Time and the Bible: (translation, disciples, church, Jacob)
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.
To deny that the earth evolved over billions of years is to deny continential drift and is a fanatical position, expecely considering its still going on, and that took far longer than your proposed time frame. and while many scientist admit that carbon dating may be inacurate it is generaly because of the posibility of contaimination, making things older than they seem not millions of years younger.
I do not deny continental drift. I believe that it is occuring and has occured for a very long time. In fact continental drift has been occuring for more than 4000 years. I believe it started with the Earth being divided in the days of Peleg around the time of the building of Babel.
Continental drift does not take millions of years. If we look back to our schooling you might recall something called rates. A rate can be constant or it can be changing. I believe that this rate for continental drifts is slowing down. At the begining the continents were moving apart probable in the range of feet per hour and have now slowed down to inches per year.
If we look at Extra biblical sources, Plato supported this idea in his book "Critaeus and Timaeus" when he describes the speed at which the Continents moved away into the Western sea. The speed he descibes is that One day it was there and the next it was lost over the horizon. The Western sea is today called the Atlantic ocean so Plato was probably describing the departure of the Americas. He descibes the continent as being as large as Asia.
So to accept millions of years mean to deny eye witness accounts of continental drift both from the bible as well as secular sources. Consider the Tsunami of 2004 the rate of movement in the techtonic plates was rapid so to deny that it occured quickly in the past is limiting to science.
Carbon dating is a guess to the age. If it was so acurate why don't scientist use this method all the time? Because it is not accurate. In fact Carbon dating has a threshold of 100,000 years (And that is pushing it). There are other isotopes used in dating older objects but they are all based on the same flawed reasoning. The dates achieved using isotopic dating method do not match the Unitarian time scale with its millions of years. So which is correct the timescale or the dates using isotopes? Probably neither. Contamination is not the only concern with Carbon dating.
I do not deny continental drift. I believe that it is occuring and has occured for a very long time. In fact continental drift has been occuring for more than 4000 years. I believe it started with the Earth being divided in the days of Peleg around the time of the building of Babel.
Continental drift does not take millions of years. If we look back to our schooling you might recall something called rates. A rate can be constant or it can be changing. I believe that this rate for continental drifts is slowing down. At the begining the continents were moving apart probable in the range of feet per hour and have now slowed down to inches per year.
Feet per hour?!!?! Please do tell me how in the world you are going to support that idea?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
If we look at Extra biblical sources, Plato supported this idea in his book "Critaeus and Timaeus" when he describes the speed at which the Continents moved away into the Western sea. The speed he descibes is that One day it was there and the next it was lost over the horizon. The Western sea is today called the Atlantic ocean so Plato was probably describing the departure of the Americas. He descibes the continent as being as large as Asia.
Oh I see..... Plato saw it, therefore it is fact yet an entire field of science says "not true" and you ignore it. And what on Earth ever happened to the Flood causing the separation of all the continents? I thought that was the going theory?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
So to accept millions of years mean to deny eye witness accounts of continental drift both from the bible as well as secular sources. Consider the Tsunami of 2004 the rate of movement in the techtonic plates was rapid so to deny that it occured quickly in the past is limiting to science.
Yes, the tectonic plate movement was VERY rapid and as a result a VERY large earthquake occurred and a VERY large wave ensued. I'm certainly wondering how you are going to reconcile that Plato sat there and watched an entire continent just 'drift away' and yet there was no earthquake and no tsunami? You cited the tsunami as an example of tectonic plates moving rapidly. So where was Plato's tsunami Nikk? Let me remind you that for a tectonic plate to move at the rate you suggest Plato said it did, we're talking about a wave beyond imagination and there would be no place on Earth unaffected by it. Or are we just trusting 2000 year old books again without scientific evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Carbon dating is a guess to the age. If it was so acurate why don't scientist use this method all the time? Because it is not accurate. In fact Carbon dating has a threshold of 100,000 years (And that is pushing it). There are other isotopes used in dating older objects but they are all based on the same flawed reasoning. The dates achieved using isotopic dating method do not match the Unitarian time scale with its millions of years. So which is correct the timescale or the dates using isotopes? Probably neither. Contamination is not the only concern with Carbon dating.
Carbon-14 does have a threshold of approximately 40,000 years and that is why scientists don't use it to approximate the age of the earth but more so things like archaeological findings.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that if radioactive dating were incorrect than you are suggesting that certain stable isotopes would become unstable and certain unstable isotopes would become stable throughout the course of geological history. What you failed to mention is that in order for that to be true, the world (and presumably the universe) would look like billions of nuclear bombs hit it and there would be nothing here because of the "ever-changing" isotopes. Your presupposition not only defies geology but basic laws of physics and atomic theory. I suggest you look into what makes a stable isotope stable (hint: it's one of the four forces in the universe- strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity) Sorry Nikk, once again your claims are baseless, un-scientific, and downright untruthful. I suggest you argue science with science not science with what you think is science.
Feet per hour?!!?! Please do tell me how in the world you are going to support that idea?
Oh I see..... Plato saw it, therefore it is fact yet an entire field of science says "not true" and you ignore it. And what on Earth ever happened to the Flood causing the separation of all the continents? I thought that was the going theory?
Yes, the tectonic plate movement was VERY rapid and as a result a VERY large earthquake occurred and a VERY large wave ensued. I'm certainly wondering how you are going to reconcile that Plato sat there and watched an entire continent just 'drift away' and yet there was no earthquake and no tsunami? You cited the tsunami as an example of tectonic plates moving rapidly. So where was Plato's tsunami Nikk? Let me remind you that for a tectonic plate to move at the rate you suggest Plato said it did, we're talking about a wave beyond imagination and there would be no place on Earth unaffected by it. Or are we just trusting 2000 year old books again without scientific evidence?
Carbon-14 does have a threshold of approximately 40,000 years and that is why scientists don't use it to approximate the age of the earth but more so things like archaeological findings.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that if radioactive dating were incorrect than you are suggesting that certain stable isotopes would become unstable and certain unstable isotopes would become stable throughout the course of geological history. What you failed to mention is that in order for that to be true, the world (and presumably the universe) would look like billions of nuclear bombs hit it and there would be nothing here because of the "ever-changing" isotopes. Your presupposition not only defies geology but basic laws of physics and atomic theory. I suggest you look into what makes a stable isotope stable (hint: it's one of the four forces in the universe- strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity) Sorry Nikk, once again your claims are baseless, un-scientific, and downright untruthful. I suggest you argue science with science not science with what you think is science.
Yes the prevailing idea that supports what we observe in nature is that the Global flood of Noah's day is what caused the initial separation of the techtonic plates. This supports the massive upheaval of the earths crust and shifting of large amounts of matterial. This supports the mass extintion of thousands of animals which is what we find in the fossil reccord.
Feet per hour was just an aproximation that I gave as a possibility by the rate give by Plato's account. It is not an exact measurement. When I studied Calculus we often looked at rates. In nature I find rates constantly changing. So with Continental drift we can say that just because we observe a certain rate does not mean that this rate has always been constant. And because Continental drift is now so slow, to detect change is very difficult because it is so minute.
Plato in his book was writting the account give by Critaeus' grandfather. This may put the account close to the time we record for Babel which would coincide with the text in the Bible saying that "in the days of Peleg was the earth divided". Because the event was so widespread and common knowledge, no further explanation here would have been needed.
I don't understand what you are trying to say about "billions of nuclear bombs" and how this relates to isotopes. I think that nuclear decay is one of the functions of "Sin" entering this world by the fall of Man in the garden of Eden. When man sinned all of nature began to decay and nuclear decay is one type of this decay.
Refering to the forces that you so dearly hold. We observe nature and the forces explain nature but they are not proven. We do not know what Strong nuclear force is. We just believe that there is something holding the nucleus together. So we gave it a name. Once further study is done we might find a more suitable explanation. The general theory is just a group of explanations of our Universe. However, the general theory is lacking. It is a poor attempt but it does not explain all that we observe. Or it just gives a name to some mysterious force that we believe to exist because our mind say that some force must be their to hold these things together. There may not be any Strong or weak nuclear force at all. Gravity is just an accelleration and one day we may just accept it as just that and not some mysterious force.
In this forum I can give my opinion. Who are you to say that I cannot. I do not need to fight with science. I do not need to argue the facts. The facts are what they are. I just have a different interpretation of the facts based on my own set of presuppositions. Just because your presuppositions are different then mine doesn't mean that you hold the key of science and understanding. Science is what I think it is. I just don't always agree with the interpretations of the facts by scientists who have gone before me.
Growing up Independent Baptist, I used to be a young earth creationist. I believed without questioning that the earth was only 6,000 years old. As I grew older, I began to try to rationalize that belief, and discovered that the numbers just don't add up. It is, based on the concrete evidence that we have, mathematically impossible for the earth to be 6,000 years old.
If somebody in the scientific community (which Kent Hovind is NOT) could present real evidence for a 6,000 year old earth, I might re-consider my belief. Instead, young earth creationists tend to use red herrings or some other method to avoid answering when asked a tough question.
My presupposition is that the bible is truly the word of God. God thought it was important to include it, so what's wrong in believing it.
God didn't write the book, humans did.
I trust God. I trust Jesus.
They did not write the book.
It was written by humans, and over time has been translated and altered and influenced and distorted by people and institutions with personal and political agendas, who took out what they did not like, and saw it as a way to exert tremendous power and influence over the people it would reach. Much like politicians and governments and the media today use propaganda both overtly and covertly to get people to do what they want, keep them in fear, because when a body of people are in fear they are able to be controlled.
So I trust what God and Jesus reveal to me in prayer, through my own personal experience, through my own learning process, through the people sent into my life from whom I learn, and through the inspirational words and music and beauty I surround myself with daily.
Anything I question I take to Creator in prayer and say "Hey, show me the truth of this, I don't understand, help me make sense of this." That is the source that I trust.
Feet per hour?!!?! Please do tell me how in the world you are going to support that idea?
Carbon-14 does have a threshold of approximately 40,000 years and that is why scientists don't use it to approximate the age of the earth but more so things like archaeological findings.
Your presupposition not only defies geology but basic laws of physics and atomic theory. I suggest you look into what makes a stable isotope stable (hint: it's one of the four forces in the universe- strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity) Sorry Nikk, once again your claims are baseless, un-scientific, and downright untruthful. I suggest you argue science with science not science with what you think is science.
his preposition actualy completely defies logic. Its usualy on fossilization the argument goes into fanatasim expeciely since we can see it happening and make a very rough guess how long it would take for bones to fossilize. I've heard some wild theories though, from "satan put them there" to " there just rocks shaped like bones" what I've never heard is any kind of even remotely educated argument for the prosses of erotion. If you realy want to see them get there nickers twisted mention the island chains of madagascar and hawaii. and of course carbon dating has a shelf life because well, so do the carbon atoms there testing. and I hate to nitpick but it kinda bugs me when the forces aren't listed in order
his preposition actualy completely defies logic. Its usualy on fossilization the argument goes into fanatasim expeciely since we can see it happening and make a very rough guess how long it would take for bones to fossilize. I've heard some wild theories though, from "satan put them there" to " there just rocks shaped like bones" what I've never heard is any kind of even remotely educated argument for the prosses of erotion. If you realy want to see them get there nickers twisted mention the island chains of madagascar and hawaii. and of course carbon dating has a shelf life because well, so do the carbon atoms there testing. and I hate to nitpick but it kinda bugs me when the forces aren't listed in order
Fossilization does occur. It is not some satanic event or rock shaped bones. Fossil are the calcified remains of living plants and animal. The process takes a long time to occur. It may take as long as two or three months to fossilize an animal. So what does fossilization have to do with millions of years?
Oil is produced from Turkey offel in America which takes less than a week to produce crude oil by combining these remains with water, heat and pressure.
Dimonds - see cubic zirconia, no millions of years.
There is no viable market for fossils except the older ones found in the dirt so I don't think there is any company currently manufacturing them.
Okay here's a thought, I have heard many times that people believe that the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old and yet the earliest recorded year in history is 4236 B.C. and that is an Egyptian calendar that is based on a 365 day year. Now this is 2008 A.D., somewhere the numbers don't add up could somebody please explain this?
That problem is something we created. The BIBLE does not say that everything was created 6000 years ago. People are saying that, not the Bible. If you read Genesis, it just states "Day 1", "Day 2", "Day 3", etc, etc., with no literal explanation of exactly how long those days were, or even if each day was the same length as the others...(they could have varied during creation)...or even whether or not there was a pause of unknown time duration between each "day".
And then God rested on the 7th day? Hmmm. Ok. I don't have a problem with that. But....how long was the 7th day? Is it still the 7th day, today? (If so, then the 7th day is at least 6000 yrs old). Or...are we in the 10th, 11th, 12th, or some other day, today? How do you know?
And we have been debating about these things ever since...!
Fossilization does occur. It is not some satanic event or rock shaped bones. Fossil are the calcified remains of living plants and animal. The process takes a long time to occur. It may take as long as two or three months to fossilize an animal. So what does fossilization have to do with millions of years?
Oil is produced from Turkey offel in America which takes less than a week to produce crude oil by combining these remains with water, heat and pressure.
Dimonds - see cubic zirconia, no millions of years.
There is no viable market for fossils except the older ones found in the dirt so I don't think there is any company currently manufacturing them.
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..
To deny that the earth evolved over billions of years is to deny continential drift and is a fanatical position, expecely considering its still going on, and that took far longer than your proposed time frame. and while many scientist admit that carbon dating may be inacurate it is generaly because of the posibility of contaimination, making things older than they seem not millions of years younger.
I deny the earth evolved over billions of years. I do not deny continental drift. My position is not fanatical. According to the word of God, in the beginning there was land and seas (Genesis 1:9-10). Many interpret this as there being only one continent. It is my belief that continental drift occurred during the year-long global Noachian Flood, via the bursting of the fountains of the deep (Genesis 7:11;) The global flood (Genesis 7:17-20;) and subsequent upheval that went with it can be explained via catastrophic plate tectonics (see here and here). The rapid continental drift premise also shows how that catastrophic period of time included volcanism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steffan
Its usualy on fossilization the argument goes into fanatasim expeciely since we can see it happening and make a very rough guess how long it would take for bones to fossilize. I've heard some wild theories though, from "satan put them there" to " there just rocks shaped like bones" what I've never heard is any kind of even remotely educated argument for the prosses of erotion. If you realy want to see them get there nickers twisted mention the island chains of madagascar and hawaii. and of course carbon dating has a shelf life because well, so do the carbon atoms there testing. and I hate to nitpick but it kinda bugs me when the forces aren't listed in order
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).
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:
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.
