- The only serious blind spot is yours, otherwise you would have seen the one that Jerry R. Bergman and Young Earth Creationists who reject the Flat Earth Myth have missed.
3 Likes
No, Jon. These things are not âignored or flat out denied.â They are carefully researched, quantified, tested, accounted for, and where possible eliminated from the equations altogether. The two are completely different.
This has been explained carefully to you multiple times, Jon. Radiometric dating experts are fully aware of the need to account for contamination, leakage, uncertainties about initial conditions, anomalous results, and a whole lot more. They are fully aware of the possibility that presuppositions, worldviews, biases or philosophy could skew the results. They can and do take these things into account. As I said, there have been decades of research into these factors, some of which predate modern young earthism itself. The fact is that even after these things have all been taken into account, the results still rule out a young Earth by several orders of magnitude.
If you donât get this, then the only one ignoring and flat out denying things is you.
5 Likes
Dear Ethan,
ALL OF CREATION suffers under the curse that God put on the creation when Adam disobeyed Godâs explicit command and sinned.
Not only did Death for mankind enter the creation for the very first time, but Death entered the creation for the very first time for all the animals also.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. {theâŠ: or, every creature} . . . Romans 8:20-22
What you are saying here makes no sense to me whatsoever, it seems to be a mixture of science fiction compromising with anti God, atheist beliefs of âdeep timeâ and false philosophy.
Actually God DID say that the Creation happened with NO DELAY.
He spoke the command âand it was soâ, not a million years later or any other such mythology as that, the Holy Bible is extremely clear:
Command: âAnd God said, let there be âŠâ
Fulfillment: âAnd it was so.â
Assessment: âGod said it was good.â
Closure of the day: âThere was evening, there was morning, Day n.â
That is: Godâs commands were fulfilled and even assessed within each 24-hour day.
Important to Note:
When the Creator, Who is Jesus Himself created âex nihiloâ He used the same method of Command and immediate Fulfillment, no millions of years for the loaves and the fishes to evolve, Jesus created the bread and fishes out of nothing INSTANTLY as He broke the bread and the fish.
The Holy Bible can be trusted to mean precisely what it so clearly says.
With regard to the real history we are faithfully told about of the Creation Week and Global Flood, thereâs no need to go down the many weird rabbit holes perpetuated on this website, when all you have to do is read the Holy Bible and trust in God.
Ethan you may not be aware that the Holy Bible can be absolutely trusted to mean precisely what it states. God made Eve from One of Adamâs Ribs, just as the Holy Bible ever so clearly tells us. Thereâs no need to complicate this profound Truth with a false mythology designed to prop up the myths of deep time and evolution.
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. {made: Heb. builded} 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. {Woman: Heb. Isha} {Man: Heb. Ish} Genesis 2: 21-23
Ethan you also may not be aware that the periosteum (the literal meaning of this word is âaround the boneâ) is a thin membrane that covers every bone.
The periosteum contains cells that can manufacture new bone. Particularly in young people. Of relevance to the profound Truth revealed to us by God about how He made Eve, the ârib periosteumâ has a remarkable ability to regenerate bone, perhaps more so than any other bone.
This accurate medical science fact and the plain Words of the Holy Bible are completely consistent with one another.
Please accept my apologies but NO, the Holy Bible Truthfully informs us that Adam was created on Day 6 of Creation Week. Not on Day 1, that I presume is yet more of the Theistic evolution beliefs that compromise the uncomplicated Truth of the Holy Bible with convoluted and complicated mythology, once again to accommodate, âdeep timeâ and âevolutionâ, both of which are in reality merely figments of human imagination that unfortunately now infects vast numbers of people throughout the world who incorrectly believe that real science supports such nonsense. I sincerely pray that the Truth is revealed to all who are under the spell of this mythology.
God Bless,
jon
Dear James,
your use of the words where possible, expose the reality here.
The simple reality of the matter is that no matter how much research, quantification and testing or whatever is performed, the REALITY is that events that clearly occurred inn the very distant past, by the false âdeep timeâ reckoning in terms of millions and even billions of years are NOT POSSIBLE to be quantified with any degree of certainty, (even though those periods are ridiculously excessive, even four to six thousand years is a massively long period, though I expect to those here steeped in the hundreds of millions of years, 6,000 years will seem as nothing.)
Iâm sure that within the âdeep timeâ, and âevolutionâ paradigm you believe is real, you truly believe what you are saying, but please recognise that such beliefs are Not operational science, they are a religiously held philosophy, that is supported by tests that have been conceived within that same paradigm, itâs a version of circular reasoning, though I am absolutely certain you will tell me itâs mathematics and objective empirical science, with no worldview or assumptions anywhere.
God Bless,
jon
G.B. Jonâwhen every piece of evidence is redefined as âreligious philosophyâ unless it supports YEC, that looks less like faith and more like a creed of denial. Redefining all of science as âreligious philosophyâ just to preserve YEC isnât discernmentâitâs pathological commitment.
3 Likes
First, thatâs exactly what you do when you say that a certain feature in a geologic formation is consistent with a flood. You use observations of how geology works in the present and then project that into the past. For example, you assume particles in water will precipitate out and form sediments because they do so now.
Second, we can directly observe decay rates in the past through observations in astronomy.
Third, you would have the drastically change the most fundamental laws in physics in order for decay rates to change.
Thatâs not an assumption. That is detectable in certain methods, such as U/Pb concordia/discordia dating where two isotope pairs are used for dating. Any leaching or addition of U or Pb would do so in the same ratios present in nature, and this would cause discordant dates when calculating age with the two different isotope pairs due to their different decay rates.
Also, completely independent methods using different isotopes give the same date.
These arenât assumptions. These are measurements that can detect all of the problems you claim could exist.
On top of that, you still canât explain the data. The Kilauea volcano on the island of Hawaii is the product of a mantle plume that has pushed itself through the tectonic plate above it. As the tectonic plate moves over the mantle plume it will leave a long string of islands, and after those islands subside, a long string of seamounts. Thatâs exactly what we see with the Hawaiian archipelago and the Emperor seamounts.
What happens when we date those islands and seamounts and compare that date to the distance to the current location of the hotspot?
The slope of that line is 8.6 cm/year. Thatâs consistent with the currently measured velocity of the Pacific plate.
How do you explain this data?
4 Likes
What if the âHoly Bible Believing Christianâ isnât honest? What are we to do then?
Last I checked, Moses is the traditional author of Genesis. He wasnât an eyewitness. You also assume that the Genesis account is even meant to be an eyewitness account.
Also, it is false to claim that we canât scientifically test hypotheses about what happened in the past. It is entirely scientific. It isnât pseudoscience, no matter how badly you want it to be. Science is hypothesis testing. We can form hypotheses of what we should and should not see if our hypotheses about the past are true, and we can scientfically test them. It is entirely science.
We donât believe you, and you are not the Bible.
4 Likes
You donât provide us with any reasoning other than âbecause I say soâ. You will need to bring more to the table than that.
Science isnât limited to operational science. You are either being dishonest, or are mistaken on the most fundamental aspects of how science is done. Take your pick.
There is no assumption when we measure the ratio of isotopes in rocks. If you measured those rocks you would get the same ratios. You would also observe the same decay rates. You would observe that zircons exclude Pb and include U when they form. You would observe that specific types of rocks have little to no Ar in them when they form. You would observe that dates derived from completely different isotope pairs give you the same date when using the observed decay rates.
If you want to convince us that these methods donât work, then you need to address these points, at a minimum:
- Why do completely independent radiometric methods give us the same dates (e.g. K/Ar, U/Pb. Rb/Sr)?
- Why do we see a correlation between the ratio of isotopes in the rocks above and below fossils species? For example, why do we never find human fossils in sediments that date to 500 million years old? Why are T. rex fossils never found in sediments that have ratios of isotopes consistent with 500 million years or 5 million years according to these methodologies? Why do we see this correlation?
- Why do we see a correlation between radiometric dates and observable geologic processes, like the movement of the Pacific plate over the Hawaiian hotspot?
You need to explain the data, not just ignore it and accuse everyone of believing a myth.
5 Likes
You missed the obvious third option, âYou believe Ken Ham to be telling the truth in all he says.â
1 Like
That would go in the mistaken bucket.
But that does get into potential problems with self described âBible Believing Christiansâ who are creationists. Nowhere in the Bible does it say only operational science is real science. It might be more accurate to describe creationists who make this argument as âKen Ham Believing Christiansâ. The same applies for nearly all of YEC, be it accelerated nuclear decay or catastrophic plate tectonics.
4 Likes
This does not become more true by repetition. Carbon dating is independently calibrated by tree rings, independently calibrated by varve counts, cross checked by other independent radiometric dating methods, and verified against other independent known dates. It is even cross checked by eye witness with the Biblical account of Hezekiahâs tunnel. As you have been repeatedly informed of this, you are knowingly bearing false witness when you claim it is based on circular reasoning.
4 Likes
So was the Big Bang theory.
Science can neither prove nor disprove Godâs existence, and it has even less to do with repentance or salvation.
YEC is a pox on the church.
3 Likes
For Christians that is the obvious starting point because God is faithful.
Thatâs not just twisting the text, itâs mangling it beyond recognition!
You invented that out of thin air â it cannot be supported from the text.
Metazoans are not nepesh! They arenât even included in any Hebrew term as they werenât part of the worldview.
That contradicts the text.
Youâre doing something quite common: you got a nifty idea, but instead of actually checking it against the text youâre pounding the text to fit your idea.
And just like YECists, youâre refusing to let this ancient literature be what it is.
Thatâs what really bothered me about the post though I didnât pin it down â the whole thing is dishonest.
More science fiction. It says He made a man, which you are saying is incorrect. Youâre dragging in alien ideas that donât fit at all, demanding that the Holy Spirit must conform to your notions, I still call it idolatry.
2 Likes
Thank you! Hey, is that @SWilling ? I believe so!
Christian Medical & Dental AssociationsÂź (CMDA) â 15 Feb 24
Does Acceptance of âDeep Timeâ or Evolution Imperil Christian Belief?
Does acceptance of evolution or geological time imperil Christian belief? The eviden
1 Like
Congratulations, Jon. Youâve just quote mined me to my face. And twisted the words âwhere possibleâ to mean the exact opposite of what they actually say in the process while missing the point entirely.
The point is that there are situations where assumptions can be eliminated from the equations altogether. That is what isochron dating does for starters. Even when they canât be eliminated, they can still be taken into account, they can still be quantified, and they can still have limits set on how much they could be off by.
Do I need to remind you that quote mining is lying?
Complete and utter pifflebunk.
The age of the K/Pg boundary has been pinned down to 66,038,000±11,000 years. That is a certainty of just one part in six thousand. If that qualifies as âNOT POSSIBLE to be quantified with any degree of certainty,â then quite frankly I donât know what doesnât.
And once again, that is the figure that comes out after your much-hyped âassumptionsâ have been taken into account.
Jon, if you want to convince meâor anyone else for that matterâthat deep geological time is not operational science but religiously held philosophy, you need to do better than just state it and demand that we recognise it. You need to back it up with evidence and sound reasoning.
If you want to claim that there are assumptions involved, you MUST explain how those assumptions could have been violated on a young earth timescale in such a way as to produce the exact evidence that we see in reality, down to the same measurements and cross-checks. It is not sufficient just to cry âassumptionsâ as if assumptions were some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card. They arenât.
If you want to claim that it is religiously motivated, you need to explain how religious motivations could fit into the equation to skew the conclusions from thousands to millions and billions.
You need to explain how lead could get into zircon crystals in sufficient quantities to damage or destroy their crystal structure in only six thousand years. You need to explain how religious motivations could have caused people to overlook or ignore whatever explanation you are proposing. And you need to make sure that they really are overlooking it or ignoring it, and not accounting for it in ways that you yourself are overlooking.
You need to explain how radiometric measurements could have landed in the Hawaiian islands in a young earth timescale yet in a way that is consistent with 80 million years of continental drift at the same rate as that measured directly by GPS satellites today. You need to explain how religious motivations could have caused people to overlook whatever explanation you are proposing.
Itâs not that assumptions donât exist, Jon. Itâs that assumptions have rules.
7 Likes
You want dishonesty? You use it, and insult, and self-righteousness, with the term âhonest Holy Bible Believing Christiansâ! Youâre primarily taking to honest Holy Bible believing Christians, yet you have the arrogance to act as though only you and those who agree with you are.
But given the way that YEC mangles the text, throwing out the historical-grammatical method and replacing it by forcing Genesis to fit a MSWV and thus tossing the historical aspect in the trash, then ignoring the rules of grammar and the common use of language, I donât agree that any YEC qualifies as an âhonest Holy Bible Believing Christianâ â YEC subjects the Bible to predetermined beliefs without even bothering to ask if the Bible supports those beliefs.
Not by your definition! Theyincluded Deists, near-Deists, mere theists, and many who regarded Genesis as allegory all the way through.
Whatâs shameful is the arrogant self-righteousness behind your claim for yourself.
Yes â neither of which support YEC.
The YEC approach to scripture is similar to looking at a barn and seeing nothing but lumber, sheet metal, and screws â it treats components as the important aspect rather than seeing the whole.
Came from scripture long before anything resembling science happened along.
He clearly has never actually worked with any dating methods. He may as well claim that itâs impossible to know how old a tree is.
(emphasis mine)
The grammar does not support this claim. Itâs a possible claim, but unlikely even with the Septuagint text.
Other than the fact that youâre adding to the text, this is supportable.
Which is exactly what I do â I refuse to start with the YEC assumption that Genesis was written as something like a twentieth century news report because that would mean Iâm not starting with the Bible, Iâm starting with a (lazy) belief that a worldview with which Iâm comfortable is what the Holy Spirit must have used. To read the Bible as the Bible, you have to get your idea of what youâre reading from the Bible â and nothing in it supports the idea that anyone cared in the least about catering to modern scientific standards.
Actually it canât, which can be demonstrated from the text. Iâm on some meds right now that are futzing with detailed memory, kinda like being stoned except I can concentrate on things, so Iâm not going to try to remember at the moment. The traditional Christian belief is that the Bible can be absolutely trusted to mean what it teaches, which is a very different thing. And the modern notion that every detail has to be scientifically and/or historically accurate in order for the message to be true does not apply.
To those steeped in geological reality, 6k years is a flicker on the clock. Many volcanoes go long than that between eruptions, and depending on the type and nature a lava flow can take that long to cool!
False. Geology, done by Christians, showed that the Earth was very, very ancient well before Darwin came along. The only premise necessary is that God is faithful.
Again, this is why YEC drives people from the faith: itâs obvious to the clear-thinking that if YEC is true then God is a liar, and no one wants to hear about a deceptive God (well, except Muslims and the Norse and . . . quite a few religions, actually â but not Christianity.).
No, it isnât â it takes some deliberate ignorance to hold that idea.
The worldview is what we should expect given what the Bible tells us: we cannot detect or know God using our own efforts, which results in the situation where the only tools we have for understanding Creation are natural ones. Science excludes God not by choice but by necessity of our fallen state. And the assumption is also from the Bible: that God is faithful, i.e. He doesnât go around playing tricks by providing false evidence or changing the laws He runs the universe by.
Assessed from the perspective of scripture, YEC is unbiblical.
Especially so since holding YEC also requires tossing the historical-grammatical method in the trash, along with all the theology it reveals.
AN example: a wealthy architect bought an old Civil War era mansion and intended to restore it. He wanted to know where the bricks had come from so that if any needed replacing in the restoration work then he could get replacements from the same source. So he had chemical analysis done of a number of bricks, which led to the discovery that they came from two different brickyards! If there was a hypothesis, it was that the bricks had been locally sourced, but a portion were from farther away. This led to another hypothesis, that the local brickyard had lacked the capacity to make as many bricks as needed. There was no way to test this, but the conclusion about two different brickyards was confirmed by some research in old newspapers, and the lack of capacity was confirmed as well.
Tell us how that isnât finding out what happened in the past.
Nor, IMO, does he honor it.
3 Likes
Interestingly, Ken Ham has more points of agreement with Richard Dawkins than most evangelicals!
1 Like
And after sharing a video in the OP warning people to shun Biologos, @Burrawang, you stick around, failing to take the advice you shared.
Over 120 posts later, @Burrawang, you are still going strong, after having lamented about the damage debating does to âCHRISTIANâ credibility.
Iâm having a hard time seeing evidence that you mean what you say.
Ah, well.
I am learning a lot about geology, carbon dating, fossils and more from some of the really patient, knowledgable, articulate, and professional scientists who do a great job explaining things.
Thanks, @T_aquaticus, @paleomalacologist, @jammycakes, @rsewell, @mitchellmckain, @Argon, @Paraleptopecten, @pevaquark and @jpm. Sorry if I missed anybody.
7 Likes
and @Terry_Sampson, thanks for demonstrating some really creative uses of AI chatbots.
I had to add this separate, because I can only mention 10 people in one post. So you get your own.
4 Likes
And in accord with that advice, he should have expected to be immediately banned.
2 Likes