ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Is Carbon Dating Real

Is carbon dating and other radiometric dating systems real?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---mastewal on 10/7/09
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



Cluny, please provide your Basil/Eucharist source for my information.

Scripture says the Eucharist is Jesus' body and blood-I looked,it's bread and wine. I think Jesus meant this in a spiritual sense-no canibalism for us!

Conversely Genesis 1 does describe ordinary earth-rotation 24hr days-look and see-every day we live is a night and daylight, evening and morning day.

Notice how God's day starts at evening, with night? Just as in the middle east today-wonder where they got that from?

All over the world people live a 7 day week-wonder where they got that from?

Days, and years are 'mechanically' fixed but the 7-day week is a construct of God, as a testimony to His 6-day creation and 7th rest.
---Warwick on 10/13/09


However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and the father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.'

Basil was simply giving a challenge to those who would worship the sun. But you have quoted nothing to indicate that the duration of the first creation periods which could have been eons in duration with zillions of earth rotations.

Sorry to bust your bubble but not everything the ancient church fathers believed in was correct, some even lacked understanding of much of what the scripture contained.
---lee on 10/13/09


Warwick -//As stated before, all too many of your beliefs concerning Genesis are based on ASSumptions.

And one very clear assumption is your statement "As Adam was created perfect, able to speak and reason, there is no reason to believe he was unable to communicate via writing".

But that is much in line with many other things you want others to believe.

Perhaps you are one of those who really has an obsession with their own spirituality?
---lee on 10/13/09


Cliff I am sure God could have waited a few days, but He didn't.

I have no personal definition of 'day' other than that which the dictionaries give. If you know of another definition please supply it.

I didn't answer your 'puzzle' as I don't get your point. As you are the instigator of it you can answer your own question via the dictionary definitions I supplied.
---Warwick on 10/13/09


Cliff,in Genesis 1:3-5 God defines a night and daylight, evening and morning day. He calls it 'one day.' He then describes the following 5 days with the same 'evening and morning' formula. Six days in a row, all connected by 'And.' In Exodus 20:8-11 He confirms this saying again He created in 6-days so they would work 6-days.

A question: Considering that some souls here say this does not define an ordinary earth-rotation 24hr day. How could God have made it clearer?
---Warwick on 10/13/09




In writing of the first chapters of Genesis Professor Marcus Dods (New College, Edinburgh) said, '..if for example, the word 'day' in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.'

As a liberal Dods did not believe Genesis was historical fact, but believed Genesis, being literature, could be understood by grammatical rules. He is saying that if we cannot take the carefully defined, numbered days of Genesis to be 24hrs then Scripture, and other literature cannot be understood.

I agree, understanding those who reject the days as being 24hrs each do not do so for Biblical, grammatical or logical reasons. Only because they are reintepreting Genesis via long-ages 'glasses.'
---Warwick on 10/13/09


Warwick, I have no issue with your "male/female" scenario I'm sure Adam was somewhat anxious for a mate , but waiting a few days 'till he was familiar with his surroundings would have been no big deal!
I know why you don't want to answer my little puzzle,but hey, I have no problem with "your" definition of "a day" but like I say "not all scripture is that obvious"
---1st_cliff on 10/13/09


larry: "Their [sic] is plenty of prof [sic] in the bible that the earth is much older than 6000 yrs old."

Oh really ....? Would you care to share some of this "proof" with us?
---jerry6593 on 10/13/09


The "days before the sun" canard was no problem to Church Fathers and Reformers. E.g. St Basil the Great (4th century) had no problem, when he described the first three creation days in Hexaemeron:

"The water had been gathered into the reservoir assigned to it, the earth displayed its productions, it had caused many kinds of herbs to germinate and it was adorned with all kinds of plants.

"However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and the father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.'
---Warwick on 10/13/09


StrongAxe you have it backwards Scripture does not support any creation day-length other than ordinary earth-rotation 24hr days. No support at all.

Conversely Genesis ch. 1 says creation took place over 6 defined day and night, evening and morning days. Exodus 20:8-11 confims this. If Gods command to the Israelites could not be understood as 24hr days then language is meaningless and the commandment was therefore also meaningless to them.

The only reason to allow for days of unknown length or long days is to fit in with the nonBiblical long-ages view.
---Warwick on 10/13/09




Cliff, what language would God have given Adam and Eve to read and write. The same as He gave them to speak!

You keep writing of things beginning primitive. Where do you get that from Scripture?

Is the Hebrew that 'came down the pipe' the language God gave?

In reality modern languages have not evolved upward, as you say, but are far less complex than the oldest known languages.
---Warwick on 10/13/09


\\
St Basil cont. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day -we mean of a day and of a night, and if, at the time of the solstices,\\

You quote St. Basil to prove your point about 24 hour days.

Why don't you believe him when he says that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ?
---Cluny on 10/12/09


St Basil cont. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day -we mean of a day and of a night, and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day. (Homily II:8)
---Warwick on 10/12/09


yes, carbon dating is real, Their is plenty of prof in the bible that the earth is much older than 6000 yrs old. I should say the bible proves science to be right. Yes man has been on earth 6000 years, but the earth is millions maybe billions of years old. When you understand the 3 earth ages (we are in the 2nd,and from here will go to the millennium then the 3rd and final earth age.)

look up words like: everlasting, beginning and the meanings will help you understand the verse it's in. (the strongs concordance can only be used with a King James Bible.

Now don't believe everything your hear about science because it's not all true, as with everything else you hear it must be searched out personally by you in the word of God
---larry on 10/12/09


1stCliff, as regards your days question, how about I give you the 3 definitions of 'day' and you work it out!

1) Daylight - Genesis 3:8 from sunrise to sunset.

2) A general expression for 'time' Genesis 2:4. Isaiah 7:17 why die before your time. In my fathers day, meaning in my fathers time.

3) 24hours-Genesis 1:5 as in English, a 24hr day is denoted when day is coupled with a number, e.g. 1, 2, 1st, 2nd. That is how we denote a day of 24hours today isnt it!

See also Numbers 7:12-84, e.g. vs. 12 ..brought his offering on the first day No one would imagine the writer of Numbers was not referring to 24hr days, then why so in Genesis 1?
---Warwick on 10/12/09


Cliff God designed us so that man is not complete without woman and vice versa, for numerous reasons.

That Eve was made from Adam's body shows the closeness. See it from Adam's perspective. He has spent much of his life (being less that 'one day' old), naming animals, surely realizing none were to be his soul-mate. Then He says now/finally I have a mate. An almost life-long wait and worth waiting for.

I believe in Almighty God who knows everything, knowing it was not good for His humans to be alone, as they would suffer greatly because of lonliness.

Also His plan was for man to populate the earth. Cannot be alone and do that!
---Warwick on 10/12/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


Cluny you wrote:

'In case you didn't know, the word "imprison" means "in prison."

The Oxford Dictionary defines 'imprison' as -to put in prison, to hold in custody, to confine, shut up, in various connections.
House arrest therefore means to imprison.
---Warwick on 10/12/09


Warwick:

I didn't say that the first two creation days weren't 24 hours. I just say that the Bible is silent on this matter, so assuming that they ARE 24 hours is jumping to conclusions. You keep saying 24 hours, yet you still haven't come up with any verse that mentions this number. (This time, you mention "evening" and "morning" as I have been doing - but there is no explanation to just what those terms mean when there is no sun).
---StrongAxe on 10/12/09


Warwick, "Supposing" you're right,what language could he (Adam) read and write?
Hebrew came down the pipe rather primitive, all consonants, oral vowels, no punctuation..Hardly the perfect language of a perfect man,don't you think???
Egyptians were using hieroglyphics (1500BCE) (descendants of Adam)
All languages continue to evolve upward ,more concise, more explicit.(not vice-versa)
Even Chinese (Mainland Mandarin)are using less strokes and our number system,
Taiwan is laging a little in this area!
---1st_cliff on 10/12/09


For those who claim the creation days are not 24hrs, consider that in Genesis 1:5 'one day' is defined using a number, 'night', and 'day', and 'evening' and 'morning':

'Day' is used as a singular or plural with a number 410 times outside of Genesis and it always means an ordinary day.

'Evening' and 'morning' are used together without 'day' 38 times outside Genesis 1 and it always indicates an ordinary day.

'Evening' or 'morning' are used 23 times each with 'day' outside Genesis 1 and it always means an ordinary day.

And night is used with day 52 times and it always indicates an ordinary day.

Source 'The Creation Answers Book' 'Six days? Really.' p. 27-52
---Warwick on 10/12/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


Warwick, If I left my house at 6PM in the evening and arrived at your place at 8AM in the morning .
Then I left your place at noon reached my destination noon the next day.
Which one is a "day's" journey???
---1st_cliff on 10/12/09


As to the length of the cretion days St Basil wrote:

'" And there was evening and there was morning: one day." And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say one day the first day? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says one day, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain.' cont
---Warwick on 10/12/09


What Lee leaves out is that nothing supports his view of the length of the first 3 creation days. Nothing from Scripture, grammar, or logic!

He also leaves out that a Christian who accepts long-ages does not do so for Biblical reasons. Rather this belief is held by those who believe the evolutionary long-ages view has been proved. It is an attempt to make Scripture conform to the evolutionary fossil record, but places death before sin, which clearly undermines the gospel.

See: 1 Corinthians 15:21,22 'For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made alive.' Also, Romans 5:12,14 6:23.
---Warwick on 10/12/09


1stCliff, 2 Peter 3:6 says it all '..the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.' Most assuredly any 'archiological records' were destroyed.

Adam was no infant, having to learn basic skills, but created perfect, fully functional, super intelligent. Immediately able to speak and think. Do you follow? He wasn't created as a child having to develop mental abilities. He had them immediately. Therefore what logical reason is there to say he could not immediately write?

You appear to be combining evolutionary concepts with Scripture. Maybe imagining Adam as primitive, posessing lesser intellect than we. Not Biblical.

Do you believe God could have created Adam with writing ability, or not?

---Warwick on 10/12/09


Send a Free Humor Ecard


Why I remain very impressed reading Warwick and others it all stops at the God's foot stool where he laughs at human wisdom.

The fact that the eternal invisible world controls the visible temporary world is probably why scientist who rely on what they see provide the punch line for God's humor. Sight depends on faith and faith breeds understanding.

The faulty and inconsistent methods of carbon dating coupled with the hilariously silly theory of evolution and spontaneous biogenesis must seem so pathetically prideful in God's eyes.
---larrry on 10/12/09


\\ Cluny, some references say he was imprisoned under house arrest. Others say he was placed under house arrest. Rather a moot point. I am sure he would have preferred to be free.\\

In case you didn't know, the word "imprison" means "in prison."
---Cluny on 10/12/09


Warwick, Some translators question the word "now" as to mean "at last"! It's not the same as the other "now" words!
Saying that "It's not good for man to be alone" indicates that he may have been "alone" for some time ,not just a few hours!
Joshua commanded the earth to stop rotating 10.12-14 A physical impossibility (without wiping earth clean of all life)
Does this destroy my faith?? Not at all,it's a fairy tale mentioned in the book of Jasher 10.13 somehow sneaked in to scripture!
---1st_cliff on 10/12/09


//Are you saying God did not say He created in 6-days? Surely not.

While it is true that God created the world in 6 periods He called days, there is no good reason to believe all of those days were of 24 hour duration.

And Warwick, you should realize that the Gospel is not undermined by what Scripture does not say about the duration of the Creation days especially the first 3 periods He called 'days'.

while the evolutionists may believe man evolved from primates, there was nothing alive during these first 3 periods of Creation, so one may chose to believe they may have been eons in duration with zillions of earth rotations.
---lee on 10/12/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


Cluny, some references say he was imprisoned under house arrest. Others say he was placed under house arrest. Rather a moot point. I am sure he would have preferred to be free.

The Aristotelian geocentric system was the basis for the RCC's belief. Because of their acceptance they reinterpreted Scripture to fit. Somewhat akin to Theistic evolutionists who reinterpret Genesis to fit with antiBiblical evolutionary long-ages beliefs.

I did answer. It appears not to have been posted. Bats are of course flying mammals.

In Leviticus ch.11 the Hebrew word means 'flying creature', translated as bird in English. This obviously does not mean bats are birds. Check it out. From memory I think the Hebrew word was 'owp'
---Warwick on 10/12/09


StrongAxe Scripture, grammar and logic disagree with you.

God numbers His creation-days as 'one day, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, a fifth,the sixth day. No hint they are different lengths.

If is said 'I flew home on 'the sixth day of my holiday.' would anyone ask- how long was that day?

In Exodus 20:8-11 God confirms this saying He created in 6-days so they would work for 6-days. No Scriptural, grammatical, or logical reason to believe they were of different length, and everything which proves they are.

You and others propose a nonBiblical idea which, against all evidence to the contrary, holds God cannot light the earth without the sun. Day-length is measured by earth-rotation rate anyway.
---Warwick on 10/12/09


//You claim that the Bible defines days as 24 hours, but you have yet to supply any evidence for this claim.

And what is more astonishing is that he actually believes that the gospel is undermined by what the Bible does not say, namely the duration of the first 3 days of creation.

To me that speaks of someone with a delusional mindset. Perhaps he really does not know what the gospel is in the first place.
---lee on 10/12/09


1stCliff I believe we should take Scripture as Jesus and the apostles did, at face value, unless there is good reason to do so.

Consider: I recently visited New Caledonia. The first 3 days were sunny, the fourth was overcast. Sadly for us it rained cats and dogs on the fourth. I am sure readers would take it literally except the raining cats and dogs bit. Right?

"Adam said "at last" when he saw Eve??
"at last " indicates more than just a few hours of being alone.' I cannot find this in the translations I have.

"it's not good for man to be alone"

As I understand it this is because man is not complete without woman and obviously not able to 'fill' the earth without His mate.
---Warwick on 10/12/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


Axey: "You keep stating over and over again that God defined how long a day is. He DID define it - from evening to evening, from sunset to sunset. This is the same cycle everyone uses, so nobody needs to define it. However, it is measurable only from day 3 onwards."

Gen 1:5 ... And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:8 ... And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

I guess you missed these verses. They establish the same measure (evenings and mornings) of the first 3 days as the last 3 days of creation. What is your underlying motive for insisting that they are different?
---jerry6593 on 10/12/09


Happy Columbus day (It's Thanksgiving here)
Warwick, One obsevation= My point is that archiological records show written laguage began as Cuniform on clay tablets,non-alphabet,this (alphabet) didn't happen 'till Moses' time!
Mary's assumption (Catholic formula)--
God wanted it,He could do it, therefore it was done!
You believe that Adam was "literate" Why?
God wanted it, He could do it,therfore Adam was literate! Same formula No scriptural backing, Right?
---1st_cliff on 10/12/09


\\
Atheist the Roman Catholic Church opposed and imprisoned Galileo because it had accepted nonBiblical Aristotelian geocentric ideas. \\

This is not quite true, Warwick.

1. He was under house arrest, NOT imprisoned.

2. Actually, the geocentric model was based on a literalistic interpretation of Scripture. There are even some today.

And I notice that you didn't answer my question about bats. Are they birds, fish, or mammals?
---Cluny on 10/11/09


Warwick:

You keep stating over and over again that God defined how long a day is. He DID define it - from evening to evening, from sunset to sunset. This is the same cycle everyone uses, so nobody needs to define it. However, it is measurable only from day 3 onwards. For the first two days, there was no sun to measure by. You claim that the Bible defines days as 24 hours, but you have yet to supply any evidence for this claim.

By the way, I have never stated here that those first two days WEREN'T 24 hours - only that the Bible doesn't say one way or other.
---StrongAxe on 10/11/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


Warwick, I assume that "at face value" means exactly as written with no deviation??
Herein lies the problem!
Adam said "at last" when he saw Eve??
"at last " indicates more than just a few hours of being alone .Even God said "it's not good for man to be alone" for less than a day yet??? (women might concur, but men??) seems to stretch it a tad, you think??
---1st_cliff on 10/11/09


Warwick,

You ignore the point: Many of the those people who fabricated the beginnings of scientific inquiry did not willing chose their belief in 'god' but expoused it non-the-less for fear of torture, imprisonment, or death. Removing that inhibition, their belief in god that you so often point to might have evaporated entirely.

You accused me of dancing around questions?

Stay on point...
---atheist on 10/11/09


Lee you wrote 'As stated before, all too many of your beliefs concerning Genesis are based on ASSumptions.'

Yes Lee you have stated it before but never backed it up.

On the 6th day, when God's creation was finished He proclaimed it 'very good.' If Almighty God, who makes no mistakes, and cannot lie says it was 'very good' then it was by definition perfect.

Are you saying Adam was not created perfect' If so tell us why?

'The fact is' He did wait, setting the template for the 6-days work, 7th of rest, week as per Exodus 20:8-11.

My understanding of God and what He did comes from Scripture. He defined what a day was,says he createsd in 6 of these. Are you saying God did not say He created in 6-days? Surely not.
---Warwick on 10/11/09


Atheist the Roman Catholic Church opposed and imprisoned Galileo because it had accepted nonBiblical Aristotelian geocentric ideas. This is akin to Christian compromisers today, who having accepted long-ages/evolution oppose and ridicule those who stand for Genesis creation.

The RCC's beliefs on this matter were not from Scripture.

The Aristotelian science was proven wrong and the RCC was in an embarassing situation. Just as compromising church leaders are today when confronted by informed creationists. What will these compromising churches do when long-ages/evolution is proven wrong?

Creation believers in compromising churches are even today persecuted, as the record shows.
---Warwick on 10/11/09


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


1stCliff, I agree that not all Scripture is 'cut and dried.' There are things I puzzle over. Nonetheless Scripture interprets Scripture and the flow of Scripture confirms Genesis is to be taken as historical reality, at face-value. Other ideas do not come from Scripture.

I do have lexicons, comentaries, Bible dictionaries etc, and of course use them. However my first source is the Bible. I am convinced that long prayerful study of Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit makes things clear.

I too am a doubting Thomas who took a long time to come to my present position.
---Warwick on 10/11/09


1stCliff I know you believe in creation,but you continue to propose ideas, what you see as problems, which you propose undermine the straight-forward meaning of Genesis. I do not intentionally missunderstand you.

Are there negative consequences for you to accept Genesis 1-3, at face-value? Do you apply this same rigorous analysis to Gods free gift of salvation? I am sure you don't.

It is by grammatical structure we discern a writers meaning. If I wrote- I am going away for 6-days would you ask how long my days are? No, as the grammar shows what I mean, doesn't it.

A 'flaming sword', no problem. Maybe God could have used a flaming banana-joke!
---Warwick on 10/11/09


Warwick,

You cite Galileo, a man imprisoned by the Church because he was so bold as to suggest (as Coperincus) that the earth revolved around the sun, and whom Kepler, a mathematician, was in agreement with?

Why did the Church silence such ideas? It was afraid that Scripture would not be believed literally if these new fangled ideas caught on. Seem the folks in the Inquisition were motivated in a way similar to yourself...

For many claimed adherence to a belief in God was a survival technique. Please stop re-writing history transforming the terrorfied into the devote.
---atheist on 10/11/09


//Lee, you create a straw-man argument. You are saying that we need to have a degree, or a masters or Ph.D to be able to talk on a subject.

You need to take the time to read what I posted. While an academic degree is not always required, one can learn by reading the various articles on the subject to the point one may have an intelligent discussion.

However, boosting of an academic degree does not necessarily make one an expert. Nor does having a degree in religion necessarily means you understand that which is spiritually discernable.

In fact, much of what I studied I did not really learn until I started teaching the subject. I have taught 5 graduate course for leading universities and 4 undergrad courses.
---lee on 10/11/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


//As stated before, all too many of your beliefs concerning Genesis are based on ASSumptions.

And one very clear assumption is your statement "As Adam was created perfect, able to speak and reason, there is no reason to believe he was unable to communicate via writing".

I suppose he could also speak botchie like C3PO in the Star wars movie.

The fact is that God called into being His creation and did not have to wait 24 hours between each creation event. Too bad that you concept of God is so very limited in scope.
---lee on 10/11/09


Warwick, I don't pretend to be a bible scholar, tho I've made a life long study of "religion" and scripture.(even was an Elder in a denomination for 22yrs) I guess I'm bit of a "doubting Thomas" with so many scammers and schemers around I don't believe anything I hear and only half of what I see!
I only doubt scripture that is literally illogical!
Get a "lexicon" and each item is discussed by known scholars who put forth their "thoughts" on the subject..not all scripture is "cut and dried"!
---1st_cliff on 10/11/09


Warwick, You're reading me wrong again.
I don't disbelieve the "creation account" just not every word and it's grammatical structure!
Gen.3.24 God drove them (in His ATV? a little humor there)from Eden and stationed Cherubim and a flaming "sword???"
Only two people on the planet an the first thing invented was a "war weapon??" a flaming "sword??) Wow!
Things like this I find a little difficult to take literally! Huh?
---1st_cliff on 10/11/09


Atheist, because of my work I probably know more scientists than most-including geologists, biologists, chemists, cosmologists, geneticists-mostly creationist. Last night I was with a professor, ex-atheist, metrologist (not meteorologist) and cosmologist-6-day creationist.

You consider we are uneducated, when the opposite is true.

You hold your belief by faith so why do you need to ridicule those whose faith is different?

The scientific method was developed by and used by Christians. Consider Keppler, Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus, Herschel, Faraday, Davy, Cuvier, Babbage, Morse, Agassiz, etc-all Christians.

The field of operational science today has untold thousands of scientists who trust Genesis!
---Warwick on 10/11/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


Warwick:

Do you have any evidence that there WAS anything written early on? The first 5 books of the Bible are ascribed to Moses, so all of Genesis and Exodus that talk about times before him were either passed down by 1) oral tradition, 2) Direct divine revelation (even though it is not described by "thus saith the Lord"), or 3) copied from earlier books (even though there is no mention nor evidence of these either). Or 4) Moses didn't write Genesis (but if so, then the same questions arise regardless of who acutally wrote it).
---StrongAxe on 10/11/09


1stCliff 'Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.'

You say there was no written language from the beginning but you cannot know. As Adam was created perfect, able to speak and reason, there is no reason to believe he was unable to communicate via writing.

Jesus and the apostles quoted from/alluded to the first 11 chapters of Geneisis 107 times, and always as historical fact! Genesis ch. 1-3 are (as the NT says) the only basis for the reason Jesus came, the only basis for the gospel. As Jesus was the creator are you saying He knew Genesis 1-3 to be historically wrong (therefore cannot be the foundation for the historical gospel), but didn't bother to tell us?

Doesn't work for me.
---Warwick on 10/11/09


Warwick:"Many Christians have been convinced the millions/billions of years are fact so will not accept Genesis creation as fact. This is step one in rejecting more and more of Scripture."

Many you should take a cue from St. Augsutine in the fifth century. Again, maybe its time you tried to keep up.

It appears that some Christians (and those of other religions with Abrahamic roots) are taking a more rational, less literal, and daresay 'liberal'approach. Doesn't seem to dampen their faith...and the corresponding comfort it provides them.
---atheist on 10/10/09


Warwick, You stated (another post)you thought I defended and disbelieved scripture at the same time.
Like you, I believe creation over evolution.
Unlike you I don't believe "every" word is "God-breathed" else there would be no mistakes!
Why?-1500years of orally* handing down the information is a prescription for error!
* No written language was known then!
Faith and "superstition" do not make good partners!
Looks like you're afraid to doubt one word lest a lightning bolt will strike you dead.
You think?
---1st_cliff on 10/10/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


//Consider Lee, he can provide nothing from Scripture, grammar or logic to support his nonBiblical long-ages view but fights on doggedly, resorting to insult.

The simple FACT that the Genesis record does NOT reveal the duration of the Creation days clearly indicates that there are problems with the Young Earth Creation theory from a scriptural standpoint.

As stated before, all too many of your beliefs concerning Genesis are based on ASSumptions.

And this must really bother you as like Alan stated, it may very well cause your entire belief system to come into dispute.

Sorry, but I worked as a professonal research analysis for over 20 years while you are a mere religious philosopher (Col. 2:8).
---lee on 10/10/09


Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. ...it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn...StAugustine
---atheist on 10/10/09


Warwick states: "Atheist evolution isn't technically a theory, scientifically speaking, but an hypothesis, a belief"

Obviously you know little about what a hypothesis is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dictionary 1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation -the hypothesis of the big bang is one way to explain the beginning of the universe.

And you claim to be educated?

You stated "But you do, claiming man was around millennia before Adam.

Never stated or even implied that.

Apparently you have a nasty habit of trying to denigrate others character by such lies.
---lee on 10/10/09


Maybe a person should consider what is called" the gap theory" if you give any credence to the gap theory, you will have no trouble accommodating radiometric dating systems and the book of Genesis. But in the final analysis if it is a question of accepting radiometric dating systems or the book of Genesis I am going with the book of Genesis. For the book of Genesis is the Word of God!!!!
---mima on 10/10/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


alan //But the fact is those "many Christians" who accept the possibility of, or are even convinced by, the millions of years do not find it is step one to rejection of more & more of Scripture.
-
And that pretty much defines what the warwick problem. I have already demonstrated that all too many of his beliefs regarding Genesis are based up ASSUMPTIONS, and he really does not like that as shown by his slanderous remarks against those who know the Truth.

Of course, the Humpty Dumpty Christians may have a good fall and we need to be there to help pick up the pieces.
---lee on 10/10/09


Classically, C14 dating is notoriously inaccurate because of the method used in the measurement - a simple Geiger counter. The older the sample, the slower (and more noisy) the count rate, and the lower the accuracy. A newer method, the accelerator mass spectrometer, gives highly accurate readings of residual C14, and hence accurate dates. With this newer C14 method, virtually ALL fossils show very nearly the same age - about 4500 years BP. Go figure!
---jerry6593 on 10/10/09


\\But the fact is those "many Christians" who accept the possibility of, or are even convinced by, the millions of years do not find it is step one to rejection of more & more of Scripture.
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/9/09\\

Warwick has already shown one way he rejects Scripture.

I'll ask him another question.

Warwick, do you believe that bats are birds, fish, or mammals?
---Cluny on 10/9/09


Warwick:

You said: As no measurable 14C remains in some diamonds their maximum age is 70-80,000 years-excellent proof they are not billions of years old as evolutionists teach.

That makes no sense. If all measurable C14 is gone after 70-80000 years, the best you can say about diamonds that have none is that they are at LEAST 70-80000 years old. They might be older, but we can't tell. The fact that we can't currently prove things are older doesn't stop them from having been older. By the same logic, one might conclude that since we can't see God, he doesn't exist.
---StrongAxe on 10/10/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


Warwick ... I'm not sure what you mean by "liberal"

Interestingly, yesterday's paper reports a Prof Ellen Van Wolde as saying that her research into original texts leads her to beleive that the Bible does not say "God made Earth".

Now in the face of that challenge, I wonder whether how and when He did it, is so unimportant?
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/10/09


Alan there is research showing how complete denominations have become liberal. It shows their doubt about the truth of Genesis came from accepting various long-ages ideas. This was like rust which once commenced continued to spread. I have also read interviews of liberals who explained this. I also remember a blog by Ian who said his high school evolutionary indoctrination caused him to lose his faith in christ.

Certainly some people are able to hold the two contradictory ideas of long-ages/evolution vs Biblical creation, sucessfully, in tension in their minds. Nonetheless the long-ages, death before sin belief contradicts the NT foundation for the one and only gospel.

This whole issue is about the gospel.
---Warwick on 10/9/09


Atheist you are assuming scientists already know how old rock is before dating!

The 'daters' did not know how old the rocks were. Afterwards they found out. This shows K-Ar. dating results cannot be trusted. Not just that they are innacurate, but that they cannot be trusted at all. If there is no contradictory information dates are accepted as true. Not for good reason.

I also know of the dating of timber contained within basalt (about 30 Millian years old by K-Ar.)from the Crinum mine in Queensland Australia. This was a blind test with the 'daters' unaware from where the timber came. The average age of the timber was about 40,000 years old which shows the K-Ar. dating was wrong by a factor of 750!
---Warwick on 10/9/09


Warwick ... I don't know enough about carbon dating to enter into this discussion of its validity. My earlier questions will have shown this!

I am concerned when you say "Many Christians have been convinced the millions/billions of years are fact so will not accept Genesis creation as fact. This is step one in rejecting more and more of Scripture"

That is your assessment of your own reaction. Your acceptance of the rest of the Bible would be much at risk were you to accept the long time-scale.

But the fact is those "many Christians" who accept the possibility of, or are even convinced by, the millions of years do not find it is step one to rejection of more & more of Scripture.
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/9/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


They're only guesswork & a hoax. They have no possible way to prove their theories.
---Betty on 10/9/09


Warwick,

Potassium-argon dating is based on a half-life of 1.26 billion years. That half-life is far too long to date any recent rocks.

Atmospheric gaseous argon, in the air we breath now at 1%, can also be trapped at the time of an eruption, further distorting the accuracy of age estimates using this method.

Geologists and scientists in other disciplines use a variety of dating methods, all having different estimated ranges of accuracy. Various methods are appropriate to the age/type of the materials used.

Measuring a recent geological event with the potassium-argon dating method would be like measuring the thickness of a toenail with a yardstick, marked in one foot increments.

Sig figs /orders of magnitude?
---atheist on 10/9/09


StrongAxe, having read up on 14C dating and spoken with scientists in this field, I learned no measurable 14C remains by 70,-80,000 years. As no measurable 14C remains in some diamonds their maximum age is 70-80,000 years-excellent proof they are not billions of years old as evolutionists teach.

Many Christians have been convinced the millions/billions of years are fact so will not accept Genesis creation as fact. This is step one in rejecting more and more of Scripture.

Consider Lee, he can provide nothing from Scripture, grammar or logic to support his nonBiblical long-ages view but fights on doggedly, resorting to insult. Where is he headed, to greater faith or the other way? Who will he lead with him?
---Warwick on 10/9/09


Atheist: Your explanation has just cast doubt on all carbon-14 dates. If it is all happening as you describe then how can you trust any of the results?
---Plagio_Clase on 10/8/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


No problem Alan.

In the evolutionary belief diamonds are supposedly billions of years old. The presence of 14c means they are at most 70,80,000yrs old. This is the possible maximum.

I brought this up as just another instance of where the cliamed billions of years are not fact. There are many more.

Potassium-Argon dating of basalt in Hawaii gave dates from 130-3,000 million years. In reality this basalt (cooled lava) had been seen to form c200 years ago. If no one had seen it form evolutionists would consider it proof of millions/billions of years. Even the great range of ages shows how innacurate it is. The actual age of c200 years shows it cannot be believed at all.
---Warwick on 10/8/09


Cluny you wrote ' I never said that C14 dating was the last word.'

Did I say you did?
---Warwick on 10/9/09


Warwick:

Do you understand how exponential decay actually works? The amount continually decreases, but it never completely goes away until you get down to the last atom. You asked us to do the math. Here's the math: if C14 has a half-life of 5730 years, and a batch of it sits for 80000 years, then on average 1 particle will remain for every 15954 in the original sample. While this might be hard to detect accurately using current laboratory methods, it is by no means all gone.
---StrongAxe on 10/8/09


Diamonds (crystaline carbon---c12) commonly contain nitrogen as a contaminant. Nitrogen is converted to carbon 14 via neutron capture. Uranium atoms distributed in rocks spontaneously decay via fission and produce neutron flux in crystal rocks. It is therefore almost impossible to find a diamond that does contain some level of C14.

C14 measured in dead organic material is caused by neutron flux (coming from gamma radiation in the atomosphere, acting on gaseous nitrogen. The amount of c14 that is 'locked' at the time of an organism's death (and therefore used to zero the radioactive clock) is a function of the amount of nitrogen in the atomosphere combined with the background gamma radiation in the era of the organism life.
---atheist on 10/8/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


Warwick ... Thanks for that clarification.

Do the C14 scientists say that diamonds are only 80000 years old? Clearly they would have no evidence that they were older?
---alan8566_of_uk on 10/8/09


\\
Diamonds have been found with obviously measurable amounts of c14.\\

I have just asked a jeweller tho informed me that while diamonds do have some C14, it's not in the proportion that living things do.

And I never said that C14 dating was the last word.
---Cluny on 10/8/09


Alan the scientific literature says there is no measurable c14 left after 70-80,000 years.

Diamonds have been found with obviously measurable amounts of c14. Evolutionists say diamonds were formed billions of years ago. The presence of c14 shows they are wrong, again. Read up on it.
---Warwick on 10/8/09


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.