Young Earth v. Old Earth

[Philipp]

Ah, the preemptive paragraph! That is real handy when you know that nothing you have written can be verified by any real scientist. Censorship!!! The cry of the dogmatic!!!

You have nothing that even a highschool science student couldn’t pick apart. I guess that is the best reason for not working with the scientific community to validate your data.

Peace

Tim

Ah, that didn’t take long for one of the dogmatic geologist/TE theologians to respond. Sooooo, besides what I have shown already let’s go to another source who has confrimed on entiriely different fossils from the geologic record. Please note that his topics are entirely diffferent than mine. Mine included dinosaur depictions world-wide, C-14 dating of dinosaur bones and fossil and human footprints together in 100,000,000 year old strata

I suggest you take the time to read several of these articles by Dr. Andrew Snelling before Orogeny smears him as an incompetent fundamentalist and steers you to one of his ET sites that refuses to C-14 date the fossils. Keep in mind that Dr. Snelling is also a dogmatic geologist/theologian like Orogony but is willing to directly date the fossils which THE EVOLUTIONISTS WILL NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO - you see it’s not cosher for them to C-14 fossils because they are millions and millions and millions of year old and C-14 is only detectable back to 50,000 to 80,000 radiocarabon years. Duh! Sooooo, guess what, is it possible fossils are NOT millions of years old???

Now whose data shall you accept? The one who says evolution is a fact [whatever that is] and who says you can’t C-14 date the fossils? Or the one who has used C-14 methods and learned that the fossils are 2000 to 10,000 times younger than what main-stream science and their propaganda machines claim?

Snelling,Andrew, 2005. Radiocarbon in diamond confirmed answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radiocarbon-in-diamonds

Snelling, Andrew 1998. Rapid rocks: granite formation answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/granite.asp

Snelling, Andrew 1998. Radioisotope dating in the Grand Canyon answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/canyon.asp

Snelling, Andrew 1997. A 165 million year old surprise answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/surprise.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 1999 Dating dilemma: Fossil wood in ancient sandstone answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 1999 Radioactive dating failures answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp

Snelling, Andrew 1997. Radioactive data in conflict: Fossil wood in ancient lava yields radiocarbon. answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 1992, Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 2000. Geological conflict: Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 1999 Dating dilemma: Fossil wood in ancient sandstone answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp ----- A radiocarbon date of 33,720 +/-430 years BP was obtained for a piece of wood allegedly 225-250 Million years BP based on evolutionary dogma. Enjoy!!! And just keep in mind, that maybe Moses retold it just the way he was told to do so in Genesis 1-11.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Listen I live in Rome and seen the arguements of EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF PERSON THINKABLE.

And what left me dazzed is that the Church requires very little of these theories to be acceptable by the Church as theologically compatible.

But the problem is that many, majority american catholics, are so fundamentalist that instead of seeking what the Church teaches combined with unbias research, they try to make the Bible a scientifically defendable account. That is why the Church is so behind on real Catholics that really are professionals studing the matter, because everyone has an opinion and they will die defending that instead of finding out what actually is real and compatible with Church doctrine.

I mean, most Catholics would be scandalized if I said that the Church could accept Evolution as a valid theory.

But it is true.

 

[rossum]

Dinosaurs did not become extinct 12 M years BP as was thought in 1924 by evolutionists and not 65 M years BP as suggested by various radiometric dating methods like K/Ar, Ur/Pb and Ar/Ar. These radioactive decay systems can not get it right even for most known volcanic eruptions and lava flows

So here you are saying that radiometric dates are incorrect and “can not get it right”.

Soooo direct C-14 dating of many megafauna, and “dinosaur” bones reveal that dinosaurs lived at the same time as magafauna which our ancestors also saw:

But now, all of a sudden, radiometric dates are correct and show that “dinosaurs lived at the same time as magafauna which our ancestors also saw”. Please make your mind up one way or the other. If radiometric dates are incorrect then you cannot safely infer anything from them about the relative dates of dinosaurs and mammalian megafauna. If you are using radiometric dates to show the co-existence of dinosaurs and the mammalian megafauna then the radiometric dates you are using must be correct. One or the other please, not both.

(1) La Brea Tar Pit Series of Los Angeles, [4 of 12 RC dates as examples, 1964)
12,650 +/-160 UCLA 1292B, left femur, from Pit 3.
23,700 +/-600 UCLA 1292H, right femur from pit 60
26,700 +/-900 UCLA 1292G, right femur from pit 4
28,000 +/-1400 UCLA 1292 D, left femur from pit 4

How old is the earth? These dates range from 12,650 years before the present to 28,000 years before the present. If they are correct then they disprove a 6,000 year old earth as proposed by some young earth creationists. If these dates are not correct then they prove nothing one way or the other.

(8) 11,750 +/-150 years BP camarasaurus (WY), bioapatite, 1905 [from Carnegie Museum].

Notice the date of 1905. Radiometric dating was not available in 1905, so when the fossil was collected there would have been no precautions taken against contaminating it with modern carbon. Similarly there is the possibility of contamination between 1904 and when the test was performed.

(11) 23,760 +/- 270 years BP, Acrocanthosaurus (TX) on AMS, bioapatite, Baugh team, 1984

Oh dear. Even fellow creationists do not think a great deal of evidence produced by Carl Baugh:Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, we think that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour.

Source: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.
If the creationists at CMI are not convinced then I doubt very much if non-creationists will be convinced. You should find a better source.

Based on studies by Ph. D. scientists who support the literal interpretation of scripture the above dates are too old based on solid scientific arguments but what they do show is that there is NO 65 million years of supposed evolution of man

Again you are equivocating about the accuracy of the dates. If the dates are wrong then they cannot show anything. If they are right then they show that a 6,000 year old earth is incorrect.

and NO complete extinction of the dinosaurs.

I agree, dinosaurs are not extinct. There was one perched outside my window this morning before it flew away.

rossum
[/quote]

 

[Orogeny]

I suggest you take the time to read several of these articles by Dr. Andrew Snelling before Orogeny smears him as an incompetent fundamentalist and steers you to one of his ET sites that refuses to C-14 date the fossils.

If by smear you mean telling the truth, here comes the smear. Snelling is part of a group called RATE which is part of the Intitute for Creation Research (ICR). He certainly is a creationist based on his writing.

He, along with the other RATE members, have tried to fool people into thinking that there are problems with radiometric dating. They have done that by publishing, on creationist webpages and in a book, “test” results that support their faith, um, er, science. Unfortunately, real scientists know better. One group of Christian scientists, the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) has reviewed RATE’s claims, including those of Dr. Snelling. See for yourselves what Christian scientists have to say about the RATE project.
asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm

Now whose data shall you accept? The one who says evolution is a fact [whatever that is] and who says you can’t C-14 date the fossils? Or the one who has used C-14 methods and learned that the fossils are 2000 to 10,000 times younger than what main-stream science and their propaganda machines claim?

Snelling,Andrew, 2005. Radiocarbon in diamond confirmed answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radiocarbon-in-diamonds

Snelling, Andrew 1998. Rapid rocks: granite formation answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/granite.asp

Snelling, Andrew 1998. Radioisotope dating in the Grand Canyon answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/canyon.asp

Snelling, Andrew 1997. A 165 million year old surprise answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/surprise.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 1999 Dating dilemma: Fossil wood in ancient sandstone answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 1999 Radioactive dating failures answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp

Snelling, Andrew 1997. Radioactive data in conflict: Fossil wood in ancient lava yields radiocarbon. answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 1992, Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 2000. Geological conflict: Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp

Snelling, Andrew, 1999 Dating dilemma: Fossil wood in ancient sandstone answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp ----- A radiocarbon date of 33,720 +/-430 years BP was obtained for a piece of wood allegedly 225-250 Million years BP based on evolutionary dogma. Enjoy!!! And just keep in mind, that maybe Moses retold it just the way he was told to do so in Genesis 1-11.

Let’s take a look at the ASA review of the RATE radiocarbon claims:
asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm

The ASA guys are Christians. They don’t have “atheistic” motivations. They also don’t care for people who try to manipulate people like RATE has done.

Also note that I have recommended to Phillip that he work with ASA to validate his findings. He has not accepted that recommendation.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Listen I live in Rome and seen the arguements of EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF PERSON THINKABLE.

And what left me dazzed is that the Church requires very little of these theories to be acceptable by the Church as theologically compatible.

But the problem is that many, majority american catholics, are so fundamentalist that instead of seeking what the Church teaches combined with unbias research, they try to make the Bible a scientifically defendable account. That is why the Church is so behind on real Catholics that really are professionals studing the matter, because everyone has an opinion and they will die defending that instead of finding out what actually is real and compatible with Church doctrine.

I mean, most Catholics would be scandalized if I said that the Church could accept Evolution as a valid theory.

But it is true.

From here:
thetablet.co.uk/articles/9640/

“Popular and scientific texs often say ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ has done this or that. But who is this ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ as an active subject? It doesn’t exist at all!” Pope Benedict

Nature has no brain. It cannot predetermine a goal.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

The evidence is that you are obsessed with an ideology. I doubt you’ve missed the various posts here about it, especially from scientist hecd2. Look them up. His clear goal is to deny God based on scientific evidence that he claims does so.

This only goes to show how obsessed Ed is with finding demons in every corner. It is not my goal to deny God based on scientific evidence, because that is impossible. One can conclude that God is unlikely to exist as a consequence of one’s observation of the universe, but it is impossible to prove from scientific evidence that God does not exist.

It *is *one of my goals to show that certain literal scriptural interpretations are wrong (such as creation of the universe in 6 days, young earth, special creation of man, literal Adam and Eve), but that is nowhere near to denying the existence of God based on science.

So please do not impute false motives to me in future.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

“Popular and scientific texs often say ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ has done this or that. But who is this ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ as an active subject? It doesn’t exist at all!” Pope Benedict

If Ratzinger really did write this, then it was not the cleverest thing that he could say. In fact, it was rather dumb. What doesn’t exist at all? “Nature” or “evolution” as an active subject? But obviously they do - nature brews hurricanes, creates offspring, cuts canyons. Evolution results in the diversification of species.

Maybe it’s a language problem - I don’t know any German or Italian, so perhaps “nature” and “evolution” cannot be active subjects in those languages. But sure as eggs is eggs, they can be in English, in the same way as a curtain can be (as in “the billowing curtain knocked the glass off the shelf”) or gravity can be (as in "gravity pulled pockets of matter together to form stars) or electrostatics (electrostatic attraction moved the two charged particles together).

Of course we can say that nature or evolution did this or that (provided that there is evidence for it). It’s nonsense to suggest otherwise.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Nature has no intelligence. The Pope goes on to name the rational mind behind it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Now whose data shall you accept? The one who says evolution is a fact [whatever that is] and who says you can’t C-14 date the fossils? Or the one who has used C-14 methods and learned that the fossils are 2000 to 10,000 times younger than what main-stream science and their propaganda machines claim?

Obviously not accept the dolt who tries to date organic matter that is clearly more than a million years old with C-14 methods.

I think you forgot to tell us in which scientific journal Snelling published these data.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[D_M]

I thank my friend jcrichton for the fruitful dialogue, that even should it not have been the original subject, was still somewhat interested and related to the topic of God’s creation… although I understand that other posters would perhaps prefer if we kept closer to the topic… so I will try to do this:

Now here is a problem as I see it in evolutionary biology which theologians that accept its validity do not seem to be putting much thought into:

Creation was entirely good in the beginning, and no corruption could have existed in it, in its original undefiled form. (was it St. Irenaeus who wrote about this?).

Now there are many corruptions that exist in creation, including death, pain, suffering, biological lust, hunger, disease, etc.

St Paul wrote about our own bodies as being corrupted:

Romans 7:18-20 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.

Now consider though, what is this he means when he says it is not he but in his flesh, or rather it is not he but the sin that dwells within him that is lusting after such evil. Lusting after sex is rooted within our very biology, found in the animal world, and evolutionary biology will trace its existence as though it preceeded the creation of humanity.

Here is the problem not being considered, how did this sin come into the flesh, and we to have inherited such a thing from the apes and the organisms that came before us if… as the whole Christian canon teaches… we experienced a fall that caused us to be corrupted after we were created?

Where could Eden have existed in a primitive world with death, suffering, pain, hunger, disease and the survival of the fittest (all of which evolutionary biology will claim preceeded the existence of humans, and obviously preceeded the existence of a fall from paradise as well)?

Perhaps there is explanation, but for me this simply remains an unanswered puzzle that seems to strongly suggest that, despite what the Pope or other theologians may have thought (which itself in this case is not infallible, but simply their own opinion), the science as it is is not easily compatible with what we know by our faith.

 

[hecd2]

Nature has no intelligence. The Pope goes on to name the rational mind behind it.

You (or Ratzinger) forgot to tell us why intelligence is required to, for example, evolve Ichneumon wasps.

And in any case, I was commenting on the phrase you have quoted multiple times, which is irrational and fallacious (in English, at any rate), regardless of what further fallacies he went on to commit later in his article.

Alec

 

[Philipp]

So here you are saying that radiometric dates are incorrect and “can not get it right”.

But now, all of a sudden, radiometric dates are correct and show that “dinosaurs lived at the same time as magafauna which our ancestors also saw”. Please make your mind up one way or the other. If radiometric dates are incorrect then you cannot safely infer anything from them about the relative dates of dinosaurs and mammalian megafauna. If you are using radiometric dates to show the co-existence of dinosaurs and the mammalian megafauna then the radiometric dates you are using must be correct. One or the other please, not both.

How old is the earth? These dates range from 12,650 years before the present to 28,000 years before the present. If they are correct then they disprove a 6,000 year old earth as proposed by some young earth creationists. If these dates are not correct then they prove nothing one way or the other.

Notice the date of 1905. Radiometric dating was not available in 1905, so when the fossil was collected there would have been no precautions taken against contaminating it with modern carbon. Similarly there is the possibility of contamination between 1904 and when the test was performed.

Oh dear. Even fellow creationists do not think a great deal of evidence produced by Carl Baugh:Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, we think that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour.

Source: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.
If the creationists at CMI are not convinced then I doubt very much if non-creationists will be convinced. You should find a better source.

Again you are equivocating about the accuracy of the dates. If the dates are wrong then they cannot show anything. If they are right then they show that a 6,000 year old earth is incorrect.

I agree, dinosaurs are not extinct. There was one perched outside my window this morning before it flew away.

rossum

C-14 dating is used to directly date the fossils and radiometric dating is used to date the rocks in which the fossils are buried such as volcanic material. I would suggest a new axiom for science that suggests, If you want to know the approximate age of the fossil: “Date the fossils stupid not the rocks.” if you can’t date the fossil then you don’t know it’s ~age. What evolutionist do you know who has the courage to C-14 date the fossils??? ]

You’ve missed the point on the earth’s age. The saber tooth tigers have the same C-14 ages as the dinosaurs. Therefore the claim that dinosaurs died out 65 million years is a monstrous hoax that makes the “Piltdown man” and other “missing link” frauds pale in comparison. Catastophists are not scientifically dogmatic about the age of the earth only that Moses and scripture is far closer to the truth than is evolutionary ages. Again why haven’t the evol ones RC dated the fossils??? ]. The answer. They wouldn’t dare it would upset the billion dollar a year applecart the sacred cow is riding in.

1905 was when the fossil was collected, it was acquired in 1989, tested for carbon on the surfaces (~ 3% C) and tested for C-14 in 1990 on conventional C-14 equipment at a major licensed lab. Contamination can be a problem as you suggested. Had the bone fragments contained preservatives as later claimed by the lab in 1992 the % carbon on its surfaces would have been well above 20 - 50 % depending on the number of applied protective coatings. Thus no contamination from preservatives. Thus recently when there was sufficient funds we submitted a 30 gram bone fragment of the Allosaur collected ~1984 for which we still had many fragments none of which had preservatives. This time we dated the bone on AMS requiring that the lab pretreat the bone for all contaminants including using hot dilute acetic acid to remove old or young carbonate surface contamination [we obtained a C-14 date of 31,360 +/-100, pmC value of 1.98 +/-0.04.]. The previous date from the lab using the conventional method without proper pretreatment was around 16,000 and therefore did indeed contain surficial contamination. By the way this recent date was the same as for the Yukon bison and the Alaskan Hadrosaur all about 30,000 RC years BP.

Regarding Baugh. Like I pointed out earlier an evolutionist monitoring the 1982 excavations claimed that he saw Baugh carving human toes in the “elongate imprression in the rock.” However, Baugh was removing hardpan clay from the ball and toes of the human footprint impression; if it weren’t for the fine clay between the rocks, deposited rapidly after the impressions were made none of the “pristine” fossil human and dinosaur footprints would have ever been discovered. Do you understand that? All the hundreds of witnesses can attest to that logical procedure. No one at that time could nip that lie in the bud. However at a conference one of my coworkers who was showing a cast of the human and dinosaur footprints did nip a potential Lie right on the spot. One of the evolutionary monitors remarked that the human footprint could not have been made by a human because the second toe was longer than the great toe; my friend took off his shoe and sox and wiggeled his toes for the gent; his second toe was much longer than his own big toe as well as the second one in the cast. We learned later that one in 10 or so humans have the second toe longer than the great toe.

Who is equivocating? I only suggest that there is good scientific reasoning that the C-14 dates we are now getting for fossils may be too old. I leave it up to future generations to figure out the true chronology. I just want to keep alive the data now being subjected to redicule and censorship and which can’t be printed in secular technical literature…

Let me ask: If it can be shown in scientific journals that man and dinosaur have coexisted in time by C-14 dating and that those human footprint impressions are valid even in the cretaceous what then does this say about evolutionary claims of 600 Million years for the formation of the sedimentary geologic column and evolution of life from a common ancestor???].

You are probably correct that dinosaurs are NOT extinct. However, I think you should do the perching if you want to see “real” dinosaur type birds [flying reptiles is a better definition like pteradactyls]. Try “perching” on the Briggs Mountains in Alaska or in the mountians of New Guinea or South America where they’ve been sighted in recent decades. Our Catholic missionaries in the late 1700’s reported diplodocus type dinosaurs in the 400 lakes region of central Africa as did the pygmy tribes in 20th century. Of course there are no sophisticated technical reports by main stream scientists confirming such reports but professors at the Un. of Chicago and others, much to their credit, have at least participated in expeditions to Africa. I can’t say the same for those who have the funds but refuse to test a few of their dinosaur bones for C-14 or participate in expeditions for fossil human and dinosaur footprints. Oh dear: lions, tigers and dinosaurs.

 

[jcrichton]

It’s strange how my original thread(Young Earth v. Old Earth) morphed into a thousand different topics. I would guess only 15% of the replies were concerned with answering my original point. And I think this thread became a personal dialogue forum between only a few people. I didn’t learn much from all that, because my original topic wasn’t addressed properly.

You are correct in your observation that the thread produced some tangents, but the issue was addressed–maybe not as you expected and certainly without unanimity… I believe that I offered Scriptural support for an undetermined age (this is not my only thread on this and other forums so I could be mistaken): Genesis speaks of the heavens (universe) and earth being Created prior to the six cycles that encompassed the Creation of life on earth and the system that was put into motion; further, I suggested that the six-day-cycle did not necessarily mean that it was a six-twenty-four-hour-day since the sun and the moon were not created till the fourth day.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If Ratzinger really did write this, then it was not the cleverest thing that he could say. In fact, it was rather dumb. What doesn’t exist at all? “Nature” or “evolution” as an active subject? But obviously they do - nature brews hurricanes, creates offspring, cuts canyons. Evolution results in the diversification of species.

Maybe it’s a language problem - I don’t know any German or Italian, so perhaps “nature” and “evolution” cannot be active subjects in those languages. But sure as eggs is eggs, they can be in English, in the same way as a curtain can be (as in “the billowing curtain knocked the glass off the shelf”) or gravity can be (as in "gravity pulled pockets of matter together to form stars) or electrostatics (electrostatic attraction moved the two charged particles together).

Of course we can say that nature or evolution did this or that (provided that there is evidence for it). It’s nonsense to suggest otherwise.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

…active subject? …as dumb as that may sound the text is stating that there’s no intelligence in nature or evolution to create by design; yet, you are so enamored with haphazard chance copulating with time and chaos to give birth to order and defined diversification… how intelligent is “just so” or “just right” or “single-celled microbe aspiring to be a monkey who’s aspiring to be a scientist?”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I thank my friend jcrichton for the fruitful dialogue, that even should it not have been the original subject, was still somewhat interested and related to the topic of God’s creation… although I understand that other posters would perhaps prefer if we kept closer to the topic… so I will try to do this:

Now here is a problem as I see it in evolutionary biology which theologians that accept its validity do not seem to be putting much thought into:

Creation was entirely good in the beginning, and no corruption could have existed in it, in its original undefiled form. (was it St. Irenaeus who wrote about this?).

Now there are many corruptions that exist in creation, including death, pain, suffering, biological lust, hunger, disease, etc.

St Paul wrote about our own bodies as being corrupted:

Romans 7:18-20 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.

Now consider though, what is this he means when he says it is not he but in his flesh, or rather it is not he but the sin that dwells within him that is lusting after such evil. Lusting after sex is rooted within our very biology, found in the animal world, and evolutionary biology will trace its existence as though it preceeded the creation of humanity.

Here is the problem not being considered, how did this sin come into the flesh, and we to have inherited such a thing from the apes and the organisms that came before us if… as the whole Christian canon teaches… we experienced a fall that caused us to be corrupted after we were created?

Where could Eden have existed in a primitive world with death, suffering, pain, hunger, disease and the survival of the fittest (all of which evolutionary biology will claim preceeded the existence of humans, and obviously preceeded the existence of a fall from paradise as well)?

Perhaps there is explanation, but for me this simply remains an unanswered puzzle that seems to strongly suggest that, despite what the Pope or other theologians may have thought (which itself in this case is not infallible, but simply their own opinion), the science as it is is not easily compatible with what we know by our faith.

Hi, D M!

…we did opted to continue in tangent–but it was not so far removed from the original topic; still, since the OP called it, out of respect we can drop it here (or pause it, since we can open a different thread if you so desire).

Consider this:

Creation was good – Does that unequivocally mean eternity and perfection? Could it not mean that it fulfilled the required parameters of the Design?

Sin and Death – The Bible’s definition of these two are different than what we may want to attribute them to be; so since animals do not sin should not die? Yet, Adam and Eve sinnned but they did not die, well at least not physically. So would it be fair to say that animals that did not sin died but Adam and Eve that did sin remained unaffected?

Yet, Adam and Eve did die due to their sin: 1st., they were removed from the presence of God; 2nd., they were ejected and kept out of the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating of the tree of Life (immortality); 3rd., they died a spiritual death–one that they passed down to every human being.

What I find interesting is that plan life, which sustain us, is, for the most part, extremely gifted with regenerative power and longevity.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[rossum]

C-14 dating is used to directly date the fossils and radiometric dating is used to date the rocks in which the fossils are buried such as volcanic material.

C-14 dating is radiometric dating - it uses exactly the same physics.

I would suggest a new axiom for science that suggests, If you want to know the approximate age of the fossil: “Date the fossils stupid not the rocks.” if you can’t date the fossil then you don’t know it’s ~age. What evolutionist do you know who has the courage to C-14 date the fossils???

Many evolutionists have that courage. Where do you think that the Carbon dates you used for the remains in the La Brea tar pits came from? Those fossils were carbon dated by evolutionist scientists.

You’ve missed the point on the earth’s age. The saber tooth tigers have the same C-14 ages as the dinosaurs.

Go and buy a (strong) set of kitchen scales that weigh up to 15 kilos. Put a 30 kg dog on the scales, the scales show 15 kg because that is as far as they go. Step on the scales yourself, again they show 15 kilos because that is as far as thay go (great way to lose weight!). Put a 2,000 kg elephant on the scales, again 15 kilos. Do you think that the dog, you and the elephant all weigh the same? You are doing exactly the same with your carbon dates. C-14 has a relatively short half life so we only use it for relatively young material. Uranium has a much longer half life so we use it to measure older material.

Again why haven’t the evol ones RC dated the fossils?

As I pointed out above, the La Brea fossils, and others, have been carbon dated and you quoted the results in your post. Don’t you read the material you are quoting?

Thus recently when there was sufficient funds we submitted a 30 gram bone fragment of the Allosaur collected ~1984 for which we still had many fragments none of which had preservatives. This time we dated the bone on AMS requiring that the lab pretreat the bone for all contaminants including using hot dilute acetic acid to remove old or young carbonate surface contamination [we obtained a C-14 date of 31,360 +/-100, pmC value of 1.98 +/-0.04.]. The previous date from the lab using the conventional method without proper pretreatment was around 16,000 and therefore did indeed contain surficial contamination. By the way this recent date was the same as for the Yukon bison and the Alaskan Hadrosaur all about 30,000 RC years BP.

See my example above with the kitchen scales. All you are measuring here are the limits of the equipment used in that lab - the equivalent of the 15 kg limit of the kitchen scales.

Who is equivocating?

You are. At one point you said that rediometric dates are wrong. Then you used radiometric C-14 dates in your argument as if they were correct and finally you said “Based on studies by Ph. D. scientists who support the literal interpretation of scripture the above dates are too old based on solid scientific arguments”. Either the dates are wrong, (“too old”), in which case you cannot use them to show anything - garbage in, garbage out, or the dates are correct in which case a supposedly 6,000 year old earth has some 25,000 year old bones in it!

I only suggest that there is good scientific reasoning that the C-14 dates we are now getting for fossils may be too old.

If the dates are wrong then you cannot use them to show anything. You admit the dates are wrong and then you try to build a case using those same dates you know are wrong. Even the worst lawyer does not go to court and start by saying that his evidence is incorrect! Surely you can do better than this?

You are probably correct that dinosaurs are NOT extinct.

You missed my point. Birds are dinosaurs. Not all the dinosaurs died out, the birds survived.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

If you want to know the approximate age of the fossil: "Date the fossils stupid not the rocks.

You can’t directly date fossils that have petrified. The original material has been replaced by minerals of different age, often from different sources of different ages. You can only date the adjacent igneous rock and learn the ages from that.

 

[Pro_Domina]

From here:
thetablet.co.uk/articles/9640/

“Popular and scientific texs often say ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ has done this or that. But who is this ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ as an active subject? It doesn’t exist at all!” Pope Benedict

Nature has no brain. It cannot predetermine a goal.

God bless,
Ed

Nature and evolution as in creations of God with laws that He set up. Not as beings with liberty to decide this and that.

 

[Philipp]

Obviously not accept the dolt who tries to date organic matter that is clearly more than a million years old with C-14 methods.

I think you forgot to tell us in which scientific journal Snelling published these data.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Talk about impugning someone’s motives! You are a master at it.

You also missed the point too by assuming, as usual that mainstream science has all the answers and that anyone who tries something new is a “dolt.”

No one C-14 dated fossils until 1979 when — Oh dear me, how dreadful, a biblical archaeologist — shameful, and a nuclear scientist teamed up to date a burnt fossil tree branch at Dr. Libby’s lab in CA; it was partially imbedded in Cretaceous limestone which is 100 million lyears old Who is the dolt, pray tell???. Now everyone is finding C-14 in fossils world-wide.

Like our team has done and many others are starting to do: If you want to know the approximate age of a dinosaur fossil C-14 date the organic materials and/or the bioapatite of their bones or if fossil or unfossilized wood from Texas to Alaska and world-wide by Dr. Snelling (shame, shame, shame). Perhaps I should be removed from this thread for mentioning a Ph.D. scientist who does research that seems to support a literal interpretation of lthe Bible. SUMMARY: Licensed C-14 dating labs have been dating fossils of all kinds every day for the past 50 years. In what sand dune have you placed your head?

 

[Pro_Domina]

Talk about impugning someone’s motives! You are a master at it.

You also missed the point too by assuming, as usual that mainstream science has all the answers and that anyone who tries something new is a “dolt.”

No one C-14 dated fossils until 1979 when — Oh dear me, how dreadful, a biblical archaeologist — shameful, and a nuclear scientist teamed up to date a burnt fossil tree branch at Dr. Libby’s lab in CA; it was partially imbedded in Cretaceous limestone which is 100 million lyears old [Who is the dolt, pray tell???. Now everyone is finding C-14 in fossils world-wide.

Like our team has done and many others are starting to do: If you want to know the approximate age of a dinosaur fossil C-14 date the organic materials and/or the bioapatite of their bones or if fossil or unfossilized wood from Texas to Alaska [and world-wide by Dr. Snelling (shame, shame, shame). Perhaps I should be removed from this thread for mentioning a Ph.D. scientist who does research that seems to support a literal interpretation of lthe Bible. SUMMARY: Licensed C-14 dating labs have been dating fossils of all kinds every day for the past 50 years. In what sand dune have you placed your head?

You’ll excuse my ignorance, but I was told that C-14 dating is not accurate as as soon as you unearth the fossil it was already changed as to render c-14 inaccurate.

Are there any worthy arguements?
[/quote]