M
mystified
Guest
Oh, sure. At least.
Do Christians really believe the earth is really 6,000 yrs old?
- Status
M
michaelcollins
Guest
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Why is the Douay-Rheims worse??? It was the version that was used for nearly 400 years in the Catholic Church. It is a word for word translation of the Vulgate??? So does the Vulgate have errors in it?? The council of Trent made some bold statements of the Vulgate. If the Douay-Rheims has many textual errors, what Bible do you consider to have the least amount of errors?? (English and Latin)
M
mchale
Guest
The ābaselineā assumption that you are referring to is concept of radioactive half-life. Its a well tested foundation for radiometric dating. For the half life of isotopes to change ā using our current understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics ā other physical constants would have to change as well (such as the speed of light); these changes would have left certain signs that they had occurred. So far no one has found any evidence that any of these constants have changed in the past.
How exactly does Helium in atmosphere have anything to do with the age of the Earth? Over time helium, and all the other gases in the atmosphere escape into space. The gases are then replaced by gases from inside the Earth through volcanism and other geological processes.
As for the tidal interactions between the Moon and the Earth, well I doubt that the last chapter has been written, but many of the most recent studies suggest that the recessional velocity of the Moon from the Earth is far from constant over geological time and that it could still have been reasonably far from us 4.5 billion years ago.
As for the DNA argumentā¦ I have never even heard this argument beforeā¦ Please explain in more detail and if you could provide references I would appreciate it.
See this is where creationism always falls down as far as I am concerned. It essentially implies that there is a massive conspiracy in the various disciplines of science to push this evolutionary agenda. The biologists rely on the geologists to tell us how old the Earth is, not the biologists telling the the geologists how old the Earth needs to be for their theories to work and then the geologists cooking the books (Not to mention Astronomers have their own reasons for believing the Earth is fairly old).
In any case, if was a question of the biologists driving the agenda, why make the Earth that old? While Biologists believe that life has existed on the planet for 2 to 3 billion years, multi-cellular life has only existed for less than a billion and the really complex stuff for well less than 500 million. Why not make the Earth a billion years old, that would be plenty enough time to make the evolutionary stuff work.
We donāt try to disassociate men and dinosaurs, we have just never seen evidence of dinosaur/human association. If dinosaurs and humans coexisted, then we should be able to find human remains with the teeth marks of dinosaurs (just like we find in dinosaurs) or dinosaurs with marks caused by human tools (just like we find in the remains of more recent animals).
See here is what I donāt understand, if you are not for Biblical literalism --as you comment that dinosaurs came first implies ā then why not accept the science?
ā
Bill
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I have no problem with the Church allowing those who are in this type of psychology need to believe this stuff, but the Church should make a firm direct statement of the truth as it has come to be known. Since it clearly concludes that it is no threat to the faith, it has a duty to be honest and not give the impression that it accepts as possible such bizarre illogic.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Sorry NDfan, but if you are going to argue against C14, perhaps you should use an example where C14 is the method used. I believe the example you refer to used K/Ar. C14 is not used to date rocks.
And it is getting better as we refine our analytical instruments.
A claim with no substantiation.
Some misidentified fossils (frauds like Piltdown or āNebraska Manā) do not negate the real things.
Really? No one? Are you willing to bet on that?
Iāll pass on your cloud/jelly fish example.
Peace
Tim
N
NDfan
Guest
Tim youāre kidding on this right.
It is interesting that the authors would suggest that Ventastega is a āmidpointā between the fish Tiktaalik and land animals. This is highly inacurate. Ventastega is a later species than Tiktaalik but is a more primitive animal. Whatās most interesting is that something hailed as transitional would be, by the authorās own estimation, a step backwards of sorts. Ventastega was a dead-end that went extinct.
If we use the authors framework, we could just as easily say that alligators, crocodiles, seals, sea lions, crabs, and turtles represent transitional species, since they have features that allow them to live in and out of the waterānever mind that they are well suited for their particular environments.
The authors in this case had a preconceived notion that they were finding a transition from sea to land animals and they hailed that they found exactly what they were looking for. Quite comical to say the least.
Dr. David Menton comments that these types of finds are being taught and accepted in school uncritically all the time. He goes further to say and Iāll quote his words. "if one examines Holy Scripture we see that for example, if we start from the Bibleāthat God created the earth and all animal kinds in six days about 6,000 years ago, then we would likely conclude that Ventastega, like Tiktaalik, represents both the amazing creativity and economy that God has used in the multitude of diverse designs He made.
PEACE
N
NDfan
Guest
Yes thatās the problem. The errors start with the Latin Vulgate. Jerome himself demanded that the Vulgate be corrected against the original languages. That of Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT. Over 8000 textual errors have been documented in the Latin Vulgate. But I donāt want to derail this thread. If youād like to discuss Iād be happy to go to another thread.
PEACE
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
alright we will take into a new thread
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
new thread in sacred scripture on this topic
O
Orogeny
Guest
What an odd reply to my posting. None of the articles I linked to mentions Ventastega. Where did you find that in my links?Tim youāre kidding on this right.
It is interesting that the authors would suggest that Ventastega is a āmidpointā between the fish Tiktaalik and land animals. This is highly inacurate. Ventastega is a later species than Tiktaalik but is a more primitive animal. Whatās most interesting is that something hailed as transitional would be, by the authorās own estimation, a step backwards of sorts. Ventastega was a dead-end that went extinct.
By the way, how can you call Vengastega a later species if you reject dating methods?
Transitional species do go extinct, you know.
Well, you could if you didnāt know what you were talking about, but if you understood even basic biology you wouldnāt do that.
Gee, imagine that. They found what they were looking for. They predicted the animal (Tiktaalik) existed, what type of environment it probably lived in and how long ago it existed. Based on those predictions, predictions made using the theory of evolution, they started looking for rocks that old of the type that would have been deposited in that environment. They chose an area in Canada. Lo and behold, the predictions made using the theory of evolution proved to be true! A creature just like they predicted existed in rocks of the age they predicted and from the predicted environment. What a great example of a successful prediction made using the theory!
Hmm. Is that where you got the reference to Ventastega?
Peace
Tim
S
sedonaman
Guest
Why is this still an issue? The Bible is not intended to be a science book; its purpose is to spread the word of God. Science likewise cannot ascertain whether God exists or not. Think a little harder: can evolution work without matter to work itself on? If not, where did matter come from?
M
michaelcollins
Guest
N
NDfan
Guest
Bill no the baseline assumptions are rate of decay remaining constant, although this is widely accepted. Original amount of both mother/daughter elements is known, and the sample remained in a closed system which is not possible given the earth is not a closed system. So therefore heat and groundwater can have significant impacts.
Yes exactly Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium-238. So scientists have estimated the amount of uranium in the earthās crustal rocks. From this they estimate the amount of helium that should be produced, then calculate how much helium is being added to the atmosphere over a given amount of time. They also know how much helium is in the atmosphere. If you use the same assumptions for C14 the earth at most can be maybe 1.80 million years old. Some say 175,000 years. Big gap huh?
But again not 4 billion.No thatās not my point. The tidal friction between the Earthās surface and the water moving over it causes a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon. Tidal friction also causes the Earthās rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.
The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981 however according to DeYoung and Iāll quote the research:
āOne cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence. The rate was perhaps 20 m/year ālongā ago, and the average is 1.2 m/yearā
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old. Again not 6000 years but certainly not 4.5 billion.
Basically DNA has been shown to cease existence after about 10 thousand years. Although some scholars will say 12 thousand and still others may argue a little more. But essentially the DNA that would be available in say a dinosaur bone would essentially disappear after letās be generous and say 20 thousand years. The caveat to that would be if the bone was buried in clay which essentially would seal it. The science community is divided over just how old some of these fossils would be. A good example is the Clarkia Fossil Beds of northern Idaho. If you research that youāll get some good info.
But dinosaur bones were found not encased in clay or amber but rather sandstone which is porous. This allowed ground and rain water to seep into the rocks and bones. The fact that the outer part of one of the bones was mineralized suggests that water and probably oxygen got into the bones. Hereās the interesting thing. The inside of the bones are not mineralized indicating they are young. Additionally the partially mineralized bone had what appeared to be red blood cells in it. Hence DNA. So back to my statement above, letās say DNA ceases to exist after 20,000 years in an uncased fossil. Then naturally if DNA were found in an uncased fossil we would expect the age to be 20,000 years or less.
Hereās the funny thing. Scientists originally thought the bones were over 65 million years old.
I guess I donāt see it that way. I think everything starts with creation but I donāt rule out the possibility of evolution being part of the equation. But I donāt think we can dogmatically say since the earth may be older than 6000 years that then results in evolution of man from lower life forms. We still need to prove that part of the equation and sadly the evidence there is very questionable. Do you not believe GOD is the creator??
That doesnāt bother me at all. Itās when we start saying that man evolved over time slowly to the point it is now virtually eliminating GOD. To suggest somehow our eyes developed over time from a concave formation to the eyeball being able to see side to side, up and down, in color, light-filtering etc. suggests some intelligence is involved. Even some of the most extreme evolutionists seem to be acknowledging the existence of intelligence. You canāt describe the evolution of man without implying some level of intelligence being involved. As soon as that happens you immediately bring a creator into the equation.
Well I do accept the science to a point but donāt believe we have all the answers. Therefore we have to consider that the literal meaning of Genesis is a possibility. I donāt recall saying dinosaurs came first. But in the creation account animals certainly did before man. Job suggests there were creatures that fit dinosaur characteristics existing along with man. As far as interpreting the Bible literally, I do believe in interpreting the Bible literally. But in our literal interpretation we will realize that some things have to be figurative. Especially considering when it was written and to whom it was written.
N
NDfan
Guest
Radiometric dating was used here.
Plenty of substantiation. All elements represented on the evolutionary chart are not proven entities. Many are hypothesized based on the previous and post entries.
And what real things may that be??
Since Iām not a betting man I wonāt bet. But please feel free to show me that jellyfish came from clouds or vice versa.
OK Tim you do that and let me know. Where are you going to pass it onto?
PEACE
N
NDfan
Guest
I donāt see a link should I create one?
M
michaelcollins
Guest
My problem with your post is simple, if man evolved slowly you have a problem because you believe it eleminates God, because of your literallism, see I believe the opposite that it increases Gods involvement and it fits the rest of our history. It allows for the opening of christianity to those whose natural bent is to question not just accept. The earth being 10 minutes or 4.5 billion years can still be gods creation, just done a little differently.Bill no the baseline assumptions are rate of decay remaining constant, although this is widely accepted. Original amount of both mother/daughter elements is known, and the sample remained in a closed system which is not possible given the earth is not a closed system. So therefore heat and groundwater can have significant impacts.
Yes exactly Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium-238. So scientists have estimated the amount of uranium in the earthās crustal rocks. From this they estimate the amount of helium that should be produced, then calculate how much helium is being added to the atmosphere over a given amount of time. They also know how much helium is in the atmosphere. If you use the same assumptions for C14 the earth at most can be maybe 1.80 million years old. Some say 175,000 years. Big gap huh?
No thatās not my point. The tidal friction between the Earthās surface and the water moving over it causes a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon. Tidal friction also causes the Earthās rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth.
The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981 however according to DeYoung and Iāll quote the research:
āOne cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence. The rate was perhaps 20 m/year ālongā ago, and the average is 1.2 m/yearā
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old. Again not 6000 years but certainly not 4.5 billion.
Basically DNA has been shown to cease existence after about 10 thousand years. Although some scholars will say 12 thousand and still others may argue a little more. But essentially the DNA that would be available in say a dinosaur bone would essentially disappear after letās be generous and say 20 thousand years. The caveat to that would be if the bone was buried in clay which essentially would seal it. The science community is divided over just how old some of these fossils would be. A good example is the Clarkia Fossil Beds of northern Idaho. If you research that youāll get some good info.
But dinosaur bones were found not encased in clay or amber but rather sandstone which is porous. This allowed ground and rain water to seep into the rocks and bones. The fact that the outer part of one of the bones was mineralized suggests that water and probably oxygen got into the bones. Hereās the interesting thing. The inside of the bones are not mineralized indicating they are young. Additionally the partially mineralized bone had what appeared to be red blood cells in it. Hence DNA. So back to my statement above, letās say DNA ceases to exist after 20,000 years in an uncased fossil. Then naturally if DNA were found in an uncased fossil we would expect the age to be 20,000 years or less.
Hereās the funny thing. Scientists originally thought the bones were over 65 million years old.
I guess I donāt see it that way. I think everything starts with creation but I donāt rule out the possibility of evolution being part of the equation. But I donāt think we can dogmatically say since the earth may be older than 6000 years that then results in evolution of man from lower life forms. We still need to prove that part of the equation and sadly the evidence there is very questionable. Do you not believe GOD is the creator??
That doesnāt bother me at all. Itās when we start saying that man evolved over time slowly to the point it is now virtually eliminating GOD. To suggest somehow our eyes developed over time from a concave formation to the eyeball being able to see side to side, up and down, in color, light-filtering etc. suggests some intelligence is involved. Even some of the most extreme evolutionists seem to be acknowledging the existence of intelligence. You canāt describe the evolution of man without implying some level of intelligence being involved. As soon as that happens you immediately bring a creator into the equation.
Well I do accept the science to a point but donāt believe we have all the answers. Therefore we have to consider that the literal meaning of Genesis is a possibility. I donāt recall saying dinosaurs came first. But in the creation account animals certainly did before man. Job suggests there were creatures that fit dinosaur characteristics existing along with man. As far as interpreting the Bible literally, I do believe in interpreting the Bible literally. But in our literal interpretation we will realize that some things have to be figurative. Especially considering when it was written and to whom it was written.
N
NDfan
Guest
Well let me clarify then. I believe if we say evolution eliminates GOD then I have a problem. That seems to be the intent of some evolutionists. Completely ruling out any notion of creation therefore eliminating GOD. Literalistic interpretation of the Bible doesnāt cause me to dismiss evolution. I just donāt rule out the possibility that GOD could have literally created us at the command of HIS voice so to speak. But again I donāt rule out that creation could have included elements of evolution. Does that make sense?
I respect your position I guess I just see it more dogmatically. That GOD created us as we are now. I think our bodies have evolved over time to adapt to climate changes, dietary changes etc. But the basic design of man and woman I donāt believe goes back to a single organism. I read an interesting article from a scientist that was a die-hard evolutionist. He noted that for evolution to be true then the simplest organisms in the body would have the least amount of complexity. He argued that you canāt start with a complex organism and evolve to a more complex organism. That would refute the slow incremental changes so commonly found in Darwinism which state something like simple organisms slowly changing over time to more complex organisms.
So he began studying the makeup of the simple cell in the human body. What he found was that the cell itself was more complex in nature than originally thought and in some cases more complex than larger organisms of the body like the eye. This in his mind proved beyond a doubt 2 things. That there had to be a designer involved, and that we couldnāt have evolved like what some scientists are proposing. I can find the paper and send the link. Itās incredible reading.
N
NDfan
Guest
Tim let me clarify what I was posting as perhaps I misunderstood your original point. The reason I brought Ventastega into the discussion was due to the fact that Ventastega was viewed as the āmidpointā between the fish Tiktaalik and land animals.
The hypothesis being that sea creatures evolved into land creatures. Ventastega although a later species than Tiktaalik was also more primitive. So it appears the authors of the Tiktaalik find are proposing that Tiktaalik actually took a step backwards in evolution which wouldnāt make sense.
Following that framework one could just as easily say that alligators, crocodiles, etc. represent transitional species, since they have features that allow them to live in and out of the water. Itās almost like saying that a creature that can fly but also has land habits originated from a land-based species. Then identifying any species that has both attributes as being a transitory species. So this is crude but you start with a duck that can walk and fly and say that it is a transitory species of a shark to an eagle.
The only reason I mentioned Menton was because he had an interesting explanation that stemmed from purely a creationist point of view that I found interesting.
O
Orogeny
Guest
So you donāt even understand that there is a significant difference between K/Ar and C14? I mean, you did claim that rocks were dated using C14 and the testing yielded dates of, what was it, from 29 million to almost 3 billion years. Do you wonder why I question your understanding of this or any other radiodating methods?
There were problems with the sample that was tested. If one doesnāt understand how the selected method works, one can collect samples that will give erroneous results. Or, if one wants to set up a test that could then be argued as one that shows a method doesnāt work, one could knowingly collect an improper sample.
Again, an unsubstantiated claim. You have to get specific.
The australopithecenes, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalinsis. You know, things like that.
Well, you stumped me with that incredible scientific challenge. You win. Jellyfish didnāt come from clouds. Nor did their cousins, the corals.
Peace
Tim
- Status