[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs ?

[Edward]

Here is a Pastors perspective. I like this man. Maybe you'll like him better than the other guy.

 

[Edward]

This man is pretty highly educated also. He's not a physicist but he's still highly educated. So educated that his "sermons" don't really sound like sermons, more of a lecture on science and so forth, but he ties it all into scripture and God so this is awesome.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Forgive me brother that prolly wasn't right, lol. First off, one can't simply claim victory in a discussion where we're trying to figure out the truth. This isn't a volleyball game or chess match where if one team doesn't show up they lose, lol So there's no forfeit or anything. I was simply trying to encourage you to actually watch the videos and answer in a roundabout way.

Definitely a manipulative way to go about having a debate. Not cool...

I have posted the essentials of what this man and others have said and get shot down quick and called wrong and usually it is a derail where some details of something evolutionary but not necessarily addressing the actual points that I made in my post. It's also about that point in the conversation that I get called out for not being a scientist, physicist, astrologist of wotnot as if that presumably proves that I could not know the truth (unless I agreed with them lol).

Neither you or myself are scientists with any kind of specialization so really, our opinions are irrelevant to the overall debate. However, our personal beliefs and knowledge are relevant to a venue like this, and the evidence one presents is the strength of their argument.

So here he is... and read back through the posts brother, and you'll see that the man was shot down and the ones shooting him down (including you) hadn't even heard the first word out of the mans mouth yet! Now there's some serious scientific debate there brother. Worthy of any mans respect, lol. How do you have a discussion with someone like that? You don't.

The fact is.. I didn't have to hear what he had to say in order to have an idea what he was going to present. I have literally heard it all, and Creationist presentations are generally quite similar. His was more from a physicist perspective given some of his background, but it was laced with the same kind of Creationist formula of fallacy and falsehood. I have the lowest respect for "professional creationists," in my book they are akin to con-men, but that is my personal opinion.

Fact of the matter is that, while I may not be a physicist, I have read and listened to both sides of this issue for a long time. I read good good and comprehend good.

Edward... I highly doubt that you have actually studied other sources that much outside of hearing their perspective as presented by a Creationist.

What evolutionists have you learned from, and what books in particular have you read?

I have no bias, I search for the truth and I don't care where it comes from. Truth is truth. Some of it I like, some I don't. But the truth is the truth and if I do have any bias now, it would be towards the Word of God, because God has revealed Himself to me to be real and truthful over time. So I have learned this bias over time and put very very much stock into accepting the Word God as truth, and to not put much if any stock into what most men of the world say because the bible says not to.

Did you not see what you did here?

You said, "I have no bias.....So I have learned this bias over time.."

You just admitted that you had a bias, right after you said you had none.

I have a bias, and I have no problem admitting that, one can't really learn unless they realize they have a bias and then can when necessary set it aside to listen properly.

It says we are to rightly divide truth and error, so in these discussions, I will consider very seriously alternate views, and for the moment, set aside pre-suppositions long enough to see if what is being presented has merit and could be plausible...but I wont let people play games with me, and have me running in circles reading and writing while they sit back and chuckle, not even seriously considering what I write and tell me to, oh I don't want to make time to listen to a real scientist, will you do it for me...:wink

Either we're going to have a real conversation or we're not. You can't just say, oh I heard something bad about this guy once so I wont listen to him at all now. Do you realize how that sounded? I don't want to offend you man, but...that was kinda lame. SO take some time and listen to it, and we can talk. Or you can not talk. I dunno. This stuff is interesting, come on brother, give it a little effort and have some faith in God to reveal to us the truth, and perhaps some edification can happen for one or both of us.

Blessings to you brother.

Actually I spent more of the time criticizing the content of what he had to say, so I don't see how this is a valid critique of my post.

I won't be discussing this any further really, seeing as I watched the video and addressed the content and you basically ignored my comments and then posted several more hours worth of material that I am not going to watch.

 

[Barbarian]

The point remains. If you don't understand the video well enough to present its arguments to us, what makes you think it's right?

 

[Edward]

Definitely a manipulative way to go about having a debate. Not cool...
Oh I'm sorry brother. Did I hurt you? Would you like a band-aid?

Neither you or myself are scientists with any kind of specialization so really, our opinions are irrelevant to the overall debate. However, our personal beliefs and knowledge are relevant to a venue like this, and the evidence one presents is the strength of their argument.
Agreed. We're just guys talking.

The fact is.. I didn't have to hear what he had to say in order to have an idea what he was going to present. I have literally heard it all, and Creationist presentations are generally quite similar. His was more from a physicist perspective given some of his background, but it was laced with the same kind of Creationist formula of fallacy and falsehood. I have the lowest respect for "professional creationists," in my book they are akin to con-men, but that is my personal opinion.
So a highly educated man, PHD in fact, which starts out as an atheist, delving into it to prove the creationists wrong, and his honest study and so forth leads him to understand the truth, that evolution is impossible, and he's a big man about it and honorable both to himself and scholastically, admits he was wrong and receives the truth and therefore modifies his belief system... you will have no respect for and begin labeling him in a demeaning way...because he didn't say what you wanted him to!!! Oh...my...God...brother.

Before, you was all, oh we have to have a real scientist, physicist yada yada yada. So I give him to you, the fully educated one, and you refuse to believe him or to even give him any credit whatsoever. That's hilarious brother. A statement like that from you, an admitted non-scientist, to that degree with that tone...makes you look bad brother.

Edward... I highly doubt that you have actually studied other sources that much outside of hearing their perspective as presented by a Creationist.
Now you want my resume? Dude, I'm an HVAC technician. No idiot but no scientist either, same as you.

What evolutionists have you learned from, and what books in particular have you read?
Why? Would you suddenly give me respect or think more highly of me? No you wouldn't. All you're doing here is fishing for something so that in some way, you can turn it around and denounce me. I've read this stuff on and off for years and didn't keep a list for you. A lot was on the internet too. I already told, I'm not college educated (well, in any relevant way at least). So it would be pointless for me to provide that information, especially when you aren't even willing to listen to a real PHD, lol. Even if I threw a couple names at you...guaranteed that you don't like them or have heard something yada yada yada.


Did you not see what you did here? Oh, yes sir brother. You can bet I do. I seen it before I clicked post and intentionally did not edit it.

You said, "I have no bias.....So I have learned this bias over time.."

You just admitted that you had a bias, right after you said you had none.

I have a bias, and I have no problem admitting that, one can't really learn unless they realize they have a bias and then can when necessary set it aside to listen properly.

You rose right up to it too, didn't you brother?! Here's your big point, right here. Ohh you got me. You know what that means, right. Now I'm invalid, been proven wrong.
In a way though, bias for the Word of God isn't on the same level that bias or prejudice to a scientist is. That's the main reason I left it. I stand by it too.


Actually I spent more of the time criticizing the content of what he had to say, so I don't see how this is a valid critique of my post. Oh yeah, I know. You've demonstrated that nothing that anyone could post is a valid critique of your position or belief, not even scripture. So it is what it is.

I won't be discussing this any further really, seeing as I watched the video and addressed the content and you basically ignored my comments and then posted several more hours worth of material that I am not going to watch.
Yeah, that's probably the best thing to do at this point. Agree to disagree and move on. It is a shame though that you're scared to listen to men speak the truth. Those are some good videos with Chuck Missler especially. That you've effectively debunked him without listening to him ( ) is an awesome skill that you have. Others who do not have all the answers already as you do may find them very interesting though.

Blessings to you and yours from God brother.
I answered you in bold in your quote.

 

[Edward]

The point remains. If you don't understand the video well enough to present its arguments to us, what makes you think it's right?

I didn't say i didn't understand it. Those are your words. Go read my post again if you had trouble understanding me.

 

[lordkalvan]

Okay, it has been better than fifty years since I studied these things in class and almost fifty years since I did any personal research into the matter but on the web I found:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/

http://carm.org/carbon-dating

of about 619,000 results

and:
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }
Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.


@ http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age1.htm

The idea of dating anything on strata assumes there in zero truth to the scriptures that have stood both the Time Test and centuries of attempted rebuking. The Word of God places the age of the Earth in the range of 6,000 years. One might ask how can this be in light of all this information the Secular Scientists insist is true? God has, clearly, promised to send a delusion and I am suggesting, He has.

Thanks again for those links. They were quite extensive and, given the nature of this level of discussion, it does not seem practical to respond to them in detail. However, i will make a number of points that, to me, appear significant.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

This paper is lengthy, but I did notice several things that struck is either misrepresentations (whether from ignorance or intent, I don't know), cherry picking or special pleading. For example:

'Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.'

This is simply not true: Carbon 14 calibration is carried out by reference to several independent dating metrics, all of which are consilient and all of which are consistent with the 'curve' we see when plotting uncorrected Carbon 14 dates. These metrics include dendrochronology, lake varves, speleothems, and coral growth.

'The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the Earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.'

The paper argues that Earth is only thousands of years old, yet wishes to use the Solar System's orbit around our galaxy as an argument to support variation in cosmic ray bombardment. A single orbit of the Milky Way takes between 225 and 250 million years; 6,000 years is approximately one-forty-thousandth of this period, so how many galactic 'magnetic clouds' does the author imagine have been transited in this time?

'Overall, the energy of the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.'

Elsewhere the author has argued against uniformitarian thinking in radiometric dating assumptions, but here wishes to use exactly such thinking to suggest that a study of Earth's magnetic field covering approximately 130 years in the 19th and 20th Centuries can be used to argue that the magnetic field has been consistently decreasing such as allow the conclusion in the last sentence to be reached.

'Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance.'

Except that there is no evidence in lake varve studies, for example, to show any anomalous data-spike that such a 'great...upset' would cause.

'It is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14C in it,[25], or wood supposedly millions of years old still has 14C present, but it makes perfect sense in a creationist world view.'

Simply untrue. Carbon 14 can be produced in coal by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks in which coal deposits are located.

'The Earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old.'

Again, simply untrue and makes a uniformitarian assumption that has been criticised elsewhere by the author. The best evidence shows that Earth's magnetic field fluctuates over time, sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker.

There are many other points I could make, but I think these are sufficient to cast some doubt on the value of this paper.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/

Simply reports refinement of the calibration curve for Carbon 14 dating based on detailed analysis of varves from Lake Suigetsu, leading to possible adjustments of some hundreds of years for dates of material dated in the tens of thousands of years. There is nothing in this article that questions or throws doubt on the technique of Carbon 14 dating.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/

More misrepresentation and cherry picking here, I am afraid. For example, the paper spends some time critiquing Willard Libby's initial assumptions about Carbon 14 equilibrium, conveniently ignoring the subsequent 60+ years of research and observation that shows that atmospheric Carbon 14 fluctuates.

'The earth has a magnetic field around it which helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space. This magnetic field is decaying (getting weaker). '

Exactly the same argument as critiqued above.

http://carm.org/carbon-dating

Not much more than an exercise in special pleading based on an out-of-hand dismissal of dendrochronology 'for various good reasons I wont go into here.'

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age1.htm

This seems to be a vrief description of how sedimentary rock is dated radiometrically without any indication that this might be considered unreliable.

As to your final paragraph, again it seems to be simply the work of men to date Earth to 6000 years' old based on an interpretation of the Bible that is unsupported by any external evidence at all (Ussher invoked none for his chronology, for example). Indeed, the substance of all arguments critiquing 'old' Earth chronologies seem to be based solely on a determination that the Ussher chronology (or something very similar to it) is absolutely correct and thus any evidence which shows the contrary must be summarily dismissed, misrepresented or otherwise banged on with a hammer until it 'fits'.

 

[lordkalvan]

The Holy Spirit teaches me that the Earth and the Universe are + or - 6,000 years old...

So essentially you are a 'young' Earth creationist.

...and in view of a news article I read last year no, Evolution is no longer a possible truth and in light of the one on one teaching of the Spirit of God, it absolutely cannot stand.

And yet it does and so robustly that many Christians have no trouble reconciling it with their faith.

...the news article last year reported that a growing segment of the scientific community was busy postulating a new theory because the Theory of Evolution was losing favor because it was impossible to prove.

So which 'segment of the scientific community' is this and what are they proposing in place of the ToE?

If a theory is not provable with empirical science methods, it can never be science and will, always, remain a theory.

You seem to be confusing the scientific usage of theory with the popular usage. The ToE has so far failed to be falsified by any observation, experiment or testing and falsifiability is the test of the robustness of any scientific idea. As far as absolute proof can be admitted in scientific research, the ToE is about as 'proved' as a theory can be.

I understand that because the Theory of evolution is now taught as a fact that it is difficult to up root but it has not been taught as absolute truth for, all, that long. Most of my men in Vietnam and most of my Warrant Officers, all younger than myself, were taught that a theory was not science, merely scientific possibility. This teaching of Theory as Scientific truth has only prevailed in the last thirty-five years or so.

'When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena'

Source: http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

 

[lordkalvan]

My exact words were "I believe that some of what people call species are actually just variations within a single species". Can you please point out the word "bats" in that sentence.

Well, your next sentence was 'That may apply to some bats, or maybe all of them' so I maybe made a mistake when I assumed that you were in fact discussing bats in particular.

I have already answered this and given you one example, which you can easily verify if you wish. Like I said before, read all of what I said before replying.

But your example does not appear to allow you to draw any conclusions about bats. Basically, as far as bats are concerned, you appear not to know whether any or all of them are related or not, yet this still allows you to draw conclusions about evolutionary theory being unbelievable.

My point exactly. A minor difference is enough to classify some animals as different species, in spite of the fact that they regularly interbreed in nature, while a much greater difference doesn't seem to matter at all in other cases. If the definition of the term "species" is so subjective that scientists can't even agree on living species (or sub-species or variations, depending on whom you ask), how can we trust what they say about species that no living person has ever seen? This is the reason why I try to avoid most discussions about evolution. If something isn't objective, then it's an opinion. It may be the opinion of many, but it's still an opinion, and evolutionists claim that their opinion on what should be a species or what should be accepted as evidence is somehow better and more right than the opinions of those who disagree. I have provided support for my views and you have totally ignored it. I will not be discussing this with you further.

The TOG​

Evolution posits 'fuzzy' boundaries and difficulty in classifying species and sub-species is neither unexpected nor infrequent. This is not a falsification of evolutionary theory, nor does it throw into doubt evidence about the interrelatedness of the variety of life on Earth. 'Variation within a species' is as much evidence of evolutionary processes in action as anything else. If variation progresses far enough, interfility amongst sub-species producing fertile fertile hybrids becomes interfility producing non-fertile hybrids and, ultimately, no interfertility at all.

 

[lordkalvan]

It is true God cannot lie (which is against His nature), but don't start attributing a man-made theory to God's creation and saying that if it isn't true, then God is a liar. The idea of evolution has only been around for about 150 years. To assume that an idea that was developed by the secular scientific community should be applied to God's creation is an absolute fallacy.

Let's not mistake foolishness for wisdom.

I think the argument is that the man-made idea that Earth is only 6000 years requires a deity who has placed misleading evidence in its creation. Old Earth creationists do not face this dilemma of having to admit a potentially 'lying' deity into their faith.

 

[lordkalvan]

It comes down to this, if a finding does not support scripture, then it should be tossed out. Evolution actually is an essential issue as it speaks to the focus of the individual. Evolution, as I stated before, is an alternative human explanation for questions that have already been answered.

As Christians if we see a brother or sister being led astray by a secular world view it is our duty to at least attempt to steer them back in the right direction. That is what evolution is, a secular world view.

Actually, evolution is an evidence-based worldview, hence it is embraced by Christians of many different sects, Muslims, Hindus and many other 'non-secularists'.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Blessings to you and yours from God brother.
I answered you in bold in your quote.

Edward... I've really quite had it with all this...

Don't say, "blessings to you and yours from God brother," after you are basically mocking me and laughing at me in your comments, asking me if I "want a band-aid."

So a highly educated man, PHD in fact, which starts out as an atheist, delving into it to prove the creationists wrong, and his honest study and so forth leads him to understand the truth, that evolution is impossible, and he's a big man about it and honorable both to himself and scholastically, admits he was wrong and receives the truth and therefore modifies his belief system... you will have no respect for and begin labeling him in a demeaning way...because he didn't say what you wanted him to!!! Oh...my...God...brother.

Fallacious appeal to authority to start with.. just because a guy has a PhD, doesn't mean he is honest or knows what he is talking about. He had a particular focus with his PhD, and that was Nuclear Physics, not Earth Science, Biology, etc. I say this based off of his remarks in the 60 minutes of video that I watched and didn't see anything honorable about him. I just saw fallacy after fallacy, falsehood after falsehood. The Bible makes remarks about what happens to liars you know.

Please don't use the Lord's name in vain.

Before, you was all, oh we have to have a real scientist, physicist yada yada yada. So I give him to you, the fully educated one, and you refuse to believe him or to even give him any credit whatsoever. That's hilarious brother. A statement like that from you, an admitted non-scientist, to that degree with that tone...makes you look bad brother.

Where did I say that? Please quote me.

I said you needed credible and reliable evidence, which none has ever been presented here. I also don't really care how I appear to you.

Now you want my resume? Dude, I'm an HVAC technician. No idiot but no scientist either, same as you.

Heaven forbid that YOU actually defend your own claims Edward, continually dodging is all I ever see. Zero content besides posting Creationist videos.

Why? Would you suddenly give me respect or think more highly of me? No you wouldn't. All you're doing here is fishing for something so that in some way, you can turn it around and denounce me. I've read this stuff on and off for years and didn't keep a list for you. A lot was on the internet too. I already told, I'm not college educated (well, in any relevant way at least). So it would be pointless for me to provide that information, especially when you aren't even willing to listen to a real PHD, lol. Even if I threw a couple names at you...guaranteed that you don't like them or have heard something yada yada yada.

I listened to all 60 minutes of the videos you posted, and even laid out my critique of what he said, proving that I listened to them. How am I then unwilling to listen to a "real PhD."

How about I lay out several hours of video for you to watch and then flame you when you don't take the time to respond. Sheesh!

Also, I'm just asking you to support your claim that you have listened to both sides. I can name loads of Creationists from whom I have heard their arguments in addition to this board. Many debates, and at one time even heard several presentations at a conference I was at. My personal opinion is that if you've heard one "professional Creationist," you've basically heard them all. Obscure outdated science, or just outright falsehoods, to try and deceive the masses.

You rose right up to it too, didn't you brother?! Here's your big point, right here. Ohh you got me. You know what that means, right. Now I'm invalid, been proven wrong.
In a way though, bias for the Word of God isn't on the same level that bias or prejudice to a scientist is. That's the main reason I left it. I stand by it too.

No... I'm just pointing out the blatant contradiction you just posted. One contradiction doesn't invalidate a person. Though in this case it does prove you absolutely have a bias, despite at sometimes not believing you do.

Oh yeah, I know. You've demonstrated that nothing that anyone could post is a valid critique of your position or belief, not even scripture. So it is what it is.

You provide insufficient evidence to the table in regards to arguments against evolution, and I break it down why it's insufficient... but it must be ME that has the problem.. I won't think anything is valid..

You realize that this very same thing could be said of yourself, except you never actually address the content of our critiques in any substantial way.

Yeah, that's probably the best thing to do at this point. Agree to disagree and move on. It is a shame though that you're scared to listen to men speak the truth. Those are some good videos with Chuck Missler especially. That you've effectively debunked him without listening to him ( ) is an awesome skill that you have. Others who do not have all the answers already as you do may find them very interesting though.

Actually I listened to all 60 minutes... did you? If you read my comments you would see that they are all based on the arguments he presented.

So if you're going to call me scared or a liar... at least substantiate such claims with actual evidence. These are just low blows based upon supposition. Fact of the matter is I did listen to Russel Humphreys, and here from memory is a brief description of most of the video.

1. Argument from Galaxy rotation.. spinning too fast.
2. Magnetic fields in the universe and on earth.
3. Ocean sea floor mud accumulates too fast without enough being removed.
4. Too much salt water in the ocean without being removed.
5. Biological material decays too quickly.
And on and on.. here are some from the second video..
6. Starts with his background
7. Carbon 14 Dating is invalid, helium escaping from diamonds proves young earth.. yada yada he spends like half the time talking about this stuff.
8. The old God must have sped up radioactive decay argument.
9. Book plug..
10. Yet another assertion of "wow the evidence really is overwhelming." I have never seen anything like that in a secular scientific source, the evidence speaks for itself.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Thanks again for those links. They were quite extensive and, given the nature of this level of discussion, it does not seem practical to respond to them in detail. However, i will make a number of points that, to me, appear significant.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

This paper is lengthy, but I did notice several things that struck is either misrepresentations (whether from ignorance or intent, I don't know), cherry picking or special pleading. For example:

'Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.'

This is simply not true: Carbon 14 calibration is carried out by reference to several independent dating metrics, all of which are consilient and all of which are consistent with the 'curve' we see when plotting uncorrected Carbon 14 dates. These metrics include dendrochronology, lake varves, speleothems, and coral growth.

'The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the Earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.'

The paper argues that Earth is only thousands of years old, yet wishes to use the Solar System's orbit around our galaxy as an argument to support variation in cosmic ray bombardment. A single orbit of the Milky Way takes between 225 and 250 million years; 6,000 years is approximately one-forty-thousandth of this period, so how many galactic 'magnetic clouds' does the author imagine have been transited in this time?

'Overall, the energy of the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.'

Elsewhere the author has argued against uniformitarian thinking in radiometric dating assumptions, but here wishes to use exactly such thinking to suggest that a study of Earth's magnetic field covering approximately 130 years in the 19th and 20th Centuries can be used to argue that the magnetic field has been consistently decreasing such as allow the conclusion in the last sentence to be reached.

'Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance.'

Except that there is no evidence in lake varve studies, for example, to show any anomalous data-spike that such a 'great...upset' would cause.

'It is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14C in it,[25], or wood supposedly millions of years old still has 14C present, but it makes perfect sense in a creationist world view.'

Simply untrue. Carbon 14 can be produced in coal by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks in which coal deposits are located.

'The Earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old.'

Again, simply untrue and makes a uniformitarian assumption that has been criticised elsewhere by the author. The best evidence shows that Earth's magnetic field fluctuates over time, sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker.

There are many other points I could make, but I think these are sufficient to cast some doubt on the value of this paper.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/

Simply reports refinement of the calibration curve for Carbon 14 dating based on detailed analysis of varves from Lake Suigetsu, leading to possible adjustments of some hundreds of years for dates of material dated in the tens of thousands of years. There is nothing in this article that questions or throws doubt on the technique of Carbon 14 dating.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/

More misrepresentation and cherry picking here, I am afraid. For example, the paper spends some time critiquing Willard Libby's initial assumptions about Carbon 14 equilibrium, conveniently ignoring the subsequent 60+ years of research and observation that shows that atmospheric Carbon 14 fluctuates.

'The earth has a magnetic field around it which helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space. This magnetic field is decaying (getting weaker). '

Exactly the same argument as critiqued above.

http://carm.org/carbon-dating

Not much more than an exercise in special pleading based on an out-of-hand dismissal of dendrochronology 'for various good reasons I wont go into here.'

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age1.htm

This seems to be a vrief description of how sedimentary rock is dated radiometrically without any indication that this might be considered unreliable.

As to your final paragraph, again it seems to be simply the work of men to date Earth to 6000 years' old based on an interpretation of the Bible that is unsupported by any external evidence at all (Ussher invoked none for his chronology, for example). Indeed, the substance of all arguments critiquing 'old' Earth chronologies seem to be based solely on a determination that the Ussher chronology (or something very similar to it) is absolutely correct and thus any evidence which shows the contrary must be summarily dismissed, misrepresented or otherwise banged on with a hammer until it 'fits'.

I'm sorry but you are speaking as if you are the ultimate authority and assuming I should rely on what you say? You see, I am a Christian and I am not the general garden variety. I have done as God requires and I do believe scripturally, as though I were a small child. (Matt. 18:3) When my children were under the age of 10, small children, if I had said to them, "The world is square," they would have gone to school and argued with the Teachers about the matter because their dad had said the world is square.

There is a penalty spoken of in this verse that, better than 98% of the Church Membership will not accept, condemnation to Eternity in Hell for the disbelief. I understand that the believers in the theory of the Big Bang/Evolution think me simple but the facts do not support such.

I only made it through the Eighth Grade but when I took my GED Test less than a month later I maxed all the tests but one and I was POed at myself because I only made 92 on that one. From that time until now I have studied, even though I tested 130 on my IQ. Having been raised in a Godless house in a Godless area, I once studied the same materials you have studied, and found the offered material lacking.

There were a couple of points, that when I checked, they made no sense. The laws of Thermodynamics could not be reconciled with a Big Bang and then there was the complexity of the biochemistry of a single cell. We have a team near here that has built a single cell successfully and, just, the required process converted one of the team members because of the complexity. I do not recall his name but it can be found on You Tube by searching there for "biochemistry Origins."

It is just impossible that we are the product of evolution making all of the evidence to be the product Trash Science. On the other hand, my Father told me so is, indeed, the Christian thing to do. God said He did it in 6, 24 hour, days. Actually, it took only one day, twenty- four hours, to create the thousands of Universes in the Galaxy, He is an Amazing God.

 

[th1b.taylor]

So essentially you are a 'young' Earth creationist.

If you choose, ok but the truth will remain because I am a Biblicist, God said it and I believe.

[

And yet it does and so robustly that many Christians have no trouble reconciling it with their faith.

That will be because the Church is in the Laodician Church Age, neither cold nor hot. (Rev. 3:14-21)

So which 'segment of the scientific community' is this and what are they proposing in place of the ToE?

This is a question I, honestly, do not study since the first day of 1990 but you should be able to Google it. If you are unwilling to research it I will never affect your Eternal destination, just, perhaps, the good LORD willing, some of the silent readers.

You seem to be confusing the scientific usage of theory with the popular usage. The ToE has so far failed to be falsified by any observation, experiment or testing and falsifiability is the test of the robustness of any scientific idea. As far as absolute proof can be admitted in scientific research, the ToE is about as 'proved' as a theory can be.

No, no confusion here, I was out of school and into the Army, crewing UH-1s before teachers began teaching the lies. A theory is the accepted postulation of the manner a specific event occures or occurred. The idea stands unproven. Common usage or scientific, it does not redefine word. The Miriam Webster will demonstrate the issue clearly.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena'

All misstated! None of the Big Bang can be proven. The only thing in the theory of evolution that comes close id adaptation. And to make their point sound more acceptable, they, the scientific community has added two words not used when I was growing up, Macro and Mini. The result is that adaptation is now, erroneously spoken of as Mini-Evolution, nonsense, of course.

Source: http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html[/QUOTE]

 

[th1b.taylor]

Source: http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Thank you for the link but;

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

does not satisfy the truth expressed in the Mirrian Webster;

the·o·ry
noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject[

Your preferred usage of the word is incorrect and is a modern day Revisionist idea, just not true. Sorry, but revising might and does work on youngsters but for us old fossils, it ain't true and attempting to change or to override the recorded Word of God will only result in the penalty mentioned three times in scripture. As best I recall the command and penalty are mentioned in Leviticus and at tnd of the book of The Revelation of Jesus, the Christ. The other I have long forgotten the location of. but it reads, essentially, as 'Do not add nor remove a single word of what He has had recorded or the very worst that can possibly happen to you in Eternity will happen.'

I understand this best in a Modern day proverb;
Assuming there are levels of the Lake of Fire, just, as there are levels of reward in Heaven, (Matt. 22:1-14) described in the parable of the Wedding Feast.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

does not satisfy the truth expressed in the Mirrian Webster;


Your preferred usage of the word is incorrect and is a modern day Revisionist idea, just not true. Sorry, but revising might and does work on youngsters but for us old fossils, it ain't true and attempting to change or to override the recorded Word of God will only result in the penalty mentioned three times in scripture. As best I recall the command and penalty are mentioned in Leviticus and at tnd of the book of The Revelation of Jesus, the Christ. The other I have long forgotten the location of. but it reads, essentially, as 'Do not add nor remove a single word of what He has had recorded or the very worst that can possibly happen to you in Eternity will happen.'

Uhh... the usage of the word is determined by the INTENDED MEANING of the person speaking/writing. Scientists and those here use it a certain way, and this is a FACT.

Do you even know how dictionaries work? So insulting to tell someone what they actually mean, when they're trying to tell you! Sheesh...

 

[lordkalvan]

I'm sorry but you are speaking as if you are the ultimate authority and assuming I should rely on what you say? You see, I am a Christian and I am not the general garden variety. I have done as God requires and I do believe scripturally, as though I were a small child. (Matt. 18:3) When my children were under the age of 10, small children, if I had said to them, "The world is square," they would have gone to school and argued with the Teachers about the matter because their dad had said the world is square.

There is a penalty spoken of in this verse that, better than 98% of the Church Membership will not accept, condemnation to Eternity in Hell for the disbelief. I understand that the believers in the theory of the Big Bang/Evolution think me simple but the facts do not support such.

I only made it through the Eighth Grade but when I took my GED Test less than a month later I maxed all the tests but one and I was POed at myself because I only made 92 on that one. From that time until now I have studied, even though I tested 130 on my IQ. Having been raised in a Godless house in a Godless area, I once studied the same materials you have studied, and found the offered material lacking.

There were a couple of points, that when I checked, they made no sense. The laws of Thermodynamics could not be reconciled with a Big Bang and then there was the complexity of the biochemistry of a single cell. We have a team near here that has built a single cell successfully and, just, the required process converted one of the team members because of the complexity. I do not recall his name but it can be found on You Tube by searching there for "biochemistry Origins."

It is just impossible that we are the product of evolution making all of the evidence to be the product Trash Science. On the other hand, my Father told me so is, indeed, the Christian thing to do. God said He did it in 6, 24 hour, days. Actually, it took only one day, twenty- four hours, to create the thousands of Universes in the Galaxy, He is an Amazing God.

I hope that I can understand and say that I even admire your faith, but none of what you have posted here addresses anything in the comments I have made in respect of the links you posted.

 

[lordkalvan]

If you choose, ok but the truth will remain because I am a Biblicist, God said it and I believe.

[

That will be because the Church is in the Laodician Church Age, neither cold nor hot. (Rev. 3:14-21)

And how does this bear on the fact that many Christians have no problem with evolution as a manifestation of God's creation and evolutionary theory as a description of that phenomenon?

This is a question I, honestly, do not study since the first day of 1990 but you should be able to Google it. If you are unwilling to research it I will never affect your Eternal destination, just, perhaps, the good LORD willing, some of the silent readers.

If you are citing a memory from 1990, do you not think that perhaps if the replacement theory was so strong it might have been more widely circulated by now?

No, no confusion here, I was out of school and into the Army, crewing UH-1s before teachers began teaching the lies. A theory is the accepted postulation of the manner a specific event occures or occurred. The idea stands unproven. Common usage or scientific, it does not redefine word. The Miriam Webster will demonstrate the issue clearly.

Words can have multiple definitions depending on context. In this specific scientific context, 'theory' does not mean the same thing as it does in popular usage.

All misstated! None of the Big Bang can be proven.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

The only thing in the theory of evolution that comes close id adaptation. And to make their point sound more acceptable, they, the scientific community has added two words not used when I was growing up, Macro and Mini. The result is that adaptation is now, erroneously spoken of as Mini-Evolution, nonsense, of course.

I have never heard of mini-evolution. Macro- and microevolution are not widely used terms as evolution is just evolution. Microevolution is used as a convenient shorthand for talking about evolution below the species' 'level', macroevolution for that above it. What makes evolution acceptable is the evidence that supports it from a variety of different fields of research.

 

[lordkalvan]

Thank you for the link but;


does not satisfy the truth expressed in the Mirrian Webster;


Your preferred usage of the word is incorrect and is a modern day Revisionist idea, just not true. Sorry, but revising might and does work on youngsters but for us old fossils, it ain't true and attempting to change or to override the recorded Word of God will only result in the penalty mentioned three times in scripture. As best I recall the command and penalty are mentioned in Leviticus and at tnd of the book of The Revelation of Jesus, the Christ. The other I have long forgotten the location of. but it reads, essentially, as 'Do not add nor remove a single word of what He has had recorded or the very worst that can possibly happen to you in Eternity will happen.'

I understand this best in a Modern day proverb;
Assuming there are levels of the Lake of Fire, just, as there are levels of reward in Heaven, (Matt. 22:1-14) described in the parable of the Wedding Feast.

I am sorry, but my usage of the word reflects the definition as used and understood when applied in the context of a scientific theory.

 

[lordkalvan]

Uhh... the usage of the word is determined by the INTENDED MEANING of the person speaking/writing. Scientists and those here use it a certain way, and this is a FACT.

Do you even know how dictionaries work? So insulting to tell someone what they actually mean, when they're trying to tell you! Sheesh...

All of this.