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.
KEMMER said:I MEAN HONESTLY, WOULD YOU EVER SEE JESUS OR PAUL CARING AABOUT SUCH USELESS YAMMERING?
nolidad said: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,
Ok for the flood onto 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!!
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???
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):
(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.
(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?
(9) According to the theory, the earth was originally molten. If that were true, then radical resetting of radioactive clocks would have occurred.
(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.
(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.
(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.
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).
(2) Leaching is another problem. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out.
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 madealready partly changed into its daughter products (already partly down its radioactive chain.
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.
But many or most such minerals might equally well contain some "radiogenic lead" (lead still emitting radiation) from some other source.
*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!
(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.
"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.
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.
(1) No contamination could have been present, although out in nature it is very much present most of the time.
(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.
(3) The decay rate could never change, although there are a number of significant outside factors which could easily have effected those changes.
(4) The Van Allen radiation belt must never have changed, although our first data on it only goes back to 1959.
(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?
(6) No end products could originally be mixed in with the parent substances, but this is merely another assumption.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
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.
KerrMetric said: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.
Contamination is detectable. Things happen when chemicals leave rocks.
Isochron dating does not require zero initial daughter content. Check it out.
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.
Again, contamination is detectable and accountable for.
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.
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.
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.
Neither this nor any other quote about the flood is inconsistent with a regional flood.
And no quote referring to Adam is inconsistent with a typological rather than a biological Adam.
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.
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?
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.
More begging the question. "could have been made" is not "was made". This is the same sort of thing as "light in transit".
No it would not affect the dating. Common lead and radiogenic lead have different isotopes and are easily distinguished from one another.
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.
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.
Where there is a strong possibility of leaching, the sample would not be considered appropriate for radiometric testing.
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.
Radiogenic lead is the end product of the decay of uranium or thorium. It is not itself a source of further radiation.
nolidad said: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...
It appears Oak Ridge labs say you are wrong.
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 .
Except for the resets caused by the tenso of thousands of volcanoes recorded in human history. which also perform radical resets.
but total discharger of daughter elements already released cannot be measured when one of the daughter elements is a gas and is dispersed.
Again, leaching out of parent or daughter elementrs is detectable how???
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.
KerrMetric said: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.
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.
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.
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.
Even the literalists agree with
nolidad said: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.
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??
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?
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.
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!!!!!
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.
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!!
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????
shernren said:Because he understands the concept of shame due to his sentience and the fact that he sins.
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."
That says nothing to prove your assertion that such contamination can explain old ages in supposedly young rocks.
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?
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 ...
Who said Adam is mythical? Wasn't me.
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.
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?
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?
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?
Which is exactly what evolution predicts.
Prove it: do this exercise: http://www.christianforums.com/showp...33&postcount=6
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.nolidad said: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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.jrtalks.com/Articles/Flood/Height.htmlTo 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 .
Well my bad! There are 3-4 four of you against me in this debate so forgive my confusinmg qoutes.
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.
So do you beleive Adam was a real human? Created es-Deo? was the first human to tred the earth?
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.
YES! Because He was communicating a concept with a word picture to help us understand better an quality of HIs nature!
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?
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.
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".
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.
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.
I'm not sure just what you mean by "ex-Deo", but generally yes. Happy?
Now, if you can show me a real verse in the Bible that says death came to all animals through Adam's sin.
The spiritual lessons of Genesis 1-11 are far more important than any historical lessons it presents.
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?
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.
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.
It does not make them untrue. It makes them non-historical.
nolidad said: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.
for the phraseYou must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gluadys again.
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.
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?