Should genesis be taken literally?

Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,029
Likes
3,520
You mean the quack who thinks there was widespread agricultural farming during the Ice Age?
No. Never heard that from him.

I have heard of Contempt, Prior to Investigation, though, and you appear to be guilty-- and you're doing exactly what you claimed I would do (but didn't): Dismissing information because it may differ from what you are already comfortable believing.

By all means, though... carry on.
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,029
Likes
3,520
What's so funny? I definitely did mean to link that. You asked for evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old... the article I linked tells you how people found out that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and what they used to prove it. The article was not made to disprove creationism... it was simply made to explain scientific facts and the history behind a discovery. The facts happen to disprove the idea of a young Earth, but it has nothing to do with whether God created the Earth or not.
It's funny because your link redirected to an article called How Soap works. If that was your intent, far be it from me to criticize.

:rolleyes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/03/20/dear-science-how-does-soap-make-things-clean/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na


Probably better than the "real" article that assumes meteorites are the same age as earth. We first must assume they were created at the same time. But we have no way of knowing that.
 





Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
1,063
Likes
1,414
No. Never heard that from him.

I have heard of Contempt, Prior to Investigation, though, and you appear to be guilty-- and you're doing exactly what you claimed I would do (but didn't): Dismissing information because it may differ from what you are already comfortable believing.

By all means, though... carry on.
Just takes a quick google search to verify that it was his belief. He also believes in Atlantis, which is a fascinating subject for sure, but not Biblical.

You actually did that by taking one sentence from my link to discredit it, and the “lolz teh soaps” with Mecca’s.

Anyway, Goodnight Elsbet, have a good week and we can continue this later

:)
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
5,674
Likes
8,478
Just catching up I note that few people have an interest in the Treebeard method I suggested earlier.

Anyone who suggests the debate on origins is entirely stacked in one direction is incorrect. I have been interested in the question for 30 years and went on to study my first degree in life sciences to satisfy myself of a correct understanding of Evolution. I have read from Darwin to Dawkins and formed my own view of how strong their evidence is.

As an idea, why not try this approach with evidence. Picture three trays - mark them "evidence in favour of Evolution/Old earth etc", "Evidence that could be interpreted by either theory" and "Evidence in favour of Creation/young Earth etc".

Now, expose yourself to some learning and some evidence. Hear presentations from both sides and be scientifically critical of both sets of information. Consider uniformitatianism and catastrophism. In fact, consider all presuppositions brought to the data.

Also, weigh the quality of evidence. Some things are presented as established fact based on mere repetition, some things rely on circular arguments, some could be classed as "reaching". Futher, rhetoric has no place in scientific discourse, so when you see it used, it tells you more about the person than their science. Representatives of both views might these kind mistakes from time to time. To conclude that a particular view is flawed based on one badly argued or innacurate example would be jumping the gun. Sift the solid ideas out from the "just so" stories.

Arriving at conclusions (or even a more reasoned stance) is not a matter of a five minute debate and a link or two. It is for people who care about truth and understand science properly to use their intelligence and integrity to weigh evidence and draw conclusions. If you have fairly considered opposing views, great, if not, remember the words of your teacher, "if you cheat, you only cheat yourself!"
 





Last edited:

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
6,530
Likes
10,855
It's funny because your link redirected to an article called How Soap works.
I didn't know that... the link was working fine for me and @Colonel Valerio. Your response actually made no sense to me because I thought you saw the real article.
Probably better than the "real" article that assumes meteorites are the same age as earth. We first must assume they were created at the same time.
They do not assume how old the meteorites are, they can reliably determine their exact age by using radiometric dating. We know that meteorites were created around the same time as the Earth because they are a part of our solar system and meteorites are what formed into the planets. They don't assume that meteorites and the Earth formed at the exact same time because technically the meteorites came first... but everything in the solar system formed at about the same time.

Meteorites are the actual things that made up all of our planets, so they are the oldest rocks that we can find in our solar system. The Earth's rock isn't exactly as old as meteorites because the Earth is a dynamic planet that is constantly reforming the crust to make newer, younger rocks. The core is molten and it melts down rock and creates new rock all the time which makes it more difficult to find the oldest rocks. Meteorites don't have molten cores which means their rock is always the oldest and can be dated easier.

The oldest meteorites that we have dated are 4.58 billion years old and the oldest minerals found on Earth are 4.4 billion years old... As you can see, it's very close but they aren't exactly the same because as I said, the Earth has a molten core and recycles a lot of it's rock. So this means that the earth is between 4.4 to 4.58 billion years old. Scientists use all of the information they have about the age of the Earth's rock, the moon's rock, and meteorites to determine the Earth's age. Using all of this information, people have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
5,674
Likes
8,478
I didn't know that... it was working fine for me and Colonel Valerio. Your response made no sense to me because I thought you saw the real article.

They do not assume how old the meteorites are, they can reliably determine their exact age by using radiometric dating. We know that meteorites were created around the same time as the Earth because they are a part of our solar system and meteorites are what formed into the planets. They don't assume that meteorites and the Earth formed at the exact same time because technically the meteorites came first... but all the stuff in the solar system formed at about the same time.

Meteorites are the actual things that made up all of our planets, so they are the oldest rocks that we can find in our solar system. The Earth's rock isn't exactly as old as meteorites because the Earth is a dynamic planet that is constantly reforming the crust to make newer, younger rocks. The core is molten and it melts down rock and creates new rock all the time which makes it more difficult to find the oldest rocks. Meteorites don't have molten cores which means their rock is always the oldest and can be dated easier.

The oldest meteorites that we have dated are 4.58 billion years old and the oldest minerals found on Earth are 4.4 billion years old... As you can see, it's very close but they aren't exactly the same because as I said, the Earth has a molten core and recycles a lot of it's rock. So this means that the earth is between 4.4 to 4.58 billion years old. Scientists use all of the information they have about the age of the Earth's rock, the moon's rock, and meteorites to determine the Earth's age. Using all of this information, people have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old.
Half lives and therefore radiometric dates depend on the speed of light, (c). In general relativity this is part of e=mc2. It has been assumed to be a constant, hence the confidence people have towards the dates it yields.

I have followed this debate for a while and what started as creationist ideas seem to have been taken up by the wider scientific community.

Scientists Think the Speed of Light Has Slowed, and They're Trying to Prove It

"Over the last century, Einstein's theories of relativity (both special and general) have withstood the trials of experimental verification and been used to explain a number of physical processes, including theorigins of our universe. But in the late 1990s, a handful of physicists challenged one of the fundamental assumptions underlying Einstein's theory of special relativity: Instead of the speed of light being constant, theyproposed that light was faster in the early universe than it is now.

This theory of the variable speed of light was—and still is—controversial. But according to a new paper published in November in the physics journalPhysical Review D, it could be experimentally tested in the near future. If the experiments validate the theory, it means that the laws of nature weren't always the same as what we experience today and would require a serious revision of Einstein's theory of gravity.

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much."

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

Since radiometric dates are essential in order to prop up an old earth view, I await futher findings with interest!
 





Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
1,774
Likes
2,823
Nothing in the Bible says that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Evolution is bunk though. Some people here assume that mainstream science is correct only because it is what is taught everywhere. Still have to witness any evidence for some of the ludicrous evolutionnists theories like Gould's "hopeful monster" to explain how species mutate into another.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
5,674
Likes
8,478
Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend
Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years
by Jonathan Sarfati

Carbon
What do hard sparkling diamonds and dull soft pencil ‘lead’ have in common? They are both forms (allotropes) of carbon. Most carbon atoms are 12 times heavier than hydrogen (12C), about one in 100 is 13 times heavier (13C), and one in a trillion (1012) is 14 times heavier (14C). Of these different types (isotopes) of carbon, 14C is called radiocarbon, because it is radioactive—it breaks down over time.

Radiocarbon dating
The famous Hope Diamond which was found about four centuries ago.

Some try to measure age by how much 14C has decayed. Many people think that radiocarbon dating proves billions of years.1But evolutionists know it can’t, because 14C decays too fast. Its half-life (t½) is only 5,730 years—that is, every 5,730 years, half of it decays away. After two half lives, a quarter is left; after three half lives, only an eighth; after 10 half lives, less than a thousandth is left. 2In fact, a lump of 14C as massive as the earth would have all decayed in less than a million years.3

So if samples were really over a million years old, there would be no radiocarbon left. But this is not what we find, even with very sensitive 14C detectors.4

Diamonds
Diamond is the hardest substance known, so its interior should be very resistant to contamination. Diamond requires very high pressure to form—pressure found naturally on earth only deep below the surface. Thus they probably formed at a depth of 100–200 km. Geologists believe that the ones we find must have been transported supersonically 5to the surface, in extremely violent eruptions through volcanic pipes. Some are found in these pipes, such as kimberlites, while other diamonds were liberated by water erosion and deposited elsewhere (called alluvial diamonds). According to evolutionists, the diamonds formed about 1–3 billion years ago.5

Dating diamonds
Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,6 investigated 14C in a number of diamonds.7 There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon.

The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a ‘young’ world, as the Bible records.

https://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend#objections
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,029
Likes
3,520
Just takes a quick google search to verify that it was his belief. He also believes in Atlantis, which is a fascinating subject for sure, but not Biblical.

You actually did that by taking one sentence from my link to discredit it, and the “lolz teh soaps” with Mecca’s.

Anyway, Goodnight Elsbet, have a good week and we can continue this later

:)
Researching the Atlantis myth and believing it are two different things. And... having a Google vs listening to the material is most contemptuous.

You, as well. Goodnight ~*
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
5,674
Likes
8,478
Half lives and therefore radiometric dates depend on the speed of light, (c). In general relativity this is part of e=mc2. It has been assumed to be a constant, hence the confidence people have towards the dates it yields.

I have followed this debate for a while and what started as creationist ideas seem to have been taken up by the wider scientific community.

Scientists Think the Speed of Light Has Slowed, and They're Trying to Prove It

"Over the last century, Einstein's theories of relativity (both special and general) have withstood the trials of experimental verification and been used to explain a number of physical processes, including theorigins of our universe. But in the late 1990s, a handful of physicists challenged one of the fundamental assumptions underlying Einstein's theory of special relativity: Instead of the speed of light being constant, theyproposed that light was faster in the early universe than it is now.

This theory of the variable speed of light was—and still is—controversial. But according to a new paper published in November in the physics journalPhysical Review D, it could be experimentally tested in the near future. If the experiments validate the theory, it means that the laws of nature weren't always the same as what we experience today and would require a serious revision of Einstein's theory of gravity.

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much."

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

Since radiometric dates are essential in order to prop up an old earth view, I await futher findings with interest!
Further to the observations on the speed of light, it is clear the secular scientists want a decrease in the speed of light that suits their model. For anyone interested in an explanation of starlight and time not committed to Big Bang cosmology, I found this interesting...


The new publication referred to can be found here :-

https://creation.com/new-creation-cosmology
 





Last edited:
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
1,063
Likes
1,414
Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend
Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years
by Jonathan Sarfati

Carbon
What do hard sparkling diamonds and dull soft pencil ‘lead’ have in common? They are both forms (allotropes) of carbon. Most carbon atoms are 12 times heavier than hydrogen (12C), about one in 100 is 13 times heavier (13C), and one in a trillion (1012) is 14 times heavier (14C). Of these different types (isotopes) of carbon, 14C is called radiocarbon, because it is radioactive—it breaks down over time.

Radiocarbon dating
The famous Hope Diamond which was found about four centuries ago.

Some try to measure age by how much 14C has decayed. Many people think that radiocarbon dating proves billions of years.1But evolutionists know it can’t, because 14C decays too fast. Its half-life (t½) is only 5,730 years—that is, every 5,730 years, half of it decays away. After two half lives, a quarter is left; after three half lives, only an eighth; after 10 half lives, less than a thousandth is left. 2In fact, a lump of 14C as massive as the earth would have all decayed in less than a million years.3

So if samples were really over a million years old, there would be no radiocarbon left. But this is not what we find, even with very sensitive 14C detectors.4

Diamonds
Diamond is the hardest substance known, so its interior should be very resistant to contamination. Diamond requires very high pressure to form—pressure found naturally on earth only deep below the surface. Thus they probably formed at a depth of 100–200 km. Geologists believe that the ones we find must have been transported supersonically 5to the surface, in extremely violent eruptions through volcanic pipes. Some are found in these pipes, such as kimberlites, while other diamonds were liberated by water erosion and deposited elsewhere (called alluvial diamonds). According to evolutionists, the diamonds formed about 1–3 billion years ago.5

Dating diamonds
Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,6 investigated 14C in a number of diamonds.7 There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon. I’m

The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a ‘young’ world, as the Bible records.

https://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend#objections
Baumgardner likely had his samples contaminated.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html


 





Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
1,063
Likes
1,414
People will accept that God can do anything but refuse to accept that God could start the chain events that led to the formation of the world and evolution. I just don’t get it.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
5,674
Likes
8,478
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
5,674
Likes
8,478
@Colonel Valerio

When I was a teenager I was essentially an evolutionist. I didn't know how they arrived at their view so as far as I was concerned, it was on the TV and therefore correct.

I became a Christian before origins were even a question and I was happy to accommodate Evolution into my views.

It was only on examining and cross examining the evolutionary evidence that I started to have doubts.

Christians I liked and respected like CS Lewis had accommodated alien life and common ancestry into their models. Why shouldn't I?

The issue was that there really were grave problems with the theory which became more obvious with closer inspection.

The one that killed it for me in the end was the observation that random processes create a "Racemic mix" of amino acids (Miller Experiment). Life cannot use a Racemic mixture to form proteins.

https://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem
^explained here


When I asked the head of Biochemistry at Uni, they flushed up, gave me some bluster (which made no sense at all) and then an accusing, quizzical look. I was an outsider, and I didn't care.
 





Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
1,063
Likes
1,414
@Colonel Valerio

When I was a teenager I was essentially an evolutionist. I didn't know how they arrived at their view so as far as I was concerned, it was on the TV and therefore correct.

I became a Christian before origins were even a question and I was happy to accommodate Evolution into my views.

It was only on examining and cross examining the evolutionary evidence that I started to have doubts.

Christians I liked and respected like CS Lewis had accommodated alien life and common ancestry into their models. Why shouldn't I?

The issue was that there really were grave problems with the theory which became more obvious with closer inspection.

The one that killed it for me in the end was the observation that random processes create a "Racemic mix" of amino acids (Miller Experiment). Life cannot use a Racemic mixture to form proteins.

https://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem
^explained here


When I asked the head of Biochemistry at Uni, they flushed up, gave me some bluster (which made no sense at all) and then an accusing, quizzical look. I was an outsider, and I didn't care.
https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-v...ntelligent-design-amino-acids-and-apologetics
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
5,674
Likes
8,478