What this is all about

[Philis]

Then you didn't read the original OP that she changed.

I only took your name out when I edited it, it was always open to both sides.

 

[Assyrian]

Then you didn't read the original OP that she changed.

Sure I did. She asked both TEs and YECs:

Philis: So please, to both sides, post the understanding you have of the other sides theological views. This question really does go out to TEs and YECs, but I'm most interested in the YEC answer to this and in particular Martyr44 if he wishes to respond.
​

That is not an honest assessement. It isn't even close to the truth.

I am sure from your perspective you think it isn't true, but you are not in a position to judge if it is an honest assessment.

I will say it once more: God did not offer multiple choice to His divine truth of creation.

Just saying so doesn't carry much weight when you haven't addressed the range of creation accounts in scripture or the variety of interpretations of the creation account in scripture. There are multiple right interpretations of the creation accounts, add to that the interpretations that are only partial, that glimpse at the truth but only in part, and other interpretations that are simply wrong. So we do have a multiple choice, but the wrong answers we need to sift out are misinterpretations we came up with ourselves. We won't know the full answer until we meet the Lord face to face. 1Cor 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

You aren't trying to understand. You are attempting to bring other posters into your disbelief in the historical message of Moses in Genesis.

You are assuming it was written as history. This is the biggest problem YECs have, they mistake their interpretation of God's word for the word of God itself.

And it seems that it doesn't matter to you how many times the other authors of scripture validated that history in the many dozens of statements they made concerning the early chapters of Genesis you still don't believe them.

Perhaps if you showed where the bible tells us to interpret Genesis literally or where it interprets the days as 24 hour days. I have shown you where the creation days were interpreted non literally, but I don't know anywhere where a literal interpretation of the days is taught. Exodus 20:11 doesn't work because Moses is using the days as an illustration to teach Sabbath observance, not six day creationism.

That is your problem and every faithful and careful researcher of God's Word who has read your positions on the issue know it.

You mean every scripture scholar who disagrees with you isn't faithful or careful?

No you have not. You are so far from the truth and blind to the obvious. I think I know who did this to your mind.

Aren't you supposed to remove the log from you own eyes before trying to diagnose mine?

 

[samaus12345]

Assyrian what EMPIRICAL evidence is there for "billions and billions of years"?

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian what EMPIRICAL evidence is there for "billions and billions of years"?

Why would you want to restrict the evidence we have for the age of the earth and the rest of the universe, is it to avoid the evidence we do have they are really billions of years old?

 

[samaus12345]

Assyrian what EMPIRICAL evidence is there for "billions and billions of years"?

 

[Assyrian]

What do you mean by empirical, what sort of evidence are you trying to exclude and why are you trying to exclude it? Do you mean can we stand there with a watch and time the universe as it ages a billion years? You should deal with the real evidence we have rather than hide behind evidence we could never have even when the science is true.

 

[Martyrs44]

What do you mean by empirical, what sort of evidence are you trying to exclude and why are you trying to exclude it? Do you mean can we stand there with a watch and time the universe as it ages a billion years? You should deal with the real evidence we have rather than hide behind evidence we could never have even when the science is true.

He knows exactly what you mean, jinx. He is playing dumb.

The fact is that the TE's have neither observed evidence nor any other kind of evidence for the 'old' ages they proclaim because all the dating methods are predicated on assumptions and not reality.

 

[Martyrs44]

Actually in Mark 13:35-37 Jesus himself questions whether the Messiah must be the son of David.

And then there are John the Baptist's words to the Pharisees. (Matthew 3:9). I expect that if God can raise children of Abraham from stones he can do likewise for David. But I doubt that such children could verify a legitimate claim to David's throne to the satisfaction of the scribes.

Sometimes you say some of the most incredulous things. What perversion of scripture did you derive that nonsense?

35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:

36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.

37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

Where in these verses does Jesus place question in His Messiahship? You've left my mouth hanging open.

And what John the Baptist said:

Mark 3:9, "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

No mention of the Messiah in those verses. It merely refers to the Jews.

I have yet to meet any "former believer" in evolution who is actually very familiar with the science.

Perhaps you are an exception.

I taught science for many years.

You mean to tell me you have never heard of Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Larry Vardiman, Dr. Steve Austin, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Dr. Richard Lumsden, Dr. J.C. Sanford, etc. Where have you been all these years?

I am left amazed at the TE's on this board. Like that Assyrian poster who says he can't find the teaching of the six-day creation, (Genesis one and Exodus 20:11 notwithstanding) you tell us that Jesus placed his own Messiahship and/or right to the throne of David in question! So you folks cannot see what is obvious but you can see what is not there. Unreal.

 

[Martyrs44]

Your scathing indictment is categorically false, contextually wrong and semantically shallow. I'd better stop now even though it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are a theistic evolutionists just baiting creationists.

Have a nice day
Mark

I agree, Mark. I regret now that I ever answered 'her' in the first place.

 

[Papias]

jinx wrote:

Assyrian what EMPIRICAL evidence is there for "billions and billions of years"?

That's a simple question. Here is a simple answer. Though this faq only covers a fraction of the dating methods, it is a good start.


The Age of the Earth

Papias

 

[Martyrs44]

jinx wrote:



That's a simple question. Here is a simple answer. Though this faq only covers a fraction of the dating methods, it is a good start.


The Age of the Earth

Papias

Been there. Done that.

So the professing Christian refers us to hard core atheists who hate the Lord and reject the Bible altogether.

Nonetheless, their position(s) are entirely wrong on every point. There is no dating method that does not (a) make assumptions about the original content of each sample being dated, and (b) make assumptions about the tree ring 'annuals', ice core samples, etc. Such methods are only helpful at best and incredibly off target at worst. What I am saying involves more than what is said in the talk/origins article.

Now I am off this thread.

 

[mark kennedy]

I only took your name out when I edited it, it was always open to both sides.

No your not, you are harshly critical of Creationists and grossly unfair in your criticisms. I told you plainly the in Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 the Apostle was speaking of Adam. On the rare occasions that theistic evolutionists are confronted with this fact they simply pretend that the word means 'humanity' which is absurd. You go back to the Hebrew and reject the position as an error when I am clearly talking about the New Testament usage which is always Adam. You were soundly refuted:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7669924-8/

You ignored it. This is standard theistic evolutionist rhetoric. Darwinism survives on fallacies (flawed) arguments and false assumptions, the target is personal convictions regarding the supernatural activity of God in Creation. When you couldn't make a substantive argument you resorted to an ad hominem attack which is where these arguments always go. At this point you will do one of two things, either you will abandon the thread and let another theistic evolutionist bury your error or you will simply repeat it begging the question on your hands and knees.

Did you really think I was going to roll over after that vicious indictment? I want you to understand something, that was a personal attack. You don't get to make an incendiary, fallacious argument like that and walk away like it never happened.

Bottom line, there is not way you are 'open' to both sides, your tactics and your rhetoric are straight out of the theistic evolutionist play book. Now you can post as you see fit but don't expect the pretense that you are 'open minded' to stand.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Papias]

So the professing Christian refers us to hard core atheists who hate the Lord and reject the Bible altogether.

Again, Martyrs44 makes a claim without any evidence. Martys, might you please supply evidence that those at TO are all "hard core atheists", or retract you claim? Don't you remember that the majority of those who support evolution in the United States are Christians? For your other unsupported claims above, might you please supply evidence that those at TO "hate the lord" and "reject the Bible altogether", or retract you claims?

Nonetheless, their position(s) are entirely wrong on every point. There is no dating method that does not (a) make assumptions about the original content of each sample being dated,

False. Isochron dating methods are independent of the original concentrations. Please learn about them.

and (b) make assumptions about the tree ring 'annuals', ice core samples, etc.

Those aren't assumptions, they are conclusions based on other evidence, such as historical data confirming the tree ring and snow annual layers, with deivation easily recognized.

Such methods are only helpful at best and incredibly off target at worst

.

Then please explain why dozens of dating methods, using a wide range of different phenomena (some of which aren't even on earth), all "just happen" to confirm each other, again and again, over thousands of tests on millions of samples. Martys44, why do you think that happens?


Papias

Plus, your images of carved clay items is pointless, since those aren't "stamped". You never showed a single verse that gave the modern understanding of the earth, nor showed why the verses that show a flat, geocentric earth. I'm not talking about just the persective that the sun appears to "rise", but verses like seeing the whole earth from a tall mountain, and so on, that show clearly that a flat earth is being described.

 

[Assyrian]

What do you mean by empirical, what sort of evidence are you trying to exclude and why are you trying to exclude it? Do you mean can we stand there with a watch and time the universe as it ages a billion years? You should deal with the real evidence we have rather than hide behind evidence we could never have even when the science is true.

He knows exactly what you mean, jinx.

Are you addressing me? Or jinx?

He is playing dumb.

The fact is that the TE's have neither observed evidence

You accuse me of playing dumb yet your 'observed evidence' is precisely the kind of evidence I described in my post you quoted. You haven't responded to the rest of the quote where I showed how silly this creationist claim is.

nor any other kind of evidence for the 'old' ages they proclaim because all the dating methods are predicated on assumptions and not reality.

Yes 'assumptions' that is another great creationist excuse. They ignore the fact that decay rates in the past can be measured too and that multiple independent methods of measuring age give consistent results. Different radioactive isotopes with decay mechanisms agree with each other, radiometric dating agrees with calculations based on the rate tectonic plates drift, radiometric dating line up with ice cores, varves and tree rings. If the assumptions were wrong the same method should give consistent results but different methods based on different wrong assumptions or wrong assumptions affecting the methods in different ways, will give wildly different results. The only reason for the results to be consistent is if the assumptions are right and the results are consistent with each other because they are consistent with reality

 

[Papias]

Assyrian wrote:

If the assumptions were wrong the same method should give consistent results but different methods based on different wrong assumptions or wrong assumptions affecting the methods in different ways, will give wildly different results. The only reason for the results to be consistent is if the assumptions are right and the results are consistent with each other because they are consistent with reality

.....or maybe the whole world is an illusion created by the galactic overlord, the mightiest thetan of them all, who along with his the architect and Vish-odin, have squirreled us all away into duracell batteries encased in giant racks of brains in vats?!?!?!

.... yeah, could be.........

 

[Assyrian]

I am left amazed at the TE's on this board. Like that Assyrian poster who says he can't find the teaching of the six-day creation, (Genesis one and Exodus 20:11 notwithstanding)

Why not address what I actually said rather than making up your own version to refute.

 

[mark kennedy]

Again, Martyrs44 makes a claim without any evidence.

Again! Papias makes makes third person indictments to no one over nothing. When are you going to learn, attacking the person is not the same as refuting an argument.

Martys, might you please supply evidence that those at TO are all "hard core atheists", or retract you claim? Don't you remember that the majority of those who support evolution in the United States are Christians? For your other unsupported claims above, might you please supply evidence that those at TO "hate the lord" and "reject the Bible altogether", or retract you claims?

I got a better idea, why don't you address what he said and quit trying to run him in circles. Talk Origins is dedicated to a single purpose, attacking the belief that God is Creator, how could that be considered anything other then atheistic materialism?

False. Isochron dating methods are independent of the original concentrations. Please learn about them.

Suppose you tell him what the ratio is, what it means and why anyone should trust radiometric dating?

Those aren't assumptions, they are conclusions based on other evidence, such as historical data confirming the tree ring and snow annual layers, with deivation easily recognized.

Oh wow! I didn't realize it was based on tree rings and annual snow layers, thanks for pointing that out.

Then please explain why dozens of dating methods, using a wide range of different phenomena (some of which aren't even on earth), all "just happen" to confirm each other, again and again, over thousands of tests on millions of samples. Martys44, why do you think that happens?

First of all the ratios of these radiometric dating techniques are hopelessly flawed by false assumption which is why I never bothered with them. They observe the half life changes for weeks, months or a few years and project it over eons. This standard of proof is never allowed in real world science unless it supports the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

So are you done now or would you like to continue making fallacious personal attacks?

Papias

Plus, your images of carved clay items is pointless, since those aren't "stamped". You never showed a single verse that gave the modern understanding of the earth, nor showed why the verses that show a flat, geocentric earth. I'm not talking about just the persective that the sun appears to "rise", but verses like seeing the whole earth from a tall mountain, and so on, that show clearly that a flat earth is being described.

Nonsense. The Bible never discusses Cosmology or astronomy in the modern sense and you know it. I would think by now you would have abandoned these fallacious personal attacks and developed something half way substantive. You are being used Papias, why can't you see that?

 

[mark kennedy]

Why not address what I actually said rather than making up your own version to refute.

Why don't you address what he just said or don't you follow your own advice?

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian wrote:

.....or maybe the whole world is an illusion created by the galactic overlord, the mightiest thetan of them all, who along with his the architect and Vish-odin, have squirreled us all away into duracell batteries encased in giant racks of brains in vats?!?!?!

.... yeah, could be.........

Would that be Descartes' demon? Yes that is the one assumption science cannot test or verify, the reality of reality. If reality isn't real and is an illusion, science has at least shown us it is a very consistent and reliable illusion. If science isn't telling us the nature of reality, it is giving us a very detailed understanding of our matrix. The odd thing is, the one assumption science cannot verify is the assumption Creationists would insist is true, that what God created is real.

Mind you, if I was going to run an illusory universe like that, I would simplify it down. You don't need to model it to the smallest sub atomic particle. It is only when the inhabitants look at the details that you need to show them, only model the hairs on fleas when they invent a microscope, you wouldn't need to decide the quantum state of a subatomic particle unless someone or something actually tried to measure it.

oops...

 

[Assyrian]

Why don't you address what he just said or don't you follow your own advice?

I did. I pointed out that his criticism of what I said wasn't based on what I actually said.