[_ Old Earth _] The Age of the Earth – The Helium Clock

[Tri Unity]

Paul never claims that they are the words of Jesus. That's a modern phenomenon to conflate the two and to put the words of Paul on par with the words of Jesus as if it were Jesus actually speaking.

Sir, you do not know what my faith is or my view of the bible. Please don't pigeonhole me.

You have stated this to be your faith. You have pigeonholed yourself.

As I said, if this is what you want to believe (have faith in), then you are entitled to pigeonhole this as your faith. I have a different faith. It appears to be a silly argument (IMO), so I would rather not even entertain you.

 

[reba]

Ahem.
It is not my job to make members look good it is your job to post properly . totopic

 

[Adam]

You have stated this to be your faith. You have pigeonholed yourself.

As I said, if this is what you want to believe (have faith in), then you are entitled to pigeonhole this as your faith. I have a different faith. It appears to be a silly argument (IMO), so I would rather not even entertain you.

You claimed that my faith is that the bible is not the word of God. My understanding that Jesus did not state anything regarding us being from the line of Adam has no bearing, either way on whether I believe the bible is the word of God.

Moses said "Who [am] I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?"


If you claimed that, instead, it was Joseph that said this, and I corrected you, would that have any bearing on whether I believe the bible is the word of God? Of course not.

You falsely attributed the words of one figure in the bible to another figure. My ability to observe your mistake does not reflect an absense of faith in the bible.

Again, I will ask that you please stop strawmanning.

 

[Tri Unity]

I find it troubling when people conflate the words of Jesus with the words of Paul and can't see the distinction between them.

I know that most people shrub their shoulders and say something illogical like "same difference" or make some appeal to the Holy Spirit and claim therefore Paul's words might as well be Jesus'.


In my opinion, it is important to note the difference. Paul is not the Christ. As such, he is fallible and capable of being wrong. You don't have to be purposefully deceitful to be wrong, just as you were in error about what Jesus said without having intentionally lied.

You have stated that Paul is capable of being wrong, etc. If Paul is wrong then he cannot be inspired, and the bible is not trustworthy, it is conflating "the words of Jesus with the words of Paul". This is what you said; you "find it troubling". This is what I responded to. This statement implies to me that you do not deem what Paul said with the same authority in scripture as the words of Jesus. That is what you believe, that is your pigeonhole. I don't care for that type of talk. I don't want to even entertain discussing it with you. You can believe it if you want to.

 

[Adam]

Even the pope is capable of being in error.

David was inspired by God, yet he erred and was not allowed to build the temple himself.

Moses erred and was not allowed to cross the Jordan into the promised land.

Men are fallible and capable of corruption. This does not mean that they have no authority. It simply means that their authority is not perfect.

And, no, I would not put any imperfect being in the position of having equal status as Jesus, but what I find troubling is when people are not familiar enough with the NT that they don't know the difference between who said what. That, ultimately spills over into the existing world where people don't know or don't care enough to differentiate what the bible says and what their pastor said. Then you have the Benny Hinn types, cult leaders, charlatans saying that "Jesus said X" or "Jesus wants X" and who cares, because, according to you, "it's all the same. What does it matter when we can just attribute all extraordinary speech to the HS?"

What is troubling is when people make claims based on their assumptions about what Jesus may likely say, based on their own previous committments and then tell others that Jesus did, in fact, say the thing when, in truth he did not.

This allows anyone to simply speak doctrine into existence that never existed and they are rarely held accountable for misleading others. What is worse, although you mispoke and it can be plainly demonstrated that you mispoke, you are saying that I must not believe scripture since I was able to recognize your mistake.


I see now why you don't want to entertain the discussion. I did not claim the bible was in error. I claimed, as evidenced, that you were in error.

 

[Tri Unity]

Even the pope is capable of being in error.

Either the bible is inspired, and the bible writers were inspired in writing, with the same authority that Jesus had, or they are not. You cannot bet on both horses. State your beliefs. Are Paul and the prophets writings inspired, as Jesus' words were inspried, or not?

 

[Free]

Were they all on helium when they wrote? Is that how this is all going to tie-in to the topic?

 

[Adam]

My apologies, Free.

 

[Tri Unity]

Were they all on helium when they wrote? Is that how this is all going to tie-in to the topic?

Yes!

"According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun's core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun's core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth." Danny Faulkner, Journal of Creation.
​

So we are all suffering from Helium delusions. Our evolved state cannot bare the change in atmospherical concentrations of Helium, which has been confused by some to be hallucinations or an epiphany. No wonder we stray so far...

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes!

"According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun's core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun's core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth." Danny Faulkner, Journal of Creation.
​

So we are all suffering from Helium delusions. Our evolved state cannot bare the change in atmospherical concentrations of Helium, which has been confused by some to be hallucinations or an epiphany. No wonder we stray so far...

Given that no baseline is proposed by which this variation in brightness should be assessed or any arguments offered as to what its implications are, I am not altogether clear what point you are trying to make with the Faulkner reference.

 

[Adam]

Yes!

"According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun's core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun's core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth." Danny Faulkner, Journal of Creation.
​

So we are all suffering from Helium delusions. Our evolved state cannot bare the change in atmospherical concentrations of Helium, which has been confused by some to be hallucinations or an epiphany. No wonder we stray so far...

Sir, we don't live on the sun.

 

[lordkalvan]

Sir, we don't live on the sun.

And, even if we did (good opportunity to catch some rays), we have no idea what these proffered figures are supposed to signify.

 

[Barbarian]

"According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun's core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun's core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth." Danny Faulkner, Journal of Creation.

Apparently Faulkner never heard of conservation of mass, poor fellah.

 

[lordkalvan]

Apparently Faulkner never heard of conservation of mass, poor fellah.

And he has some difficulties with lunar cratering as well:

http://podcast.sjrdesign.net/shownotes_041.php

 

[Tri Unity]

Sir, we don't live on the sun.

The pun, which was taken way too personally by those who have no invested interest in a value system (another pun), was referring to Free's pun about the bible writer's exposed to greater amounts of helium.

The irony is that, yes, according to theistic evolution "Adam" did infact suffer from a different atmosphere concentration due to the sun being 25% less bright at the time life began, under the projected dates for life given by evolution's time-scale. The monkey's started to jump in excitement when they heard this; for it was not pleasing to their ears (yes, another pun).

 

[lordkalvan]

The pun, which was taken way too personally by those who have no invested interest in a value system (another pun), was referring to Free's pun about the bible writer's exposed to greater amounts of helium.

Ah, so you weren't trying to make a serious point around this pun?

The irony is that, yes, according to theistic evolution "Adam" did infact suffer from a different atmosphere concentration due to the sun being 25% less bright at the time life began, under the projected dates for life given by evolution's time-scale.

Or were you? You are aware that lifeforms on Earth for some billions of years bore no resemblance to 'Adam' at all and so the significance of the difference in solar brightness referred to by Faulkner remains unclear unless you can explain the implications of the reference?

The monkey's started to jump in excitement when they heard this; for it was not pleasing to their ears (yes, another pun).

How is this a pun? I think I get the 2 Timothy 4:3 reference, but are 'monkeys' supposed to stand for anyone who accepts evolution as pretty much near fact as one can get?

 

[Adam]

The pun, which was taken way too personally by those who have no invested interest in a value system (another pun), was referring to Free's pun about the bible writer's exposed to greater amounts of helium.

The irony is that, yes, according to theistic evolution "Adam" did infact suffer from a different atmosphere concentration due to the sun being 25% less bright at the time life began, under the projected dates for life given by evolution's time-scale. The monkey's started to jump in excitement when they heard this; for it was not pleasing to their ears (yes, another pun).

No, sir.

That is not a proposition of the theistic evolution interpretation.

That is something you have either made up or skewed from a YEC site from someone who does not understand what theistic evolution is.

That isn't even supported by actual science.

 

[stovebolts]

From post 113

Evolution doesn't disprove Adam and Eve. It just puts forward another explanation on how they were created. The most important element for me though is the fact we were created, we're not here by chance, we have a purpose.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Evolution says that we were created from rocks... That's not what the Bible says. The bible says that we were intentionally created for a specific purpose. We are not related to Rocks, sorry to tell ya that.

 

[Adam]

Evolution says nothing about the origins of life.


However, the bible says we were made from mud.

 

[Grazer]

From post 113



Evolution says that we were created from rocks... That's not what the Bible says. The bible says that we were intentionally created for a specific purpose. We are not related to Rocks, sorry to tell ya that.

Though we are 50% genetically similar to a banana