Creationism As Scientific Fact?

[JimG]

RobbyS:

The basic thing is that the findings of science must be measured against the teachings of the Bible, not the other way around. Which is to say that the understanding of human nature as proposed by evolutionists must not contradict that which is revealed in the Bible.

“Human nature” is a philosophical term, not a scientific term, so it is properly a subject for philosophy rather than science. Science can certainly describe a lot about the human body and human psychology, but it can say nothing of our spiritual soul, which includes our intellect and will, since these cannot be explored by scientific methods. I don’t think that there is a need to measure scientific findings against the Bible, because the bible wasn’t intended to teach about science. I would rather take scientific findings on their own merits, while realizing that they cannot hope to explain everything.

On the other hand, if evolutionists try to fully explain “human nature” on the basis of their findings, they cannot help but be mistaken.

 

[Newman60]

Ghosty:

How do you explain away the fact that we can see billions of years into the past with the Hubble telescope?

How does the Hubble, a recent invention, show us anything other than what it is seeing at a precise moment in time?

Newman60

 

[PhilVaz]

Ghosty << but that raises the question of why God would intentionally create a deceptive universe, even when such deceptions don’t serve as signs, as in the case of primordial nebulae. >>

That’s the problem with this “appearance of age” stuff, it turns the Creator into a deceiver. This “argument” was first suggested by Philip Gosse in the 19th century, whose book titled “Omphalos” (from the Greek word for navel) argued God must have created Adam with a “navel” (thus a deceptive history). The “Omphalos argument” was re-worked by fundamentalists creationists in the 1960s to explain away all the scientific evidence for an old earth.

However, you won’t find this in the Bible since the existence of the Creator can be “clearly seen from what has been made” – from the evidence in His creation (Romans 1:19-20) and “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19), not the “deceptions of God.”

Short answer from TalkOrigins

The Rejection of Omphalos, a good critique

Here are a few choice words on this “appearance of age” argument:

Biologist Kenneth Miller writes:

“In order to defend God against the challenge they see from evolution, they have had to make Him into a schemer, a trickster, even a charlatan. Their version of God is one who intentionally plants misleading clues beneath our feet and in the heavens themselves. Their version of God is one who has filled the universe with so much bogus evidence that the tools of science can give us nothing more than a phony version of reality. In other words, their God has negated science by rigging the universe with fiction and deception. To embrace that God, we must reject science and worship deception itself…One can, of course, imagine a Creator who could have produced all of the illusions that the creationists claim to find in nature. In order to do so, we must simultaneously conclude that science can tell us nothing about nature, and that the Creator to whom many of us pray is inherently deceitful. Such so-called creation science, thoroughly analyzed, corrupts both science and religion, and it deserves a place in the intellectual wastebasket.” (Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God, page 80)

The Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky concurs:

“One can suppose that the Creator saw fit to play deceitful tricks on geologists and biologists. He carefully arranged to have various rocks provided with isotope ratios just right to mislead us into thinking that certain rocks are 2 billion years old, others 2 million, which in fact they are only some 6,000 years old. This kind of pseudo-explanation is not very new. One of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, published a book entitled Omphalos (‘the Navel’). The gist of this amazing book is that Adam, though he had no mother, was created with a navel, and that fossils were placed by the Creator where we find them now – a deliberate act on His part, to give the appearance of great antiquity and geologic upheaveals. It is easy to see the fatal flaw in all such notions. They are blasphemies, accusing God of absurd deceitfulness. This is as revolting as it is uncalled for…Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.” (Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”)

Why there are so many young-earthers in here I do not understand. Please people, read something besides AnswersInGenesis…read at least something from the other side, like the TalkOrigins Age of the Earth FAQs or the Henke articles at NoAnswersInGenesis on same.

The Catechism on the “six days” here:

337. God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work,” concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value, and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.” [Vatican II LG 36] (see also paragraphs 339, 342, 345 which refer to the “six days”)

I’ll let you figure out what “symbolically” means.

Phil P

 

[jimmy]

Tlaloc:

As long as you take genesis as a parable the two are certainly compatible. A literal reading of genesis is in conflict with the scientific evidence. How you resolve that is up to you.

It’s proved as well as any scientific theory ever is. The DNA similarities between us and the great apes are staggering. Far more than between us and any other life form.

That is not really proof that evolution is true. Our DNA is over 99% the same as most mammals. It is only common sense that a monkey would have the most similar DNA to a human since they are more similar than all other mammals.

 

[Ghosty]

How does the Hubble, a recent invention, show us anything other than what it is seeing at a precise moment in time?

The simple answer is that what it is seeing happened 12 billion years ago. The speed of light is highly constant, which is why we measure large cosmic distances in “light years”; it will always take light the a year to travel 10 trillion kilometers. Therefore, if we are looking at something that is 10 trillion kilometers away, we know we are seeing what it looked like a year ago, because the light emitted then is just at this second reaching our eyes. The math for calculating all of this is rather complex, involving redshifts and the Hubble Constant (the speed at which the Universe is expanding), but that’s unimportant for answering your question. What it boils down to is that we can determine by measurement of shifts in light how far something is from us, and from that we can determine how old the light reaching us is.

An interesting fact involving this is that we actually see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago based on the time it takes light to travel that distance in space.

 

[garysibio]

Ghosty>> The “appearance of age” I can buy, but I want to point out that we don’t see stars 12 billion years back in time, but rather condensing clouds of gas. God could indeed have created a 12 billion year old universe just 6000 years ago, but that raises the question of why God would intentionally create a deceptive universe, even when such deceptions don’t serve as signs, as in the case of primordial nebulae. <<

I don’t pretend to have all of the answers so I really can’t address your point about the condensing gas clouds.

Newman60>> How does the Hubble, a recent invention, show us anything other than what it is seeing at a precise moment in time? <<

If you look through a telescope at an object that is 100 light years away, you are seeing what happened 100 years ago.

PhilVaz>> That’s the problem with this “appearance of age” stuff, it turns the Creator into a deceiver. <<

Not at all. God has revealed hat He did to us in the Bible. How can He be a deceiver when He’s laying it out for us?

PhilVaz>> 337. God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work,” concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value, and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.” [Vatican II LG 36] (see also paragraphs 339, 342, 345 which refer to the “six days”)

I’ll let you figure out what “symbolically” means. <<

The CCC is not teaching that we must take the six days of creation as being symbolic. Even if it was, it does not tell us what they symbolize.

jimmy>> It’s proved as well as any scientific theory ever is. The DNA similarities between us and the great apes are staggering. Far more than between us and any other life form.
That is not really proof that evolution is true. Our DNA is over 99% the same as most mammals. It is only common sense that a monkey would have the most similar DNA to a human since they are more similar than all other mammals. <<

So what. It’s also 90% in common with an amoeba. Similarity does not prove a thing. Look how similar ever car that has ever been made is to all the others. Would you say they evolved from each other? Or could it be that they all had common purposes and needs?

All animals use oxygen in the process of respiration therefore the DNA that deals with that process will be common to all animals.

 

[PhilVaz]

PhilVaz << That’s the problem with this “appearance of age” stuff, it turns the Creator into a deceiver. >>

GaryS << Not at all. God has revealed that He did to us in the Bible. How can He be a deceiver when He’s laying it out for us? >>

So God told the truth when he created His word, but lied to us when He created His world. How convenient, and wrong.

Both of these statements are true:

(1) God created the world in “six days”

(2) The world God created has been determined to be 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old by geology

I simply re-interpret God’s words “six days” as figurative, you choose to say God’s rocks deceive. I take both God’s Word and God’s world as true, God’s Rock and rocks as true. The Rock of Ages and the Ages of Rocks are both true. Hooray!

GaryS << The CCC is not teaching that we must take the six days of creation as being symbolic. Even if it was, it does not tell us what they symbolize. >>

They symbolize the work week. CCC Paragraphs 337, 339, 342, 345 all mention the “six days”

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

“As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific…The Biblical account of the duration and order of Creation is merely a literary clothing of the religious truth that the whole world was called into existence by the creative word of God. The Sacred Writer utilized for this purpose the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time. The numeral six of the days of Creation is to be understood as an anthropomorphism. God’s work of creation represented in schematic form (opus distinctionis – opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the Sabbath rest.” (Ott, page 93, cf. Exod 20:8)

Sounds good to me. John Paul II said the same 20 years ago to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics"

The important parts to notice here, according to John Paul II: (1) the Bible is not a scientific treatise; (2) the main point of Genesis 1 is that God is our Creator; (3) the Scripture uses the cosmology in use at the time of the writer (not a modern cosmology); (4) the Bible wishes to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens were made; (5) any other teaching about the origin and nature of the universe is alien to the intentions of the original biblical authors.

Phil P

 

[FightingFat]

I believe that Science tells us how, Genesis tells us why. From studying the origins of the book of Genesis I have difficulty understanding how you could take it as the literal word for word truth.

MugenOne, I would love to hear which of the two versions of creation in Genesis you believe is literal?

 

[BibleReader]

Hey Folks!

I believe in creationism.

For reasons which I do not understand, creationists believe that they have a right to restrict God to creating the Universe the way they envision. Perhaps God simply created the Universe essentially the way science describes. God is allowed to do that. You can’t stop Him from doing that. He is God. Why should God restrict Himself to creating the Universe in accord with your literalist interpretation of Scripture?

A non-creationist creation schedule, and evolution, are not inherently anti-God. I’ve believed in a God Who created the Universe over billions of years, and created life by evolution, since I was a little kid.

Do not forget that science is also from God.

We’re NOT MORALLY ENTITLED to ignore the evidence of our senses.

I do take the the Genesis literally.

No, you don’t. You take YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of Genesis, literally. You ASSUME that Genesis is non-fiction teaching science. In fact, a very careful review of the text suggests that it is fiction teaching religion.

One of my favorite examples of this is Genesis 2:23. When God introduces Eve to Adam, there, Adam says, "This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken."

What does that mean? Do you have the vaguest idea? Or do you just ignore that, because it doesn’t fit your view of what should be in a “science book” written by God?

In fact, it is ancient Hebrew humor. “Un-translating” a few of the terms shows how…

"This one shall be called ‘ishsha,’ for out of ‘ishah’ this one has been taken."

If we translate the logic of the joke, and not the words, into English, we would translate it like this…

"This one shall be called a ‘herman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken."

Adam called Eve a “herman”!

There are several jokes in the Adam/Eve/ Cain/Abel epic. Eve is taken out of a rib, Genesis 2:21-22, and called “mother of all the living,” Genesis 3:20 because the Sumerian form of Eve’s name, “Nin-ti,” is a homonym meaning “Lady of the Rib” and "Lady of the Living."

Do you see what is going on? The Adam and Eve story is an ancient “Dr. Seuss” story which teaches religion. It isn’t even intended to be history, or a science book.

God did not feel like talking the way you insist that He talk.

God created the universe and everything in six days…The scientific community has problem with the six days.

"Six" days is a numer type, or symbol, meaning “evil.” Wherever a form of the word “six” appears in the Bible, “evil” is being referred to. Consult Genesis to see what was actually created on Day Number Six in the story.

To be continued…

 

[BibleReader]

Continued from above…

I think that one day of God is like millions and millions of year for us.

If you deny that the world was actually created in millions and billions of years that only look like “days” to God, why say, up above, “God created the universe and everything in six days”? No it wasn’t! You, yourself, deny that it was!

First, there was great void. Before big bang theory, was universe void? You tell me.

Here you are “playing theologian.” Again, you are restricting God to reality the way you insist that it be. What makes you think that before creation there was some kind of empty spacial entity you call “the universe.” “Nothing” is "nothing."

According to the new scientific theory, the Earth was totally covered by water. Did God, then, create land and water on Earth? Then, he created living things and lastly people? I do believe in adaptation, but not totally evolution. Without adaptation, we all gonna die. How can we go from single protein to an ameba to a complex creature like animals and lastly human?

Some scientists on the Galapogos actually caught evolution occurring. During a drought, the tiny seeds laying on the ground all withered, starving the bird population. There were large seeds lying all over the place. A few of the birds, in the seed-ewating species, were ranbdomly born (in accord with God’s will and foreknowledge) with beaks heavy enough to crack the big seeds. Their line – heavy-beaked birds – boomed. All of this happened over a five year period. Suddenly, a thin-beaked species developed heavy beaks!

How does it happen? Probably, solar radiation, and ambient radiation generated by the decay of radioactive materials in the crust, slams the DNA in the cells of the animals from which offspring come with high-energy sub-atomic particles, generating random form changes. Sometimes, the changes just happen to conform to the survival needs of the species, like the big-beaked offspring.

God is clever, isn’t He?

If people are monkey descendant, then where are all the half-people and half-monkey at? You know, there are so many remote islands on earth that have people looking like us (except they look darker, lighter or whatever). If those islands are so remoted, there is a possibility that monkey man still exists.

There are several cataclysm theories to explain the absence of fossils at masny points in the fossil record. The Nemesis theory really is the best theory. It is that the Sun has a small brown-star twin, and the Sun and the brown star revolve around each other, in an extremely lopsided orbit, in which the tinier brown star does most of the moving. Right now, the brown star is somewhere behind the Oort Cloud. Once every so many millions of years, the brown star companion, dubbed “Nemesis,” comes wending into the solar system out of the Oort Cloud, bringing millions of comets and meteors with it. The planets are thus bombarded with these once every several millions of years. Life on Earth is almost wiped-out each time, including, critically, most bacteria. The bacteria are largely wiped-out because the protective upper atmosphere is annihilated by the impacts, causing the Earth to be showered heavily with solar radiation. Most rotting of dead flesh stops. The animals lie there, un-rotted, for millions of years, allowing fossils to form. Other animals are wildly mutated by the same release of solar radiation through the annihilated upper atmosphere. The mass mutations in the few surviving life forms very, very quickly generates species molded to the new circumstances.

Why we haven’t evolved since we “became” man? Looks like we are doomed as a species because evolution has stopped!!! Give me a break!

Read Desmond Morris. There is pretty good evidence that we have evolved enormously since our ancestors were forced to walk upright.

God Bless!

MugenOne (Translated as Endless One in English)

Bottom line: Relax. Consider the possibuility that Genesis is a fictional work teaching religion, not a science/history book.

Typical for a creationist, you seem to be missing the religious teachings of the creatiuon stories.

 

[garysibio]

PhilVaz << That’s the problem with this “appearance of age” stuff, it turns the Creator into a deceiver. >>

GaryS << Not at all. God has revealed that He did to us in the Bible. How can He be a deceiver when He’s laying it out for us? >>

PhilVaz>> So God told the truth when he created His word, but lied to us when He created His world. How convenient, and wrong. <<

That’s not what I said at all. God created the world with the appearance of age. In the Bible He tells us that He did so. Where is the lie?

PhilVaz>> Both of these statements are true:

(1) God created the world in “six days”

(2) The world God created has been determined to be 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old by geology <<

Wrong again. Geologists have erroneously come up with these dates because of faulty methodology, not because God created the universe with the appearance of age. Did you read my post above where I spoke of the 200 year-old rocks that Potassium-Argon dating methods said were 2 billion years old?

PhilVaz>> I simply re-interpret God’s words “six days” as figurative, you choose to say God’s rocks deceive. I take both God’s Word and God’s world as true, God’s Rock and rocks as true. The Rock of Ages and the Ages of Rocks are both true. Hooray! <<

I have said nothing of the sort. You are twisting my words to make it appear that I am calling God a liar. I have done no such thing and I believe you owe me an apology for saying that I did.

FightingFat>> I believe that Science tells us how, Genesis tells us why. From studying the origins of the book of Genesis I have difficulty understanding how you could take it as the literal word for word truth. <<

Science is not infallible. Science is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is infallible and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Although it is not a science book, when it touches on issues of science it is true in what it says just as it does when it touches on history, to which the issue of origins more properly belongs.

My difficulty is a little different than yours. I don’t understand how someone reading Genesis can reject the creation account and believe Abraham existed. How do you decide where the figurative ends and the literal begins?

FightingFat>> MugenOne, I would love to hear which of the two versions of creation in Genesis you believe is literal? <<

There is only one creation account. It’s just told twice from two different points of view.

BibleReader>> For reasons which I do not understand, creationists believe that they have a right to restrict God to creating the Universe the way they envision. Perhaps God simply created the Universe essentially the way science describes. God is allowed to do that. You can’t stop Him from doing that. He is God. Why should God restrict Himself to creating the Universe in accord with your literalist interpretation of Scripture?

A non-creationist creation schedule, and evolution, are not inherently anti-God. I’ve believed in a God Who created the Universe over billions of years, and created life by evolution, since I was a little kid. <<

BibleReader>> Do not forget that science is also from God. <<

Which science? Science used to be quite dogmatic that acquired characteristics could be inherited until a monk by the name of Mendel proved them wrong. Scientist used to insist that life could rise from non-life until Pasteur proved them wrong. Do you remember reading about the experiment where they put the “primordial soup” in a glass container and subjected it to an electric charge so that amino acids were formed? That is now rejected even by evolutionists.

BibleReader>> We’re NOT MORALLY ENTITLED to ignore the evidence of our senses. <<

You’re assuming that all of the evidence is on the side of evolution. It is not. Recent discoveries in the field of biochemistry have given rise to the intelligent design movement which shows that Darwinism is impossible.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

garysibio:

So what. It’s also 90% in common with an amoeba. Similarity does not prove a thing. Look how similar ever car that has ever been made is to all the others. Would you say they evolved from each other? Or could it be that they all had common purposes and needs?

All animals use oxygen in the process of respiration therefore the DNA that deals with that process will be common to all animals.

Actually no… there are in principle many different ways this could be done. There doesn’t has to be an electron transport chain involving 6 or 8 intermediate proteins in the cell membrane, which sets up a pH gradient across the membrane, the energy of which is harnessed by a protein that spins like a little motor, all to store energy in the form of “ATP”. This whole process is pretty consistent across all organisms. Depending on how you look at it, it is very elegant, but also has a certain Rube Goldberg quality to it. The fact that there is great similarity on a molecular level as to how respiration happens - and lots of other little details that are broadly consistent for all organisms, yet need not be - suggest a couple of possibilities in my mind:

• descent from a common ancestor that used this process, or
• God kept using the same way of doing things over and over again.

Far be it from me to suggest how God should choose to do things. But just for the sake of variety, he could have very easily made much bigger changes between types of organisms - e.g. there’s no need for every organism to use the same subset of 20 common alpha amino acids, nor primarily the “L” stereoisomer. There’s no real necessity for every organism to use guanine, adenine, cytosine, and thymine as the bases of DNA - there are plenty of other choices that would allow complementary base pairing. There’s no need for all organisms to use a very similar “code” for translating 3 “letter” sequences of DNA into amino acids. Heck, there’s no real reason that DNA or even RNA has to be the molecule of heredity. I’m sure God could have come up with something else. But maybe He doesn’t like that much variety at the molecular level. But He likes a little bit, because there is some.

For some reason this all reminds me of computer programming… oftentimes there are many different ways to solve the same problem, but once we get a piece of code working, we keep reusing it over and over again. I would not necessarily expect God to work in quite that way, but then again who am I to guess the mind of the Almighty…

 

[Bobby_Jim]

garysibio:

Recent discoveries in the field of biochemistry have given rise to the intelligent design movement which shows that Darwinism is impossible.

What recent discoveries might those be?

 

[buffalo]

PhilVaz:

Ghosty << but that raises the question of why God would intentionally create a deceptive universe, even when such deceptions don’t serve as signs, as in the case of primordial nebulae. >>

That’s the problem with this “appearance of age” stuff, it turns the Creator into a deceiver. This “argument” was first suggested by Philip Gosse in the 19th century, whose book titled “Omphalos” (from the Greek word for navel) argued God must have created Adam with a “navel” (thus a deceptive history). The “Omphalos argument” was re-worked by fundamentalists creationists in the 1960s to explain away all the scientific evidence for an old earth.

However, you won’t find this in the Bible since the existence of the Creator can be “clearly seen from what has been made” – from the evidence in His creation (Romans 1:19-20) and “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19), not the “deceptions of God.”

You still have to assume what you measure and observe give the totality of the picture. God cannot deceive or be deceived, but our limited intellect and science can deceive us.

 

[buffalo]

Ghosty:

The simple answer is that what it is seeing happened 12 billion years ago. The speed of light is highly constant, which is why we measure large cosmic distances in “light years”; it will always take light the a year to travel 10 trillion kilometers. Therefore, if we are looking at something that is 10 trillion kilometers away, we know we are seeing what it looked like a year ago, because the light emitted then is just at this second reaching our eyes. The math for calculating all of this is rather complex, involving redshifts and the Hubble Constant (the speed at which the Universe is expanding), but that’s unimportant for answering your question. What it boils down to is that we can determine by measurement of shifts in light how far something is from us, and from that we can determine how old the light reaching us is.

An interesting fact involving this is that we actually see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago based on the time it takes light to travel that distance in space.

Well it was fairly constant until - Speed of light slowing down?

           http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/header_exclu_comm.gif            Speed of light slowing down?
     Posted: July 31, 2004

1:00 a.m. Eastern

    By Chris Bennett
 © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time – eons … billions and billions of years.

Even with all that time, it’s still hard to imagine how complex biochemicals such as hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to those of us who question the process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can grasp – timespans so vast that anything is possible, even chance combinations of random chemicals to form the stunning complexities of reproducing life.
More

 

[buffalo]

BibleReader:

Hey Folks!

I believe in creationism.

I do take the the Genesis literally.

No, you don’t. You take YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of Genesis, literally. You ASSUME that Genesis is non-fiction teaching science. In fact, a very careful review of the text suggests that it is fiction teaching religion.

One of my favorite examples of this is Genesis 2:23. When God introduces Eve to Adam, there, Adam says, "This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken."

What does that mean? Do you have the vaguest idea? Or do you just ignore that, because it doesn’t fit your view of what should be in a “science book” written by God?

In fact, it is ancient Hebrew humor. “Un-translating” a few of the terms shows how…

"This one shall be called ‘ishsha,’ for out of ‘ishah’ this one has been taken."

If we translate the logic of the joke, and not the words, into English, we would translate it like this…

"This one shall be called a ‘herman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken."

Adam called Eve a “herman”!

There are several jokes in the Adam/Eve/ Cain/Abel epic. Eve is taken out of a rib, Genesis 2:21-22, and called “mother of all the living,” Genesis 3:20 because the Sumerian form of Eve’s name, “Nin-ti,” is a homonym meaning “Lady of the Rib” and "Lady of the Living."

Do you see what is going on? The Adam and Eve story is an ancient “Dr. Seuss” story which teaches religion. It isn’t even intended to be history, or a science book.

God did not feel like talking the way you insist that He talk.
.

I have seen this on another thread you posted on.

Sources please…

 

[Orogeny]

quote=garysibio The world God created has been determined to be 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old by geology <<

Wrong again. Geologists have erroneously come up with these dates because of faulty methodology, not because God created the universe with the appearance of age. Did you read my post above where I spoke of the 200 year-old rocks that Potassium-Argon dating methods said were 2 billion years old?

[/quote]

Those results were obtained by a creationist who wanted those results and intentionally used a method that was inappropriate for rocks of that age.

Read this and see if you still agree with that result.

Some young-Earth proponents recently reported that rocks were dated by the potassium-argon method to be a several million years old when they are really only a few years old. But the potassium-argon method, with its long half-life, was never intended to date rocks only 25 years old. These people have only succeeded in correctly showing that one can fool a single radiometric dating method when one uses it improperly. The false radiometric ages of several million years are due to parentless argon, as described here, and first reported in the literature some fifty years ago. Note that it would be extremely unlikely for another dating method to agree on these bogus ages. Getting agreement between more than one dating method is a recommended practice.

(Dr. Roger C. Weins, 941 Estates Drive, Los Alamos, NM 87544, First edition 1994; revised version 2002.)

The web site is asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html. Take some time to read this if you really believe that geologists don’t know what they are doing and the methods being used are faulty. If, after you read Dr. Wiens’ paper, you still think radiometric dating is faulty, please, by all means, post your scientific reasons why.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

The web site is asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html. Take some time to read this if you really believe that geologists don’t know what they are doing and the methods being used are faulty. If, after you read Dr. Wiens’ paper, you still think radiometric dating is faulty, please, by all means, post your scientific reasons why.

Peace

Tim

Radioactive Dating

Radioactive decay rates have changed. The decay of c affects the speed of nucleons in the atom, and the alpha particle escape frequency. Thus, all radioactive decay rates have decreased in proportion to c throughout the recent history of the universe. For many other reasons, the radio dating methods, carbon-14, potassium-argon, or any other atomic-clock method, are unreliable for very large ages.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

The web site is asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html. Take some time to read this if you really believe that geologists don’t know what they are doing and the methods being used are faulty. If, after you read Dr. Wiens’ paper, you still think radiometric dating is faulty, please, by all means, post your scientific reasons why.

Peace

Tim

Radioactive Dating

Radioactive decay rates have changed. The decay of c affects the speed of nucleons in the atom, and the alpha particle escape frequency. Thus, all radioactive decay rates have decreased in proportion to c throughout the recent history of the universe. For many other reasons, the radio dating methods, carbon-14, potassium-argon, or any other atomic-clock method, are unreliable for very large ages.

The link between radiometric dating and lightspeed

Keep an open mind as to the total effect this has on physics.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

buffalo:

Radioactive Dating

Radioactive decay rates have changed. The decay of c affects the speed of nucleons in the atom, and the alpha particle escape frequency. Thus, all radioactive decay rates have decreased in proportion to c throughout the recent history of the universe. For many other reasons, the radio dating methods, carbon-14, potassium-argon, or any other atomic-clock method, are unreliable for very large ages.

The link between radiometric dating and lightspeed

Keep an open mind as to the total effect this has on physics.

whoops, the bogon flux meter just blew up! Remind me to turn the gain way, way down next time I visit a link like that.

Seriously, people have problems with the “theory” of evolution, but will happily accept that type of conjecture if it helps to prop up their preferred explanation? Last I heard, the changing of universal constants like the speed of light are far from proven. Apparently one study showed a change in the “fine structure constant” of 1 part in 100,000 over the course of 12 billion years. I don’t know if this has been reproduced by anyone else, or if it could reasonably be attributed to experimental error. But hey, I guess it leaves the door open a crack through which we can force whatever we want to believe.