If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[chaoschristian]

I MEAN HONESTLY, WOULD YOU EVER SEE JESUS OR PAUL CARING AABOUT SUCH USELESS YAMMERING?

I would think that Jesus does in fact care if one lies in His name. What KerrMetric is pointing out is the unfortunate truth that some people are willing to lie in the name of Jesus.

As for Paul, he's dead, I don't think he cares one way or the other.

 

[gluadys]

37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Neither this nor any other quote about the flood is inconsistent with a regional flood.

Ok for the flood onto Adam.

And no quote referring to Adam is inconsistent with a typological rather than a biological Adam.

So if evolution is the truth and not divine creation why did not God reveal this to His OT chosen people the Jews or HIs NT chosen people the church?? After all we are the ambassadors of God tasked to bring the truth of God to the world!!

We are ambassadors of the gospel of Christ. Not of science. Scientific truth can be discovered by anyone who uses sense and reason. Revelation is for those spiritual truths which cannot be discovered by purely human means.

Why did God leave the church out of this-- and have unbeleivers promote and evangelize this suppossed truth that stands in opposition to the Word???

But it doesn't stand in opposition to the Word. How can that which was made by the Word stand in opposition to the Word?

Well for this I can only pass you on to the 2 volume set of research over 4years by the RATE team. It is about 85 dollars and 1400+ pages if youa re interested in having some long standing theories shaken up.

Here are some very brief reasons without all the research (sorry- you gotta buy the books if you want the research):

As KerrMetric says, no one has time to rebut even as much as you have posted, not to mention 1400 pages. But a few examples may suffice to show the RATE project is not all it is cracked up to be.

(2) No daughter products could initially be present, although there is no valid reason why they could not initially have been present in great abundance.

The method by which the parent product is formed in some cases assures that no daughter element is formed simultaneously. Depends on which elements and isotopes one is speaking of.

(5) The decay clock within each radioactive substance had to start at the beginning, but Creation would have begun with flowers, trees and other items in full maturity, so why not radioactive cycles as well?

This is begging the question. It assumes a condition (apparent maturity) which is not in evidence.

(9) According to the theory, the earth was originally molten. If that were true, then radical resetting of radioactive clocks would have occurred.

Yes, of course. The "clock" of any radioactive mineral is reset whenever the mineral is fully molten. Rock in lava flows does not date back to the beginning of earth's existence, but back to the occurrence of the lava flow.

Why imply that anything else would be expected?

(10) The daughter products must be measured as a ratio of the parent substance in order to obtain a date, but, aside from leaching and other factors, some of the daughter products go off in the form of gases.

If they are trapped in solid rock, the gases have nowhere to go. The occasions in which daughter products are likely to go off in the form of gases is when the rock becomes molten. This drives away argon gas which is a daughter product of potassium decay--leaving only potassium and effectively resetting the clock. Any new argon that occurs in the rock after solidification must come from the radioactive potassium, since the argon formerly present went off as gas when the rock was re-heated and melted.

(12) All specimen test results should agree with one another, but this occurs with only the most extreme rarity. The dates obtained greatly conflict with one another.

Tests are done almost every day. It would be nice to see some actual figures of what percentage "greatly conflict" with one another. And an explanation of why scientists continue to use a dating method which yields useless results.

(1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This is very possible, and even likely

In addition, there is "common lead, "which has no radioactive parent (lead 204). This could easily be mixed into the sample and would seriously affect the dating of that sample.

No it would not affect the dating. Common lead and radiogenic lead have different isotopes and are easily distinguished from one another.

When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is "daughter-product lead" (that is, the end-product of the decayed uranium).

This is false. Only the lead isotopes which are known to be the product of radio-active decay are considered daughter products. If common lead is also found in the sample, it is not assumed to be daughter-product lead.

(2) Leaching is another problem. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out.

Where there is a strong possibility of leaching, the sample would not be considered appropriate for radiometric testing.

Yet, in each case, a variety of assumptions must be made in order to vindicate such long ages. One of these is the assumption that, originally, there were only radioisotopes at the top of each chain, and no daughter products existed.
Yet, at the Creation, each of those substances could have been made—already partly changed into its daughter products (already partly down its radioactive chain.

More begging the question. "could have been made" is not "was made". This is the same sort of thing as "light in transit".

Instead of all of the long half-life substances being the same age, they indicate a variety of ages. Yet, if the earth came into existence from a molten mass at some time in the past, that would not be true.

Why would it not be true? Does the author think that all existing rock was formed in the beginning and none has been formed since? New rock is continually being formed. Radiometry measures the date from which the rock was formed, not the age of the earth.

But many or most such minerals might equally well contain some "radiogenic lead" (lead still emitting radiation) from some other source.

Radiogenic lead is the end product of the decay of uranium or thorium. It is not itself a source of further radiation.

http://www.answers.com/topic/radiogenic


There are some forms of lead which do emit radiation, but the correct term for those is "radioactive" not "radiogenic" Also most forms of radioactive lead do not occur in nature. All the radiogenic forms of lead are stable, not radioactive.

The element [lead] has four naturally occurring stable isotopes, three of which result from the decay of naturally occurring radioactive elements (thorium and uranium). Since this decay takes place at a constant rate, it is possible to predict either the maximum age of a lead-containing rock or its composition at some earlier date, as long as the rock has not been chemically altered. There are 25 known radioactive isotopes of lead, some of which occur naturally in small amounts.​

http://www.answers.com/topic/lead-10

*Sidney P. Clementson, a British engineer, carefully studied a wide variety of known modern volcanic rocks. All were spewed out of volcanoes within the past 200-300 years. Upon cooling, any uranium in them would have their clocks reset to zero, because of dramatic leaching factors during eruption and lava flow. He compared his rocks, which were only 200-300 years old, with Soviet uranium dating tests of the same volcanic rocks,—and found that in every instance, the uranium-lead dated ages were vastly older than the TRUE ages of the rocks!

In other words, he tried to measure the equivalent of a few grams using a scale graduated for measuring metric tonnes and got an answer which said two tonnes give or take five tonnes. There is a reason why elements with long half-lives are used to date very old things and not relatively young things. They are not finely-enough graded to measure short time periods. For that you need elements that have shorter half-lives.

Now an interesting aspect of this is that, with the exception of elements being continually produced, elements with shorter half-lives are not found in nature. Its as if creation has been around long enough for all short-lived radioactive materials to have completed their decay into stable daughter-products.

(5) A fifth problem deals with the origin of the rocks containing these radioactive minerals. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, that would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials.

What is the basis for this conclusion. Makes no sense to me.

"Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds laid down within a few weeks of each other differ by millions of years?"—Glenn R. Morton, "Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 229.

Speaking of outdated references, Glenn Morton is no longer a supporter of young-earth creationism.

It is a well-known fact by nuclear researchers that intense heat damages radiodating clock settings, yet the public is solemnly presented with dates of rocks indicating long ages of time, when in fact, the evolutionary theory of the origin of rocks would render those dates totally useless.

There is no evolutionary theory of the origin of rocks. There is the physics of radioactivity. And it is precisely the "damage" of intense heat that makes radiometric dating possible. Heating the rock to the melting point is what sets the clock. Radiometry is used to tell when was the last occasion the rock was in a molten condition. So what this paper calls a condition that "would render those dates totally useless" is actually what the method is based on.

Any research which could get the very essence of radiometry so completely wrong is not worth reading.

 

[shernren]

Oh the small print! Oh the many words! My eyes!

Note that there is NOT A SINGLE SOURCE here which is any more recent than 1983. To put this into perspective, if you'd asked those guys about the iPod they would have said that it's impossible, that capacity of memory would take up a roomful of space! Fallacy refutation time!

(1) No contamination could have been present, although out in nature it is very much present most of the time.

Contamination is detectable. Things happen when chemicals leave rocks.

(2) No daughter products could initially be present, although there is no valid reason why they could not initially have been present in great abundance.

Isochron dating does not require zero initial daughter content. Check it out.

(3) The decay rate could never change, although there are a number of significant outside factors which could easily have effected those changes.

Bogus. Squash 4.5 billion years' worth of decay into 6,000 years (if it's even possible) and I'm sure you'd have enough power to boil away the oceans.

(4) The Van Allen radiation belt must never have changed, although our first data on it only goes back to 1959.

The Van Allen radiation belt has nothing to do with any radiometric dating other than C-14.

(5) The decay clock within each radioactive substance had to start at the beginning, but Creation would have begun with flowers, trees and other items in full maturity, so why not radioactive cycles as well?

Just for the sake of making the world look old? There is no biological necessity for old-looking radioisotope ratios, so by current knowledge this falls under the apparent age fallacy.

(6) No end products could originally be mixed in with the parent substances, but this is merely another assumption.

Repetition of (2), refuted similarly.

(7) No leaching of radioactive substances could have taken place, but those substances were out in nature where rainfall and underground water is constantly flowing, not in a sterile laboratory.

Again, contamination is detectable and accountable for.

(8) No neutron capture could have occurred, but research reveals that it can easily occur in nature.

(9) According to the theory, the earth was originally molten. If that were true, then radical resetting of radioactive clocks would have occurred.

... which is precisely why we measure the earth's age at 4.5 billion years old: the oldest readings give the time between that "radical reset" and today.

(10) The daughter products must be measured as a ratio of the parent substance in order to obtain a date, but, aside from leaching and other factors, some of the daughter products go off in the form of gases.

Which mass spectroscopy has no problem with. Scientists do quantitative gas measurements all the time, not just with radiodecay, and a lot of science hinges on those, not just "evolution" aka everything-we-dislike-because-we-don't-understand-it.

(11) Laboratory analysis of each specimen must be done with extreme accuracy, yet verification has revealed that this is often not done.
(12) All specimen test results should agree with one another, but this occurs with only the most extreme rarity. The dates obtained greatly conflict with one another.

Sources? Citations?

I have to run for class now, but first, a real zinger:

When such contaminating lead is thought to be in a specimen, the presence of a "non-radiogenic lead" (lead 204, or "common lead"—lead which is not a daughter product of any radioactive decay chain) is assumed. But many or most such minerals might equally well contain some "radiogenic lead" (lead still emitting radiation) from some other source. This radiation would itself contaminate the test results and would result in a much higher date reading for the mineral specimen. Radiogenic lead can contaminate any uranium mineral to an unknown amount, making accurate dating impossible.

(emphases in original)

ROTFLMAO!!!!!! (not literally. ) Radiogenic lead, my dear, is not lead that is emitting radiation. Lead does not emit radiation. It is the most stable element ever, which is precisely why most decay chains end in lead, and why nuclear reactors shield highly energetic parts with lead. Not just that, the article also contradicts itself, since before this it said that some non-radiogenic lead could be counted as radiogenic lead, while now it says that some radiogenic lead could be counted as non-radiogenic lead.

Good grief.

 

[KerrMetric]

Lead 204 and 210 are radioactive naturally occuring isotopes.

 

[shernren]

What a muck-up for me! I stand corrected. But I'm right to say that radiogenic lead doesn't emit radiation, right? As far as I know, most lead isotopes end the particular decay chain that produces them.

 

[nolidad]

What we have witnessed here is the argumentum ad spamum. Post 5000 words in small print and then claim "Aha - see the evilutionists cannot answer".

The problem is it isn't because it is meaningful but because no one on a darn message board has time to rebut pages of nonsense (and seemingly 50 year old nonsense at that.)

And even if someone without a life takes the time the poster of the said spam will just shift topic to evolution or cosmology with 5000 more words of rubbish.

For Gods sake pick a point and post a sentence or two about it - not the Kent Hovind trademarked throwing faeces in the air hoping some will stick method.

Well Kerr Metric:

I was asked to post rebut of radiometric dating and this is th eonly online semi scientific presentation available. On my last post on this material I posted a note that these were older qoutes but that if one wanted to see them verified (for the mosat part I would have to assume) then the 2 volume RATE seminar publication is where they need to look. It was written by physicists and geologists.

Contamination is detectable. Things happen when chemicals leave rocks.

and the proof of duaghter or parent element contaminating the rock is??

Isochron dating does not require zero initial daughter content. Check it out.

When I have time I will post the problems with isochrinics if I can find one under 5,000 words so as not to have some falsely accuse me.

Just for the sake of making the world look old? There is no biological necessity for old-looking radioisotope ratios, so by current knowledge this falls under the apparent age fallacy.

Here I agree with you . I do not buy "apparent age theories". There is an excellent work out called "Starlight and Time" by Dr. D. Russell Humkphreys(physics). It is an excellent work that answers alot of questions. He also uses alot of work done by Hawkins in this .

Again, contamination is detectable and accountable for.

Again, leaching out of parent or daughter elementrs is detectable how???

which is precisely why we measure the earth's age at 4.5 billion years old: the oldest readings give the time between that "radical reset" and today.

Except for the resets caused by the tenso of thousands of volcanoes recorded in human history. which also perform radical resets.

Which mass spectroscopy has no problem with. Scientists do quantitative gas measurements all the time, not just with radiodecay, and a lot of science hinges on those, not just "evolution" aka everything-we-dislike-because-we-don't-understand-it.

but total discharger of daughter elements already released cannot be measured when one of the daughter elements is a gas and is dispersed.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!! (not literally. ) Radiogenic lead, my dear, is not lead that is emitting radiation. Lead does not emit radiation

Two samples of lead obtained as by-products from uranium and thorium ore processing, one enriched in Pb2 06 and the other in Pb208, were used as feed material for special separations of lead. Radiogenic lead enriched in Pb206 was the end product of the radioactive decay of U238; lead enriched in Pb208 was the end product of the radioactive decay of Th232. Greater than usual care was exercised in handling these materials because of the presence of moderate radioactivity. Trace amounts of Pb210, Bi210, and Po210 were found in the Pb2O6 sample, and Pb210, Bi2lO, Po210, Ra226 , Ra228, Ac228, and Th228 were present in the Pb208 feed.

It appears Oak Ridge labs say you are wrong.

Well you have made claims without substantiating them and I shall await your substantiation. But again if you really want to look at the detailed physics and experimentation and testing you should buy the 2 volumes. Unless of course you do not wish to be challenged.

Neither this nor any other quote about the flood is inconsistent with a regional flood.

Well Jesus did not see the nedd to refresh His listeners for they all knew the Noahic flood destroyed the entire planet.

Plus if the flood was just a localized event (even several thousand square miles) then you make God buffoonish! Animals migrate in danger, instead of spending 120 years building a small battleship size boat- Noah could have just left. He was not far from mountains that would have protected Him from a regional flood.

And no quote referring to Adam is inconsistent with a typological rather than a biological Adam.

Only in your opinion. Even atheists recognize the lineages trace back to Adam biblically. Jesus traces His lineage back. do you suggest Jesus is typological instead of biological??

Do you say that the first 20 chapters of Genesis are untruths?? For the lineages all end at Adam., Noah is the 7th generation from a typological man?? I am sorry but that is too far fetched to ask people to beleive.

We are ambassadors of the gospel of Christ. Not of science. Scientific truth can be discovered by anyone who uses sense and reason. Revelation is for those spiritual truths which cannot be discovered by purely human means.

Well the universe belongs to God and He gave a very easy to read account of its origins. I find it interesting thast Gods ambassdors until Asa Grey sought the unholy marriage called theistic evolution never even considered long long ages and gradual changes to produce the enormous diversity witnessed.

But you still fail to address why God would use nontheistic scientists to explain origins and give His very messengers false information.

But it doesn't stand in opposition to the Word. How can that which was made by the Word stand in opposition to the Word?

I will give you a little test survey to do. Wiothout explaining or seeking added commentary, have 100 people read Genesis chapter one and have them tell you what it appears to say. Does it promote divine creation or gradual evolution after a big bang 12-20 billion years ago?

The method by which the parent product is formed in some cases assures that no daughter element is formed simultaneously. Depends on which elements and isotopes one is speaking of.

But without knowing the ratio of daughter elements present at the formation of the tested rock- one has know way of knowing how accurate there time measurement may be. One has to make guesses as tot he ratios then to determine even an approximate age and even that can be off by??????%

More begging the question. "could have been made" is not "was made". This is the same sort of thing as "light in transit".

Well you could post the theoreticals that beg the question from the evolutionary side. Both sides make hypotheses witrhout reqal facts based on their preconceived bias.

No it would not affect the dating. Common lead and radiogenic lead have different isotopes and are easily distinguished from one another.

Not bewing a physics major my language here will be rough but I know test were done that prove that radiogenic lead can transfer material and thus radiogenic lead (if I remember righjt it is lead 205,206,207,208, and 210) can become common lead or lead 204. Iw ill try to find those statements.

If they are trapped in solid rock, the gases have nowhere to go. The occasions in which daughter products are likely to go off in the form of gases is when the rock becomes molten. This drives away argon gas which is a daughter product of potassium decay--leaving only potassium and effectively resetting the clock. Any new argon that occurs in the rock after solidification must come from the radioactive potassium, since the argon formerly present went off as gas when the rock was re-heated and melted.

Gases can do escape from "solid rock" because no rock is truly solid. I live in the NOrtheast and we have a problem up here with seeping radon gas through "solid" granite into 10 iin ch thick concrete basements and on upo. So gases do emit out.

This is false. Only the lead isotopes which are known to be the product of radio-active decay are considered daughter products. If common lead is also found in the sample, it is not assumed to be daughter-product lead.

shown wrong above

Where there is a strong possibility of leaching, the sample would not be considered appropriate for radiometric testing.

Really tough to know how much leaching could occur over supposedly 4.5 billion years eh?

There is no evolutionary theory of the origin of rocks. There is the physics of radioactivity. And it is precisely the "damage" of intense heat that makes radiometric dating possible. Heating the rock to the melting point is what sets the clock. Radiometry is used to tell when was the last occasion the rock was in a molten condition. So what this paper calls a condition that "would render those dates totally useless" is actually what the method is based on.

Any research which could get the very essence of radiometry so completely wrong is not worth reading.

Well these are qoutes not from the books but from a website. But other than the could would of qoutesd they present the physics and the research to show these are all true. They also show by experimentation that rocks known to have been formed from molten magma within the last century date back to several billion to several hundred million years old. (JUst a small variance huh?) But you can choose to not rock the boat of contemprary thinking in nontheistic science and not read the detailed research that proves in depth why these qoutes are accurate.

It seems you are more concerned about his use of words thant he facts which none you have proven wrong. You asserted but not proven

Radiogenic lead is the end product of the decay of uranium or thorium. It is not itself a source of further radiation.

Well not to diss your websites- see my above qoute from Oak ridge labs. I will take there word for it that there are leads that still to continue to emit radiation.

 

[KerrMetric]

Here I agree with you . I do not buy "apparent age theories". There is an excellent work out called "Starlight and Time" by Dr. D. Russell Humkphreys(physics). It is an excellent work that answers alot of questions. He also uses alot of work done by Hawkins in this .

Not bewing a physics major my language here will be rough...

Well those do go together. Humphreys model has been discarded even by AIG/ICR if I recall. The fact it is pure nonsense from a physics standpoint. If you want email hm and ask him why he uses a coordinate system that is pathological for the problem he addresses? His model predicts effects that are not observed. It is ruled out both theoretically by his mathematical goofs and experimentally by the observed cosmos.

 

[shernren]

It appears Oak Ridge labs say you are wrong.

Read the quote again. The radioactivity came not from the lead itself but from the radioactive elements found in the lead. Which would have been perfectly predicted by any normal radiodecay model.

Here I agree with you . I do not buy "apparent age theories". There is an excellent work out called "Starlight and Time" by Dr. D. Russell Humkphreys(physics). It is an excellent work that answers alot of questions. He also uses alot of work done by Hawkins in this .

ICR themselves have already rejected the Humphreys model.

Except for the resets caused by the tenso of thousands of volcanoes recorded in human history. which also perform radical resets.

Which is precisely why some rocks date at younger than 4.5 billion years.

but total discharger of daughter elements already released cannot be measured when one of the daughter elements is a gas and is dispersed.

Are you talking about at point of measurement? That would make the measured age of the rock younger than its actual age. A rock which appeared to be 3 million years under outgassed radiodating would actually have undergone more radiodecay than measured, and not less, and definitely not 6,000 years only of radiodecay.

Again, leaching out of parent or daughter elementrs is detectable how???

Parent elements are normally metals, bound in strong ionic lattices which are not broken barring a reset. If daughter element leaches out, as noted above, the measured age is younger than the actual age. You do not want that. You want to prove that for every one radiogenic atom, something like 1,000 atoms of the same element which happen to have the right isotopic number to appear radiogenic enter the rock and cause the age measurement to be grossly inflated. I have yet to see any substantiation of that.

Well Jesus did not see the nedd to refresh His listeners for they all knew the Noahic flood destroyed the entire planet.

Plus if the flood was just a localized event (even several thousand square miles) then you make God buffoonish! Animals migrate in danger, instead of spending 120 years building a small battleship size boat- Noah could have just left. He was not far from mountains that would have protected Him from a regional flood.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html Even the literalists agree with us.

 

[shernren]

If you can spam, so can I!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD002.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD004.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD016.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD012.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

And unlike the RATE book, these resources are free of charge, updated with recent data, and available to people outside the US to whom US$ stuff is mega-expensive.

 

[nolidad]

Well those do go together. Humphreys model has been discarded even by AIG/ICR if I recall. The fact it is pure nonsense from a physics standpoint. If you want email hm and ask him why he uses a coordinate system that is pathological for the problem he addresses? His model predicts effects that are not observed. It is ruled out both theoretically by his mathematical goofs and experimentally by the observed cosmos.

Well His work is recommended by ICR so I do not think they discount his work. as for the rest--you can prove this how? YOu make a statemtn but can you cite your research rebutting him?

Parent elements are normally metals, bound in strong ionic lattices which are not broken barring a reset. If daughter element leaches out, as noted above, the measured age is younger than the actual age. You do not want that. You want to prove that for every one radiogenic atom, something like 1,000 atoms of the same element which happen to have the right isotopic number to appear radiogenic enter the rock and cause the age measurement to be grossly inflated. I have yet to see any substantiation of that.

But this says nothing to prove your assertion that a tested sample can be determined if parent or daughter element was added to thus contaminating the sample in time past.

And unlike the RATE book, these resources are free of charge, updated with recent data, and available to people outside the US to whom US$ stuff is mega-expensive.

That is only because the research you post by these godless folk has been prepaid by peoples tax dollars. Scientists who are Christians and produce eviudence contrary to the accpeted theories get no federal funds-thus they have to sell their work to cover their costs. So your attempt at a back handed salap is really irrelevant.

Read the quote again. The radioactivity came not from the lead itself but from the radioactive elements found in the lead. Which would have been perfectly predicted by any normal radiodecay model.

Shernren you nedd to reread the qoute again for the subject they are referring yto is the radiogenic lead not the parent elements. they briung up the parent elements only to state where the lead which is moderately radioactive came from. C'mon I graduated college 30 years ago and I still can pick out the subject of a sentence!! Please go back two lead samples were used as feed material and it was those two lead samples (the material ) that was moderately radioactive! U-238

and TH232 are never written as being just "moderately radioactive". They are very radioactive even in tiny amounts!!!!!

Even the literalists agree with

Well Shernren from your vantage point you may consider these folks literalists, but from my vantage point ( a literalist) I can tell you from reading their article that very very few literalists would call them literalists!!!

These folks use context points in a very disingenious manner. I have Hebrew works by both Christian Hebrew linguist and Hebrew linguists and all are agreed the language can only be globasl in extent--it is the context that demands a global flood for kol eretz.

But while I await your responses to the questions I have asked (and I did not try to spam--only answer your questions with enough info to show evidence)

Let us look at some important points from the Bible and ponder Kerr Metrics reponse that Adam was not literal but only typical.

A geneology is traced from Jesus to Adam-if Adam is mythological then how do we prove the rest is not mythological. Not only does it make Adam untrue but cain and Abel, Seth, Noah, Methuselah, the Tower of Babel, the worldwide dispersion of man, the biblical divisio0ns of the continents, even the Abraham and the birth of the Jewish nation, for if you say any of these were not mythical like Adam it is only because you draw the line further back than the atheists do!!

Now doctrines that get trashed if Adam was not the first human.

Why is man the only creature to wear clothes.

Why do creatures die?

Why is there sin in man?

Why did Jesus die? He is called the last Adam and He died because the first Adam introduced sin in to the world. But this is wrong if Adam is just typology.

Evolution shows a history of death, predation, extinction and violence-long before man appears, the bible shows these after man fell and corrupted the planet.

Once again -God allows HIs Word to have a known lie in the creation acoount. Hebrew has the linguistic tools to show a rudimetnary teaching of the bib bang and the long slow march of evolution. But God did not use that.
Science cannot prove the kinds becoming other kinds-- we only see the kinds reproducing their own kind just a the bible declares.

And once again I pose this question to you because you declared your self to be a beleiver of Jesus Christ and HIs Word:

If the theory if evolution is true as propounded by secular science-- Why did not God give this message to the church(whom He declared to be His ambassadors and messengers of His truths) to proclaim? Why did He allow the church to preach a false message about the genesis of all things for nearly 2 millenia and then have unbeleivers who were seeking ways to discredit the bible come up with what He knew to be the truth?? Do you really think that God would have kept the church in the dark as well as the Jews for that long and then use unbeleivers to proclaimthe truth un this area of Gods realm????

 

[gluadys]

Let us look at some important points from the Bible and ponder Kerr Metrics reponse that Adam was not literal but only typical.

A geneology is traced from Jesus to Adam-if Adam is mythological then how do we prove the rest is not mythological.

We don't. We have practically no evidence that anyone in scripture actually lived in history. One of the few exceptions is King Hezekiah of Judah.

For the rest we have to rely on contextual clues as to the historicity of the text and its historical accuracy. This is interpretation not proof.

Not only does it make Adam untrue but cain and Abel, Seth, Noah, Methuselah, the Tower of Babel, the worldwide dispersion of man, the biblical divisio0ns of the continents, even the Abraham and the birth of the Jewish nation, for if you say any of these were not mythical like Adam it is only because you draw the line further back than the atheists do!!

It does not make them untrue. It makes them non-historical.

What biblical division of continents? The bible never speaks of continents.

Now doctrines that get trashed if Adam was not the first human.

No doctines are trashed at all.

Why is man the only creature to wear clothes.

Never heard that this was a doctrinal matter.

Why do creatures die?

Because they live. All biological life necessarily leads to death. Please do not tell me the bible says there was no death before Adam. The most you can claim is that there was no human death before Adam.

Why is there sin in man?

Because humans sin. If the presence of sin in human nature depends on an individual committing sin, it does not matter which individual it was--whether it was the first, fifth or fiftieth human.

To insist that it had to be Adam is making a good case for Adam not being a particular individual but a representative human.

Why did Jesus die? He is called the last Adam and He died because the first Adam introduced sin in to the world. But this is wrong if Adam is just typology.

Actually this is one of the best texts for supporting a typological interpretation of Adam.

Evolution shows a history of death, predation, extinction and violence-long before man appears, the bible shows these after man fell and corrupted the planet.

The bible shows no such thing in relation to non-human life.

Once again -God allows HIs Word to have a known lie in the creation acoount. Hebrew has the linguistic tools to show a rudimetnary teaching of the bib bang and the long slow march of evolution. But God did not use that.

No. God accommodated his communication to what was most familiar to the hearers of the time: myth. A good choice too, since science changes through time, but good stories endure through time and speak to all ages in a way science cannot.

Science cannot prove the kinds becoming other kinds-- we only see the kinds reproducing their own kind just a the bible declares.

Science is supported by evidence, not proof. And science agrees that kinds--whatever that means--reproduce their own kind. Every child is the same species as its parent, but with slight differences. Every new species is a modification of its ancestor. That is the very basis of evolution: descent (continuity) with modification (change). That is why the nested hierarchy of species exists. Because the only place for a new "kind" is within a kind that already exists, as a modification of the original kind.

If the theory if evolution is true as propounded by secular science-- Why did not God give this message to the church(whom He declared to be His ambassadors and messengers of His truths) to proclaim?

Because it is irrelevant to the gospel. You might just as well ask why God did not tell his ambassadors thousands of years ago how to cure leprosy instead of prescribing isolation of lepers. Or how to build an internal combustion engine instead of making his people walk through the oil-rich desert for 40 years.

Why did He allow the church to preach a false message about the genesis of all things for nearly 2 millenia

But the church has not been preaching a false message. The church has been preaching that God is the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Science, including the science of evolution, does not dispute that.

and then have unbeleivers who were seeking ways to discredit the bible come up with what He knew to be the truth??

In the first place, many scientists are not unbelievers. In the second place even unbelievers are not necessarily motivated by a desire to discredit the bible. In the third place, nothing in science actually discredits the biblical account of creation. It only discredits one particularly narrow interpretation of the biblical text.

The scripture is not intended to be a scientific description of creation. It is only those who insist that it is who see a contradiction between scripture and science.

 

[shernren]

Well His work is recommended by ICR so I do not think they discount his work. as for the rest--you can prove this how? YOu make a statemtn but can you cite your research rebutting him?

Have to love it when ICR do the work for you.

From http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_df_r01

While the Humphreys cosmogony met with little discussion or opposition at first, the level of debate has increased tremendously. Several critical papers have been written [11], [13], and Humphreys has responded [32]. Humphreys' critics have charged that he has either misunderstood or improperly applied general relativity in his model. Byl [11] has argued that while time dilation effects are real, the sense of time corrections are always in the wrong direction and/or are too small to solve the light travel time. Byl, along with Connor and Page [13], concludes that the approach that Humphreys is attempting would more properly describe the time difference between an observer in the universe to one outside of the universe. If this is true, then the Humphreys model certainly does not succeed in addressing the question as framed. This criticism has led the editorial staff of the ICC to conclude that there was a failure in the peer review process of Humphreys' 1994 paper [29] in which he first publicly presented his model. Humphreys is convinced that his model is still viable and is continuing to correct and refine his model. Whether this model survives or not, we should applaud this very serious effort that Humphreys has made.
(emphasis added)
Or, to be less polite, "It looks like nobody else agrees with Humphreys so we'd better distance ourselves from his theory before it implodes definitely and drags us into a mess."

But this says nothing to prove your assertion that a tested sample can be determined if parent or daughter element was added to thus contaminating the sample in time past.

That says nothing to prove your assertion that such contamination can explain old ages in supposedly young rocks.

Shernren you nedd to reread the qoute again for the subject they are referring yto is the radiogenic lead not the parent elements. they briung up the parent elements only to state where the lead which is moderately radioactive came from. C'mon I graduated college 30 years ago and I still can pick out the subject of a sentence!! Please go back two lead samples were used as feed material and it was those two lead samples (the material ) that was moderately radioactive! U-238

and TH232 are never written as being just "moderately radioactive". They are very radioactive even in tiny amounts!!!!!

The subjects are "lead samples", not "lead". When they say that the "lead samples" are contaminated, does that mean that every lump of Pb204 everywhere in the world is contaminated?

Well Shernren from your vantage point you may consider these folks literalists, but from my vantage point ( a literalist) I can tell you from reading their article that very very few literalists would call them literalists!!!

These folks use context points in a very disingenious manner. I have Hebrew works by both Christian Hebrew linguist and Hebrew linguists and all are agreed the language can only be globasl in extent--it is the context that demands a global flood for kol eretz.

And can you prove it without relying on a book the rest of us may never have access to? If you really understand those works can you summarize their content for me? In the (much vaunted) "context" of the passage the earth has "sinned". But mere land does not sin. You have not disproven my vantage point yet ...

A geneology is traced from Jesus to Adam-if Adam is mythological then how do we prove the rest is not mythological. Not only does it make Adam untrue but cain and Abel, Seth, Noah, Methuselah, the Tower of Babel, the worldwide dispersion of man, the biblical divisio0ns of the continents, even the Abraham and the birth of the Jewish nation, for if you say any of these were not mythical like Adam it is only because you draw the line further back than the atheists do!!

Who said Adam is mythical? Wasn't me.

Why is man the only creature to wear clothes.

Because he understands the concept of shame due to his sentience and the fact that he sins.

Why do creatures die?

God created a physical world with well-recognizable laws, and in order for creatures to reproduce indefinitely without dying would require the modification of the laws of conservation of mass, a second identity element over the set of natural numbers with respect to addition, and a modification of the physical need for matter to occupy space.

Why is there sin in man?

Because Adam ate the fruit? Seriously, I don't get why creationists keep asking this as if evolutionists are sinless or don't know what sin is. The Bible says: When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. (James 1:13-15 NIV) Shucks, I don't see contraband carbohydrate anywhere here, do you?

Why did Jesus die? He is called the last Adam and He died because the first Adam introduced sin in to the world. But this is wrong if Adam is just typology.

Because humans sin? Again, I am at a loss to understand why creationists ask this kind of question. It is as if evolutionists don't know what sin is (rebellion against God), or how sin comes about (James 1:13-15, above), or what God has done for sin (by sending Jesus Christ). If I tell you "don't be a prodigal son", am I saying that you are strictly allegorical by comparing you to someone who is strictly allegorical?

Evolution shows a history of death, predation, extinction and violence-long before man appears, the bible shows these after man fell and corrupted the planet.

Both God and Jesus are represented many times as a vicious lion. Would God compare His glory and action to something that resulted as a consequence of man's fallible sin?

Once again -God allows HIs Word to have a known lie in the creation acoount. Hebrew has the linguistic tools to show a rudimetnary teaching of the bib bang and the long slow march of evolution. But God did not use that.

Prove it: do this exercise: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22564833&postcount=6

Science cannot prove the kinds becoming other kinds-- we only see the kinds reproducing their own kind just a the bible declares.

Which is exactly what evolution predicts.

And once again I pose this question to you because you declared your self to be a beleiver of Jesus Christ and HIs Word:

If the theory if evolution is true as propounded by secular science-- Why did not God give this message to the church(whom He declared to be His ambassadors and messengers of His truths) to proclaim? Why did He allow the church to preach a false message about the genesis of all things for nearly 2 millenia and then have unbeleivers who were seeking ways to discredit the bible come up with what He knew to be the truth?? Do you really think that God would have kept the church in the dark as well as the Jews for that long and then use unbeleivers to proclaimthe truth un this area of Gods realm????

If you've ever taken a prescription from a non-Christian doctor you will know that God lets them know the truth of science reflecting His glorious order in nature. The only reason atheistic evolutionism does any damage to Christianity is because scientific creationists have agreed with their hyper-polarization of the issue and lost half the battle in the process: http://www.christianforums.com/t2760299-who-yokes-with-who.html

 

[The Lady Kate]

Because he understands the concept of shame due to his sentience and the fact that he sins.

This reminded me of a quote by Mark Twain: "Man is the only animal that blushes... or has reason to."

 

[nolidad]

Or, to be less polite, "It looks like nobody else agrees with Humphreys so we'd better distance ourselves from his theory before it implodes definitely and drags us into a mess."

Or to be more accurate-- his peers are reviewing his wirk, finding problematic areas and then Humphreys goes to correct his MODEL. I see no rejection, just normal peer critcism as is done with theories of evolution as well. His work is still recommended by ICR.

That says nothing to prove your assertion that such contamination can explain old ages in supposedly young rocks.

Your smokescreen notwithstanding-- you made the claim that geologists can determine of a sample was contaminated in situ with either parent or daughter elements and I asked you to show how. I still await.

The subjects are "lead samples", not "lead". When they say that the "lead samples" are contaminated, does that mean that every lump of Pb204 everywhere in the world is contaminated?

Well seeing we are not talking about every lead sample but whether lead 206,207,208 et al. can emit radioactivity. You said no way, Oak Ridge shows that some samples of lead can!! Switching subjects in mid stream is really bad form.

And can you prove it without relying on a book the rest of us may never have access to? If you really understand those works can you summarize their content for me? In the (much vaunted) "context" of the passage the earth has "sinned". But mere land does not sin. You have not disproven my vantage point yet ...

To be honest I think it would a fruitless endeavor to spend two three pages going through Hebrew and context and showing when Hoah was inspired to write every mountain was covered to a depth of 18 feet how that cannot be a localized flood. There is a much biiger issue at stake then trying to educate you to the nuances of context .

Who said Adam is mythical? Wasn't me.

Well my bad! There are 3-4 four of you against me in this debate so forgive my confusinmg qoutes.

God created a physical world with well-recognizable laws, and in order for creatures to reproduce indefinitely without dying would require the modification of the laws of conservation of mass, a second identity element over the set of natural numbers with respect to addition, and a modification of the physical need for matter to occupy space.

Well that is one technical explanation but the simple fact is that no creature in the animal kingdom tasted death until Adam sinned. You either have to agree with this in Romans as true or not. So until sin entered the world there was no law of sin and death.

Because Adam ate the fruit? Seriously, I don't get why creationists keep asking this as if evolutionists are sinless or don't know what sin is. The Bible says: When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. (James 1:13-15 NIV) Shucks, I don't see contraband carbohydrate anywhere here, do you?

So do you beleive Adam was a real human? Created es-Deo? was the first human to tred the earth?

Because humans sin? Again, I am at a loss to understand why creationists ask this kind of question. It is as if evolutionists don't know what sin is (rebellion against God), or how sin comes about (James 1:13-15, above), or what God has done for sin (by sending Jesus Christ). If I tell you "don't be a prodigal son", am I saying that you are strictly allegorical by comparing you to someone who is strictly allegorical?

Well, you will have to define your beleif on the first 11 chapters of Genesis. All theistic evolutionists I have encountered to date in debate forums all have held these chapters as mere allegory. This is why we pose these questions because most of your fellow theistic evolutionists dismiss these chapters as literal.

Both God and Jesus are represented many times as a vicious lion. Would God compare His glory and action to something that resulted as a consequence of man's fallible sin?

YES! Because He was communicating a concept with a word picture to help us understand better an quality of HIs nature!

Which is exactly what evolution predicts.

What does evolution predict? That kinds can become other kinds or that each genera has wharwas dubbed in the late 1800's a boundary called the "fixity of the species". Which just simply meant that dogs could procreate with many other dogs but not a cat or frog etc, and that dogs always reproduce dogs?

Prove it: do this exercise: http://www.christianforums.com/showp...33&postcount=6

Would you consider 2nd graders as those who do not grasp physics?? Cause I did that and told two satories to 2nd graders. Creation and evolution. I was able to teach them both models in language they could understand. Are you saying that early man was unable to grasp simple concepts like long ages and animals slowly changing from one kind to another over long ages. Or that all things started in a big explosion in the heavens?? C'mon if a dummy lkike me can explain evolution and creation to 2nd graders today, I think God could have told Adam and his descendants alot easier than I could. I don't for a minute you beleive that God would intentionally allow man to beleive something (a literal creation account in 6 days) that is diametrically opposed to evolution until man got fancy scientific lingo and methoidologies.

 

[Dannager]

Would you consider 2nd graders as those who do not grasp physics?? Cause I did that and told two satories to 2nd graders. Creation and evolution. I was able to teach them both models in language they could understand. Are you saying that early man was unable to grasp simple concepts like long ages and animals slowly changing from one kind to another over long ages. Or that all things started in a big explosion in the heavens?? C'mon if a dummy lkike me can explain evolution and creation to 2nd graders today, I think God could have told Adam and his descendants alot easier than I could. I don't for a minute you beleive that God would intentionally allow man to beleive something (a literal creation account in 6 days) that is diametrically opposed to evolution until man got fancy scientific lingo and methoidologies.

Now go back in time with your pocket calculator, that you no doubt can explain the electrical and computational workings thereof in layman's terms to a 2nd grader, and explain its operation to those living in ancient Rome. It is at that point you will discover precisely what the difference between a technologically-primitive man and a technologically-advanced child is. Your analogy is flawed.

 

[shernren]

Or to be more accurate-- his peers are reviewing his wirk, finding problematic areas and then Humphreys goes to correct his MODEL. I see no rejection, just normal peer critcism as is done with theories of evolution as well. His work is still recommended by ICR.

Read the paragraph carefully. "Humphreys believes his model is still viable" - ICR doesn't. "There has been a failure in the peer-review process" - it is not a simple typo or two. Something as large as what happened to Hwang Woo-Suk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk could also be accurately described as a "failure in peer-review".

Your smokescreen notwithstanding-- you made the claim that geologists can determine of a sample was contaminated in situ with either parent or daughter elements and I asked you to show how. I still await.

For example, weathering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weathering A geologist can easily determine if a sample has weathered or not, and if it has weathered this will result in leaching of radioactive elements among others. Your turn.

Well seeing we are not talking about every lead sample but whether lead 206,207,208 et al. can emit radioactivity. You said no way, Oak Ridge shows that some samples of lead can!! Switching subjects in mid stream is really bad form.

Alright. Let's break this down.

Lead-206: non-radioactive. http://science.howstuffworks.com/radon1.htm
Lead-208: non-radioactive.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s164155.htm

What is the Oak Ridge quote talking about? The samples of lead are radioactive. The lead itself is not. Note that the "moderate radioactivity" of the quote is not attributed to the lead itself. In fact, the report goes on to mention exactly what other isotopes were in the lead sample, presumably explaining the source of radioactivity to readers who would know that lead-206 and lead-208 is radioactive.

As for lead-207: stable. http://www.chemthes.com/entity_datapage.php?id=3444

To be honest I think it would a fruitless endeavor to spend two three pages going through Hebrew and context and showing when Hoah was inspired to write every mountain was covered to a depth of 18 feet how that cannot be a localized flood. There is a much biiger issue at stake then trying to educate you to the nuances of context .

http://www.jrtalks.com/Articles/Flood/Height.html

Well my bad! There are 3-4 four of you against me in this debate so forgive my confusinmg qoutes.

No, you haven't confused any quotes, because I haven't given you any quotes, because you have never even bothered to ask me what I believe. Now, the reason God gave us two ears and one mouth is ... hehe. The fact of the matter is that creationists often come in with a lot of horrendously wrong notions about what evolutionists believe and then betray themselves when their refutations don't hit even remotely near.

Well that is one technical explanation but the simple fact is that no creature in the animal kingdom tasted death until Adam sinned. You either have to agree with this in Romans as true or not. So until sin entered the world there was no law of sin and death.

Oh dear, the perennial misquoting of Romans 5 occurs again.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
(Romans 5:12 NIV)

Now, if you can show me a real verse in the Bible that says death came to all animals through Adam's sin.

So do you beleive Adam was a real human? Created es-Deo? was the first human to tred the earth?

I'm not sure just what you mean by "ex-Deo", but generally yes. Happy?

Well, you will have to define your beleif on the first 11 chapters of Genesis. All theistic evolutionists I have encountered to date in debate forums all have held these chapters as mere allegory. This is why we pose these questions because most of your fellow theistic evolutionists dismiss these chapters as literal.

Real Adam. Real Eve. Real Garden of Eden. The two trees, not too sure. If literal, then fine. If allegorical, then referring to an explicit choice God gave man between eternal life and death through sin. Snake not too sure, real temptation. Real Fall. Real people in genealogy, gaps between them. Local flood. Not too sure about the ark.

The spiritual lessons of Genesis 1-11 are far more important than any historical lessons it presents.

YES! Because He was communicating a concept with a word picture to help us understand better an quality of HIs nature!

I'm afraid that is an extremely huge claim for me to swallow. Show me any instance in the Bible where God explicitly compares His actions and His glory to an explicitly sinful human action. Caveat: Jesus' parables such as the parable of the Importunate Widow and the parable of the Friend at Midnight don't count because although those are actions of sinful people the actions themselves are intrinsically good actions. The parable of the Dishonest Steward doesn't count because Jesus is comparing the steward's actions to man's actions, not God's actions.

There are people here who would say that when we advance this argument "The theory of apparent age makes God a liar" we are blaspheming for even putting God and liar in the same sentence. (At least that's how it looked like to me. I never got their point no matter how hard I tried to understand it. ) In light of that what would justify God comparing Himself in parallel with something sinful?

What does evolution predict? That kinds can become other kinds or that each genera has wharwas dubbed in the late 1800's a boundary called the "fixity of the species". Which just simply meant that dogs could procreate with many other dogs but not a cat or frog etc, and that dogs always reproduce dogs?

See? All this shooting and you never even knew what you were shooting at. Finally you ask what evolution predicts. Evolution predicts nested hierarchies. For example, the first dog population to evolve evolved from a more primitive mammal population. Each and every "dog" can also be classified as a "mammal". If the dog population were to evolve in future into "grenoids" and "ligrins", say, every "grenoid" and "ligrin" would be classifiably a dog before being classifiably a "grenoid" or whatever.

Evolution doesn't break boundaries, it builds boundaries.

Would you consider 2nd graders as those who do not grasp physics?? Cause I did that and told two satories to 2nd graders. Creation and evolution. I was able to teach them both models in language they could understand. Are you saying that early man was unable to grasp simple concepts like long ages and animals slowly changing from one kind to another over long ages. Or that all things started in a big explosion in the heavens?? C'mon if a dummy lkike me can explain evolution and creation to 2nd graders today, I think God could have told Adam and his descendants alot easier than I could. I don't for a minute you beleive that God would intentionally allow man to beleive something (a literal creation account in 6 days) that is diametrically opposed to evolution until man got fancy scientific lingo and methoidologies.

Whoops. You said "explosion". Fail. When you tell the average person that the Big Bang was a big "explosion", the average person gets the idea of a little seed of pregnant matter hanging in the middle of a vast empty space and suddenly the matter balloons out to fill all the space available, or a huge portion of it. Which is very wrong and which is behind many creationist misunderstandings of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang actually states that both matter and space were immensely contracted at the beginning of time. Matter didn't expand out into space, matter and space expanded out from the beginning. The universe at t=0 was nearly infinitely dense everywhere, and at t>0 the density decreased everywhere. And to be frank, I can't think of any way to explain the Big Bang accurately in anything under a few pages, and that to people who are willing to do background research and already have a good grasp of GR and SR. If you can explain the Big Bang accurately to 2nd graders within a page's worth of text you are a true genius. Upload that text and let us gaze upon your great wisdom.

 

[nolidad]

[QUOTENow go back in time with your pocket calculator, that you no doubt can explain the electrical and computational workings thereof in layman's terms to a 2nd grader, and explain its operation to those living in ancient Rome. It is at that point you will discover precisely what the difference between a technologically-primitive man and a technologically-advanced child is. Your analogy is flawed.][/QUOTE]

But we are not talking about calculators, nor were we talking about the scientific minutae of the theory of evolution, we were talking about God telling His people that He caused things to be formed over long periods of time with small changes made over that loong period of time to make all the many living creatures that primitive man could see. I think even a primitive man could understand that (Adam was no dummy), But instead God said He created the entire universe in 6 24 hourt days and that each type of animal would only produce after its pwn kind.

Read the paragraph carefully. "Humphreys believes his model is still viable" - ICR doesn't. "There has been a failure in the peer-review process" - it is not a simple typo or two. Something as large as what happened to Hwang Woo-Suk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk could also be accurately described as a "failure in peer-review".

It is ICC that is critical of his work-not ICR- 2 differing bodies. And a failure in peer review means the review broke down. Humphreys did not produce his work by fraud, his model has some inconsistencies that may or may not weork out, but I would like to know what failed in the review process- for it is the peer review thast failed not Humphreys work, and the article does not enumerate what failed in the review process.

For example, weathering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weathering A geologist can easily determine if a sample has weathered or not, and if it has weathered this will result in leaching of radioactive elements among others. Your turn.

Well that is a nice cushy answer that means nothing. All geologic samples undergo weathering to some degree. And a sample that is declared to be say 2.5 billion years- a geologist cannot determined how much weathering and how much leaching, He also cannot determine if parent or daughter elements were added to the sample and if it is determined there might have been this contamination, there is no mechanism to determine how much thus skewing the dates meaningless. Your turn.

What is the Oak Ridge quote talking about? The samples of lead are radioactive. The lead itself is not. Note that the "moderate radioactivity" of the quote is not attributed to the lead itself. In fact, the report goes on to mention exactly what other isotopes were in the lead sample, presumably explaining the source of radioactivity to readers who would know that lead-206 and lead-208 is radioactive.

Well I discussed thias with someone far more wise in the ways of physics than I and showed hiom this qoute and he told me immediately the radioactivity is emitted from the lead samples thus making them moderately radioactive. Now if you want to go down to the subatomic levels and detrermine if the lead that was emitting radioactivity had micro amounts of thorium or uranium- well email Oak ridge and ask them.

I'm not sure just what you mean by "ex-Deo", but generally yes. Happy?

Well then let me ask-- do you beleive he wasthe product of evolution via the standard chain or was he formed by God to be the first human to trod on the earth.

Now, if you can show me a real verse in the Bible that says death came to all animals through Adam's sin.

Well first off Romans 5 12 the a part. If you wish I can go into the differences of the word world gr. kosmos and also oikeumenie and evven aiaon). But for now suffice it to say that ksomos (as used here) CAN be used of men but because all men is ina contradistinction to the one man the world here is rendered the globe especially in light of a further verse in Romans 8:

19For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Creation itself was made subject to futility and painand death, which means at one time it was not futile and vain- before sin. Reread the curses God made in Genesis 3 after Adams fall.

The spiritual lessons of Genesis 1-11 are far more important than any historical lessons it presents.

But the spiritual lessons can only be gleaned because the events literally happened and thus made subjects for our learning.

There are people here who would say that when we advance this argument "The theory of apparent age makes God a liar" we are blaspheming for even putting God and liar in the same sentence. (At least that's how it looked like to me. I never got their point no matter how hard I tried to understand it. ) In light of that what would justify God comparing Himself in parallel with something sinful?

Well after further review let me correct a misunderstanding. Lions do not sin. Only men do! Lions act on the basis of the instructions God embedded in their instincts. Only man can sin because only man was given the ability to rationalize with a eternal soul

See? All this shooting and you never even knew what you were shooting at. Finally you ask what evolution predicts. Evolution predicts nested hierarchies. For example, the first dog population to evolve evolved from a more primitive mammal population. Each and every "dog" can also be classified as a "mammal". If the dog population were to evolve in future into "grenoids" and "ligrins", say, every "grenoid" and "ligrin" would be classifiably a dog before being classifiably a "grenoid" or whatever.

Well you can use "nested hierarchies but it still means the same something that wasn't a dog kept randomly mutating until it became a dog etc. etc. Lizards changed to birds, fish to lizards etc and we have no proof, just supposition.

[QUOTEThe Big Bang actually states that both matter and space were immensely contracted at the beginning of time. Matter didn't expand out into space, matter and space expanded out from the beginning. The universe at t=0 was nearly infinitely dense everywhere, and at t>0 the density decreased everywhere. And to be frank, I can't think of any way to explain the Big Bang accurately in anything under a few pages, and that to people who are willing to do background research and already have a good grasp of GR and SR. If you can explain the Big Bang accurately to 2nd graders within a page's worth of text you are a true genius. Upload that text and let us gaze upon your great wisdom. ]
[/QUOTE]

I could but no where near as technically as you appear to be able to. I understand the infinite denseness and all that, but simplisticly said- it was a huge explosion that caused space and matter to expand exponentionally. It really isn't that hard to make the complex into a simple explanation (of course the minute dtasils are noincluded but the general picture is given, just like when God told Adam how He spoke everything into ewxistence- He didn't get down to the minute details of special creation) And the empirical evidence that gives then the smoking gun to make this a fact is????? The best I have seen is just some amazingly intelligent astrophysicists taking what has been observed iin observable time and exropolating backwards to the initial infinitely dense grapefruit size mass of matter.

Real Adam. Real Eve. Real Garden of Eden. The two trees, not too sure. If literal, then fine. If allegorical, then referring to an explicit choice God gave man between eternal life and death through sin.

Well you are getting there. Do you also beleive God spoke into existence all flora and fauna in the few days before He made man but after He created the universe?

 

[nolidad]

It does not make them untrue. It makes them non-historical.

Call it any term you wish but non historical when God speople understood it as historical still makes it a lie.


As for the division of the continents: Gen 10:25And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

While some look at this as the dispersion of the peoples at the Tower of Babel (and that is a possibility) it also could refer to the rendering of the one land mass. Into the present continents we have today.

 

[gluadys]

Call it any term you wish but non historical when God speople understood it as historical still makes it a lie.

The concept of history as we understand it did not exist in ancient times. Story and history had not yet been separated into distinguishable categories

As for the division of the continents: Gen 10:25And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

While some look at this as the dispersion of the peoples at the Tower of Babel (and that is a possibility) it also could refer to the rendering of the one land mass. Into the present continents we have today.

Given its proximity to the Babel story, that interpretation makes sense. I do not know of any other interpretation that even existed prior to about 1970. So I very much doubt that Pangea was what the biblical author had in mind.

And, of course, there is not a whit of evidence of physical division of continents in that time frame.

Retrojecting modern science onto the biblical accounts (and grossly misinterpreted science at that) is what I call interpretation by anachronism.

There is no way you can get such an interpretation via sound exegesis.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gluadys again.

for the phrase

Retrojecting modern science onto the biblical accounts (and grossly misinterpreted science at that) is what I call interpretation by anachronism.

There is no way you can get such an interpretation via sound exegesis.

thanks another excellent description. good enough to blog....*grin*