Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fossilization does occur and it doesn't have to take millions or billions of years. There are examples of rapid fossilization. I'm not sure what you're getting at by mentioning fossilization and erosion as you have. Erosion is actually the evolutionists' enemy when discussing fossilization or the laying of rock layers (i.e. Grand Canyon).
Not true. It would be the "evolutionist's" enemy if the fossils were not found in layers but in big scrap piles such as rabbits with Pre-Cambrian species. Furthermore, you failed to mention that a very large amount of fossils are found as a result of amber. Remember Jurassic Park? The thing with amber is that it requires plant resin to turn to copal and then copal has to lose all of its' oils. That is not a multi-thousand year process. It is a multi-million year process. So when we find something encased in amber, it automatically throws the Young Earth theory out the window. Well, that, and just common sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559
Carbon dating is unreliable because of the presuppositions involved. They don't know and can only guess about the ratio of C-14 to C-12 at the time the specimen was formed. It's interesting that we all agree C-14 has a half life and carbon dating cannot be used to date millions of years, but then evolutionists are quick to denouce anything supposedly millions of years old that contains trace C-14 amounts, such as diamonds. This and the other problems with various radiometric dating techniques can be seen here and more specifically:
The need for calibration with the C-14/C-12 process has been understood since the 60's. They've used a number of processes to accurately calibrate C-14. They've used dendrochronology to go back up to 11,000 years. They've used uranium-thorium dating to go back more than 30,000 years, and they've used the Greenland ice sheets to go back more than 50,000 years. Each particular independent method is accurate in it's own right, and it just blows my mind how people refuse to acknowledge it. What gets me is that people have no qualms about refuting ENTIRE bodies of science.
Mams, we're also not talking about simple geology here. We're talking about atomic theory and physics as well. As I've mentioned before, one of the forces that holds carbon together and gives it its' half life is the strong nuclear force. The very instability (or radioactivity) of the carbon-14 atom, among other dating methods is what makes the science work. The decay MUST remain constant over a period of time. Otherwise, we're talking about defying not only the science of geology, but the science of atomic theory, and physics. To be honest, I'm pretty sure you are aware that atomic theory is quite proven. If not, than I suppose you're going to deny the atomic bomb as well? It works on the same principle of the strong nuclear force in the universe which also happen to hold the Carbon-14 protons and neutrons together. If the strong nuclear force were constantly changing, we wouldn't be here because it's that force that holds all the other radioactive materials (including Uranium and Plutonium) together. Only at a certain rate, can those materials decay without causing utter chaos. Just ask people in Hiroshima what happens when an atom held by the strong nuclear force is forced apart. It's the very rate at which unstable isotopes become stable that is dated. Anything more would cause chaos. Anything less would mean that the Earth is ages older than we think it is. Either way, neither model fits a Young Earth scale.
Oh, and radioactive decay is also becoming a very big breakthrough in modern medicine. It's the same principle that's saving lives.
And tree rings and ice layers are only 1 per year, right? Or could it be more or less? No one knows for certain. Most scientists just assume uniformitarian methodolgies and go from there. And their presuppositions regarding C-14/C-12 don't take into account a global flood and the effects such would have upon the amount of each during that time or before that time because they don't believe it ever happened. And there's a lot more wrong with radiometric dating than is right and I reserve judgement on those supposed time frames. Others are quite willing to look past what are considered obvious or foregone conclusions that compose the underlying assumptions for these tests, but I do not. They can be wrong and usually are wrong more than once until the best "approximate" date is arrived at.
The evidence is the same, it's all in the way it is interpreted. Forensic (origins) science has leeway to allow more than one plausible explanation for the evidence presented because there was no one alive today around to observe anything that happened that far in the past. It all depends on your starting point/bias. My starting point is the bible and I make no excuses for that. And IMO, the same evidence you and I both have, interpreted correctly, does not contradict the bible.
Huh !!!....Does anybody understand what he is saying??? Or is this just random drivel.... Not to be insulting,But didn't understand a word of what you are trying to say here..
What don't you understand specifically or is the english language not your native tounge?
I am saying that nothing takes millions of years to form, not diamonds, fossils or oil. I gave an example of diamonds or cubic zirconia being formed in a short period of time for commercial product. The same as a crude oil which is made in America from Turkey by-products (offel).
Can you tell me what you don't understand? Maybe I can clarify.
Last edited by Nikk; 02-05-2008 at 11:07 AM..
Reason: grammar
What don't you understand specifically or is the english language not your native tounge?
I am saying that nothing takes millions of years to form, not diamonds, fossils or oil. I gave an example of diamonds or cubic zirconia being formed in a short period of time for commercial product. The same as a crude oil which is made in America from Turkey by-products (offel).
Can you tell me what you don't understand? Maybe I can clarify.
There is no need for you to be insulting, English is my native language. You're talking about man-made products, what does this have to do with the original topic? There is no comparison. The cubic zirconia is not a diamond and crude oil is not the same as some Turkey by-product, you're comparing man-made products with natural made products.
The bible is clear that the earth was created by God 4004 BC. See Ussher who did an excellent job formulating this from scripture. That would put us in 6012 years from creation.
We do not go to the Egyptians for Biblical acuracy for they are a people who did not follow God except maybe during the times that they were ruled by the Jewish nation ie. during the time of Jacob, Moses or Solomon.
Even in the ancient Egyptian texts, they refer to the Great Flood, but we do not look at there writings as proving the Bible. The Bible is ultimate and these other documents merely aid our confidence in the Bible's acuracy.
People don't believe that the Bible says that the earth is 6000 yrs. old. The Bible states that the earth is 6000 years old from creation when we add up all of the ages. So, our belief does not change scripture.
Your confusion about the earliest date reccorded is that you do not understand the difference between relative dating and absolute dating. Absolute dating we use today but in the past they used relative dating. This is where it might say during the 3rd year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzer. This date is relative until you can determine when Nebuchanezzers reign began. So there is no date of 4236 BC but rather a date like above. Based on this the Bible reccords the dates as early as 6004 +/- which trumps this Egyptian date.
If you took everything in the Bible literally, you should be Catholic. And since Catholics don't believe that the world is just over 6000 years, then it isn't.
Definition of Fundamentalist: Person who believes in the literal translation of the Bible sometimes.
If you took everything in the Bible literally, you should be Catholic. And since Catholics don't believe that the world is just over 6000 years, then it isn't.
Definition of Fundamentalist: Person who believes in the literal translation of the Bible sometimes.
I am not Catholic.
I believe in a plain reading of the text. The bible is not literal all of the time. For example a dream by the Pharoh of Egypt is a dream. I do not believe that there were literal cows eating up other cows. This is just his dream. So, were the bible is a metaphor read it as a metaphor, where it is literal read it as literal. This is called a "plain reading of the text".
A fundamentalist is: a "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles". Sound like evolutionist can be refered to as this as well. Since they look to the evidence only when convenient and adhere to the idea of evolution without question.
I believe in a plain reading of the text. The bible is not literal all of the time. For example a dream by the Pharoh of Egypt is a dream. I do not believe that there were literal cows eating up other cows. This is just his dream. So, were the bible is a metaphor read it as a metaphor, where it is literal read it as literal. This is called a "plain reading of the text".
A fundamentalist is: a "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles". Sound like evolutionist can be refered to as this as well. Since they look to the evidence only when convenient and adhere to the idea of evolution without question.
Then you are missing some key text like Matthew 16:13-19 and John 6:47-53. Why don't you take those literally? Because YOU decide what is literal and what isn't or you choose to ignore parts altogether. You can give me some canned term of how you read it, but I say to you that you take the Bible literally sometimes. So what set of basic ideas are you talking about? I guarantee your set of basic ideas or principles are incomplete at best.
There is no need for you to be insulting, English is my native language. You're talking about man-made products, what does this have to do with the original topic? There is no comparison. The cubic zirconia is not a diamond and crude oil is not the same as some Turkey by-product, you're comparing man-made products with natural made products.
This is because a man made product would not be viable unless it was able to be produced in a timely fasion. Since it takes weeks for these products to be produced why should we assume that they took millions of years in the ground. The conditions only have to be right.
You are right Cubic Zirconia is not the same as diamond. I should have said "Cultured Diamond" or Synthetic diamonds, or man-made-diamonds. These can be manufactured in a short amount of time.
Fossils only need a few years to form. There was a city in Austrailia that was covered by a landslide in the 1960's. There have been many fossils of top hats, water wheels, clocks etc. that have been excavated from this area. So it is the same with fossils. Why assume millions of years when a decade is sufficient?
Then you are missing some key text like Matthew 16:13-19 and John 6:47-53. Why don't you take those literally? Because YOU decide what is literal and what isn't or you choose to ignore parts altogether. You can give me some canned term of how you read it, but I say to you that you take the Bible literally sometimes. So what set of basic ideas are you talking about? I guarantee your set of basic ideas or principles are incomplete at best.
Matthew 16:13-19 and John 6:47-53 - I don't understand what you are saying these are actual events of Christ talking ot his disciples. Do you not think this discusion took place? I think that Jesus said all of these words ver batum.
John 6:47-53 - Again this is literal text that Jesus spoke what is your point. Do you think as a literal reading of the text that we must eat Jesus' body as bread? That is absurd because Jesus has given interpretation to his words. When he spoke to his disciple he said "beware the laven of the pharases." They later understood he said this not for them to watch the bread they ate, but the doctrine. So if Jesus spoke like this we can, from a plain reading of the text understand that we must digest all of the doctrine of Jesus Christ (everything he spoke) for us to have life. It is all good for life, spiritual life that is, because he was talking of spiritual things.
Matthew 16:13-19 and John 6:47-53 - I don't understand what you are saying these are actual events of Christ talking ot his disciples. Do you not think this discusion took place? I think that Jesus said all of these words ver batum.
John 6:47-53 - Again this is literal text that Jesus spoke what is your point. Do you think as a literal reading of the text that we must eat Jesus' body as bread? That is absurd because Jesus has given interpretation to his words. When he spoke to his disciple he said "beware the laven of the pharases." They later understood he said this not for them to watch the bread they ate, but the doctrine. So if Jesus spoke like this we can, from a plain reading of the text understand that we must digest all of the doctrine of Jesus Christ (everything he spoke) for us to have life. It is all good for life, spiritual life that is, because he was talking of spiritual things.
For 1500 years, the Christian world didn't translate the John text to mean anything but his actual body and blood. The early church believed that the consecrated host and wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus Himself.
And then one day God said, you know all that stuff that the Apostles and the disciples of the Apostles believed and all Christians believed for 1500 years, well..... that's all just bull. Can you please interpret it more creatively for Me?!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....Does anybody understand what he is saying???
Or is this just random drivel...
