Post deleted
If you play with numbers enough, you can always make one number relate to something else. Does not mean it means anything. Though the pyramids are pretty neat. Now, if you had waterslides that circled around them and an big escalator to the top, you would really have something.
3 Likes
lol touché …filler
Yes, a very long time before Exodus was written.
Not really. The fitting of the blocks which some say was done with more precision that was possible has been reproduced using nothing but bronze tools.
Remember that the outer layer is missing so all of the measurements taken have to be “adjusted” for the missing blocks. So what are the odds that someone would chose an adjustment that makes the numbers come out right?
1 Like
Indeed. My default response is to see if anyone has devoted their entire life to studying a particular problem and I am genuinely interested to hear what they have concluded. In other words what claims the paper has made and tested going through the rigor of the peer review process in a legitimate journal. Not a pseudo-scientific journal or a journal that publishes anything as long as they pay enough money to get their article published.
And your response also is predictable. In classic YEC fashion you’ve also got to do what they do most: fighting scientific results. And then there’s the logical fallacy that if a particular scientific paper is null and void it automatically means your model is correct. That definitely is not true but yet I see it all the time in Christians writing about science. These things are generally what you must do as a YEC because science definitely does not support your view point.
The particular trick you cited is a fairly old trick in their playbook; one where you must misapply radiometric dating techniques to areas where they are not valid. What would actually be impressive is not misapplying carbon dating like you’ve illustrated (and also misleading Christians all around our churches and in some schools) but showing that all over the globe everywhere dinosaur fossils are appearing in rock that is less than 50,000 years old. But they aren’t there. They are always found in rock that is older then present day mammals but in rock that is much younger then simpler life forms. Everywhere we look the fossil record affirms the order predicted by evolution.
Anyways, I should’ve known better that you would actually care about the work of scientists who have spent their life on the stuff but you, being a non-expert magically know better. Yes, I have been fairly critical in my response but perhaps I have been motivated by many Christians, and my list now includes yourself, completely throwing away publications where people have spent their lifetimes dedicated to a specific question. All all because we don’t like what they have to say.
4 Likes
Randy, would you be willing to explain your ideas? This is the closest you’ve gotten in a thread I’ve personally be involved with. Maybe you’ve published this derivation somewhere? An equation that has bits and pieces of cosmological equations seems to me that you derived this equation somehow, though the a^2 is a bit misleading given that the variable ‘a’ generally represents something else in most cosmology equations.
I actually saw this argument for the first time at a different site yesterday. Gerald Schroeder is an MIT-trained physicist, but worked in Israel for many years. He is of the Jewish faith, but is still trying to reconcile Genesis with science, just as the Torah, rather than the Bible. Despite his qualifications, I remain skeptical of his hypothesis, but you can watch it here: In the Beginning - Finding Parity Between the Bible and Science in Creation p1/2 - YouTube
This is a matter of vocabulary. And the YECs love to play with word meanings.
Do you accept that “speciation” … even if it is just producing a larger, or smaller, or hairier version of the original animal, is “macro-evolution”?
If you say it has to be a “big change” to be called Macro Evolution … I would say it doesn’t have to be anything like that to prove speciation. And you either “get it” or you don’t. I can’t do hand-stands to convince you.
.
.
.
There are several good examples on Earth of Ring Species - where sub-populations have become relatively isolated from each other so long … that there is a de-facto reduction in reproductive compatibility between ends of a population range.
One could say… that’s just because they are so far from each other … but there are other cases where the terminal ends have extended all the way around a barrier that they are now in contact with the other end of their population’s range!
And the rate of successful reproduction is dramatically lower than with the adjacent sub-populations that extend towards the middle of the range.
When you look at a Ring Species … and see the populations separating themselves apart from the other groups … you are literally seeing “evolutionary time” extending in front of you.
There are no rules that tell a chromosome when they have to stop evolving. There is no way to convince a gene that he (or she) can’t keep changing like this … because it will create a new species.
And once you have two populations that no longer exchange genetic information through mating … you have macro-evolution - - because each group is now on it’s own evolutionary path into the future.
Let me know if you don’t understand the significance of what I’m saying here.
I wouldn’t call it a hypothesis but more of an apologetic. The problem with his “method” is if you take the actual estimate of the age of the universe in days and divide by his magic number you get creation in 4.9 days. Doesn’t fit with 6 days very well does it? BTW, Dr. Schroeder doesn’t mention it, but his estimate for the age of the universe is 5.3 trillion days which when divided by 1 trillion yields not surprisingly 5.3 days. He takes a more round about way to get there which hides this.
I am surprised that Zola didn’t pick up on it, but the good doctor also took Adam out of the 6 days of creation and then the doctor somehow equated the age of the earth with the age of the universe. So assuming Adam wasn’t the first human and applying his method in reverse you get humans were created some 2.5 B years ago. That is really pushing our origin back in time or an indication his method doesn’t work.
I need to come up with a catchy title for this rule. When you divide a large number by another large number don’t be surprised if the result is a small number.
3 Likes
Yes. Why not. God sees the earth as ~6000 years old. Can’t imagine where he got that number.
Very true, and at the risk of being redundant, if you really want to use that terminology, then as someone stated elsewhere, evolutionists also only believe in “microevolution” in that only small changes happen. They just happen a lot over a long period of time. That is why AiG is more dogmatic about the age of the earth than anything else, because their house is built on that foundation.
Sigh. I told myself I would not post today, and now I’ve gone and done so. It is an illness.
3 Likes
If permineralization has taken place then you can’t us 14C dating. Even with 14C dating it has an upper limit of about 35-50,000 years, depending on the quality of the sample. Environmental contamination is always a problem with 14C dating, especially with fossils that have incorporated environmental carbonates like fossils have.
As to dating the planet, I don’t see why that is a problem. A fossil is going to be younger than the rocks below it and older than the rocks above it, unless you think dinosaurs had burial rites. The ratios of isotopes in rocks don’t change just because we expect them to be old. They are what they are. If creationists are claiming that scientists are purposefully reporting false data, then they should go out to those same rocks and measure the isotopes themselves. I am guessing they won’t because they know the dates are good.
2 Likes
Post deleted
Post deleted
Post deleted
Well, I think I should be able to state that hominids evolved over a few million years… and God created humans in one day.
Works for me. Spread the news!
If you count years by counting solar cycles, you cannot have it both ways. Solomon said the Sun is radiant and sets. And going to the place of him he is radiant again. Indeed, in the Solomon’s days, the Sun moved East through the stars of the ecliptic to rise next the same star again next year. Counting the circuit of the Sun cannot be billions and also 6,000.
On the other hand, the world can be very old yet only have orbited the Sun 6,000 times. How could that be? If you stop imagining that time exists, then you end up using the ancient system of the biblical prophets. All early people used nature’s changes to record when things happened, not time. Ancient calendars and clocks were not designed to measure time. They were dynamically adjusted to fit nature’s never ending changes. Early languages, like Biblical Hebrew, had no words for time or verb tenses to order events “in time.” If you check the text in the original languages, you will find that the Bible never once mentions a time continuum. The ancients monitored changes, not time. Time and change are diametrically opposite worldviews.
In the ancient worldview, the earliest days and years were eons and throughout earth history days and years keep shortening. See Genesis 47:9 where Jacob says the days and years of the son are shorter and worse than those of the fathers. The Bible repeatedly uses eon word for the Old Testament era. Eons were not time. They were how ponderously slow days and years were for the patriarchs.
For example, Job 14 lists six geological phenomena that corresponded to a lifetime in his days. He says man who is born of woman is of few days. Then he compares a lifetime to the Mediterranean (Hebrew word West) drying. Indeed, drill cores find a couple of hundred meters under the plankton oozes, hundreds of meters of rock salt. After the drill cores punch through the rock salt, gypsum and stromatolites, they find plankton oozes again. One drill core found cross bedded desert sands with dried ocean ooze, thousands of meters below the modern sea level. Two other of Job’s lifetime markers were “water wears away rocks and washes away the dust of the Earth.” Indeed, all around the Med we find that ancient river incised deep canyons as they rushed down to the desiccated Med. For example, the Russian engineer Ivan Chumokov drilled the Nile river bed for the foundation of the Aswan dam. He found that the ancient Nile canyon, a thousand kilometers from the sea, was 200 meters lower than the modern sea level. Just north of Cairo, the Nile canyon was 2500 meters deep, cut into rock. This is deeper than the Grand Canyon. Later, if filled the vast canyon up with silt to form a great delta. Job compared a lifetime to water washes away the dust of the Earth. Indeed, it sure does. Scientists estimate that the Mediterranean dried between 23 million and 5.3 million years ago. Job could not have lived more than 5300 biblical years ago. These are not contradictions in the ancient changing worldview.
https://www.livescience.com/42115-giant-salt-crisis-explained.html
Job ended his poem on the brevity of life by claiming their faces intensely continued to change until God takes them away. Indeed, if you lived long enough to watch the ocean dry, which we calculate as 18 million years, you too would grow thick Neanderthal brows from vast age in few years. The skull is the only part of our skeleton that keeps growing with age. Neanderthal child skulls look like those of modern children, but sometimes with wear on baby teeth as though they were octogenarians, in few years.
Change and time are diametrically opposite worldviews. We confirm the ancient worldview along with creation day four with the visible history of galaxies. The clocks and the orbits accelerate together as billions of galaxies become spreading things (raqiya) exactly as in the Hebrew text for day four.
The problem is not the literal biblical text. It is the historical foundational assumption upon which science was founded. The disciples of Friar Thomas built a great system of measuring on his metaphysic that matter is not continually changing itself. Even the definition of time and most mathematical measuring units were contrived on the scholastic metaphysics.
Yet we can see how the orbits and the clocks keep on accelerating as the properties of all matter keep shifting in the visible history of galaxies. Billions of galaxies, at many ranges, continue to become raqiya (spreading things). Of course what is visible violated the historical dogma upon which science was founded. This is certainly whey scientists invent incredible myths about invisible matter and vacuums that adjust the frequencies of passing light. They were trained to think using their definition of time that was built on the medieval metaphysics.
The Earth is incredibly ancient, exactly as the text repeatedly states. Yet we have only orbited the Sun a few thousand times because change is real and time is merely philosophy.
Victor
Can we expand this a bit? I would like to add “55 years, 2 months, and 22 days,” and “666 days,” “Seven Days in May,” “500 Days of Summer,” and “42.” Those should all fit too, right?
3 Likes