Inerrancy

[StephenDM]

For starters, Uranium-Lead dating on fragments of the Canyon Diablo meteorite imply an age of ~4.5 billion years. I.e., it looks ~4.5 billion years old.
So, why would God create things to look billions of years old?

Uranium-thorium-lead dating methods are not free from controversy. Their results may not be accurate.

 

[StephenDM]

God never makes the claim in scripture that everything that is written in our present Bible today is totally accurate. So He is not lying, right?

 

[StephenDM]

If your salvation is not based on what the bible says then the bible has little use for you. If your salvation is based on what is written, then what is written better be accurate, right?

In my first post with this topic I explained in part why I think the Bible is a reliable and supernatural book.

My salvation/faith is built on what the Bible says. God knows that people make accidental mistakes when they copy things or pass on messages word-of-mouth. We live in an imperfect world. God can deliver a perfect message, however, through an imperfect medium because He has given us supernatural clues along the way.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Uranium-thorium-lead dating methods are not free from controversy. Their results may not be accurate.

Care to elaborate?
It's worth pointing out that such doubts are easily quelled by noting that every other method of dating the Earth has arrived at the same age: ~4.5 billion years. That's a mighty fine coincidence, don't you think?

 

[Xenon]

It's worth pointing out that such doubts are easily quelled by noting that every other method of dating the Earth has arrived at the same age: ~4.5 billion years. That's a mighty fine coincidence, don't you think?

The easy answer is that the Lord made the earth to look that old. The honest answer is that I have no clue. Science "corrects" itself all the time to account for new discoveries. The earth was flat, black holes didn't exist, and nothing could go faster than light. These have all changed over the course of history, as the earth certainly is round, there is very convincing evidence for black holes, and quantum spin can change no matter the distance. The bible, however, is pretty quiet on "apparent age" as far as I know, so as a believer in the bible I really can't say anything

 

[StephenDM]

Care to elaborate?
It's worth pointing out that such doubts are easily quelled by noting that every other method of dating the Earth has arrived at the same age: ~4.5 billion years. That's a mighty fine coincidence, don't you think?

My understanding is that radiometric dating makes certain assumptions before drawing conclusions. I am not a scientist so I will elaborate by refering you elsewhere for some answers (I know it's bit of a cop-out). The page includes references to Uranium-Lead dating.

www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm

Perhaps the faults associated with one form of radiometric dating are common to the other forms and therfore they give similar results.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The easy answer is that the Lord made the earth to look that old.

The irony is that we are discussing why the universe looks old

The honest answer is that I have no clue. Science "corrects" itself all the time to account for new discoveries. The earth was flat, black holes didn't exist, and nothing could go faster than light. These have all changed over the course of history, as the earth certainly is round, there is very convincing evidence for black holes, and quantum spin can change no matter the distance.

Some points: first, neither science nor Christianity ever suggested that the Earth was flat; it was proven by the Ancient Greeks; second, science never said 'black holes don't exist'; third, nothing has yet been shown to travel faster than c (though I admit, the entanglement phenomena is rather perplexing).
But I see your point: science is in a constant state of flux.

The bible, however, is pretty quiet on "apparent age" as far as I know, so as a believer in the bible I really can't say anything

I never understood why the Earth was supposed to be 6000 years old, instead of, say, 100, 000 (which is still quite young).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My understanding is that radiometric dating makes certain assumptions before drawing conclusions. I am not a scientist so I will elaborate by refering you elsewhere for some answers (I know it's bit of a cop-out).

The page includes references to Uranium-Lead dating.

www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm

And I cite:

• CD0: Geochronology
  • (see also CD241: Varves can form quickly.)
  • CD000: Radiometric dating makes false assumptions
    • CD001. Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems.
    • CD002. Radiometric dating falsely assumes initial conditions are known.
    • CD004. Cosmic rays and free neutrinos affect U and Ar decay rates.
    • (see also CF200: Radiometric dating)
  • CD010. Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
    • CD011. Carbon dating gives inaccurate results.
      • CD011.1. Variable C-14/C-12 ratio invalidates C-14 dating.
      • CD011.2. Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C-14 dates.
      • CD011.3. Living snails were C-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old.
      • CD011.4. A freshly killed seal was C-14 dated at 1,300 years old.
      • CD011.5. Triassic wood from Australia was dated at 33,000 years old.
      • CD011.6. Ancient coal and oil are C-14 dated as only 50,000 years old.
    • CD012. U-Th dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
    • CD013. K-Ar dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
      • CD013.1. K-Ar dates of 1986 dacite from Mount St. Helens are very old.
    • CD014. Isochron dating gives unreliable results.
      • CD014.1. Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old.
    • CD015. Zircons retain too much helium for an old earth.
    • CD016. The U-Th-Pb method, properly corrected for neutron capture, gives recent dates.
  • CD020. Consistency of radiometric dating comes from selective reporting.
  • CD031. KBS Tuff shows the flaws of radiometric dating.

As an explanation of the 'flaws' outlined in your article, and in most other articles on the 'flaws' of radiometric dating.

Perhaps the faults associated with one form of radiometric dating are common to the other forms and therfore they give similar results.

Not all dating methods use radioactivity.

 

[calidog]

So why does everything look billions of years old?

I don't think we really know what something billions of years old looks like

 

[calidog]

So, why would God create things to look billions of years old?

so we would discover Him through faith.


Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, He has set eternity in their heart, without which man cannot find out the work that God makes from the beginning even to the end.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I think there is a separate forum for creationism.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't think we really know what something billions of years old looks like

On the contrary, such antiquity leaves marks.

so we would discover Him through faith.


Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, He has set eternity in their heart, without which man cannot find out the work that God makes from the beginning even to the end.

So it is a test to see if his followers would be fooled by tangible evidence and unanimous science. How cunning.

 

[StephenDM]

Wiccan_Child, the citations you made all come from a particular website which sets out to disprove claims by creationists

Perhaps they prove certain claims by Creationists false,
Fair enough. However, there are rebuttals out there by creationists to some of the stuff on this particular website (maybe not the specific links you made).

www.creationwiki.org/Talk.Origins_Archive
www.trueorigin.org

You and I are not likely to come to a mutual understanding on this whole matter since our world views are so diametrically opposed.

 

[calidog]

On the contrary, such antiquity leaves marks.


So it is a test to see if his followers would be fooled by tangible evidence and unanimous science. How cunning.

If you havent figured it out by now, it is by faith.( For followers and non-followers.)

The believer is to believe what is written, in faith.
The unbeliever believes what is told them, by faith.

 

[leothelioness]

Not if you believe in a literal 6 days of creation. In that case the earth wasn't around for very long prior to man. Personally I believe in the inerrancy of the bible, so 6 literal days of creation is not a hard thing to swallow considering the omnipotence of god.

I don't believe in the 6 literal days argument. I believe that when the Bible said God created the world in six days it was speaking in God's time.

Elsewhere in the Bible it says that a day to the Lord is a thousand years. The same applies to the 6 "days" of creation.

 

[t1mp]

I don't believe in the 6 literal days argument. I believe that when the Bible said God created the world in six days it was speaking in God's time.

Elsewhere in the Bible it says that a day to the Lord is a thousand years. The same applies to the 6 "days" of creation.

Also, was time introduced pre-apple or post apple, after sin was thrust upon us in the existence in Satan, time then shackled us post apple. Since Satan was already there in the garden, then time might be introduced pre-apple but not destroying us little by little until sin was introduced and consumed by man.

So, Adam and Eve could have been around a long time before they succumbed.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Also, was time introduced pre-apple or post apple, after sin was thrust upon us in the existence in Satan, time then shackled us post apple. Since Satan was already there in the garden, then time might be introduced pre-apple but not destroying us little by little until sin was introduced and consumed by man.

So, Adam and Eve could have been around a long time before they succumbed.

In fact, some Jewish traditions put the expulsion less than a day after they were created.

 

[Catherineanne]

Since you bring this up, can you point to one error in the bible?

When I look into the face of my daughter, I do not do so to find flaws in her. I look with love.

I know she is not perfect, but my love for her remains.

Yes, there are many 'errors' in Scripture, if you treat it as literal history, which it also nowhere claims to be. But it is not for me to list them here, because I respect and revere the Bible for what it is, rather than resenting it for not meeting 21st century values of journalism or historicity.

But I do not worship it for what it is not. And I do not give it undue reverence that is nowhere sanctioned in Scripture. Regarded in this way, there are no errors, but much human fallibility.

 

[Catherineanne]

Because God is powerful enough to ensure that the definitive book about him and his desires for us is inerrant!

Indeed he is, if he chose to do so. There are many things which God is capable of doing, which he refrains from doing, out of love and mercy to us all.

But the Bible does not say that God dictated the Bible and made it perfect. For good reason; if he had said such a thing, we would have plated the Bible in gold and bowed down to it. As indeed many do today.

So, in the absence of such an affirmation, why does anyone believe it?

 

[irateional]

If you havent figured it out by now, it is by faith.( For followers and non-followers.)

The believer is to believe what is written, in faith.
The unbeliever believes what is told them, by faith.

My head hurts.

Look, it's not very hard to reconcile them. The Bible adapts. At the time it was wrote, a creation account in which God literally creates creation in 6 days and with his own hands is the only way to get a bunch of sheep-herders to understand.

But we're not sheep-herders. We can see the mechanisms and we can see that the secular account of the creation matches the stages of the Biblical one (the universe first, then stars, then the sun and moon and earth, the land forms on earth, the plants grown, followed by creatures, and then man being the last thing). We can reocncile the garden of eve as a metaphor of man's ascent to sentience and realization of the concepts of right and wrong and gaining a soul.

There doesn't have to be a controversy at all unless you want one.

The science holds up. The calculations for radiometric dating become more and more accurate. If the system of radiometric dating is wrong, then all of nuclear physics is wrong. Talk origins is a debunking site, but they already destroyed everything on those pathetic wikis and answering genesis sites and then some.

Have you ever stopped to think about the theological implications of God creating things to look really old? Such as the billion year old light rays? IF this was true, he could be destroying and rebuildling the universe every last thursday.

He'd be a prankster God, seeking to trick and decieve man. This can't be a God who claims to be truth, love and justice.