Is this a case of lying or are you totally blind and stubborn?Chi_Cygni said:
This may be what you believe but that does not make it so.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is this a case of lying or are you totally blind and stubborn?Chi_Cygni said:Is this a case of lying or do you just repeat falsehoods you have heard.
Again, this is what you might wish to believe but it is not so.
Buzz_Lightyear said:I also remember reading an article (I'll try and find it) that descibed how in 1991 a Oxford University radiocarbon accelerator unit dated some rock paintings found in the South African bush at 1200 years old, they were quite excited until an art teacher turned up and declared that they were her students paintings that had been stolen!
I'm not using this example as a full on refutable against this age business, but it does go to show that scientific dating methods are not infallible, so maybe there is a good reason to be skeptical.
Hi Ron,Ron21647 said:Did your article give an explanation for the erroneous date? Carbon dating can be quite accurate if it is used correctly. In any case, one bad example does not prove the method wrong. And carbon dating is (or should be) your friend. It is the method used to determine things like the age of Jericho or the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Other (radioactive) methods are used to date fossils and the age of the earth.
Ron
Yes it can be your friend if you need physical evidence to strengthen your faith or to strengthen your position when debating with Non-Believers.
Hi there,artybloke said:Wrong reason for using it.
So my interpretation is very strange and outmoded is it? Well all I can say is there's alot of strange people out there!artybloke said:I'm afraid that what a very strange and outmoded interpretation of the Bible says is the age means diddly squat to the evidence.
Buzz_Lightyear said:Hi there,
I don't think it is the wrong place to use it. If by it you can prove the age of the dead sea scrolls or authenticity, and the age of jericho then this can only strengthen an argument.
Arty, if you disregard what the Bible says or use a symbolic interpretation then where do you draw the line? I mean when God says something and means another thing then eventually you could come to the conclusion that it's all symbolic.
Well all I can say is there's alot of strange people out there!
I do know that carbon 14 dating is the most reliable, and that it's accuracy is limited to thousands of years and not billions.artybloke said:And if by it you prove that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in 1853, or that the age of Jericho is wrong, bang goes your argument. Besides which, it it's supposed to be unreliable, how do you know it's a true date?
What facts are you talking about exactly?No doubt, like other literalists, you have a basically rationalist view of truth=fact. Even if you include the supernatural in your worldview, your default mode is truth=fact. I don't; facts are all true, but truth can be expressed in very many different ways. The idea that all our language about God is symbolic doesn't mean that God doesn't exist; it just means that words can't possibly encapsulate the mystery that is the heart of God.
It is a shame, as long as they don't preach old earth theories as this can only be detrimental to a young Christian. Once the old earth dates are accepted then all of a sudden Darwin's theory becomes all the more practical and thus we came from monkies (or a common ancestor if we want it to sound better) which does oppose the Bible or God might as well not have bothered telling us these things.Make that a small minority of the total number of Christians worldwide. Where I come from, I don't anyone who is a creationist.
well, it is entirely possible that part of the paintings used old materials. That would be my first guess, not knowing the details either.Buzz_Lightyear said:Hi Ron,
I read the article from a respectable website that did not go into the details you request, unfortunately. But like I said it was just one example and not meant as a full all out rebutable as clearly it proves nothing just makes you think, that's all.
Yes it can be your friend if you need physical evidence to strengthen your faith or to strengthen your position when debating with Non-Believers.
BTW you didn't answer my question on whether you believe the flood story? Could you please let know.
Yes, maybe I will post articles that I have at hand next time, so we can debate them realistically. Apologies.Ron21647 said:well, it is entirely possible that part of the paintings used old materials. That would be my first guess, not knowing the details either.
This sounds extremely bad, I was not aware of it, I wonder what his motives are/were...For example, John Woodmorappe (not sure if he is with ICR or AIG) has written an article titled something like "400 cases where radioactive dating is wrong". It turns out that 95 of his examples are from another paper concerning potassium - argon dating, and the point of this paper is possible errors in the method and how to avoid them. He listed the errors without stating that he knew they were wrong, and the explanantions for why they were wrong were in the same article he was quoting.
Well this seems like an honest mistake unless this guy knew the reason for the seeming error when he posted the article.Another example is the Steve Austin article. I am pretty sure he is AIG, and his original paper and several rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals are listed on the Talk Origins web site. He took volcanic material containing old unmelted rock (which he admitted that he knew) and sent it to a lab that had a several million year limit in the minimum age they could do. They dated it older than that, and then he said it was less than 200 years old. It turns out that the older portions (which had not melted sufficiently to release the argon) was dated correctly.
Because like many members of the Creationist societies fraud is there business to keep the money coming in!This sounds extremely bad, I was not aware of it, I wonder what his motives are/were...
Evolutionists do the same, so what is your point?Because like many members of the Creationist societies fraud is there business to keep the money coming in!
When Jesus talked about the flood, it seemed like he was talking as if it actually happened, so it seems to me, but obviously not to you, which I find hard to understand. What else do you think didn't happen in the Bible?artybloke said:Yes of course I believe the flood story. I just don't believe it happened.
Do you think other scientists are completely non-biased? I doubt it myself, I remember a report of a finding of a dinosaur limb that had red blood cells but the story seems to have been brushed under the carpet.Ron21647 has given a few good examples of how YEC "scientists" work, by the way: decietfully.
Have you ever considered that what the Bible says involving Genesis is spot on and so too is evolution? Apart from the bit when we evolved from a common ancestor to the ape. Can you give me some evidence that the vast amount of Christians think that Darwin was right and Genesis is wrong?And by the way, I am a Darwinian. Darwinian evolution is the only game in town. Creationism has been a falsified theory for over a hundred years. And the vast majority of Christians throughout the world think so too. Creationism is supported by lies, bad theology and even worse science.
I think they do it because their constituency doesn't know any better and they eat this stuff about about how the poor simple creationist eat up evil evolutionists for lunch.Buzz_Lightyear said:Hi Ron, I was going to write sooner but got caught up with something else, apologies.
<snipping a lot of good stuff that I don't have time to reply to right now...>
Ron, why do you think these Christian guys seemingly make these things up under false pretenses? I mean, it certainly won't do their Christian walk any good...
The dinosaur blood story has extensive coverage if you search for it. It wasn't blood at all, and no scientists said so, as far as I know. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I will and I will post it here. It was covered by Talk Origins on their "What's New" page.Buzz_Lightyear said:<snipping some more>
Do you think other scientists are completely non-biased? I doubt it myself, I remember a report of a finding of a dinosaur limb that had red blood cells but the story seems to have been brushed under the carpet.
<snip>
Ron,Ron21647 said:The dinosaur blood story has extensive coverage if you search for it. It wasn't blood at all, and no scientists said so, as far as I know. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I will and I will post it here. It was covered by Talk Origins on their "What's New" page.
Ron
I'm sure some have but probably at the 0.001% level as opposed to the Creationist 75% level.Enigma'07 said:
Evolutionists do the same, so what is your point?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?