There is irrefutable evidence from Polonium halos that the rock layers of the Grand Canyon where all formed in a short time, the worldwide flood.

[gnostic]

It is a manuscript that has existed for about 4000 years.

The kings were to read the law and that was when Saul and David were kings which would have been circa 1000 BC

No biblical books existed for 4000 years.

The oldest extant sources to the Book of Job, only exist in the 2nd century BCE Koine Greek Septuagint. The oldest Hebrew extant come from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and of these only 10 incomplete chapters of Job survived.

The date of original composition to Job, would put it somewhere between the 6th & 4th centuries BCE, so less 2700 years, not 4000 years as you have claimed.

So like the majority of the Book of Job would either be composed by Jews living in Babylon during the 6th century BCE, or after their return from the Babylonian Exile, late 6th century BCE.

The problem is that you don’t understand the Bible that Christians called the Old Testament, aren’t really as old as you believe them to be. No biblical books exist prior to the 6th century BCE.

There is physical evidence that passage from Numbers 6 (eg the Priestly Blessing verses, 6:23-27) existed prior to Jerusalem fall in 587/586 BCE, but they do not demonstrated the book of Numbers. It is a couple of artefacts, found in the cave tomb at Ketef Hinnom, made of silver sheets, that have some inscriptions (hence they were dubbed as the “Silver Scrolls”), which a portion of Blessing survived 6:24-26.

The cave have only been in use in the late 7th century BCE, eg about 630 BCE at the earliest, to very early 6th century BCE, or just before 590 BCE. So that’s how old the scrolls are.

The Silver Scrolls only demonstrated that the existence of the Priestly Blessing, not that the Book of Numbers.

No biblical books whatsoever exist c 1000 BCE, so neither Saul, nor David, could have read something (eg laws, which btw, Job is part of the laws, hence it is part of the Torah) that don’t exist. Even Saul and David are not real people. Like Genesis & Exodus, 1 & 2 Samuel were written during the Babylonian Exile. The books of Samuel don’t exist at all in the 10th century BCE.

A large part of so-called Old Testament only “invented history”, created by priesthood and scribes from 6th century BCE and later. The only real historicity in the Old Testament around only in few handful portions of 1 Kings & 2 Kings, where the names of kings from Judah and from Israel, can be verified by Neo-Assyrian sources.

All you are doing, is using circular reasoning about Saul & David. You have independent evidence that either David or Saul existed and ruling about 11th or 10th century BCE. And you have no evidence that any portion of the laws (Torah) existing at that time. It is circular reasoning and confirmation bias.

The rest of the Old Testament are questionable, unreliable and unverifiable, filled with myths and legends. And that because the Old Testament isn’t a history book. What you’re doing is treating myths as if they history…you don’t know how distinguish facts from fiction…and judging by the numbers of threads you’ve started, using questionable sources, including this thread, you like to use pseudoscience BS propaganda than science sources with data…which only demonstrates you are not a reliable person when it come to distinguishing science from the fairytale that you believe in

 

[Agent Smith]

Newsflash: Among the many uses of Polonium ...

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No biblical books existed for 4000 years.

The oldest extant sources to the Book of Job, only exist in the 2nd century BCE Koine Greek Septuagint. The oldest Hebrew extant come from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and of these only 10 incomplete chapters of Job survived.

The date of original composition to Job, would put it somewhere between the 6th & 4th centuries BCE, so less 2700 years, not 4000 years as you have claimed.

So like the majority of the Book of Job would either be composed by Jews living in Babylon during the 6th century BCE, or after their return from the Babylonian Exile, late 6th century BCE.

The problem is that you don’t understand the Bible that Christians called the Old Testament, aren’t really as old as you believe them to be. No biblical books exist prior to the 6th century BCE.

There is physical evidence that passage from Numbers 6 (eg the Priestly Blessing verses, 6:23-27) existed prior to Jerusalem fall in 587/586 BCE, but they do not demonstrated the book of Numbers. It is a couple of artefacts, found in the cave tomb at Ketef Hinnom, made of silver sheets, that have some inscriptions (hence they were dubbed as the “Silver Scrolls”), which a portion of Blessing survived 6:24-26.

The cave have only been in use in the late 7th century BCE, eg about 630 BCE at the earliest, to very early 6th century BCE, or just before 590 BCE. So that’s how old the scrolls are.

The Silver Scrolls only demonstrated that the existence of the Priestly Blessing, not that the Book of Numbers.

No biblical books whatsoever exist c 1000 BCE, so neither Saul, nor David, could have read something (eg laws, which btw, Job is part of the laws, hence it is part of the Torah) that don’t exist. Even Saul and David are not real people. Like Genesis & Exodus, 1 & 2 Samuel were written during the Babylonian Exile. The books of Samuel don’t exist at all in the 10th century BCE.

A large part of so-called Old Testament only “invented history”, created by priesthood and scribes from 6th century BCE and later. The only real historicity in the Old Testament around only in few handful portions of 1 Kings & 2 Kings, where the names of kings from Judah and from Israel, can be verified by Neo-Assyrian sources.

All you are doing, is using circular reasoning about Saul & David. You have independent evidence that either David or Saul existed and ruling about 11th or 10th century BCE. And you have no evidence that any portion of the laws (Torah) existing at that time. It is circular reasoning and confirmation bias.

The rest of the Old Testament are questionable, unreliable and unverifiable, filled with myths and legends. And that because the Old Testament isn’t a history book. What you’re doing is treating myths as if they history…you don’t know how distinguish facts from fiction…and judging by the numbers of threads you’ve started, using questionable sources, including this thread, you like to use pseudoscience BS propaganda than science sources with data…which only demonstrates you are not a reliable person when it come to distinguishing science from the fairytale that you believe in

Job lived about 4000 BC.

 

[gnostic]

Job lived about 4000 BC.

do you realize just how ridiculous and how ridiculously dishonest you are being?

if what you’re saying is true, and based on your claim that the earth is 6000 years old, then Job would be contemporary to when Adam was created.

your claim is just a sham, as every other claims you have made since you have joined RF.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Truth, in my view, is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality. By that standard, the world can be shown to be some 4.5 billion years old.

How do you define truth? Grateful if you don't omit to answer that. since we're comparing world views.

And the justification for science is not that it's perfect, or infalllible, or capable of absolute statements, but that it's always a work in progress driven by the desire to be able to make accurate statements about reality, and employing empiricism and induction in reaching and expressing its conclusions. AND that by so doing, it works ─ puts rovers on Mars, makes Covid vaccines and vaccinates billions of people in under two years, makes our conversation possible, electric vehicles possible, on and on.

Article XI of the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” (1978) reads,

WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.
Is that your view? It has a great many problems. One is that the bible nowhere makes any claim of that kind, so it's an assertion externally imposed by particular humans. Another is that the bible has many manifest errors, of cosmology, physics, maths, history, and so on ─ what's the point of having to defend absurd propositions such as that Mt Everest was 20 feet under water in the last five thousand years? And that the earth is flat and the sky is a hard dome you can walk on, to which the stars are attached such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth? Why not simplify life by accepting that the cosmology, physics, historiography of the bible are exactly what we'd expect, reflecting the understandings of the writers' times and places?

And if the science &c of the bible is taken to be correct, why is it correct in 2024 but false in the year 1200, and in 1900? It seems certain that the cosmology of 2050 will be different to the cosmology of 2024, so if the bible is correct by the standards of today, it was and will be wrong by the standards of any other era, no?

ok so im sorry i missed this.

Its a long post, which i like, however is it ok if i just start out responding to the truth claim and biblical inerrancy?

You wrote...

Truth, in my view, is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality.​

Firstly, my world view is what drives my search for observational truth. I am first and foremost a bible believing Christian. Everything i observe is from that perspective.

You claim that observational science concludes that truth is only found in the naturalistic conclusions. I do not agree. If you were to go back to the very foundations of naturalism, you will note that almost all of it centres around theories and none of those theories are directly proven. Then what we have is another theory based on the first one, and another and another...supposed naturalistic truth is actually an entire world view founded on theories that support theories. Generally speaking, any evidence which dissagrees with already agreed theories is discounted and disguarded.

So, given the above, how are naturalistic conclusions any different from Christans who choose only to focus on that research which supports their own world view? (and it is false to claim the Christian science is wrong)...if you want to study this more, i strongly suggest that one spends some time listening to the apologetics of Oxford Mathematician, Emeritus Professor John Lennox).

The presupposition that Mount Everest (@28,000 feet high) was always at such a height. We know clearly that it originally was actually no where near that altitude prior to plate techtonic uplift. Im sorry but that argument is a dead horse...its absolutely irrelevant given both world views agree that Everest was once flat (or nearly flat) so it did not need 29,000 feet of flood water to cover it!

​

You wrote...

WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.​

Is that your view? It has a great many problems. One is that the bible nowhere makes any claim of that kind,​

Ah the argument against 2 Timothy 3:16

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.​

​

and Hebrews 4

12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it pierces even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight; everything is uncovered and exposed before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.​

​

In answer to your claim that the Bible doesnt claim scripture is infallible or inerrant...​

​

The entire problem with your claim is "GOD"!!!​

​

Read Isaiah 9:"6​

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders.​

And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.​

​

It is impossible for a Christian to accept the theology that an allpowerful, allknowing, creator is incapable of ensuring that His Revelation (the Bible) has no errors.

If the bible has errors, than clearly it is not the true revelation of an all-powerful and all-knowing creator!

Actually, seeing as you demand that the bible tell us it is inerrant...do you believe the doctrine of the trinity? If so, show me where that word is used in the bible please?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Firstly, my world view is what drives my search for observational truth. I am first and foremost a bible believing Christian. Everything i observe is from that perspective.

Here is the problem . You do not get to assume that the Bible is true when you are "seeking the truth". You must first demonstrate that it is reliable, extremely reliable, before you do that and no one has ever done so.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Here is the problem . You do not get to assume that the Bible is true when you are "seeking the truth". You must first demonstrate that it is reliable, extremely reliable, before you do that and no one has ever done so.

So your alternative is to claim that your world view is founded on proven truth?

Consider the following reference...

From a practical perspective it is useful to operate within theoretical frameworks that we treat as facts. We need to make assumptions in order to reach substantial conclusions. So we often act as if something like Big Bang theory is a fact, but we cannot know it to be so.​

​

Essentially in any natural science we cannot prove anything to be true. Why is the Big Bang Theory considered a "theory" and not a fact? | Socratic.​

​

The difference here i think is that unlike naturalism, the bible also has historical and archeological evidence in support of its narrative. These are physical objects and ancient writings from external sources that confirm what the bible says on many things. Given you as a naturalist love to extrapolate from basic theories that the entire belief system you follow is fact, how is it that you condemn Christians for doing to same thing given they also use history and archeology to support biblical writings and naturalism has almost zero historical support for its billion year old claims other than theories?​

​

The point is, the bible narrative stays true with the evidence of written history...it does not go back beyond the autographs of men who wrote it. (and before you bark up a tree on this, even you must agree that written history of mankind dates back about 5000-10,000 years)​

 

[Subduction Zone]

So your alternative is to claim that your world view is founded on proven truth?

Consider the following reference...

From a practical perspective it is useful to operate within theoretical frameworks that we treat as facts. We need to make assumptions in order to reach substantial conclusions. So we often act as if something like Big Bang theory is a fact, but we cannot know it to be so.​

​

Essentially in any natural science we cannot prove anything to be true. Why is the Big Bang Theory considered a "theory" and not a fact? | Socratic.​

​

The difference here i think is that unlike naturalism, the bible also has historical and archeological evidence in support of its narrative. These are physical objects and ancient writings from external sources that confirm what the bible says on many things. Given you as a naturalist love to extrapolate from basic theories that the entire belief system you follow is fact, how is it that you condemn Christians for doing to same thing given they also use history and archeology to support biblical writings and naturalism has almost zero historical support for its billion year old claims other than theories?​

​

The point is, the bible narrative stays true with the evidence of written history...it does not go back beyond the autographs of men who wrote it. (and before you bark up a tree on this, even you must agree that written history of mankind dates back about 5000-10,000 years)​

No, you have a rather severe misunderstanding. Using models it is not possible to prove in a mathematical sense that anything is true. As a result all science is viewed as being provisionally true. Even if a model was 100% correct we would not know so for sure. On the other hand science can show certain ideas to be wrong. And the creation myth is wrong, unless you want to claim that your God is a liar. The only way that the myths of Genesis can be true is if God lied in various different ways. If God cannot lie then we know that Genesis is false.

By the way, for some silly reason creationists seem to think that if they show that evolution is wrong that they will have proved that the Bible is right. That is not the case at all. The Bible would still be wrong even if evolution was wrong.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

for some silly reason creationists seem to think that if they show that evolution is wrong that they will have proved that the Bible is right.

I will only address the above...everything before it is unreferenced timewasting.

You are claiming false Dichotomy and the legal case McLean v. Arkansas (1982)

I know about this case and it was devastating for ID of that there is no doubt. However, it is not a win for Evolution...and yet, the very reason why the ID case was rejected (on the grounds of false Dichotomy) is the exact reason you are using to claim ID must therefore be false!

yours is a circular argument i feel.

Are you complaining about Behe's research or his conclusions?

It seems to me that you subscribe to the defense of Richard Dawkins. Dawkins cries foul claiming:

Behe had failed to connect with the scientific research on his topic, that Behe's work would not pass the peer-review of a scientific journal and that Behe bypassed the peer-review process by publishing a popular book solely for a public, rather than scientific, audience The Edge of Evolution - Wikipedia.

oh boohoo...come here little Richie Dawkins...its all right daddy and momy and will give you a cuddle. that bad man didnt get an adult to first look at his book before he went public with it...oh poor baby...here, have some ice cream. Isnt that the very same defense you use when ID complain that peer reviews wont publish their work for peer reveiw...and the the example cited quickly removed it before it could even be revewed by peers? Isnt the entire idea of peer review to actually allow review? How can that objectively be done if its removed before hand?

Subduction this isnt a particularly intelligent line of enquiry...its dog barking and im not particularly interested in that kind of crap to be honest!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will only address the above...everything before it is unreferenced timewasting.

You are claiming false Dichotomy and the legal case McLean v. Arkansas (1982)

I know about this case and it was devastating for ID of that there is no doubt. However, it is not a win for Evolution...and yet, the very reason why the ID case was rejected (on the grounds of false Dichotomy) is the exact reason you are using to claim ID must therefore be false!

yours is a circular argument i feel.

Are you complaining about Behe's research or his conclusions?

It seems to me that you subscribe to the defense of Richard Dawkins. Dawkins cries foul claiming:

Behe had failed to connect with the scientific research on his topic, that Behe's work would not pass the peer-review of a scientific journal and that Behe bypassed the peer-review process by publishing a popular book solely for a public, rather than scientific, audience The Edge of Evolution - Wikipedia.

oh boohoo...come here little Richie Dawkins...its all right daddy and momy and will give you a cuddle. that bad man didnt get an adult to first look at his book before he went public with it...oh poor baby...here, have some ice cream. Isnt that the very same defense you use when ID complain that peer reviews wont publish their work for peer reveiw...and the the example cited quickly removed it before it could even be revewed by peers? Isnt the entire idea of peer review to actually allow review? How can that objectively be done if its removed before hand?

Subduction this isnt a particularly intelligent line of enquiry...its dog barking and im not particularly interested in that kind of crap to be honest!

Sorry, no. There are things that do not need referencing. Or at least should not. I made a reasonable offer. I assumed that you were not totally scientifically illiterate so I offered to supply references for any claims that you desired. My post stands. And I actually did use references. You provided the reference when it came to proving that ID is not a science.

Now as to your post what "false dichotomy"? And your timing is way off. There was no ID at the time of McLean v. Arkansas. That was the bogus "creation science" which was also shown not be scientific at all. The case where ID was shown not to be science was the Dover Trial:

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And please, stop with the false personal attacks. When I state that you are scientifically illiterate that is a claim that I can justify. But you are just irate because it is soooo easy to show that you have to be wrong that you openly break the Ninth Commandment when you debate against someone else.

And as always, if I say something that needs substantiation, just ask. You did not even come close to making such an offer.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

There was no ID at the time of McLean v. Arkansas

If you take a look at historicity of the cases, you will note that the case which started the ID debate began where i said it did. You are simply focusing on one aspect of the Creation Evolution debate...its obvious to me that we have miscomunicated.

I tend to look at the historical aspect of these things...so whilst you may start later...i go back earlier.

ID is the contemporary version of an argument that has a long history. It was given a succinct formulation by William Paley in the early 19th century. Modern defenders of the design argument contend that living things are too complex to have evolved by the process of natural selection; rather, their “irreducible complexity” is convincing evidence of the hand of an intelligent designer. Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action​

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you take a look at historicity of the cases, you will note that the case which started the ID debate began where i said it did. You are simply focusing on one aspect of the Creation Evolution debate...its obvious to me that we have miscomunicated.

I tend to look at the historical aspect of these things...so whilst you may start later...i go back earlier.

ID is the contemporary version of an argument that has a long history. It was given a succinct formulation by William Paley in the early 19th century. Modern defenders of the design argument contend that living things are too complex to have evolved by the process of natural selection; rather, their “irreducible complexity” is convincing evidence of the hand of an intelligent designer. Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action​

I agree with you on that. But the title itself is new. The idea is a bit old. In fact that was why the creationists lost the Dover Trial Text books do not get written in a year. It usually takes a few years and few rewrites to get the message across that one wanted to. One of the big reasons that the creationists lost is because part of a court case is "discovery" when one has to hand over all relevant documents that are asked for by the other side. Part of what the science side demanded were all of the documents they had on writing of Pandas and Peoples, that was the title of the ID book. The creationists had started writing Of Pandas and Peoples before the McClean v Arkansas case. And it was shown that the book was just another illegal book on creationism because a glitch in the world processor that they used did not properly change a term. They used to openly say "creationists" in that book and it was changed to "design proponents". But we know that they made this switch because as I said, the computer screwed up once when it printed "cdesign proponentsists" Wherever the word "creationists" appeared it was replaced with "cdesign proponentsists" - that's merely creationists without the "reation" and with "design" and "proponents" replaced in. Oops.

ID is just a creationism in a fake lab coat. Neither of them are scientific. And to understand that you need to learn what the scientific method is.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I agree with you on that. But the title itself is new. The idea is a bit old. In fact that was why the creationists lost the Dover Trial Text books do not get written in a year. It usually takes a few years and few rewrites to get the message across that one wanted to. One of the big reasons that the creationists lost is because part of a court case is "discovery" when one has to hand over all relevant documents that are asked for by the other side. Part of what the science side demanded were all of the documents they had on writing of Pandas and Peoples, that was the title of the ID book. The creationists had started writing Of Pandas and Peoples before the McClean v Arkansas case. And it was shown that the book was just another illegal book on creationism because a glitch in the world processor that they used did not properly change a term. They used to openly say "creationists" in that book and it was changed to "design proponents". But we know that they made this switch because as I said, the computer screwed up once when it printed "cdesign proponentsists" Wherever the word "creationists" appeared it was replaced with "cdesign proponentsists" - that's merely creationists without the "reation" and with "design" and "proponents" replaced in. Oops.

ID is just a creationism in a fake lab coat. Neither of them are scientific. And to understand that you need to learn what the scientific method is.

Can we answer this now entirely from the other thread? I think its now heading into an area where my response on the other thread also covers my next response here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can we answer this now entirely from the other thread? I think its now heading into an area where my response on the other thread also covers my next response here.

You can pick the thread of your choice.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

You can pick the thread of your choice.

lets move to the other one...this discussion is now way off topic so theres no need to ruin both threads with offtopic chatter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lets move to the other one...this discussion is now way off topic so theres no need to ruin both threads with offtopic chatter.

Okay, try to ask me a reasonable question there and I will try to answer.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Okay, try to ask me a reasonable question there and I will try to answer.

The fossil graveyards refute evolution and billions of years.
here is a good site.

Fossil Graveyards | Genesis Park

www.genesispark.com

 

[Esteban X]

The fossil graveyards refute evolution and billions of years.

Wrong again

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fossil graveyards refute evolution and billions of years.
here is a good site.

Fossil Graveyards | Genesis Park

www.genesispark.com

Nope. Scientists understand how they were formed. Just because you are totally ignorant of all of the sciences does not mean that others have that problem.

By the way, why are you linking to a lying pseudoscience site? You are just admitting that you lost when you do so.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope. Scientists understand how they were formed. Just because you are totally ignorant of all of the sciences does not mean that others have that problem.

By the way, why are you linking to a lying pseudoscience site? You are just admitting that you lost when you do so.

Then if that is the case what is the evolutionists' explanation of these from the Handy Dandy Evolution Official Answer Book?