Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)

[Metal Minister]

MM - you couldn't parse scientific technical material to save your life. The hogwash you post when you address such things is testament to this.

A typical example being:

How the heck would you know what science is?

First, thank you Ted, I appreciate the support. Now, NGC
: It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable' by investigators."--*J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.

In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:

"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method. . ."

"At 600 B.C., the C-14 activity level is about:10%. Before this, the atmospheric activity is observed to decrease in such a way that, by about 2000 B.C., it is of the order of +50%. Clearly, the trend for older samples to have progressively lower delta % levels is observed. In other words, the whole picture is now consistent with the non-equilibrium model. Before 2160 B.C., there are no suitable [historically dateable] materials for calibration purposes, and so it is not possible to trace the curve back further in time . .

"Conventional C-14 calibration has the effect of `stretching out' radiocarbon time and slowing down, for example, the rate of man's cultural development. By contrast, this revised approach has the effect of `compressing' radiocarbon time,' and speeding up the rate of man's cultural development."--Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 22.

"Although it was hailed as the answer to the prehistorian's prayer when it was first announced, there has been increasing disillusion with the [radiocarbon] method because of the chronological uncertainties--in some cases absurdities--that would follow a strict adherence to published C-14 dates . . What bids to become a classic example of `C-14 irresponsibility' is the 6,000 year spread of 11 determinations for Jarmo, a prehistoric village in northeastern Iraq which, on the basis of all archeological evidence, was not occupied for more than 500 consecutive years."--*C.A. Reed, "Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East," in Science, 130 (1959), p. 1630.

"A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:

"[a] Of the dates of 9,671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1,146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.

" Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as `infinite.'

"[c] Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.

"[d] Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg for carbon dating, and if you like I could find more for all the other methods as well, but my time is a little more valuable to me than to chase every rabbit for you.

God Bless and keep you, MM

 

[Metal Minister]

MM -

How the heck would you know what science is?

Science does not discard information that doesn't fit a theory, it follows the information until it is falsified, or proven correct. Evolution on the other hand throws out anything that doesn't fit.
The origin question is like a thousand jigsaw puzzles dumped on the ground. Evolutionists find a few random pieces that seem to fit and conclude its right without looking at the pictures they are trying to duplicate. OEC's glance at the pictures once and then try to rationalize why the evolutionists pieces seem to go together. Yec's use the instruction manual given us by the one who made the puzzle.
God bless and keep you, MM

 

[NGC 6712]

First, thank you Ted, I appreciate the support. Now, NGC
: It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable' by investigators."--*J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.

In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:

"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method. . ."

"At 600 B.C., the C-14 activity level is about:10%. Before this, the atmospheric activity is observed to decrease in such a way that, by about 2000 B.C., it is of the order of +50%. Clearly, the trend for older samples to have progressively lower delta % levels is observed. In other words, the whole picture is now consistent with the non-equilibrium model. Before 2160 B.C., there are no suitable [historically dateable] materials for calibration purposes, and so it is not possible to trace the curve back further in time . .

"Conventional C-14 calibration has the effect of `stretching out' radiocarbon time and slowing down, for example, the rate of man's cultural development. By contrast, this revised approach has the effect of `compressing' radiocarbon time,' and speeding up the rate of man's cultural development."--Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 22.

"Although it was hailed as the answer to the prehistorian's prayer when it was first announced, there has been increasing disillusion with the [radiocarbon] method because of the chronological uncertainties--in some cases absurdities--that would follow a strict adherence to published C-14 dates . . What bids to become a classic example of `C-14 irresponsibility' is the 6,000 year spread of 11 determinations for Jarmo, a prehistoric village in northeastern Iraq which, on the basis of all archeological evidence, was not occupied for more than 500 consecutive years."--*C.A. Reed, "Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East," in Science, 130 (1959), p. 1630.

"A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:

"[a] Of the dates of 9,671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1,146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.

" Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as `infinite.'

"[c] Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.

"[d] Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years

Problems with Radiometric and Carbon-14 Dating

This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg for carbon dating, and if you like I could find more for all the other methods as well, but my time is a little more valuable to me than to chase every rabbit for you.

God Bless and keep you, MM

You quite simply do not know what you are talking about. References 35 - 53 years old. LOL LOL

You might want to learn what the reservoir effect is and in situ radiogenic decay effects are.

Are you generally this out of date and uninformed on scientific topics?

 

[Metal Minister]

You quite simply do not know what you are talking about. References 35 - 53 years old. LOL LOL

You might want to learn what the reservoir effect is and in situ radiogenic decay effects are.

Are you generally this out of date and uninformed on scientific topics?

http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/radiocarbondating.html
Try this one then. As I stated before those were the first I came across. The problems, however old the.quotes are, are still the same.

 

[NGC 6712]

Radio Carbon Dating - Archaeology Expert
Try this one then. As I stated before those were the first I came across. The problems, however old the.quotes are, are still the same.

That's an amateur hobbyist site with some usual Creationist nonsense quotes with no academic citation. They even bring up the well known reservoir effect (without calling it such) and use it as evidence against dating reliability.

My God - can you get anything that has actual up to date science and not composed of decades old garbage arguments?

Go read a textbook !!!

 

[Metal Minister]

That's an amateur hobbyist site with some usual Creationist nonsense quotes with no academic citation. They even bring up the well known reservoir effect (without calling it such) and use it as evidence against dating reliability.

My God - can you get anything that has actual up to date science and not composed of decades old garbage arguments?

Go read a textbook !!!

I could insert a nasty comment here, but I won't. I will however use small words so you can understand. I said before (and you have yet to refute) that there are many flaws and assumptions in carbon dating. That still holds. I will AGAIN restate I am interested in a THEOLOGICAL discussion, not a scientific one. As I posted before I do not have time to chase every rabbit for you. In terms of carbon dating, all that is needed to refute it is the point that scientists must ASSUME how much radio carbon was in the specimen they are trying to date when it died. They routinely get wild dates which are ignored. Now, if you wish to discuss the theological aspect of oec/yec, fine, but I'm not going to waste my time on your goose chases.

 

[Metal Minister]

That's an amateur hobbyist site with some usual Creationist nonsense quotes with no academic citation. They even bring up the well known reservoir effect (without calling it such) and use it as evidence against dating reliability.

My God - can you get anything that has actual up to date science and not composed of decades old garbage arguments?

Go read a textbook !!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ing-stone-age-artifacts-dating-goats-science/ here's another, unless you think national geographic is a hobbyists website with no academic citation, and garbage arguments.

 

[NGC 6712]

Trampling Skews Artifact Dates by Thousands of Years? here's another, unless you think national geographic is a hobbyists website with no academic citation, and garbage arguments.

Did you even read that - or if you did you patently did not understand it. Give it up, you are lost here.

 

[NGC 6712]

In terms of carbon dating, all that is needed to refute it is the point that scientists must ASSUME how much radio carbon was in the specimen they are trying to date when it died.

No we do not. This is not a true statement. Learn the topic you want to critique not mine some out of date or erroneous statements put forth by people who wish to confuse the layman.

They routinely get wild dates which are ignored.

Nope.

Now, if you wish to discuss the theological aspect of oec/yec, fine, but I'm not going to waste my time on your goose chases.

In other words the actual facts of the subject are of no interest to you, you have a pre-existing concept of the method that is flawed but you do not want correction because it gets in the way of what you want it to be.

 

[Metal Minister]

Did you even read that - or if you did you patently did not understand it. Give it up, you are lost here.

Woe, thick as a brick...let me highlight something for you:
"We can only do carbon dating on organic material that is associated with the stones," said study author Metin Eren, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.

So if a stone artifact is next to a twig, for example, Eren said, "we'll date the twig and just ASSUME that the artifact is also that age.

 

[Keachian]

I could insert a nasty comment here, but I won't. I will however use small words so you can understand. I said before (and you have yet to refute) that there are many flaws and assumptions in carbon dating. That still holds. I will AGAIN restate I am interested in a THEOLOGICAL discussion, not a scientific one. As I posted before I do not have time to chase every rabbit for you. In terms of carbon dating, all that is needed to refute it is the point that scientists must ASSUME how much radio carbon was in the specimen they are trying to date when it died. They routinely get wild dates which are ignored. Now, if you wish to discuss the theological aspect of oec/yec, fine, but I'm not going to waste my time on your goose chases.

You say you want to deal with this discussion on a theological level, yet you want to treat the Genesis text on a scientific level (saying what does this text say about creation) rather than on its theological level (what does this text say about God and most importantly in Christian theology what does it say about the person and work of Christ)

So what exactly does the Genesis text say about God?

 

[Metal Minister]

Did you catch it that time? They have to make ASSUMPTIONS! Which is what I've been saying the whole time! And as for the rest of what you posted, no my expertise is not in dating methods, and I never claimed it to be, hence the THEOLOGICAL discussion I wanted to create. Meanwhile the bulk of what has been posted has been exactly what I've come to expect from OEC's...ignore what is said and try to take the discussion where they want it to go, where they believe they have some advantage. This is why I stopped going to the non-christian area to pose this question. The nasty rhetoric and assertions of my having a low iq. Again, if you'd like to have a theological discussion as I posed to begin with, let's. Otherwise have a good day.

 

[Keachian]

Taking the bible, as it is written, where would someone get the idea for macro-evo? Remember, until the 1800's the bible was translated as reffering to six literal 24 hour days. After the invention of evolution people began to warp the original view in a supposed effort to explain what science had supposedly discovered, and to keep the bible relevant. Yet we are still seeing evidence of a young earth, and that God's word is still true. What scripture could be taken to say that God used macro-evo and billions of years?

This is fundamentally wrong in fact in Christianity as a whole it was the other way around, it wasn't until Ussher that people decided to hold indefinitely to a literal understanding of Genesis, most people were happier with Augustine's framework interpretation, which actually flows more easily into an Ancient Near East view of what the text is actually talking about which is Temple inauguration.

 

[Metal Minister]

This is fundamentally wrong in fact in Christianity as a whole it was the other way around, it wasn't until Ussher that people decided to hold indefinitely to a literal understanding of Genesis, most people were happier with Augustine's framework interpretation, which actually flows more easily into an Ancient Near East view of what the text is actually talking about which is Temple inauguration.

Your getting closer to what I originly wanted to talk about. my point was what scriptures do OEC's feel support their idea?

 

[Keachian]

Your getting closer to what I originly wanted to talk about. my point was what scriptures do OEC's feel support their idea?

Well the fact that once we start looking at scripture from an ANE(Ancient Near East) view we come to the realization that material creation is not actually documented in the Bible, what we have instead is a temple inauguration text.

 

[israelisone]

This debate boils down to one very important factor, believing God. This is where Adam when wrong. He knew very well that God existed (he certainly believed in God), his down fall however came in not believing God. He doubted the truth of what God told him. Our understanding of creation certainly does affect our salvation for this very reason.

From Genesis Chapter 1

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
3 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And so on....God is quite specific here "and the evening and the morning were the third day...."

Further Exodus 20:11 states it just as clearly:
"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

The only question that needs to be answered concerning our faith and salvation in regard to creation is...Do you want to believe God and live or do you want to take the path of Adam and disregard the Word of God and die? Do not believe the lies the world keeps whispering in our ears because if you do you WILL surely die. The gospel is not a buffet where you can choose what you like and leave what you don't for someone else. If we do not stand firm on the Word of God then we have nothing. Build your house on the Rock not the sand! The world was certainly created in 6 literal days and He rested on the seventh. This is just one of the many miraculous accomplishments of God. It is one of the many things that asserts to us that God is God!

Colossians 1:16-17
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

 

[Metal Minister]

Well the fact that once we start looking at scripture from an ANE(Ancient Near East) view we come to the realization that material creation is not actually documented in the Bible, what we have instead is a temple inauguration text.

Interesting, so do you follow the idea that the universe was there, and that the creation in the the bible is simply the account of God giving it a function?

 

[Keachian]

Interesting, so do you follow the idea that the universe was there, and that the creation in the the bible is simply the account of God giving it a function?

Yes, that is more or less the ANE understanding of what the text is saying

 

[Metal Minister]

Yes, that is more or less the ANE understanding of what the text is saying

So is it possible that the use of bara' being translated as giving function, and yom as a literal 24 hour day mean that God only gave function to the earth in 7days? I ask because I want to be certain I understand your position

 

[Keachian]

So is it possible that the use of bara' being translated as giving function, and yom as a literal 24 hour day mean that God only gave function to the earth in 7days? I ask because I want to be certain I understand your position

Yes.

The imagery is what I try to emphasise most though. God gives the function of time to light and dark, the outer court, gives the function of weather to the heavens, inner court, gives the function of providing food to the ground. God then populates these arenas with his things to govern them, the sun and the moon to reign over day and night, the birds and the fish to frolic, the animals to multiply and his image to act as an angled mirror between creation and God. God then takes up residence in the temple he has created.