The 6000 Year Earth

[Orogeny]

There is a logical reason why scientists when using carbon dating preflood materials believe or get results that say the material is millions or billions of years old. The answer can be found in the original thread.

Can you cite one scientific source that used carbon dating to date anything that is millions or billions of years old?

Science tries to use a test established in today’s periodical table which is chemically different from preflood material. Everything on the face of the earth is chemically different from materials that are preflood. Our world today is saturated, bombarded by appoximately 13 times more radiation than that of preflood earth.

Do you have any scientific evidence for this? If so, you are about to be REAL famous.

So when preflood materials are tested using tests established by today’s chemical principles, it is logical that there will be a huge difference in dating the material since the chemical properties are not the same. Now, what if it were possilble to remove the radiation in materials. Doesn’t it make sense that then they could acheive a much more accurate test on determining the age of preflood material?

Well, unless you have scientific evidence that what you claim is true, you have a real problem. Not science and not biblical. Hmm. Where would it fall, then? Fiction?

Peace

Tim

 

[matahari]

Based on your baseless and un-Christian accusations in this thread, I would say that I am in a much better position than you are.

Have you been silenced?

Peace

Tim

---

I’ got onto this controversial topic and seem to have offended some and said some uncharitable things to one or two . So, to those I offended I apologise.

Having said that I believe that apart from the OP and one or two others there is little search for truth going on here.

The thread is being controlled by the evolution Mafia who are dismissive of and intolerant to anyone who dares to disagree with their cherished Theory .

So bye for now
and " Keep on Truckin’ "

 

[Orogeny]

I’ got onto this controversial topic and seem to have offended some and said some uncharitable things to one or two . So, to those I offended I apologise.
The thread is being controlled by the evolution Mafia who are dismissive of and intolerant to anyone who dares to disagree with their cherished Theory .

Hmm. Apologize and then really get offensive and then run away. VERY Christian.

Based on your posts on this thread, if someone accused you of being a Christian ,would there be enough evidence to convict you?

Peace

Tim

 

[Bradleyc]

It was science that exposed Piltdown man. It was science that concluded against the mars rock. It is scientists who are discussing the significance of the Ida fossil. Your point about science is what?

StAnastasia

where was the science at for 40 years? i’m just saying that evolutionist seem to take the blind faith approach on many occasions, where is the science in that?? is it really science? just like pluto being a planet, but now it’s not… yet those scientists are looked at for infallable information… how do you know what they are telling you is true, sure, they have some pretty convincing evidence, but what are their motives? is the info skewed? a lot of these scientists would not get the grants if they didn’t go along with the crowd… and that has been the case on several occasions… doesn’t that make you just a little skeptical of the information they are giving you? you can choose to believe what you want and i don’t think that this will take away your salvation… but you will have to admit that there are evil men that are trying to prove that there is no God, and this is one of their methods.

could i be wrong? sure, but i am just not convinced that evolution adds up yet… just too many holes in the theory. i also would be very careful not to be cowtowing to a crowd that is not healthy to my spiritual walk…

 

[Orogeny]

where was the science at for 40 years?

Raising questions about the find.

i’m just saying that evolutionist seem to take the blind faith approach on many occasions, where is the science in that??

Think about that again. If “blind faith” was used, how was the fraud ever found?

is it really science? just like pluto being a planet, but now it’s not…

I don’t know if you know this, but Pluto still exists. It is no longer classified as a planet, but it is still there.

yet those scientists are looked at for infallable information…

No one who has any science background would ever make the claim you just did.

how do you know what they are telling you is true, sure, they have some pretty convincing evidence, but what are their motives? is the info skewed?

It is called review. If the data is flawed, scientists will uncover that. If the conclusion is not based on the evidence, the conclusion will be rejected. That is how science works. For example, the newly announced *Darwinius masillae *(the “missing link”, Ida) will now be subjected to very intense scrutiny by vertebrate paleontologists. It is completely unclear at this time that the claim that Ida is an early ancestor to apes and humans will hold up to scrutiny, regardless of the claims of the scientists that described the fossil.

a lot of these scientists would not get the grants if they didn’t go along with the crowd… and that has been the case on several occasions… doesn’t that make you just a little skeptical of the information they are giving you?

Since you levelled the charge, please give us an example of a scientist that has embraced evolution only because of funding.

could i be wrong? sure, but i am just not convinced that evolution adds up yet… just too many holes in the theory. i also would be very careful not to be cowtowing to a crowd that is not healthy to my spiritual walk…

What is your scientific background? Do you also feel that you are qualified to evaluate the claims of quantum physics?

Peace

Tim

 

[avflf]

Yeah, there are several. I have been on these forums (fora, if you prefer) for quite a while and have frequently had to define my beliefs for people who didn’t consider me a Christian.Well, let me re-state them rather than searching through my past posts.

Thank you

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

OK. The FIRST Person.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through Him all things were made.

“eternally begotten”??? OK. The SECOND Person. By the way, it is “by Him” not “through Him” (see Jn. 1:3) which leaves the FIRST Person on holiday when all was created.

For me and for my salvation, He came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For my sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day, He rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

The MAN Christ Jesus who is now, bodily, with God the Father in Heaven. OK. The FORTH Person???

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.

OK. The THIRD Person. The TRUE Father of the MAN Christ Jesus (see Mat. 1:20; Lk. 1:35)

I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Baptism of John, water baptism. What of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? (see Mat. 3:11) You see it figuratively?

I would like to take credit for that, but I didn’t write it. However, I deeply and fully believe every single thing in that creed. I am a Catholic who loves the Church and does his best to follow her teachings.

I know you can’t. I also had to know it by heart and recite it at Catechism

I love the bible. I read it every single day as part of my time with the Lord.

Considering you do not take the writings literally is it the spiritual message you seek? And do you get inner peace and/or enlightenment from your readings?

I find it interesting that I think that most people who wonder about my faith do so because of my positions regarding science. I think that science is a wonderful gift from God that allows us to discover the wonders of His creation. I sincerely believe that He wants us to use the intelligence that He gave us to understand His creation because that is a wonderful way to learn more about Him.

Yes, I suppose for a “born-again” Pentecostal you don’t come out very Christian-like

I don’t know if that answers your questions, but it will have to do for now.

Peace

Tim

Yes, thanks again, and if it works for you …

 

[buffalo]

Raising questions about the find.Think about that again. If “blind faith” was used, how was the fraud ever found?I don’t know if you know this, but Pluto still exists. It is no longer classified as a planet, but it is still there.No one who has any science background would ever make the claim you just did. It is called review. If the data is flawed, scientists will uncover that. If the conclusion is not based on the evidence, the conclusion will be rejected. That is how science works. For example, the newly announced *Darwinius masillae *(the “missing link”, Ida) will now be subjected to very intense scrutiny by vertebrate paleontologists. It is completely unclear at this time that the claim that Ida is an early ancestor to apes and humans will hold up to scrutiny, regardless of the claims of the scientists that described the fossil.Since you levelled the charge, please give us an example of a scientist that has embraced evolution only because of funding. What is your scientific background? Do you also feel that you are qualified to evaluate the claims of quantum physics?

Peace

Tim

Just a question orogeny? Don’t go hostile on me now.

Do you believe science could/will ever come to the conclusion that macro-evolution theory was wrong?

 

[Orogeny]

“eternally begotten”??? OK. The SECOND Person. By the way, it is “by Him” not “through Him” (see Jn. 1:3) which leaves the FIRST Person on holiday when all was created.

Nope. Jn 1:3 “All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.”.

The MAN Christ Jesus who is now, bodily, with God the Father in Heaven. OK. The FORTH Person???

Where do you get “FORTH” from?

The Baptism of John, water baptism. What of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? (see Mat. 3:11) You see it figuratively?

Is the Holy Spirit not present during your version of baptism?

Considering you do not take the writings literally is it the spiritual message you seek? And do you get inner peace and/or enlightenment from your readings?

It is your assumption that I don’t take scriptures literally. I get “inner peace and/or enlightenment” by being close to God. Reading scriptures is one way.

Yes, I suppose for a “born-again” Pentecostal you don’t come out very Christian-like

??? What makes you think I am a Pentacostal?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Just a question orogeny? Don’t go hostile on me now.

Do you believe science could/will ever come to the conclusion that macro-evolution theory was wrong?

Could? Yes. Will? I seriously doubt it. Keep in mind, though, that I speak only of the theory, not the fact.

Peace

Tim

 

[StAnastasia]

where was the science at for 40 years? i’m just saying that evolutionist seem to take the blind faith approach on many occasions, where is the science in that?? is it really science? just like pluto being a planet, but now it’s not… yet those scientists are looked at for infallable information… how do you know what they are telling you is true, sure, they have some pretty convincing evidence, but what are their motives? is the info skewed? a lot of these scientists would not get the grants if they didn’t go along with the crowd… and that has been the case on several occasions… doesn’t that make you just a little skeptical of the information they are giving you? you can choose to believe what you want and i don’t think that this will take away your salvation… but you will have to admit that there are evil men that are trying to prove that there is no God, and this is one of their methods.

Bradleyc, have you ever taken a science course? Ever read any philosophy of science? Ever spoken with a science teacher? Ever spoken with a Catholic scientist?

StAnastaisa

 

[Bradleyc]

Bradleyc, have you ever taken a science course? Ever read any philosophy of science? Ever spoken with a science teacher? Ever spoken with a Catholic scientist?

StAnastaisa

 

[heiscominginthe]

Have you run this by any scientists? They could tell you whether you are on to something about this flood theory of yours.

There are scientists who work under the banner of creationism that base their studies on the Word of God. What I mean is they have found scriptures that lead them in directions to areas of study.

There is a website put online by our church and many studies done by creationist scientists along with many discoveries that debunk evolution have links there to scientist’s webpages.

It is Godsaidmansaid. I won’t post a link in case it violates forum rules. Just do a search and you will find it.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Can you cite one scientific source that used carbon dating to date anything that is millions or billions of years old?Do you have any scientific evidence for this? If so, you are about to be REAL famous.Well, unless you have scientific evidence that what you claim is true, you have a real problem. Not science and not biblical. Hmm. Where would it fall, then? Fiction?

Peace

Tim

Hmmmmmmmmm, was it not you Tim who believes logic should be used when discussing evolution? How about some good old fashion common sense. I suggest you read the Word of God and use not only common sense, but the unction of the Holy Spirit. Stop listening to the doctrines of men.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Have you run this by any scientists? They could tell you whether you are on to something about this flood theory of yours.

Think of it this way. Wouldn’t the molecular makeup of material that has been exposed by very small amounts of radiation be much different from material that has been bombarded by radiation?

What happens to our own flesh under high doses of radiation? It breaks down, deteriorates, and often dies.

Something else that is interesting is that preflood man lived much, much longer then men of today. There is scientific proof that the one factor that kills men today faster then anything else is radiation from the sun. Is it a coinsidence that when you read the story of Noah, that immediately after the flood, the lifespan of man dramatically declined. And I believe the reason is we receive much higher doses of radiation than that of preflood man.

So even without scientific proof, common sense rules here. Yet, I am sure if you seek, you can find proof to will prove this to be true.

It is wonderful to see the more science advances, the more it proves the Word of God to be true.

 

[StAnastasia]

i am just not convinced that evolution adds up yet… just too many holes in the theory. i also would be very careful not to be cowtowing to a crowd that is not healthy to my spiritual walk…

I am not sure why your doubts about evolution not adding up should matter in the slightest to scientists. I might not be positively sure that the moon is not made of green cheese, but I have no right to expect astronomers to take my “cheesism” seriously. And no one ever said you have to “cotwow” to anyone. I have numerous friends who are both evolutionary biologists or other scientists, and Catholic priests. Evolution is not an impediment to their spiritual walk.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Something else that is interesting is that preflood man lived much, much longer then men of today. There is scientific proof that the one factor that kills men today faster then anything else is radiation from the sun. Is it a coinsidence that when you read the story of Noah, that immediately after the flood, the lifespan of man dramatically declined. And I believe the reason is we receive much higher doses of radiation than that of preflood man…It is wonderful to see the more science advances, the more it proves the Word of God to be true.

I’m not sure we are on the same page. Apart from symbolic stories you haven’t offered any evidence

(1) that there was a great flood, or
(2) that the human lifespan changed after this “flood”, or
(3) that radiation increased after the flood, or
(4) that this increase in radiation dosage affected human life span.

You have not offered us a single reason for why we should believe you.

 

[StAnastasia]

There are scientists who work under the banner of creationism that base their studies on the Word of God. What I mean is they have found scriptures that lead them in directions to areas of study…

Can you show us a single “creation scientist” who is a leader in a scientific field? Whose work is widely cited? Whose books or articles are read? Whose conference presentations are attended? Whose lab is contributing to the sum total of human knowledge about the world? Can you in fact cite a single “creation scientist” who has made any contribution at all to scientific learning.

It would be interesting if you could name such a person and her or his scholarly and scientific credentials.

StAnastasia

 

[heiscominginthe]

I’m not sure we are on the same page. Apart from symbolic stories you haven’t offered any evidence

(1) that there was a great flood, or
(2) that the human lifespan changed after this “flood”, or
(3) that radiation increased after the flood, or
(4) that this increase in radiation dosage affected human life span.

You have not offered us a single reason for why we should believe you.

As for the flood and the change in the lifespan of man, they are both found in scripture. To not believe them is to not believe the Word of God.

As for the topic on radiation, I suggest you do a search on radiation and it’s affects on the human body.

Also, there was another interesting study done on aquadic animals and how that an animal of the same species that lives in the depths of the oceans lives much longer then those who live near the surface. The animals in the depths grew much, much larger then the animals that lived in shallow waters. The scientist discovered the reason why there was such a difference in size was because the animals in the depths lived much, much longer then the animals in the shallow waters.

When investigating why the animals in the depths lived so much longer, their conclusion stated that the animals that lived in the depths was not affected by as much radiation as the animals in the shallows, and the animals in the depths continued to grow since it lived much, much longer. The animal that was used in this study was the squid in case you want to do a search.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Can you show us a single “creation scientist” who is a leader in a scientific field? Whose work is widely cited? Whose books or articles are read? Whose conference presentations are attended? Whose lab is contributing to the sum total of human knowledge about the world? Can you in fact cite a single “creation scientist” who has made any contribution at all to scientific learning.

It would be interesting if you could name such a person and her or his scholarly and scientific credentials.

StAnastasia

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology

I couldn’t list anymore because of space confinement.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Can you show us a single “creation scientist” who is a leader in a scientific field? Whose work is widely cited? Whose books or articles are read? Whose conference presentations are attended? Whose lab is contributing to the sum total of human knowledge about the world? Can you in fact cite a single “creation scientist” who has made any contribution at all to scientific learning.

It would be interesting if you could name such a person and her or his scholarly and scientific credentials.

StAnastasia

Q: Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
We referred this question to Dr D. Russell Humphreys, a nuclear physicist who works at Sandia National Laboratories. Dr Humphreys says he has often had this question put to him. He writes:

‘When people ask me this, I feel a certain amount of frustration because of the evolutionist brainwashing in our society which it reveals.

‘Firstly, it shows that the questioner is unaware of the large number of published professional scientists who are creationists. Where I live and work (Albuquerque, New Mexico) there are large numbers of scientists, and I know many who happen to be biblical creationists. Using a simple statistical approach, I would conservatively estimate that in the United States alone, there are around 10,000 practising professional scientists who openly believe in six-day recent creation.

‘Secondly, it suggests that the questioner doesn’t understand what the day-to-day life of a scientist is all about. One could almost say that publication in professional journals is the essence of being a scientist. So asking a man who says he is a scientist if he’s published in secular journals is like asking a man who says he’s married if he’s got a wife!