The age of the world according to Protestants

[rbarcia]

It means no such thing. The way that God created our physical bodies has nothing to do with the way He created our immortal spirits. The catechism says that so long as we do not deny that God created both our bodies and our immortal spirits, the method He used to create our physical bodies is open to scientific inquiry.

Pope John Paul II stated that, within the context of evolution, the account of Adam and Eve represents “an actual ontological event”. That is, that Adam and Eve were two real people who were the first to be created in the image and likeness of God - that is, the first to be truly human with free will instead of mere instinct. If Pope John Paul II accepted the possibility of evolution as the means by which God created our bodies (but not our spirits), I don’t see how anyone can cast dispersions on my Catholicity for also acknowledging the same possibility.

God bless,
Paul

Evolution is the biggest joke in history. The fossil records do not support the hundreds and hundreds of inbetween forms that would have to exist between each phase.

Similarities between specifies means that we have a common designer, much like different types of cars look like each other, because they are based on a common design elements.

Evolutionist construct skeletons of supposed ancient men from a single skull, or a single tooth, and guess the rest of the body.

JP2 may have considered evolution, but the word of God does not support such foolishness.

**
Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

**

 

[Orogeny]

Evolution is the biggest joke in history. The fossil records do not support the hundreds and hundreds of inbetween forms that would have to exist between each phase.

Similarities between specifies means that we have a common designer, much like different types of cars look like each other, because they are based on a common design elements.

Evolutionist construct skeletons of supposed ancient men from a single skull, or a single tooth, and guess the rest of the body.

JP2 may have considered evolution, but the word of God does not support such foolishness.

Well, I guess that closes the book on this topic. rbarcia has spoken. Regardless of what the science indicates, it can’t be true if it doesn’t reconcile with his/her beliefs.

Since we have non-scientists debunking science, does that allow non-theologians to debunk theology?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

None of these links prove anything, they make tons of assumptions to prove their theory.

You are correct. They prove nothing. Just like dropping a ball doesn’t prove gravity. In their totality, they make a slam dunk case for an old earth.

Look, just because you are incapable of understanding the science doesn’t mean that it isn’t valid.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

And what do you want me to see here? I looked at the “age of the earth” page and it didnt impress me at all. When people are talking about the age of the earth in terms of billions of years its no longer real science.

You are in the position to tell the scientific world what is science and what isn’t? You got that power from whom?

I don’t doubt that you aren’t impressed. I suspect you didn’t read them and if you did, you didn’t understand them.

The age of the earth in billions of years is founded on a insane premise, it basically is taking verifyable data and graphing it and from that graph using it as a scale to date “unknown” samples which fall WAAAYYY out of the range of the verifyable data. The problem here is that you have left the world of science and gone into the world of speculation, whats worse this is pushed as solid fact.

Yep, those evil, athiestic scientists are really after your soul. Especially this one:
asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Peace

Tim

 

[PaulDupre]

Thats because the monkey theory is pure invention, it was invented to undermine the concept God created man and rather we evolved from a blob to a monkey to man. We cant look today and come up with this theory from observation, this was a pure invention that found its way into the fact section of the textbooks.

Also it undermines the fact God created a human soul in His image…if people claim we came from monkeys (which dont have the same soul as humans and are not created in God’s image) what they are saying is that there were semi evolved men who didnt quite have souls either, infact at that point where do we draw the line between full human and half human half monkey? Also the same evolutionary theory states even man must evlove, further undermining God’s creation of man and plan of salvation.

The funny thing is monkeys are still around and there isnt any half-evolved monkey-men around so its like the evolution stopped and split into two categories of monkey and men.

Man being created from dirt simply means he was made from the earthly elements.

Will you at least acknowledge that the universe, if not our earth, is billions of years old?

God bless,
Paul

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You are in the position to tell the scientific world what is science and what isn’t? You got that power from whom?

I don’t doubt that you aren’t impressed. I suspect you didn’t read them and if you did, you didn’t understand them.

Its not the power, its common sense. To claim someone is calculating the age of the earth when they are billions of years removed is simply beyond the scope of science. Its fine for people to speculate as long as it remains speculation.

Yep, those evil, athiestic scientists are really after your soul. Especially this one:
asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

They dont have to be evil, confused is enough. I have the common sense to recognize that just because they have the letters “Dr.” infront of their name doesnt make them automatically right. In most cases “Dr.” is a result of believing what a previous “Dr.” said and paying the tuition.

This new link is even more interesting considering its talking about half lives in the 10s of billions when the earth itself is supposedly only 4B years old.
Anyway I read down that page and here are some of the major issues I saw:There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time. In fact, as discussed below, they have been observed to not change at all over hundreds of thousands of years.
-page 4
This is an issue I have been critical of from the start. They say “there is no evidence of the half lives changing over time”, yet the only measurable and verifiable time span they have available is only about 50 years. From this we see the “no evidence” is not only misleading its a gross presumption not suitable for forming solid conclusions.
Next it says they have been observed to not change “over hundreds of thousands of years”, again this is misleading and in the end bogus, they were not REALLY observed at all but rather calculated in a reverse-engineering type manner.Now let’s look at how the actual dating methods work. Igneous rocks are good candidates for dating. Recall that for igneous rocks the event being dated is when the rock was formed from magma or lava.
And the fact is outside a window of maybe 1-2 thousand years can you claim a rock was formed due to its creation being witnessed. Any period of rock determined outside that window is a CALCULATED age not a witnessed/verifiable age, this means your forming your conclusions based off of extrapolation which in turn is going to be used as grounds for further extrapolation on larger magnitudes. Thats called junk science.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Page 10 was where the “age of the earth” was starting to get talked about, however it contained some very questionable claims:So it appears that none of the rocks have survived from the creation of the Earth without undergoing remelting, metamorphism, or erosion, and all we can say–from this line of evidence–is that the Earth appears to be at least as old as the four billion year old rocks.
Ok, so what are they really saying? This is a joke! They make the claim none of the rocks from the creation of the earth exist because they all have undergone a disturbance which would mean the wont give accurate results. So we have a clear admission here the age of the earth cant and isnt even being calculated, rather simply a lower limit is being set, but as we must conclude from the above admission this ASSUMED lower limit of 4 billion years is now subject to the same scrutiny/questionability.
The very next thing the article talks about:When scientists began systematically dating meteorites they learned a very interesting thing: nearly all of the meteorites had practically identical ages, at 4.56 billion years.
Ok, now we have left even the earth and are relying on what are SUPPOSED meteors for their measurements.These meteorites are chips off the asteroids. When the asteroids were formed in space, they cooled relatively quickly (some of them may never have gotten very warm), so all of their rocks were formed within a few million years.
More and more this article isnt about science but rather its slipping into the secular junk science realm of unproven assumptions which are in turn forming the foundation of their work. This “million years” has no basis, its simply quoted and we are expected to believe it at face value.The moon is larger than the largest asteroid. Most of the rocks we have from the moon do not exceed 4.1 billion years. The samples thought to be the oldest are highly pulverized and difficult to date, though there are a few dates extending all the way to 4.4 to 4.5 billion years.
Look at the nerve of these people, the supposed oldest samples are somehow damaged and difficult to date? At the very least this shows there is no uniform data but rather a picking of the samples that produce that data that fits their preselected ages.
And this one takes the cake:Most scientists think that all the bodies in the solar system were created at about the same time. Evidence from the uranium, thorium, and lead isotopes links the Earth’s age with that of the meteorites. This would make the Earth 4.5-4.6 billion years old.
Ok, first off “most scientists”? So some disagree? Is it really “most” in a strict majority type terminology? I highly doubt it, infact such a term is a typical BS lead in sentence to push something as fact what are really opinions/assumptions but due to the fact its “most scientists” it must be true.
Do “most scientists” really believe all the bodies in the solar system are about the same age? Furthermore what grounds do they have to say such a thing given they havnt even been to one of them? And finally, they have turned the focus entirely on “meteorites”, which in themselves have some explaining to do in regards to their material, age, origins, etc.

Notice how much out of the blue, unproven opinions and assumptions are pushed in these last few paragraphs, and all the while made to appear to be well grounded experiments.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(3 of 3)

Page 14:What does one find in the calibration of carbon-14 against actual ages? If one predicts a carbon-14 age assuming that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the air has stayed constant, there is a slight error because this ratio has changed slightly. Figure 9 shows that the carbon-14 fraction in the air has decreased over the last 40,000 years by about a factor of two. This is more of the same junk. The term “actual ages” means you know for sure what the age is, then doing an experiment can verify if it meets the actual age…instead “actual age” is nothing more than a PREDICTION whats worse it is extended over 40,000 years!As an example, an article in Science magazine (vol. 277, pp. 1279-1280, 1997) reports the agreement between the argon-argon method and the actual known age of lava from the famous eruption of Vesuvius in Italy in 79 A.D.
This is the first time the whole article where they actually mention a historically verifiable reference by which to check their data. That being said it wasnt even 2000 years ago which tells us their window of verifiable data is small, everying outside of it is speculation.

Page 19:We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing.This is total trash, the so called “non-radiometric” methods discussed above only gave ages in the hundreds of thousands, not the billions, thats a discrepancy I didnt see addressed at all.Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records.
There is no comparison. This guy is a total joke, “it only differers in degree”, thats as helpful as me saying Heaven and Hell only differ in degree. Lincoln was around as early as 150 years ago while this guy is pushing dates in the hundreds of thousands to the billions which are was outside the range of verifiability.Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
Here is the only other time this article makes mention of HISTORICALLY verifying their methods…THAT being said this has only been going on for 60 years with the “LONG RANGE” dating method verifying a few thousand year old samples. IN SHORT the credibility only extends as far as verifyable samples extend and its as simple as that. They have no business at all projecting results on several orders of magnitude larger than their verifiable results.

 

[Orogeny]

They dont have to be evil, confused is enough. I have the common sense to recognize that just because they have the letters “Dr.” infront of their name doesnt make them automatically right. In most cases “Dr.” is a result of believing what a previous “Dr.” said and paying the tuition.

That sounds extremely petty and insulting to those who have earned PhDs. You obviously have no clue what it takes to earn the right to the “Dr” in front of your name from a legitimate university.

By the way, you don’t hold a monopoly on common sense. In fact, common sense would at least allow you to understand that there are things outside your realm of knowledge that others have spent a very large portion of their lives studying AND that there are people who are smarter than you that also have common sense who understand that which you obviously don’t.

This new link is even more interesting considering its talking about half lives in the 10s of billions when the earth itself is supposedly only 4B years old.

That statement makes me believe that you don’t understand what a half-life is.

Anyway I read down that page and here are some of the major issues I saw:There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time. In fact, as discussed below, they have been observed to not change at all over hundreds of thousands of years. -page 4This is an issue I have been critical of from the start. They say “there is no evidence of the half lives changing over time”, yet the only measurable and verifiable time span they have available is only about 50 years. From this we see the “no evidence” is not only misleading its a gross presumption not suitable for forming solid conclusions.

You obviously missed the part of the paper by Dr. Weins that explained how half-lives are determined. In fact, he addresses your concern directly.

I know in advance that your common sense will cause you to ignore these links, but for those who are following this thread and wonder about decay rates, here are a couple of links:
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html
geocities.com/lflank/radiodte.htm
onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/ (click on Chapter 1 and then 1.3 and after you read that, click on 1.4)
216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:8RSaBwwrQqkJ:www.iaea.org/programmes/ripc/ih/volumes/vol_one/cht_i_06.pdf+radioactive+decay+rate+determination&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=20

Since the rest of your post is basically your disbelief in the science, I would suggest that the above links should answer the questions you raise.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Page 10 was where the “age of the earth” was starting to get talked about, however it contained some very questionable claims:So it appears that none of the rocks have survived from the creation of the Earth without undergoing remelting, metamorphism, or erosion, and all we can say–from this line of evidence–is that the Earth appears to be at least as old as the four billion year old rocks.
Ok, so what are they really saying? This is a joke! They make the claim none of the rocks from the creation of the earth exist because they all have undergone a disturbance which would mean the wont give accurate results. So we have a clear admission here the age of the earth cant and isnt even being calculated, rather simply a lower limit is being set, but as we must conclude from the above admission this ASSUMED lower limit of 4 billion years is now subject to the same scrutiny/questionability.

Once again, you show your lack of understanding of the basics of the science of geology and radiometric dating. You see, Catholic Dude, honest scientists understand many things about the earth and about the physics behind radiometric dating. People who don’t have basic understanding of both come up with bad data.

As far as a lower limit being set, I would agree with that. The earth is at least 3.9 - 4 billion years old. The 4.5 - 4.6 billion year figure is based on dates of meteorites. Regardless, how does that even impact the fact that the earth is very old?

The very next thing the article talks about:When scientists began systematically dating meteorites they learned a very interesting thing: nearly all of the meteorites had practically identical ages, at 4.56 billion years.
Ok, now we have left even the earth and are relying on what are SUPPOSED meteors for their measurements.

Supposed? Have you examined any of those “supposed” meteorites and found that they are not, in fact, meteorites? If so, doesn’t that just mean that we have terrestial rocks dating to 4.56 billion years?

More and more this article isnt about science but rather its slipping into the secular junk science realm of unproven assumptions which are in turn forming the foundation of their work.

This “million years” has no basis, its simply quoted and we are expected to believe it at face value.

Nope. Science doesn’t work that way. Each and every variable that goes into that claim has been published, discussed, debated and accepted. Perhaps you don’t know that because you don’t have a background in science, but maybe your common sense should tell you that the millions of Christian scientists that accept the science being discussed aren’t interested advancing a secular agenda.

The moon is larger than the largest asteroid. Most of the rocks we have from the moon do not exceed 4.1 billion years. The samples thought to be the oldest are highly pulverized and difficult to date, though there are a few dates extending all the way to 4.4 to 4.5 billion years.

Look at the nerve of these people, the supposed oldest samples are somehow damaged and difficult to date? At the very least this shows there is no uniform data but rather a picking of the samples that produce that data that fits their preselected ages.

You are correct here. There is a range of dates: 4.1 to 4.5 billion years old.

And this one takes the cake:Most scientists think that all the bodies in the solar system were created at about the same time. Evidence from the uranium, thorium, and lead isotopes links the Earth’s age with that of the meteorites. This would make the Earth 4.5-4.6 billion years old.
Ok, first off “most scientists”? So some disagree?

I’m sure there are a couple of dozen that have their own wack ideas, so that sentence is correct.

Is it really “most” in a strict majority type terminology?

Yes.

I highly doubt it, infact such a term is a typical BS lead in sentence to push something as fact what are really opinions/assumptions but due to the fact its “most scientists” it must be true.

Then you would be wrong again. At least you are consistent.

Do “most scientists” really believe all the bodies in the solar system are about the same age?

Yes.

Furthermore what grounds do they have to say such a thing given they havnt even been to one of them?

It’s called science. No one has been to the sun, but we do know that it is hot. How can that be?

Peace

Tim

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Scientists now tell us they can describe many events right back to the first fraction of a second (t=10 -10) of our universe’s existence when it existed as a source incomparably compact and incomparably hot (1014 K). Eminent historian of science, Owen Gingerich, describes events at that point of time in these words:

At that point, at a second split so fine than no clock could measure it, the entire observable universe is compressed within the wavelike blur described by the uncertainty principle, so tiny and compact that it could pass through the eye of a needle. Not just this room, or the earth, or the solar system, but the entire universe squeezed into a dense dot of pure energy. And then comes the explosion.

“There is no way to express that explosion,” writes Robinson Jeffers,

“…All that exists
Roars into flame, the tortured fragments rush away from each other into all the sky, new universes
Jewel the black breast of night;
and far off the outer nebulae like charging spearmen again
Invade emptiness.”

It’s an amazing picture, of pure incredible energetic light being transformed into matter, and leaving its vestiges behind. It’s even more astonishing when we realise that the final fate of the universe, whether it will expand forever or fall back on itself to a future Big Crunch, was determined in that opening moment.

This remarkable event, with everything in existence springing forth from that blinding flash, bears a striking resemblance to the picture given in Genesis 1:3, “And God said, Let there be light.”

Who could have guessed even a hundred years ago - not to mention two or three thousand years ago - that the scientific picture would emerge with energy in its various forms, including electromagnetic radiation, as the starting point of creation!

 

[Orogeny]

(3 of 3)
Page 14:What does one find in the calibration of carbon-14 against actual ages? If one predicts a carbon-14 age assuming that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the air has stayed constant, there is a slight error because this ratio has changed slightly. Figure 9 shows that the carbon-14 fraction in the air has decreased over the last 40,000 years by about a factor of two.
This is more of the same junk. The term “actual ages” means you know for sure what the age is, then doing an experiment can verify if it meets the actual age…instead “actual age” is nothing more than a PREDICTION whats worse it is extended over 40,000 years!

Yes, actual age means just that. If we date a tree using dendrochronological methods (tree ring counting), we can come up with an actual age. Dr. Weins discussed several different methods of determining actual age in his paper. They are not predictions.

As an example, an article in Science magazine (vol. 277, pp. 1279-1280, 1997) reports the agreement between the argon-argon method and the actual known age of lava from the famous eruption of Vesuvius in Italy in 79 A.D.

This is the first time the whole article where they actually mention a historically verifiable reference by which to check their data. That being said it wasnt even 2000 years ago which tells us their window of verifiable data is small, everying outside of it is speculation.

Wow, an actual age is used and you don’t dispute it? Why not? Were you there when it happened?

Page 19:We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing.This is total trash, the so called “non-radiometric” methods discussed above only gave ages in the hundreds of thousands, not the billions, thats a discrepancy I didnt see addressed at all.

And they were consistent with the radiometric methods they were compared against.

Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records.

There is no comparison. This guy is a total joke, “it only differers in degree”, thats as helpful as me saying Heaven and Hell only differ in degree. Lincoln was around as early as 150 years ago while this guy is pushing dates in the hundreds of thousands to the billions which are was outside the range of verifiability.

Well, Dr. Weins isn’t a joke. He is a very serious scientist AND Christian who happens to have both knowledge and common sense. People who blow off experts like Dr. Weins make themselves look silly.

Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
Here is the only other time this article makes mention of HISTORICALLY verifying their methods…THAT being said this has only been going on for 60 years with the “LONG RANGE” dating method verifying a few thousand year old samples. IN SHORT the credibility only extends as far as verifyable samples extend and its as simple as that. They have no business at all projecting results on several orders of magnitude larger than their verifiable results.

Once again, please read the links I gave in the previous post. Your answer is there.

Peace

Tim

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

2 Peter 3:5 says but they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

Interesting follow up…

For the past five years, hundreds of scientists have been using a powerful new atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island to mimic conditions that existed at the birth of the universe. Called the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC, pronounced “rick”), it clashes two opposing beams of gold nuclei traveling at nearly the speed of light. The resulting collisions between pairs of these atomic nuclei generate exceedingly hot, dense bursts of matter and energy to simulate what happened during the first few microseconds of the big bang. These brief “mini bangs” give physicists a ringside seat on some of the earliest moments of creation.

During those early moments, matter was an ultrahot, superdense brew of particles called quarks and gluons rushing hither and thither and crashing willy-nilly into one another. A sprinkling of electrons, photons and other light elementary particles seasoned the soup. This mixture had a temperature in the trillions of degrees, more than 100,000 times hotter than the sun’s core.

But the temperature plummeted as the cosmos expanded, just like an ordinary gas cools today when it expands rapidly. The quarks and gluons slowed down so much that some of them could begin sticking together briefly. After nearly 10 microseconds had elapsed, the quarks and gluons became shackled together by strong forces between them, locked up permanently within protons, neutrons and other strongly interacting particles that physicists collectively call “hadrons.”

Such an abrupt change in the properties of a material is called a phase transition (like liquid water freezing into ice). The cosmic phase transition from the original mix of quarks and gluons into mundane protons and neutrons is of intense interest to scientists, both those who seek clues about how the universe evolved toward its current highly structured state and those who wish to understand better the fundamental forces involved.

I’ve found it very fascinating that current theories regarding the origins of the universe not only match up with the Scriptures depiction of everything starting from light, but that the very composition of this quark soup appears to behave much like a liquid.

Theorists originally dubbed this concoction the quark-gluon plasma, because they expected it to act like an ultrahot gas of charged particles (a plasma) similar to the innards of a lightning bolt. By smashing heavy nuclei together in mini bangs that briefly liberate quarks and gluons, RHIC serves as a kind of time telescope providing glimpses of the early universe, when the ultrahot, superdense quark-gluon plasma reigned supreme. And the greatest surprise at RHIC so far is that this exotic substance seems to be acting much more like a liquid–albeit one with very special properties–than a gas.

 

[rbarcia]

You are correct. They prove nothing. Just like dropping a ball doesn’t prove gravity. In their totality, they make a slam dunk case for an old earth.

hmm!!

You may be interested in this site as well then:

lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/fe-scidi.htm
alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatWhyFlat.htm

Look, just because you are incapable of understanding the science doesn’t mean that it isn’t valid.

Peace

Tim

Oh, my pride is so shattered

Anyway, maybe one day I will be as smart as you .

**

1 Corinthians 3:18-21

18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; 20 and again, “The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” 21 Therefore let no one boast in men.

**

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That sounds extremely petty and insulting to those who have earned PhDs. You obviously have no clue what it takes to earn the right to the “Dr” in front of your name from a legitimate university.

By the way, you don’t hold a monopoly on common sense. In fact, common sense would at least allow you to understand that there are things outside your realm of knowledge that others have spent a very large portion of their lives studying AND that there are people who are smarter than you that also have common sense who understand that which you obviously don’t.

The fact is the honor of PhD has been abused. There are too many people out there with the title “Dr” who dont deserve it, just being a Catholic and seeing all the trash secular “Dr’s” toss out against Christianity and Christian morality should be enough evidence.

I never said I held a monopoly on common sense, I openly admit there are plenty of people who know more than me…but common sense also teaches that just because an “expert” says so doesnt mean its Gospel truth. There is plenty of worthless “scholarship” out there to at the very least cause anyone with common sense to take caution about what they hear/read.

That statement makes me believe that you don’t understand what a half-life is.

How so? You simply brushed off my claim.
If they are measuring half-lives in the 10s of billions and yet they claim the earth is only 4B years old how do you explain that? As far as I can tell you have two options, either the substance being measured came from earth and as a result earth must be in the 10s of billions of years old or else the substance came from space which at that point the substance cant be used to verify the age of the earth because it is foreign to the earth. It would be like me planting a 1950 Quarter in a pile of 2000 Quarters and saying the pile of Quarters must be at least 50 years old.

You obviously missed the part of the paper by Dr. Weins that explained how half-lives are determined. In fact, he addresses your concern directly.

He didnt address anything directly except for the fact his actual verified cases only extend to the Mt Vesuvius years.

I know in advance that your common sense will cause you to ignore these links, but for those who are following this thread and wonder about decay rates, here are a couple of links:
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html
geocities.com/lflank/radiodte.htm
onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/ (click on Chapter 1 and then 1.3 and after you read that, click on 1.4)
216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:8RSaBwwrQqkJ:www.iaea.org/programmes/ripc/ih/volumes/vol_one/cht_i_06.pdf+radioactive+decay+rate+determination&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=20

I glanced over these links and here are some problems I found in the first one:
The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary **since their rates were directly measurable
**The problem here is the “observed” window is very small in relation to the billions of years it claims to span over. Here is a crude example: If I were watching a tree during the summer (small window of time) under the impression leaves never fell and never saw the leaves fell does that mean I can extend this to the whole year (lager window of time)? No.
Just like you cant spend 10, 15, 25, 50 years “observing” a sample and claim it was “observed” to not change over billions of years.
… Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).
You cant form conclusions based on what is going on millions or worse yet billions of light years away and it doesnt give evidence to what is going on at or near earth. Also I am very skeptical in regards to the validity/possibility of such long distance “measurments” in the first place.
The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago.
Totally unverifyable. Yet its these “facts” which go onto support the foundation of their claims.

The fourth link was actually pretty neat, the experimentation done was over short spands of time (eg hours) and it didnt push any billions of years conclusions based on extrapolation.

Since the rest of your post is basically your disbelief in the science, I would suggest that the above links should answer the questions you raise.

I have nothing against science as long as it stays within readily verifyable parameters and should it exceed those parameters those “results” shouldnt be pushed as dogma.

(ill get to the rest of the posts asap)

 

[Rickzee]

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

Italics in the original

Reference
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

---

Every major doctrine of Christianity is either explicitly or implicitly taught in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

Everyone has certain presuppositions when they approach science. To deny this is self deception or at the worst to be a deceiver. If I presuppose the bible is wrong and start from there I will interpret the evidence to suit my presuppositions.

If, however I presuppose the scripture is “God Breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16) then I will interpret the evidence to suit that set of presuppositions.

I see postings to sites both for and against “Young Earth-Creationism” Which set of interpretations of the data best explain what we see? Since the evidence is in the “present” what we say about the past is our interpretation, it is not science. Science says I see a rock-FAITH interprets the rocks meaning.

“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.”

J. E. O’Rourks, “Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy”. American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47

 

[Rickzee]

People who blow off experts like Dr. Weins make themselves look silly.
Peace
Tim

Hmmm
Perhaps this PhD should not be blown off either?
answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_baumgardner.asp

Or how about all of these?
answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

The truth is out there! LOL

One of my mentors once said:

“The truth will set you free–but first it will make you mad.”

BTW the mountain formations – as the scriptures teach – were formed in the cataclysmic event known as Noah’s flood. (hence the clam shells on top of Everest.) Uniformitarianism is NOT supported much by any serious geologist, too much evidence in the present to deny what happened in the past.

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in “The Fresno Bee”, August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor’s New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

 

[Rickzee]

The explaination is that the prints are not human, but are from another dinosaur which had a narrow footprint, which after erosion can somewhat appear to be that of humans. and the ones that look exactly like a human footprint with toes and everthing were recently made by people trying to get tourists to visit the area.

If a person has an a priori commitment to millions of years, then they must “explain away” any contrary evidence. I have been to the Paluxy site and the footprints are quite human. I also have experience tracking humans in the jungle. I do recognize human footprints. Could I be wrong? Sure! Could those who have prior commitment to defend Darwinian evolution be wrong? Absolutely!

Pax

 

[Orogeny]

Hmmm
Perhaps this PhD should not be blown off either?
answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_baumgardner.asp

Baumgardner is a legitimate geophysicist who has decided to warp science to fit his religion. It is interesting to note that he hasn’t presented any of his, ahem, off the wall ideas at mainstream scientific conferences. He has done well when he sticks with real science.

Bottom line, though, is that Baumgardner is not a radiometric dating specialist.

Or how about all of these?
answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

What about them?

One thing to keep in mind when citing anyone affiliated with AIG is that they must sign a statement of faith that doesn’t allow for true scientific work. If you don’t believe me, read it for yourself: answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

Please pay particular attention to item 6 in section D.

BTW the mountain formations – as the scriptures teach – were formed in the cataclysmic event known as Noah’s flood. (hence the clam shells on top of Everest.) Uniformitarianism is NOT supported much by any serious geologist, too much evidence in the present to deny what happened in the past.

The scriptures do not teach us anything regarding the formation of mountains. Your claim that Noah’s flood is the reason for marine fossils found on Mt. Everest is laughable and, quite frankly, one I don’t see YECs using much, at least not publically.

Your uninformed claim about serious geologists not accepting uniformitarianism is equally laughable.

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in “The Fresno Bee”, August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor’s New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

I’ll see your quote and match it with two:

“Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”
MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EVOLUTION****Pope John Paul II

“While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.”
Communion and Stewardship:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God
The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

If a person has an a priori commitment to millions of years, then they must “explain away” any contrary evidence. I have been to the Paluxy site and the footprints are quite human. I also have experience tracking humans in the jungle. I do recognize human footprints. Could I be wrong? Sure! Could those who have prior commitment to defend Darwinian evolution be wrong? Absolutely!

Pax

Even your source of misinformation, Answers in Genesis, recognizes that those “human footprints” are actually dinosaur tracks.

answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Peace

Tim