Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation

[Job 33:6]

So, what standard do you use for an instrument to calibrate it for reading at 50 million years? Just where did you get this sample that is KNOWN to be that age...

I'll tell you.. the sample is presumed or came from some other "old" rocks........

It's not a known sample... its speculation based on assumption and extrapolation.

It would not pass as a certifiable standard in my lab....

Excuse me, what laboratory doesnt use QC samples? To answer the question, you use artificial concentrations.

Hold on, this is ridiculous. Youre just making stuff up, you wouldnt even use a 50 million year old object to calibrate for radiocarbon dating. that doesnt make any sense.

Youre just spreading false information.

 

[JacksBratt]

Excuse me, what laboratory doesnt use QC samples? To answer the question, you use artificial concentrations.

Hold on, this is ridiculous. Youre just making stuff up, you wouldnt even use a 50 million year old object to calibrate for radiocarbon dating. that doesnt make any sense.

Youre just spreading false information.

No.... we use known, certified samples, not artificial standards, in order to calibrate our instruments. We use blanks and standards in order to ensure that our instruments are reading accurate and certifiable values.....

How on earth are you going to measure the date of an object if you cannot even calibrate it?

And.........like I said, the further you go from the known calibrated, certified value, the further off and the greater the deviation of the accuracy of the instrument.

Carbon dating is a THEORY and nothing else. All it would take is for one scientist to discover one little, now unknown factor, and the whole thing would fall like a house of cards.

But, that will never happen. If someone discovered an error in the method of carbon dating, that rendered it inaccurate, they would have to keep their mouth shut or face loss of accreditation, condescension, ridicule and face the unemployment line.

 

[Halbhh]

Thanx for your input but God has numbers, times and time periods noted and relevant all through his Word from the beginning of time to the end of time ..

Relevant is a good word -- we learn about actual time periods when they are relevant.

I think the reason the amount of time that passed during verse 1, before the first 'day' on Earth, is not listed is because it is not relevant to us in terms of the message of Genesis chapter 1. That message isn't an irrelevant message about mere time duration, but instead a profound message with meaning.

None of this is important except only when a young person of weak faith could be lost because a church taught them no time passed during verse 1 or little time, and astronomy shows that billions of years passed before the Earth came into existence.

Right now, today, I think there are millions that have lost faith for exactly this reason, alone. They heard a message from the Old Testament preached a certain way, but didn't get enough of the actual words of Christ in the gospels, and their faith then failed.

Hopefully though, even a church teaching something speculative like that zero or little time passed during verse 1 will still hopefully preach the actual gospel -- the content of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And Genesis chapter 1 will be very little of their preaching, since the Good News is our main duty. Then that key message, that of Christ will not only take precedence, but be our main and only real message, as we are instructed by Him.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

and astronomy shows that billions of years passed before the Earth came into existence.

Regardless (of any or no time),
if a no-faith, weak-faith, or strong-faith person places any faith in astronomy,
they will not endure to the end to be saved.

 

[Halbhh]

Regardless (of any or no time),
if a no-faith, weak-faith, or strong-faith person places any faith in astronomy,
they will not endure to the end to be saved.

Totally agree. Only hearing and doing Christ's words to us will be a sound basis for faith.

Science is at best observation and hypothesis and testing, and theory. None of those are faith. Some people do indeed place a kind of faith in science. That's not a good choice.

But if you or I look and visibly see a bright star 20,000 light years away in the Milky Way Galaxy, or a nova 2 million light years away in Andromeda Galaxy, those are simply direct observations. Just looking, seeing. Triangulation. Parallax works out to 7,500 light years, and we have learned the brightness of certain types of stars, such as Cepheid variables, that are within that range. (notice additionally that stars without detectable parallax are necessarily further than the 7,500 light year limit....) We can calculate how far away certain specific types of stars must be based on their apparent brightness. There isn't faith either way on that.

This is similar seeing a light bulb of known brightness out in space through a telescope and measuring the light and then calculating the distance based on the apparent brightness we can observe. It's not a faith question in any sense.

We both put our faith in God and Christ and the Spirit, and rely on Christ for our salvation, and never on any theories, not even theories about time durations in Genesis verse 1.

 

[Job 33:6]

No.... we use known, certified samples, not artificial standards, in order to calibrate our instruments. We use blanks and standards in order to ensure that our instruments are reading accurate and certifiable values.....

How on earth are you going to measure the date of an object if you cannot even calibrate it?

And.........like I said, the further you go from the known calibrated, certified value, the further off and the greater the deviation of the accuracy of the instrument.

Carbon dating is a THEORY and nothing else. All it would take is for one scientist to discover one little, now unknown factor, and the whole thing would fall like a house of cards.

But, that will never happen. If someone discovered an error in the method of carbon dating, that rendered it inaccurate, they would have to keep their mouth shut or face loss of accreditation, condescension, ridicule and face the unemployment line.

There are numerous examples of correlated results from independent laboratories using independent dating methods for the K-T boundary.

You can call it all made up if you want, but the data says otherwise.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Regardless (of any or no time),
if a no-faith, weak-faith, or strong-faith person places any faith in astronomy,
they will not endure to the end to be saved.

The NT teaches us that we are saved by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (+/- works - a topic for another thread), not by how we interpret Genesis.

Therefore, I am quite comfortable believing in science, including evolution, and having strong faith. I certainly do not think that I will be condemned due to my evolutionist tendencies, even even I am wrong.

 

[JacksBratt]

There are numerous examples of correlated results from independent laboratories using independent dating methods for the K-T boundary.

You can call it all made up if you want, but the data says otherwise.

You cannot certify that an item is millions of years old by any instrument because you have absolutely no known specimen that is certifiable as being that age... not even one..... it is all built on a foundation of sand.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The NT teaches us that we are saved by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ

Nothing else.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You cannot certify that an item is millions of years old by any instrument because you have absolutely no known specimen that is certifiable as being that age... not even one..... it is all built on a foundation of sand.

Amein,
and
when the storm comes,
the house built on sand
gets washed away.

 

[Halbhh]

Nothing else.

The key first step, and always the cornerstone.

Then, Hearing and doing His words are what we must have to endure --

24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.
26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

We take Him at His word -- without doing His commands we will fall down "with a great crash".

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Nothing else.

That's my point.

I have faith in Jesus. This is unaffected by my belief in evolution, astronomy, science. This is why I believe I am saved.

Your earlier post stated that belief in astronomy precluded salvation regardless of faith in Jesus.

 

[Halbhh]

The NT teaches us that we are saved by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (+/- works - a topic for another thread), not by how we interpret Genesis.

Therefore, I am quite comfortable believing in science, including evolution, and having strong faith. I certainly do not think that I will be condemned due to my evolutionist tendencies, even even I am wrong.

Exactly correct. We then put our faith into action as Christ instructed in Matthew 7:24-27, and then we will not fail.

 

[Job 33:6]

You cannot certify that an item is millions of years old by any instrument because you have absolutely no known specimen that is certifiable as being that age... not even one..... it is all built on a foundation of sand.

We have the fundamentals of chemistry and physics supporting ages of millions of years old. We have correlation of numerous dating methods reported by independent laboratories on independently gathered samples of the K-T boundary.

Do you have a better explanation for how varying radioactive dating methods can yield the same results when reported by independent laboratories on independent samples collected worldwide?

The best explanation aside from an old earth I heard, was related to bizarre white holes and time dilation.

Call it a foundation of sand if you want, you are in denial of all that modern chemistry and physics stands for.

 

[Job 33:6]

Amein,
and
when the storm comes,
the house built on sand
gets washed away.

Radioactive dating was discovered over 100 years ago and has been actively used worldwide since. I don't know what kind of storm youre waiting for, but something tells me the house is built on a bit more than sand if it has been running strong for 100+ years.

 

[Halbhh]

Radioactive dating was discovered over 100 years ago and has been actively used worldwide since. I don't know what kind of storm youre waiting for, but something tells me the house is built on a bit more than sand if it has been running strong for 100+ years.

The "sand' verse is in Matthew 7, v 24-27 about the fact that anyone will only survive in faith by hearing and doing Christ's words, and not otherwise.

It only came into the discussion because some might suggest our salvation depended on reading Genesis 1 a certain way, and that would be a wrong idea, because the real basis of salvation isn't ever according to an interpretation of Genesis 1 but instead by faith in Christ and then following in that faith by doing His commands to us.

 

[4x4toy]

Radioactive dating was discovered over 100 years ago and has been actively used worldwide since. I don't know what kind of storm youre waiting for, but something tells me the house is built on a bit more than sand if it has been running strong for 100+ years.

And you still can't explain Polonium halos almost instantly formed in granite without untruthful spin

 

[Job 33:6]

And you still can't explain Polonium halos almost instantly formed in granite without untruthful spin

Are you sure about that? Why don't you post your source and try me.

Anyway...bottom line...

We have the fundamentals of chemistry and physics supporting ages of millions of years old. We have correlation of numerous dating methods reported by independent laboratories on independently gathered samples of the K-T boundary.

Do you have a better explanation for how varying radioactive dating methods can yield the same results when reported by independent laboratories on independent samples collected worldwide?

 

[Halbhh]

And you still can't explain Polonium halos almost instantly formed in granite without untruthful spin

Might I suggest it absolutely does not matter even the slightest bit for salvation whether God chose to create the Universe by His design and His natural laws, physics, or instead to create all as it is now less than 10,000 years ago -- that both are fitting to Genesis 1 perfectly....since we are only supposing how much time passed during verse 1 before the Earth came into being. And then, many supposing about what time passed between the days, whether much or none or little, etc.

In other words, these suppositions all are making -- they are not in the text, and not relevant even, since they are merely about merely time duration amounts that have no consequence on the spiritual level, for believers.

It's only interesting to us as for our curiosity, science. We are trying, hard, to discover more of what God did physically. Physics.

 

[4x4toy]

Are you sure about that? Why don't you post your source and try me.

Anyway...bottom line...

We have the fundamentals of chemistry and physics supporting ages of millions of years old. We have correlation of numerous dating methods reported by independent laboratories on independently gathered samples of the K-T boundary.

Do you have a better explanation for how varying radioactive dating methods can yield the same results when reported by independent laboratories on independent samples collected worldwide?

Ah, the it looks old to me so there's no way God could have created the way he says .. How many times has the explanation of the Big Bang been true then changed a few years later ? Or other theories only to be shot down , yet Gods Word remains the same .. And what do you tout now that will be obsolete anytime now . ''Ever learning but never coming to the truth'' , what does this mean ?