Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[BNR32FAN]

During the 1950s, nearly 70 years ago, Clair Patterson used lead isotope ratios in meteorites and terrestrial rocks to measure the age of the Earth, and arrived at a result of 4550±50 million years. The currently accepted age is 4540±20 million years, almost exactly the same. Where did you get the idea that 'every 10 years or so' scientists 'arrive at a different number' for the age of the Earth?

Ok 10 years is a bit of an exaggeration since the discovery made by Patterson but before that it was all over the place and nobody predicted that the earth was over 100 million years old. My point is that the more information we find the more the predicted date changes. At any given point in time science is always at its highest possible technology and that technology is always becoming obsolete and outdated along with the predictions made with that technology. At the time each prediction is made anything else is considered incorrect unless it has evidence to support it. So just because we don’t have the evidence to support it now doesn’t necessarily mean that we are any more correct now than we were 100 years ago. Before Patterson the oldest predicted age was 100 million years. Look how far that one discovery put us. We have no way of knowing how far off we’ll be at the next scientific breakthrough or in which direction it will be because we can’t calculate or anticipate what we don’t know and on this particular subject everyone seems to agree that we don’t know a lot more than what we do know.

 

[BCP1928]

Not to cause division, but a number of members here who believe the flood is just a story, also (presumably)believe Jesus Chris was resurrected, and ascended into heaven. There's quite a few strong implications there to consider. Wouldn't you agree?

Instead of just considering them, why don't you tell us what they are?

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems clear enough that if one's interpretation of the Bible is at odds with observed phenomena, there's something wrong with the interpretation. How could God be wrong about His own creation?

Science can't interpret Pluto and get it right.

They even violated their own by-laws to "correct" their mistakes.

Let's say science TODAY were to align perfectly with theistic evolution.

Tomorrow science will change, then the bickering will start all over again.

It's almost like science drags Bible believers around on a leash.

ONE DAY: "C'mon, Bible-believers, everyone knows the earth is flat."
NEXT DAY: "C'mon, Bible-believers, everyone knows the earth is round."

ONE DAY: "C'mon, Bible-believers, everyone knows the sun circles the earth."
NEXT DAY: "C'mon, Bible-believers, everyone knows the earth circles the sun."

And on and on and on it goes.

Let me ask you this:

If science gets something wrong, and admits it was wrong (or blames others), and corrects it, does that mean theistic evolutionists interpreted the Bible wrong as well?

I say YES.

What say you?

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's say science TODAY were to align perfectly with theistic evolution.

It can't. Theistic evolution is a religious belief. Sorry.

Tomorrow science will change, then the bickering will start all over again.

Nope. For the reason I just mentioned.

ONE DAY: "C'mon, Bible-believers, everyone knows the earth is flat."
NEXT DAY: "C'mon, Bible-believers, everyone knows the earth is round."

When do you think people realized the Earth is round?

If science gets something wrong, and admits it was wrong (or blames others), and corrects it, does that mean theistic evolutionists interpreted the Bible wrong as well?

Science can't comment on religious ideas. Sorry.

 

[AV1611VET]

The story in Genesis doesn't even say He did it all directly, He said, "Let the Earth bring forth..." So defending the fundamentalist idea of Special Creation from the theory of evolution on the grounds of literal inerrancy doesn't hold water, No, I am convinced that there is some theological axe being ground here that we are not privy to.

Ya ... the ORDER of the creation events.

Scientists not only move the decimal places in Genesis 1 out about six places, they play switch-n-go with the order of the creation events.

Then expect us to play tag along.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Not as such, but Les Miz is a pretty good show.

Where does the cultural imagery come from?

Tough to say. Both British and Latin American culture share macho-centric images for instance. But they separate when it comes to mannerisms and expressions. Same thing with American and Japanese culture.

The resurrection of Christ is probably tops for any Christian.

If resurrection of the Son of God, why not creation of man and woman becoming mother and father of all humanity?

Evolution happens in the real world. A written account of it is just a written account of it.

Could Spielberg make a movie showing how evolution might have occurred? The beginning of the movie showing the primordial soup on up to today?

That the book is divinely inspired is an article of faith. That miracles happen in the real world is another. That the book must be 100% accurate with respect to all aspects of history and science is apparently a third. The first two seem related to a religion based on faith in Christ, the third may be, but nobody has explained why it must be.

What if we, when facing God are told that Genesis is just a story symbolic of evolution? Ok, we just learned something new. I personally think I would be so ecstatic in terms of entering paradise, I don't think it would matter a whole lot at that point.

But the question is, in light of the miracle of salvation, why should I doubt the miracle of divine inspiration providing a 100% accurate account?

A book by the way written by fallible men, with some misprints and mistranslations.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ok 10 years is a bit of an exaggeration since the discovery made by Patterson but before that it was all over the place and nobody predicted that the earth was over 100 million years old.

In the 1800s, Lord Kelvin estimated it to be maybe 100 million years old. He rather generously conceded the point when Rutherford showed it to be billions of years old. Rutherford wisely quoted Kelvin as saying that his estimate would hold only so long as new sources of heat were not found.

Before Patterson the oldest predicted age was 100 million years.

Rutherford. About 1904.

"I came into the room, which was half dark, and presently spotted Lord Kelvin in the audience and realized that I was in trouble at the last part of my speech dealing with the age of the Earth, where my views conflicted with his. To my relief, Kelvin fell fast asleep, but as I came to the important point, I saw the old bird sit up, open an eye, and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] a baleful glance at me! Then a sudden inspiration came, and I said, "Lord Kelvin had limited the age of the Earth, provided no new source was discovered. That prophetic utterance refers to what we are now considering tonight, radium!" Behold! the old boy beamed upon me."

Rutherford: being the life and letters of the Rt. Hon. Lord Rutherford, O. M. : Eve, A. S. (Arthur Stewart), 1862-1948 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xvi, 451 p. 26 cm

archive.org

 

[AV1611VET]

It can't.

Then it can take a hike.

Theistic evolution is a religious belief. Sorry.

All of it?

After all, theistic evolution believes in macroevolution.

You know ... change in alleles over time and all that mumbo-jumbo?

Is that a religious belief too?

When do you think people realized the Earth is round?

When God got tired of science saying it was flat and gave us men who were able to show those scientists they were wrong.

Science can't comment on religious ideas. Sorry.

Then science can take a hike.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not to cause division, but a number of members here who believe the flood is just a story, also (presumably)believe Jesus Chris was resurrected, and ascended into heaven. There's quite a few strong implications there to consider. Wouldn't you agree?

First, there is some evidence that the Flood was literally true. Since the Bible does not say it was global in extent, there's no evidence to rule out a flood. But if we fuss about whether or not it's literal history or an allegory, we lose the point God was making.

 

[The Barbarian]

All of it?

After all, theistic evolution believes in macroevolution.

You know ... change in alleles over time and all that mumbo-jumbo?

Is that a religious belief too?

Creationism believes in rain. You know, water condensing and falling to the ground.
Is that a religious belief, too?

When do you think people realized the Earth is round?

When God got tired of science saying it was flat

Science never said it was flat. People realized it was round before there was science.

(creationist need to have science involved in faith)

Science can't comment on religious ideas. Sorry.

Then science can take a hike.

Sorry. Too useful to ignore. Learn to live with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

When do you think people realized the Earth is round?

17 October 4004 BC

(And I'm being serious.)

 

[Estrid]

Tough to say. Both British and Latin American culture share macho-centric images for instance. But they separate when it comes to mannerisms and expressions. Same thing with American and Japanese culture.

If resurrection of the Son of God, why not creation of man and woman becoming mother and father of all humanity?

Could Spielberg make a movie showing how evolution might have occurred? The beginning of the movie showing the primordial soup on up to today?

What if we, when facing God are told that Genesis is just a story symbolic of evolution? Ok, we just learned something new. I personally think I would be so ecstatic in terms of entering paradise, I don't think it would matter a whole lot at that point.

But the question is, in light of the miracle of salvation, why should I doubt the miracle of divine inspiration providing a 100% accurate account?

A book by the way written by fallible men, with some misprints and mistranslations.

Why not crestion of...? Because it didn't happen.
It's like why isn't Canada tropical.

 

[BCP1928]

Tough to say. Both British and Latin American culture share macho-centric images for instance. But they separate when it comes to mannerisms and expressions. Same thing with American and Japanese culture.

If resurrection of the Son of God, why not creation of man and woman becoming mother and father of all humanity?

Could Spielberg make a movie showing how evolution might have occurred? The beginning of the movie showing the primordial soup on up to today?

What if we, when facing God are told that Genesis is just a story symbolic of evolution? Ok, we just learned something new.

It would certainly come as a surprise to me . I for one, always have thought that the Genesis stories were about something else.

I personally think I would be so ecstatic in terms of entering paradise, I don't think it would matter a whole lot at that point.

It doesn't really matter now.

But the question is, in light of the miracle of salvation, why should I doubt the miracle of divine inspiration providing a 100% accurate account?

A book by the way written by fallible men, with some misprints and mistranslations.

Why does divine inspiration need to provide a "100% accurate account?" What does that even mean in terms of literary genres which are not intended to produce such an account?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does divine inspiration need to provide a "100% accurate account?"

So you won't have thread titles like this one.

With people agreeing.

 

[The Barbarian]

When do you think people realized the Earth is round?

23 October 4004 BC

About the same time people started using bronze instead of copper and writing was invented? Long after people where using stone for tools? Actually, not too far off. When people started sailing out of sight of land, they noticed, coming back that the tops of mountains showed up first, and then more and more as they got closer to the coast. They concluded the same thing any reasonable person would do, long before science. Which is why you're wrong.

 

[Estrid]

It would certainly come as a surprise to me . I for one, always have thought that the Genesis stories were about something else.

It doesn't really matter now.

Why does divine inspiration need to provide a "100% accurate account?" What does that even mean in terms of literary genres which are not intended to produce such an account?

Is say it's a matter of how inaccurate
about what.
If it's 5% or 95% inaccurate.
99.72 percent wrong.

I think that matters a lot.


In things that can be realistically cross checked for
accuracy, the record is not very good.

 

[Estrid]

When do you think people realized the Earth is round?


About the same time people started using bronze instead of copper and writing was invented? Long after people where using stone for tools? Actually, not too far off. When people started sailing out of sight of land, they noticed, coming back that the tops of mountains showed up first, and then more and more as they got closer to the coast. They concluded the same thing any reasonable person would do, long before science. Which is why you're wrong.

The reason such people are wrong is
that they just say things.
Things made up by or for them by others,
unconscionably presented as fact.
That's wrong all the way around.

 

[AV1611VET]

About the same time people started using bronze instead of copper and writing was invented?

No.

The day Adam was created.

(And I made a mistake. It would be 17 October 4004 BC, since Adam was created on the Sixth Day.)

Long after people where using stone for tools?

Assuming they used stone first.

Genesis 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

Actually, not too far off. When people started sailing out of sight of land, they noticed, coming back that the tops of mountains showed up first, and then more and more as they got closer to the coast. They concluded the same thing any reasonable person would do, long before science. Which is why you're wrong.

Even if God didn't show Adam around His creation (including the earth from space), no one had to go sailing to ascertain that the earth is round.

People keep thinking "east and west" and overlook "north and south."

Anyone walking from southern Pangaea to northern Pangaea would see your "tops of mountains showing up first, and then more and more as they got closer to them."

So long before anyone set sail out into Panthalassa, the common people knew the earth was round.

It would take the arrival of scientists (known as empiricists back then) to start teaching the earth was flat.

(The common people at the time probably laughed their heads off at them.)

 

[AV1611VET]

In things that can be realistically cross checked for accuracy, the record is not very good.

Ya ... history is full of things cross-checked for accuracy, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason such people are wrong is that they just say things.

Like saying it was the "bronze age," when bronze isn't even mentioned in the Bible?

Scientists don't know the difference between tin and zinc, do they?

Things made up by or for them by others, unconscionably presented as fact.

Such as Thalidomide being a prenatal wonder drug?

Then ridiculing Frances Kelsey for wanting further testing done?

I believe God gave us Frances Kelsey, else more of us would look different.

That's wrong all the way around.

What goes around comes around.