God did not create from nothing

Ophiolite said:

No, they are not. You are falsely equating designed and manufactured mechanical machines devoid of thought, with biological, evolved, sentient beings. There may be some valid analogous aspects of the comparison, but asserting a direct equivalence is either equivocation, or carelessness, or foolishness.
What makes you think such nonsense refutes the central argument of my posts, or was its meaning obscure to you?

Many people say that your star sign can tell you important things about your life. Many people say Brexit was a good idea. Many people say marrying someone of a different race was wrong. Many people got to get a decent education and they wouldn't feel compelled to make pointless comments.

Irrelevant. Clearly you have no ideas what I was talking about. Tell what you think it was and I'll set you on the right path. I might even get you across the road.

Click to expand...

Platte said:

I of course figure you’d be very aware if it and I don’t anything happen now but I do think the universe is bigger than we know and that i would guess that will add age down the road.

Click to expand...

Platte said:

If its verified as fact - I will place the Bible down and never read it again!

Click to expand...

dlamberth said:

I honestly believe that is more of a possibility than Hans becoming a believer.

Click to expand...

jasperr said:

It was just my attempt at humour ;-(

Click to expand...

Platte said:

...the reason History only goes back 6000 years is because that is when Creation occured.

Click to expand...

Gene2memE said:

The chronology of the Sumerian Kings List claims to be a record of rulers stretching back almost 275,000 years.
The Vedic history claims that history stretches back somewhere between 1.7 and 4.2 million years.
The Egyptian pharos lists depend on interpretation and where you base your chronology, but they indicate histories of anywhere up to 49,000 years
Ancient Chinese histories claim the length of the First Dynasty as 150 generations covering 45,600 years

Click to expand...

Gene2memE said:

Compared to historical contemporaries, the Biblical chronology is nothing special either in terms of length or historical accuracy.

Click to expand...

1. Who -- by specific name -- was the Sumerian king who reigned in 268,000 BC?
2. Who -- by specific name -- was a Veda living in 3,554,321 BC?
3. Who -- by specific name -- was the Egyptian pharaoh who reigned in 17 March 46,221 BC?
4. What Chinese dynasty -- by specific name -- was in existence in 40,998 BC?

Ophiolite said:

In that case, my apologies. I was bending down when I read your post and it went right over my head.

Click to expand...

Platte said:

Of course the history exists I’m referring to the dating method

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

I had a different point in mind rather than a 'complaint' about stipulations. My point is that the nature of stipulation in computer programming and coding is different than it is in physics and cosmology.

Physics is an open ended endeavor whereas computer coding is closed (as per the AI answer I posted above).

Regardless, I understand why you're intuiting a relation of pattern between civilized history and Moses' account in Genesis, but its only intuitive, not technical. And if you're going to prove your point to atheists here, you need a technical explanation of the pattern your think you see, one that goes beyond merely implicating a role for the Speed of Light.

Click to expand...

sjastro said:

Once again a ridiculous inane response, the speed of light was 'stipulated' only in 1983 as having an exact value so as to define the SI unit for the metre.
This was mentioned in another post but yet again like c being a physical constant of nature it went way over your head.

View attachment 380257
​

The uncertainty in the measurement of c has steadily decreased over 300 years to a point the CGCM (General Conference of Weights and Measures) assigned c an exact value to define the metre.



This contrasts with your nonsense that somehow not being able to measure the speed of light one way is tantamount to making guesses.

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Your entire argument is challenging established history. Not the dating method but history itself.

Click to expand...

• The Problem: Carbon dating tells you exactly when an organism died, not when humans used it.
• The Error: If the builders of Göbekli Tepe burned a 400-year-old tree for charcoal, or used ancient timber to support a roof, the C14 test would date the birth of the tree rings, not the construction of the temple. This makes the site appear hundreds of years older than it actually is. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• The Problem: Göbekli Tepe is unique because its massive stone enclosures were deliberately backfilled and buried with dirt and debris near the end of their use-life. [1, 2]
• The Error: Testing organic materials (like animal bones or loose charcoal) found inside that dirt fill is highly problematic. The dirt used to bury the temples could have been scooped up from much older, pre-existing sediment layers nearby. Dating this "fill" material risks dating the ancient dirt rather than the structures themselves. [1, 2, 3]

• The Problem: The pillars and bedrock at Göbekli Tepe are made entirely of limestone. Limestone contains massive amounts of ancient, "dead" carbon that has completely lost its C14 over millions of years. [1, 2]
• The Error: Rainwater routinely dissolves limestone, allowing this dead carbon to leach into the surrounding soil, bone samples, and wall plaster. If a sample is contaminated with even a tiny amount of this ancient limestone carbon, the laboratory equipment will misread the ratio and artificially inflate the age, making the sample appear thousands of years older than its true age. [1, 2, 3]

• The Problem: Because the amount of C14 in the Earth’s atmosphere fluctuates over time due to solar flares and changes in the Earth's magnetic field, raw C14 dates must be adjusted using a "calibration curve" built from ancient tree rings. [1, 2]
• The Error: The unbroken tree-ring record (dendrochronology) only goes back about 14,000 years. Göbekli Tepe sits right at the edge of this reliable tree-ring buffer. If our understanding of the atmospheric carbon levels during that specific post-Ice Age transition is slightly incorrect, the calibration formulas will automatically output an inaccurate date. [1]

• The Problem: The standard scientific model assumes that the decay rate of carbon has always been constant and that atmospheric changes have been gradual. [1, 2]
• The Error: Alternative historical models—such as a catastrophic global flood event—argue that massive disruptions to the planet's vegetation, oceans, and atmosphere would have radically altered the global carbon cycle overnight. Under such a scenario, the baseline ratio of C12 to C14 would have been completely different from today's assumptions, causing standard C14 calculations to misread the age by thousands of years

Gene2memE said:

History doesn't go back 6,000 years though.

If we understand 'History' to be 'the discipline of writing down accounts of the past', then history is ~5,200 years old, maybe as much as 5,500 years.

If we understand 'History' to be 'the record of things that have occurred', then history is much, much older.

The chronology of the Sumerian Kings List claims to be a record of rulers stretching back almost 275,000 years.
The Vedic history claims that history stretches back somewhere between 1.7 and 4.2 million years.
The Egyptian pharos lists depend on interpretation and where you base your chronology, but they indicate histories of anywhere up to 49,000 years
Ancient Chinese histories claim the length of the First Dynasty as 150 generations covering 45,600 years

Compared to historical contemporaries, the Biblical chronology is nothing special either in terms of length or historical accuracy.

Click to expand...

Platte said:

For example I don't challenge that Gobekli Tepe exists. But the dating is far from being a fact.

<Google AI>
There are several scientifically valid reasons why carbon-14 (C14) dating could calculate the age of Göbekli Tepe incorrectly. Archaeologists and physicists actively debate these specific limitations, vulnerabilities, and potential pitfalls. [1, 2]
The C14 dating at Göbekli Tepe could be wrong due to the following specific factors:

1. The "Old Wood" Effect

• The Problem: Carbon dating tells you exactly when an organism died, not when humans used it.
• The Error: If the builders of Göbekli Tepe burned a 400-year-old tree for charcoal, or used ancient timber to support a roof, the C14 test would date the birth of the tree rings, not the construction of the temple. This makes the site appear hundreds of years older than it actually is. [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. Intentionally Backfilled Material

• The Problem: Göbekli Tepe is unique because its massive stone enclosures were deliberately backfilled and buried with dirt and debris near the end of their use-life. [1, 2]
• The Error: Testing organic materials (like animal bones or loose charcoal) found inside that dirt fill is highly problematic. The dirt used to bury the temples could have been scooped up from much older, pre-existing sediment layers nearby. Dating this "fill" material risks dating the ancient dirt rather than the structures themselves. [1, 2, 3]

3. Limestone and Carbonate Contamination

• The Problem: The pillars and bedrock at Göbekli Tepe are made entirely of limestone. Limestone contains massive amounts of ancient, "dead" carbon that has completely lost its C14 over millions of years. [1, 2]
• The Error: Rainwater routinely dissolves limestone, allowing this dead carbon to leach into the surrounding soil, bone samples, and wall plaster. If a sample is contaminated with even a tiny amount of this ancient limestone carbon, the laboratory equipment will misread the ratio and artificially inflate the age, making the sample appear thousands of years older than its true age. [1, 2, 3]

4. Flaws in the Calibration Curve

• The Problem: Because the amount of C14 in the Earth’s atmosphere fluctuates over time due to solar flares and changes in the Earth's magnetic field, raw C14 dates must be adjusted using a "calibration curve" built from ancient tree rings. [1, 2]
• The Error: The unbroken tree-ring record (dendrochronology) only goes back about 14,000 years. Göbekli Tepe sits right at the edge of this reliable tree-ring buffer. If our understanding of the atmospheric carbon levels during that specific post-Ice Age transition is slightly incorrect, the calibration formulas will automatically output an inaccurate date. [1]

5. The Question of a Rapidly Changing Ancient World

• The Problem: The standard scientific model assumes that the decay rate of carbon has always been constant and that atmospheric changes have been gradual. [1, 2]
• The Error: Alternative historical models—such as a catastrophic global flood event—argue that massive disruptions to the planet's vegetation, oceans, and atmosphere would have radically altered the global carbon cycle overnight. Under such a scenario, the baseline ratio of C12 to C14 would have been completely different from today's assumptions, causing standard C14 calculations to misread the age by thousands of years

Click to expand...

Platte said:

I get what you are saying - In progamming a stipulation is more commonly refered to as a condition. Such as a condition must be met in order to execute code. There is no condition check for the speed of light - it simply says this is the condition: the speed of light is c. More of a "property" in programming.

Click to expand...

Platte said:

I think there are some things that just have incredible odds to be what they are...that if they just went away from that incredible odd - Genesis loses credibility.
such as History is 6000 years old - History begins at the same location as the garden of Eden....and no life outside the Earth.

Click to expand...

Platte said:

The Historical timeline and place is a major piece of evidence. I can promise you this - If History began 15,000 years ago that would be by far your strongest argument that Creation could not have occured 6000 years ago.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

No, actually the viability of the Creation account stands or falls on the extent to which we perceive it to be a PROPHETIC expression about the nature of our world in relation to God, not the degree to which we appreciate its style or specific details either mirroring or obscuring the actual past in that account. Most modern historians, when they're writing history, are not either claiming to be prophetic or expressing divine revelation. Moses, however, if he existed at all, was doing just that------providing a poetic genealogical account in a historicized form meant to provide a theological framework for the Hebrew people.

And so, Genesis is a different form of history in some respects from both what we do today with historical writing, as well as from how other A.N.E. cultures wrote about the world in their own Bronze Age era. It's this point that makes the difference, and there are many hurdles a person needs to confront where Critical studies are imposing before one can just jump to and say, "Here Be the Word of God!!!" Genesis may be the Word of God, and I think it is, but there's a lot that needs to be faced that can't simply we swatted away with an anti-intellectual handwave. And this applies to the Creation accounts we find in Genesis as well.

Click to expand...

Platte said:

For example I don't challenge that Gobekli Tepe exists. But the dating is far from being a fact.

Click to expand...

Platte said:

<Google AI>
There are several scientifically valid reasons why carbon-14 (C14) dating could calculate the age of Göbekli Tepe incorrectly. Archaeologists and physicists actively debate these specific limitations, vulnerabilities, and potential pitfalls. [1, 2]
The C14 dating at Göbekli Tepe could be wrong due to the following specific factors:

1. The "Old Wood" Effect

• The Problem: Carbon dating tells you exactly when an organism died, not when humans used it.
• The Error: If the builders of Göbekli Tepe burned a 400-year-old tree for charcoal, or used ancient timber to support a roof, the C14 test would date the birth of the tree rings, not the construction of the temple. This makes the site appear hundreds of years older than it actually is. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Click to expand...

Platte said:

2. Intentionally Backfilled Material

• The Problem: Göbekli Tepe is unique because its massive stone enclosures were deliberately backfilled and buried with dirt and debris near the end of their use-life. [1, 2]
• The Error: Testing organic materials (like animal bones or loose charcoal) found inside that dirt fill is highly problematic. The dirt used to bury the temples could have been scooped up from much older, pre-existing sediment layers nearby. Dating this "fill" material risks dating the ancient dirt rather than the structures themselves. [1, 2, 3]

Click to expand...

Platte said:

3. Limestone and Carbonate Contamination

• The Problem: The pillars and bedrock at Göbekli Tepe are made entirely of limestone. Limestone contains massive amounts of ancient, "dead" carbon that has completely lost its C14 over millions of years. [1, 2]
• The Error: Rainwater routinely dissolves limestone, allowing this dead carbon to leach into the surrounding soil, bone samples, and wall plaster. If a sample is contaminated with even a tiny amount of this ancient limestone carbon, the laboratory equipment will misread the ratio and artificially inflate the age, making the sample appear thousands of years older than its true age. [1, 2, 3]

Click to expand...

Platte said:

4. Flaws in the Calibration Curve

• The Problem: Because the amount of C14 in the Earth’s atmosphere fluctuates over time due to solar flares and changes in the Earth's magnetic field, raw C14 dates must be adjusted using a "calibration curve" built from ancient tree rings. [1, 2]
• The Error: The unbroken tree-ring record (dendrochronology) only goes back about 14,000 years. Göbekli Tepe sits right at the edge of this reliable tree-ring buffer. If our understanding of the atmospheric carbon levels during that specific post-Ice Age transition is slightly incorrect, the calibration formulas will automatically output an inaccurate date. [1]

Click to expand...

Platte said:

5. The Question of a Rapidly Changing Ancient World

• The Problem: The standard scientific model assumes that the decay rate of carbon has always been constant and that atmospheric changes have been gradual. [1, 2]
• The Error: Alternative historical models—such as a catastrophic global flood event—argue that massive disruptions to the planet's vegetation, oceans, and atmosphere would have radically altered the global carbon cycle overnight. Under such a scenario, the baseline ratio of C12 to C14 would have been completely different from today's assumptions, causing standard C14 calculations to misread the age by thousands of years

Click to expand...

Platte said:

For example I don't challenge that Gobekli Tepe exists. But the dating is far from being a fact.

<Google AI>
There are several scientifically valid reasons why carbon-14 (C14) dating could calculate the age of Göbekli Tepe incorrectly. Archaeologists and physicists actively debate these specific limitations, vulnerabilities, and potential pitfalls. [1, 2]
The C14 dating at Göbekli Tepe could be wrong due to the following specific factors:

1. The "Old Wood" Effect

• The Problem: Carbon dating tells you exactly when an organism died, not when humans used it.
• The Error: If the builders of Göbekli Tepe burned a 400-year-old tree for charcoal, or used ancient timber to support a roof, the C14 test would date the birth of the tree rings, not the construction of the temple. This makes the site appear hundreds of years older than it actually is. [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. Intentionally Backfilled Material

• The Problem: Göbekli Tepe is unique because its massive stone enclosures were deliberately backfilled and buried with dirt and debris near the end of their use-life. [1, 2]
• The Error: Testing organic materials (like animal bones or loose charcoal) found inside that dirt fill is highly problematic. The dirt used to bury the temples could have been scooped up from much older, pre-existing sediment layers nearby. Dating this "fill" material risks dating the ancient dirt rather than the structures themselves. [1, 2, 3]

3. Limestone and Carbonate Contamination

• The Problem: The pillars and bedrock at Göbekli Tepe are made entirely of limestone. Limestone contains massive amounts of ancient, "dead" carbon that has completely lost its C14 over millions of years. [1, 2]
• The Error: Rainwater routinely dissolves limestone, allowing this dead carbon to leach into the surrounding soil, bone samples, and wall plaster. If a sample is contaminated with even a tiny amount of this ancient limestone carbon, the laboratory equipment will misread the ratio and artificially inflate the age, making the sample appear thousands of years older than its true age. [1, 2, 3]

4. Flaws in the Calibration Curve

• The Problem: Because the amount of C14 in the Earth’s atmosphere fluctuates over time due to solar flares and changes in the Earth's magnetic field, raw C14 dates must be adjusted using a "calibration curve" built from ancient tree rings. [1, 2]
• The Error: The unbroken tree-ring record (dendrochronology) only goes back about 14,000 years. Göbekli Tepe sits right at the edge of this reliable tree-ring buffer. If our understanding of the atmospheric carbon levels during that specific post-Ice Age transition is slightly incorrect, the calibration formulas will automatically output an inaccurate date. [1]

5. The Question of a Rapidly Changing Ancient World

• The Problem: The standard scientific model assumes that the decay rate of carbon has always been constant and that atmospheric changes have been gradual. [1, 2]
• The Error: Alternative historical models—such as a catastrophic global flood event—argue that massive disruptions to the planet's vegetation, oceans, and atmosphere would have radically altered the global carbon cycle overnight. Under such a scenario, the baseline ratio of C12 to C14 would have been completely different from today's assumptions, causing standard C14 calculations to misread the age by thousands of years

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

What follows is a demonstration of why you shouldn't let an "ai" do your thinking for you...

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

Yes, and "so?". We are talking about a few hundred years at a site that dates to 10-12 thousand years old. How does this make a case for your "6000 years of history" claim?

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

A. What makes you think the dating comes from the backfill.
B. The archeological view is that the "backfill" was natural.



How does an unbroken 14,000 year record of tree rings back a 6000 year old Earth?

There was no catastrophic global flood event and your "ai" clowns itself by even suggesting variability in nuclear decay rates.


While I was double checking the age of Göbekli Tepe, the googs suggested a "bible + GT" search and the link was to some fool "biblical archeology" site that was trying to historicize "Noah's flood". SMH.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

What follows is a demonstration of why you shouldn't let an "ai" do your thinking for you...

Yes, and "so?". We are talking about a few hundred years at a site that dates to 10-12 thousand years old. How does this make a case for your "6000 years of history" claim?

A. What makes you think the dating comes from the backfill.
B. The archeological view is that the "backfill" was natural.



How does an unbroken 14,000 year record of tree rings back a 6000 year old Earth?

There was no catastrophic global flood event and your "ai" clowns itself by even suggesting variability in nuclear decay rates.


While I was double checking the age of Göbekli Tepe, the googs suggested a "bible + GT" search and the link was to some fool "biblical archeology" site that was trying to historicize "Noah's flood". SMH.

Click to expand...

Platte said:

You are entitiled to your opinion - I obviously see Genesis much different than you. The Creation account as told by Moses - given directly to him from God. The remaining work of Moses and the Old Testament - a deliberate historical account of the Jewish people to give them context of where they came from and also showing them when in their History following God let to great success....and straying from God led to failure. A good History lesson for all of us.

Click to expand...