shall take the affirmative for a young earth, sounds like fun. I should add however, that I sort of doubt both extremes on this. I don't think the earth is a mere 6,000 yrs old, I would guess that it is much, much older. On the other hand, I do not think it is in the billions of yrs either.
So, here goes.
Since the most familiar form of dating is the c-14 method, I shall start with it. Every one knows what half life is. The amount of time it takes for half of the quantity of radioactive material to disintagrate or decay away. In reverse it would look something like 2-4-8-16-32-64, etc... Like a pie being sliced in half, then the smaller portion itself being sliced in half, and so on... It's important to note that two half lives do not equal a whole. The passing of two halflives of time leaves one quarter of the original number of atoms remaining. The number of atoms decaying at any given moment is proportional to the total number of atoms available. Because of this, the greater number of atoms present, the more decay will be occuring. The halflife law eventually breaks down as the number of remaining radioactive atoms approaches zero.
The halflife of carbon-14 is 5,730 yrs, and is usually applied to the remains of once living plants and animals. Material such as wood, bone, shell, charcoal, and fossils. The formation of C-14 is because of cosmic rays that constantly bombard the earth. I'll spare you the details, if your interested, you can look it up yourself. It's in any good college science textbook. An estimated 7 kilograms of C-14 is currently produced in the upper atmosphere each year. This is about one trillion-trillion C-14 atoms which spread across the earth annualy. It then becomes part of the cellulose strucure of organics. When this organic thing dies, it stops absorbing C-14. Now the trace of C-14 slowly starts to decay back to nitrogen.
Now there is also C-12, and there are typically a trillion C-12 atoms present for every single C-14 atom. C-12 also becomes part of the organics cellulose structure. This dating is in the determination of the amount of C-14 remaining in the sample at a later time. Usually measured as the ratio of the isotopes
C-14/C-12. This value is then compared with the assumed initial C-14 content.
Now, here is a question for old earthers. After 10 half lives of decay, any radioactive material has only 0.1% remaining of it's original content. This percentage is acheived by multiplying the fraction 1/2 by itself ten times over. For C-14 ten half lives is 57,300 yrs. If the elapsed time is extended still longer to 17 to 18 half lives, corresponding to about 100,000 yrs, C-14 decays to a negligible level undetectable by current measuring techniques. In other words, any carbon containing materials that are truly older than 100,000 yrs, should be C-14 'dead', with C-14 levels below detection limits. But in recent years, readily detectable amounts of C-14 have been the rule rather than the exception.
This is true for samples throughout the fossil bearing parts of the geological records with presumed ages extending to hundreds of millions of years. This unexpected C-14 was initially assumed to be contamination, but it was eventually realized that most of the C-14 was inherent to the samples being measured.
So, how is the presence of C-14 in 'supposedly' millions and millions of years old material explained?
Regards, Jason.
my source was Dr. Don De Young, physics professor at Grace College.
Jan 1, 2008, 2:03 AM
Enthusiast (673 posts)
Jan 1, 2008, 2:03 AM
Post #5 of 152
Views: 7377
Accepthisname:
No idea which aspects of life and existence you are talking about here but the only RELEVANT aspect to THIS discussion is the age of the earth and that is most certainly NOT beyond MY ability to understand. Also your argument from ignorance is not compelling. The "I do not understand all there is to know about 'X' therefore 'Y' might be true!" is nonsense.
While I agree that our minds are finite(as we are), this is still a bald assertion about "our" inability to comprehend "the greatness". What does that even mean?!
Ah...the false dilemma fallacy. "Either you agree with my position or you are selfish and blinded by pride!". Again, not compelling.
Translation: "I cannot come up with any credible evidence as I only read YEC sites and must avoid actual science sites because that is where the Devil lurks but you guys are free to go find my evidence for me so I will have something to support my claim...".
By way of comment, much of life and our existance is beyond "our" comprehension, and well beyond yours, also.
No idea which aspects of life and existence you are talking about here but the only RELEVANT aspect to THIS discussion is the age of the earth and that is most certainly NOT beyond MY ability to understand. Also your argument from ignorance is not compelling. The "I do not understand all there is to know about 'X' therefore 'Y' might be true!" is nonsense.
Our minds are finite and cannot comprehend the extent of greatness around us.
While I agree that our minds are finite(as we are), this is still a bald assertion about "our" inability to comprehend "the greatness". What does that even mean?!
To think otherwise is to sink into selfishness and pride. Avoid that, please.
Ah...the false dilemma fallacy. "Either you agree with my position or you are selfish and blinded by pride!". Again, not compelling.
If someone is actually interested in finding the evidence, and yes there plenty, regarding the young-earth theory, it is out there.
Translation: "I cannot come up with any credible evidence as I only read YEC sites and must avoid actual science sites because that is where the Devil lurks but you guys are free to go find my evidence for me so I will have something to support my claim...".
Jan 1, 2008, 2:21 AM
Enthusiast (673 posts)
Jan 1, 2008, 2:21 AM
Post #6 of 152
Views: 7374
Brojason:
First I must commend you on your behavior here. While I agree with almost NONE of what you say, you seem to be trying to approach things rationally(at the very least CIVILLY) on some level.
I do not understand how you write off the scientific explanation as an "extreme", implying that it is no better grounded/supported than YEC-ism?!
What tells you that the earth is "much older" but prevents(for whatever unfathomable reason) the earth from being billions of years old(4.5 to be almost exact
)? Is there some strange law that prevents planets from being so old?! How do you explain, not only the red-shift light but the fact that DOZENS of INDEPENDENT radiometric dating methods performed by thousands of geologists/scientists ALL arrive at concurrent dates for the earth and the moon? It is not as if Potassium-Argo in the hands of a German yields a date of 3 billion years but Uranium-Led in the hands of a Japanese yields a date of 6 billion. They ALL say the same thing.
And this would be your first error as C-14 cannot be used to date anything accurately beyond 10,000 years. That is why it is not used for most fossils. it is great for artifacts from human civilization though.
The rest of your post fails due to this. You start with the wrong method then all wrong dates you get with that method are to be expected. Like trying to use a yardstick to measure carbohydrates in your diet.
First I must commend you on your behavior here. While I agree with almost NONE of what you say, you seem to be trying to approach things rationally(at the very least CIVILLY) on some level.
I don't have a personal opinion on this because I haven't researched it anywhere near enough, but since this is a debating forum I shall take the affirmative for a young earth, sounds like fun. I should add however, that I sort of doubt both extremes on this. I don't think the earth is a mere 6,000 yrs old, I would guess that it is much, much older. On the other hand, I do not think it is in the billions of yrs either.
I do not understand how you write off the scientific explanation as an "extreme", implying that it is no better grounded/supported than YEC-ism?!
What tells you that the earth is "much older" but prevents(for whatever unfathomable reason) the earth from being billions of years old(4.5 to be almost exact
)? Is there some strange law that prevents planets from being so old?! How do you explain, not only the red-shift light but the fact that DOZENS of INDEPENDENT radiometric dating methods performed by thousands of geologists/scientists ALL arrive at concurrent dates for the earth and the moon? It is not as if Potassium-Argo in the hands of a German yields a date of 3 billion years but Uranium-Led in the hands of a Japanese yields a date of 6 billion. They ALL say the same thing. Since the most familiar form of dating is the c-14 method, I shall start with it.
And this would be your first error as C-14 cannot be used to date anything accurately beyond 10,000 years. That is why it is not used for most fossils. it is great for artifacts from human civilization though.
The rest of your post fails due to this. You start with the wrong method then all wrong dates you get with that method are to be expected. Like trying to use a yardstick to measure carbohydrates in your diet.
Jan 1, 2008, 5:04 AM
Veteran (2614 posts)
Jan 1, 2008, 5:04 AM
Post #7 of 152
Views: 7373
skeptic69 :You wrote:
And this would be your first error as C-14 cannot be used to date anything accurately beyond 10,000 years. That is why it is not used for most fossils. it is great for artifacts from human civilization though.
At last! Something we can agree on
My wifes brother used to work at the British Museum doing radio carbon dating and I have it on good authority therefore that the method cannot successfully be used on 'fossils'.
Radio Carbon dating depends on there being organic material less than 10,000 years old to calculate the proportion of carbon 14 against other carbon isotopes.
Fossils are rarely if ever made up of organic material. They are entirely 'mineral' being comprised of various salts, deposits and silts, (mud), which has replaced the original organic material but having retained the original structural details of an organism due usually to the organism having been prevented from decay by the exclusion of oxygen, so that the very slow process of fossilization can take place.
What a fossil is, is actually a rock 'recoding' of an actual original.
The method has its limitations but can be quite accurate so long as these limitations are understood and accounted for.
(4.5 to be almost exact) I'm not sure exact is the right word here, hence presumably your smiley icon, but the best estimates we have so far are, I agree in that region, say give or take a few hundred million years or so.
The blink of an eye for an eternal creator.
Regards Chris.
And this would be your first error as C-14 cannot be used to date anything accurately beyond 10,000 years. That is why it is not used for most fossils. it is great for artifacts from human civilization though.
At last! Something we can agree on
My wifes brother used to work at the British Museum doing radio carbon dating and I have it on good authority therefore that the method cannot successfully be used on 'fossils'.
Radio Carbon dating depends on there being organic material less than 10,000 years old to calculate the proportion of carbon 14 against other carbon isotopes.
Fossils are rarely if ever made up of organic material. They are entirely 'mineral' being comprised of various salts, deposits and silts, (mud), which has replaced the original organic material but having retained the original structural details of an organism due usually to the organism having been prevented from decay by the exclusion of oxygen, so that the very slow process of fossilization can take place.
What a fossil is, is actually a rock 'recoding' of an actual original.
The method has its limitations but can be quite accurate so long as these limitations are understood and accounted for.
(4.5 to be almost exact) I'm not sure exact is the right word here, hence presumably your smiley icon, but the best estimates we have so far are, I agree in that region, say give or take a few hundred million years or so.
The blink of an eye for an eternal creator.
Regards Chris.
Jan 1, 2008, 9:15 AM
User (103 posts)
Jan 1, 2008, 9:15 AM
Post #8 of 152
Views: 7372
Skeptic.
You: "And this would be your first error as C-14 cannot be used to date anything accurately beyond 10,000 years. That is why it is not used for most fossils."
Well, you may have a point except for the fact that I never argued for the accuracy of C-14 dating.
You: "The rest of your post fails due to this. You start with the wrong method then all wrong dates you get with that method are to be expected."
Uh, did you even read my post, or did you glance over and see 'C-14' and assume what the argument was? Again, I never argued against correct dates or accuracy. Reread and try again.
Jason.
You: "And this would be your first error as C-14 cannot be used to date anything accurately beyond 10,000 years. That is why it is not used for most fossils."
Well, you may have a point except for the fact that I never argued for the accuracy of C-14 dating.
You: "The rest of your post fails due to this. You start with the wrong method then all wrong dates you get with that method are to be expected."
Uh, did you even read my post, or did you glance over and see 'C-14' and assume what the argument was? Again, I never argued against correct dates or accuracy. Reread and try again.
Jason.
Jan 1, 2008, 11:42 AM
Veteran (2614 posts)
Jan 1, 2008, 11:42 AM
Post #9 of 152
Views: 7372
brojason:
This is true for samples throughout the fossil bearing parts of the geological records with presumed ages extending to hundreds of millions of years. This unexpected C-14 was initially assumed to be contamination, but it was eventually realized that most of the C-14 was inherent to the samples being measured.
If C-14 was found, (as you claim), then it was certainly not 'fossil' remains because 'fossils' are rock and rock has no organic c-14 to decay or measure. It could not be anything other than 'contamination', for the simple reason that the presence of C-14 usually means that the 'sample' is still organic. Whereas in a fossil the 'sample' is rock which has long since ceased to be organic material.
Where did you get this information from? Is it scientifically reliable?
My guess is that it is not reliable and probably has come from a 'Creationist' website, because it seems not to understand what carbon dating can and cannot do.
Why does the earth need to be 'relatively' young anyway. I think we can scientifically dismiss the 6,000 year old 'calculations' based on the ages of Biblical characters all added up, (numbers in The Bible are inherrantly unreliable anyway due to the Hebrew method of recording them), but why, once we have got that old chestnut out of the way, should anyone find it necessary to assume a 'medium term' age for earth anyway? Why not go with the best possible scientific 'guess' until we get a known 'better' one. Wouldn't that be the sensible thing to do?
Regards Chris.
This is true for samples throughout the fossil bearing parts of the geological records with presumed ages extending to hundreds of millions of years. This unexpected C-14 was initially assumed to be contamination, but it was eventually realized that most of the C-14 was inherent to the samples being measured.
If C-14 was found, (as you claim), then it was certainly not 'fossil' remains because 'fossils' are rock and rock has no organic c-14 to decay or measure. It could not be anything other than 'contamination', for the simple reason that the presence of C-14 usually means that the 'sample' is still organic. Whereas in a fossil the 'sample' is rock which has long since ceased to be organic material.
Where did you get this information from? Is it scientifically reliable?
My guess is that it is not reliable and probably has come from a 'Creationist' website, because it seems not to understand what carbon dating can and cannot do.
Why does the earth need to be 'relatively' young anyway. I think we can scientifically dismiss the 6,000 year old 'calculations' based on the ages of Biblical characters all added up, (numbers in The Bible are inherrantly unreliable anyway due to the Hebrew method of recording them), but why, once we have got that old chestnut out of the way, should anyone find it necessary to assume a 'medium term' age for earth anyway? Why not go with the best possible scientific 'guess' until we get a known 'better' one. Wouldn't that be the sensible thing to do?
Regards Chris.
Jan 1, 2008, 2:53 PM
User (103 posts)
Jan 1, 2008, 2:53 PM
Post #10 of 152
Views: 7372
rdrcofe.
You: "If C-14 was found, (as you claim),"
I don't claim anything, I am only reporting what I have researched in favor of a young earth model. Again, I am not a trained scientist, I am not actually in the field with scientific equipment studying these things on a first hand basis. I only read the books on both sides of the topic and then try and filter them from myself. And since this is a debate forum I try to stick to points of argumentation. I would not claim anything myself unless I were there to see it with my own two eyes, and I have no reason to lie about what I am posting. I have cited my source in the above post.
You: "My guess is that it is not reliable and probably has come from a 'Creationist' website"
Yes, because we all know that evolutionists constantly try to disprove the old age model. If I had tried to say I got my info from Dawkin's then maybe you would have cause to wonder, but since I have taken the affirmative of a young earth then I guess it is safe to assume I get my informaion from creationists. Now wouldd you like to try and guess what color shoes I have on, that would be more impressive.
You: "Why does the earth need to be 'relatively' young anyway. I think we can scientifically dismiss the 6,000 year old 'calculations' based on the ages of Biblical characters all added up, (numbers in The Bible are inherrantly unreliable anyway due to the Hebrew method of recording them),"
I never said it needed to be young. And I would personally never try to calculate the age of the earth based off of calculations from the generaions of people in the Bible. I think you are trying to stereotype me in with every other Christian you have had engagements with, please do not make that mistake for I would not put you in with everyone else just because we disagree on our worldviews.
You: "Where did you get this information from? Is it scientifically reliable?"
I have cited my source, whether or not is it scientifically reliable is the whole point of this debate.
Regards, Jason.
You: "If C-14 was found, (as you claim),"
I don't claim anything, I am only reporting what I have researched in favor of a young earth model. Again, I am not a trained scientist, I am not actually in the field with scientific equipment studying these things on a first hand basis. I only read the books on both sides of the topic and then try and filter them from myself. And since this is a debate forum I try to stick to points of argumentation. I would not claim anything myself unless I were there to see it with my own two eyes, and I have no reason to lie about what I am posting. I have cited my source in the above post.
You: "My guess is that it is not reliable and probably has come from a 'Creationist' website"
Yes, because we all know that evolutionists constantly try to disprove the old age model. If I had tried to say I got my info from Dawkin's then maybe you would have cause to wonder, but since I have taken the affirmative of a young earth then I guess it is safe to assume I get my informaion from creationists. Now wouldd you like to try and guess what color shoes I have on, that would be more impressive.
You: "Why does the earth need to be 'relatively' young anyway. I think we can scientifically dismiss the 6,000 year old 'calculations' based on the ages of Biblical characters all added up, (numbers in The Bible are inherrantly unreliable anyway due to the Hebrew method of recording them),"
I never said it needed to be young. And I would personally never try to calculate the age of the earth based off of calculations from the generaions of people in the Bible. I think you are trying to stereotype me in with every other Christian you have had engagements with, please do not make that mistake for I would not put you in with everyone else just because we disagree on our worldviews.
You: "Where did you get this information from? Is it scientifically reliable?"
I have cited my source, whether or not is it scientifically reliable is the whole point of this debate.
Regards, Jason.
Jan 1, 2008, 3:51 PM
Veteran (2614 posts)
Jan 1, 2008, 3:51 PM
Post #11 of 152
Views: 7371
brojason79
You wrote: I don't claim anything, I am only reporting what I have researched in favor of a young earth model.
I didn't mean to imply that you were peddling false claims Jason. I accept that what you posted was in good faith. We all rely on the articles we read being accurate and occasionally some articles can be downright misleading if not even dishonest. As Christians we have a responsibility to uphold the truth and expose falsehood, even if it might damage or fail to support our personal 'causes'.
I have scanned many of the 'Creationist' websites and the 'bias' and a-priori reasoning found on some of them is quite astonishing and no good example of 'Discipleship' if they are actually aware of how misleading and propagandist their presentation of the evidence is.
Yes, because we all know that evolutionists constantly try to disprove the old age model.
I'm assuming this is sarcasm. My guess as to where this inaccurate 'C-14 from fossils' notion came from is based on my experience of the way many 'Creationists' present 'the facts'.
Perhaps the Dr you quote has been misquoted or misunderstood but he certainly did not get C-14 from 'fossils' so I think my guess that the info has been filtered through the very selective 'religious agenda' of the Creationist lobby, is probably not far off the mark.
I think you are trying to stereotype me in with every other Christian you have had engagements with, please do not make that mistake for I would not put you in with everyone else just because we disagree on our worldviews.
I was not trying to stereotype you Jason and I am a Christian myself, (though creationist fundamentalists might refute my claim to it on the grounds that I do not make 'naive, literalist interpretation of the scriptures' a creedal requirement for salvation.
"Where did you get this information from? Is it scientifically reliable?"
I hadn't intended this to seem hostile or accusatory. It was rather more intended as a rhetorical question meant to alert you to the possibility that you might have been mislead.
Perhaps what I have said, based on what I learned from my brother in law about C-14 dating and how it cannot be used to date fossils will encourage you to re-evaluate the claims of those who published the data.
TRUTH is really worth supporting, even when it might seem inconvenient truth. Falsehood should always be exposed and refuted, even when it appears to confirm our 'beliefs'.
Regards Chris.
You wrote: I don't claim anything, I am only reporting what I have researched in favor of a young earth model.
I didn't mean to imply that you were peddling false claims Jason. I accept that what you posted was in good faith. We all rely on the articles we read being accurate and occasionally some articles can be downright misleading if not even dishonest. As Christians we have a responsibility to uphold the truth and expose falsehood, even if it might damage or fail to support our personal 'causes'.
I have scanned many of the 'Creationist' websites and the 'bias' and a-priori reasoning found on some of them is quite astonishing and no good example of 'Discipleship' if they are actually aware of how misleading and propagandist their presentation of the evidence is.
Yes, because we all know that evolutionists constantly try to disprove the old age model.
I'm assuming this is sarcasm. My guess as to where this inaccurate 'C-14 from fossils' notion came from is based on my experience of the way many 'Creationists' present 'the facts'.
Perhaps the Dr you quote has been misquoted or misunderstood but he certainly did not get C-14 from 'fossils' so I think my guess that the info has been filtered through the very selective 'religious agenda' of the Creationist lobby, is probably not far off the mark.
I think you are trying to stereotype me in with every other Christian you have had engagements with, please do not make that mistake for I would not put you in with everyone else just because we disagree on our worldviews.
I was not trying to stereotype you Jason and I am a Christian myself, (though creationist fundamentalists might refute my claim to it on the grounds that I do not make 'naive, literalist interpretation of the scriptures' a creedal requirement for salvation.
"Where did you get this information from? Is it scientifically reliable?"
I hadn't intended this to seem hostile or accusatory. It was rather more intended as a rhetorical question meant to alert you to the possibility that you might have been mislead.
Perhaps what I have said, based on what I learned from my brother in law about C-14 dating and how it cannot be used to date fossils will encourage you to re-evaluate the claims of those who published the data.
TRUTH is really worth supporting, even when it might seem inconvenient truth. Falsehood should always be exposed and refuted, even when it appears to confirm our 'beliefs'.
Regards Chris.
Jan 1, 2008, 7:59 PM
User (103 posts)
Jan 1, 2008, 7:59 PM
Post #13 of 152
Views: 7373
Hello.
You guys keep pointing out the obvious on this, when you explain what things actually are, there is rarely a disagreement. I thought it was common knowledge that true fossils are indeed 'rock', thats part of the point I was making, I'll try and simplify it here. A quote from Earnst Mayr's book, "What Evolution Is",
"Certain rocks, mostly of volcanic origin (e.g., lava flows), contain radioactive minerals such as potassium, uranium, and thorium. Each of these minerals decays at a specific rate and physicists have determined their half lives. Uranium-238, for instance, has a half life of 4.5 billion yrs, producing lead-206 in the process. The age of a given rock can then be calculated from the ratio of uranium and lead. Sedimentary rocks, which do not contain radioactive minerals are dated by their location relative to datable strata."
So, what he has told us here is that rocks containing radioactive material can be dated.
The rocks with no radioactive material are dated with the rocks they are found with that do contain radioactive material. (In other words they assume age for certain rocks)
Radioacive dating is used to date the rocks and the fossils they contain directly. The puzzle arises because radioacive dating techniques can be applied only to volcanic rocks that contain some radioactive mineral-the primary rocks of the earth's crust. But the geological column consists of sedimentary rocks-rocks formed from sediments laid down on the beds of ancient seas and composed of particles of those primary rocks. So, ofcourse any age determination using these particles will be the same of that as the primary rocks from which hey were derived.
In layman's terms it's like coming across a lit candle, you can see that it's burning, you measure how fast it is burning so you can know the rate at which the candle burns. But you still don't know when the candle was lit. You don't really even know if the rate at which it burns was always constant. All you can do is infer.
In a lot of cases you have evolutionists needing help from geologists to find out the date for fossils, and then you have geologists asking evolutionists help to find out the dates for rocks. Circular reasoning anyone?
Sources, Earnst Mayr, Richard Milton.
Regards Jason.
You guys keep pointing out the obvious on this, when you explain what things actually are, there is rarely a disagreement. I thought it was common knowledge that true fossils are indeed 'rock', thats part of the point I was making, I'll try and simplify it here. A quote from Earnst Mayr's book, "What Evolution Is",
"Certain rocks, mostly of volcanic origin (e.g., lava flows), contain radioactive minerals such as potassium, uranium, and thorium. Each of these minerals decays at a specific rate and physicists have determined their half lives. Uranium-238, for instance, has a half life of 4.5 billion yrs, producing lead-206 in the process. The age of a given rock can then be calculated from the ratio of uranium and lead. Sedimentary rocks, which do not contain radioactive minerals are dated by their location relative to datable strata."
So, what he has told us here is that rocks containing radioactive material can be dated.
The rocks with no radioactive material are dated with the rocks they are found with that do contain radioactive material. (In other words they assume age for certain rocks)
Radioacive dating is used to date the rocks and the fossils they contain directly. The puzzle arises because radioacive dating techniques can be applied only to volcanic rocks that contain some radioactive mineral-the primary rocks of the earth's crust. But the geological column consists of sedimentary rocks-rocks formed from sediments laid down on the beds of ancient seas and composed of particles of those primary rocks. So, ofcourse any age determination using these particles will be the same of that as the primary rocks from which hey were derived.
In layman's terms it's like coming across a lit candle, you can see that it's burning, you measure how fast it is burning so you can know the rate at which the candle burns. But you still don't know when the candle was lit. You don't really even know if the rate at which it burns was always constant. All you can do is infer.
In a lot of cases you have evolutionists needing help from geologists to find out the date for fossils, and then you have geologists asking evolutionists help to find out the dates for rocks. Circular reasoning anyone?
Sources, Earnst Mayr, Richard Milton.
Regards Jason.
Apr 16, 2012, 5:56 PM
User (481 posts)
Apr 16, 2012, 5:56 PM
Post #14 of 152
Views: 6929
I had a divine and vivid vision from Jesus Himself 3 nights ago, and the Lord spoke, and he said: "The world is no younger than 5000 years old but no older than 12 000 years old".
From this evidence I conclude that it is probable and likely that the world is around 6000 years old.
There's nothing divine or vivid for a vision that is up to 7,000 years in error assuming the range of 5,000-12,000 years is applicable. God knows exactly how old Earth is, would not tell you something else, and wouldn't have Jesus messaging error. It wasn't Jesus that you heard, in other words. It isn't "evidence" until confirmed, and there is no logical way to process that "evidence" to arrive at 6,000 years of age.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men
From this evidence I conclude that it is probable and likely that the world is around 6000 years old.
There's nothing divine or vivid for a vision that is up to 7,000 years in error assuming the range of 5,000-12,000 years is applicable. God knows exactly how old Earth is, would not tell you something else, and wouldn't have Jesus messaging error. It wasn't Jesus that you heard, in other words. It isn't "evidence" until confirmed, and there is no logical way to process that "evidence" to arrive at 6,000 years of age.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men
Apr 17, 2012, 1:47 AM
Veteran (2614 posts)
Apr 17, 2012, 1:47 AM
Post #15 of 152
Views: 6750
Ahh. But do you think he actually had a vivid vision, or is he just pulling our leg? I think all the evidence is there to be able to fundamentally question his very assertion as representing a 'terminological inexactitude' or 'porky pie' as a Cockney might say. Does not the scripture say "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44c
You will notice that (just like his namessake), luc1faa has 'departed from us' as soon as 'we tumbled his ruse'. James 4:7.
God knows exactly how old Earth is, would not tell you something else, and wouldn't have Jesus messaging error.
I agree but can find absolutely nothing in scripture which actually gives any age for the earth. In particular Jesus never speaks about the age, (how old it is), of the earth in scripture. As the Omniscient Cosmic Christ He must know how old it is, having been there when it's foundations were metaphorically 'laid' by it's metaphorical 'masterbuilder'. John 17:24; Eph 1:4.
Perhaps this information is among that referred to in John 16:12-13. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:" This 'truth' has only recently been revealed to us and they could not at that time 'bear it' (understand it) then.
I very much doubt that Jesus would declare it's age to be much less than 4.5 billion years, because that apparently is 'the truth' of the matter, (as far as we are able to measure it), and Jesus, I am quite confident, always tells the truth. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14.
So yes, I agree, God would not have Jesus messaging error, and that is why I suppose Jesus has never said anywhere in scripture that the earth is 6000 years old or anywhere near that figure.
I just wonder what other actual 'evidence' can be offered by those who believe the earth is around 6000 years old, apart from Bishop Usher's misguided and scientifically untenable arithmetic calculations of successive biblical lifespans.
Regards Chris.
You will notice that (just like his namessake), luc1faa has 'departed from us' as soon as 'we tumbled his ruse'. James 4:7.
God knows exactly how old Earth is, would not tell you something else, and wouldn't have Jesus messaging error.
I agree but can find absolutely nothing in scripture which actually gives any age for the earth. In particular Jesus never speaks about the age, (how old it is), of the earth in scripture. As the Omniscient Cosmic Christ He must know how old it is, having been there when it's foundations were metaphorically 'laid' by it's metaphorical 'masterbuilder'. John 17:24; Eph 1:4.
Perhaps this information is among that referred to in John 16:12-13. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:" This 'truth' has only recently been revealed to us and they could not at that time 'bear it' (understand it) then.
I very much doubt that Jesus would declare it's age to be much less than 4.5 billion years, because that apparently is 'the truth' of the matter, (as far as we are able to measure it), and Jesus, I am quite confident, always tells the truth. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14.
So yes, I agree, God would not have Jesus messaging error, and that is why I suppose Jesus has never said anywhere in scripture that the earth is 6000 years old or anywhere near that figure.
I just wonder what other actual 'evidence' can be offered by those who believe the earth is around 6000 years old, apart from Bishop Usher's misguided and scientifically untenable arithmetic calculations of successive biblical lifespans.
Regards Chris.
Apr 17, 2012, 10:42 AM
User (481 posts)
Apr 17, 2012, 10:42 AM
Post #16 of 152
Views: 6617
Upon graduating high school I immediately entered a university, determined to be a geologist, already quite a mineralogy enthusiast. While taking basic courses I'll never forget the field trip that marked me among the professors as a potential trouble maker. We visited a high rock wall of a quarry that exposed sedimentary (rock that was originally dissolved rock particles laid down by action of gravity, water, wind, etc., then hardened over a long period of time by various processes), and metamorphic (rock modified by heat/friction to resemble igneous rock from which sedimentary rock originated) rock strata supposedly formed hundreds of millions of years ago, bearing quite an array of popular fossils, which we dug in toward the required collection to pass Introductory Paleontology. In the middle of the wall was a sharp fold, parallel layers of rock, known to cover most of that great time period. When examining the contact zones of each layer of that fold, which from a distance resembles taffy candy, the peak of the fold being only about 3 feet wide. The visible fold extended to the quarry base, the base of the fold being about 20 feet wide. Each rock stratum (each a peculiar thickness of rock layer) of the fold extends outward like sweeping branches of a tree, seemingly attempting to rest horizontally eventually, maybe hundreds of meters beyond the quarry. The professor pointed out that all those strata (plural for many strata) was laid down horizontally under water, evidenced by the fossils found in each strata. An exterior force later pressed from the horizon to lift the strata into mountains, accounting for the folding.
I learned it is important to note the splendid contact zone between strata, which always seemed to be machined by man, nearly flawless, the fossils involved never affected, appearing whole, never sheared like you would expect a tear to exact on them. Many fossils occupied those contact zones, none appearing deformed by the enormous uplifting pressures. The preferred explanation of those contact zones being so clean is that their formation resulted from a ceasing of sedimentary deposition, then a resumption to add yet another layer of sediments, eventually becoming hardened rock.
I had questions the other students didn't ask.
How can it be that organisms were lithified (hardened into stone) when essentially exposed on the surface, subject to predators and bacteria, contrary to what we witness on modern sea floors and dry sea beds? Where on earth is there an example of ongoing widespread lithification and associated fossilization that would support the idea of a commonly occurring formation of fossils on a regular basis throughout successive geological ages, each fossil only able to form under highly unusual circumstances?
The answer was and still is fossilization is rare, while lithification is common, though requires unique conditions. Mt St Helens ash deposits have already lithified.
If the horizontal external force sufficient to create mountains by lifting igneous or folding lithified sedimentary rock layers happened as claimed, causing folds akin to needle points compared to the whole, then how did the contact zones between pairs of strata remain polished, not ground up and deeply fractured?
There is no logical answer available to geologists. Anytime hard rock layers move against each other there are signs of extreme visible wear.
OK, then do we have to say all those layers of sediments remained soft, not hardened, while embedded organisms fossilized by the several known means of fossil production? If so, where on earth are some living examples?
The answer is there is no modern example of that on any scale like what we see in the fossil record, often extended state to state as one follows a particular rock stratum.
The only way a huge deposit of ancient sedimentary layers could be folded sharply without damaging the contact layer is to apply the folding force while the layers involved are still soft, pliable. The ideal time to do that is within a few decades or maybe a few centuries. Once the strata hardened, any slippage along the layer contacts will show signs of metamorphism, a special rock hardening caused by high heat from friction or pressure, creating a thin layer of metamorphic rock between two sedimentary layers.
So, it becomes vital to find some metamorphic rock in those layers within the sharply folded structure. We found none there, and that is still a very rare find, as is the finding of any fossils in great abundance is fairly rare.
Creationist scientists, including geologists, paleontologists, and others of a wide range of specialties, see such phenomena, knowing the interpretations taught them in college courses. They, however, are willing to attempt the hard solutions, those most of academia have refused to examine, which include any answers that support the Bible report.
The world-wide flood of Genesis provides the conditions required for almost all sedimentary formations that sometimes are miles deep sufficiently to form "common" fossils of even highly perishable Jellyfish, while unbelief in God's report requires scientists to assume an illogical very long cycle on earth of lifting up of mountains, erosion, sediments deposited, then raised again to form new mountains to be eroded, etc. If that happened, the fossil record should have been hopelessly disarrayed. The reason it has order is it mostly formed in that one Flood of Genesis.
I don't think it is possible to disprove the idea that Pangaea was not very mountainous in the beginning before the Flood. There were some peaks, but the continent was mostly a pleasant creation for man and animals to proliferate. By far the surface of Earth was one ocean. When the Flood began, God opened up oceanic trenches visible today, causing catastrophic flooding, spewing continental rock to pulverize and supply the material showing up as sedimentary particles. Much of that sub continental rock material was blasted above the atmosphere, some falling back to Earth. Layer after layer deposited daily, burying any organisms on the ocean floor, then burying organisms higher in the water column, while huge masses of surface plants and animals were mashed into depressions and covered to form coal and shale. The flood waters sweeping over dry land buried animals and people, most decomposed in a short time, a few fossilized when the flood sediments also lithified, such remnants among the rarest of fossils, more so than petrified wood.
That explains how layers of rock could be folded into tight structures that defy typical geological thinking.
I got a "B" in the Intro Paleontology course even though getting all "A"s on exams and the collection. A counselor advised me to change majors, as he had heard I wasn't fitting in well. I switched to my second love, forestry, minoring in wildlife management. That was precarious too, as so many biology courses opened me up to suspicion from typically strong-minded evolutionists teaching those courses. I learned to keep my mouth shut and got through it.
I said all that to say this. I believe the Earth below what man is familiar with may well be billions of years of age, that Earth that was found void, formless in Genesis 1:1-2. The crust has since been so altered by the Flood that aging the Earth has become impossible. However, what we can dig into, what we see at the surface, "was not" before the Flood of Genesis, being re-created in the Creation week, then reformed during and after the Flood. So it is that I readily accept that 6,000 year estimation based on age of the writings of the Pentateuch, the chronologies supplied by inspiration of the Spirit of God, as the age of the visible portion of this planet as we know it, rejecting any scientific estimation.
I will forever take the side that agrees with the Bible, rather than accept modernized human thoughts on the matter as the end of the matter. I realize Satan is involved in the lives of scientists, mostly claiming to be atheist, that actually hold the truth, but deny it for the sake of allegiance to fellow academicians. Science wants me to have faith in science and the works of men, admittedly our "best (worldly) explanation" of how things came to be. Each year that passes by confirms ever more to me the eternal value of accepting the simple message to man that God left to us. My faith is entirely in that, while I share an abiding interest in the facts of science. I have a hunch that God will release some amazing facts to some scientists already listening for truth, but heard by the world too late to put their faith in the right place.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men
I learned it is important to note the splendid contact zone between strata, which always seemed to be machined by man, nearly flawless, the fossils involved never affected, appearing whole, never sheared like you would expect a tear to exact on them. Many fossils occupied those contact zones, none appearing deformed by the enormous uplifting pressures. The preferred explanation of those contact zones being so clean is that their formation resulted from a ceasing of sedimentary deposition, then a resumption to add yet another layer of sediments, eventually becoming hardened rock.
I had questions the other students didn't ask.
How can it be that organisms were lithified (hardened into stone) when essentially exposed on the surface, subject to predators and bacteria, contrary to what we witness on modern sea floors and dry sea beds? Where on earth is there an example of ongoing widespread lithification and associated fossilization that would support the idea of a commonly occurring formation of fossils on a regular basis throughout successive geological ages, each fossil only able to form under highly unusual circumstances?
The answer was and still is fossilization is rare, while lithification is common, though requires unique conditions. Mt St Helens ash deposits have already lithified.
If the horizontal external force sufficient to create mountains by lifting igneous or folding lithified sedimentary rock layers happened as claimed, causing folds akin to needle points compared to the whole, then how did the contact zones between pairs of strata remain polished, not ground up and deeply fractured?
There is no logical answer available to geologists. Anytime hard rock layers move against each other there are signs of extreme visible wear.
OK, then do we have to say all those layers of sediments remained soft, not hardened, while embedded organisms fossilized by the several known means of fossil production? If so, where on earth are some living examples?
The answer is there is no modern example of that on any scale like what we see in the fossil record, often extended state to state as one follows a particular rock stratum.
The only way a huge deposit of ancient sedimentary layers could be folded sharply without damaging the contact layer is to apply the folding force while the layers involved are still soft, pliable. The ideal time to do that is within a few decades or maybe a few centuries. Once the strata hardened, any slippage along the layer contacts will show signs of metamorphism, a special rock hardening caused by high heat from friction or pressure, creating a thin layer of metamorphic rock between two sedimentary layers.
So, it becomes vital to find some metamorphic rock in those layers within the sharply folded structure. We found none there, and that is still a very rare find, as is the finding of any fossils in great abundance is fairly rare.
Creationist scientists, including geologists, paleontologists, and others of a wide range of specialties, see such phenomena, knowing the interpretations taught them in college courses. They, however, are willing to attempt the hard solutions, those most of academia have refused to examine, which include any answers that support the Bible report.
The world-wide flood of Genesis provides the conditions required for almost all sedimentary formations that sometimes are miles deep sufficiently to form "common" fossils of even highly perishable Jellyfish, while unbelief in God's report requires scientists to assume an illogical very long cycle on earth of lifting up of mountains, erosion, sediments deposited, then raised again to form new mountains to be eroded, etc. If that happened, the fossil record should have been hopelessly disarrayed. The reason it has order is it mostly formed in that one Flood of Genesis.
I don't think it is possible to disprove the idea that Pangaea was not very mountainous in the beginning before the Flood. There were some peaks, but the continent was mostly a pleasant creation for man and animals to proliferate. By far the surface of Earth was one ocean. When the Flood began, God opened up oceanic trenches visible today, causing catastrophic flooding, spewing continental rock to pulverize and supply the material showing up as sedimentary particles. Much of that sub continental rock material was blasted above the atmosphere, some falling back to Earth. Layer after layer deposited daily, burying any organisms on the ocean floor, then burying organisms higher in the water column, while huge masses of surface plants and animals were mashed into depressions and covered to form coal and shale. The flood waters sweeping over dry land buried animals and people, most decomposed in a short time, a few fossilized when the flood sediments also lithified, such remnants among the rarest of fossils, more so than petrified wood.
That explains how layers of rock could be folded into tight structures that defy typical geological thinking.
I got a "B" in the Intro Paleontology course even though getting all "A"s on exams and the collection. A counselor advised me to change majors, as he had heard I wasn't fitting in well. I switched to my second love, forestry, minoring in wildlife management. That was precarious too, as so many biology courses opened me up to suspicion from typically strong-minded evolutionists teaching those courses. I learned to keep my mouth shut and got through it.
I said all that to say this. I believe the Earth below what man is familiar with may well be billions of years of age, that Earth that was found void, formless in Genesis 1:1-2. The crust has since been so altered by the Flood that aging the Earth has become impossible. However, what we can dig into, what we see at the surface, "was not" before the Flood of Genesis, being re-created in the Creation week, then reformed during and after the Flood. So it is that I readily accept that 6,000 year estimation based on age of the writings of the Pentateuch, the chronologies supplied by inspiration of the Spirit of God, as the age of the visible portion of this planet as we know it, rejecting any scientific estimation.
I will forever take the side that agrees with the Bible, rather than accept modernized human thoughts on the matter as the end of the matter. I realize Satan is involved in the lives of scientists, mostly claiming to be atheist, that actually hold the truth, but deny it for the sake of allegiance to fellow academicians. Science wants me to have faith in science and the works of men, admittedly our "best (worldly) explanation" of how things came to be. Each year that passes by confirms ever more to me the eternal value of accepting the simple message to man that God left to us. My faith is entirely in that, while I share an abiding interest in the facts of science. I have a hunch that God will release some amazing facts to some scientists already listening for truth, but heard by the world too late to put their faith in the right place.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men
Apr 18, 2012, 3:46 PM
Veteran (2614 posts)
Apr 18, 2012, 3:46 PM
Post #17 of 152
Views: 5978
Dovegiven :
What is your theory and explanation for the fact that no record can be found of a 'Worldwide Flood' in either Greenland Ice Core samples, (going back as far as 40,000 years) or Ocean floor sediment cores which tell pretty much the same story. No floods of 'Worldwide Proportions' apart from various Ice Age endings.
Regards Chris.
What is your theory and explanation for the fact that no record can be found of a 'Worldwide Flood' in either Greenland Ice Core samples, (going back as far as 40,000 years) or Ocean floor sediment cores which tell pretty much the same story. No floods of 'Worldwide Proportions' apart from various Ice Age endings.
Regards Chris.
Apr 18, 2012, 4:05 PM
User (481 posts)
Apr 18, 2012, 4:05 PM
Post #18 of 152
Views: 5959
I'd love to discuss that, but I think it's best for you to deal with what's already started. Another thread maybe, more in tune with the Flood, while this one should remain focused on the age of the earth. Meanwhile perhaps you can correct your thinking after reading http://www.icr.org/...whose-womb-came-ice/
There is evidence the thick ice over Greenland was deposited as a result of the Flood 4,500 years ago, due to a dramatic temporary warming of the oceans, also causing extreme siltation on the sea-floor.
Thanks
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men
There is evidence the thick ice over Greenland was deposited as a result of the Flood 4,500 years ago, due to a dramatic temporary warming of the oceans, also causing extreme siltation on the sea-floor.
Thanks
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men
Apr 19, 2012, 8:24 AM
Veteran (2614 posts)
Apr 19, 2012, 8:24 AM
Post #19 of 152
Views: 5678
Dovegiven :
Thanks for the link but . . . .
I notice that the information and conjectures you quote regarding ice cores comes from the 'Institute for Creation Research'.
This organization is not renowned for setting out on it’s research with a dispassionate and objectively open minded attitude as required by the ‘scientific method’.
It’s stated position (before even attempting ‘research’), is as follows :
ICR Quote: "It is the position of the institute that...all genuine facts of science support the Bible."
This just about sums up the kind of ‘mindset’ which will ‘filter’ all research results obtained by this organization in order that they never promulgate any ‘false facts of science’. I therefore strongly suspect that any ‘false’ evidence they may come across will be discretely censored in order to meet the prejudiced requirements of their a-priori assumption.
In any case facts are nevertheless just facts. It is the conclusions reached after weighing and considering the facts that may be either false or genuine.
ICR Quote : "The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the creator."
As a ‘faith’ statement and as a matter of ‘unsubstantiated belief’ that is fine.
As a scientific statement of ‘fact’ without any means of corroboration it is unacceptable and invalid as a ‘scientific’ statement of truth.
ICR Quote : "All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis...[] The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origin and development that involve evolution in any form are false.
Once again, as a statement of personal belief this is OK. As a supposedly ‘scientific’ statement it is incapable of validation, (other than appealing to the literal interpretation applied to the actual words of scripture), which is unacceptable as ‘scientific evidence’. Science needs ‘data’ which can be quantified, measured, and from which conclusions may be drawn which have bearing upon the problem under consideration.
"These statements (and others) constitute a rejection of the fundamental principles which guide what scientists do, because scientists must "remain open to all facts and all observations of natural phenomena in order to refine and improve their comprehensive explanations of how natural processes appear to work."
Clearly the ICR do not follow these principles, they have a predefined agenda, though I am not suggesting they are the only pseudo-scientific organization to behave this way. Indeed there are many scientists who, (because of their own unconscious preconceptions), are inclined to bring their own prejudices into the interpretation of the scientific data they handle.
This form of ‘untruthfulness’ is by no means restricted to the ICR but found wherever personal interest or lack of personal integrity cause ‘scientists’ to manipulate data or present it in such a way as to mislead the unwary rather than genuinely promote ‘The Truth’.
Truth is what I want. I don’t care where it comes from, scientific or religious, as long as it is TRUTH and can be reliably demonstrated to be so.
Scientific inquiry and the search for 'Truth' is not a conspiracy of Satanically inspired atheists trying to prove The Bible 'wrong'.
At it's best the scientific method has released humankind from superstitious ignorance, misinterpretation of ancient scriptures and a fuller, truer, understanding of natural phenomena.
What scientific truth cannot provide is a meaning and purpose to life; for that we need spiritual truth. That can be found , (among other places), between the covers of The Bible.
Regards Chris.
Thanks for the link but . . . .
I notice that the information and conjectures you quote regarding ice cores comes from the 'Institute for Creation Research'.
This organization is not renowned for setting out on it’s research with a dispassionate and objectively open minded attitude as required by the ‘scientific method’.
It’s stated position (before even attempting ‘research’), is as follows :
ICR Quote: "It is the position of the institute that...all genuine facts of science support the Bible."
This just about sums up the kind of ‘mindset’ which will ‘filter’ all research results obtained by this organization in order that they never promulgate any ‘false facts of science’. I therefore strongly suspect that any ‘false’ evidence they may come across will be discretely censored in order to meet the prejudiced requirements of their a-priori assumption.
In any case facts are nevertheless just facts. It is the conclusions reached after weighing and considering the facts that may be either false or genuine.
ICR Quote : "The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the creator."
As a ‘faith’ statement and as a matter of ‘unsubstantiated belief’ that is fine.
As a scientific statement of ‘fact’ without any means of corroboration it is unacceptable and invalid as a ‘scientific’ statement of truth.
ICR Quote : "All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis...[] The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origin and development that involve evolution in any form are false.
Once again, as a statement of personal belief this is OK. As a supposedly ‘scientific’ statement it is incapable of validation, (other than appealing to the literal interpretation applied to the actual words of scripture), which is unacceptable as ‘scientific evidence’. Science needs ‘data’ which can be quantified, measured, and from which conclusions may be drawn which have bearing upon the problem under consideration.
"These statements (and others) constitute a rejection of the fundamental principles which guide what scientists do, because scientists must "remain open to all facts and all observations of natural phenomena in order to refine and improve their comprehensive explanations of how natural processes appear to work."
Clearly the ICR do not follow these principles, they have a predefined agenda, though I am not suggesting they are the only pseudo-scientific organization to behave this way. Indeed there are many scientists who, (because of their own unconscious preconceptions), are inclined to bring their own prejudices into the interpretation of the scientific data they handle.
This form of ‘untruthfulness’ is by no means restricted to the ICR but found wherever personal interest or lack of personal integrity cause ‘scientists’ to manipulate data or present it in such a way as to mislead the unwary rather than genuinely promote ‘The Truth’.
Truth is what I want. I don’t care where it comes from, scientific or religious, as long as it is TRUTH and can be reliably demonstrated to be so.
Scientific inquiry and the search for 'Truth' is not a conspiracy of Satanically inspired atheists trying to prove The Bible 'wrong'.
At it's best the scientific method has released humankind from superstitious ignorance, misinterpretation of ancient scriptures and a fuller, truer, understanding of natural phenomena.
What scientific truth cannot provide is a meaning and purpose to life; for that we need spiritual truth. That can be found , (among other places), between the covers of The Bible.
Regards Chris.
Apr 19, 2012, 9:41 AM
Veteran (2614 posts)
Apr 19, 2012, 9:41 AM
Post #20 of 152
Views: 5654
Dovegiven :
I'd love to discuss that, but I think it's best for you to deal with what's already started. Another thread maybe, more in tune with the Flood, while this one should remain focused on the age of the earth.
The age of the earth and the idea of a Global Flood actually are closely associated.
There are in fact many reasons that a 'Global Flood' on a 'Young Earth', cannot explain the evidence seen in the rocks today.
I'd advise reading the link I have provided and trying to find convincing answers, to some of the awkward questions it poses for 'Young Earth Flood Creationists'.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/flood-problems.html
The standard Old Earth hypothesis seems to explain things fairly well so far but it unfortunately will not support a 'literal' interpretation of the Biblical Flood narrative). That however does not render the Flood Narrative valueless or uninspired.
Perhaps it is bad exegesis to strictly confine interpretation of the flood story to solely 'literal' truth. There are many other legitimate ways it may be interpreted and they may be of far grater 'value' in a spiritual sense. The Church recognizes many other valid and valued forms of interpretation.
In the meanwhile, who knows, there may be satisfactory answers found to every awkward question posed concerning The Flood and then science will have to accept the Biblical Flood narrative as being 'scientifically' confirmed truth, as well as inspired 'spiritual' truth.
Regards Chris.
I'd love to discuss that, but I think it's best for you to deal with what's already started. Another thread maybe, more in tune with the Flood, while this one should remain focused on the age of the earth.
The age of the earth and the idea of a Global Flood actually are closely associated.
There are in fact many reasons that a 'Global Flood' on a 'Young Earth', cannot explain the evidence seen in the rocks today.
I'd advise reading the link I have provided and trying to find convincing answers, to some of the awkward questions it poses for 'Young Earth Flood Creationists'.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/flood-problems.html
The standard Old Earth hypothesis seems to explain things fairly well so far but it unfortunately will not support a 'literal' interpretation of the Biblical Flood narrative). That however does not render the Flood Narrative valueless or uninspired.
Perhaps it is bad exegesis to strictly confine interpretation of the flood story to solely 'literal' truth. There are many other legitimate ways it may be interpreted and they may be of far grater 'value' in a spiritual sense. The Church recognizes many other valid and valued forms of interpretation.
In the meanwhile, who knows, there may be satisfactory answers found to every awkward question posed concerning The Flood and then science will have to accept the Biblical Flood narrative as being 'scientifically' confirmed truth, as well as inspired 'spiritual' truth.
Regards Chris.
Apr 19, 2012, 7:01 PM
User (481 posts)
Apr 19, 2012, 7:01 PM
Post #21 of 152
Views: 5445
This organization is not renowned for setting out on it’s research with a dispassionate and objectively open minded attitude as required by the ‘scientific method’.
I can tell you have probably spent less than an hour exploring ICR, having not a clue about the staff they benefit from.
I have never witnessed an evolution source meet your requirement, all their conclusions never daring to depart from the evolution theory, else they end up lumped with the Creation scientists. They will take the most absurd route rather than entertain something more believable, requiring far less faith to believe. ICR has a fine record of professional research by fully qualified scientists who will no more back down from their beliefs than any evolutionist would.
Let me point out that this forum is in an APOLOGETICS category, and is about CREATION versus EVOLUTION. It should be acceptable that one side of it uses both evolution science and creation science sources, while it is predicted the other side will probably exclusively use evolution science sources, condemning all Creation Science sources.
I have just enough time left to also point out there are two major sides to this. I know from experience in college and on the job as a professional of multiple biology fields that we were forced to accept the evolution model as fact not to be disputed. I never witnessed a dispassionate stance among the professors, nor did I or anyone I know that worked as biologists see a shred of objective open-minded attitude running true to the scientific method. To believe otherwise means being an outsider, someone that didn't pursue science training. That is a matter of documented fact. In the USA today a science student is well advised never to let anyone around them know they are religious, particularly Christian. Even when taking science courses in a university claiming to be Christian based, it is hazardous to identify with anything Creationist. It is no different than my experience in most churches I've been member of, that for instance "men don't talk about Jesus or the Bible. Let the women do that, while the men talk sports". Anyone that gets too Bible-wise gets shunned. That attitude worked its way all through our society, especially into the work place.
Another view of the two sides of this debate is more diabolical. By far most scientists claim to be atheist, something evolutionists are proud to claim. I see the gathering of truth to be either choosing to listen to mostly atheists who can't possibly be inspired by God to find truth, or to at least weigh conclusions from Christian scientists and researchers who might be inspired by God, helped through revelations, their eyes opened to a higher perspective.
Both evolutionist and creationist have in their background, as I mentioned in a previous post, very similar education background, forced upon both. It is probable that isn't very grievous at the time, most scientists deciding to reject Godless evolution doing so after completion of college.
Both students are trained, however, to deal with the same facts from the field and labs, the same observations, the same terminology, the same tools of the science method. The difference is in the conclusions at the end of the science method, how all the other parts come together, as said many times by leading scientists "science is about providing the best explanation of nature" in general. It is atheists who insist on all valid explanations being devoid of any God might agree with. It is absurd that Christians who believe the Bible to be inspired by God can't offer conclusions influenced by their belief in the Bible, cast off as "unscientific", after having satisfied the rigors of field and lab preparations like the evolutionists do.
No scientist can prove origins, unable to spark new life in a laboratory, left without reasonable explanations of origins. Science fails there. The Bible answers that, but that explanation isn't allowed in our schools, because we can't observe those Bible statements, yet similarly unobservable facts for evolution are admitted. What is allowed is unprovable information, largely stated as "It is believed...", "We believe...., "this species must have evolved from..." as well as a long history of outright faked discoveries and experiments "proving" evolution.
In the future, in this forum, for reasons stated above and much more unmentioned I think it is unwise to criticize sources since we are not pitting one type of evolutionist against another. We are comparing creation science to evolution science. If you think Creationists can't supply science, then you have no argument debate-wise, and really don't have a clue about the depth of Creationist scientist expertise available today.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men
I can tell you have probably spent less than an hour exploring ICR, having not a clue about the staff they benefit from.
I have never witnessed an evolution source meet your requirement, all their conclusions never daring to depart from the evolution theory, else they end up lumped with the Creation scientists. They will take the most absurd route rather than entertain something more believable, requiring far less faith to believe. ICR has a fine record of professional research by fully qualified scientists who will no more back down from their beliefs than any evolutionist would.
Let me point out that this forum is in an APOLOGETICS category, and is about CREATION versus EVOLUTION. It should be acceptable that one side of it uses both evolution science and creation science sources, while it is predicted the other side will probably exclusively use evolution science sources, condemning all Creation Science sources.
I have just enough time left to also point out there are two major sides to this. I know from experience in college and on the job as a professional of multiple biology fields that we were forced to accept the evolution model as fact not to be disputed. I never witnessed a dispassionate stance among the professors, nor did I or anyone I know that worked as biologists see a shred of objective open-minded attitude running true to the scientific method. To believe otherwise means being an outsider, someone that didn't pursue science training. That is a matter of documented fact. In the USA today a science student is well advised never to let anyone around them know they are religious, particularly Christian. Even when taking science courses in a university claiming to be Christian based, it is hazardous to identify with anything Creationist. It is no different than my experience in most churches I've been member of, that for instance "men don't talk about Jesus or the Bible. Let the women do that, while the men talk sports". Anyone that gets too Bible-wise gets shunned. That attitude worked its way all through our society, especially into the work place.
Another view of the two sides of this debate is more diabolical. By far most scientists claim to be atheist, something evolutionists are proud to claim. I see the gathering of truth to be either choosing to listen to mostly atheists who can't possibly be inspired by God to find truth, or to at least weigh conclusions from Christian scientists and researchers who might be inspired by God, helped through revelations, their eyes opened to a higher perspective.
Both evolutionist and creationist have in their background, as I mentioned in a previous post, very similar education background, forced upon both. It is probable that isn't very grievous at the time, most scientists deciding to reject Godless evolution doing so after completion of college.
Both students are trained, however, to deal with the same facts from the field and labs, the same observations, the same terminology, the same tools of the science method. The difference is in the conclusions at the end of the science method, how all the other parts come together, as said many times by leading scientists "science is about providing the best explanation of nature" in general. It is atheists who insist on all valid explanations being devoid of any God might agree with. It is absurd that Christians who believe the Bible to be inspired by God can't offer conclusions influenced by their belief in the Bible, cast off as "unscientific", after having satisfied the rigors of field and lab preparations like the evolutionists do.
No scientist can prove origins, unable to spark new life in a laboratory, left without reasonable explanations of origins. Science fails there. The Bible answers that, but that explanation isn't allowed in our schools, because we can't observe those Bible statements, yet similarly unobservable facts for evolution are admitted. What is allowed is unprovable information, largely stated as "It is believed...", "We believe...., "this species must have evolved from..." as well as a long history of outright faked discoveries and experiments "proving" evolution.
In the future, in this forum, for reasons stated above and much more unmentioned I think it is unwise to criticize sources since we are not pitting one type of evolutionist against another. We are comparing creation science to evolution science. If you think Creationists can't supply science, then you have no argument debate-wise, and really don't have a clue about the depth of Creationist scientist expertise available today.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men
Apr 20, 2012, 4:55 AM
Veteran (2614 posts)
Apr 20, 2012, 4:55 AM
Post #22 of 152
Views: 5233
Dovegiven :
I can tell you have probably spent less than an hour exploring ICR, having not a clue about the staff they benefit from.
I have had interest in the claims and counterclaims of ‘atheistic scientists’ and ‘literal interpretation creationists’ for many years now. I refuse to place unqualified ‘trust’ in either bunch, purely because of their ‘a priori’, ‘nuff said’, ‘We know God didn’t make the world’, ‘God says so, so it must be so’ attitudes. They are all equally ‘unscientific’, and therefore untrustworthy, in my opinion.
I have never witnessed an evolution source meet your requirement, all their conclusions never daring to depart from the evolution theory, else they end up lumped with the Creation scientists.
I sometimes wonder if this is characteristic only of the scientific and religious establishments in the USA.
There does not seem to be such a sharp divide, with far less ‘extremeists’ (like Richard Dawkins on the one hand and Ross Rosevear on the other, for instance), though as you can see I am able to name at least one of each sort over here too.
Everything in the USA seems to us over here to be ‘larger than life’, younger, more vibrant, more socially mobile but unfortunately also more impetuous and irrationally partisan. Perhaps it is your historical perspective, (being still a young country with rather turbulent but idealistic foundations), and style of education, (a rigidly controlled state sector and an economically elitist private sector), which are at the root of the problem of your apparent surfeit of ‘extremists’ of various kinds. I don’t know.
ICR has a fine record of professional research by fully qualified scientists who will no more back down from their beliefs than any evolutionist would.
Fully qualified by whose standards? From what you say of your education system it would seem almost impossible for these people to have gained any ‘scientifically’ recognized qualifications without employing considerable subterfuge regarding the foundation of their beliefs. I assume, (perhaps mistakenly), that the ‘qualifications’ they hold are therefore mostly awarded by organisations similar to ICR. (I know ICR applied for license to issue ‘qualifications’ but was turned down by your Law Courts, on the grounds that it’s attitude was ‘unscientific’ and prejudicially closed-minded).
I assure you there is not such a problem in this country. I am not aware that ‘scientists’ over here are complaining about being prevented by the establishment from presenting ‘evidence’ which might cause evolutionary theory to be called into question. On the contrary evolutionary theory is constantly being challenged, developed, questioned and updated as new data are uncovered which serve to enhance our understanding of past ages.
Any ‘scientist’ who could come up with an irrefutable proof that ‘evolution’ could not and did not ever take place, would become instantly famous and quickly extremely wealthy as soon as he started marketing his irrefutable discoveries and postulations. For good reason, it has not so far happened.
The idea that all paleontologists, geologists, etc. are either atheists or fundamentalist believers is nonsense. Most are neither; just normal people with no particular ‘axe to grind’ other than the desire to become famous by discovering something new no one else has so far laid claim to. In other words they are mostly driven by a desire for knowledge and truth, (tinged with a desire for fame and fortune).
Let me point out that this forum is in an APOLOGETICS category, and is about CREATION versus EVOLUTION. It should be acceptable that one side of it uses both evolution science and creation science sources, while it is predicted the other side will probably exclusively use evolution science sources, condemning all Creation Science sources.
I don’t see that as in any way inevitable. I am willing to accept data honestly obtained and presented from any quarter whatever. I want to debate the question without making any assumptions before hand about the outcome. Creationists are ‘begging the question’ by assuming that the thing to be proved is already true according to their premise, (which is of course their absolute insistence upon their interpretation of The Bible being the ultimate depository of all (including ‘scientific’) truth.
By far most scientists claim to be atheist, something evolutionists are proud to claim.
Apart from being a blatant generalization this unsubstantiated claim of yours may in fact be in error as the following statistics seem to indicate.
Elaine Ecklund, and Christopher Scheitle questioned 2,198 faculty members in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology from 21 elite U.S. research universities. Overall, 75% of professors contacted completed the survey. Among the different disciplines, disbelief in the existence of God was not correlated with any particular area of expertise:
Disbelief in God by Academics :
Discipline : Physics 40.8%, Chemistry 26.6%, Biology 41%, Overall 37.6% unbelieving
Discipline : Sociology 34.0%, Economics 31.7%, Political Science 27.0%,
Psychology 33.0%, Overall 31.2% unbelieving
Which means that in the USA, far from what you claim to be the truth, the facts seem to indicate that a significant majority of ‘scientists’ claim ‘belief in God’ and a lesser number claim to be ‘atheists’.
Furthermore there seems not to be a significant increase in ‘unbelief’ among the ‘hard sciences’ as opposed to the social sciences and humanities.
http://www.godandscience.org/...ntists_atheists.html
If you think Creationists can't supply science, then you have no argument debate-wise, and really don't have a clue about the depth of Creationist scientist expertise available today.
I think anyone who sets out to prove something they are already convinced is true are very likely to succeed in achieving their objective, somehow.
I think anyone who sets out to disprove something they are already convinced is false are very likely to succeed in achieving their objective, somehow.
I will preferably accept the evidence presented by those who genuinely do not yet know what they would LIKE it to imply but are willing to discuss it's possible implications objectively.
Regards Chris.
I can tell you have probably spent less than an hour exploring ICR, having not a clue about the staff they benefit from.
I have had interest in the claims and counterclaims of ‘atheistic scientists’ and ‘literal interpretation creationists’ for many years now. I refuse to place unqualified ‘trust’ in either bunch, purely because of their ‘a priori’, ‘nuff said’, ‘We know God didn’t make the world’, ‘God says so, so it must be so’ attitudes. They are all equally ‘unscientific’, and therefore untrustworthy, in my opinion.
I have never witnessed an evolution source meet your requirement, all their conclusions never daring to depart from the evolution theory, else they end up lumped with the Creation scientists.
I sometimes wonder if this is characteristic only of the scientific and religious establishments in the USA.
There does not seem to be such a sharp divide, with far less ‘extremeists’ (like Richard Dawkins on the one hand and Ross Rosevear on the other, for instance), though as you can see I am able to name at least one of each sort over here too.
Everything in the USA seems to us over here to be ‘larger than life’, younger, more vibrant, more socially mobile but unfortunately also more impetuous and irrationally partisan. Perhaps it is your historical perspective, (being still a young country with rather turbulent but idealistic foundations), and style of education, (a rigidly controlled state sector and an economically elitist private sector), which are at the root of the problem of your apparent surfeit of ‘extremists’ of various kinds. I don’t know.
ICR has a fine record of professional research by fully qualified scientists who will no more back down from their beliefs than any evolutionist would.
Fully qualified by whose standards? From what you say of your education system it would seem almost impossible for these people to have gained any ‘scientifically’ recognized qualifications without employing considerable subterfuge regarding the foundation of their beliefs. I assume, (perhaps mistakenly), that the ‘qualifications’ they hold are therefore mostly awarded by organisations similar to ICR. (I know ICR applied for license to issue ‘qualifications’ but was turned down by your Law Courts, on the grounds that it’s attitude was ‘unscientific’ and prejudicially closed-minded).
I assure you there is not such a problem in this country. I am not aware that ‘scientists’ over here are complaining about being prevented by the establishment from presenting ‘evidence’ which might cause evolutionary theory to be called into question. On the contrary evolutionary theory is constantly being challenged, developed, questioned and updated as new data are uncovered which serve to enhance our understanding of past ages.
Any ‘scientist’ who could come up with an irrefutable proof that ‘evolution’ could not and did not ever take place, would become instantly famous and quickly extremely wealthy as soon as he started marketing his irrefutable discoveries and postulations. For good reason, it has not so far happened.
The idea that all paleontologists, geologists, etc. are either atheists or fundamentalist believers is nonsense. Most are neither; just normal people with no particular ‘axe to grind’ other than the desire to become famous by discovering something new no one else has so far laid claim to. In other words they are mostly driven by a desire for knowledge and truth, (tinged with a desire for fame and fortune).
Let me point out that this forum is in an APOLOGETICS category, and is about CREATION versus EVOLUTION. It should be acceptable that one side of it uses both evolution science and creation science sources, while it is predicted the other side will probably exclusively use evolution science sources, condemning all Creation Science sources.
I don’t see that as in any way inevitable. I am willing to accept data honestly obtained and presented from any quarter whatever. I want to debate the question without making any assumptions before hand about the outcome. Creationists are ‘begging the question’ by assuming that the thing to be proved is already true according to their premise, (which is of course their absolute insistence upon their interpretation of The Bible being the ultimate depository of all (including ‘scientific’) truth.
By far most scientists claim to be atheist, something evolutionists are proud to claim.
Apart from being a blatant generalization this unsubstantiated claim of yours may in fact be in error as the following statistics seem to indicate.
Elaine Ecklund, and Christopher Scheitle questioned 2,198 faculty members in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology from 21 elite U.S. research universities. Overall, 75% of professors contacted completed the survey. Among the different disciplines, disbelief in the existence of God was not correlated with any particular area of expertise:
Disbelief in God by Academics :
Discipline : Physics 40.8%, Chemistry 26.6%, Biology 41%, Overall 37.6% unbelieving
Discipline : Sociology 34.0%, Economics 31.7%, Political Science 27.0%,
Psychology 33.0%, Overall 31.2% unbelieving
Which means that in the USA, far from what you claim to be the truth, the facts seem to indicate that a significant majority of ‘scientists’ claim ‘belief in God’ and a lesser number claim to be ‘atheists’.
Furthermore there seems not to be a significant increase in ‘unbelief’ among the ‘hard sciences’ as opposed to the social sciences and humanities.
http://www.godandscience.org/...ntists_atheists.html
If you think Creationists can't supply science, then you have no argument debate-wise, and really don't have a clue about the depth of Creationist scientist expertise available today.
I think anyone who sets out to prove something they are already convinced is true are very likely to succeed in achieving their objective, somehow.
I think anyone who sets out to disprove something they are already convinced is false are very likely to succeed in achieving their objective, somehow.
I will preferably accept the evidence presented by those who genuinely do not yet know what they would LIKE it to imply but are willing to discuss it's possible implications objectively.
Regards Chris.
Apr 20, 2012, 6:18 AM
Veteran / Moderator (2591 posts)
Apr 20, 2012, 6:18 AM
Post #23 of 152
Views: 5186
I know this is an apologetics forum, therefore I have not edited your post. But please watch that you address the issue. TY.
http://www.praize.com/blog-forum-terms
2. You will not harass, threaten, embarrass, or cause distress, unwanted attention or discomfort upon another user or users of Praize.com services or other persons or entities (including personal identifying information). You may express your disagreement with someone's point-of-view, but personal attacks, or attacks based on another person's race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disablement or other such affiliation, are prohibited. Any flaming remarks will be removed at the discretion of the Monitor.
Blessings ~ Sarah
http://www.praize.com/blog-forum-terms
2. You will not harass, threaten, embarrass, or cause distress, unwanted attention or discomfort upon another user or users of Praize.com services or other persons or entities (including personal identifying information). You may express your disagreement with someone's point-of-view, but personal attacks, or attacks based on another person's race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disablement or other such affiliation, are prohibited. Any flaming remarks will be removed at the discretion of the Monitor.
Blessings ~ Sarah
Apr 20, 2012, 6:35 AM
Veteran (2614 posts)
Apr 20, 2012, 6:35 AM
Post #24 of 152
Views: 5173
praizeop2
Sarah : please watch that you address the issue.
Sorry if we appear to be wandering from the thread title but Dovegiven felt the need to clarify his position from the Creationist perspective and I needed to make my position clear.
I have not noticed anything in his or my posts that warrant citing clause 2. He certainly has not 'harrassed', 'threatened' or 'embarrassed' or caused distress and I have not intended so.
Have I missed something?
Regards Chris.
Sarah : please watch that you address the issue.
Sorry if we appear to be wandering from the thread title but Dovegiven felt the need to clarify his position from the Creationist perspective and I needed to make my position clear.
I have not noticed anything in his or my posts that warrant citing clause 2. He certainly has not 'harrassed', 'threatened' or 'embarrassed' or caused distress and I have not intended so.
Have I missed something?
Regards Chris.
Apr 20, 2012, 6:55 AM
User (481 posts)
Apr 20, 2012, 6:55 AM
Post #25 of 152
Views: 5148
I sometimes wonder if this is characteristic only of the scientific and religious establishments in the USA.
Don't forget Climategate http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/...enic-global-warming/
Is there possibly more distortion of science in your country, such as the many lies promoting evolution of man, with no significant apologies from academia?
I assume, (perhaps mistakenly), that the ‘qualifications’ they hold are therefore mostly awarded by organisations similar to ICR. (I know ICR applied for license to issue ‘qualifications’ but was turned down by your Law Courts, on the grounds that it’s attitude was ‘unscientific’ and prejudicially closed-minded).
Yes, mistaken you are about that. Meet ICR's new Director of Research, Jason Lisle, Ph.D. astrophysics (minor mathematics), a Christian graduated from Ohio Wesleyan U. summa cum laude, then U. of Colorado. http://www.icr.org/jason_lisle/
There have been numerous similar additions to the research staff there.
ICR hosts an education department mostly for folks wanting to add the Creationist perspective to whatever formal education they already have, some adding that before attending an accredited college. We plan to send our grand children through it before entering the atheistic world of public universities, grounding them as well as possible in truth.
They are not trying to compete with universities to produce state certified scientists. "The Creationist Worldview is an innovative program of study designed to equip current and future Christian leaders with practical tools to effectively influence their world with the truths of Scripture. A formal science degree is not required, and those who can benefit from the Creationist Worldview program includes, but is not limited to, Christian men and women who hold various positions of influence within the community, educators, ministers and church leaders, business and industry experts, professionals in medicine and law, government officials, leaders in the fine arts, and high school and college students." http://www.icr.org/cw/
I think anyone who sets out to prove something they are already convinced is true are very likely to succeed in achieving their objective, somehow.
Thomas Edison is an example of that, determined to invent a light bulb. He didn't begin without a belief and a reason to pursue it. Marie Curie systematically investigated radioactivity, leading to discovery of two new elements. She had very specific objectives. In fact, those are examples of true science method.
So it is unscientific to suspect a false science belief, set out to prove it is false, then succeed? Is it the success part that you think violates the science method? From what history of science advancements I've read or seen it appears the notion of setting out to disprove ideas has greatly advanced science. In doing so it likely requires taking a new look at old facts, and observing new facts, leading to a conclusion that matches the question of true, or false. Why be required to reprove a true fact while proving a falsehood?
I think it would be foolish for a scientist to enter a lab then begin mixing chemicals, wondering the outcome. No, he will choose ingredients based on a hunch he can make a medicine that treats a specific disease. He won't try mixtures for which he has no confidence they will do anything at all.
I looked back to an old CE forum elsewhere discussing the proportion of atheists to Christian scientists using polls that show atheists, non-religious, and "don't know" which when added together leaves very few Christian scientists. I'll study it out to be better updated. Perhaps God is reaching more scientists and we'll see a magnificent swing away from atheist-inspired thinking.
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·.¸.·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>
Be fishers of men