A poll

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by atomweaver http://www.christianforums.com/t7386443-2/#post52428851
You are no student of history, I see.
Sure I am. Of BIBLICAL, CHRIST CENTERED history. Not of man's best guess of what he thinks history is.

So what about pre-Biblical history then? And how do have Christ-centred history when Christ only lived (on Earth at least) for about 30 years, and that’s assuming He lived at all.

God didn't define marriage.

HE most certainly did.

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:24

That’s not a definition of marriage.

Marriage as a secular institution predates even the Torah, never mind Christianity. The Church didn't become involved in observing marriages until the 1500's, when it served as a primitive sort of notary. Christian marriage ceremonies developed during that time.

As a Christian, I must say that the marriage of the first man and woman created by GOD kinda trumps what you believe to be secular marriage.

So unless you know of a married couple that preceded the first two people to live, GOD defined marriage.

You do realise Adam and Eve are the archetypes of humanity, not real people? There are civilisations older than the Hebrews.

Sheesh... you leave somebody with the responsibility of documenting instances of a >10,000 year old secular contract for a few hundred years, and they start acting like they invented it...

SMH. Yall and this faulty science of dating things upon the half-life of carbon.

Carbon dating is only one of the ways of establishing the age of something. There are several others, and you know what? They all give the same answers. Isn’t that funny, how independent methods all give the same answer, almost as though it was the right one? Or perhaps you can explain to all those silly scientists where they are going wrong.

 

[LittleNipper]

[/color]
So what about pre-Biblical history then? And how do have Christ-centred history when Christ only lived (on Earth at least) for about 30 years, and that’s assuming He lived at all.

That’s not a definition of marriage.


You do realise Adam and Eve are the archetypes of humanity, not real people? There are civilisations older than the Hebrews.



Carbon dating is only one of the ways of establishing the age of something. There are several others, and you know what? They all give the same answers. Isn’t that funny, how independent methods all give the same answer, almost as though it was the right one? Or perhaps you can explain to all those silly scientists where they are going wrong.

Independent methods do not all give the same answer. The data is being interpreted by groups who have been indoctrinated in evolutionary ideology. Not all scientists are wrong, just those who assume that GOD is not a factor in understanding the data we have.

The fact that you do not believe Adam was a real person but a type is your opinion. I would suggest that that opinion is necessary in order for you to indulge your sexual appetite free of guilt...

 

[Zaac]

Did you miss the part where I said that civil marriage -- registered by the secular government -- is separate from religious marriage? And must be, because of separation of Church and State.

No I didn't miss that. I understood that. I'm just saying that there is no reason for Christians to even get into that debate.

Our reasons should be the same as those given by God.

No one is trying to redefine what you or your church decides to do about ceremonies performed in your church or the meanings of the blessings attached. It is when you try to interfere with the secular laws concerning the civil contract without a compelling civil reason that we get frustrated at your density.

I don't have to have a compelling civil reason as the country, contrary to popular opinion, was founded on Judeo-Christian mores.

And those mores were instituted into the fabric of this country. So why don't the secularists come up with a compelling Biblical reason as to why Christians should get out of the way of what God says marriage is and allow secularists to rewrite the Christian mores that were grafted into our country's history for the last 300 something years?

This is nothing more than sin out of control. Is there any history throughout the annals of time of men marrying men and women marrying women? I would think not as it has just recently become the politically correct thing to push, and mankind has just recently become morally bankrupt enough to think that this too will be acceptable.

Once the Body of Christ is raptured( and you will not have to wait long), you guys feel free to marry whomever you wish.

But while the Holy Spirit is STILL restraining the man of lawlessness and the lawlessness that he embodies, it ain't happening without the Body of Christ standing firmly on God's word.

 

[Psudopod]

Independent methods do not all give the same answer. The data is being interpreted by groups who have been indoctrinated in evolutionary ideology. Not all scientists are wrong, just those who assume that GOD is not a factor in understanding the data we have.

Not at all. If you were to give someone a sample of wood, and they dated it via dendrochronolgy, they would get the same date as someone who dated it via carbon dating, even if they have never spoken to each other and knew nothing about the sample.

How would you date the sample using God?

The fact that you do not believe Adam was a real person but a type is your opinion. I would suggest that that opinion is necessary in order for you to indulge your sexual appetite free of guilt...

There are people who have been around much longer than the Hebrews, and there were their non-homo sapiens decedents before them. This is fact, and has nothing to do with my sexual appetite. (I have had precisely 1 partner in my life, and I’m not a very sexually active person anyway, though please do keep making judgements about me based on your preconceptions.)

 

[LittleNipper]

Not at all. If you were to give someone a sample of wood, and they dated it via dendrochronolgy, they would get the same date as someone who dated it via carbon dating, even if they have never spoken to each other and knew nothing about the sample.

How would you date the sample using God?



There are people who have been around much longer than the Hebrews, and there were their non-homo sapiens decedents before them. This is fact, and has nothing to do with my sexual appetite. (I have had precisely 1 partner in my life, and I’m not a very sexually active person anyway, though please do keep making judgements about me based on your preconceptions.)

Radiocarbon dating was developed on the basis of two assumptions (not established facts). In the first place, they assumed that the carbon 14 content is consistent in the carbon dioxide which is absorbed by the organism while it is living. In the second place, they believed that cosmic rays which produce carbon 14 have remained constant in our atmosphere.
In June of 1985 the Twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference met in Trondheim, Norway to discuss the flaws in radiocarbon dating. From this conference a correction curve was developed for carbon 14 dates based upon the fairly exact dating method of dendrochronology (tree ring dating). Unfortunately, there are a limited number of tree types that are suitable for providing an accurate correction curve for carbon 14 dates. The ideal tree is the Bristle Cone Pine which is only found in the buildings of ancient North American Indian sites. The oldest of the Bristle Cone Pines found are only 4600 years old. Using living samples and ancient trunks, scientists were able to develop a correction curve for radiocarbon dates going back 8200 years.20 In other words, radiocarbon dates can only be corrected as far back as 6200 B.C. Any samples that date further back than 6200 B.C. cannot be corrected, and therefore their age cannot be accurately determined.
One might wonder why corrected carbon 14 dates only go back as far as 6200 B.C. One might also question the reason there are no Bristle Cone Pines older than 4600 years. The reason may simply be that the flood occurred approximately 4600 years ago. Why can carbon 14 dates only be corrected as far back as 8200 years ago? Is it because the earth did not exist much more than 8200 years ago?
Paleontologists are reluctantly beginning to realize the limitations of radiocarbon dating. David Hurst Thomas grudgingly proclaims that radiocarbon dating is accurate when it reveals a date for an object which is within a range of just over 75,000 years ago.21 Unfortunately, he is still in denial of the facts. However, he at least recognizes that radiocarbon dating cannot be used to prove that ancient “primitive man” goes back 4 million, or even 100,000 years ago.
Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution
By Brett A. Rutherford

 

[Zaac]

Radiocarbon dating was developed on the basis of two assumptions (not established facts). In the first place, they assumed that the carbon 14 content is consistent in the carbon dioxide which is absorbed by the organism while it is living. In the second place, they believed that cosmic rays which produce carbon 14 have remained constant in our atmosphere.
In June of 1985 the Twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference met in Trondheim, Norway to discuss the flaws in radiocarbon dating. From this conference a correction curve was developed for carbon 14 dates based upon the fairly exact dating method of dendrochronology (tree ring dating). Unfortunately, there are a limited number of tree types that are suitable for providing an accurate correction curve for carbon 14 dates. The ideal tree is the Bristle Cone Pine which is only found in the buildings of ancient North American Indian sites. The oldest of the Bristle Cone Pines found are only 4600 years old. Using living samples and ancient trunks, scientists were able to develop a correction curve for radiocarbon dates going back 8200 years.20 In other words, radiocarbon dates can only be corrected as far back as 6200 B.C. Any samples that date further back than 6200 B.C. cannot be corrected, and therefore their age cannot be accurately determined.
One might wonder why corrected carbon 14 dates only go back as far as 6200 B.C. One might also question the reason there are no Bristle Cone Pines older than 4600 years. The reason may simply be that the flood occurred approximately 4600 years ago. Why can carbon 14 dates only be corrected as far back as 8200 years ago? Is it because the earth did not exist much more than 8200 years ago?
Paleontologists are reluctantly beginning to realize the limitations of radiocarbon dating. David Hurst Thomas grudgingly proclaims that radiocarbon dating is accurate when it reveals a date for an object which is within a range of just over 75,000 years ago.21 Unfortunately, he is still in denial of the facts. However, he at least recognizes that radiocarbon dating cannot be used to prove that ancient “primitive man” goes back 4 million, or even 100,000 years ago.
Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution
By Brett A. Rutherford

I've been trying to explain to folks for years how faulty a science carbon-dating is. They think things should be a certain age and that's where scientist attempt to age those things to.

 

[atomweaver]

Sure I am. Of BIBLICAL, CHRIST CENTERED history. Not of man's best guess of what he thinks history is.

Do you consider that to be an exhaustive list?

Liek pseudopod, I'm mildly curious, How does one "Christ-center" pre-Christian history? Sounds like religiously-motivated, revisionist ad-hocery to me. (But then, ad hoc is the modern US evangelical movement in a nutshell...)

HE most certainly did.

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:24

Nowhere in your quote does it say God invented the institution, it gives motivation for the institution to exist, only. The rest is your interpretation of a Post-hoc definition for what had been going on for millenia. Hammurabi's Code beat the Torah to the first description of marriage by hundreds of years.

One wonders why it took thousands of years for Christians to get around to even bothering to document what evangelicals now consider to be an institution of their exclusive purview...

As a Christian, I must say that the marriage of the first man and woman created by GOD kinda trumps what you believe to be secular marriage.

As a non-Christian, I must say that you do a disservice to your own faith, by interpreting Adam and Eve in such a plain, mundane perspective of them merely being the first two people. Further, since we have equal rights under the law, your personal religious opinions trump nothing with respect to my rights.

So unless you know of a married couple that preceded the first two people to live, GOD defined marriage.

You forgot "'cause the Bible sez..." I reject your assumption of historical authority of the Bible.

SMH. Yall and this faulty science of dating things upon the half-life of carbon.

Do you think that is an exhaustive list of dating methods?

This is some tough talk coming from a guy whose preferred "method" is to date events post-Hoc from whenever somebody gets around to writing it down...

 

[atomweaver]

I've been trying to explain to folks for years how faulty a science carbon-dating is.

Have you ever attempted radiocarbon dating, or any other radio isotope method, or are you just another armchair wannabe?

They think things should be a certain age and that's where scientist attempt to age those things to.

No, they don't. That would be your method; you think things should be a certain age because of how you interpret your Bible, and that's what age you believe them to be.

But by all means, keep relying on your Cliff's Notes;

If you cannot handle the Magnum Opus;

You can slide by the course on the Cliff's Notes, just fine...

 

[OllieFranz]

No I didn't miss that. I understood that. I'm just saying that there is no reason for Christians to even get into that debate.

Our reasons should be the same as those given by God.

If you are talking about marriages sanctioned in your church, I fully agree with you. But neither you nor you church can tell a couple from a different religious or philosophical framework that their marriage is invalid.

I don't have to have a compelling civil reason as the country, contrary to popular opinion, was founded on Judeo-Christian mores.

And those mores were instituted into the fabric of this country. So why don't the secularists come up with a compelling Biblical reason as to why Christians should get out of the way of what God says marriage is and allow secularists to rewrite the Christian mores that were grafted into our country's history for the last 300 something years?

Whatever you want to claim about the beliefs of the framers of the Constitution, what they wrote into that document were certain guarantees. More guarantees were written in shortly after the Civil War, and case law has understood those guarantees to require that any entanglement with religion or any abridgment of rights guaranteed to all citizens be proven to have a compelling civil reason --an urgent need of the state to ignore the rules. "God does not want my church to marry gays" is not a compelling civil reason, and certainly not an urgent need.

Once again, it is a civil contract, guaranteed to all citizens, that you are trying to deny. It is separate from your religious ceremonies.

This is nothing more than sin out of control.

I don't agree that civil marriage for same-sex couples is sin, but even if it were, the government cannot regulate sin, only crime (and in civil cases contract enforcement), and it must do so fairly to all people no matter what belief system, race, ethnic background, age, sex, sexual orientation, sexual identity, etc.

Is there any history throughout the annals of time of men marrying men and women marrying women? I would think not as it has just recently become the politically correct thing to push, and mankind has just recently become morally bankrupt enough to think that this too will be acceptable.

The same arguments were made against abolishing slavery, against anti-Semitism, against prejudicial practices concerning the Irish, against inter-racial marriage, against the repeal of Jim Crow laws, against civil rights for Blacks, against civil rights for women, basically against every attempt to live up to the promises guaranteed in the Constitution.

Once the Body of Christ is raptured( and you will not have to wait long), you guys feel free to marry whomever you wish.

But while the Holy Spirit is STILL restraining the man of lawlessness and the lawlessness that he embodies, it ain't happening without the Body of Christ standing firmly on God's word.

You can stand firmly on what you believe God said, but you can't stand the Constitution on its head. The First Amendment clearly forbids establishing a state religion, and just as clearly forbids using the government to curtail the right of non-Christians to live their lives differently from Christians, just because you believe they are sinning.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Voted that I disagree with both statemets: both are easily disproven assertion unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

 

[Zaac]

Do you consider that to be an exhaustive list?

Liek pseudopod, I'm mildly curious, How does one "Christ-center" pre-Christian history? Sounds like religiously-motivated, revisionist ad-hocery to me. (But then, ad hoc is the modern US evangelical movement in a nutshell...)

I would ask you a similar question: If everything ever created IS because Christ created it, then how do you pre-Christ date the One Who created everything?

Nowhere in your quote does it say God invented the institution, it gives motivation for the institution to exist, only. The rest is your interpretation of a Post-hoc definition for what had been going on for millenia. Hammurabi's Code beat the Torah to the first description of marriage by hundreds of years.

Why don't you speak English and save the ad hocs for the next philosophy class?

If that was the beginning of creation, the quote didn't need to say God invented the institution. Nothing else preceded it so it's obvious that He created the institution. Hammurabi's Code couldn't precede Adam and Eve because there was no Hammurabi before Adam and Eve.

One wonders why it took thousands of years for Christians to get around to even bothering to document what evangelicals now consider to be an institution of their exclusive purview...

It's been around since the beginning of creation. One might ask the question why it took scientists so long to come up with their foolish way of dating things in such a way that they think the earth is older than the One Who created it says it is?

As a non-Christian, I must say that you do a disservice to your own faith, by interpreting Adam and Eve in such a plain, mundane perspective of them merely being the first two people. Further, since we have equal rights under the law, your personal religious opinions trump nothing with respect to my rights.

As a Christian, I must say that I am to be aligned with Jesus Christ, not with those who reject Him and think that I am doing Him a disservice.

You forgot "'cause the Bible sez..." I reject your assumption of historical authority of the Bible.

You're a nonbeliever. I reject your assumption of historical authority because you reject the Creator of the universe.

Do you think that is an exhaustive list of dating methods?

Yall can come with as many dating methods as you like. The only one that matters is the One God gives in His word.

This is some tough talk coming from a guy whose preferred "method" is to date events post-Hoc from whenever somebody gets around to writing it down...

Well you know, it must be the pink shirt I'm wearing today that has folks questioning my toughness.

 

[Texas Lynn]

...we are slowly but surely getting folks to see that God says nothing about orientation but does speak to homosexual ACTS as sinful.

I do not believe this is so. No evidence exists that God says anything about either.

 

[Zaac]

I do not believe this is so. No evidence exists that God says anything about either.

The only way for the evidence not to exist is to throw out His word.

 

[Texas Lynn]

The only way for the evidence not to exist is to throw out His word.

Explain. No one's advocating throwing out Christ.

 

[Texas Lynn]

BTW, Adam and Eve are not historical figures. Hammurabi is.

 

[Psudopod]

Radiocarbon dating was developed on the basis of two assumptions (not established facts). In the first place, they assumed that the carbon 14 content is consistent in the carbon dioxide which is absorbed by the organism while it is living. In the second place, they believed that cosmic rays which produce carbon 14 have remained constant in our atmosphere.
In June of 1985 the Twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference met in Trondheim, Norway to discuss the flaws in radiocarbon dating. From this conference a correction curve was developed for carbon 14 dates based upon the fairly exact dating method of dendrochronology (tree ring dating). Unfortunately, there are a limited number of tree types that are suitable for providing an accurate correction curve for carbon 14 dates. The ideal tree is the Bristle Cone Pine which is only found in the buildings of ancient North American Indian sites. The oldest of the Bristle Cone Pines found are only 4600 years old. Using living samples and ancient trunks, scientists were able to develop a correction curve for radiocarbon dates going back 8200 years.20 In other words, radiocarbon dates can only be corrected as far back as 6200 B.C. Any samples that date further back than 6200 B.C. cannot be corrected, and therefore their age cannot be accurately determined.
One might wonder why corrected carbon 14 dates only go back as far as 6200 B.C. One might also question the reason there are no Bristle Cone Pines older than 4600 years. The reason may simply be that the flood occurred approximately 4600 years ago. Why can carbon 14 dates only be corrected as far back as 8200 years ago? Is it because the earth did not exist much more than 8200 years ago?
Paleontologists are reluctantly beginning to realize the limitations of radiocarbon dating. David Hurst Thomas grudgingly proclaims that radiocarbon dating is accurate when it reveals a date for an object which is within a range of just over 75,000 years ago.21 Unfortunately, he is still in denial of the facts. However, he at least recognizes that radiocarbon dating cannot be used to prove that ancient “primitive man” goes back 4 million, or even 100,000 years ago.
Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution
By Brett A. Rutherford

So you think this is news to scientists that carbon-14 values fluctuate? You don't think they check this sort of thing? Well news for you, they do. Have a look into some real science.

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating

CD011.1: Carbon-14 Variability

For a start, dendrochronology is not the only method of calibrating C14 data.

 

[LittleNipper]

Have you ever attempted radiocarbon dating, or any other radio isotope method, or are you just another armchair wannabe?



No, they don't. That would be your method; you think things should be a certain age because of how you interpret your Bible, and that's what age you believe them to be.

But by all means, keep relying on your Cliff's Notes;

If you cannot handle the Magnum Opus;

You can slide by the course on the Cliff's Notes, just fine...

Let me provide you with an example of how uniformitarian "scientists" distort the truth and not really realize that they are doing exactly that.
A creation science group gave specimens of lava that was thrown out of a volcano say 50 years ago.

This group dated the specimens hundreds of thousands of years old. When the truth was revealed, the so-called authorities on the subject cried foul. They said that different tests would be done on younger specimens...

Now that sounds reasonable, until one realizes that no one can be sure if such things they are looking at are actually fairly young or very old. THEY ARE MAKING PRESUMPTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS FOUND WITHOUT ACTUAL RECORDED HISTORY ATTACHED.

The presumption being that the event didn't occur unobserved 500, 1000. or 6000 years ago.

 

[Psudopod]

Let me provide you with an example of how uniformitarian "scientists" distort the truth and not really realize that they are doing exactly that.
A creation science group gave specimens of lava that was thrown out of a volcano say 50 years ago.

This group dated the specimens hundreds of thousands of years old. When the truth was revealed, the so-called authorities on the subject cried foul. They said that different tests would be done on younger specimens...

Now that sounds reasonable, until one realizes that no one can be sure if such things they are looking at are actually fairly young or very old. THEY ARE MAKING PRESUMPTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS FOUND WITHOUT ACTUAL RECORDED HISTORY ATTACHED.

The presumption being that the event didn't occur unobserved 500, 1000. or 6000 years ago.

LN, if someone gave you a meter rule and asked you to measure the width of a human hair, would you expect an acurate result? Likewise, would you measure the length of a road with a microscope?

Different tools have different uses, and anyone who knows what they were doing would use the right one. If the creationists had said "here's so recent lava, can you date if for us," they would have been given the correct test and the correct answer. They lied to the lab, and then looked smug about having a wrong answer. Real scientists would have used evidence to get a rough idea and then radioactive dating to get a precise one. For example a lava flow in iceland has been dated to within 2 years, because a rough date could be established using a settlement, and then radioactive dating to get the precise figures. This can only happen because scientists (real scientists not people with an agenda) look with an understanding of what is happening (ie lava flow over the foundation of a house means the lava is younger than the house), and look at evidence, rather than their preconcieved notions.

 

[Zaac]

I am just forever dumbfounded at how folks insist we can't trust God's word because it was written by men, yet we are always so quick to trust the science of the same men.

I'm a Christian. I trust the word of the Creator of ALL things over man's attempt to explain what He created.

 

[Psudopod]

I am just forever dumbfounded at how folks insist we can't trust God's word because it was written by men, yet we are always so quick to trust the science of the same men.

The difference is evidence. If something conflicts with the weight of evidence, why should we accept it?