SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The Bible is the true word of God. That is what I believe.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
C-14 is not reliable beyond 4000 years or so.
How does one explain dinosaur tissue, and diamonds that are not C-14 dead?
Why is there too much C-14 in some samples of coal and fossilized wood?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Yes, but one based in logic. If A = A then, given everything else is also equal, we would expect equal outcomes for equal experiments.
That is a principle science is based on, sometime called the Copernican Principle.
Do we agree that an orderly universe is a reasonable assumption based on the law of identity?
Do we agree that in the same environment, experiments should be repeatable?
Do we agree that different outcomes are either a result of random processes or that there has to be a parameter that has to be different?
Do we agree that the one who expects a different outcome should name the parameter and a way to measure it?
You need to show us this is true, as we won't take your word for it. You've been asked, and you have no evidence. So we throw it out.
And what do you have to show us your belief isn't mistaken?
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
So says who?
"the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to approximately 50,000 years ago (in this interval about 99.8% of the 14
C will have decayed), although special preparation methods occasionally make an accurate analysis of older samples possible."
Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia
The agnostic atheist doesn't assume gods don't exist. Why would he? He simply disregards the unfalsifiable claims of others about gods.
The authors of Genesis didn't understand where the rain came from. They had no concept of light having speed or of the magnitude or contents of space.
No, it's not.
No, it's not.
And that's wrong, too. There was no first human being.
That's incorrect as well.
CS Lewis asked the same of Jesus in a false trichotomy: Lewis's trilemma - Wikipedia
No, Newton was not an idiot. He was a genius, and created great science and mathematics because of it, but he was also a theist and alchemist, which led to junk writings. Newton made a mistake like Einstein did, both generating math that predicted a different kind of universe than the one we find, and so each added an ad hoc correction. For Newton, it was the hand of god keeping the solar system stable, since his math predicted that the planets should be thrown into the sun or out of the solar system. For Einstein, it was the cosmological constant to prevent the stars from all coming together in one place in an infinite, nonexpanding universe.
No, creationism was abandoned long ago except in a cult of holdouts, who like to come onto the Internet to tell us what crises science is facing. The theory, like all scientific theories, is correct in the main and here to stay, where it will receive additional tweaking whenever new evidence arises suggesting the need. Biblical creationism is in crisis. It's taken seriously nowhere but in fundamentalist churches. There were no six days of creation. There was no global flood. And there is no debate about either. They're settled science. Dissent from the theists is irrelevant. The scientists aren't listening to them except the few that are also scientists, and they're too few in number and their arguments too weak to hold sway or defeat consensus.
But don't feel picked on. The scientists also don't care that many agree with them. They don't hear me anymore than they hear you. They don't atta boy me any more than they try to refute the creationists, who rarely present falsifiable concepts to examine, even there, refutation is limited to the claims of other scientists like the claims of Behe - not lay people.
Here's a crisis for the church: the rise of the nones and the closing of churches everywhere in the West. And there is no defense against that trend, because the humanists have made too much progress already and a tipping point has been reached. How is the church to contend with the entertainment media, which virtually uniformly presents the church negatively in response to what we see it do in the news?
Experts know how to test and use the data. Thus far you show no expertise, so we reject your judgment and trust experts in science.
Much the same way jerkey does not rot once the moisture is removed. Dry tissue can preserve much of its makeup if it remains dry, which is very rare.
Experts can explain this if you do your own homework.
Let's note you are avoiding showing us your beliefs about the Bible is valid. Why should we accept your versonal interpretation of Bible stories when science shows us it is incorrect?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
There is a great deception in some of the ages that are quoted by evolutionists. Why the deception?
There are no evolutionists, that is an invalid and disparaging label.
Notice you are being vague. What deceptions are you referring to? Are you assuming deception because you assume your religious beliefs are true?
Explain them honestly and factually. The lord can't save you in this discussion if you can't provide facts.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Here is just one.
113 million years ago. That dating not even scientific, and deceptive. Do you know why?
see https://www.science.org/content/art...ers-dinosaur-footprints-113-million-years-ago
There are a bunch more.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The title of the thread tells us that the OP does not seem to understand the difference between knowledge and belief. People that often only have mere belief frequently have this problem. We do not "believe" that the Earth is old, we know it since we can show it to be a fact by countless sources of evidence. As to the "assumptions" demand that is a garbage demand since not only can't he define it properly. He cannot even show that he is not guilty of that.
This is why understanding the concept of scientific evidence and the scientific method is so important. It is why creationists always lose in court. Judges may not be scientists, but they are experts in evidence and can see that creationists do not have any reliable evidence at all for their beliefs.
So how do we know that the Earth is old. Originally it was geology that told us this. We can show how quickly some beds can be deposited. Floods cannot and do not deposit well sorted sediments. It takes time. A lot of time to do that. Different sediments get deposited at different rates. Shale has to be deposited quite slowly. A lot of that has to do with the sedimentary load of water. Yes, fast moving water can carry more sediment than slow moving water. The problem is that if a fast moving source loses its source of energy quickly it will also deposit its load quickly. Without sorting. We can see that in conglomerates, they are a mixture from fine to coarse of sediments and are usually found very close to mountain ranges. When the land gets flat there is no more energy going into the flowing water and the stream drops its load quickly. There is very little sorting. And that sort of deposit is usually on the streambed itself forming a braided river. You do not have a fine grained shale. Or a clean sandstone. Both of those take time and sorting.
Sandstones often form in beach environments of moderate energy where the wave actions regularly take out the finer silt and clays. The coarse gravels would have been lost much earlier and would still be in the streambeds Shale is deposited in deeper water. Clays are very fine so they do not settle out until the source of the sediment is a distance away from the shore and all of the coarser materials have long since settled out.
Some environments vary a bit annually. We can see that with lake varves. In large lakes in the spring when the water coming into the lakes is flowing faster there will be a higher sedimentary load. And even though the sand and coarser sediments will have long since been settled out we can still see an annual change in the amount of silt in a laminae. During the spring there will be more silt and the rate of deposition will be slightly higher. As it gets into the summer months and the time of spring floods and rapid flow is slower one can see that the percentage of clay particles is much higher. There are varve deposits with millions of annual varves.
Oh and as to "assumptions". Many of the hypotheses start with assumptions. But those assumptions are tested again and again as part of the scientific method. No one tests only once and says "well that's that then". No, ideas are tested countless times in many ways. Scientists actually try to disprove their ideas. That is done so that incorrect ideas are eliminated. After an assumption is tested and confirmed many times it is no longer an assumption.
We can go over countless examples. Like how chalk beds kill the flood myths. How we can date samples by various independent methods. There is endless evidence for an old Earth. There is none for the YEC's.
And here is how YEC's claim that God is a liar: The evidence for an old Earth is endless. There are many different forms of it and that evidence had to come from somewhere. Yes, an omnipotent God could lie if he wanted to and could plant endless false evidence. But planting false evidence is a form of lying. So yes, God could have made the Earth look old if he wanted to. He could cover up his evil deed in flooding the Earth if he wanted to. But that would be a form of lying. The myths of evidence cannot be true unless God is a liar.
This is why understanding the concept of scientific evidence and the scientific method is so important. It is why creationists always lose in court. Judges may not be scientists, but they are experts in evidence and can see that creationists do not have any reliable evidence at all for their beliefs.
So how do we know that the Earth is old. Originally it was geology that told us this. We can show how quickly some beds can be deposited. Floods cannot and do not deposit well sorted sediments. It takes time. A lot of time to do that. Different sediments get deposited at different rates. Shale has to be deposited quite slowly. A lot of that has to do with the sedimentary load of water. Yes, fast moving water can carry more sediment than slow moving water. The problem is that if a fast moving source loses its source of energy quickly it will also deposit its load quickly. Without sorting. We can see that in conglomerates, they are a mixture from fine to coarse of sediments and are usually found very close to mountain ranges. When the land gets flat there is no more energy going into the flowing water and the stream drops its load quickly. There is very little sorting. And that sort of deposit is usually on the streambed itself forming a braided river. You do not have a fine grained shale. Or a clean sandstone. Both of those take time and sorting.
Sandstones often form in beach environments of moderate energy where the wave actions regularly take out the finer silt and clays. The coarse gravels would have been lost much earlier and would still be in the streambeds Shale is deposited in deeper water. Clays are very fine so they do not settle out until the source of the sediment is a distance away from the shore and all of the coarser materials have long since settled out.
Some environments vary a bit annually. We can see that with lake varves. In large lakes in the spring when the water coming into the lakes is flowing faster there will be a higher sedimentary load. And even though the sand and coarser sediments will have long since been settled out we can still see an annual change in the amount of silt in a laminae. During the spring there will be more silt and the rate of deposition will be slightly higher. As it gets into the summer months and the time of spring floods and rapid flow is slower one can see that the percentage of clay particles is much higher. There are varve deposits with millions of annual varves.
Oh and as to "assumptions". Many of the hypotheses start with assumptions. But those assumptions are tested again and again as part of the scientific method. No one tests only once and says "well that's that then". No, ideas are tested countless times in many ways. Scientists actually try to disprove their ideas. That is done so that incorrect ideas are eliminated. After an assumption is tested and confirmed many times it is no longer an assumption.
We can go over countless examples. Like how chalk beds kill the flood myths. How we can date samples by various independent methods. There is endless evidence for an old Earth. There is none for the YEC's.
And here is how YEC's claim that God is a liar: The evidence for an old Earth is endless. There are many different forms of it and that evidence had to come from somewhere. Yes, an omnipotent God could lie if he wanted to and could plant endless false evidence. But planting false evidence is a form of lying. So yes, God could have made the Earth look old if he wanted to. He could cover up his evil deed in flooding the Earth if he wanted to. But that would be a form of lying. The myths of evidence cannot be true unless God is a liar.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is not even an abstract. The dating method would be in various peer reviewed articles. You cannot claim that it is unscientific if you cannot read the articles.
I understand how rocks are dated. You do not. Due to your extreme ignorance you cannot understand any of the sciences. But you can still learn if you try. That is why I push the basics. You cannot learn the sciences until you have at least a grasp of what science is and how it is done.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Just a bunch of false accusations.
Young Earth Creationsts do not call God a liar. Newton, Pascal and dozens more never did.
They just reject your false theories.
So you are dismissing science because you assume your interpretation of Bible stories is correct?
You still avoid showing us why you assume your interpretation of the Bible is factual and true. What's the problem?
Completely untrue Brother SBL -- What was the name of the eye-witness the creation of the Earth .. who wrote down what he saw ..
.. and what script was this person using given writing did not yet exist. Come on friend .. this does not jive with logic and rational thought .. never mind not being stated or implied by the authors of the various books that make up the Bible ..
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
God created all things, the universe and the earth in 6 days, about 6000 years – the Bible and real science prove this is trueCompletely untrue Brother SBL -- What was the name of the eye-witness the creation of the Earth .. who wrote down what he saw ..
Come on friend .. this does not jive with logic and rational thought .. never mind not being stated or implied by the authors of the various books that make up the Bible ..
The eyewitness is God. Read on.
God created man by a direct act and not through evolution from lower life forms. This is clear from the following passages.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. - Gen 1:26-27
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. – Gen 2:7,21-23
The age of the earth is easily determined from the Bible, which is the true word of God. In Genesis 1, it is clear that God created all things, including the earth, the universe, the sun, the moon, the stars, all life and of course Adam and Eve on the 6th day. To determine the age of the earth, extensive genealogies are given along with the age at which each father begat the named sun. Historical kings are mentioned in the book of Daniel and elsewhere in the Old Testament. The command to rebuild the temple and the 70-week prophecy in Daniel gives 70x7=490 yrs. The Biblical precept of a day is a year is found in Numbers where the Israelites were punished to wander 40 years in the desert, a year for each day since they spied out the land of the Canaanites and did not believe what God could do.
Usher and Isaac Newton followed the same logic, and both determined the earth to have been created about 6000 years ago. There are others who have done the same thing. All the logic, all the real science and all the facts also confirm that the earth and everything in it is about 6000 years old.
Light is created early on the first day and separated from darkness. Thus, there is directional light from the very beginning. This is even before the sun is created on the 4th day. Directional light plus a rotating earth gives night and day. Thus, the days below are very close to 24 hrs. That is shown by the 6x “the evening and the morning” are used. The ordinal count of days also proves that these are 24-hour days.
5 … And the evening and the morning were the first day. 8 … And the evening and the morning were the second day. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31
God created all things in 6 days. He did it, knows how it was done and knows when it was done. So, God’s eyewitness testimony is 100% true. All supposed “science”, which disagrees, is therefore false. God spoke with His mouth 2x and wrote with His finger 2x the following. By the way Christ may have written the 10 commandants with His finger in the sand. He certainly used that to teach as it says “all taught of God” in John 6:45.
1 And God spake all these words, saying, 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. - Exo 20:1,11
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. 18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God. - Exo 31:17-18
And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables. - Exo 32:16
And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest. - Exo 34:1
The Lord Jesus Christ, who created all things in 6 days about 6000 years ago, was there, did it and knows when it happened. The following 4 passages shows that Jesus Christ believed in 6-day recent creation. Many times throughout the Bible, creation, the fall, Cain and Abel, and the flood are spoken as real events.
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? - Matt 19:4-5
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. - Mark 10:6-9
As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: - Luke 1:70
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. - Luke11:50-51
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Rom 1:20
A man names Henry Morris, a creation scientist, said that if you deny 6-day recent creation, you will also have to deny the worldwide flood in Noah’s day. The Atheistic Origin “Scientists” with there no God assumption will just not allow God, period. See the topic “Don’t be conned with the no God Assumption of Atheistic Origin Science”.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
being a young earth Creationis is calling God a liar .. God did not say nor imply the Universe was only 6000 years old ... and claiming or inferring that God would say such a thing is blasphemous nonsensical falsehood .. accusing God of falsehood .. .. and of being either dense, stupid.. or a massive trickster God .. something along the lines of Loki.
God gave human's a brain for a reason - that reason not being to leave reason at the door .. and forget one has been given such by our creator.
Why would God .. after creation of the Earth -- go around putting all kinds of evidence in place "Proving" that the earth is much older than 6000 years ... in order to fool all of us "Science Types" and those with logic and rational thought expertice ... because that is what you are claiming happened ..
As told you previously -- the Ice Cores don't lie .... "Hundreds of thousands of Years" .. nor does Geology .. nor astronomy...
but the Bible does ... Not the whole book - but there be some tampering happened with the Holy Scripture over the years .. and with some of the less than holy parts..
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
So I tried to find out where this came from, and it was hard to find, but this is what I was able to find
Is Carbon Dating Reliable?
Question : What about radiocarbon dating? Is it accurate? Various numbered answers from several people who know about this field.
carm.org
"Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I won’t go into here. We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation. So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old. If something carbon dates at 7,000 years we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood)."
So those numbers are just fudged? Seems like assumptions to me
Holy mind bending irrational confusion.
"God witnessed it" ? Thats not what is being talked about when talking "Eye-wittness" .. we are not talking "everything in the Bible being God Breathed" ..which also false nonsense which makes God a Liar but -- this is not what is being discussed.
The person that wrote down the story .. was not an eye-witness -- and for many parts of the Bible we know the person writing the story was not an eye-witness ... there is no eye-witness accounts of Jesus for example .. The folks writing the story were not disciples. For example - the earliest story of Jesus we have is from the Gospel of Mark - While we don't know exactly who wrote this gospel or what source material he used .. Tradition holds that he was an student of Peter -- which is not an eyewitness account .. but it is as close as we get in the NT to an eye-witness account of Jesus.
The next Gospel "Matt" .. this author "obviously not an eye-witness" uses near all of Mark as a source document .. leaving out only a few passages .. which happen to be derogatory to Jesus and/or the disciples .. .. a small "Pious Fraud" .. but never the less .. "Not an eye-witness account"
Now perhaps the author of Matt had some source documents other than Mark that were composed by an eye-witness .. and that would be nice .. the author himself however was not an eye- witness .. and the fact that God may have witnessed it has absolutely no bearing on the issue.
Did you not know the Bible contains lies friend ? how could you not know this .. and at the same time claim to be a student of the Bible ?