Evolutionary Theory

[The Punisher]

I would like to know what everyones opinion is of my so many people think the earth is millions of years old?

[speedpro50]

I would like to know to. I feel as though we cannot know for sure from what the Bible tells us. I like to see what others think though!

[DarkWolf]

I really think it's dependant on your interpretation of the Bible (assuming one believes at all in the Bible). You can either interpret it as creation happening in 6 days (our days), or in 6 days (God days) which could very well be millions of years in our time.

I've noticed a lot of Christians will accept the various radiometric dating methods when it pertains to items with a known age, and agrees with the known age of such items. Such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. But when it comes to dating other items (such as Dinosaur bones) Christians fight vehemently that the various forms of radiometric dating are completely inaccurate.

Why they can accept it being accurate for items with a known age, and proving over and over again on items that have a known age that it is accurate ... but not accept its accuracy on items without a definitive known age ... it always caught me as a bit hypocritical.

[Monsoon X]

I believe that the earth is millions of years old.


The Bible deals with God and his dealings with His creations, us.

Creating, interacting and redeeming us through Christ. It throws in a few revelations here and there about creation of life and heaven enough for true seekers to see if to be true. The Bible is not the end all of what happened on this earth and in the universe. The Bible only tells us what we need to know to have true faith in God as our creator.


I tend to believe in Evolution! Not that we came from monkeys but, the fact that things do evolve and adapt to thier environment.

[speedpro50]

JC

I would think that instead of stating you believe in evolution you should change your wording, as it sounds strange. From what I read in your statements, you don't believe in the theory of evolution. You seem to agree with micro-evolution or adaptation. The above are processes in which a species adapts and makes minor changes over the course of many many years. Am I right or wrong?

Lee

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
I believe that the earth is millions of years old.


The Bible deals with God and his dealings with His creations, us.

Creating, interacting and redeeming us through Christ. It throws in a few revelations here and there about creation of life and heaven enough for true seekers to see if to be true. The Bible is not the end all of what happened on this earth and in the universe. The Bible only tells us what we need to know to have true faith in God as our creator.


I tend to believe in Evolution! Not that we came from monkeys but, the fact that things do evolve and adapt to thier environment.

Ok JC, I think you mean you believe in the definition of Evolution as a word, not the theory. But why do you think the earth is so old?

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
I really think it's dependant on your interpretation of the Bible (assuming one believes at all in the Bible). You can either interpret it as creation happening in 6 days (our days), or in 6 days (God days) which could very well be millions of years in our time.

I've noticed a lot of Christians will accept the various radiometric dating methods when it pertains to items with a known age, and agrees with the known age of such items. Such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. But when it comes to dating other items (such as Dinosaur bones) Christians fight vehemently that the various forms of radiometric dating are completely inaccurate.

Why they can accept it being accurate for items with a known age, and proving over and over again on items that have a known age that it is accurate ... but not accept its accuracy on items without a definitive known age ... it always caught me as a bit hypocritical.

About the radiometric dating methods. I do not believe all the hype. Most of them are mir speculation and they have flaws. Evolutionist tend to speculate way too much and try to claim it is science. No, its their belief and not science.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by speedpro50
JC

I would think that instead of stating you believe in evolution you should change your wording, as it sounds strange. From what I read in your statements, you don't believe in the theory of evolution. You seem to agree with micro-evolution or adaptation. The above are processes in which a species adapts and makes minor changes over the course of many many years. Am I right or wrong?

Lee

Well yes and no. I don't believe in the widely publicized "Theory" of Evolution. But I do believe in the word evolution, especially it's root word evolve. Which is pretty much what you said.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 281R

But why do you think the earth is so old?

Because Genesis covers more time than any of the books of the Bible. Especially the first few chapters.


My definition of Science: Humans discovering God's design for and in life.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Monsoon X


Because Genesis covers more time than any of the books of the Bible. Especially the first few chapters.


My definition of Science: Humans discovering God's design for and in life.

So are you saying God made the earth in millions of years or humans lived on the earth for millions of years?

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 281R

So are you saying God made the earth in millions of years or humans lived on the earth for millions of years?

For now, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth way before he put life on it.

[The Punisher]

read these articles (book) and see if any of this makes you think that maybe the earth isnt that old
Link

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 281R
read these articles (book) and see if any of this makes you think that maybe the earth isnt that old
Link

I've visited that site before and it is quite interesting. I was ready to write if off as not possible when It made the point in the "Scriptural evidence" that Adam lived for part of the 6th day and all the 7th got me to thinking.


And DW had a good point about accepting some forms of dating as correct and ignoring when it is used on dino bones. And what not. And until a concensus is given on those methods, I'm gonna have to hold true to my belief that God and Human exist in different time zones. While we only see 24hrs, God works outside of what we perceive as "time".

And remember how you pecieve that also plays into how you view the prophecy of the endtime and whether or not you believe it has happened or shall happen.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Monsoon X


I've visited that site before and it is quite interesting. I was ready to write if off as not possible when It made the point in the "Scriptural evidence" that Adam lived for part of the 6th day and all the 7th got me to thinking.


And DW had a good point about accepting some forms of dating as correct and ignoring when it is used on dino bones. And what not. And until a concensus is given on those methods, I'm gonna have to hold true to my belief that God and Human exist in different time zones. While we only see 24hrs, God works outside of what we perceive as "time".

And remember how you pecieve that also plays into how you view the prophecy of the endtime and whether or not you believe it has happened or shall happen.

DW had a point at why a lot of Christians accept this dating. Why do a lot of people except it. It is all speculation. A lot of it is nothing but a conjecture. Two true examples. Mt. Saint Helens irrupted in 1980. Some scientist gathered some left over fresh lava rock from the eruption about a year or two ago. They sent the rock into the radiometric dating lab and they came back with the results of 350,000 to 2.8 million years old. It was not that old, it was 20 years old. If it was wrong here (and this same method was used on Pompay and it was wrong too) then why should we trust it. Also, Carbon 14 is only surposed to last at max 50,000 years, and Carbon 14 is being found in Dino bones. Why trust it? Just speculation.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 281R
DW had a point at why a lot of Christians accept this dating. Why do a lot of people except it. It is all speculation. A lot of it is nothing but a conjecture. Two true examples. Mt. Saint Helens irrupted in 1980. Some scientist gathered some left over fresh lava rock from the eruption about a year or two ago. They sent the rock into the radiometric dating lab and they came back with the results of 350,000 to 2.8 million years old. It was not that old, it was 20 years old. If it was wrong here (and this same method was used on Pompay and it was wrong too) then why should we trust it. Also, Carbon 14 is only surposed to last at max 50,000 years, and Carbon 14 is being found in Dino bones. Why trust it? Just speculation.

I'm not trusting it. I said "until a concensus is given" I'll hang onto the Earth being old. Like I said how we perceive this plays into how we view the endtime events. And I make it a habit not to "stretch" the Bible. (not saying you are just in case you take it that way

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Monsoon X


I'm not trusting it. I said "until a concensus is given" I'll hang onto the Earth being old. Like I said how we perceive this plays into how we view the endtime events. And I make it a habit not to "stretch" the Bible. (not saying you are just in case you take it that way

<--- I think God is not in our time either, but He created it for us, so I do think the earth could be made in a week. #1(God trying to tell us a day in His term was a million years would seem kind of odd being the sun and moon tell us the opposite which were His creation set up to help us understand day and night) That is just my guess.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 281R

<--- I think God is not in our time either, but He created it for us, so I do think the earth could be made in a week. #1(God trying to tell us a day in His term was a million years would seem kind of odd being the sun and moon tell us the opposite which were His creation set up to help us understand day and night) That is just my guess.

ahhhh. But either one is just the mystery of God aren't they?

Rev 10:7 but in the days when the seventh angel is to blow his trumpet, the mystery of God will be fulfilled, as he announced to his servants the prophets."

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by Monsoon X


ahhhh. But either one is just the mystery of God aren't they?

Rev 10:7 but in the days when the seventh angel is to blow his trumpet, the mystery of God will be fulfilled, as he announced to his servants the prophets."

true... true...

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
DW had a point at why a lot of Christians accept this dating. Why do a lot of people except it. It is all speculation. A lot of it is nothing but a conjecture. Two true examples. Mt. Saint Helens irrupted in 1980. Some scientist gathered some left over fresh lava rock from the eruption about a year or two ago. They sent the rock into the radiometric dating lab and they came back with the results of 350,000 to 2.8 million years old. It was not that old, it was 20 years old. If it was wrong here (and this same method was used on Pompay and it was wrong too) then why should we trust it. Also, Carbon 14 is only surposed to last at max 50,000 years, and Carbon 14 is being found in Dino bones. Why trust it? Just speculation.

There is a wide range of factors involved in why there is this great variation in age of the rock samples. Yes, the eruption is merely 20 years old, but the rock, the sediments, the debris spewed out of this eruption, isn't necissarily all of the same age. The molten rock from the layer of the earth known as the Mantle would have some consistency in it's age, because the mantle is like a furnace, continually recycling it's materials. But the rock within the volcano, and along the chute(s) leading to the crust and to the enevitable eruption of the volcano, it's certainly possible they are of different ages, vast differences in age. You have deep crust near the layer of magma in the mantle, yet is solid rock, that rock would most likely be very old. The rock on the surface would be much younger. The magma as it's rising through the fissures in the earth would certainly loose some of this deep crust rock, some may melt (yet it's materials would not be recycled into the mantle, because they are also being swept up towards the surface, thus giving some portion(s) of the molten rock greater age variation), some may not, and it would all be shoved up towards the surface. And the eruption itself would scatter this rock, old and new, and this magma in all directions (regardless of the final lava flow, the initial explosion goes in all directions).

The inconsistency in the dates does not prove the technique is unreliable. The techniques are certainly not flawless, but they do a pretty good job. Carbon 14 is only acurate to 50,000 years, after that, there is too little left for an accurate measurement to be made, but there are many other ways of radiometric dating. The presense of Carbon 14 in Dinosaur fossils, is not surprising. Carbon 14 is present in all carbon based life forms. 50,000 is it's limit to accuracy ... it doesn't just dissapear entirely after that. Go here for further explanations of the various forms of radiometric dating.

Anyone interested in my theory of creation explained over 15 billion years of our time (theoretical age of the universe), yet 6 days to God? 2.5 billion of our years per one God day. It's kind of interesting, because it agrees with both the theoretical age of the univers of 15 billion years, and the suspected age of the Earth 4.5 - 5 billion years, and each event in creation would take place very nearly where it would have to for creation to agree with an old Earth. I've got it written in one of my essays, if you're interested I'll post it up here.

I started doing the math on that idea too. Obviously with creation ending on the 6th day, and God resting on the 7th, we're currently very early into the 7th day. Something like only 38 minutes past midnight on the 7th day. 65 million years of human evolution, is only 38 minutes. Whether you believe in an old or young Earth, let's suppose for a moment that you believe in an old Earth. Now, in God's account of creation, he's not lying when he says it took 6 days ... he was merely speaking in context to himself. And in doing so, was speaking in a way that man could comprehend. Think about it. 15 billion years is hard enough to comprehend in this day and age ... it would blow the minds of man 6000 years ago, who thought the Earth was flat, and sun traveled aroundn the Earth. I think God knew man would not be able to grasp such a concept (at least not at the time), and so in giving his account of creation, he specifically put it into terms we could understand. Which would also explain the absence of Dinosaurs in the Bible. (And don't go quoting Genesis 6:4/5. Giants in the earth then and after, clearly is referring to either very tall men, or very great men, as these 'giants' had children with the daughters of man, and their sons were men of great renown. I'm pretty sure that's not saying that women had half human, half dinosaur children ).

[DarkWolf]

Also, to add to the evolution discussion, what we (me and JC) call evolution, is what is defined as micro-evolution ... which is true evolution. What is macro-evolution, or what Darwin's theorys were largely based upon, I've always referred to as Spontaneous Evolution, or Spontaneous Life, which is not true evolution. Evolution is change, not creation.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


There is a wide range of factors involved in why there is this great variation in age of the rock samples. Yes, the eruption is merely 20 years old, but the rock, the sediments, the debris spewed out of this eruption, isn't necissarily all of the same age. The molten rock from the layer of the earth known as the Mantle would have some consistency in it's age, because the mantle is like a furnace, continually recycling it's materials. But the rock within the volcano, and along the chute(s) leading to the crust and to the enevitable eruption of the volcano, it's certainly possible they are of different ages, vast differences in age. You have deep crust near the layer of magma in the mantle, yet is solid rock, that rock would most likely be very old. The rock on the surface would be much younger. The magma as it's rising through the fissures in the earth would certainly loose some of this deep crust rock, some may melt (yet it's materials would not be recycled into the mantle, because they are also being swept up towards the surface, thus giving some portion(s) of the molten rock greater age variation), some may not, and it would all be shoved up towards the surface. And the eruption itself would scatter this rock, old and new, and this magma in all directions (regardless of the final lava flow, the initial explosion goes in all directions).

speculation, conjecture

The inconsistency in the dates does not prove the technique is unreliable.

Irony here?

The techniques are certainly not flawless, but they do a pretty good job. Carbon 14 is only acurate to 50,000 years, after that, there is too little left for an accurate measurement to be made, but there are many other ways of radiometric dating. The presense of Carbon 14 in Dinosaur fossils, is not surprising. Carbon 14 is present in all carbon based life forms. 50,000 is it's limit to accuracy ... it doesn't just dissapear entirely after that. Go here for further explanations of the various forms of radiometric dating.

Anyone interested in my theory of creation explained over 15 billion years of our time (theoretical age of the universe), yet 6 days to God? 2.5 billion of our years per one God day. It's kind of interesting, because it agrees with both the theoretical age of the univers of 15 billion years, and the suspected age of the Earth 4.5 - 5 billion years, and each event in creation would take place very nearly where it would have to for creation to agree with an old Earth. I've got it written in one of my essays, if you're interested I'll post it up here.

I started doing the math on that idea too. Obviously with creation ending on the 6th day, and God resting on the 7th, we're currently very early into the 7th day. Something like only 38 minutes past midnight on the 7th day. 65 million years of human evolution, is only 38 minutes. Whether you believe in an old or young Earth, let's suppose for a moment that you believe in an old Earth. Now, in God's account of creation, he's not lying when he says it took 6 days ... he was merely speaking in context to himself. And in doing so, was speaking in a way that man could comprehend. Think about it. 15 billion years is hard enough to comprehend in this day and age ... it would blow the minds of man 6000 years ago, who thought the Earth was flat, and sun traveled aroundn the Earth. I think God knew man would not be able to grasp such a concept (at least not at the time), and so in giving his account of creation, he specifically put it into terms we could understand. Which would also explain the absence of Dinosaurs in the Bible. (And don't go quoting Genesis 6:4/5. Giants in the earth then and after, clearly is referring to either very tall men, or very great men, as these 'giants' had children with the daughters of man, and their sons were men of great renown. I'm pretty sure that's not saying that women had half human, half dinosaur children ).

One Biblical Explanation
Im not saying that your theory isnt right, but there are no hard facts that the earth is that old. Its just a theory.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by DarkWolf

Which would also explain the absence of Dinosaurs in the Bible. (And don't go quoting Genesis 6:4/5. Giants in the earth then and after, clearly is referring to either very tall men, or very great men, as these 'giants' had children with the daughters of man, and their sons were men of great renown. I'm pretty sure that's not saying that women had half human, half dinosaur children ).

Actually Job 40:15 is thought to make mention of a Dinosaur.

Which has taken me on another Theological/Scientific thought pattern.

Man and Dinosaur living together?

[speedpro50]

Job 40:15 sounds more like a giant lizard to me not a brontosaurus. What do you think, JC?

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
speculation, conjecture

Irony here?


One Biblical Explanation
Im not saying that your theory isnt right, but there are no hard facts that the earth is that old. Its just a theory.

Speculation? No, not really. Melt some rocks of varying age, combine them together, and see if you don't get new rock with mixed properties, and varying age ranges within the same slab once it cools and hardens.

Irony? No, as explained above.

And about a young Earth, that's just a theory too

Originally posted by Monsoon X
Actually Job 40:15 is thought to make mention of a Dinosaur.

Could you provide the verse? I'm at work, and don't have my Bible handy. From what speedpro says, if it is refering to a giant lizard, there's nothing to special about that ... we've got giant lizards now Alligators, Crocodiles, Komodo Dragons oh my!

[Monsoon X]

"Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
40:16
See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
40:17
He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
40:18
His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.


Another translation calls it a Hippo. Who knows?

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
"Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
40:16
See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
40:17
He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
40:18
His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.


Another translation calls it a Hippo. Who knows?

Don't know of any Hippos with a tail like a cedar But I can certainly see it referring to a lizard.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


Speculation? No, not really. Melt some rocks of varying age, combine them together, and see if you don't get new rock with mixed properties, and varying age ranges within the same slab once it cools and hardens.

Irony? No, as explained above.

And about a young Earth, that's just a theory too

mmkay? so how are you saying you have newer rocks and older rocks? They are all made out of matter that God created in the begining. How do you say one rock is newer than the other if you are stating the matter mixes and it still reads old? Didnt know rocks reproduce? Thus, making rock dating very unreliable. It cannot be proven b/c not one of us here were living in the beginning. Theory.... For thousands of years a lot of scientist thought the earth was the center of the universe, but they were proven wrong. Could it end like this, for a thousand years scientist thought the earth was millions of years old, but they were proven wrong. It was thousands of years old. Point being that the radiometric dating methods are too inconsistent and not even proven effective that I dont put my belief in them. Now the Bible has been proven consistent and effective that I do put my Faith in God's word.

[Larius]

According to the stars, it takes billions of years for the light to travel from the star to where we are, thus making it appear that the universe is that old, however, I believe that if God can create man mature and grown, he can create a universe that appears old as well. As far as the earth, I think that it is literal time, so I would have to say about 6 thousand years old.

[DarkWolf]

Why would he? Why create the laws of physics, only to rewrite them after creation? Why make stars that are millions of light years away, send their light to us in mere seconds during the 6 literal days of creation ... but new stars that are formed take millions of years for the light to reach us? Why change the chemical properties of radioactive materials, such as Carbon 14, or Uranium 238?

To confuse us?

What sense does that make? Surely God would know that we would discover radiometric dating, and physics ... among other scientific discoveries ... to say otherwise is to say that God is not all knowing. Since he knew we would discover these things, why not stick with current formulas? Why would Carbon 14 decay faster 6000 years ago, than it does today? Why would light travel the vast reaches of space faster 6000 years ago than it does today? Or if he did stick with the current formulas, why would he place bones in the ground that date back 50,000 years or more, or place stars with their light already spread to the far reaches of space? (Remember, you can't agree with radiometric dating only when it's convenient ... if you're going to accept it's accuracy when dating materials of a known age, then you have to accept it's accuracy when dating materials of an unknown age. You being a generic term.)

The question isn't whether or not he can do it, but why he would do it? I can't imagine that he would do it just to confuse us when we did discover them. That he's up in heaven laughing at our simplemindedness. That all of this is some sort of cosmic joke at our expense.

[The Punisher]

First you are assuming that radioisotope dateing works, which it dosent. See here
And here is some evidence from space that finds the earth being that old hard to believe.
Evidence from Space

1)The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.

2)The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)

3)The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old.

4)Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks.

5)The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents.

6)The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.

7)The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young.

8)At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years.

9)Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.

10)Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old.

11)Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient
astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.

[Monsoon X]

Good info!

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
First you are assuming that radioisotope dateing works, which it dosent. See here
And here is some evidence from space that finds the earth being that old hard to believe.
Evidence from Space

1)The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.

2)The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)

3)The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old.

4)Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks.

5)The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents.

6)The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.

7)The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young.

8)At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years.

9)Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.

10)Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old.

11)Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient
astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.

Already been in numerous debates concerning just these arguments for a young Earth.

1)As for radiometric dating, it has been proven, time and time again using objects of known age. In each and every case where an object with a known date was dated with radiometric dating techniques, the radiometric dating agreed fully with the known age. If it's accurate there, why not on objects without a known date?

2)The "shrinking sun" theory is a young Earth theorist wet dream. The fact is, however, about 30 years ago, scientist took a closer look at the data, and did new observations with more powerful and accurate equipment, and found that the "shrinking sun" isn't shrinking quite as fast as originally thought. So slow, actually, that it is possible that the Earth is as old as scientists suspect. You know what they've also discovered? That the sun isn't constantly shrinking, but it expands as well. It more or less strikes an equilibrium.

3)Cosmic dust on the moon, again, the dust doesn't collect in great mass, because the moons surface, if you've ever noticed, is littered with craters from meteors striking the surface. Take some talcum powder, and pile it up on a rock. Place the rock on a table, and then slam your fist down on the table. See if that talcum powder doesn't shake off. This is an argument people use to suggest that we never landed on the moon in the late 60's. The dust, because there is no atmosphere, isn't going to be trapped in the atmosphere. Large masses of dust will come back down due to gravity, but lighter masses of dust will leave the surface, and drift off into space. Even now, the surface of the moon is battered with meteors regularly.

4)How does the existence of short period comets suggest a young universe? A comet is merely space debris (be it rock, ice, dust, whatever), that becomes caught in the gravitational pull of a large star (in our case, the Sun), and instead of being pulled straight into it, it's pulled around it and slingshot back out. It continues to come back around because it's still caught in that gravitational pull.

5)A great majority of meteorites are burnt up in the atmosphere, because they are too small to survive the intense heat. The small ones that we find were rather large when entering the atmosphere. They're also found to be more prone to errosion, because their much less dense than rocks on Earth. The metels in them survive, but the rock doesn't. Ancient meteorites aren't going to be found in early layers, becuase they've eroded away, and only left behind the metals contained within, if there was metal. I hope you're not going to suggest that we're not finding metals in early layers of the Earth.

6)The moon receding? Not sure where you read that from. The moon is getting closer. Slowly, true. It's caught in the Earth's magnetic pull. Pull, not push. The Earth is gradually drawing the moon in.

7)I don't see how the existence of space dust in conclusive of anything. In space, obejects are constantly colliding with each other. We've seen meteors slam into the surface of moons, and planets alike ... sending massive clouds of dust into the atmosphere's, and out into space. We've seen asteroids collide and explode. Why wouldn't there be space dust?

8)Many, but not all. Not even a majority. Did it ever cross your mind that these faster expanding clusters of stars are new star clusters being propelled by the massive explosion of gasses and debris that's been collecting over time, compressing, and finally exploding in the birth of a new galaxy?

9)And how exactly does Saturns rings being unstable prove it's not billions of years old? Jupiters rings aren't stable, neither are Uranus'. How does this prove anything? They're a collection of rock and debris, caught in the gravitational pull of the planet. They're colliding with each other, while circling around the planet, and gradually being pulled into the planet. Why would you think they would ever become stable?

10)Yes, they're loosing heat. Why wouldn't they? They're more than twice the distance from the sun as Earth. Hell, Jupiter is nearly 3 times the distance, and Saturn is almost twice that. We're in a unique place in the solar system. Mercury and Venus are both too hot, because they are too close. Jupiter and Saturn are thousands of times larger than Earth, it's going to take a while for them to cool completely as Pluto, and Neptune have, and Uranus is near to completely being cooled off. They're too far from the heat of the sun, so they are cooling off.

Here's a little tid bit on Io: "Io's volcanoes are apparently due to heating of the satellite by tidal pumping. Io is perturbed in its orbit by Europa and Ganymede, two other large satellites nearby, then pulled back again into its regular orbit by Jupiter. This tug-of-war results in tidal bulging as great as 100 meters (330 feet) on Io's surface." You don't think that might result in the moon gradually breaking apart?

11)Which Sirius are you referring to? Sirius A, B, or C? Because A and B are both White Dwarves, and have been since they were first discovered in the 1800's (Ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago? Maybe 200 years ago.) Sirius C was only just discovered (or I should say, confirmed) in 1995. And it's a Red Giant. A small one, but it's still in it's Red Giant phase.

12)Whoops, forgot to address you're #6. Th-230 is a byproduct of U-238 decay. As long as U-238 is decaying, new Th-230 is made. U-238's halflife is about 4.5 billion years. U-236 occurs very rarely in nature "U-236 is rare but is produced by nuclear reactions in some uranium ores where sufficient slow neutrons are available." Which means as long as that uranium ore is present, U-236 will be present.

[Monsoon X]

Good info!

[The Punisher]

According to the Bible, the creation week lasted seven literal days and occurred a few thousand years ago. However, many Christians today accept the teaching of science that life has existed on earth for millions, even billions, of years. This millions of years time scale is based on radiometric dating of fossil-bearing layers of rock. This teaching of long ages for life on earth has led some Christians to question and even abandon their belief in the Bible, since a literal reading of Scripture is not consistent with the belief that life has existed on earth for millions of years. I believe that many educated Christians are especially doubting the Bible because of the supposed evidence from radiometric dating that life has existed on earth for very long periods of time.
In fact, I believe that the question of how long life has existed on earth is even more important than the question of whether life was created or evolved. You see, the theory of evolution has so many problems that most people find evolution hard to accept, and I don't think many people are led to question their faith because of it. It just doesn't seem reasonable that life could develop on its own by chance, and the evidence that this actually happened is missing. It's also not a problem that geologists say that the sedimentary layers of rock took millions of years to form, since there are many evidences that the great geological formations on earth were formed rapidly and catastropically, as in the Biblical flood or subsequent catastrophic events. For example, there is too little erosion between the geological layers for them to have taken millions of years to form. But it is a serious problem when geologists say that they can measure the ages of these rocks by reliable methods, and that these ages turn out to be in the millions and billions of years range. So I believe that this question of radiometric, or isotopic dating, is one of the most important questions in the creation-evolution controversy, and one which Christians have to respond to.

In fact, I believe that the evidence does not permit the long ages given by radiometric dates, so there must be a problem with them somewhere, even on scientific grounds. The geological column has too little erosion to allow for such long time periods. Also, there is too little sediment on the sea floor for the oceans to have existed for hundreds of millions of years, and the continents would have worn away many times in this time period at current rates of erosion. Just the fact that there are so many fossils shows that the great sedimentary deposits on earth had to have formed rapidly, because well-preserved fossils do not form under conditions of gradual sedimentation. So what exactly is wrong with radiometric dating? How can we explain the fact that these dating methods do, in fact, yield dates in the hundreds of millions of years? Why is it that so many museums and textbooks confidently give ages for fossils in the hundreds of millions of years?

This conflict has at times been difficult for me personally. It has been a struggle for me to try to understand the evidences and to learn enough about them to find the answers to these questions.

I was initially involved in some internet discussions where the subject of radiometric dating was brought up, and the arguments in favor of life existing for millions of years seemed almost overpowering. It was claimed that many different dating methods all agree to within a few percent on the ages of the fossils, and that there is no way to explain this except that these methods are giving the true ages. Otherwise, why would they all agree? These different dating methods involve different decay processes, and it is not reasonable to assume that chance or some other process would make them all speed up or slow down by the same amount.

At the time I could find few answers to these questions. There were some creation web pages and books that discussed radiometric dating, but most of them could not really answer the questions of the evolutionists. I ordered one book by John Woodmorappe which did contain some material that was helpful to me.

As a result of these discussions and a considerable amount of research that I did, I wrote a couple of fairly long articles on radiometric dating and put them on my creation web page. One of them was copied to another frequently-visited creation web page. Now many people have seen and read these articles on the web and have been strengthened in their faith in the Bible as a result. From time to time I receive messages from them expressing their appreciation for these articles. Also, these articles are among the most frequently visited articles on my web site.

Here are some of the books I have studied in order to learn more about this subject: This book by Faure, written in 1986, is one of the main textbooks on radiometric dating. This book, by Dickin, written in 1995, is another popular textbook. Here is a book by Harland and others which gives the geological time scale, telling how many millions of years each period is believed to have lasted, and the evidence for this. This book by Dalrymple uses data from radiometric dating to attempt to argue that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. This book is the proceedings of a conference in which geologists and others attempt to refute creationist teaching. I also have some creationist books. This is a book by Slusher in which he criticizes radiometric dating. This is a new book by John Woodmorappe, published this year, with many quotations from geologists themselves about problems with radiometric dating.

What I want to do today is to present what I have learned about this subject. This may seem like an area that is too technical for a sermon, but I think that the importance of the area justifies it. I don't have all the answers, but I think that you will be strengthened and reassured in your faith in the Bible as a result of what I have learned. We need to pray that the Lord will give spirit-led scientists the knowledge they need to deal with this subject, so that the truth will be revealed, because the conflict is beyond human wisdom. This area is a key support for the theory of evolution, which is undermining Christian values all over the world.

First I want to make a few comments about the geological time scale, then consider several methods in detail, and then discuss some other issues.

The geological time scale, described in this book by Harland and others, is based on less than 800 dates obtained by various methods on rocks from different geological layers. These dates tend to agree with each other, but there are hundreds of thousands of other dates that have been measured and were not listed. Many of these other dates disagree with one another, so it is not clear what the significance of these 800 dates is.

The great majority of the dates on which the geological time scale is based, are measured using one method, the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method. In order to explain the fact that older dates tend to be found deeper down (if this is true), we really only need to explain why this shouuld be true for K-Ar dating, and then we have explained much of the geological time scale.

K-Ar dating is based on the decay of potassium 40 to argon 40. When lava is hot, argon escapes from it, so it starts out with potassium but no argon. Over time, potassium gradually decays to argon, and the rate at which this occurs can be measured in the laboratory. By measuring how much potassium and argon is in a rock, and knowing how fast potassium decays, one can compute how old the rock is. The more argon, the older the rock is. The more potassium, the younger the rock is, since a larger amount of potassium would produce argon faster.

However, the reality is much more complicated than this. The argon does not always escape when the lava is hot. The potassium can be removed later on, invalidating the calculation. Also, rocks absorb argon very easily from the environment. In fact, geologists have to take considerable precautions to get rid of the argon that accumulates on their lab equipment so that they can accurately measure K-Ar ages. Rocks can absorb a considerable amount of argon in this way, so all of the argon in a rock did not necessarily come from the potassium it contains. Atmospheric argon absorbed in this way can be corrected for, because it has a certain amount of argon 36 which can be measured. However, argon also comes up from the interior of the earth, and this argon has very little argon 36 in it, and cannot be detected. So we can explain the old K-Ar dates just by the fact that rocks absorb so much argon that comes up from the interior of the earth. Older rocks would have more time to absorb argon, and there was probably more argon coming through the earth at the time of the Flood and shortly thereafter than there is today. In fact, a number of geologists themselves now say that K-Ar dating is not very reliable, or mainly of historical importance. This is quite an admission, since most of the geological time scale is based on K-Ar dating.

Another problem with K-Ar dating is that many volcanoes that we know erupted in the past several hundred years give K-Ar dates in the hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

A large number of K-Ar dates on which the geological time scale is based, are dates from a mineral called glaucony. However, many geologists say that this mineral is highly unreliable for dating. So here we have a large part of the geological time scale based on a mineral which geologists themselves say is highly unreliable.

So I guess we'll have to discard K-Ar dating as a reliable dating method.

Now let's consider another method that some textbooks say is reliable. This is the dating of zircons by uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating and some other related methods. Zircon is a gemstone, a mineral that can have a considerable amount of uranium in it. However, when zircons form, they exclude lead. Over time, uranium decays to lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and lead in a zircon and knowing the rate of decay, we can measure the age of the zircon. Lead is somewhat mobile, however, as is uranium, and so other methods have been devised that can date zircons even if some lead leaves the rock.

The problem with this method is that zircons can include lead when they form, throwing off the date. They can also lose uranium. In addition, they can travel through lava without melting, so the date computed for a zircon may be measuring a much older event than the lava flow itself. Even geologists recognize that ages given by zircons are often much too old, even for them. Furthermore, a batch of zircons from the same place will often yield widely different ages.

So I guess we'll have to discard zircons as a reliable dating method.

The next candidate dating method is fission track dating. Some minerals contain uranium 238 which decays by fission. It splits in two, and the pieces fly apart through the mineral, creating fission tracks. These tracks can be made visible by etching with an acid solution, and then counted. By knowing how much uranium 238 there is in a rock and by counting the number of fission tracks, one can measure the age of the rock.

There are a number of problems with this method, and even geologists have had intense disagreements about its reliability. The ages often do not agree with what geologists expect. One problem is that certain constants involved in this method are not known or are hard to estimate, so they are calibrated based on the "known" ages of other rocks. If these other "known" ages are in error, then fission track dates are in error by the same amount.

Another problem is that fission tracks fade at high temperatures. So if there are too few tracks, the geologist can always say that most of them faded away. To get a fission track date, one has to know something about the temperature history of a rock.

Another problem is that uranium 238 can be removed from a rock by water. If a sample loses 99 percent of its uranium, then the fission track date will be 100 times too old. In fact, if a rock loses only about 1/350 of its uranium each year, then in 4000 years only one part in one hundred thousand of the uranium will remain, meaning that the date can approach a hundred thousand times too old. Now, 1/350 of the uranium each year is not much, especially when you consider that water occurs practically everywhere in the earth below a few hundred feet, and rocks shallower than this also become wet due to rainfall filtering down through the soil.

Another problem is knowing what is a fission track and what is just an imperfection in the rock. Geologists themselves suggest that imperfections are at times mistaken for fission tracks, and admit that fission tracks are not always easy to recognize. Textbooks have beautiful, clean pictures of fission tracks, but I doubt that these illustrations correspond to reality.

Along this line, it is interesting to note that for every fission of uranium 238, there are over a million decays by a process called alpha decay, in which a helium nucleus is ejected from the nucleus of uranium. The alpha particle creates a long, thin trail of damage, and the former uranium nucleus recoils in the other direction, creating a short, wide track about one thousandth as long as a fission track. Not only this, but what's left of the uranium nucleus (having lost the helium nucleus) decays by thirteen more steps until it becomes lead, so there are over fourteen million other decays for every fission track. Over four million of these occur within a few days. All of these decays emit particles that damage the crystal structure. Some of these decays emit alpha particles, and some emit beta particles, which are energetic electrons. In addition, many millions of gamma rays are emitted, which are high-energy electromagnetic radiation like X rays, and also damage the crystal structure. Perhaps the damage created by all this radiation can be increased by chemical action and be etched by acid to appear like fission tracks. Or if two alpha particle trails are close enough together, perhaps they can damage the crystal enough so that their combined trail will be etched away by acid like a fission track.

Minerals are also subject to alteration by water, which may contain chemicals that react with the rock. Over long periods of time, all of these processes can damage the crystal structure, and it may be that when the mineral is etched with acid, track-like formations appear as a result.

Another problem is that fission tracks in some minerals, like zircons, can survive in lava, so the fission track date can be measuring an older event than the lava flow. Thus we cannot necessarily use this method to date the age of the fossils.

I think fission track dating has more potential than the other methods, but in view of all of these problems, I think we'll have to discard fission track dating as a reliable method.

There are still other methods, such as rubidium-strontium dating, which are based on the decay of a parent substance (in this case rubidium) to its daughter product (strontium). These methods all depend on knowing how much daughter product was initially present, which we cannot know. So we'll have to discard rubidium-strontium dating and similar methods as reliable dating methods

There is also the so-called "isochron" method, which is a clever way to estimate the amount of daughter product present initially, so that one can then use rubidium-strontium dating and other methods to get reliable dates. Unfortunately, isochrons can also be caused by mixing processes that have nothing to do with true dates. One study indicated that nearly all published isochrons have properties suggesting that they result from mixings, and thus are not giving true dates. Another study indicated that nearly all isochrons published have poor statistical quality. Geologists often make excuses to reject isochrons, anyway, when they don't like the dates.

So I guess we'll have to discard the isochron method as a reliable dating method.

The problem is that now there is nothing left! It's also interesting that geologists frequently admit that these different methods usually don't agree with one another. So the next time you see a museum exhhibit with a sign saying that some fossil is so many tens or hundreds of millions of years old, I hope you'll take that with a large grain of salt.

If there is real evidence that these fossils are hundreds of millions of years old, then I want to know about it. But so far I haven't found it.

Could it be that all the old K-Ar dates for fossil bearing layers of rock are due to argon added to the rock and not to the decay of potassium? Could it be that all the old zircon dates are due to inherited lead or inherited zircons, and not to decay of uranium over long time periods? Could it be that all the old fission track dates can be explained by the leaching of most of the uranium out of a rock, or by a mistaken calibration, or by radiation damage, and do not give a true age? Could it be that all of these fossil-bearing rocks are very young?

From all the study I've done so far, nothing would exclude this possibility.

In addition to the fact that these methods all have problems, there are additional problems with radiometric dating. For example, there may be choices of methods to use for dating a rock, and choices of which minerals to date, and geologists choose methods and rocks that give dates that tend to agree with one another. They may treat a rock with an acid, or purify it using a magnetic separator, to get the dates to agree. Then they use this agreement between methods as evidence that radiometric dating is correct.

I've also been bewildered by contradictory statements by different geologists. One source says that low uranium zircons always give dates that agree with one another, while another source says that the amount of uranium has no effect on the fequency with which the dates agree. One source says that zircons have little inherited lead, and another source says that this is a common problem. One source says that historic lava flows rarely give old K-Ar ages, and another source says that they often do. Often I've tried to figure out how some evidence could be true, only later to find out that it's not so.

Now, there are some cases where radiometric dating does appear to be measuring a true age, where many methods agree, such as dating of meteorites, and certain very old rocks on the earth. If these dates are correct, then this material would have to originate from before the creation week. However, radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates are constant. If decay rates have varied, then all methods can be in error, even when they agree.

Along this line, it is interesting that a number of scientists recently have suggested that the speed of light was much faster in the past. Now, the speed of light is a constant, so if this constant can change, maybe other constants, such as decay constants, which measure the rate of decay, can change as well. Here is the article:


Source: University Of Toronto (http://www.utoronto.ca)
Contact: Steven De Sousa , News Services Officer
Phone: (416) 978-6949; Email: steven.desousa@utoronto.ca
Date: Posted 10/6/99

Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicist Suggests

A University of Toronto professor believes that one of the most sacrosanct rules of 20th-century science -- that the speed of light has always been the same - is wrong. Ever since Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity in 1905, physicists have accepted as fundamental principle that the speed of light -- 300 million metres per second -- is a constant and that nothing has, or can, travel faster. John Moffat of the physics department disagrees - light once travelled much faster than it does today, he believes.

Recent theory and observations about the origins of the universe would appear to back up his belief. For instance, theories of the origin of the universe -- the "Big Bang"- suggest that very early in the universe's development, its edges were farther apart than light, moving at a constant speed, could possibly have travelled in that time. To explain this, scientists have focused on strange, unknown and as-yet-undiscovered forms of matter that produce gravity that repulses objects.

Moffat's theory - that the speed of light at the beginning of time was much faster than it is now - provides an answer to some of these cosmology problems. "It is easier for me to question Einstein's theory than it is to assume there is some kind of strange, exotic matter around me in my kitchen." His theory could also help explain astronomers' discovery last year that the universe's expansion is accelerating. Moffat's paper, co-authored with former U of T researcher Michael Clayton, appeared in a recent edition of the journal Physics Letters.

Copyright (c) 1995-99 ScienceDaily Magazine | Email: editor@sciencedaily.com

Another possibility is that decay rates were increased by some astronomical catastrophe about the time of the flood. It is believed that a huge supernova exploded recently about 1000 light years away from the earth. This produced the Gum Nebula, which covers about 40 degrees in the southern hemisphere, a huge formation. The estimated time for this is 11,000 years ago, but this could be in error, and it could be 5,000 years ago or less, or about the time of the flood. Such a supernova would have showered the earth with many different kinds of radiation that could have excited the nucleii of atoms and led them to decay much faster. This could have even caused the flood, by generating terrific quantities of heat and causing volcanoes to erupt and water to spurt out of the earth. These excited nucleii may have taken a while to go back to their normal states, so decay rates may have been elevated for some time after the flood. I can imagine the terror the antediluvians felt as they saw this huge light erupt in the southern sky, followed by a shower of radiation, the shaking of the earth, and terrific quantities of water gushing out of the earth.
There is a lesson for us in these past events. The Bible says that just as the earth was destroyed by a flood in ancient times, it will be destroyed again when Jesus returns. Then the refuge of lies will be swept away, and the truth will be known, that God is the creator and man owes his allegiance to Him alone. And just as the Lord provided an escape then for those who were willing to obey Him, so He provides salvation for His people today.

Human reason is imperfect, and limited. All these books about radiometric dating were written by men who did their best to understand nature using the scientific method. Their conclusions are subject to change as new evidence is found. But the Bible was inspired by One who is infinite in wisdom, power, and love, who created all things in the beginning by His Word of power. He knows the answers to the questions that we cannot answer, and gives us enough evidence to believe in Him. Even more, the Bible tells us of the love of God, and how we can live better lives here and find salvation in eternity. This book shows us how we can come to know Jesus as our friend and Savior.

Yes, Jesus created life on this earth not too long ago. Man fell into sin, and Jesus came to die on the cross and redeem us from our sins. To all who are willing to believe in Him and repent and confess their sins, He offers forgiveness and eternal life. Soon he is coming again to take us to a better home. Fast fulfilling prophecies show that this event cannot be far distant. Let's not give up our hope because of the uncertain conclusions of radiometric dating, especially when it has so many problems. Now more than ever we have reason to question the long ages of radiometric dating on fossil-bearing rocks. Errors will abound in the last days, but we can have confidence in the Word of God. Soon we will see the Lord face to face, and all uncertainties will be swept away. Let's hold fast our confidence, and be ready to meet our Lord with joy when He returns. May this be the choice of each one here, is my prayer.

Amen.

source

[The Punisher]

sorry about the length

[Monsoon X]

Really, really good info! Probably the most convincing yet!

[speedpro50]

yep, good stuff!

[DarkWolf]

I would like to counter all of the info brought up, but I'm too tired right now. So instead, I'll just reiterate my original statement: 1)As for radiometric dating, it has been proven, time and time again using objects of known age. In each and every case where an object with a known date was dated with radiometric dating techniques, the radiometric dating agreed fully with the known age. If it's accurate there, why not on objects without a known date?

Besides, he refutes his own argument right here: "I was initially involved in some internet discussions where the subject of radiometric dating was brought up, and the arguments in favor of life existing for millions of years seemed almost overpowering. It was claimed that many different dating methods all agree to within a few percent on the ages of the fossils, and that there is no way to explain this except that these methods are giving the true ages. Otherwise, why would they all agree? These different dating methods involve different decay processes, and it is not reasonable to assume that chance or some other process would make them all speed up or slow down by the same amount."

He gives good examples of why each method is flawed ... but leaves a gaping hole in his refutal of multiple methods being used, and all agreeing within a reasonable percentage. There's a huge "what if" ... but no proof. There's a huge "maybe", but no definite. Of course, on the flipside, yes the same assumptions are made for radiometric dating.

So why is it inconceivable that they're both right? They both require a lot of assumptions for them to be accepted individually. But neither requires many assumptions when you discover that they agree with each other. The only real assumption you have to make for them to both agree with each other, and validate each other, is to assume that one day for God is not equal to one day for man. Once you get past that hurdle, the rest of the pieces fall into place.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
I would like to counter all of the info brought up, but I'm too tired right now. So instead, I'll just reiterate my original statement: 1)As for radiometric dating, it has been proven, time and time again using objects of known age. In each and every case where an object with a known date was dated with radiometric dating techniques, the radiometric dating agreed fully with the known age. If it's accurate there, why not on objects without a known date?

Besides, he refutes his own argument right here: "I was initially involved in some internet discussions where the subject of radiometric dating was brought up, and the arguments in favor of life existing for millions of years seemed almost overpowering. It was claimed that many different dating methods all agree to within a few percent on the ages of the fossils, and that there is no way to explain this except that these methods are giving the true ages. Otherwise, why would they all agree? These different dating methods involve different decay processes, and it is not reasonable to assume that chance or some other process would make them all speed up or slow down by the same amount."

He gives good examples of why each method is flawed ... but leaves a gaping hole in his refutal of multiple methods being used, and all agreeing within a reasonable percentage. There's a huge "what if" ... but no proof. There's a huge "maybe", but no definite. Of course, on the flipside, yes the same assumptions are made for radiometric dating.

So why is it inconceivable that they're both right? They both require a lot of assumptions for them to be accepted individually. But neither requires many assumptions when you discover that they agree with each other. The only real assumption you have to make for them to both agree with each other, and validate each other, is to assume that one day for God is not equal to one day for man. Once you get past that hurdle, the rest of the pieces fall into place.

I think what he is doing here is just pointing out the assumptions about these methods. And I will say it again, they are not proven effective. They are an assumption, conjecture, a belief. I think the most powerful point he pointed out is how these people that use these methods assume the rate of decay is consistant. They have little knowledge or none of what the earth was like young or before the flood.
Just like years ago they ASSUMED the speed of light was consistent, but to find out it is not. Please lets separate the facts from the assumptions people!

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
I would like to counter all of the info brought up, but I'm too tired right now. So instead, I'll just reiterate my original statement: 1)As for radiometric dating, it has been proven, time and time again using objects of known age. In each and every case where an object with a known date was dated with radiometric dating techniques, the radiometric dating agreed fully with the known age. If it's accurate there, why not on objects without a known date?

Why do you keep saying this when I have show you that it is not, it was proven wrong with mt. saint helens, pompay, and others. Its not fireproof, its like microsoft that has a new product, they think it is usefull, but have not gotten all the bugs worked out. And even if they get all the bugs worked out, Im sorry I can not put my faith in it b/c I cant count on microsoft OS to never have problems and why? Because Microsoft ( or radiometric dating) is made by men, but the Bible was made by God. Lets hold firm to the Bible and not put our faith in man's assumptions.

[DarkWolf]

Uhh, yes, various forms of radiometric dating have been shown to be very accurate. Mt. St. Helens proves nothing, for the same reasons I gave before. Of course there's going to be variying dates given.

You say scientists have to assume the rate of decay remained constant. But on the same token, creationists have to assume that the rate of decay hasn't remain constant. They're both HUGE assumptions to be made on both sides of the argument.

As for the new idea that the speed of light might have been faster long ago, I would like to know who proposed the idea. There are no signs that light is slowing down as we move on through time. Who ever proposed that light was faster long ago, than it is today, is either a nutjob, or a creation scientist, fishing for some theory to try and prove the Earth is young. There's no evidence to base this theory on, as for the past hundred years or so that light speed has been measured, there has been NO degredation in speed.

Assuming the rate of decay has remained constant, while a big assumption, is also a valid assumption, because for the past hundred or so years that we've been measuring the rates of decay, there has been no fluctuation. We've dated objects that have a known age, from as much as 6 thousand years ago, and each time the radiometric dating is accurate. One can only make the assumption from that, that for at least the past 6 thousand years, the rates of decay have remained constant. 6 thousand years ago is roughly the beginning of recorded history. Essentially anything earlier than that, we have to assume that the same radiometric dating methods that we used to verify the known ages of up to 6000 year old objects, is going to be reasonably accurate for dating any objects of unknown age.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
Im sorry I can not put my faith in it b/c I cant count on microsoft OS to never have problems and why? Because Microsoft ( or radiometric dating) is made by men, but the Bible was made by God. Lets hold firm to the Bible and not put our faith in man's assumptions.

Regardless of it's divine inspiration, the Bible too, was written by man. This same man that you can't count on to be reliable, the same man that you can't count on to be infallible. But you're going to make an exception for the Bible?

I'm not saying it's bad. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that it's written by man, and because of that, I can't trust that man's ambitions, man's greed, man's imagination, man's creativity played absolutely no part in the writing of the Bible. We already know parts of the Bible have been re-written over the course of history, to suit the author's, or the King's needs. Were those re-writes divinely inspired, and without fallacy? You're going to put your full faith in something that man has translated countless times, and altered the contents of a number of times to suit his needs? The core message remains intact, that's no surprise. You can see the same evidence of God's core message remaining intact in other religions ... there's just different interpretations of the smaller details.

If you're willing to put your full faith in that, then more power to you. I can't. I think the Bible is a good book, and can be used for many good things, but I put my faith in God, not a book written by man.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf
Uhh, yes, various forms of radiometric dating have been shown to be very accurate. Mt. St. Helens proves nothing, for the same reasons I gave before. Of course there's going to be variying dates given.

You say scientists have to assume the rate of decay remained constant. But on the same token, creationists have to assume that the rate of decay hasn't remain constant. They're both HUGE assumptions to be made on both sides of the argument.

As for the new idea that the speed of light might have been faster long ago, I would like to know who proposed the idea. There are no signs that light is slowing down as we move on through time. Who ever proposed that light was faster long ago, than it is today, is either a nutjob, or a creation scientist, fishing for some theory to try and prove the Earth is young. There's no evidence to base this theory on, as for the past hundred years or so that light speed has been measured, there has been NO degredation in speed.

Assuming the rate of decay has remained constant, while a big assumption, is also a valid assumption, because for the past hundred or so years that we've been measuring the rates of decay, there has been no fluctuation. We've dated objects that have a known age, from as much as 6 thousand years ago, and each time the radiometric dating is accurate. One can only make the assumption from that, that for at least the past 6 thousand years, the rates of decay have remained constant. 6 thousand years ago is roughly the beginning of recorded history. Essentially anything earlier than that, we have to assume that the same radiometric dating methods that we used to verify the known ages of up to 6000 year old objects, is going to be reasonably accurate for dating any objects of unknown age.

1. Scientist and creationist are the same thing. Creationist is just a different type of scientist than the evolutionist in belief, but in essence, they are the same.
2. Here are some ref. on the speed of light changing.
harvard ucr.edu newton Creationist make assumptions too, but they do not hold it to fact like evolutionist do. Anyways, I thought you were a creationist? Anyways, why do majortity of creationist scientist believe the earth is made in a short period of time and not a long period of time? Maybe b/c most of them, when they make assumptions, dont hold it to be true and proven to work. Science has only to do with the facts, not assumptions. If you want to make a theory, that is fine, but dont hold your assumptions to be true unless they can be proven with out a doubt. Then its a fact. As the saying goes. Assumeing only makes an a** out of you and me.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


Regardless of it's divine inspiration, the Bible too, was written by man. This same man that you can't count on to be reliable, the same man that you can't count on to be infallible. But you're going to make an exception for the Bible?

I'm not saying it's bad. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that it's written by man, and because of that, I can't trust that man's ambitions, man's greed, man's imagination, man's creativity played absolutely no part in the writing of the Bible. We already know parts of the Bible have been re-written over the course of history, to suit the author's, or the King's needs. Were those re-writes divinely inspired, and without fallacy? You're going to put your full faith in something that man has translated countless times, and altered the contents of a number of times to suit his needs? The core message remains intact, that's no surprise. You can see the same evidence of God's core message remaining intact in other religions ... there's just different interpretations of the smaller details.

If you're willing to put your full faith in that, then more power to you. I can't. I think the Bible is a good book, and can be used for many good things, but I put my faith in God, not a book written by man.

See, you think the Bible is just a book. So if it is just a book and not the word of God and it it is not God's word but man's word. Then how do you believe in any of it. Why dont you believe in Buda, Judism, or Muslism. They all believe in a God. He might have had humans write 3 books. You dont believe the Bible is the living word of God. So what if man wrote it? If God of the Christian faith inspired men to write a book to give us a journey of life and it is called the "Holy" Bible. Holy dose not leave any room for mistakes or interpretation. We may make mistakes or interpretitation while reading it and learning, but God knew what He meant and He never makes mistakes says His "Word", the Holy Bible.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
As the saying goes. Assumeing only makes an a** out of you and me.

Aye, something we agree on

Yes, I am a creationist, but not in the traditional literal sense of creation happening in 6 Earth days.

[DarkWolf]

Originally posted by 281R
See, you think the Bible is just a book. So if it is just a book and not the word of God and it it is not God's word but man's word. Then how do you believe in any of it. Why dont you believe in Buda, Judism, or Muslism. They all believe in a God. He might have had humans write 3 books. You dont believe the Bible is the living word of God. So what if man wrote it? If God of the Christian faith inspired men to write a book to give us a journey of life and it is called the "Holy" Bible. Holy dose not leave any room for mistakes or interpretation. We may make mistakes or interpretitation while reading it and learning, but God knew what He meant and He never makes mistakes says His "Word", the Holy Bible.

On the same note, other religious books are said to be divinely inspired. It's not called the Holy Quar'an for nothing. I'm not saying it's not God's word. I'm saying that it's God's message, but it was written by man. There are parts of it that have been changed ... there wouldn't be a King James Version if changes weren't made. I accept it as God's core message, but as it has been written, and re-written by man for thousands of years, I put my faith in God.

Also Buhddists don't worship God. Buhdda himself did, but Buhddists strive to be Buhdda, because he's believed to have attained total spiritual enlightenment. Buhddists strive to attain the same level of spiritual enlightenment. Technically, Buhddism isn't a religion. It's followed as such, and has been accepted as such, but because there is no worship of a higher being, it's technically not a religion.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by DarkWolf


Aye, something we agree on

Yes, I am a creationist, but not in the traditional literal sense of creation happening in 6 Earth days.

true... true.... I just wanted to point out that its ok to have the theory that the earth is millions of years old if that is what you think. But before you make it the truth or proven, better make sure it is not on assumptions which it is. The most important point is not that I think the earth is young and you think that it is old, but it is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins because He wanted to, lets not make assumptions about that!

[The Punisher]

Just wanted to TTT this one to see if anyone had any comments?

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 281R
Just wanted to TTT this one to see if anyone had any comments?

Glad you did that...

Here is my take on age and evolution. I also believe the earth is millions of years old, BUT, not because God took that long to do it. Remember when Jesus turned the water in to wine and when he feed the multitudes. He created the wine with age, as well as the fish. They were not just little guppies but full grown fish. God also created Adam and Eve as adults, they were not little babies. Therefore, I believe God created the world in a literal 6 days but gave the earth and everything in it an appearance of being very old.

[The Punisher]

Originally posted by MoonDog


Glad you did that...

Here is my take on age and evolution. I also believe the earth is millions of years old, BUT, not because God took that long to do it. Remember when Jesus turned the water in to wine and when he feed the multitudes. He created the wine with age, as well as the fish. They were not just little guppies but full grown fish. God also created Adam and Eve as adults, they were not little babies. Therefore, I believe God created the world in a literal 6 days but gave the earth and everything in it an appearance of being very old.

Cool, but how do you counter what DW stated above about when Larius stated the same idea? Just wondering...