not listed in the ten commandments and Jesus seems to be pretty quiet on it in the New Testament too. If it was important, I feel like He would have mentioned that so I don't waste my time with it.

Roughly 4.5B years. Even tree ring data goes back 14,000 years.

Ingwe knows.

It's not something I dwell on but since it's being brought up I'll tell what a nuclear scientist once told me when I asked the question. By whose clock do you measure time; God's or man's?

Roughly 4.5B years. Even tree ring data goes back 14,000 years.

Ingwe knows.

By whose clock do you measure time; God's or man's?

Does any one really know ? Does it really matter ?

From doing a quick search that 14000 year number is an estimate, not a tree ring calculation. Do you have a link that you can provide me?

I believe every word of the Bible to be inspired by God, but for one to figure that His“day” is 24 hours and His “year” to be 12 months, is foolishness.
His being is all powerful, and He is timeless.
Someone once told me that “for a human mind to understand God would be like a dog learning algebra”.
I periodically reread chapter 38 of Job.
“ And God answered Job out of the storm….
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?”
Reon

Hell, he was there!

Not this shït again.

Fuggin one trick pony you are.

I don't care how old it is. Or not old it is.

Thou shall debate the age of the earth - not listed in the ten commandments and Jesus seems to be pretty quiet on it in the New Testament too. If it was important, I feel like He would have mentioned that so I don't waste my time with it.

Roughly 4.5B years. Even tree ring data goes back 14,000 years.

Just right age.

Just right age.

Sorry for you to display your ignorance. The oldest tree ever dated, a bristle cone pine, was about 5,000 years old. Those who can't accept dendrochronology try to overlap trees. It doesn't work.

I believe every word of the Bible to be inspired by God, but for one to figure that His“day” is 24 hours and His “year” to be 12 months, is foolishness.
His being is all powerful, and He is timeless.
Someone once told me that “for a human mind to understand God would be like a dog learning algebra”.
I periodically reread chapter 38 of Job.
“ And God answered Job out of the storm….
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?”
Reon

Does any one really know ? Does it really matter ?

javascript:quickReply(18971904)
It is completely valid. If you don't understand how it works, that okay with me.

We can see objects more than 10 billion light years away. Aside from the age of the earth, that means the universe is more-than 10 billion years old because that is how long it took for the light to get here.

javascript:quickReply(18971904)
It is completely valid. If you don't understand how it works, that okay with me.

Scientifically, the universe appears to be about 14 billion years old. For the universe to be younger or older than that the laws of physics would have to have been different in the past than they are nowadays. Maybe that’s possible, but we don’t have any way of knowing if the laws of physics have changed.

The scientific principle of uniformity says that we assume that things happened in the past just like they happen today ~ that the laws of physics haven’t changed. But it’s still an assumption, we can’t prove it. But again, if the laws of physics haven’t changed, then the universe appears to be about 14 billion years old.

Regardless, it’s not a central issue to the faith of Christianity. When you get to Heaven, God’s not gonna say, “Did you think the universe was young or old…’cause if you thought it was old…you’re outta here”…!

The real issue is did Jesus rise from the dead for your sins, and if you put your trust and confidence in Him for that, then you’re saved, and all of this age of the earth stuff (as interesting as it is) is indeterminate and again, not central to following Jesus.

Some of you folks spent a lot of time trying to validate a book of fiction.

Not this shït again.

Fuggin one trick pony you are.

Some of you folks spent a lot of time trying to validate a book of fiction.

You would do well to do a little research. I remember three archeologists: Nelson Gulik, Clifford Wilson, and William Albright being on the same dig in the Middle East (I am old.). Gulik was an atheist, Wilson a born-again Christian, and Albright was antagonistic toward the Bible but not an atheist. One thing they all agreed on was the ancient Jews were careful historian. Perhaps you didn't know that.

Worthless information from easily manipulated individuals. Certain that more Christians go atheist than the other way around. Most born agains are born brain dead anyway.

PS: take a science class or 3.

No schitt....the earth is NOT 6000 years old like your bible says it is.....hate to break the news to you Wrongman.....

Worthless information from easily manipulated individuals. Certain that more Christians go atheist than the other way around. Most born agains are born brain dead anyway.

PS: take a science class or 3.

That was mean. True, but mean.

Upon what do you base your assertion on?

Making a young earth an article of faith is foolish.

A lot more emphasis is placed on the plan of salvation and that is really the important part isn’t it?

We can see objects more than 10 billion light years away. Aside from the age of the earth, that means the universe is more-than 10 billion years old because that is how long it took for the light to get here.

I believe every word of the Bible to be inspired by God, but for one to figure that His“day” is 24 hours and His “year” to be 12 months, is foolishness.
His being is all powerful, and He is timeless.
Someone once told me that “for a human mind to understand God would be like a dog learning algebra”.
I periodically reread chapter 38 of Job.
“ And God answered Job out of the storm….
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?”
Reon

You are so shallow. Prove yourself correct. Afterall you are smarter than a Ph.D biochemist.

You education is dated. Speed of light is measured from one point to a reflector and back. Many scientists are arguing the speed from the sender is infinite, thus throwing off any accurate measurement. Light years are NOT time. They are a distance. If the light speed from the sender, the star, is infinite, the light from a star would be observed instantly. In one of the papers I read some scientists discovered the speed of light, after going through a windshield, was 450 mph.

There's just a lot we don't know and like Mark Twain said, "It amazing what a wholesale lot of conjecture scientists can come up with from such a trifling investment of facts."

Now we have the speed of light faster than the speed of light.

Someone call NASA. This is revolutionary stuff.
Here’s a 🍪

Regardless, it’s not a central issue to the faith of Christianity. When you get to Heaven, God’s not gonna say, “Did you think the universe was young or old…’cause if you thought it was old…you’re outta here”…!

The real issue is did Jesus rise from the dead for your sins, and if you put your trust and confidence in Him for that, then you’re saved, and all of this age of the earth stuff (as interesting as it is) is indeterminate (not determined by the Bible) and again, not central to following Jesus.

Just waiting for someone to say the earth is flat and is situated at the centre of the solar system and the universe. If it's going to be silly, may as well go all the way.

Not this shït again.

Fuggin one trick pony you are.

Whatever anyone responding in this thread guesses, ... It will be wrong.

Simple measurement methods made so that the human brain can understand them, frankly don't mean much.

No one knows how old the Earth is.

This question is disallowed due to multiple grammatical infractions.

Ice cores can get us back about 70,000 years in Greenland and 400,000 in Antarctica. Dendrochronology can get us back a lot further than 5k years. The oldest living tree may be about 5000 years old but long dead preserved trees also provide ring data. Making a young earth an article of faith is foolish. A lot more emphasis is placed on the plan of salvation and that is really the important part isn’t it?

I concur. Jesus and His Apostle’s certainly didn’t make it an article of faith.I concur. The main thing is to see to it that the main thing stays the main thing.

What exactly is it you’re asking me to prove?

That you’re a one trick pony?

This sort of shït stirring is the bulk of your posts.

Beside, you could be handed undisputed facts and you’ll still weasel around it.

Full of mis-representations and outright lies as is usual with that crowd.

Skip the first 12 minutes, it’s self-congratulatory fluff.

The arguments they state is that radio-isotope dating and all the other physical evidence is crap and that basing theories and conclusions upon observable evidence (ie. Science) necessarily rejects the existence of a God.

Their position is that the only reliable guide to the past is eye-witness testimony as recorded in their writing and the eye-witness was God, tho of course God didn’t write anything Hisself he was only quoted. Turns out Adam was fully literate. No record of Abraham reading anything written by Adam or reading anything written by people who had read anything written by Adam so as the moderator is obliged to interject, God musta spoke directly to Abraham too.

No mention at all of the troubling parallels between Genesis and the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh and no mention of the fact that numerous individuals including Joseph Smith and Mohammed have claimed that God through His angels spoke to them too. Same basis for conclusions ergo equally valid, or not.

The real irony being, IMHO, if ya want to see the handwriting of God, just step outside your door and look at the World around you.

Science makes sense to me and religion doesn't. Earth age 4.5 billion vs 6000 years. So to thumpers... when did the dinosaurs live?

You are so shallow. Prove yourself correct. Afterall you are smarter than a Ph.D biochemist.

Ah, but Jesus did address it. He said man and woman were created at the beginning, not millions or billions of years later.

No, you’re not.

Read a high school earth science book.

No, you’re not.

Read a high school earth science book.

Here is a video by a scientist being interviewed about the age of the earth.

Brain washing! When I was in tenth grade biology class we were told Caucasians are the highest evolved race. This was in a school with about 2,500 kids from all ethnic groups in San Diego, California. I believed it until about twenty-five yeas of age. Now, science has discovered all humans are the same race.

Is it possible to discuss the fallacy of some arguments and still rely on Jesus' Blood for salvation?

Brain washing! When I was in tenth grade biology class we were told Caucasians are the highest evolved race. This was in a school with about 2,500 kids from all ethnic groups in San Diego, California. I believed it until about twenty-five yeas of age. Now, science has discovered all humans are the same race.

Perhaps you are ignorant of the WW2 bomber which was recovered about 250 feet down in the ice. According to ice cores it was multiple thousands of years down. And yet it was only a few decades. Kind of sounds like radiometric dating: Unreliable.

I remember one atheist in a lecture said something like, "If we can destroy the first three chapters of Genesis, in the burning remains will be the cross of Jesus." If death has been here before Adam, then what is the world going to return to when Jesus returns? Watch the video.

Perhaps you are ignorant of the WW2 bomber which was recovered about 250 feet down in the ice. According to ice cores it was multiple thousands of years down. And yet it was only a few decades. Kind of sounds like radiometric dating: Unreliable.

I remember one atheist in a lecture said something like, "If we can destroy the first three chapters of Genesis, in the burning remains will be the cross of Jesus." If death has been here before Adam, then what is the world going to return to when Jesus returns? Watch the video.

I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. After I watched the video, "Were the pyramids built before the Flood?" I changed my mind. I think it is closer to 7,000 years old. It appears Bishop Usher didn't have the same manuscripts which were translated into Latin about 250 BC.

Some here have mentioned Job. At the end of Job two dinosaurs were described as alive at that time. How do you think people around the world were able to depict them on pottery and at grave sights and on walls? Because they were alive at the time. How do you think scientists are finding lots of soft tissues in dinosaur bones?

Ringman, I would suggest your assiniine posts have discouraged many fence-siiters from Christianity by making them believe all ""Christians" are retards.

Appeal to authority.

"Scientists say" lots of things, about lots of things, the global "climate crisis" and mRNA vaccines to name a couple more recent examples.

E.g. I heard a "scientist" say if we stop burning fossil fuels we can stabilize the climate. Evidence however indicates that the climate hasn't been stable for as long as the Earth has existed, however long you may think that may be.

Evidence is more important than what "scientists say".

More accurately, perhaps political ideologues who are labeled "scientists" have "discovered" all humans are the same race, but look around, the evidence clearly indicates that is not the case.

Sure it is. That’s clearly been exactly what’s been occurring with multiple posts here.

I don't look to the first three chapters of Genesis to determine where I stand with God. I don't look to the first three chapters of Genesis to determine whether or not God loves me, whether or not God is with me, whether or not God cares for me.

Do you know where I look…? I look to a single event that took place on a hill outside the walls of Jerusalem. That's where I look, where God sent His son to pay for all of your sin and all of my sin. And that was His way of saying that He’s removed every obstacle between you and Him so that you can have fellowship with Him, and He can love you unconditionally. And He can hear your prayers regardless of your sin. And He can intervene if He chooses to. And He can comfort if that's what He chooses to do.

But you are in a right relationship with God. And you never ever, ever, ever, ever have to wonder if He loves you, if He cares about you, or if He is with you.

When someone can predict His own death and resurrection…and pulls it off…and He tells you that you can put your trust and confidence in Him…PERIOD…you believe Him.

Actually the ice above those planes built up over that last decades and are not the same ice taken in core samples. Extreamly weak (and laughable) argument from young earth believers.

so carbon dating old Dino bones that shows them millions of years old is flawed? Come on you can't be serious.

Trust science.

Distrust scientists.

Bruce

Carbon dating can only be used for things less than about 50,000 years old. And it has to be living once. ALL fossils and fossil fuels can be carbon dated.

Carbon dating can only be used for things less than about 50,000 years old. And it has to be living once. ALL fossils and fossil fuels can be carbon dated.

Carbon dating can only be used for things less than about 50,000 years old. And it has to be living once. ALL fossils and fossil fuels can be carbon dated.

Fascinating how we have people claiming to be scientific and use overly general and subjective adjectives like “Rigorous” to portray their secret religion as true science.

Great post!

Amazing that we still have folks who place faith in the words of ancient scrolls over science, evidence and rigorous testing.

The Earth is approximately as old as the hills.

"ALL fossils and fossil fuels can be carbon dated."

They can be dated, but not by carbon.

Your statements are absolutely the pinnacle of Bovine Excrement, due to either stupidity or gnorance. Or something. Doesn't seem curable tho.

And that's all I have to say about this.

Patently false. Almost no fossil are “young” enough to be carbon dated.

Then it can be carbon dated.


Because the hills are alive......

Are you aware that carbon is not the only isotope that’s used for radiometric dating?

Which is why they don't use carbon-14 dating for dinosaur fossils. They use uranium-238, uranium-235, and potassium-40 dating, which have half lives in the millions of years, unlike carbon-14, which is useful only for dating man made objects.

You are displaying ignorant prejudice. The video shows the fallacy of the general use of radiometric dating. This has been proven many times by dating rocks of known age. Do some more research.

LOL. Ringman, you do understand that science says the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, and it's only a very small minority of scientists who say it's much younger.

Right?

You are stuck in the same mire as the other posters. U-238 can't date things of known age accurately. Why accept it as valid for things of unknown age?

You can be both creationist and an evolutions. You believe that God created the universe and used evolution to create life to populate the earth.

You're referring to when Answers in Genesis sent new volcanic rock from Mt. St. Helens to a lab to be radiometrically dated, and it come back to be hundreds of thousands of years old. That was a case, however, where the person choosing the rocks to be dated was motivated to discredit radiometric dating, so intentionally selected samples that had contamination with older rock, such as samples mixed with material from the cap of the volcano.

Ringman, I would suggest your assiniine posts have discouraged many fence-sitters from Christianity by making them believe all "Christians" are retards.

What do you base your statement on? Like you, your "fence-sitters" are making a choice now. God tells us those who do not know God and do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be destroyed.

You can be both creationist and an evolutions. You believe that God created the universe and used evolution to create life to populate the earth.

When you say "of known age" you mean things that first came into existence within the last few thousand or few hundred years. The problem with that argument is similar to the problem of weighing yourself on a scale designed for weighing tractor trailers. While such a scale is ideal for weighing tractor trailers, you are certain to get a wrong weight for a human being because that scale is inappropriate for measuring things of so little weight.

Try, also, measuring 8.4 grains of gun powder on your bathroom scale. Same problem. That doesn't mean your bathroom scale isn't perfectly fine for weighing yourself on.

Your escape mechanism is not working. When something doesn't work, it doesn't work.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, etc., and it was so. And God said let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life."

That doesn't describe a God blinking everything into existence. Sounds more like he subcontracted the work out to the waters and the earth, and they carried out his instructions.

No. I am referring to Dr. Steve Austin and others. They used rocks from Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon. The most interesting is they broke a rock into four pieces and sent them to four different laboratories. The date is varied by up to more than a billion years. Not very credible.

The same Bible tells us, "God spoke and it was.".

So you absolve yourself of ‘any’ responsibility for actually pushing people away from Jesus…?

So you absolve yourself of ‘any’ responsibility for actually pushing people away from Jesus…?

Absolutely!

Are you aware evolutionist scientists become creationists every year. Can you name a single creationist who became an evolutionist?

You'd better throw your bathroom scale away, then, because it simply doesn't work for weighing 8.4 grains of gun powder.

Did ANY of those 4 different labs date their rock sample at 6000 to 7000 years old…?

It was, indeed. It doesn't, however, say that it happened instantly in human terms. To God, it was the same as instant, however, because all things, from the beginning to the end of time, are laid out before him like a tapestry. But that's only from his perspective, being outside of time itself. He created time for us to live in. He's not himself restricted by it, although he spent 33 years under its governance.

No. Because creationists are some of the most if not the most close-minded people on earth.

"Evolutionists" as you call them, are not.

"... as evidenced by any western movie ..."

Now we know how you got so confused. You get your scientific knowledge from Western movies.

What's in that pole you are smoking?

This whole discussion is fraught with complete and total bias on both sides of the argument. The fact is the bible speaks in generalizations of life, belief in God, and how to live our lives in order to please and praise God. In that, I believe in most of the bible but I also believe the words in the bible were never meant to be taken literally, in essence they believed in teaching by way of parables, which are not factual as much as they are life affirming.

Personally, I believe in what the bible teaches us, but I also believe in the science that we have developed- through God's hand and our development over the many millennia humans have inhabited this earth- even beyond the creatures that were here before us- and the nothingness that existed for many hundreds of thousands of years after the earth's forming. The Big Bang is just another example of our inability to understand huge cosmic events so we pretend we understand and continue to explore meaning by putting forth theories and the proving if they are right or wrong. Why do you think we have continued to explore space in more and more detail over the years? The one question I ask anyone who tries to explain away the beginning of the universe by saying it was the Big Bang is this- "where did the material for the Big Bang come from? No matter how small or large the central core of the Big Bang was at the beginning, it had to come from somewhere."

I believe God was involved in the creation of this universe but He works in ways we may never understand and in a time frame we aren't able to understand. The universe may be 14 billion years old, or much older- we don't have enough understanding to completely judge these things yet. But as a working theory it makes sense according to what evidence we have accumulated at the moment. To discount the speed of light, carbon dating, and scientific theories that try to explain these things out of hand because of your total belief in the bible as a scientific or historical reference is just plain being obtuse and argumentative. Close minded people have held back scientific discovery for most of recorded history. Look what happened to Galileo when he proposed the earth wasn't the center of the universe...

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience

For the serious student, they are mutually exclusive. The Bible tells us the earth started out cool. Evolution teaches it started out hot. Creation teaches the earth will end by burning. Evolution teaches it will end cold.

You are aware a black person can be a perfect match for a white person needing an organ transplant, correct?

WRONG!!

it is do-able but waaay down the chart of preferred allocation. There is still dna, tissue typing and several criteria in the qualifying matrices of compatibility
Ethnicity to like ethnicity will rank higher as to best suitability.

The only “perfect” match is an identical twin sibling.

Be careful with your generalizations, someone is always lying in wait to call you out on your bullshît

Y’all got sucked past the Ringman radius…

Known half-lives of radioactive isotopes are ‘known.’ Atomic fission and atomic fusion are reality, and knowing the half-lives of the radioactive isotopes involved helped make these discoveries and technologies possible. Medical linear accelerators and nuclear medicine are reality, and knowing the half-lives of the radioactive isotopes involved helped make these discoveries and technologies possible.

Carbon-14, potassium-argon, and uranium-lead are all accurate methods of dating objects specific to their particular time frames.

Some folks’ grasp on their religious beliefs is so tenuous and so shaky that they’re afraid the least little puff of knowledge will blow it away. If your belief in God depends upon the universe not being billions of years old, then you’re in deeper trouble than you can imagine, oh Ye of little faith.

Sure it is. That’s clearly been exactly what’s been occurring with multiple posts here.

I don't look to the first three chapters of Genesis to determine where I stand with God. I don't look to the first three chapters of Genesis to determine whether or not God loves me, whether or not God is with me, whether or not God cares for me.

Do you know where I look…? I look to a single event that took place on a hill outside the walls of Jerusalem. That's where I look, where God sent His son to pay for all of your sin and all of my sin. And that was His way of saying that He’s removed every obstacle between you and Him so that you can have fellowship with Him, and He can love you unconditionally. And He can hear your prayers regardless of your sin. And He can intervene if He chooses to. And He can comfort if that's what He chooses to do.

But you are in a right relationship with God. And you never ever, ever, ever, ever have to wonder if He loves you, if He cares about you, or if He is with you.

When someone can predict His own death and resurrection…and pulls it off…and He tells you that you can put your trust and confidence in Him…PERIOD…you believe Him.

You are aware a black person can be a perfect match for a white person needing an organ transplant, correct?

Known half-lives of radioactive isotopes are ‘known.’ Atomic fission and atomic fusion are reality, and knowing the half-lives of the radioactive isotopes involved helped make these discoveries and technologies possible. Medical linear accelerators and nuclear medicine are reality, and knowing the half-lives of the radioactive isotopes involved helped make these discoveries and technologies possible.

Carbon-14, potassium-argon, and uranium-lead are all accurate methods of dating objects specific to their particular time frames.

Some folks’ grasp on their religious beliefs is so tenuous and so shaky that they’re afraid the least little puff of knowledge will blow it away. If your belief in God depends upon the universe not being billions of years old, then you’re in deeper trouble than you can imagine, oh Ye of little faith.

Did you know the Book which covers that starts by saying, "In the beginning God created...". In The New Testament we find, In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was God And all things were created by Him.

No. I am referring to Dr. Steve Austin and others. They used rocks from My. St. Hellens and the Grand Canyon. The most interesting is they broke a rock into four pieces and sent them to four different laboratories. The date is varied by up to more than a billion years. Not very credible.

Fascinating how we have people claiming to be scientific and use overly general and subjective adjectives like “Rigorous” to portray their secret religion as true science.

For medical use the beginning quantities are irrelevant.

Amen

Do more research.

I cannot believe how many people on here have no doubt in their mind what there science teacher in school told them is accurate. We all know who has been running our schools since WW 2. The left. Pure evil. Why would you believe anything they have to say. Every story they manufacture to tell all the school children is number 1, designed to separate you from God. That is the left’s ultimate goal anti God. Every college paper published must fit their criteria. Decade after decade. Wake up. Today the science teacher says there are 40 different genders and men can have babies. So I’m sure you believe that to be true also. Go take a science lesson duh.

You would do well to do a little research. I remember three archeologists: Nelson Gulik, Clifford Wilson, and William Albright being on the same dig in the Middle East (I am old.). Gulik was an atheist, Wilson a born-again Christian, and Albright was antagonistic toward the Bible but not an atheist. One thing they all agreed on was the ancient Jews were careful historian. Perhaps you didn't know that.

Indeed. All things were made by him. He made the world, and commanded it to bring forth all living things. Only he had the power and authority to do that, and without him having done that, there would be nothing. That doesn't mean he blinked everything into existence. You're reading that into it when that interpretation isn't required by the words. In fact, the words support my position, since they clearly state that he commanded the waters and the earth to bring forth all the living creatures. How do you interpret that to mean he blinked all the living creatures into existence, like Jeannie from I Dream of Jeannie??

And remember how the Gospel according to John ends:

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.


Just because it’s not in the Bible doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

P

For ALL of the aforementioned discoveries and technologies, the known half-lives of the radioactive isotopes involved were and are absolutely relevant.

Nobody’s “guessing” when it comes to ‘any’ of the aforementioned discoveries and technologies that are used every single day to make peoples lives better in this country.

Bible is BS, theologians are wrong, scientists are right. The smart ones moved past this centuries ago. Even when the scientists are wrong...the Bible is still complete BS.

They are guessing how much was there in order to determine the dates. Dating has nothing to do with how it is used in medicine.

The full text the USGS publication titled, Geological Time is available online.

At the close of the 18th century, the haze of fantasy and mysticism that tended to obscure the true nature of the Earth was being swept away. Careful studies by scientists showed that rocks had diverse origins. Some rock layers, containing clearly identifiable fossil remains of fish and other forms of aquatic animal and plant life, originally formed in the ocean. Other layers, consisting of sand grains winnowed clean by the pounding surf, obviously formed as beach deposits that marked the shorelines of ancient seas. Certain layers are in the form of sand bars and gravel banks -- rock debris spread over the land by streams. Some rocks were once lava flows or beds of cinders and ash thrown out of ancient volcanoes; others are portions of large masses of once-molten rock that cooled very slowly far beneath the Earth's surface. Other rocks were so transformed by heat and pressure during the heaving and buckling of the Earth's crust in periods of mountain building that their original features were obliterated.

From the results of studies on the origins of the various kinds of rocks (petrology), coupled with studies of rock layering (stratigraphy) and the evolution of life (paleontology), today geologists reconstruct the sequence of events that has shaped the Earth's surface. Their studies show, for example, that during a particular episode the land surface was raised in one part of the world to form high plateaus and mountain ranges. After the uplift of the land, the forces of erosion attacked the highlands and the eroded rock debris was transported and redeposited in the lowlands. During the same interval of time in another part of the world, the land surface subsided and was covered by the seas. With the sinking of the land surface, sediments were deposited on the ocean floor. The evidence of the pre-existence of ancient mountain ranges lies in the nature of the eroded rock debris, and the evidence of the seas' former presence is, in part, the fossil forms of marine life that accumulated with the bottom sediments.

Such recurring events as mountain building and sea encroachment, of which the rocks themselves are records, comprise units of geologic time even though the actual dates of the events are unknown. By comparison, the history of mankind is similarly organized into relative units of time. We speak of human events as occurring either B.C. or A.D. -- broad divisions of time. Shorter spans are measured by the dynasties of ancient Egypt or by the reigns of kings and queens in Europe. Geologists have done the same thing to geologic time by dividing the Earth's history into Eras -- broad spans based on the general character of life that existed during these times, and Periods -- shorter spans based partly on evidence of major disturbances of the Earth's crust.

The names used to designate the divisions of geologic time are a fascinating mixture of works that mark highlights in the historical development of geologic science over the past 200 years. Nearly every name signifies the acceptance of a new scientific concept -- a new rung in the ladder of geologic knowledge.

The discovery of the natural radioactive decay of uranium in 1896 by Henry Becquerel, the French physicist, opened new vistas in science. In 1905, the British physicist Lord Rutherford -- after defining the structure of the atom -- made the first clear suggestion for using radioactivity as a tool for measuring geologic time directly; shortly thereafter, in 1907, Professor B. B. Boltwood, radiochemist of Yale University, published a list of geologic ages based on radioactivity. Although Boltwood's ages have since been revised, they did show correctly that the duration of geologic time would be measured in terms of hundreds-to-thousands of millions of years.

The next 40 years was a period of expanding research on the nature and behavior of atoms, leading to the development of nuclear fission and fusion as energy sources. A byproduct of this atomic research has been the development and continuing refinement of the various methods and techniques used to measure the age of Earth materials. Precise dating has been accomplished since 1950.

A chemical element consists of atoms with a specific number of protons in their nuclei but different atomic weights owing to variations in the number of neutrons. Atoms of the same element with differing atomic weights are called isotopes. Radioactive decay is a spontaneous process in which an isotope (the parent) loses particles from its nucleus to form an isotope of a new element (the daughter). The rate of decay is conveniently expressed in terms of an isotope's half-life, or the time it takes for one-half of a particular radioactive isotope in a sample to decay. Most radioactive isotopes have rapid rates of decay (that is, short half-lives) and lose their radioactivity within a few days or years. Some isotopes, however, decay slowly, and several of these are used as geologic clocks. The parent isotopes and corresponding daughter products most commonly used to determine the ages of ancient rocks are listed below:


Parent Isotope Stable Daughter Product Currently Accepted Half-life Values
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0 billion years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion years
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years

The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is called the age equation and is:

t=1/delta ln(1 + D/P)

where:

t is the age of a rock or mineral specimen,
D is the number of atoms of a daughter product today,
P is the number of atoms of the parent product today,
ln s the natural logarithm (logarithm to base e), and
delta is the appropriate decay constant.

(The decay constant for each parent isotope is related to its half-life, t 1/2, by the following expression:

t 1/2 = ln2/delta

Dating rocks by these radioactive timekeepers is simple in theory, but the laboratory procedures are complex. The numbers of parent and daughter isotopes in each specimen are determined by various kinds of analytical methods. The principal difficulty lies in measuring precisely very small amounts of isotopes.

Literally thousands of dated materials are now available for use to bracket the various episodes in the history of the Earth within specific time zones. Many points on the time scale are being revised, however, as the behavior of isotopes in the Earth's crust is more clearly understood. Thus the graphic illustration of the geologic time scale, showing both relative time and radiometric time, represents only the present state of knowledge. Certainly, revisions and modifications will be forthcoming as research continues to improve our knowledge of Earth history.

What do you base your statement on? Like you, your "fence-siiters" are making a choice now. God tells us those who do not know God and do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be destroyed.

The very text say everything was finished by the seventh day. How do you believe the words about water but not the words about days?

The very text say everything was finished by the seventh day. How do you be believe the words about water but not the words about days?

Ringman, This is going to be akin to pissing in the wind, but, read something that challenges your biases.

All sorts of radio active isotopes and their decay elements are used in dating. And carbon 14 is used to date things up to 60K years. The half life to 6000 years.

Geologic Age: Using Radioactive Decay to Determine Geologic Age


(Can someone quote me. He has me on ignore)

You are displaying ignorant prejudice. The video shows the fallacy of the general use of radiometric dating. This has been proven many times by dating rocks of known age. Do some more research.

Wow, I like that. There is a lot of data summed up there in an accessible format.

For the serious student, they are mutually exclusive. The Bible tells us the earth started out cool. Evolution teaches it started out hot. Creation teaches the earth will end by burning. Evolution teaches it will end cold.

If these radioactive isotopes half-lives are known, and they definitely are, and these discoveries and technologies are used every single day in this country to save lives and prolong lives and make peoples lives better, then their accuracy…all the way around (including dating)…is accurate…!

God forbid that you (or someone you care about) get cancer. But if that happened, you’d likely lean into this science for your health to hopefully prolong your life, make your life better, and maybe save your life.

Could the seventh day be longer than 24 hours…? In Hebrews it says that God is still at rest ~ are we still in the seventh day right now…? If the seventh day is longer than you think it is, then maybe the other 6 days are longer than you think they are…!

All his commands to nature were indeed finished, and to him that's the same thing as their being accomplished. You keep forgetting that God isn't trapped in time as we are (time was merely one of his creations). He gives a command and sees it accomplished instantly, even when, to our reckoning (being creatures trapped in time), it take millions of years.

You are conflating evolution with cosmology.

The study of evolution is the study of living things on this Earth. The study of evolution can tell us nothing of how the Earth will end, though it might suggest the human species will be extinct millennia before that happen.

Most likely, the Earth will end in a huge fireball as the sun goes nova and consumes this solar system.

Again, you are not getting it.

And just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it did happen.

The very text say everything was finished by the seventh day. How do you believe the words about water but not the words about days?

Could the seventh day be longer than 24 hours…? In Hebrews it says that God is still at rest ~ are we still in the seventh day right now…? If the seventh day is longer than you think it is, then maybe the other 6 days are longer than you think they are…!

Your philosophical escape mechanism is flawed. Even in the Ten Commandments written by the finger of God, God gives the reason for worshiping on the seventh day. God says, "For in six days God created.... therefore you shall work six days."

I have read a lot of threads, comments, statements on here over the last 23 years and this has to be the most foolish of all time.

Most likely, the Earth will end in a huge fireball as the sun goes nova and consumes this solar system.

I think they are expecting it to absorb the earth in a red giant rather than a nova.

You haven't read enough material by evolutionists. They discuss other subjects, too.

Guess where lead came from? The decay of uranium which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. You won't even consider anything that challenges your belief. Pure confirmation bias at work.

If I recall correctly, you're a Young Earth Creationist?

If so, tell us about the "rigorous" methodology used to come to your conclusion.

So saya a geocentric flat earther who is lost to fantasy and has no credibility.

These known half-lives of radioactive isotopes…where the time required for half of the atoms of a particular radioactive substance to decay, where these decay rates are predictable (known)…allows scientists to measure the quantity of the remaining unstable atoms left in a rock (for example) and compare it to the quantity of related stable atoms in the rock, and determine/estimate the amount of time that has passed since that rock was formed.

I get it just fine. But my faith isn’t so weak and frail that it depends upon the universe not being billions of years old.

Is God still at rest (as the writer of Hebrews says) or not…? Is the writer of Hebrews wrong…?

Guess where lead came from? The decay of uranium which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. You won't even consider anything that challenges your belief. Pure confirmation bias at work.

So what was the foundation of Peter’s faith…? Where did Peter get his hope…? Where did Peter get his boldness…? Where did he get his confidence…? It sure as heck wasn’t from the first three chapters of Genesis…! How is it he’s out walking around in the open…proclaiming Jesus to the very people who had Him killed…whereas before he was afraid and ran for his life…? Again, it sure as heck wasn’t because of the first three chapters of Genesis…!

The foundation of Peter’s faith wasn’t something he’d read or had read to him. The foundation of Peter’s faith was what he’d seen. So for Jesus’ followers nowadays, what should be the foundation of their faith…? What should be the epicenter of their confidence…? It sure as heck isn’t the first three chapters of Genesis…!

Apostle Peter would say “that’s easy…the resurrection”…!

This is how the message of Jesus survived the Jewish Temple and the Roman Empire. And remember that the first persecution of Christians was from the Jewish Temple, it wasn’t from Rome. This is how Christianity survived the first, second, third, and the beginning of the fourth century.

The first-century followers of Jesus embraced what all followers of Jesus nowadays oughta embrace: they embraced the stand-alone version of Christianity. They didn’t need the first three chapters of Genesis to prop up their faith. They didn’t need the creation narrative in Genesis explained to them to prop up their faith. They didn’t need the story of Noah, or the story of Jonah to prop up their faith. They didn’t need the Law of Moses to prop up their faith. Christianity stood on its own two nail-scarred, resurrection, first-century feet. It did then, and it does now.

The very text say everything was finished by the seventh day. How do you believe the words about water but not the words about days?

Could the seventh day be longer than 24 hours…? In Hebrews it says that God is still at rest ~ are we still in the seventh day right now…? If the seventh day is longer than you think it is, then maybe the other 6 days are longer than you think they are…!

Your philosophical escape mechanism is flawed. Even in the Ten Commandments written by the finger of God, God gives the reason for worshiping on the seventh day. God says, "For in six days God created.... therefore you shall work six days."

Is God still at rest (as the writer of Hebrews says) or not…? Is the writer of Hebrews wrong…?

Jesus says the Father IS working now. John 5:17

Guess where lead came from? The decay of uranium which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. You won't even consider anything that challenges your belief. Pure confirmation bias at work.

Awwww. Little fella doesn’t like his tone being returned in his direction. Christians are supposed to tolerate your asinine, provocative behavior. Not return it.

Credibility? Is that when you make a slanderous statement, like saying they’re a geocentric flat-earther when they’re not? If so, you’ve got all the credibility, genius.

As I recall, you're another Young Earth Creationist.

You seem to forget there are many people who come to Jesus because their faith in evolution fell apart. Then they look to the Savior.

You wrote a couple lines about Peter. He teaches those who are serious, "Grow in grace and knowledge...." Which includes more than the cross. It includes Peter ordering the first Gentiles to be baptized in water. He believed Jesus when Jesus says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."

So was the writer of Hebrews wrong…?

I don’t recall ever voicing my opinion one way or another on this subject but I would lean in that direction but I don’t think there is enough information to make a definitive decision.
The 24 hour period is very clear isn’t it?
“God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.”
‭‭
You do have the creationist part down though.

In any event the Gospel is what’s important. The fact that someone paid your debt/ransom so that you would have to.

I doubt there are “many” who are led to Jesus “because their faith in evolution fell apart.” I think their number likely pales in comparison to the people who are pushed away from Jesus because of folks who profess to be Christians that come across as being the polar opposite of Jesus.But NONE of that changes what Peter made clear was the very foundation of his faith and hope…! None of that has anything to do with Peter’s decision to follow Jesus after the resurrection. You can reference whatever you choose to (including your perception of the inadequacy of my reasoning).

I think Peter himself would explain his reasoning ~ and I think he only had one reason. When Jesus was arrested, Peter ran...and when asked if he knew Jesus, he lied. And when the Romans crucified Jesus, he died. And at that time, Peter was like other non-believers...he had no faith. He didn’t know what to believe. He had no reason to believe. He’d just spent 3 years of his life following a false prophet, and now he had a price on his head.

And then Jesus came…there He was...very much alive. I think Peter would tell you…and clarify one thing with you…
his reason for believing wasn’t because of something he’d heard or read or had read to him. And it sure as heck wasn’t because of the first three chapters of Genesis. I think he’d tell you that he believes what he believes because of what he saw...he watched Jesus die, he knew exactly where Jesus was buried, but God raised Him...and Peter saw Him, and he saw Him more than once. That’s the reason...that’s the only reason...for Peter’s hope. He very clearly said so.
And that is the reason for my hope as well.

I do believe you are trying to be a little tricky by using something out of context.

My intention for this thread was to challenge people to think for themselves and come to Jesus.

What is yours, antlers?

You are concerned about people's opinion of me or my post. Their opinion of me or my post is NOT the ONE with Whom they must eventually deal. It is God's opinion of them that they must be concerned with.

Then it can be carbon dated.


Because the hills are alive......

Pick up your comics, girlyboy, and lose yourself in fantasy.....no doubt that happened long ago, you are now older, but never matured, tragically trapped in a fantasy world of your own making.

I'm certain the earth is older than me and am reasonably certain it will outlast me.

I saw somewhere that RayLene has admitted to being diagnosed as suffering from the Dunning/Kruger effect.

So what was the foundation of Peter’s faith…? Where did Peter get his hope…? Where did Peter get his boldness…? Where did he get his confidence…? It sure as heck wasn’t from the first three chapters of Genesis…! How is it he’s out walking around in the open…proclaiming Jesus to the very people who had Him killed…whereas before he was afraid and ran for his life…? Again, it sure as heck wasn’t because of the first three chapters of Genesis…!

The foundation of Peter’s faith wasn’t something he’d read or had read to him. The foundation of Peter’s faith was what he’d seen. So for Jesus’ followers nowadays, what should be the foundation of their faith…? What should be the epicenter of their confidence…? It sure as heck isn’t the first three chapters of Genesis…!

Apostle Peter would say “that’s easy…the resurrection”…!

This is how the message of Jesus survived the Jewish Temple and the Roman Empire. And remember that the first persecution of Christians was from the Jewish Temple, it wasn’t from Rome. This is how Christianity survived the first, second, third, and the beginning of the fourth century.

The first-century followers of Jesus embraced what all followers of Jesus nowadays oughta embrace: they embraced the stand-alone version of Christianity. They didn’t need the first three chapters of Genesis to prop up their faith. They didn’t need the creation narrative in Genesis explained to them to prop up their faith. They didn’t need the story of Noah, or the story of Jonah to prop up their faith. They didn’t need the Law of Moses to prop up their faith. Christianity stood on its own two nail-scarred, resurrection, first-century feet. It did then, and it does now.

You haven't read enough material by evolutionists. They discuss other subjects, too.

A very typical, well-reasoned post which is normal for my friend antlers. 👍🏼

I get frustrated by the Creation/evolution arguments, especially as it relates to Christianity. We are saved by the Blood of Jesus Christ not by any belief or non-belief in evolution.

Genesis specifies literal days, the morning and evening of the first day, second day, etc. Written at a time when people had no idea of the sheer scope and scale of the universe.

You would do well to do a little research. I remember three archeologists: Nelson Gulik, Clifford Wilson, and William Albright being on the same dig in the Middle East (I am old.). Gulik was an atheist, Wilson a born-again Christian, and Albright was antagonistic toward the Bible but not an atheist. One thing they all agreed on was the ancient Jews were careful historian. Perhaps you didn't know that.

I am fascinated so many here believe in Jesus' Blood but don't believe His Word.

I believe in Jesus’ Blood, and I believe His Word. Wholeheartedly. But I absolutely and unequivocally disagree with your interpretation of His Word.

Days passed between his commands to nature. There's no reason to assume that days passed between nature obeying his commands.

There's nothing false, for example, about the statement: "On Monday, March 3rd, 1943, General Richards commanded the fort be constructed, and it was so, and he saw that it was good," even if construction wasn't complete for a month. Heck, it's the case even if construction didn't start for a month, it's still a perfectly true statement from our perspective in the year 2023. There's nothing in the statement that grammatically requires that the fort was completed on March 3rd.

The above statement could go on and read that the next day, "On March 4th, 1943, General Richards commanded that his third brigade take Strasbourg, and it was so, and he saw that it was good." Again, the statement isn't an assertion that on March 4th the city was actually taken. It could have been days or weeks later, but from our perspective in 2023, it's a perfectly correct statement, and doesn't even force the conclusion that it occurred after the fort was constructed.

All we know from the above two statements (from our perspective in 2023) are the dates on which the two commands were issued, and the sequence of the two commands. Information about when they were accomplished isn't contained in them, just that at some point they were.

Literal days are specified, morning and evening of each day of Creation, morning and evening of the first day, the morning and evening of the second, etc.,

... including a list of generations from Adam.

Look, underneath the shaman's robes and the funny headdress, I'm about as Christian as they come.

Still, I can walk my own farm and see the effect that glaciers had. If you tell me the Earth is 4 billion or 14 billion years old, I'll listen. A lot of what God does takes time.

There is a hole in the ground at my salt lick. I've been pouring in bags of rock salt every year for the deer. The deer have created quite a crater, carrying of bits of soil in their gut. I was bored one day and tried to calculate how long it would take them to dig a cellar and how much salt it would take. My head started to hurt.

On the other hand, there's a cave on the shores of Lake Victoria-- a monstrous thing. It has no water running into it, so they know it wasn't formed like normal karst. They figure it was the elephants, for God-knows-how-long going to a huge salt lick. Given how fast it takes, those elephants have been working on it probably longer than there have been elephants.

Do I believe the Bible? Yes, and in the case of Genesis, I believe at some time primordial a bunch of sheep herders got the lowdown from on High in the terms they understood and did their best to remember it. I believe that Moses got the straight dope from God in the best terms he could understand. I believe that Christ came to the world and gave us the straight dope as best as we could understand. You can throw Paul in there. I think he was one of the best examples of how God sends folks out to explain things.

None of these revelations told me anything about how to fix a computer or reload for 30-06, and I don't rely on the Bible for this info as a result. I also don't take a sheep herder's word on things like Geology, Astronomy, or Cosmology.

There is no faith required to realize no one knows how much was there in the beginning. And no one knows what happened during the millions of years while it decays.

Very well said.

Poor girl, it must be hard to go through life never understanding the difference between fact and fiction, reality and myth. Always feeling right, yet left with a nagging sense of grief and frustration when her beliefs are challenged.

You keep repeating this falsehood which you would not believe if you had completed high school math unless some religious quack claiming to be a scientist had not hammered it into your head.

In fact, if you know (a) the percentage of the original isotope and the percentage of final isotope in a given sample and (b) you measure the rate of decay, it is simple to calculate the original age before decay.

Days passed between his commands to nature. There's no reason to assume that days passed between nature obeying his commands.

There's nothing false, for example, about the statement: "On Monday, March 3rd, 1943, General Richards commanded the fort be constructed, and it was so, and he saw that it was good," even if construction wasn't complete for a month. Heck, it's the case even if construction didn't start for a month, it's still a perfectly true statement from our perspective in the year 2023. There's nothing in the statement that grammatically requires that the fort was completed on March 3rd.

The above statement could go on and read that the next day, "On March 4th, 1943, General Richards commanded that his third brigade take Strasbourg, and it was so, and he saw that it was good." Again, the statement isn't an assertion that on March 4th the city was actually taken. It could have been days or weeks later, but from our perspective in 2023, it's a perfectly correct statement, and doesn't even force the conclusion that it occurred after the fort was constructed.

All we know from the above two statements (from our perspective in 2023) are the dates on which the two commands were issued, and the sequence of the two commands. Information about when they were accomplished isn't contained in them, just that at some point they were.

I believe in Jesus’ Blood, and I believe His Word. Wholeheartedly. But I absolutely and unequivocally disagree with your interpretation of His Word.

Look, underneath the shaman's robes and the funny headdress, I'm about as Christian as they come.

Still, I can walk my own farm and see the effect that glaciers had. If you tell me the Earth is 4 billion or 14 billion years old, I'll listen. A lot of what God does takes time.

There is a hole in the ground at my salt lick. I've been pouring in bags of rock salt every year for the deer. The deer have created quite a crater, carrying of bits of soil in their gut. I was bored one day and tried to calculate how long it would take them to dig a cellar and how much salt it would take. My head started to hurt.

On the other hand, there's a cave on the shores of Lake Victoria-- a monstrous thing. It has no water running into it, so they know it wasn't formed like normal karst. They figure it was the elephants, for God-knows-how-long going to a huge salt lick. Given how fast it takes, those elephants have been working on it probably longer than there have been elephants.

Do I believe the Bible? Yes, and in the case of Genesis, I believe at some time primordial a bunch of sheep herders got the lowdown from on High in the terms they understood and did their best to remember it. I believe that Moses got the straight dope from God in the best terms he could understand. I believe that Christ came to the world and gave us the straight dope as best as we could understand. You can throw Paul in there. I think he was one of the best examples of how God sends folks out to explain things.

None of these revelations told me anything about how to fix a computer or reload for 30-06, and I don't rely on the Bible for this info as a result. I also don't take a sheep herder's word on things like Geology, Astronomy, or Cosmology.

Yu just can't get it. God, Himself, wrote with His finger on stone He rested on the seventh day. He defined days in the first chapter of the Bible.

You think the Word of God made flesh had limited understanding? He created everything, including your brain. You insult Him.

Where's the interpretation? Words mean things. When put in sentences they even mean more.

Yu just can't get it. God, Himself, wrote with His finger on stone He rested on the seventh day. He defined days in the first chapter of the Bible. Only someone who wants to add to God's Word distorts the facts. Saint Peter tells us those who distort God's Word distort it to their own destruction.

Yu just can't get it. God, Himself, wrote with His finger on stone He rested on the seventh day. He defined days in the first chapter of the Bible. Only someone who wants to add to God's Word distorts the facts. Saint Peter tells us those who distort God's Word distort it to their own destruction.

Is the Bible fact or fiction?

Is the Bible fact or fiction?

My argument is unscathed by that. Perhaps you didn't understand what I said. While Adam was the first man (by God's reckoning), Genesis does not state that he was the first member of his (our) zoological species. "Forming him from the mud" is shorthand allegory for the natural processes that led to his coming into existence. It had already been stated, after all, that God commanded the waters to bring forth all the moving creatures that have life. That's an all inclusive statement. Adam was a moving creature that had life.

I didn't notice that you had an argument. The claim of the OP is young earth cosmology, and the genesis narrative supports that notion. That is the point.

And obviously, the young earth claim has no merit despite what the bible describes.

Parts are fact, and parts are allegory. It's not generally hard to differentiate.

If special creation and the fall is merely allegory, this completely undermines Christian theology.

Read it again. You're missing it. More likely, however, you don't wish to see the argument.

Make your argument.

And as for theology, without the fall, what need of Jesus and redemption?

Well, that is a good question. There is a good amount of fact in the bible- many geographical locations and descriptions are accurate enough that places and buildings have been located and verified. Also, the listing of the families in the old testament is a historical reference to which the accuracy can and has been traced for lineage.

Since the Bible was put together some time after Jesus' time, and relies on stories which have been told and retold for centuries and interpreted by different sects of the Christian faithful it can't be relied on substantially to be factual in all matters. Also, due to the many interpretations by different sects it was a great battle to decide which interpretations were include in the final text and which were discarded. Also, since much of the bible is formed as story telling to teach in parables, the meaning is more spiritual than factual and must be interpreted by the faithful to gain meaning IMO...

This particular discussion could go on for quite some time...

I've already extensively refuted your position on your former point. As to the above, who said there wasn't a fall? I certainly didn't. While it's a story told in allegory, the doctrine delivered by it was that, right from the start, man fell from God's grace. You don't have to know how exactly that occurred to accept the lesson that it did.

It's only to be expected that our two atheists wish to tie Christianity to an untenable literal interpretation of Genesis.

The whole Genesis story is fiction - there's nothing useful about it except fanciful entertainment.

You haven't refuted a thing. In Christian theology, Redemption is based on the sacrifice of Jesus. If as the story goes, sin had not entered the world through Adam, there was need for Jesus the redeemer or his blood sacrifice;

''....but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned....'''

''For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many!'' - Romans.

“ 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

The whole Genesis story is fiction - there's nothing useful about it except fanciful entertainment.

The whole book of Genesis is fiction? Or just the creation story?
Genesis covers a lot of time and territory. Maybe billions of years.

Naw... Only 6000 years... /s

Whatever. But I would bet a lot of the book has a basis in real events. Cain and Abel could have been two tribes where a bunch of nomadic herders wiped out some farmers that were irritable over the nomad's animals eating their crops. As to the flood, we know the ocean spilled over into what is now the Black Sea, the deposing of Esau in a conspiracy by Jacob and his mother is believable. The slaughter of the Shechemites by Simeon's and Levi's men could easily be based in an event. Moving on further into the other books the destruction of Jericho probably did result from an earthquake at an opportune time. The David and Goliath story is believable in that a teenage sharpshooter could knock a huge opponent unconscious and then behead him with Goliath's own sword.

Surely a lot of the bible including Jesus' parables are allegories meant to convey a lesson but there are many cases where the historical parts have some basis in fact and real events. I'm sure the writers took some liberty and license in their recording of long ago oral history.

Whatever. But I would bet a lot of the book has a basis in real events. Cain and Abel could have been two tribes where a bunch of nomadic herders wiped out some farmers that were irritable over the nomad's animals eating their crops. As to the flood, we know the ocean spilled over into what is now the Black Sea, the deposing of Esau in a conspiracy by Jacob and his mother is believable. The slaughter of the Shechemites by Simeon's and Levi's men could easily be based in an event. Moving on further into the other books the destruction of Jericho probably did result from an earthquake at an opportune time. The David and Goliath story is believable in that a teenage sharpshooter could knock a huge opponent unconscious and then behead him with Goliath's own sword.

Surely a lot of the bible including Jesus' parables are allegories meant to convey a lesson but there are many cases where the historical parts have some basis in fact and real events. I'm sure the writers took some liberty and license in their recording of long ago oral history.

I've already addressed this. You seem incapable of comprehending much of what I have to say. I suggest it's intentional.

" ... I also believe that Jesus and many other's in both the old and new testaments are likely based real persons. But I don't think the book is infallible."

There's no point in debating someone who consistently (and conveniently) pretends not to understand one's argument.

Your argument is flawed. It's flawed because you ignore the key points of what is in fact written, that 'sin entered the world because of one man,' only to impose your own interpretation.

You do that because you know that taken literally, the story doesn't make sense, yet you want to salvage whatever appeals to you, so you deem this to be metaphor, and that to be literal. Cherry picking.

The whole Genesis story is fiction

I've already refuted the above sophistry.

Note for you and DBT

Sadly, these verses apply to you two…

2 Corinthians 4:3-4

“ 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

Seek and you will find……Don’t seek and you will not find. Don’t seek and you will remain in your spiritual blindness.

The irony is that Satan and all his demons fully understand all about Jesus, who is God…but Satan has deceived you so that you cannot see the truth about yourselves, Satan or Jesus.

Whatever. But I would bet a lot of the book has a basis in real events. Cain and Abel could have been two tribes where a bunch of nomadic herders wiped out some farmers that were irritable over the nomad's animals eating their crops. As to the flood, we know the ocean spilled over into what is now the Black Sea, the deposing of Esau in a conspiracy by Jacob and his mother is believable. The slaughter of the Shechemites by Simeon's and Levi's men could easily be based in an event. Moving on further into the other books the destruction of Jericho probably did result from an earthquake at an opportune time. The David and Goliath story is believable in that a teenage sharpshooter could knock a huge opponent unconscious and then behead him with Goliath's own sword.

Surely a lot of the bible including Jesus' parables are allegories meant to convey a lesson but there are many cases where the historical parts have some basis in fact and real events. I'm sure the writers took some liberty and license in their recording of long ago oral history.

Speaking of fiction…..

Y’all got sucked past the Ringman radius…

OK, I'm raising my hand now.

Sadly those verses don't mean anything.

I think it's safe to say all the extraordinary events are bullshit.

A large chunk of it is demonstrabally factually and historically wrong.

Evidence of interspecies evolution? Sure, it's called evolution - google it sometime, you might learn something.

Interesting way of saying you don’t have any evidence but you choose to believe it on faith. Case and point of how some atheists use science as a religion, gents.

Thank you, Mauserless.

... and is certainly NOT proof of evolution between kinds.

“Can living cells arise from non-living chemicals?”

But ….ALL….we’re still fruit flies….this is what is now called “micro evolution” and is certainly NOT proof of evolution between kinds.

Which of the examples I gave are demonstrably factually and historically wrong. Not suspect or unproven but factually proven false and ''bullshit''? There are plenty of examples I could have given that may have a base in actual events but that would take a while.

Those who point to “micro evolution” as “proof” of speciation and changes in”kind” are guilty of blurred scientific vision. Gerd Muller saw it…..

There is plenty of evidence in both book and documentary form that are available. It is therefore absurd for someone like myself to sit here and type out a 20 page dissertation on the subject at a online forum. It would be a colossal waste of time. Why? First, because if you haven't sought any of this information out before now then that strongly indicates that you really have no genuine interest in actually reading it. And secondly, religious people don't believe what they believe based on facts or logic and therefore you cannot sway their opinion with facts or logic. And lastly, I understand what I do about science because I have spent a lifetime interested in it and learning about it. If you haven't put in a similar amount of time educating yourself on the subject then no one an bring you up to speed in a few typed paragraphs on a message board. If you are genuinely interested I can recommend some good books and or documentaries on the subject.

Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. It deals with how life has evolved over millions of years but makes no attempt to explain it's origin.

Age of the earth seems to boil down to science vs religious beliefs fueled by the Bible. There are many religions in the world and most have Bible like books as part of their history. I wonder what these other pieces of literature say about the age of the earth. Do they all claim it is 6000 years old?

Thanks, Willto, but I have to admit, after the first 2 videos, I considered the 3rd pointless. To Dr Wyhe’s own admission, at 3:45, “ there was not evidence for evolution for these pre-Darwinian scientists”. So everything depends on post-Darwinism. Okay.

“Could be evidence of” is much different than a continuous chain evidence that would make interspecies evolution a peer-reviewed irrefutable fact. What those videos provide is the best argument for non-creationism.

I’m a believer in survival of the fittest because it is recorded with continuous evidence. The Darwinian statement of “It must be” is replaced with the irrefutable term of “It is”. (ex: See these brightly colored insects? They were all preyed upon while their duller-colored version lived and procreated). Unfortunately, for the Theory of Evolution, it’s not a species change.

Survival of the fittest also does not address arrival of the fittest. Previous existence of any species has not been disproven.

And Indy is correct in eluding to the lack of scientific evidence proving all of Genesis correct…but that’s why its called “Faith.”. Faith belongs there….in the bible. Not in science. So when someone says they “Know” evolution has resulted in one species turning into another, they’re really saying they “Strongly believe” but are trying to point to fragments of evidence and saying that’s all they need. Then they get personal when it’s debated.

Sounds like religion to me.

Please explain how a Ring Species is not evidence for evolution.

Please explain how a Ring Species is not evidence for evolution.

A little niche, but okay. I’m not a scientist and haven’t dedicated my life to proving the bible is correct (despite believing it is), however….

It would make sense to me if a qualified scientist said 2 species that could (suggesting “theory”) already be genetically related and produce offspring, I could see that. But are they evolving? Is the argument now: Evolution can be opportunity and promiscuity?

…and it still doesn’t address the length of existence of the parent species.

Ray,

Ring species are most common in birds, usually gulls. There will be a series of member so the same species, each in it's own geographic region making a "ring" around the earth. Each member is able to mate with it geographical neighbors except the two at the ends of the ring.

One of those will be the original of the species from which the others evolved. The last will be the newest member of the species, which, because it can no longer bread with the original is technically not of the same species, giving us an unbroken chain in the process of speciation and a clear demonstration of one species evolving into another.

What you claim to have done is not necessarily what you have in fact done. No doubt that you honestly believe that you have made a case, but you are wrong.


The failure here is conflating the historical and factual parts of the bible with the fantastic supernatural elements of its stories. Where one can be true, the places, the kings, rulers, tribes, cities, etc, while the other, the supernatural portion, Good, gods, angels, demons, etc, are fictional.

Thanks, A-snipe.

I was vaguely familiar with the topic, but your description does elaborate it well. I don’t believe that changes the sentiment in my previous response. I don’t see the ring species establishing any more merit in the argument for “Evolution” because of previously stated gaps in the theory.

Again, its the best theory science has, but (despite prominent people saying the opposite), I believe a theory is just a theory. Going beyond the agnostic approach of “Evolution could have happened” and into the proclamation of “Evolution is the way it happened” utilizes just as much faith as any Christian puts in the bible.

It's not something I dwell on but since it's being brought up I'll tell what a nuclear scientist once told me when I asked the question. By whose clock do you measure time; God's or man's?

thank you for sharing this...I hadn't heard it before and that reply is awesome

Ray,

I'm not asking you to evaluate the whole of evolutionary theory, just this one piece of evidence.

What's the quality of this piece of evidence, and what does it tend to indicate?

Well, they in fact do and unless you see the light, you will one day know the truth. And that my friend will both a sad and tragic day for you.

“Seek God while He May be found.”

Which of the examples I gave are demonstrably factually and historically wrong. Not suspect or unproven but factually proven false and ''bullshit''? There are plenty of examples I could have given that may have a base in actual events but that would take a while.

Interesting way of saying you don’t have any evidence but you choose to believe it on faith. Case and point of how some atheists use science as a religion, gents.

Thank you, Mauserless.

Did I conflate the (probably distorted) factual parts of the bible with the supernatural elements? I just said that I would bet that a lot of the bible stories are based in real events. I also mentioned my belief that the writers took liberty and license in juicing up the lore passed down in oral history.

I really don't think I invoked the supernatural.

I do believe the survival of the Jewish people to be a miracle based in supernatural protection and discipline but that is another subject that wasn't addressed this time.

You still not sure how to use google? Or just scared that you'll discover the truth and blow your whole world view and realise that you're wasted much of your life in a huge mental masturbatory exercise?

Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. It deals with how life has evolved over millions of years but makes no attempt to explain it's origin.

Ray,

Ring species are most common in birds, usually gulls. There will be a series of member so the same species, each in it's own geographic region making a "ring" around the earth. Each member is able to mate with it geographical neighbors except the two at the ends of the ring.

One of those will be the original of the species from which the others evolved. The last will be the newest member of the species, which, because it can no longer bread with the original is technically not of the same species, giving us an unbroken chain in the process of speciation and a clear demonstration of one species evolving into another.

natural selection is NOT “evolution.”

Its all over the fossil record. One of the best examples is birds. We have an almost unbroken chain of representation from primitive archosaurs, to dinosaurs, to birds. This is a significant change in morphology, well beyond the species level.

Prior to Darwin, biologists and naturalists had observed that evolution was evidently a reality based on overwhelming observed evidence. What Darwin contributed was an argument for the mechanism (or one major mechanism), which he called natural selection. That theory has yet to be disproved, and is highly explanatory of what science observes.

Think and learn…. There are bird fossils and there are dinosaur fossils….you may be looking at “cartoons” showing an evolutionary transition of birds to dinosaur….just a drawing without fossil links. You still see the “evolution of the horse” cartoons that could not and did survive scientific scrutiny.

Archaeopteryx is a ….bird…..not a dinosaur and not a transitional species.

Australopithecus afarensis is proof of evolution "between kinds."

And while we're on the subject of proof, is there any proof that anything mentioned in the book of Genesis actually happened?

Prior to Darwin, biologists and naturalists had observed that evolution was evidently a reality based on overwhelming observed evidence. What Darwin contributed was an argument for the mechanism (or one major mechanism), which he called natural selection. That theory has yet to be disproved, and is highly explanatory of what science observes.

Hawkeye, with genuine respect, “Overwhelming observed evidence” is subjective, which is why it is still a theory. And while it hasn’t been disproved, it does not mean their conclusions or the theory are facts.

The explanation of how gravity operates is still a theory, even though the presence of gravity is very clearly observed.

Think and learn…. There are bird fossils and there are dinosaur fossils….you may be looking at “cartoons” showing an evolutionary transition of birds to dinosaur….just a drawing without fossil links. You still see the “evolution of the horse” cartoons that could not and did not survive scientific scrutiny.

Archaeopteryx is a ….bird…..not a dinosaur and not a transitional species.

Prior to Darwin, biologists and naturalists had observed that evolution was evidently a reality based on overwhelming observed evidence. What Darwin contributed was an argument for the mechanism (or one major mechanism), which he called natural selection. That theory has yet to be disproved, and is highly explanatory of what science observes.

I’m fully aware of the definition of scientific theory, although, I don’t necessarily agree with the across-the-board significance of it when applied to different topics. Plate tectonics, gravity and atomics are in current, observable effect and not nearly as widely disputed as evolution.

Just because the term, when applied to the former 3 topics are significantly more accepted, that doesn’t mean the latter has as much evidence to give equal credibility. The analogy of a warranty applies: They’re all the same in definition, but not extent.

I strongly believe in the former 3 theories, however, I don’t know them as fact and when disputed, would not attempt to pass them off as such. The problem is finding someone to dispute them.

I can’t provide a unit of measure of a theory’s quality, but whatever it is, the Theory of Evolution, clearly, is not as strong as gravity and it certainly isn’t the “fact” or certainty many portray it to be. I have no problem with any faith…but it ain’t no fact.

The explanation of how gravity operates is still a theory, even though the presence of gravity is very clearly observed.

Don't be fooled. Real, legitimate, scientists, in the fields appropriate for considerations of biological concepts, are (for all practical purposes) in unison in accepting the reality of evolution.

I have never gotten a clear explanation of the cause of gravity although as you say it ''is very clearly observed''.

I asked a neighbor friend to explain what caused gravity and he said it was the spinning of the earth. I said that didn't seem right, that a spinning tire throws mud off. It doesn't hold it on. I have a son who is a bona fide genius in many things and he attempted to explain it but really it amounted to "we don't know for sure".

Gravity is a force of nature and is a good example to give an atheist that doesn't believe in something he cannot see. You can bet your a$$ he believes in gravity.

Gravity is a force of nature and is a good example to give an atheist that doesn't believe in something he cannot see. You can bet your a$$ he believes in gravity.

Don't be fooled. Real, legitimate, scientists, in the fields appropriate for considerations of biological concepts, are (for all practical purposes) in unison in accepting the reality of evolution.

I don’t dispute that…and to further your point, its probably the majority of them. That said, its not all of them and interspecies evolution still not the fact some attempt to suggest it is….and that is why it’s such a tumultuous topic. Without further development, its a conflict of beliefs….not a dispute of real science.

FFS. The fact that this is a "tumultuous topic" speaks to the state of the education system.

I have never gotten a clear explanation of the cause of gravity although as you say it ''is very clearly observed''.

I asked a neighbor friend to explain what caused gravity and he said it was the spinning of the earth. I said that didn't seem right, that a spinning tire throws mud off. It doesn't hold it on. I have a son who is a bona fide genius in many things and he attempted to explain it but really it amounted to "we don't know for sure".

Gravity is a force of nature and is a good example to give an atheist that doesn't believe in something he cannot see. You can bet your a$$ he believes in gravity.

Yep. You can't see gravity, but you know it exists because you can see and feel its effects.

Believers can see God in many things, including creation itself (which EVERYONE who isn’t blind can also see), and believers know God exists because they can feel the effects of the existence of God.

FFS. The fact that this is a "tumultuous topic" speaks to the state of the education system.

Good attempt at a dodge, but fact remains that that there is no evidence in the fossil record and if one lends credence to Gerd Muller’s view, there is no possibility of “Darwinian evolution” being a satisfactory or plausible explanation for evolutionary transition of kind to kind.

Do your research and learn….

Btw….. natural selection is NOT “evolution.”

And if you think there is no evidence in the fossil record for evolution, then you are not very bright.

[quote=IndyCA35]

But is it sufficient enough to establish interspecies evolution as a fact?

But is it sufficient enough to establish interspecies evolution as a fact?

Points off for spelling and grammar are welcomed. 😉

But is it sufficient enough to establish interspecies evolution as a fact?

Points off for spelling and grammar are welcomed. 😉

Yes.

I genuinely appreciate the direct answer, however…..and I may be wrong….but there’s a number of most learn-ed and bonafide scientists, that believe in evolution, that wouldn’t make such a bold statement due to its scientific inaccuracy. Theories change. Facts don’t. Evolution is still a theory.

I genuinely appreciate the direct answer, however…..and I may be wrong….but there’s a number of most learn-ed and bonafide scientists, that believe in evolution, that wouldn’t make such a bold statement due to its scientific inaccuracy. Theories change. Facts don’t. Evolution is still a theory.

As is the germ theory of disease still a theory. In science, theory doesn't mean hunch. It means it explains much and has withstood the rigors of challenge over many years, and is therefore likely an accurate model. The longer is survives challenge, the more certain we can be of its correctness.

Its still not an established fact. Faith is required.

Fine. Then offer a better theory that fits with the facts. There is a Nobel Prize just waiting for you if you can.

It's not faith. It's science.

Unless insistence of assumptions beyond scientific laws are applied. Then its faith.

In accordance with scientific concepts (the way science is done), it's science. Faith doesn't enter into it.

As is the germ theory of disease still a theory. In science, theory doesn't mean hunch. It means it explains much and has withstood the rigors of challenge over many years, and is therefore likely an accurate model. The longer is survives challenge, the more certain we can be of its correctness.

It's not faith. It's science.

But is it sufficient enough to establish interspecies evolution as a fact?

Points off for spelling and grammar are welcomed. 😉

I don’t see how the “It’s not just a theory” claim applies. Nobody is challenging it as being less than a scientific theory. But the opposite is true, as well. It is no greater than a theory, either. Regardless of what can be said….regardless of debate skill, regardless of how long it survives (as a theory), scientifically, the Theory of Evolution is not a fact.

I get it: People feel strongly about it. They’ve read about it. They’ve studied the available evidence. They have their references. In their hearts, they know it’s true.

Its still not an established fact. Faith is required.

Oh, boy....that's quite a spin. Unlike God, whatever that is supposed to be, nobody needs to believe in gravity, and anyone can test its reality.

What are these effect that can be attributed to "God?' Examples may help.

Gravity is not tied to the spinning of the earth. It's tied to mass density. Mass warps space, and greatly massive objects warp space a lot. The warpage of space around massive objects causes other massive objects to be drawn towards them, just like if you spread a thin rubber bladder over a frame creating a large flat surface and then place a heavy steel ball in the middle. then put another smaller steel ball on it, and it will be drawn to the more massive one (or, rather, they will be drawn together, but due to the dramatic difference in mass, the less massive object will appear to be moving towards the more massive object). You can even place the small ball into orbit around the much more massive ball by the way you start it on its course.

The above is a three dimensional model of a four dimensional phenomenon. The operation of gravity involves a fourth dimension, and we cannot perceive a four dimensional model, so there's no way to show it to anyone in a way that makes the operation of gravity intuitively obvious.

You give a good example of how to demonstrate gravity and its effects but it does not explain why mass creates gravity.

I find it amazing that a spinning object doesn't throw everything on it off and disintegrate.

I darn sure believe in this thing we call gravity but no one can explain it to me other than to say mass creates gravity.

Sure, you can test it, you can feel its effects, but can you explain its cause.How about gravity? Explain it.

Sure, you can test it, you can feel its effects, but can you explain its cause.How about gravity? Explain it.

So….because the Theory of Evolution isn’t a fact, a better scientific theory has to be conjured up? Clearly, I’m not a person of higher education, but I know this isn’t the way real science works.

If you believe in the Theory of Evolution, that is okay by me. I take no issue with believers of other faiths as long as there’s mutual respect. But make no mistake, when you step out onto the field of faith beyond fact, you’re no different than any theist.

Evolution is a fact. Species in fact adapt and evolve. Theory is used to understand the means and mechanisms and process of evolution: theory is the how of it.

It has been mentioned that "the theory of evolution" is a controversial subject. It is only controversial to one who enters the discussion with pre-concieved notions which make it impossible to recognize the validity of facts.

Religion does that to many a person. When your religion makes it impossible to accept natural laws and observable facts........perhaps it is time to question your religion.

Do you accept:
"The Theory of Reletivity" as fact?
"Germ Theory" as fact?
"Cell Theory" as fact?
"Atomic Theory" as fact?
"The Theory of Plate Tectonics" as fact.

The word "theory" is used in conjunction with Evolution just as it is in discussion of disease causing organisms and contagions.

Not by the rules and definitions of real science. Again, theories can change. Facts do not.

Science is demonstrable and testable, and willing to be challenged and corrected, faith is not. Your unwillingness to accept this is demonstrable and testable, and unable to be corrected - you need better education, but it's faith to think that this will ever happen.

I suggest that you read what I said again. This time more carefully.

No need. The response was appropriate, accurate and precise.

Only in your imagination. Reality is a different matter.

I have never gotten a clear explanation of the cause of gravity although as you say it ''is very clearly observed''.

I asked a neighbor friend to explain what caused gravity and he said it was the spinning of the earth. I said that didn't seem right, that a spinning tire throws mud off. It doesn't hold it on. I have a son who is a bona fide genius in many things and he attempted to explain it but really it amounted to "we don't know for sure".

Gravity is a force of nature and is a good example to give an atheist that doesn't believe in something he cannot see. You can bet your a$$ he believes in gravity.

Here you go.

Warning. It will make your brain hurt:

The notion that you can’t prove a negative is absolutely false. When someone says, "You can't prove a negative," what they really mean is that you cannot prove that something does not exist. And that is simply false.

We can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a Santa Claus (for example) who lives at the North Pole and has an employment force of elves making toys in a toy factory there, and who delivers those toys all over the world in a single night via a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer, does not exist.