Biblical Creationism and Self Deceit

[Shodan]

Multiple studies now show that decay rates can be affected by physical phenomenon and not the constant once believed. Here is just one

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.html

Your cite says that this has not been verified, has not been tested on the isotopes used to date ancient artifacts, and -

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said.

So it is not much of a disproof.

Regards,
Shodan

 

[JustHisKid]

Or it could be none of us.

Remember that we know nothing of the beginning times other than scientific theories (which may or may not be correct) and what the bible says.

Still, there is no gain for a Christian to attempt to deceive another Christian.

 

[redleghunter]

That's awfully presumptuous that you would accuse science of rejecting all that. The fact is science does not even concern itself with that. And your attempt to portray science in that way is just the old straw man approach of misrepresenting something so you tear it down when you have the inability to address it in honest terms. The inquisition continues.

Science and secular society have been beating the 'false resurrection story' drum since the time of Pilate.

Some are so obsessed with denying the Resurrection they devote their entire energy towards it:

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/513-skeptic-disputes-the-resurrection-of-christ-a

Your claim is that it is a 'fact science does not even concern itself with that.' Why is that so and then why do they spend so much ink talking about how it is a myth and there is no evidence to support the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Once again, I see an unfounded assertion within your comments. And also note once again your comments do not address what was posed.

No inquisition sir. I made a logical comparison of two of the greatest miracles---Creation and the Resurrection. They are not separate issues but linked. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof God is sovereign over His creation.

 

[redleghunter]

What rebuttal? You have failed miserably. But thanks for the help in illustrating my points for me.

A simple answer would do. Insults only highlight the fact you have not responded.

By your profile you are a self proclaimed agnostic on a Christian forum. You should expect to be posed questions from a Christian perspective. Why you won't answer a simple question like if you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a hard question to answer on a Christian forum. If you want a reason to believe, the witness of the Risen Christ is it!

 

[KarjamP]

Thats right. So happy you finally stopped being so incredibly lazy and read it to see it has nothing to do with calibration. And yes young padawah it is being researched which is why I said that was just one paper. As long as we are finding that the rates are variable we cannot claim it is a constant. Apparently the point went straight over your head

You've failed to answer the point I was trying to make: Even if it does prove that radioactive dating's unreliable in proving the age of planet Earth, that doesn't automatically mean Young Earth Creationism's right. It just means that radioactive dating's unreliable.

You need evidence to prove Young Earth Creationism's correct besides debunking the dating methods.

I edit a lot of my posts for typos and spelling after. That makes no point. I said nothing about Carbon dating and for you to claim I almost certainly dead is just lying

Anyone can say anything, and it would be difficult to prove unless they have the evidence.

Even if I know I've mistaken about what you've said, I'd just chalk it up as my own memory being faulty. I'd never go out to deceive intentionally.

I asked if you were a child because you wrote and write like one and I have had wasted time in the past learning afterwards that the person was one. I don;t need to use any tactics to stump you. I posted links you have no answer for and asking you about soft tissue and proteins in fossils you have no answer for. If you are stumped blame yourself.

All of this "creationists do this" and creationists do that is just what is known as handwaving. You can't back your point up with any thing solid , can't answer links and questions put to you so you cheaply and lazily claim your inability to answer should be overlooked because its just a tactic.

Cheap tactic in and of itself. Take a bow.

Just because I don't proofread my post doesn't automatically mean I'm a child, bob.

Anyway, stop insulting me, because that won't prove that you're right. I suggest you read this as that's the exact same tactic you're using.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes. Creation's a miracle. Yes, Jesus's resurrection is a miracle. Yes, the book of Genesis did say God created the heavens and the Earth. But it doesn't say that the first chapter in Genesis must be interpreted within as six 24-hour days.

It is indeed a logical fallacy to assume something is proof of an entirely unrelated thing. In this case, the mere fact that God has done miracles does not automatically mean Earth's created within a period of six 24-hour days.

Besides, scienctific evidence considered to be irrefutable must line up with scripture or else either the evidence, itself, or scripture would cause doubts. Heck, even the bible itself says to test everything: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

If the evidence for an old Earth is indeed irrefutable, and the YEC's claims about how old the Earth is turns out to be correct, it's like saying, "God deliberately plants evidence to the contrary as to test our faith". That's essentially saying God is willing to lie to us. Something that's very problematic to a Christian's faith.

What are you presenting as irrefutable scientific evidence? old Earth and evolution are not irrefutable evidence. No human was present to record the observations.

 

[MikeEnders]

The one source that you've provided? As I said, if one were to read it properly, they'd find out it was talking about two specific isotopes, none of which are used for dating. Therefore, it's not proper evidence.

You must have fallen on your head or you a re as blind as a bat. says right in the source

"This adds to evidence of swings in decay rates in response to solar activity and the distance between the Earth and the sun that Purdue researchers Ephraim Fischbach, a professor of physics, and Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer, have been gathering for the last four years. "

IF as appear now evident radiometric rates are affected in some isotopes then it has ramifications for ALL decay rates. You are a typical shrill anti YECer. You don't even read the data and what the source says so that you can wave it off. Its not improper evidence and its not just one paper. The evidence has been building for years

Even if it was, however, that doesn't automatically mean earth's as young as Young Earth Creationists claim. The source would only prove radioactive dating methods to be inaccurate.

Totally lost in space. Did you forget? YOU WERE THE ONE that presented radiometric dating as something that God would have been fooling people with. IF it turns out to be inaccurate then how would God be misleading anyone? NO one said it automatically means the earth is young but would it be a point for the YECers? Yep.

 

[MikeEnders]

It may not explain away how soft tissue and proteins can survive for that long, but it does prove that the science behind biological evolution and related is a lot more complicated than many people may realize (including you).

Seeing as how I said not a thing about Evolution I can now just laugh and take your admission that you have no explanation for how soft tissue and proteins can survive so long. Thanks for admitting it at least

 

[Givemeareason]

Science and secular society have been beating the 'false resurrection story' drum since the time of Pilate.

Some are so obsessed with denying the Resurrection they devote their entire energy towards it:

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/513-skeptic-disputes-the-resurrection-of-christ-a

Your claim is that it is a 'fact science does not even concern itself with that.' Why is that so and then why do they spend so much ink talking about how it is a myth and there is no evidence to support the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Once again, I see an unfounded assertion within your comments. And also note once again your comments do not address what was posed.

No inquisition sir. I made a logical comparison of two of the greatest miracles---Creation and the Resurrection. They are not separate issues but linked. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof God is sovereign over His creation.

There will always be someone disputing something. When I refer to science I am referring to the larger community who do not even concern themselves with faith. The problem with Creationism is its attempt to impose supernatural claims into a study of the natural. And as I have said repeatedly this discussion is not about Jesus so I am not addressing any of that. The resurrection is a completely different topic. This is obfuscating at its worst.

 

[KarjamP]

Science and secular society have been beating the 'false resurrection story' drum since the time of Pilate.

Some are so obsessed with denying the Resurrection they devote their entire energy towards it:

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/513-skeptic-disputes-the-resurrection-of-christ-a

Your claim is that it is a 'fact science does not even concern itself with that.' Why is that so and then why do they spend so much ink talking about how it is a myth and there is no evidence to support the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Once again, I see an unfounded assertion within your comments. And also note once again your comments do not address what was posed.

No inquisition sir. I made a logical comparison of two of the greatest miracles---Creation and the Resurrection. They are not separate issues but linked. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof God is sovereign over His creation.

Science only works if it's provable. Obviously, God's miracles aren't because of their very nature of them not conforming to the laws of physics.

Notice that only the only ones that try to disprove the bible one way or another are non-believers or those that are starting to doubt their own faith. Heck, the Roman Catholic Church, normally conforming to science nowadays, still holds that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, denying the JEPD theory as that would cause the collapse of Christianity, if the theory were to be true.

What are you presenting as irrefutable scientific evidence? old Earth and evolution are not irrefutable evidence. No human was present to record the observations.

Wasn't presenting scientific evidence in that post. Just what the scientists are saying.

Totally lost in space. Did you forget? YOU WERE THE ONE that presented radiometric dating as something that God would have been fooling people with. IF it turns out to be inaccurate then how would God be misleading anyone?

Now, you're quoting my arguments out of context. I was saying that rhetorically. Even if it does prove that radioactive dating's inaccurate, that doesn't automatically mean Young Earth Creation's true.

NO one said it automatically means the earth is young but would it be a point for the YECers? Yep.

Good luck convincing scientists with that logic. If anything, they'd actually attempt to refine their own original logic by seeking additional answers instead of consider "YECers" to be right.

Us humans are stubbornness by nature. Something as simple as this won't be enough to convince any of us unless we're willing to believe it.

Oh, and incidentally, someone else also attacked your claims as that report supporting Young Earth Creationism:

Your cite says that this has not been verified, has not been tested on the isotopes used to date ancient artifacts, and -

'"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said.'

So it is not much of a disproof.

Regards,
Shodan

 

[MikeEnders]

Your cite says that this has not been verified, has not been tested on the isotopes used to date ancient artifacts, and -So it is not much of a disproof.

Regards,
Shodan

IF you read with a little comprehension you would see I made no claim that a singular paper was a disproof especially since there have been multiple papers. However that a constant we rely on to be a constant can be affected by various phenomenon raises legitimate concerns about what else might affect decay rates.

 

[Givemeareason]

A simple answer would do. Insults only highlight the fact you have not responded.

By your profile you are a self proclaimed agnostic on a Christian forum. You should expect to be posed questions from a Christian perspective. Why you won't answer a simple question like if you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a hard question to answer on a Christian forum. If you want a reason to believe, the witness of the Risen Christ is it!

Did I ask you for a reason to believe?

 

[Givemeareason]

Still, there is no gain for a Christian to attempt to deceive another Christian.

LOL! Where have you been all this time?

 

[MikeEnders]

Now, you're quoting my arguments out of context. I was saying that rhetorically. Even if it does prove that radioactive dating's inaccurate, that doesn't automatically mean Young Earth Creation's true.

Try not to be so obtuse. THINK! you cannot accuse me of raising the issue with radioactive decay as proof the earth is young when I was answering YOU when YOU raised it as a fact that would have God trying to fool us. If It turns out not to be a reliable clock its certain that you won't be able to claim that God fooled us because we assumed it was accurate. Sheesh finally got the point?

Good luck convincing scientists with that logic. If anything, they'd actually attempt to refine their own original logic by seeking additional answers instead of consider "YECers" to be right.

Another nonsensical non real world claim. IF you think that finding out radiometric dating is wrong would not make a huge difference in the age of the earth debate you need help and desperately

 

[JustHisKid]

LOL! Where have you been all this time?

Is that supposed to be a response? There is no gain at all.

 

[MikeEnders]

Us humans are stubbornness by nature. Something as simple as this won't be enough to convince any of us unless we're willing to believe it.

Finally got something right. You are right that you wouldn't change your mind and right that it has more to do with your beliefs and what you are willing to believe than any facts. Not everyone admits that their anti YEC positions are as based on beliefs as they claim the YECers are - so thanks for that admission.

 

[redleghunter]

There will always be someone disputing something. When I refer to science I am referring to the larger community who do not even concern themselves with faith. The problem with Creationism is its attempt to impose supernatural claims into a study of the natural. And as I have said repeatedly this discussion is not about Jesus so I am not addressing any of that. The resurrection is a completely different topic. This is obfuscating at its worst.

You underestimate the importance of the Resurrection to skeptic scientists. The 'prophet' of atheism and science is quite vocal on God and the Resurrection:

http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/theres-probably-no-god-a-response-to-richard-dawkins/

In your comments above you said "The problem with Creationism is its attempts to impose a supernatural claims into a study of the natural."

You just made my argument for bringing up the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. What is so 'natural' about someone dead for 3 days rising up in an incorruptable body. That is supernatural right? So with me claiming Jesus Christ is Risen from the dead am I imposing a supernatural claim to what should have been the natural process of body decay?

 

[KarjamP]

Wait, guys, we're going off-topic here!

This thread's not supposed to debate about whether or not evolution's true. It's about Givemeareason seeing a potential problem of Young Earth Creationists deceiving themselves out of sheer pride simply because their views don't comfirm to that of the general scientific community at large. (Note that I'm not talking about YEC scientists, here).

Mike Enders, no, I'm not trying to avoid your argument. Rather, I'm trying to intentionally put this topic on track because arguing about whether or not you're right about Young Earth Creationism doesn't seem to be right. That, and I'm rather concerned with the way you're acting, here. I don't think you're acting the way God would've wanted a Christian to act in this situation.

Christianity's a religion based upon love and the unity of the church, not about splitting us apart with constant arguing. In fact, Paul even repeatedly warned not to "get caught up in words" (in other words, to argue about meaningless things).

 

[Shodan]

IF you read with a little comprehension you would see I made no claim that a singular paper was a disproof especially since there have been multiple papers.

Then by all means cite the multiple papers. This one doesn't show anything about dating artifacts.

However that a constant we rely on to be a constant can be affected by various phenomenon raises legitimate concerns about what else might affect decay rates.

Do you have any evidence of anything that affects decay rates enough to make a difference? What "might" be is unproveable.

Regards,
Shodan

 

[redleghunter]

Science only works if it's provable. Obviously, God's miracles aren't because of their very nature of them not conforming to the laws of physics..

Not so. Proof is subjective what we see, what we observe. Evidence is objective. The miracles in the Bible were all witnessed by two or more people. Thus why Jesus Christ took James, John and Peter for the transfiguration. Why there were more than one person witnessing the Risen Christ (1 Corinthians puts the number at 500+), the 5,000+ fed the fish an loaves. Those who phyically witnessed the miracles received the proof. Those that recorded what multiple witnesses experienced provided us with evidence to examine. The Christian faith is not a 'blind' faith. God made us with minds which can reason:

"A common misconception among atheists, humanists, and evolutionists is that those who reject evolution in order to hold to a fundamental, literal understanding of the biblical documents are guided by “blind faith.” Robinson articulated this position quite emphatically when he accused Christians of abandoning rationality and evidence in exchange for intellectual dishonesty and ignorance of the truth (1976, pp. 115-124). Many within the scientific community labor under the delusion that their “facts” and “evidence” are supportive of evolution and opposed to a normal, face-value understanding of the biblical text. They scoff at those who disagree with them, as if they alone have a corner on truth.
The fact of the matter is that while most of the religious world deserves the epithets hurled by the “informed” academicians, those who espouse pure, New Testament Christianity do not. New Testament Christians embrace the biblical definition of faith, in contrast to the commonly conceived understanding of faith that is promulgated by the vast majority of people in the denominational world.
The faith spoken of in the Bible is a faith that is preceded by knowledge. One cannot possess biblicalfaith in God until he or she comes to the knowledge of God. Thus, faith is not accepting what one cannot prove. Faith cannot outrun knowledge—for it is dependent upon knowledge (Romans 10:17). Abraham was said to have had faith only after he came to the knowledge of God’s promises and was fully persuaded (Romans 4:20-21). His faith, therefore, was seen in his trust and submission to what he knew to be the will of God. Biblical faith is attained only after an examination of the evidence, coupled with correct reasoning about the evidence.

More here:

http://evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/apologetics/blind-faith.htm

Notice that only the only ones that try to disprove the bible one way or another are non-believers or those that are starting to doubt their own faith. Heck, the Roman Catholic Church, normally conforming to science nowadays, still holds that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, denying the JEPD theory as that would cause the collapse of Christianity, if the theory were to be true.:

The Catholic church has not rejected JEPD theory. It is still imbedded in their NABRE study Bible footnotes. It is still taught at Catholic universities (I know went to one). The Catholic church, officially, keeps an open mind on origins but if you go to a Catholic university you would not know that.