Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Job8]

Evolution has stood every challenge over 150 years and only gotten stronger, especially with the discovery of DNA.

Actually DNA comparison show how species maintain their distinctiveness, which is precisely what creation tells us -- each species AFTER ITS KIND. So rather than support evolution DNA differences refute evolution:

What percent of their genes match yours?
Another human? 100% - All humans have the same genes, but some of these genes contain sequence differences that make each person unique.
A chimpanzee? 98% - Chimpanzees are the closest living species to humans.
A mouse? 92% - All mammals are quite similar genetically.
A fruit fly? 44% - Studies of fruit flies have shown how shared genes govern the growth and structure of both insects and mammals.
Yeast? 26% - Yeasts are single-celled organisms, but they have many housekeeping genes that are the same as the genes in humans, such as those that enable energy to be derived from the breakdown of sugars.
A weed (thale cress)? 18% - Plants have many metabolic differences from humans. For example, they use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide gas to sugars. But they also have similarities in their housekeeping genes.
www.koshland-science-museum.org/sites/all/exhibits/exhibitdna/intro03.jsp

 

[AV1611VET]

Good point, Gene2. Many here naively assume that if evolution is proven wrong, that automatically means creation science is right. No way!

Creation science isn't right, whether evolution is proven wrong or not.

 

[Job8]

Our intellectual life moves only forward, never backward.

Our intellectual life moves forward [supposedly], while our moral and spiritual life not only moves backward but devolves into savagery (e.g. ISIS). That proves DEVOLUTION not evolution. Adolf Hitler was an evolutionist of the first order, but history shows how he caused Germany to devolve into inhumanity. America began as a bastion of liberty but has degenerated into Big Brother. Every empire that ever existed has disappeared, and those countries with very advanced civilizations (India, China, Egypt, etc.) devolved into Third World countries.

Getting back to man's spiritual condition and how it devolved, we have an excellent picture given to us by God (Rom 1:18-25):
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not asGod, neither were thankful ; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart wasdarkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[AV1611VET]

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

You do know that's exactly what they do when they call themselves Homo sapiens (wise men), don't you?

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't accurate, Job 8. First, it is questionable if Hitler believed in evolution. For one thing, he wanted to maintain Catholic support. Himmler, for example, wanted an immediate return to earlier pagan Teutonic religions, which Hitler opposed. Indeed, Hitler thought it was stupid to try and dig up the past and made fun of Himmler for so doing. A popular Nazi myth at the time was that the Aryans had first existed on an ice planet which collided with earth. Due to unfortunate breeding with the local inhabitants, the Aryans began to become corrupted. Also, Hitler has ample support from Lutheranism. Martin Luther hated Jews, gypsies, and peasants. He wrote a work entitled "The Jews and their Lies." In it, he recommended a policy almost identical to what Hitler carried out. Hence, Hitler himself said more than once that "I am only doing the Lord's work." So it's not a question of devolution; it's a question of how hard Christians need to work to free Christianity of al sorts of undue prejudices.

 

[Hoghead1]

You can start, Sister in Christ, with the Genesis account, where two contradictory chronologies are presented. In case I haven't, I'll include a synopsis of the problem here. You might also want to look at 2 Sam. 21:19, which claims that Elhanan, not David, killed Goliath of Gath. You might also want to check out Paul's itinerary. How many pilgrimages did Paul make to Jerusalem. Paul says three, but Acts gives five. So, here, right off the bat, are three for you to take a look at.

1. 
   
   
   
   

When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.



Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.



Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

“The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.



Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.



There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.



There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.



There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.



Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.



P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

1. When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

 

[AV1611VET]

You might also want to look at 2 Sam. 21:19, which claims that Elhanan, not David, killed Goliath of Gath.

You first.

2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

 

[Abraxos]

You first.

2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

...

 

[Abraxos]

The Bible indicates that the world is much younger and of course there would be some evidence for this.

One good indication of this is Carbon-14. C-14 is mostly used to date once-living things because of it's short half-life. It cannot be used directly to date rocks; but until recently it is now possible to measure trace amounts of C-14 in inorganic materials such as diamonds, crude oil, coal and also fossils. What this means is that because C-14 has a rapid rate of decay, it can only give dates in the thousands-of-year range and not millions.
C-14 dating therefore uses time constraints on inorganic materials and thanks to the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) we can now find trace amounts of C-14 in inorganic materials; And since diamonds are one of the oldest things on earth (millions to 3 billion years old) we can deduce the age of the earth as consistent with biblical timelines.

Thanks to the progress of the sciences, today we can now find C-14 in some of the most ancient things on earth. Yay for science.

Odd people call science "creation science". There is just science.

 

[The Cadet]

So does NASA...so it must be flat.

...Ah, I was wondering when the flat earthers were going to show up. No, NASA does not say the earth is flat. -_-

One can be reasonably certain if witness accounts of the past are consistent or not consistent with physical evidence in the present, but one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence unless there is only one plausible explanation for that evidence.

Hey SkyWriting, what do you want to bet that if someone kneecapped you with a baseball bat and then tried to use this argument in court, you'd be disappointed if your lawyer accepted it as valid and dropped the case?

One good indication of this is Carbon-14. C-14 is mostly used to date once-living things because of it's short half-life. It cannot be used directly to date rocks; but until recently it is now possible to measure trace amounts of C-14 in inorganic materials such as diamonds, crude oil, coal and also fossils. What this means is that because C-14 has a rapid rate of decay, it can only give dates in the thousands-of-year range and not millions.
C-14 dating therefore uses time constraints on inorganic materials and thanks to the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) we can now find trace amounts of C-14 in inorganic materials; And since diamonds are one of the oldest things on earth (millions to 3 billion years old) we can deduce the age of the earth as consistent with biblical timelines.

PRATT.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

This is extremely old, long-debunked news. And never mind that the traces found, even if they would indicate a young earth, would indicate an earth that is an order of magnitude older than biblical creation would imply.

 

[Abraxos]

PRATT.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

This is extremely old, long-debunked news. And never mind that the traces found, even if they would indicate a young earth, would indicate an earth that is an order of magnitude older than biblical creation would imply.

You seem to miss that fact that there is trace amounts of C-14 in inorganic minerals. As I said, it puts time constraints on things that are expected to be billions of years old. But hey, guess what they aren't. Fact: Earth is not billions of years old.

So what does that tell us? Probably that it's younger.

I'm curious how many millions thousands of years does it take for a fish to morph into a duck. And when does the "glub glub" sounds turn into a "quack quack"?

 

[The Cadet]

You seem to miss that fact that there is trace amounts of C-14 in inorganic minerals.

Yeah, so? As my source says:

Dr. Gove wrote back the very next day, as did one of his colleagues. By sheer coincidence, they are currently studying this exact question. It turns out that the origin and concentration of 14C in fossil fuels is important to the physics community because of its relevance for detection of solar neutrinos. Apparently one of the new neutrino detectors, the Borexino detector in Italy, works by detecting tiny flashes of visible light produced by neutrinos passing through a huge subterranean vat of "scintillation fluid". Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels such as methane or oil (plus some other ingredients), and it sparkles when struck by beta particles or certain other events such as neutrinos. The Borexino detector has 800 tons of scintillant. However, if there are any native beta emitters in the fluid itself, that natural radioactive decay will also produce scintillant flashes. (In fact that's the more common use of scintillant. I use scintillant every day in my own work to detect 14C and 3H-tagged hormones. But I only use a milliliter at a time - the concept of 800 tons really boggles the mind!). So, the physics community has gotten interested in finding out whether and why fossil fuels have native radioactivity. The aim is to find fossil fuels that have a 14C/C ratio of 10-20 or less; below that, neutrino activity can be reliably detected. The Borexino detector, and other planned detectors of this type, must keep native beta emissions to below 1 count per ton of fluid per week to reliably detect solar neutrinos. (In comparison, my little hormone vials, here in my above-ground lab, have a background count of about 25 counts per minute for 3.5 milliliters.)

So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!
​

Like I said: PRATT ( = "Points Refuted A Thousand Times"). The C14 present in coal and diamonds comes from the radioactive decay of elements around them. It is newly generated C14, not atmospheric C14 derived from the formation of the rocks at the atmosphere.

As I said, it puts time constraints on things that are expected to be billions of years old.

This is where the logic kind of flies off the rails. If C14 dating did show that diamonds and coal were younger than previously thought, how would that show that the earth is younger than previously thought? After all, our dates on the age of the earth don't come from the C14 dating of diamonds or coal. It comes from other methods on other rocks, which establish a firm lower bound - that is, the earth must be at least that old. Yours sets an upper limit for these particular rocks (a flawed upper limit, because we know that the C14 in these rocks is not coming from the atmosphere but rather from decay products within the earth), but not for the earth as a whole.

Even granting you your flawed premise, the argument still doesn't work.

 

[Abraxos]

This is where the logic kind of flies off the rails. If C14 dating did show that diamonds and coal were younger than previously thought, how would that show that the earth is younger than previously thought? After all, our dates on the age of the earth don't come from the C14 dating of diamonds or coal. It comes from other methods on other rocks, which establish a firm lower bound - that is, the earth must be at least that old. Yours sets an upper limit for these particular rocks (a flawed upper limit, because we know that the C14 in these rocks is not coming from the atmosphere but rather from decay products within the earth), but not for the earth as a whole.

Even granting you your flawed premise, the argument still doesn't work.

Huh. interesting that they now think there are 2 types of carbon-14 lol. Of course they would be dumbfounded because it flies in the face of their world view. I was curious how people would react to the cold hard facts.

Anyway, as this is just flying over your head my magical little brony, what are the oldest things on earth? Rocks of course. According to the old-earth model diamonds (and coal) are formed over millions and even billions of years through pressure and heat deep under the earth, or as you like to say "lower bound". Nothing closer to the age of the earth than diamonds - perhaps for maybe the exception of zircon, which can also fit in a younger earth model through other dating methods.

If radiometric ‘dating’ is wrong on rocks of known age, why should we presume it’s right on rocks of unknown age? The best technique is to put constraints on it which C-14 dating provides. Leaves less for making bias assumptions like millions and billions of years.

 

[Abraxos]

Another interesting thing thanks to pony boy here, is that there are legends found all over the world for a global flood in nearly every culture. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Was there indeed a global catastrophic event? From what I see, of course there was.

There is a preconceived notion that the earth is geologically proven to be billions of years old, yet I question, what are they looking at?
If rock layers and mountains for instance took millions and billions of years to form how do you explain rock layers folded and bent while still fully intact? Seems to me the only way this could have happened is that these rock layers had to be soft at one point and formed rapidly. http://share.pho.to/9wQFU
This also applies to the fossils found within these layers. I'd like to know how do you slowly fossilize millions of jellyfish over millions of years. http://share.pho.to/9wQTQ

This really questions how people view fossils and geology as millions of years old. Even dinosaur tissue was found in a fossil supposedly to be 75 millions years old. http://ncse.com/rncse/25/5-6/non-mineralized-tissues-fossil-t-rex
Any biologist, or chemist will tell you just how absurd it is that organic flesh can survive millions of years.

 

[The Cadet]

Huh. interesting that they now think there are 2 types of carbon-14 lol.

There aren't "two types". C14 is simply produced through different mechanisms. It can be produced through N14 reacting with a free neutrons (typically in the upper atmosphere). This is the most common mechanism of formation. However, it can also be formed by C13 reacting with a neutron, including neutrons released by decay of radioactive elements. This is where these erroneous C14 readings in coal and diamonds come from.

Anyway, as this is just flying over your head my magical little brony

Your avatar is a riff on Call of Duty, you have no business criticizing me for my fandom. Glass houses and whatnot. Although that is more than a little outdated (season 5 was a mess).

what are the oldest things on earth? Rocks of course. According to the old-earth model diamonds (and coal) are formed over millions and even billions of years through pressure and heat deep under the earth, or as you like to say "lower bound". Nothing closer to the age of the earth than diamonds - perhaps for maybe the exception of zircon, which can also fit in a younger earth model through other dating methods.

But of course, we know that these results are wrong, and we know why these results are wrong, and we can demonstrate these factors at play by cross-checking the dates with other methods. So it's not particularly relevant.

If radiometric ‘dating’ is wrong on rocks of known age, why should we presume it’s right on rocks of unknown age?

But that's just it. Radiometric dating does work on rocks of known age, as long as certain conditions are met. We can check for those conditions before performing the dating, and if necessary use a different dating method. But to point to edge cases like non-atmospheric C14 and claim that this shows that radiometric dating doesn't work shows that you really don't understand how these methods work or are used. It's like complaining about the reservoir effect without knowing that scientists have known about and accounted for it for decades.

Nothing closer to the age of the earth than diamonds

Well, there are the rocks on the moon. And a few others.

Was there indeed a global catastrophic event? From what I see, of course there is.

Great, then your task is very simple: show me where in the geologic column this global flood event was. We have methods of detecting flooding, so if the entire earth was covered in water at some point, we should be able to detect this in the geologic column.

If rock layers and mountains for instance took millions and billions of years to form how do you explain rock layers folded and bent while still fully intact? Seems to me the only way this could have happened is that these rock layers had to be soft at one point and formed rapidly. http://share.pho.to/9wQFU

Heat and pressure fold rocks all the time. This is extremely well-established geology.

This also applies to the fossils found within these layers. I'd like to know how do you slowly fossilize millions of jellyfish over millions of years. http://share.pho.to/9wQTQ

I'll be honest, I don't know how Jellyfish fossilize. However, I'm not sure why a global flood would help your case. We're talking about marine animals, after all.

This really questions how people view fossils and geology as millions of years old. Even dinosaur tissue was found in a fossil supposedly to be 75 millions years old. http://ncse.com/rncse/25/5-6/non-mineralized-tissues-fossil-t-rex
Any biologist, or chemist will tell you just how absurd it is that organic flesh can survive millions of years.

Apparently that list isn't quite accurate. Any biologist or chemist, other than the person who made the discovery...

See, this is something that really cannot be stated often enough. When there's a strong paradigm in science, it's fairly common to find some data somewhere that, at first glance just doesn't quite seen fit. An anomaly, if you will. So what happens? Well, first, the important step people keep forgetting: making sure it actually is an anomaly. Making sure that it really doesn't fit the theory. The Schweitzer case is a textbook example of exactly this kind of mistake. Creationists lept on it, often without even the slightest understanding of what it meant or what was actually found. Now, a little later, the discovery has been examined and explained, and it fits within the established old-earth paradigm. It isn't an actual anomaly. But Creationists didn't spend a whole lot of time checking. They simply went anomaly hunting, in an attempt to validate their own preconceived notions.

 

[Abraxos]

I hate looking at quote by quote replies.

I never understood why grown men have a fetish for my little pony.

But yeah, I read that article about the dinosaur tissue. The iron in the blood cell is part of a protein called hemoglobin. When bonded with oxygen, an extremely reactive molecule, it turns red. There is no reason for it to pop it's diatomic oxygen off, and suddenly become a radical iron. None.
And even if it did, there simply isn't enough iron in a vessel to protect DNA, Blood vessels, cell membranes, connective tissue, etc.
After two years, in a closed system, under perfect conditions, your specially chosen, extra iron, TOTALLY unrealistic specimen was "still recognizable" after 2 years... Just 2.
Now multiply that by the proposed time line (Oh I don't know, how about 75 million years) and your "recognizable specimen", even in Beyond Perfect Conditions, simply will cease to exist. It takes a very special kind of person to believe that dinosaur tissue can survive for 75 million years.

Fossilization supposedly takes million of years. The experiment created, BEYOND perfect conditions to preserve the bone marrow, and fossilization is not preservation, even in the slightest. So yes. It's not a hard to understand.

Also, you seemed to have missed the rock layers found in essentially most mountain ranges, like the Swiss Alps. http://share.pho.to/9wQFU Want to explain that one to me? I had one guy respond before as they're elastic rocks! Hopefully you have a more creative mind.

 

[The Cadet]

You offer no citation for your claims. I have no idea where you get the idea that hemoglobin cannot split off a radical iron ion, and your counter to peer-reviewed science appears to be an appeal to incredulity.

Fossilization supposedly takes million of years.

Nobody believes that fossilization necessarily takes millions of years. Polystrate trees are proof enough that fossilization can occur quite rapidly under the correct circumstances.

I never understood why grown men have a fetish for my little pony.

Well-developed characters in interesting storylines, a complete lack of anything resembling cynicism, counterculture appeal, beautiful animation, extremely active and awesome fandom...

 

[Colter]

Says who?

God allowed Satan to prompt David to number the people.

In so doing, He took the credit for it, but allowed Satan to do the urging.

Job makes this principle clear.

Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
Job 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
Job 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Who does the destruction here?

Satan does.

Ditto for Chapter 2.

But notice the last chapter of the book.

Job 42:10 And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.
Job 42:11 Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.

Notice Who got the credit -- and made restitution?You might want to take another look at your critique, chief.

Job was written well before Samuel & Chronicles.

It's simple, during the age of 2 Samuel it was believed that God was responsible for both good and evil (that's where you are stuck). By the times of the Chronicler, the Jews no longer believed God was responsible for the numbering of Israel.

The Bible contains both truth and error. For one who puts faith in the Bible fetish instead of God, they are forced to be untruthful.

 

[Colter]

Another interesting thing thanks to pony boy here, is that there are legends found all over the world for a global flood in nearly every culture. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Was there indeed a global catastrophic event? From what I see, of course there was.

There is a preconceived notion that the earth is geologically proven to be billions of years old, yet I question, what are they looking at?
If rock layers and mountains for instance took millions and billions of years to form how do you explain rock layers folded and bent while still fully intact? Seems to me the only way this could have happened is that these rock layers had to be soft at one point and formed rapidly. http://share.pho.to/9wQFU
This also applies to the fossils found within these layers. I'd like to know how do you slowly fossilize millions of jellyfish over millions of years. http://share.pho.to/9wQTQ

This really questions how people view fossils and geology as millions of years old. Even dinosaur tissue was found in a fossil supposedly to be 75 millions years old. http://ncse.com/rncse/25/5-6/non-mineralized-tissues-fossil-t-rex
Any biologist, or chemist will tell you just how absurd it is that organic flesh can survive millions of years.

* If there was a world wide flood that killed everyone and every culture except and ancestor of the so called Israelites, how are there "legends found all over the world of a global flood in nearly every culture"???????

* If they somehow remember a flood that killed all of their ancestors, why can't they recall being related to Noah?????

 

[The Cadet]

Stories schmories. Where's the real physical evidence? It's entirely possible that, out of all the cultures in the world, many of them have flood myths (that are wrong). But without the physical evidence to back these claims up (and we should find such physical evidence), it gets you nowhere.

Great, then your task is very simple: show me where in the geologic column this global flood event was. We have methods of detecting flooding, so if the entire earth was covered in water at some point, we should be able to detect this in the geologic column.