The linage...FACT or FICTION?

[LewisWildermuth]

If you can't trust the bible on the other issues that you pointed out....then how can you trust them on the essentials?



What????? The evidence for a world wide flood is very compelling.
Here is a few examples:
Chalk Strata containing marine fossils has been found extending from Northern Ireland, through England, to France, southern Germany, northern India, Malaysia and ending up in Australia. This strata extends around three quarters of the world!

And this is a perfect example of how creation "scientists" fail to think about what they are saying... Some of these chalk deposits are over a mile thick, all maide up of the tiny skealetons of sea animals... How can you deposit this ammount in just one year? There is not enough of these animals in all of the oceans over the period of thousands of years to make a mile of sediment. Did God cause these creatures to reproduce at unnatural rates to fool us, in otherwords is God lying?

Coal is much the same problem for YEC's, we burn more coal in a year than could be made if you took all the living things in the world and pressed them into coal, yet they insist that all coal was made in the flood. Again this is only possible if God unnaturaly increases the biomass of the planet to lie to us through His creation.

Once one looks at these things one has to make a choice, eithier God is a liar of humans are taking a parable too literaly...

I prefer not to think of God as a liar.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Lewis, you FORCE the bible to accept evolution...therefor it is evolutionISM

As opposed to CreationISM?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Lewis, you FORCE the bible to accept evolution...therefor it is evolutionISM

And what about the sun at the center of our solar system? Is it not the same thing if one accepts the non-biblical evidence of the sun, not the earth being at the center? The Bible says nothing on this issue just as it says nothing on the issue of evolution. Do you subscribe to the religion of heliocentricism?

 

[Ark Guy]

You think LewisWildermuth would have done his homework prior to posting the following.

And this is a perfect example of how creation "scientists" fail to think about what they are saying... Some of these chalk deposits are over a mile thick, all maide up of the tiny skealetons of sea animals... How can you deposit this ammount in just one year? There is not enough of these animals in all of the oceans over the period of thousands of years to make a mile of sediment. Did God cause these creatures to reproduce at unnatural rates to fool us, in otherwords is God lying?

Chalk:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_chalk.asp

Coal:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1137.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1233.asp

 

[Ark Guy]

As opposed to CreationISM?

The bible in its natural everyday style of reading speaks of a six day creation with Adam being formed from the dust then Eve from his side...then years later it talks of a world wide flood....all in simple easy to understand language.

But for some reason, the evos like to filter the bible through their belief in evolutionISM.

They make Adam into a figment of our imagination.
Do you think they have the ability to do the same for Jesus Christ who is compared several times in the NT with this figment named Adam?

 

[Ark Guy]

And what about the sun at the center of our solar system? Is it not the same thing if one accepts the non-biblical evidence of the sun, not the earth being at the center? The Bible says nothing on this issue just as it says nothing on the issue of evolution. Do you subscribe to the religion of heliocentricism?

I'm not quite sure I understand your post.
When you speak of the word center do you mean "center" as the middle or "center" as the focus of attention?

Also what is this non-biblical evidence of the sun? Perhaps you're trying to make a point or something and not doing a very good job of it.

 

[Buck72]

Let's look at the geneology of Christ once again:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/genealogy.html

When we get to the New Testament, we discover two genealogies of Jesus Christ. Matthew, as a Jew and focusing on Jesus as the Messiah, begins his with Abraham and follows the royal line through David, and the first surviving son of Bathsheba, Solomon, on to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus Christ.

Luke, however, as a doctor focuses on Jesus as the Son of Man, and takes his genealogy from Adam - the first man - and then from Abraham to David, they are identical.

However, when Luke gets to David, rather than go through Solomon, he follows the line from Nathan, the second surviving son of Bathsheba, and takes his genealogy to Mary, identifying Joseph as the son-in-law of Heli, Mary's father*.

This was to get around the blood curse on Jeconiah (also known as Jehoiachin) in Jermiah 22:30 -

Jer 22:30 "Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.'"

Now there is a problem since Jeconiah was in the Royal Line from David, and Messiah was to be from the same Royal Line! (Ruth 4:22; 2 Samuel 7:11-16)

What a magnificent God we serve! The two geneologies are in place to close the gap left from the blood curse on Jeconiah - wow.

The virgin birth, prophesied in Isaiah (as well as the hint in Genesis 3)** is thus an "end run" on the blood curse on the descendants of Jeconiah.

__________________________________________________________________________________

* Luke 3:23, nomi,zw, nomizo, reckoned as by law. This derives from the specific exception granted in the Torah to the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers 27:1-11; Joshua 17:3-6), and by which the son-in-law inherits (Cf. Ezra 2:61; Nehemiah 7:63; Numbers 32:41; 1 Chronicles 2:21-23, 34-35.).

** Genesis 3:15, "the seed of the woman" (a contradiction in terms), and also prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/biblestudy/19981201-73.html

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You think LewisWildermuth would have done his homework prior to posting the following.



Chalk:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_chalk.asp

Interesting reading.

A few comments:

(1) Given that creationists usually argue that the mountains were smaller then (to get away from the "where did the water come from/go to?" problem
), has anyone actually asked what the consistency of the flood water would have been like during a "bloom" capable of laying down over 100m of chalk? Something tells me it would make walking on water easy.

(2) Here's an interesting thing. After stating that "reasons for these blooms are poorly understood, but suggestions include ...", it boldly goes on to state: "Without a doubt, all of these stated conditions would have been generated during the catastrophic global upheaval of the Flood, and thus rapid production of carbonate skeletons by foraminifera and coccolithophores would be possible.". In other words, the model is based on a poorly understood phenomenon!

(3) Let's see the chalk in the wider context of strata. Here's a picture of Ingleborough, a mountain I've been up more times than I can remember:

http://www.settle-carlisle.co.uk/images/pictures/gallery/ingleborough.jpg

Essentially, there are four layers - the different rock types are visible by the light and dark outcrops, and the steps caused by the differential weathering. The pedestal on which it sits is limestone. Then there's a thick gritstone layer. Then more limestone, and finally a gritstone cap. What process laid down the limestone, waited until it had solidified, put gritstone on top of it, then more limestone, then finally another layer of gritstone, all during this flood?

And the surrounding mountains have the same patterns. They must have been laid down as single wide ranging layers. But then glaciers have carved out valleys between them. Two levels of glaciation are apparent - one which carved out the wider, higher level, valleys at the gritstone level, floors around 400m in altitude, and then another glaciation at a lower level that carved out Ribblesdale and Twistleton Dale, with a valley floor around the 200m mark.

Your explanations are awaited.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

<Wind whistles. Tumbleweed blows across the scene>

<Night falls>

<sounds of crickets chirping>

<Sun rises>

<Wind whistles. Tumbleweed blows across the scene>

 

[ThePhoenix]

The bible in its natural everyday style of reading speaks of a six day creation with Adam being formed from the dust then Eve from his side...then years later it talks of a world wide flood....all in simple easy to understand language.

But for some reason, the evos like to filter the bible through their belief in evolutionISM.

They make Adam into a figment of our imagination.
Do you think they have the ability to do the same for Jesus Christ who is compared several times in the NT with this figment named Adam?

Yeah, we have a contridictory account that is loaded with symbolism (Tree of Knowledge, Tree of Life how symbolic do you want to get?) that is being taken literally. Jesus's life on the other hand is well documented. Are we supposed to take the parables literally too?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Once again.....where does the linage change from fact to fiction?

Why do the Theo-Evos keep refusing to answer this question?

I don't know where it changes. I don't think that it matters.

 

[Ark Guy]

No, Buck you are missing the point entirely. It is not AT ALL that the Bible doesn't matter. It not only matters, it is essential to the Christian belief. What is not essential is whether the flood was worldwide, local, or a morality story from God. The message from that Scripture IS essential, but that is all.

Kinda curious..why do you consider this as non essential? just wondering

 

[Ark Guy]

I don't know where it changes. I don't think that it matters.

Sure it matters..was Noah real? How about David?

 

[Buck72]

Yeah, we have a contridictory account that is loaded with symbolism (Tree of Knowledge, Tree of Life how symbolic do you want to get?) that is being taken literally. Jesus's life on the other hand is well documented. Are we supposed to take the parables literally too?

Here is a fundamental divide:

TE's claim to be "Theistic", and I sincerely applaud that, and offer my utmost respect within this Christian Forum. There are some remarkably intelligent, lucid arguments that I have taken the effort to search out and consider.

What gets me, and if I may speak for Ark Guy, is that most of the TE's in this Forum would rather scoff at the Bible than consider that it just might be what it claims to be; the Living Word of God.

If that be the case, would not it be prudent that each one of us carefully consider that when arguments are raised about the legitimacy of the Bible (God's Word) that we are no longer in debate with ideas of our origin, but rather in serious disharmony with God?

Ark Guy and I have taken a Biblical stance to some serious issues that have been casually brushed off:

I don't know where it changes. I don't think that it matters.

I'm stunned that any Christian would regard the Word with both ignorance and apathy in full view of the times we are living in. Christ repeatedly WARNS us throughout the gospels against false doctrines, heresies, spiritual struggles against the flesh, world, and the enemy, various trials and persecutions for believing in Him, along with an escalation of evil in the world that should grow to such immense proportions that even the elect would potentially fall away. He warns against deception, the counter to which is the WORD OF GOD.

The Book of Gensesis tells us God spoke the world into existence: "Let there be..". The Book of John tells us that that very Word is Christ!

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Rev 19:13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

The "symbolism" is only such to those that will not deal with it otherwise. As Christians, in order for us to know God, and to be known by God, it is crucial that we approach the Word carefully and humbly.

Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Where does faith come from?

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Pro 13:13 The one who despises the word will be in debt to it, But the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded.

Phoenix, the Bible is meant to be taken literally. God wrote it carefully so that the meek could easily understand it, but the arrogant could easily be confounded by it. Therefore, with a gentle heart, the Book opens the eyes of the soul and leads one to the innermost sancuary of the mysteries of God.

The trees you mentioned are LITERAL. And the parables were identified as parables so that the reader would understand they are parables, and yes, they too are to be literally applied to one's life in order to understand the heart of God.

Take courage brothers!! We serve a God that is gentle, loving, and yet ALMIGHTY!! Read the parable of the prodigal son to understand that our God eagerly awaits our return to Him, to the point that He runs to greet us!

Think about that for awhile...

This life is the only one we have. We can put our trust in science, earth, and man - all of which is temporal and its understanding based solely upon our own ability to conjecture and reason, OR we can simply accept the fact that the Bible really is the literal, innerrant Word of the Living God and trust that perhaps He knows more than we do.

Jer 17:9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

Jer 17:10 "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Jer 23:29 "Is not My word like fire?" declares the LORD, "and like a hammer which shatters a rock?

May I suggest a read through the Book of Job ch. 38-42 prior to the next post?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Here is a fundamental divide:

TE's claim to be "Theistic", and I sincerely applaud that, and offer my utmost respect within this Christian Forum. There are some remarkably intelligent, lucid arguments that I have taken the effort to search out and consider.

What gets me, and if I may speak for Ark Guy, is that most of the TE's in this Forum would rather scoff at the Bible than consider that it just might be what it claims to be; the Living Word of God.

Okay, where have people scoffed at the Bible itself? This is quite a serious accusation, now I might differ with you on how a verse or chapter is to be interpreted, but to scoff at the Bible is a whole different story.

If that be the case, would not it be prudent that each one of us carefully consider that when arguments are raised about the legitimacy of the Bible (God's Word) that we are no longer in debate with ideas of our origin, but rather in serious disharmony with God?

I do not argue that the Bible is not legitiment, surely as a Christian I think that it is, however, something does not have to be literal or factual to be legitiment.

Ark Guy and I have taken a Biblical stance to some serious issues that have been casually brushed off:

Maybe it is your stance that is dissagreed with and not the Bible, and since much work is being done in biblical archeology by both sides and much time is devoted to reasearch by both sides, you seem not to be being "casualy brushed off".

I'm stunned that any Christian would regard the Word with both ignorance and apathy in full view of the times we are living in. Christ repeatedly WARNS us throughout the gospels against false doctrines, heresies, spiritual struggles against the flesh, world, and the enemy, various trials and persecutions for believing in Him, along with an escalation of evil in the world that should grow to such immense proportions that even the elect would potentially fall away. He warns against deception, the counter to which is the WORD OF GOD.

Since many of us have spent a great deal of time and reading in reasearch of our position, you can drop apathy, unless of course you have proof that accepting everything in the Bible as literal dose indeed have reprecusions on salvation.

Which would be more ignorant, to make up some imaginary line where we divide the Bible without solid evidence to back us up or to say "I don't know yet."? To me, it would be more ignorant to speak without knowing the facts than to say I don't know.

The Book of Gensesis tells us God spoke the world into existence: "Let there be..". The Book of John tells us that that very Word is Christ!

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Rev 19:13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

The "symbolism" is only such to those that will not deal with it otherwise. As Christians, in order for us to know God, and to be known by God, it is crucial that we approach the Word carefully and humbly.

And the first rule about approaching something humbly is not to assume you are right in your interpretation... Only after casting aside the pride that would have us blindly think that we are right can we look at things without prejudice.

Where does faith come from?

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Pro 13:13 The one who despises the word will be in debt to it, But the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded.

And here we have justification for T/E's existance, for the word of God is not only the Bible, but all of creation itself, remember Jesus is the Word and was the same that spoke all into existance. The Bible is one side of the story, creation (the universe itself) is the other.

Phoenix, the Bible is meant to be taken literally. God wrote it carefully so that the meek could easily understand it, but the arrogant could easily be confounded by it. Therefore, with a gentle heart, the Book opens the eyes of the soul and leads one to the innermost sancuary of the mysteries of God.

Be careful here, you seem to be saying that God is purposely tricking people into hell.... What kind of gentle loving God would set up something to trick people into hell?

This life is the only one we have. We can put our trust in science, earth, and man - all of which is temporal and its understanding based solely upon our own ability to conjecture and reason, OR we can simply accept the fact that the Bible really is the literal, innerrant Word of the Living God and trust that perhaps He knows more than we do.

Now remember that the universe is God's Word made manifest, so telling people not to trust in the universe is telling them not to trust in God.

Jer 17:9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

Jer 17:10 "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Jer 23:29 "Is not My word like fire?" declares the LORD, "and like a hammer which shatters a rock?

May I suggest a read through the Book of Job ch. 38-42 prior to the next post?

Wxcellent' Job is one of my favorite books.

Job 38


The LORD Speaks

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:

2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?

Here God condems Job for speaking out if ignorance... But did not Job know the creation stories? If he know the creation stories how could he be ignorant about how things work?

Could it be that there is more to this universe than the creation stories?

Job here is getting a dress down from God because he assumed he knew more than he did... Evidently there is more to know than what is writen in the Bible...

22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?

Here we have a problem for this literaly describing the earth... It seems that there are no big wharehouses in the sky where God stores snow and hail... It seems to me that God is saying that this is a foolish and wrong idea that Job held. Along with seas being fed from giant spirngs and the fire breathing animals of myth.

If Job, who lived much closer to the "beginning" than us and of whom God spoke so well of can get so much wrong, that who are we to assume we know so much better?

 

[Buck72]

Okay, where have people scoffed at the Bible itself? This is quite a serious accusation, now I might differ with you on how a verse or chapter is to be interpreted, but to scoff at the Bible is a whole different story.

It is simply a matter of point - please read the threads where a Creationists relates scripture to support "trivial, non-literal, old fables like the Flood" and then argue there is no scoffing. If I said: "Lewis scoffs at the Bible" then you'd have reason to argue otherwise if were not true.

I do not argue that the Bible is not legitiment, surely as a Christian I think that it is, however, something does not have to be literal or factual to be legitiment.

Okay, then the argument becomes: Why do TE's argue the Bible to be non-literal, non-factual?

Maybe it is your stance that is dissagreed with and not the Bible, and since much work is being done in biblical archeology by both sides and much time is devoted to reasearch by both sides, you seem not to be being "casualy brushed off".

I've supported a 'stance' that TE's argue the Bible out of its infallibility in exchange for base, natural, fallible scientific theories (Rom 1:23) - not a good thing.

Since many of us have spent a great deal of time and reading in reasearch of our position, you can drop apathy, unless of course you have proof that accepting everything in the Bible as literal dose indeed have reprecusions on salvation.

The amount of time invested in a matter does not make it correct. I do not need to drop apathy - read the post that says: "I don't know and it doesn't matter". Buck72 was not attached to that post.

Which would be more ignorant, to make up some imaginary line where we divide the Bible without solid evidence to back us up or to say "I don't know yet."? To me, it would be more ignorant to speak without knowing the facts than to say I don't know.

I do know what the Bible says. I also know enough about science to understand where imagination, creativity, speculation, pondering, and theory separate from empirical EVIDENCE. Show me a rock that says: "Millions of years old", an unobserved, hypothetical, comet-making space-cloud, a system to overcome entropy, or a model of a Big Bang that can overcome the conservation of angular momentum (by limited exception only). I cannot wait to meet an evolutionist that has the courage to say: "I don't know" without the "...and it doesn't matter" suffix disclaimer of validity. I don't know the mechanisms used in the six-day creation, but I do know it took six-days because it is CLEARLY written that it took six-days! "Millions of years" does not exist in scripture, literally or non-literally.

And the first rule about approaching something humbly is not to assume you are right in your interpretation... Only after casting aside the pride that would have us blindly think that we are right can we look at things without prejudice.

Of course I'M not right - neither are you...the Word of God is right, and aren't you glad! It's not MY message, I'm just the messenger, and we've all been commanded to spread the word about Christ, not theories about how He MIGHT HAVE used evolution to create the cosmos.

And here we have justification for T/E's existance, for the word of God is not only the Bible, but all of creation itself, remember Jesus is the Word and was the same that spoke all into existance. The Bible is one side of the story, creation (the universe itself) is the other.

Please be careful putting too much confidence in the sticky web of man's limited understanding of the creation - the Bible was given by God to keep us from wandering to the stars looking for an alien origin like the freaks that believed the Hale-Bopp comet was going to deliver them to "god" if they comitted suicide. I will jump up and down on this one bro: THE BIBLE IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH APART FROM WHICH WE WILL WANDER OFF THE 'STRAIGHT AND NARROW'.

Phi 3:3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,

Be careful here, you seem to be saying that God is purposely tricking people into hell.... What kind of gentle loving God would set up something to trick people into hell?

What part of a literal reading of the word is trickery? Seems to me trickery would be a secret coded message that required a special guru to know and explain the real truth. That would be a cult. God doesn't trick people into hell, a solid reading of the literal word will answer that one. People choose hell because submitting to God is unthinkable. Sin is too important to them.

Eze 18:32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live."

Now remember that the universe is God's Word made manifest, so telling people not to trust in the universe is telling them not to trust in God.

No, that is wrong. Shirley Maclaine trusts in the universe. Christians trust in the Bible, the Word of God. Otherwise God could be anyone or anything.

Here God condems Job for speaking out if ignorance... But did not Job know the creation stories? If he know the creation stories how could he be ignorant about how things work?

Could it be that there is more to this universe than the creation stories?

Job's problem was his PRIDE. I do not know what Job knew about the creation, He was probably a YEC after His encounter with the LORD. (Buck's theory!)

Job here is getting a dress down from God because he assumed he knew more than he did... Evidently there is more to know than what is writen in the Bible...

Of course there is more to know, you're insinuating that the Bible is not enough when it comes to the knowledge of the Divine. Extra-biblical "revelations" produce cults. If Joseph Smith knew his Bible, he would have known better than to 'invent' a contradictory, para-christian religion that turned the original gospel message into a LIE.

Gal 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

Gal 1:7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Interesting. A reference to the real geology of one small mountain in Yorkshire has stumped the scientific argument, so the creationist side, as ever, reverts to attacks on the integrity of the faith of the opposition.


It's insulting, offensive and totally groundless, but that's what I've come to expect in the three years or so I've spent arguing with creationists.

Here is the fundamental fallacy - the creationist (and this is a common fundamentalist problem) does not distinguish between "Scripture" (S) and "A Literal Reading of Scripture" (Sl). Therefore when he says "Scripture says", he means "A literal reading of Scripture says....". And he doesn't spot the little jump, because for him S=Sl.

But this is why he doesn't realise how insulting and offensive he is being. Because when the non-literalist appears on the scene, using a figurative interpretation (Sf), the creationist notes that Sf<>Sl. Since as far as he's concerned, Sl=S, it follows that Sf<>S - the figurative reading does not agree with 'Scripture'. So he starts berating the non-literalist for rejecting Scripture, apparently unable to grasp that to reject Sl is not to reject S.

Buck and Ark Guy are referred to my essay here - http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm - and asked whether this is what they call "scoffing".

If they follow the normal pattern, they will not read it, but rather move on to strategy 3, which is to say they'll pray for Vance, Lucaspa, me, Lewis etc. that our eyes will be opened and we'll accept Jesus.... Hopefully they'll call my bluff here and actually read it and possibly we'll get a debate without the accusations. Who knows?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Calling Buck's bluff...

Show me a rock that says: "Millions of years old",

This is a rocky meteorite with chondrules. Here are some isochron datings of meteorites of this type:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold

Remember, if any of the assumptions on which isochron dating works are not actually correct, then the points will not make a straight line, and no age can be deduced.

an unobserved, hypothetical, comet-making space-cloud.

I can't show you an unobserved one. I can show you real Kuiper Belt objects though:

You can read about these particular objects here: http://pinks.physics.mcmaster.ca/binary/image1.html

a system to overcome entropy

What scientific processes do you think require one?

or a model of a Big Bang that can overcome the conservation of angular momentum (by limited exception only).

The standard one will do. You are aware that the "spinning singularity" model of the big bang is a creationist strawman, accepted by no mainstream scientists? Could you actually state the problem you think is unsolved?

I cannot wait to meet an evolutionist that has the courage to say: "I don't know" without the "...and it doesn't matter" suffix disclaimer of validity.

Me. There are lots of things we don't know. It does matter. That's why scientists carry on trying to find out.

I don't know the mechanisms used in the six-day creation, but I do know it took six-days because it is CLEARLY written that it took six-days! "Millions of years" does not exist in scripture, literally or non-literally.

See my previous post. You are confusing S with Sl again. That millions of years are not there is totally irrelevant, since neither are quantum mechanics, relativistic time dilation or the wave/particle light model.

 

[Ark Guy]

Apparently the Theo-evos don't want to answer my linage question...perhaps because they realize the problem it creates for them, so avoidance becomes their tactic.

Anyway, just a few thoughts on isochron dating;

The following is more isochron A S S U M P T I O N S made by the uniformitarian evolutionist.

1. Geological evidence is sufficient to establish that the suite of rocks being analyzed is a *cogenetic unit*.
The term *cogenic unit* implies that time during which the suite of rocks was formed is sufficiently short, compared to the true age of the rock, to allow an *age* to be estimated
2. All samples had uniformity, with respect to the daughter isotope, when the cogenetic unit formed.
This means that over its whole area of occurrence, the geological unit was sufficiently mixed, with respect to daughter isotope, that the slope =0 can be assumed to be the initial conditions of the rock.
3. Deviations from uniformity, with respect to the daughter isotope, has been caused within the suite of rocks, only by radioactive decay of parents. In other words, the rock remained closed to loss or gain of daughter since the rock was formed.
4. The number of parent atoms has not been altered in the suite of rocks, by any geological process, except radioactive decay. In other words, the rocks remained closed to loss or gain of parents since the rocks formed.
5. The decay constant of the parent is known accurately, and has not changed during the existence of the rocks.
6. The abundance of parents and daughters have been determined accurately (laboratory measurements of Pt and Dt are accurate).
ref.
p119, Grand Canyon Monument To a Catastrophe
Edited by Steve Austin, Ph.D.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

We did address it. We pointed out it didn't matter, and that there are other lineages that are clearly historical at one end and mythical at the other.

Your assumptions - if those assumptions are not valid, the points will not lie on a straight line.

If by some oddity they do, then you have to face the fact that these meteorites always date to this sort of age, which is a little older than the very oldest rocks on the earth.

Why do these dating methods so agree if they are so flawed?