V[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:201, topic:36748”]
The Dorchester vase f
[/quote]
This is one I had not heard of, so looked it up. To bad the artifact in question is not to be found, and the picture associated with it is of a hookah or candleholder contemporary with it’s discovery. If indeed it is not a complete fabrication, the only question is that of who left it sitting in the hill before the explosion.
The other things mentioned are well known and well explained, with much of the hype around them being misrepresentations. We do well to look at all the evidence before reaching a conclusion. So much is not well documented, and when claims are made that are doubtful or obviously false, it brings disdain and disrepute.
i don’t expect you to change your mind, but do read and think about the difference between scientific research and such things.
I will have to look into it more, but the place where I saw it had testimony from the people there for the iron pot and the bell being embedded in the coal. Do you believe the people were lying? I agree the Dorchester pot looks like the one from India so they may have been mistaken about how it got where it was found in the rubble. More research needed and as you say, there may be little more evidence to be found. As far as ‘the difference between scientific research and such things’, if there is reliable testimony for one of these, it is a big problem for evolution.
You are avoiding the point. The point is that despite what the Bible very “clearly” says, very “obviously” says, the “plain literal meaning” of the Bible, you choose to believe something else, because of the scientific evidence (not because of what the Bible says). You ignore what the Bible literally says, and you believe something else, because of science. So you don’t actually pay attention to the “plain literal meaning” of the Bible.
Since the people who say this are the same kind of people who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and vote for Trump, this doesn’t concern me. This simply reveals more of your lack of Bible literacy.
Yes I do, evidence such as the teleological argument (including the anthropic principle), and Bible prophecy.
That is interesting. I know I am off topic, but do you mind saying what Bible prophecies are evidence for you? I am not trying to trap you. I am just curious.
You have been “just curious” about anything other than answering my questions, and you’ve repeatedly accused me of not being a Christian. In fact you’ve claimed my view of the Bible is indistinguishable from that of a non-believer, despite my belief that the Bible is inspired by God. All you’ve done in this exchange is provide a clear demonstration of the lack of Bible literacy to which I referred earlier. And you seriously expect me to keep answering questions for your personal amusement?
I am asking about physical, scientific evidence. What scientific evidence, if found, would be inconsistent with a young Earth, a recent global flood, or separately created species?[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:199, topic:36748”]
In addition, the old earth arguments have holes all through them in my opinion and many of the young earth evidences sound reasonable.
[/quote]
That would be an opinion. I am more interested in facts.
Could you please cite a scientific paper where these objects are given these ages?[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:201, topic:36748”]
ICR recently had a lab date grand canyon rocks and they had the date of the top rocks older than the bottom rocks.
[/quote]
The ICR misusing dating techniques does not make the dating techniques faulty.
Purposefully misapplying dating techniques in order to get the wrong answer is not a very honest move on their part.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:201, topic:36748”]
They date volcanic rock in Hawaii that is something like a hundred years old and the dating methods give 100s of millions or billions of years old(I don’t remember which).
[/quote]
You are probably talking about these:
"The 1801 flow is unusual because it carries very abundant inclusions of rocks foreign to the lava. These inclusions, called xenoliths (meaning foreign rocks), consist primarily of olivine, a pale-green iron-magnesium silicate mineral. They come from deep within the mantle and were carried upward to the surface by the lava. In the field, they look like large raisins in a pudding and even occur in beds piled one on top of the other, glued together by the lava. The study by Funkhouser and Naughton (51) was on the xenoliths, not on the lava. "
Again, creationist organizations are not known for their honesty. I think you may want to take St. Augustine’s advice on this one.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:201, topic:36748”]
The flood left vast fossil graveyards covering large portions of states with fish obviously buried before they could be eaten or rot.
[/quote]
Fish don’t rot and aren’t eaten in the anoxic bottom of many bodies of water.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:201, topic:36748”]
They find carbon 14 on dinosaur fosssils that they can only try to explain away as contamination.
[/quote]
Why wouldn’t there be contaminating 14C?[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:201, topic:36748”]
It is utter nonsense to believe that things just put themselves together. If you drop a bunch of pickup sticks they do not form a log cabin on their own.
[/quote]
Have you not heard of biological reproduction? I didn’t form by things just putting themselves together, and I also wasn’t created supernaturally. My parents made me through very natural processes, at least the way they tell it.
As I have stated above, the evidence for the Bible being true,(ie. Jesus’ resurrection and certification of the scriptures) is so strong, that it trumps any theory of man about the history of the earth. The scientific evidence has to match the Bible because the Bible is true. If you think it doesn’t, then you have done your science experiment wrong. There are lots of evidences left of the creation and flood and you can look them up on aig’s and icr’s websites if you are interested in them. I mentioned a few quickly in an earlier post. The fossils, problems with the dating methods, and rock layers are some of them.
One note, species are not mentioned in the Bible, just kinds.
They didn’t misuse any dating techniiques. They took samples to a well respected lab and let the lab do their work and give them the answers. The lab wasn’t told where the samples were from. The lab gave the old date to the rocks on top and the young date to the rocks on the bottom.
Although Christians, or anyone for that matter, can get overzealous and make claims they cannot back up to prove their point, I generally find that the people who believe that God said, “thou shall not lie”, are more honest than those who do not believe that. I also do not think that getting a PhD. generally increases someone’s honesty, especially when answering questions the wrong way will affect their research grants and other means of livelihood.
Biological production is just one function the ‘complex machine’ performs after it has already been built. The dna is already assembled in the cells and God has designed such a marvelous machine that it can reproduce itself. So you weren’t randomly assembled. Everything was already assembled with the capability to reproduce.
I checked the icr website and some recent issues and cannot find it. I am pretty sure it was in icr’s magazine. I will get back to you if I find it. I am sure I read it in the last month sometime but cannot find it right now.
You can’t use any old sample to date a volcanic eruption. If the rock contains unmelted crust materials, called xenoliths, then that sample can not be used for dating the volcanic eruption. It doesn’t matter how well respected the lab is, if you take them a bad sample you will get bad results.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:221, topic:36748”]
Although Christians, or anyone for that matter, can get overzealous and make claims they cannot back up to prove their point, I generally find that the people who believe that God said, “thou shall not lie”, are more honest than those who do not believe that.
[/quote]
If you start digging into creationist arguments you will find just the opposite. Using improper samples for radiometric dating is just one example.[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:221, topic:36748”]
Biological production is just one function the ‘complex machine’ performs after it has already been built. The dna is already assembled in the cells and God has designed such a marvelous machine that it can reproduce itself. So you weren’t randomly assembled. Everything was already assembled with the capability to reproduce.
[/quote]
You misunderstand the point that was being made. You said that you being born was evidence of something putting itself together. That is incorrect. The reason you were able to be born is that your parents were given the ability to form a cell with your dna and that is how you grew. You did not evolve from a hydrogen molecule. The dna, cell structure, and your mother’s womb were already put together to form you. You did not come into being by having molecules randomly assembling themselves. That is not how we ever see complex things form, just like my example with pickup sticks. If you drop them they do not form a log cabin. We have no example of complex things putting themselves together. All of our observations of complex things that WE KNOW HOW THEY CAME TOGETHER have a designer. That is science. Assuming things came together by themselves(evolution) is not science. It is nonsense. (Yes, theistic evolution says God did it and that is possible because then you have the designer you need, but he has told us plainly that is not how he did it and the evidence in the world shows it did not happen that way.)
I have volunteered to keep count of the number of YEC’s that have come onto these pages and contradicted all the dictionaries and encyclopedias regarding the definition of Science and/or the definition of Evolution.
You will be proud to know that you are the 1,740th such YEC… since 3 weeks ago.