Old Testament was FLAWED (tradition, translate, point of view, Zeus)
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.
Not all rocks contain radioactive elements. Those that do require an assumption that cannot be proven by science that the elements have always decayed at the same rate they do today.
Sorry you don't wish to discuss it and need to resort to personal attacks. I will just put you on my ignore list and will not respond to you any more.
Thanks. I guess you just conveniently failed to mention this little radiometric dating thingy in your indictment of science.
Thanks. I guess you just conveniently failed to mention this little radiometric dating thingy in your indictment of science.
That's because fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated radioisotopically.
The method also has been proven "scientificly" to be flawed because it was not able to date newly formed rock from Mount St Helens. They used the potassium-argon method, which is widely used in geological circles. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or ‘variety’ of the element potassium) spontaneously ‘decays’ into argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon).2 This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years.1 In other words, 1.0 g of potassium-40 would, in 1.3 billion years, theoretically decay to the point that only 0.5 g was left.
Samples submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.
A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years!
The Noah's Ark story could not have happened, not simply because it would be scientifically impossible, but because no evidence of a global flood has ever been found. Do you think that your god would go so far as to wipe the evidence of such an occurance from the face of the Earth? Why would he need to do so? It seems that he would WANT to make it as obvious as possible.
Not all scientists aqree with you. Many say that Noah's flood did happen. Matter of fact, the author of the article below doesn't agree with you, and his credentials are pretty impressive.
Excerpt
"That is the position of Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix.
His own scientific credentials are impressive. He holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, is a West Point graduate and a National Science Foundation fellow, served as a tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and was chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College."
Not all scientists aqree with you. Many say that Noah's flood did happen. Matter of fact, the author of the article below doesn't agree with you, and his credentials are pretty impressive.
Excerpt
"That is the position of Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix.
His own scientific credentials are impressive. He holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, is a West Point graduate and a National Science Foundation fellow, served as a tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and was chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College."
That was an entertaining piece. In it, Brown explains his motivation, demonstrating his presuppositions:
Quote:
A major motivation that has propelled Brown’s decades of research has been his quest to give Christian students answers that will withstand scrutiny when challenged by Darwinist theories within the classroom.
Read more at Does science prove Noah’s flood?
Browns views aren't supported by very many scientists, if any. Even other creationist scientists reject his hypotheses.Walter Brown's "Hydroplate" Model
That's because fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated radioisotopically.
The method also has been proven "scientificly" to be flawed because it was not able to date newly formed rock from Mount St Helens. They used the potassium-argon method, which is widely used in geological circles. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or ‘variety’ of the element potassium) spontaneously ‘decays’ into argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon).2 This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years.1 In other words, 1.0 g of potassium-40 would, in 1.3 billion years, theoretically decay to the point that only 0.5 g was left.
Samples submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.
A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years!
You really need to give your creationist website credit for their words that you use.
That was an entertaining piece. In it, Brown explains his motivation, demonstrating his presuppositions:
Browns views aren't supported by very many scientists, if any. Even other creationist scientists reject his hypotheses.Walter Brown's "Hydroplate" Model
I agree with you that there probably aren't many who agree with Brown's theory. But many scientists support the view that Noah's flood did happen.
For me, it doesn't matter who supports it and who doesn't.
It's faith, my friend. If the Holy Spirit said it happened, then it happened. I don't need scientific proof for anything.
Remember, I have nothing to lose if you're right, and I'm wrong. You, however, have everything to lose if I am right.
I agree with you that there probably aren't many who agree with Brown's theory. But many scientists support the view that Noah's flood did happen.
For me, it doesn't matter who supports it and who doesn't.
It's faith, my friend. If the Holy Spirit said it happened, then it happened. I don't need scientific proof for anything.
Remember, I have nothing to lose if you're right, and I'm wrong. You, however, have everything to lose if I am right.
Have a good night.
Peace,
Katie
Ah... Pascal's Wager. What if you're wrong, and Thor is the correct god? You believe in the Judeo/Christian god because you were born into a Christian society, I presume. If you were born in early Scandinavia you would believe in Thor, or in Ancient Greece, you would believe in Zeus, or in Pakistan, you would follow Muhammad and pray to Allah. What if you are wrong simply because you were born here by the luck of the draw?
Here's a good response. Please listen intently and with an open mind.
Goodness, or morality, is simply our understanding of cause and effect coupled with our desire for the well-being of society and individuals in society. Those desires are born out of our sense of empathy and compassion for others.
Our sense of well-being, empathy, compassion must have a source.
Other than our own brains? That's only your opinion.
Our understanding of goodness is not tangible.
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.
