Jump to content


Does God's Word Speak Of Things Made To...


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#81 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 May 2005 - 09:39 PM

I am going to start another thread addressing what so many claim is God faking history. You will need to come up with evidence of this, or what you say will be considered an assertion also.

And yes, I do understand where your coming from. Problem is, I get the impression that you don't understand where YEC is coming from.

#82 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 16 May 2005 - 10:08 PM

“Do you think science is limited to investigating things no older than ones own lifetime?”

Science would be things that you can see, test, demonstrate, and reproduce. You have FAITH that the earth is old enough for radiometric dating to work, you have FAITH that the decay rates have remained constant.

“You will note that in my post I have provided a variety of dating methods. Now as they use differing methods of dating age, and that they overlap, one can conclude that yes, the rate of ‘decay’ has remained constant/consistent of the age of the earth. If you still think there are problems with dating methods you will have to answer”

So even though the different dating methods prove that each other one is wrong, you say that the decay rates have remained constant? Now that’s an oxymoron if I have ever heard one.

#83 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 17 May 2005 - 04:30 AM

You have FAITH that the earth is old enough for radiometric dating to work, you have FAITH that the decay rates have remained constant.

View Post


It depends on your definition of faith doesn't it? It's not faith in the religious sense, its closer to faith in the 'trust' sense. We accept the assumption that decay rates have been constant because it has been tested. It also happens to give results that are consistent, and agree with relative dating, cosmology and biology.

#84 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 17 May 2005 - 08:55 AM

I am going to start another thread addressing what so many claim is God faking history. You will need to come up with evidence of this, or what you say will be considered an assertion also.


Can't wait.:)

And yes, I do understand where your coming from. Problem is, I get the impression that you don't understand where YEC is coming from.

View Post


I think the OP said it all. Certain things have to be "mature" in order for the planet and life to work. I understand this. This would include soil that is aerated, just as if earthworms had been working through it for decades. This would include trees with rings.

My argument was the appearance of a history, such as Adam having scars from injuries that he never had. Homologous to this situation would be over 100 meteor craters over 1 km in diameter. The other would be a history of island building on the Pacific Plate with the Hawaiian Islands/Archipelago being the most recent of those islands. These are the types of evidence that will be included in your new thread.

#85 Faith and Reason

Faith and Reason

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Interests:Birdwatching, violin, piano, philosophy, languages
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota

Posted 17 May 2005 - 01:55 PM

And if your a christian, why would you make that assertion? Or do you agree that with that assertion that God is also powerless? Because to say God cannot do something would mean that you know more about His abilities than the rest of us. Care to tell us how you know that?


To say that God is powerless to go against natural laws is the weakest argument I know for an old earth. The Bible clearly states in many places that God is able to do anything.

The question is whether or not God's character would be consistent with his creating records in the earth for events that never happened. Unless it is within God's character for Him to deceive, He could not have lied to us in creation.

#86 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 May 2005 - 07:11 PM

“Do you think science is limited to investigating things no older than ones own lifetime?”

Science would be things that you can see, test, demonstrate, and reproduce. You have FAITH that the earth is old enough for radiometric dating to work, you have FAITH that the decay rates have remained constant.

“You will note that in my post I have provided a variety of dating methods. Now as they use differing methods of dating age, and that they overlap, one can conclude that yes, the rate of ‘decay’ has remained constant/consistent of the age of the earth. If you still think there are problems with dating methods you will have to answer”

So even though the different dating methods prove that each other one is wrong, you say that the decay rates have remained constant? Now that’s an oxymoron if I have ever heard one.

View Post



crystaleaglesprings Helpful hint, learn how to use the ‘quote function’ so that the replies are in a box, makes it much easier to read and then reply to.

Science would be things that you can see, test, demonstrate, and reproduce. You have FAITH that the earth is old enough for radiometric dating to work, you have FAITH that the decay rates have remained constant.


You have it about face, the evidence points to an old Earth, I need no faith in a religious sense, to ‘believe that the earth is old. One puts trust in how the evidence is interpreted based on the track record of the methods used and people involved. It’s more akin to playing the odds than faith.

So even though the different dating methods prove that each other one is wrong, you say that the decay rates have remained constant? Now that’s an oxymoron if I have ever heard one.


You have not understood the problem, if one has several differing methods of determining age, and all methods give the same result, then YEC need to show how all methods are inaccurate in specifically different ways. Make no mistake this is a huge problem for you, e.g if tree rings = C14 = ice core, etc, etc.

#87 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 18 May 2005 - 08:45 PM

"My argument was the appearance of a history, such as Adam having scars from injuries that he never had. Homologous to this situation would be over 100 meteor craters over 1 km in diameter. The other would be a history of island building on the Pacific Plate with the Hawaiian Islands/Archipelago being the most recent of those islands. These are the types of evidence that will be included in your new thread."

Ahumph. Flood....


"and all methods give the same result,"
haven't we been over that they all don't in fact give the same result. This would mean that something catastrophic must have happened or something supernatural, otherwise wouldn't they all be exactly the same?

"The question is whether or not God's character would be consistent with his creating records in the earth for events that never happened."

Such as?

“2,000 years ago is not recent according to your model, that is one third of the age of the earth! Are you suggesting that the decay rates variation was limited to only 4,000 years? That's a lot of radiation, are you sure we could have survived it?”

I don’t follow. If the decay rates were sped up during the 2,000 years before it, there would be no need to have accelerated decay during the last 4,000, what you say makes no sense.

#88 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 19 May 2005 - 02:10 AM

“2,000 years ago is not recent according to your model, that is one third of the age of the earth! Are you suggesting that the decay rates variation was limited to only 4,000 years? That's a lot of radiation, are you sure we could have survived it?”


I don’t follow. If the decay rates were sped up during the 2,000 years before it, there would be no need to have accelerated decay during the last 4,000, what you say makes no sense.



I'll try again. I believe you agreed that the decay rates have not changed in the last 2,000 years. That means they HAD to have happened before then, correct? Instead of the decay rates occurring from 1AD through 2005AD they must have occurred somewhere in 4,400BC to 1BC. I estimate that as being about 4,000 years for the decay rates to have changed in. Do you agree?

I then go on to ask that if decay rates were accelerated by such a degree as to age a 6,000 year old rock as 4 billion years (thats 6 orders of magnitude, or a millionfold) within that period then do you believe it is possible for life to have survived?

#89 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 19 May 2005 - 10:11 AM

"My argument was the appearance of a history, such as Adam having scars from injuries that he never had. Homologous to this situation would be over 100 meteor craters over 1 km in diameter. The other would be a history of island building on the Pacific Plate with the Hawaiian Islands/Archipelago being the most recent of those islands. These are the types of evidence that will be included in your new thread."

Ahumph. Flood....


Since Admin3 seems to be busy I will start a thread (soon, I hope) specifically for the Hawaiian islands. You must then show me how a Flood of any kind could produced the patterns found in this ancient archipelago.

"and all methods give the same result,"
haven't we been over that they all don't in fact give the same result. This would mean that something catastrophic must have happened or something supernatural, otherwise wouldn't they all be exactly the same?


C14 dating of tree rings, lake varves, and ice layers all give the same exact results, going back 50,000 years. There is no indication of any worldwide catastrophe, other than volcanic eruptions recorded in the ice layers. On top of that, coral dating using U/Th dating gives the same ages.

"The question is whether or not God's character would be consistent with his creating records in the earth for events that never happened."

Such as?


The three records above: lake varves, tree rings, and ice cores. Beyond that, a billion year history of meteor impaction and island building.

“2,000 years ago is not recent according to your model, that is one third of the age of the earth! Are you suggesting that the decay rates variation was limited to only 4,000 years? That's a lot of radiation, are you sure we could have survived it?”

I don’t follow. If the decay rates were sped up during the 2,000 years before it, there would be no need to have accelerated decay during the last 4,000, what you say makes no sense.

View Post


The amount of heat produced by the accelerated decay would have boiled the oceans and eradicated all but the simplest life forms, such as thermophillic bacteria. Even then, the increase in background radiation would have resulted in lethal rates of mutation.

#90 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 20 May 2005 - 11:03 PM

"C14 dating of tree rings, lake varves, and ice layers all give the same exact results, going back 50,000 years. There is no indication of any worldwide catastrophe, other than volcanic eruptions recorded in the ice layers. On top of that, coral dating using U/Th dating gives the same ages."
C14 dating of any kind?? Everything you listed is based on C14 dating? I sure hope not, but if so, let me know, and I can post on C14.

"I'll try again. I believe you agreed that the decay rates have not changed in the last 2,000 years. That means they HAD to have happened before then, correct? Instead of the decay rates occurring from 1AD through 2005AD they must have occurred somewhere in 4,400BC to 1BC. I estimate that as being about 4,000 years for the decay rates to have changed in. Do you agree?

I then go on to ask that if decay rates were accelerated by such a degree as to age a 6,000 year old rock as 4 billion years (thats 6 orders of magnitude, or a millionfold) within that period then do you believe it is possible for life to have survived?"

And I will say again, assuming that the daughter elements weren't created already there, then you are fairly close on your timeline. Another possibility is the flood. The water exploding from the sub-terranian water chambers would have been over boiling actually under all of that pressure before it came out. The oceans would have been cooking anyway, and here's Noah and his family floating along in the ark that was sealed up and shut by God. And God was also in the ark with Noah, which I can discuss too. I think they'd be fine if they had God protecting them.

"Beyond that, a billion year history of meteor impaction and island building."

Again, you assume that it is a billion year long history because you leave out A:God B:supernatural intervention of any kind. C: a flood

#91 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 21 May 2005 - 01:27 AM

And God was also in the ark with Noah, which I can discuss too. I think they'd be fine if they had God protecting them.


Excellent, more Deus ex machina. That's fine. Did God protect all the fish too? Would there be any evidence if radioactive levels leaked at a 4 billion year rate for one year? Perhaps we could look for this evidence?

#92 Faith and Reason

Faith and Reason

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Interests:Birdwatching, violin, piano, philosophy, languages
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota

Posted 22 May 2005 - 11:39 AM

The water exploding from the sub-terranian water chambers would have been over boiling actually under all of that pressure before it came out. The oceans would have been cooking anyway, and here's Noah and his family floating along in the ark that was sealed up and shut by God. And God was also in the ark with Noah, which I can discuss too. I think they'd be fine if they had God protecting them.

View Post


Do you have any evidence from the Bible that all those things happened?

#93 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 May 2005 - 02:42 PM

crystaleaglesprings

chance >  "and all methods give the same result,"

crystaleaglesprings>   haven't we been over that they all don't in fact give the same result. This would mean that something catastrophic must have happened or something supernatural, otherwise wouldn't they all be exactly the same?

No, the fact is that the differing methods of determining age do in fact produce consistent and overlapping results for the age of the earth. So I’ll repeat, how can this be? And if you postulate some form of error in one method you will need to find a differing (yet consistent) method in the other!

#94 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2005 - 01:00 AM

Excellent, more Deus ex machina. That's fine. Did God protect all the fish too? Would there be any evidence if radioactive levels leaked at a 4 billion year rate for one year? Perhaps we could look for this evidence?

View Post


Warning: I don't think snide remarks are needed. You may become fustrated at God being used to explain the unexplainable, but you are at a christian run forum. What would you expect?


Admin3

#95 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 May 2005 - 02:58 AM

Warning: I don't think snide remarks are needed. You may become fustrated at God being used to explain the unexplainable, but you are at a christian run forum. What would you expect?
Admin3

View Post


It wasn't intended as snide, I'm sorry if it came off in that manner. It is using God in a way that doesn't seem consistent that is 'frustrating'. Why would God ask Noah to build a boat to protect himself against one disaster, and then use a miracle to protect him from another disaster. Why not just do away with the flood, accelerate radioactive decay, and only protect those who deserve protection?

#96 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2005 - 03:12 AM

It wasn't intended as snide. It is using God in a way that doesn't seem consistent that is 'frustrating'. Why would God ask Noah to build a boat to protect himself against one disaster, and then use a miracle to protect him from another disaster. Why not just do away with the flood, accelerate radioactive decay, and only protect those who deserve protection?

View Post


Well if you could explain God that clearly, on how He should work. Then please do tell. But not even His word gives such detail.

As far as the boat goes. God was giving time for the other people to repent of their evil ways and get on the boat, there was enough room. So by taking time to build it, it could not be said that God did not give fair warning, and time to heed that warning. For everyone knew that Noah was a Godly man. And if God were to speak to anyone, it would have been him. So when they refused to listen, they sealed their fate.

#97 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 May 2005 - 03:58 AM

Well if you could explain God that clearly, on how He should work. Then please do tell. But not even His word gives such detail.

View Post


Is it a wise idea to start adding bits in to fit what you want to believe?


As far as the boat goes. God was giving time for the other people to repent of their evil ways and get on the boat, there was enough room. So by taking time to build it, it could not be said that God did not give fair warning, and time to heed that warning. For everyone knew that Noah was a Godly man. And if God were to speak to anyone, it would have been him. So when they refused to listen, they sealed their fate.


Was God giving people time? I thought he said he was going to kill everyone except Noah & co to establish a new covenant.

  And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.


I don't see any mention of God superheating the oceans, by accelerating radioactive decay, I don't see any mention of God protecting Noah and the animals from the toxic earth and extreme temperatures. Why the need to post hoc them in there? Sure He was capable of doing that, but He was perfectly capable of judging the soul of every creature and just killing them. If saying that God created the universe through the big bang is devaluing God's power, why does God need convuluted genocide methods? Why not just speak them out of existence? And if He is going to use a supernatural method that can be overcome in a mundane manner, why go on to use a different supernatural method, one that can only be overcome with divine intervention?

Its fine to believe that he used a flood - It's a fine belief. Its fine to believe that He used two different methods to nearly wipe life out. You can believe he used 576 different ways if you like. Not going to argue with you. However, theologically, it begins to border on the absurd. Why does an omnipotent being who can create the universe in 6 days need to go through hoops to partially undo one aspect of it?

Perhaps God was just being artistic, creative, having a bit of flair. Can an entity who shows such creativity also use metaphor to explain very complicated things such as the Creation itself?

#98 Rod

Rod

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mississippi

Posted 24 May 2005 - 04:27 PM

I have a hard time taking "a day" as a 24 hour time span. What is a day when what we use(Sun, Earth) to define a day has not yet been created? In this very beginning, time may not have even existed. How long did it take to create time?

#99 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2005 - 01:40 AM

I have a hard time taking "a day" as a 24 hour time span. What is a day when what we use(Sun, Earth) to define a day has not yet been created? In this very beginning, time may not have even existed. How long did it take to create time?

View Post


Prehaps you should read this thread: http://www.evolution...wtopic=140&st=0

#100 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 25 May 2005 - 10:00 PM

It was definitely 24 hour days. The word "yom" is used here for day, and when used with a number, it can only mean a literal day, not billions of years.

"12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"

Did the plants sit around for billions of years waiting for the sun to come up?

Another point is what you say about the sun not being there. God said let there be light. Interestingly enough, the bible specifically says, "God is the light, in Him there is no darkness at all." "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." There are two possibilities. The plants could have sat around for ONE normal day and evening, and taken in the sun when it was made the next day, OR, God was the light, and they had it the whole time. I could get more in depth on this, but I think the thread explains it just fine.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users