6 Day Creation Is A Lie Because.....

[notto]

Today at 09:09 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #26

In other words they pick the best ''test'' date based on the type of rock they are testing...

Not quite. They know the limitation of various testing methods and will select two or three that are appropriate for the type of material they are testing. Several methods are often used to show correclation and accuracy of the dates.

The methods are calibrated through several independent methods. The link I posted above discusses in detail how this is done and why claims of radiometric dating methods being questionable are unfounded. Repeatability of observation and independence between different dating methods provide a consistency and accuracy that makes this type of dating reliable. If you simply dismiss the results of these methods and experiments, you would have to dismiss many other methods of scientific discovery as well. Dismissing a particular scientific testing method because you don't want to deal with the results is not a reasonable approach. These testing methods are as methodological and accurate as other types of tests done by experimenters every day, yet those methods and results are not called into question by the same people who deny the results of dating methods.

 

[Follower of Christ]

"Not quite. "


FOC:

This is EXACTLY the point I try to make.

Its ALL SPECUALTION. Period

 

[notto]

Today at 03:27 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #28

"Not quite. "


FOC:

This is EXACTLY the point I try to make.

Its ALL SPECUALTION. Period

I guess you consider the following "speculation" as well, no matter how accurate or reliable it becomes
- weather forcasting
- geology prospecting (knowing where the oil is)
- blood testing
- pharmaceutical testing
- flood control models and methodology
- space travel navigation and projection

All of these are based on "speculation" and if the proper methods are not applied and their limitations known, invalid results will happen. That is why scientists determine the proper methods and procedures that produce valid and repeatable results. There is no difference between how radio dating is done and thousands of other methods of scientific data analysis. You simply dismiss the valid results because it conflicts with your world view.

Please point out the errors in the methodology described in the detailed description of radio dating provided. The article discusses the limitations and validity of dating methods in detail. There is no "speculation" involved, only extrapolation within expected error. No different than any scientific methodology.

 

[Follower of Christ]

FOC:
These are are based on specualtion, I agree.
And a Doctors incorrect ''speculation'' and arrogance in adhering to it nearly cost me my life.

Its very humorous how you evolutionists try to equate the sciences above with unprovable ''theory''.

Where do you get that because I go for a blood test that I should take the leap into believing that me and some chimp at the zoo has the same grandparents ??
Thats the exact problem with evolution.
We accept most of science with open arms so You think I should let you jam evolution on me?
I am sorry, evolution is NOT the basis for anything.
Its an issue after the fact.



notto;
You simply dismiss the valid results because it conflicts with your world view.



Foc:
MY world view?!?
Thats rich. I am the one sticking to the Biblical view. YOURS is the worlds view.



As for pointing out errors in the dating methods, Good Lord, Do I need to go find every single site I have been to in the last 2 years and post them here?
Quite an extensive list of blunders in dating method could be placed here and you know it.
Please dont have me waste both of our times as I am POSITIVE the errors have all been pointed out to you before.

The thing is even if I did feel the need to waste my time and present evidence here as I so ignorantly did when debating atheists, you would just spend another 4 hours coming up with excuse after excuse as to why the evidence I present is faulty.
So whats the point?

I am not interested in the least anymore in convincing YOU or any other evolutionist.
I only come here to try to point some that may be looking for the real truth in the right direction

 

[notto]

Yesterday at 10:10 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #30


FOC:
These are are based on specualtion, I agree.
And a Doctors incorrect ''speculation'' and arrogance in adhering to it nearly cost me my life.

Its very humorous how you evolutionists try to equate the sciences above with unprovable ''theory''.

Where do you get that because I go for a blood test that I should take the leap into believing that me and some chimp at the zoo has the same grandparents ??
Thats the exact problem with evolution.
We accept most of science with open arms so You think I should let you jam evolution on me?
I am sorry, evolution is NOT the basis for anything.
Its an issue after the fact.



notto;
You simply dismiss the valid results because it conflicts with your world view.



Foc:
MY world view?!?
Thats rich. I am the one sticking to the Biblical view. YOURS is the worlds view.



As for pointing out errors in the dating methods, Good Lord, Do I need to go find every single site I have been to in the last 2 years and post them here?
Quite an extensive list of blunders in dating method could be placed here and you know it.
Please dont have me waste both of our times as I am POSITIVE the errors have all been pointed out to you before.

The thing is even if I did feel the need to waste my time and present evidence here as I so ignorantly did when debating atheists, you would just spend another 4 hours coming up with excuse after excuse as to why the evidence I present is faulty.
So whats the point?

I am not interested in the least anymore in convincing YOU or any other evolutionist.
I only come here to try to point some that may be looking for the real truth in the right direction

How about you just post one problem with dating methods that show
1) The proper method was used based on the known limitations
2) An invalid date was given
3) Multiple properly used dating methods giving different results

If you aren't interested in discussing evidence, what is your point? Should we just take your word on dating without any evidence to back up your position? Why?

 

[Follower of Christ]

Did you by chance see the last 4 or 5 sentences of the post you quoted?

 

[notto]

Sure did, I just don't see how you can continue to come here, say mainstream science is wrong, and then refuse to discuss the evidence or present any to back up you claims but, I guess that is up to you. If you want to continue to post completely content free, that is your choice. We will just have to ignore your claims that you can present valid evidence for a young earth and discuss it.

I on the other hand, will continue to present information with my posts. I will correct misunderstandings of mainstream science when they come up. I will continue to show evidence that shows that a young earth has been falsified. I will continue to question the sources used by young earth creationists and show how they are flawed. I, like you, want to make sure that believers don't make the mistake of being swayed by bad science or pseudo-science.

 

[wblastyn]

These are are based on specualtion, I agree.
And a Doctors incorrect ''speculation'' and arrogance in adhering to it nearly cost me my life.

Then why don't you treat your own illnesses since you know better than those "speculating" doctors.

Its very humorous how you evolutionists try to equate the sciences above with unprovable ''theory'

Will you please LEARN somehting about evolution and stop spouting your ignorance over these boards.

As for pointing out errors in the dating methods, Good Lord, Do I need to go find every single site I have been to in the last 2 years and post them here?
Quite an extensive list of blunders in dating method could be placed here and you know it.
Please dont have me waste both of our times as I am POSITIVE the errors have all been pointed out to you before.

Then why don't you come up with better dating methods.

The thing is even if I did feel the need to waste my time and present evidence here as I so ignorantly did when debating atheists, you would just spend another 4 hours coming up with excuse after excuse as to why the evidence I present is faulty.

Did it ever occur to you that the "evidence" you have is flawed and that those "excuses" the evil atheists come up with are actually real evidence that debunks your "evidence".

I am not interested in the least anymore in convincing YOU or any other evolutionist.

Good, because all you've done here is convinced us of your ignorance and insulted anyone who doesn't believe the same thing you do.

I only come here to try to point some that may be looking for the real truth in the right direction

I'm all for truth finding, I just don't think it's found in creationism. I used to be a creationist, and read all the "evidence" for creationism, etc but then I decided to look at what evolution really is, and it's not what you think. All the so-called creationist "evidence" has been debunked by real scientists.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 06:47 AM notto said this in Post #34

Sure did, I just don't see how you can continue to come here, say mainstream science is wrong, and then refuse to discuss the evidence or present any to back up you claims but, I guess that is up to you. If you want to continue to post completely content free, that is your choice. We will just have to ignore your claims that you can present valid evidence for a young earth and discuss it.

I on the other hand, will continue to present information with my posts. I will correct misunderstandings of mainstream science when they come up. I will continue to show evidence that shows that a young earth has been falsified. I will continue to question the sources used by young earth creationists and show how they are flawed. I, like you, want to make sure that believers don't make the mistake of being swayed by bad science or pseudo-science.

NOTTO:

I will clarify this one more time for you. There is no separate evidence.
YOUR ''evidence'' is the same as mine, I just realize that it fits into the Bibles account.

Its also amusing how if creationists say that some particular aspect of creation isnt quite understood by us yet, you all will try to say that it proves your views.
BUT when secular scientists dont completely understand something (the strong force of an atomic nucleus) its fine for them, OR they just throw a label on it (strong force) and pretend its all perfectly scientific even though it still isnt totally understood.

Funny thing about science is just about the time they swear under God that thier ''FACTS'' are valid, someone comes along a blows the whole thing out of the water with another ''FACT''.

In 10 years this whole evolution thing could be dismissed by current theory and then where will your little ego be?

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 08:14 AM wblastyn said this in Post #35


Then why don't you treat your own illnesses since you know better than those "speculating" doctors.


Will you please LEARN somehting about evolution and stop spouting your ignorance over these boards.


Then why don't you come up with better dating methods.


Did it ever occur to you that the "evidence" you have is flawed and that those "excuses" the evil atheists come up with are actually real evidence that debunks your "evidence".


Good, because all you've done here is convinced us of your ignorance and insulted anyone who doesn't believe the same thing you do.


I'm all for truth finding, I just don't think it's found in creationism. I used to be a creationist, and read all the "evidence" for creationism, etc but then I decided to look at what evolution really is, and it's not what you think. All the so-called creationist "evidence" has been debunked by real scientists.

So in saying you're not a creationist, I assume you're now an athiest.
That being the case, your mind would be darkened anyway and you will believe any lie presented to you.
If you dont approve of my POV, you are welcome to not waste your time respnding as I will start doing for you immediately.

 

[Crusadar]

FoC, Your not alone on this. I am with you my brother. I too am a YeC. I think that in order to understand why people have fallen for the lie of evolution we must go deeper than regurgitating what fallible men are saying or have said about the topic. We must begin with the infallible word of God and then defend our position on why we believe in the literal account of Genesis. Remember we must always begin with the absolute authority of the word of God, because the Truth of God will set us free from the bondage of sin and death.

From my perspective what compels me to absolutely reject the ToE is that it undermines the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How does it do that? Simple, Why do we need Jesus? Because of SIN. What is sin? Man's rebellion of God. Where does it describe an account of this rebellion? GENESIS.

Death and suffering is the result of sin. To accept the idea that the God of the Bible (the supreme God of the universe) used pain and suffering as a means of creating (as seen in the fossil record) is NONESENSE of the highest degree. For it is written that after He created everything He said that “it was very good”. Would He have said this if it was already full of death and suffering. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

"He who throws dirt loses ground."

---------------------------------------------------------

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 [KJV]

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 09:29 AM Crusadar said this in Post #38

FoC, Your not alone on this. I am with you my brother. I too am a YeC. I think that in order to understand why people have fallen for the lie of evolution we must go deeper than regurgitating what fallible men are saying or have said about the topic. We must begin with the infallible word of God and then defend our position on why we believe in the literal account of Genesis. Remember we must always begin with the absolute authority of the word of God, because the Truth of God will set us free from the bondage of sin and death.

From my perspective what compels me to absolutely reject the ToE is that it undermines the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How does it do that? Simple, Why do we need Jesus? Because of SIN. What is sin? Man's rebellion of God. Where does it describe an account of this rebellion? GENESIS.

Death and suffering is the result of sin. To accept the idea that the God of the Bible (the supreme God of the universe) used pain and suffering as a means of creating (as seen in the fossil record) is NONESENSE of the highest degree. For it is written that after He created everything He said that “it was very good”. Would He have said this if it was already full of death and suffering. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Thanks. I have really been to points where I am beginning to wonder if evolution has not, as the leaven of the Pharisees, worked through the entirety of christianity.

I was not immediately concerned until I started seeing that most Christians I converse with are evolutionists.
And then to see thier view of God, Christ and salvation It becomes apparent that when evolution gets added to the mix, compromise of all scripture isnt far off.

 

[Crusadar]

Today at 02:58 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #39

And then to see thier view of God, Christ and salvation It becomes apparent that when evolution gets added to the mix, compromise of all scripture isnt far off.

Yes, too often men are willingly ignorant of the Truth even when it is plain as day, for men love the darkness rather than the light. It is not because of their level of intelligence but because of spiritual blindness and the sinful nature of man. For men often value themselves in the eyes of other men rather than in the righteousness of the almighty God. I too have fallen into that slough of despond when I have set my eyes on men and not God, but I am now back on my feet now and on my way to that celestial city - looking only at the light of Christ as my guide and not what men say.

Do not be discouraged my brother, for the journey to that celestial city must be made alone - for I cannot bring you, nor you I - for we must all make the journey individually. Often it is a lonely journey and we will not know if we have made it until we have crossed that river of death, but if we hold fast to the word of God as our guide we will reach that city.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

"He who throws dirt loses ground."

---------------------------------------------------------

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 [KJV]

 

[Crusadar]

As I have often told my Christian friends who are proponents of theistic evolution that it is not my intention to break up the house of God - for a house divided cannot stand. However what does this tell non Christians who scoff at the very idea that a god who would use pain and suffering as a process of creating this universe is a god no better than those worshipped by the Greeks and the Romans and want no part in believing such a god. I definetly do not think that the Godof the Bible is like that,  He is God, and most of all He is a God of Love.

Am I being intellectually dishonest when I talk about God and science at the same time? ABSOLUTELY NOT And can the Bible be trusted when it touches on the creation? ABSOLUTELY.

Take for example the Neo Darwinian formula for life and the creation formula for life:

Matter + Time + Energy = Life [Neo Darwinian]

Matter + Energy + Concept (Logos, Idea, Thought) = Life [Creation]

As a scientist can you truthfully say that you can work with the ND formula for life? Can you make a machine - much less a biochemical machine such as the simplest of living organisms of any sort by using the ND formula? Has there been evidence of LIFE arising by this method in the last two hundred years or so by natural processes? NO, NEVER HAVE.

Notice: By life I am refering to a living, reproducing, regenerating, self sustaining organism, not mere amino acids and enzymes. 


---------------------------------------------------------

"He who throws dirt loses ground."

---------------------------------------------------------

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 [KJV]

  

 

 

[wblastyn]

So in saying you're not a creationist, I assume you're now an athiest.
That being the case, your mind would be darkened anyway and you will believe any lie presented to you.
If you dont approve of my POV, you are welcome to not waste your time respnding as I will start doing for you immediately.

No, I'm not an atheist, I'm a Christian. A Creationist is someone who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis, someone who believes in "creation" believe God made everything but does not say how. So I believe in creation, but not creationism.

 

[Ray Cho]

Today at 09:29 AM Crusadar said this in Post #38

Death and suffering is the result of sin. To accept the idea that the God of the Bible (the supreme God of the universe) used pain and suffering as a means of creating (as seen in the fossil record) is NONESENSE of the highest degree. For it is written that after He created everything He said that “it was very good”. Would He have said this if it was already full of death and suffering. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I am assuming that the basis for this argument is Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned."  Note, however, that Paul said that death passed upon all men.  He says nothing about animals dying.

As for God declaring His creation "very good," it seems a bit of a stretch to interpret this passage to mean that animals were initially created to live forever, and were exempted from the life-death cycle until Adam's sin.

This notion of a "perfect" creation before Adam's fall (which I was also taught growing up -- by very godly men) has very little actual scriptural foundation.  As much as we would like to think that this was the case, I have not found anything in the Bible to absolutely support this idea.  Even Romans 8:19-23 does not explicitly state this if you read the old KJV, which uses the word creature instead of creation.

 

 

[Crusadar]

Today at 02:34 AM Ray Cho said this in Post #43

I am assuming that the basis for this argument is Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned."  Note, however, that Paul said that death passed upon all men.  He says nothing about animals dying.

I was refering to Genesis 2:17

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

And we know the rest of the story. Remember however later on it says in Romans 8:22  "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." I won't get into an argument of exegeses of scripture with you, because I am not a theologian nor do I claim to have scriptural authority. However the point I am making here is that when we let our own interpretations of the Bible intefere with the what the Bible is really saying then we are bound misunderstand, instead allow the Holy Spirit to reveal to us the truth.

As for God declaring His creation "very good," it seems a bit of a stretch to interpret this passage to mean that animals were initially created to live forever, and were exempted from the life-death cycle until Adam's sin.

That is exactly what I am saying. Why wouldn't it be a perfect creation? Would not a perfect creator create a perfect world where pain death and suffering did not exist? We are talking about God here now, an infinitely powerful and wise creator. It makes no sense at all to imagine that God would allow pain, suffering and death in His creation if He is the God of Love that He claims to be.

This notion of a "perfect" creation before Adam's fall (which I was also taught growing up -- by very godly men) has very little actual scriptural foundation.  As much as we would like to think that this was the case, I have not found anything in the Bible to absolutely support this idea.  Even Romans 8:19-23 does not explicitly state this if you read the old KJV, which uses the word creature instead of creation.

If you are looking for absolute proof of this you will not find it until you are right with God.  For if we cannot believe in all that the scripture teaches than why believe in any at all?

 

[Alessandro]

Check www.answersingenesis.org , I hear it is a good source for information regarding the topics of Creation and evolution.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 12:24 AM Alessandro said this in Post #45

Check www.answersingenesis.org , I hear it is a good source for information regarding the topics of Creation and evolution.

It is a good source but your hardcore evolutionists in here call it pseudoscience as it disagrees with their views

 

[Alessandro]

Well that means it works. Let them try to handle this one first then we can hit them with the hardcore stuff later.