True science and true religion agree together.

Clete said:

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
For example, it is a gross overstatement to say that science explains that the Earth was originally a molten ball which slowly cooled down over 4.5 billion years. This is a theory. A theory born out of an atheistic, evolutionary worldview, NOT from scientific data! You are confusing what you see on The Science Channel for actual science. There are so many holes in this particular theory, by the way, that it's laughable that anyone with any education even accepts it at all. But you present it as scientific fact when most scientists will even acknowledge that it is a mere theory even if they don't acknowledge the gaping holes in it.

If this is the sort of thing that you consider "true science" you're fooling yourself far worse that I had originally expected. You're not even attempting to maintain a Christian worldview at all. You effectively want to be an atheist who believes in God. Could there be anything more self-contradictory than that?

Clete

Click to expand...

The continents are moving apart at about six inches a year. They are pushed apart by magma bubbling out of the middle of the ocean in mid ocean ridges, such as Reykjanes Ridge.

The polarity of the earth is recorded in this newly cooled rock. This rock records hundreds of magnetic pole reversals over time. This means that the N pole becomes the S pole. For all of human history, the last 6000 years, our N pole was always in the N. But if the rock shows hundreds of polar reversals, this indicates igneous rock (molten rock) layed down over long periods of time, during which, the poles have reversed repeatedly. This is but one proof of an ancient earth.

The alternative is that earth was created 6000 years ago with what APPEARED to be cooled igneous rock, but God just made this rock cold from the start, whereas today, igneous rock is always laid down in molten state.

Then God laid down multiple layers of sedimentary rock, complete with fossils (I am still being sarcastic). Sedimentary rocks are always formed from grains of sand which cement together over time. But God created these instantly, on top of igneous rock (already cool) all at one time 6000 years ago. So God deliberately misled us. Likewise, God created the universe with light from distant stars, able to reach us by speeding up light.

Or why not accept that old looking light is old.
And old looking strata, are old.
And fossil layers with weird and wonderful worlds could not all be explained by a world only 6000 years old.
Because no human ever walked with dinosaurs.

Watch "Survival with Bear Grilse", or "Naked and Afraid", and you realise that Adam and Eve, banished to live in the sticks, can barely survive, without having to deal with T. rex also.

Clete said:

God did not create time. He does NOT exist outside of time. God only exists "in" time in the sense that everything else that exists does. Time is the duration and sequence of events - it is not a place - it is a concept. The concept of existence presupposes duration. Therefore, to say that anything exists outside of time is to contradict yourself.

Formally, it is known as a stolen concept fallacy. It happens when you affirm one concept while denying another concept upon which the affirmed concept is rationally predicated. The clearest example is when someone makes the claim that, "All private property is theft." The claim is contrary to private property but affirms the concept of theft which is predicated on the concept of private property. It, thereby, "steals" the concept of theft because you can't use the concept of theft while denying the validity of private property because concept of theft derives it's meaning from the concept of private property.


The claim that, "God exists outside of time." makes the same error. It steals the concept of existence because it denies that the concept of time applies to God while affirming that the concept of existence which presupposes time, does apply to God.

A thing that does not experience time has no duration - (definition of 'time').
A thing that has no duration does not exist - (definition of 'exist').
God does exist - (Presupposition of theistic worldview).
Therefore, God experiences duration.
Therefore, God experiences time.

Now, you asked what you hadn't responded too. All of the above.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Click to expand...

Yes I did because this has been the debate from the start.

The problem is that you don't seem to be able to see the difference between the time God created and the time man created.

These are two separate things and you are applying the man made concept of time to God, which is fine I suppose is fine because it's only a concept and not a substantial property and therefore is ultimately inconsequential.

But God's time applies only to his creation and it directly affects the rest of creation because it is an intrinsic physical property of the universe.

iouae said:

The continents are moving apart at about six inches a year. They are pushed apart by magma bubbling out of the middle of the ocean in mid ocean ridges, such as Reykjanes Ridge.

Click to expand...

This is part and parcel of a paradigm known as uniformitarianism. It is also a theory that is fraught with problems and yet you present it as scientific fact. All of the actual data can be quite nicely explained from within a decidedly Christian worldview that is not only totally consistent with the data but is also consistent with the biblical record. In spite of the gist of your opening post, I'm pretty sure at this point that you aren't at all interested in that sort of thing at all. You're a secular science junky that is simply clinging to your religious beliefs in spite of yourself.

The polarity of the earth is recorded in this newly cooled rock. This rock records hundreds of magnetic pole reversals over time. This means that the N pole becomes the S pole. For all of human history, the last 6000 years, our N pole was always in the N. But if the rock shows hundreds of polar reversals, this indicates igneous rock (molten rock) layed down over long periods of time, during which, the poles have reversed repeatedly. This is but one proof of an ancient earth.

Click to expand...

It isn't proof of any such thing except that you have totally accepted their naturalistic (i.e. atheistic) premise. Science can't even tell you why the Earth has a magnetic field to begin with. The things they'll tell you about geodynamos are guesses and their models do a poor job of predicting magnetic field strengths. They do not understand the processes involved, they have no idea how a magnetic field could survive based on internal planetary heat for billions of years and have no explanation whatsoever for why the Earth's magnetic field is diminishing in strength at an exponential rate.

They very simply do not know the things you present here as hard fact. You just believe everything your told by the atheists and are literally Hell bent on figuring out a way to twist the clear testimony of Scripture to agree with their atheistic worldview and guess work.

The alternative is that earth was created 6000 years ago with what APPEARED to be cooled igneous rock, but God just made this rock cold from the start, whereas today, igneous rock is always laid down in molten state.

Click to expand...

That is one alternative but even this presupposes the validity of THEIR interpretation of the data! You've given up ALL of the ground that theism of any sort, never mind Christianity, has to stand on. The fact is that pole reversal is a theory and not a very good one at that. It has NOT been proven and the data they use to leap to such a conclusions is inconsistent at best and very much cherry picked and universally interpreted from within an naturalistic, uniformitarian, atheistic paradigm.
There are real alternatives!

Then God laid down multiple layers of sedimentary rock, complete with fossils (I am still being sarcastic). Sedimentary rocks are always formed from grains of sand which cement together over time. But God created these instantly, on top of igneous rock (already cool) all at one time 6000 years ago. So God deliberately misled us. Likewise, God created the universe with light from distant stars, able to reach us by speeding up light.

Click to expand...

No Christian could even utter these words. This shows, not only a near complete lack of understanding of the current Christian cosmology and worldview in general, but also a level of rank stupidity that makes me rethink the fruitfulness of even continuing this conversation. This IS the atheist's argument! None of this makes any sense whatsoever except from WITHIN the atheist's worldview. It's all, flat out, 100% question begging stupidity!

Or why not accept that old looking light is old.
And old looking strata, are old.
And fossil layers with weird and wonderful worlds could not all be explained by a world only 6000 years old.
Because no human ever walked with dinosaurs.

Watch "Survival with Bear Grilse", or "Naked and Afraid", and you realise that Adam and Eve, banished to live in the sticks, can barely survive, without having to deal with T. rex also.

Click to expand...

You are not a Christian at all! Just who is it that you're trying to fool here?

I don't accept the atheistic worldview because I am not an atheist! Light does not look old unless you buy into the atheist's premises. Strata do not look old unless you buy into the atheists premises. Fossil layers can totally be explained by a 6000 year old Earth unless you buy into the atheists premises!

You are a functioning atheist, no matter what else you claim to believe in. You are accepting every premise of the unbeliever as well as the conclusions that are based upon them. You've bought the lie and now want to turn God into a liar. Shame on you!

Resting in Him,
Clete

WatchmanOnTheWall said:

Yes I did because this has been the debate from the start.

The problem is that you don't seem to be able to see the difference between the time God created and the time man created.

These are two separate things and you are applying the man made concept of time to God, which is fine I suppose is fine because it's only a concept and not a substantial property and therefore is ultimately inconsequential.

But God's time applies only to his creation and it directly affects the rest of creation because it is an intrinsic physical property of the universe.

Click to expand...

Simply making a claim is not a response to an argument.

Repeating that claim when someone restates the argument doesn't count as a response either.

I've directed you to a very well fleshed out argument that you may have read but totally ignored. You're coming back here to repeat your position doesn't count as "an answer" to that argument.

I have personally presented a rather formal argument in the syllogistic form so as to be totally clear and now you show up to repeat your bald claims as though doing so refutes a syllable of the argument I've presented.

This is not how debate works. If you cannot demonstrate that there is a false premise in my argument or that there is a flaw in the logic then your position has been rationally defeated.


Prediction: You won't even make an attempt to refute the argument.


Clete

Clete said:

Fossil layers can totally be explained by a 6000 year old Earth unless you buy into the atheists premises!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Click to expand...

Then please explain fossils by a 6000 year old earth. I am all ears.

When Galileo explained that the earth goes around the sun, the church and the Pope had the same sort of rant that you went on, that Galileo could not possibly be a Christian.

Clete said:

Simply making a claim is not a response to an argument.

Repeating that claim when someone restates the argument doesn't count as a response either.

I've directed you to a very well fleshed out argument that you may have read but totally ignored. You're coming back here to repeat your position doesn't count as "an answer" to that argument.

I have personally presented a rather formal argument in the syllogistic form so as to be totally clear and now you show up to repeat your bald claims as though doing so refutes a syllable of the argument I've presented.

This is not how debate works. If you cannot demonstrate that there is a false premise in my argument or that there is a flaw in the logic then your position has been rationally defeated.


Prediction: You won't even make an attempt to refute the argument.


Clete

Click to expand...

You say very little with a lot of words. Suffice to say we believe different things about the nature of time. Get over it.

iouae said:

Then please explain fossils by a 6000 year old earth. I am all ears.

Click to expand...

You're anything but all ears.

Fossils form quickly.

Read that whole article! Here's a single paragraph from it...


Additionally, the layers the fossils are found in and the fossils themselves are not nearly as old as evolutionary scientists claim. Both the layers and the fossils themselves have been found to contain Carbon 14, which evolutionary scientists don't even bother to look for in fossils because it has a half life of 5730 years and so shouldn't even exist at all after only several thousand years, never mind millions or billions of years. The fact is, however, that it is there and seems to indicate that not only are they not billions of years old but that they are all roughly the same age, precisely what one would expect if biblical history is true.

There is so just so much that you have no clue about it's laughable! If you want to be a Christian, one of the first things you need to do is to reject the mindset of the unbelieving world. The very same God who recorded the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the very same God who recorded Noah's flood and the rest of biblical history. If one is a lie, they both are. You cannot eat your cake and have it too. If you do not repent of this glaringly obvious error, it will shipwreck your faith, if it hasn't already done so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

WatchmanOnTheWall said:

You say very little with a lot of words. Suffice to say we believe different things about the nature of time. Get over it.

Click to expand...

Prediction fulfilled!


You can believe anything you want. You can believe in purple unicorns and fairy dust that makes you fly but it doesn't make it so.

Why are you wanting me to "get over it"? You're the one who brought it up! This website exists for the purposes of debate. If you aren't interested in debating, what are you even doing here?

If you want to believe atheistic interpretations of scientific data as well as their mathematical imaginings, then stop calling yourself a Christian, especially if you aren't prepared to defend those beliefs when they are rationally challenged. It would be better if you just admitted that you don't know what you're talking about and haven't spent much if any time thinking these issues through apart from the time you've spent watching cable television. As it is you make yourself look ridiculous and you hand over ammunition to the enemy.

Clete

Clete said:

Prediction fulfilled!


You can believe anything you want. You can believe in purple unicorns and fairy dust that makes you fly but it doesn't make it so.

Why are you wanting me to "get over it"? You're the one who brought it up! This website exists for the purposes of debate. If you aren't interested in debating, what are you even doing here?

If you want to believe atheistic interpretations of scientific data as well as their mathematical imaginings, then stop calling yourself a Christian, especially if you aren't prepared to defend those beliefs when they are rationally challenged. It would be better if you just admitted that you don't know what you're talking about and haven't spent much if any time thinking these issues through apart from the time you've spent watching cable television. As it is you make yourself look ridiculous and you hand over ammunition to the enemy.

Clete

Click to expand...

If you believe that then you can't be a Christian because being a Christian depends on your belief in Jesus and not your belief about the nature of time:

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Clete said:

You're anything but all ears.

Fossils form quickly.

Additionally, the layers the fossils are found in and the fossils themselves are not nearly as old as evolutionary scientists claim. Both the layers and the fossils themselves have been found to contain Carbon 14, which evolutionary scientists don't even bother to look for in fossils because it has a half life of 5730 years and so shouldn't even exist at all after only several thousand years, never mind millions or billions of years. The fact is, however, that it is there and seems to indicate that not only are they not billions of years old but that they are all roughly the same age, precisely what one would expect if biblical history is true.

There is so just so much that you have no clue about it's laughable!
Resting in Him,
Clete

Click to expand...

Clete, it sounds to me like you are using C14 dating to prove a point. Mostly YEC refute C14 as totally inaccurate, and I agree that it is largely worthless, for the reason you gave, its short half life. C14 is never used to date fossils older than a few thousand years old, and even then testing the same mammoth will give thousands of years difference for the two tests.

Science has its pure science (like the indisputable speed of light) and its "so called" science (1 Ti 6:20) like the theory of evolution. We have to tell the two apart. And calling me names is very unscientific, and counterproductive, and more like the church in the Dark Ages calling everything they cannot explain "witchcraft".

To quote from the link you provided and their explanation of the sorting of fossils into strata, here is a quote...

For scientists called flood geologists or catastrophists, the “major layers” or systems in the geologic column are eco-sedimentary zones, the remains of various ecological groups living in the pre-Flood world. The first creatures buried in greatest abundance in the rising Flood waters would be the heavy-shelled, bottom-dwelling sea creatures, and these would be followed successively by near shore forms and swimmers, then lowland plants and animals, and finally upland forms, with sea creatures found in all the systems of the geologic column as the waters finally covered everything. When the mountains rose and the valleys sank down (Ps. 104:8) at the end of the Flood, the continents were covered with layers of fossils formed as stages in the burial of eco-sedimentary zones during the catastrophe of Noah’s flood (Figure 32).

This "explanation" is laughable. Worldwide, the same organisms are found above each other, and this joker writes that "the remains of various ecological groups living in the pre-Flood world."

So worldwide the same fossils are found organised one group above another, yet he is saying that each ecosystem on earth got buried one after the other in order. Then why are the fossils found worldwide if local colonies were buried locally?

I cannot untangle the mangrove swamp of this writer's mind, neither do I need to, because hopefully you have a bull detector, and hopefully statements like the above get you hot and sweaty.

iouae said:

True science and true religion support each other.
False science will at times, oppose true religion.
False religion will at times, oppose true science.
And, obviously, false science and false religion, may or may not agree - all bets are off.

Concerning Creation, science and religion seem at loggerheads.
Science says the universe is 13.75 billion years old.
Religion says the universe is 6000 years old.
Science says we got here by evolution.
Religion says we were created.

The chasm seems so wide, that many have given up trying to bridge the divide.
This thread hopes to reconcile science and religion concerning the above issues.

I consider that the blame for the divide is 50% pseudo-science's fault and 50% pseudo-religion's fault.

Googling "how many species on earth today" one gets the answer 8.7 million.

Whatever the true number, God has devoted a lot of time and thought into creating all these fantastically wonderful and diverse plants and animals, and it must have taken even Him, a lot of time to think these up.

I know there are some here who think that God just somehow knows everything, implying that God expended very little effort thinking up these organisms, and making sure they function as planned. They think God does not need to do any planning, since God just somehow comes knowing everything.

I am not of that school. I believe God has existed eternally, and a lot of that time has been devoted to thinking up and creating these plants and animals. This means of course that God learns, which topic was discussed on another thread which I started. I believe that as God learns, or as His interest changes, so He created different creatures throughout earths history.

The fossil record in the rocks is a snapshot of what occupied God's interest in the long history of the earth. I am an old earth creationist, believing in a universe which is 13.75 billion years old, where, 500 million years ago, God suddenly in one event, populated the earth with most of the Phyla of animals that now exist. I believe that if Christians knew the truth of this Cambrian explosion, they would be able to silence the evolutionists right there. Later, I will explain how the Bible nowhere says earth is just 6000 years old. Here pseudo-religion has made Christians sound ignorant.

There have been many explosions of life on earth. Modern man exploded onto earth 6000 years ago in the form of Adam and Eve. But before that there were many mass extinctions, including the aftermath of one which left earth "without form and void". God never originally created earth "without form and void". Why would God do such a bad job in the first place, and then take six days to repair it?

This is what I hope this thread will be about.

Click to expand...

I have not read any of the comments in this thread but you are obviously confusing what science is with real science requires observation and repeated experiments. Nobody was there at the beginning to observe things other than our creator and beliefs about the past. Science does always agree with God's word not man's opinions

WatchmanOnTheWall said:

If you believe that then you can't be a Christian because being a Christian depends on your belief in Jesus and not your belief about the nature of time:

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Click to expand...

I didn't suggest you weren't a Christian. If you were an unbeliever then I'd expect you to behave as an unbeliever. As it is, you're a believer that is being foolish by accepting the premises of atheists. You're undermining your own faith and setting a poor example for those around you and providing ammunition to the enemy in this spiritual fight we in against the forces of evil in the world.

I would say, however, that the very same God who inspired the writing of the book of John also inspired the book of Genesis. Why do you believe the one and not the other?

And don't tell me that you believe Genesis because you don't. You give it lip service but take the side of the atheist's cosmology at every opportunity.

Resting in Him,
Clete

iouae said:

Clete, it sounds to me like you are using C14 dating to prove a point. Mostly YEC refute C14 as totally inaccurate, and I agree that it is largely worthless, for the reason you gave, its short half life. C14 is never used to date fossils older than a few thousand years old, and even then testing the same mammoth will give thousands of years difference for the two tests.

Click to expand...

I already said this. Did you just miss the point or are you ignoring it?

They not only don't use C14 to date fossils, they don't even bother to look for it because their paradigm tells them that the fossils are way past being too old. And if their paradigm was correct, they'd be right not to look for it because it aught not be there. My point is that it is there. It is there in quantities several times above minimal detectable levels. There is so much C14 in fossils that there is no possible way that they could be even hundreds of thousands of years old, never mind millions or billions.

Science has its pure science (like the indisputable speed of light) and its "so called" science (1 Ti 6:20) like the theory of evolution. We have to tell the two apart. And calling me names is very unscientific, and counterproductive, and more like the church in the Dark Ages calling everything they cannot explain "witchcraft".

Click to expand...

How do you propose we tell the two apart?

There is a very specific answer to that question. I want to see if you have an idea of what it is.

To quote from the link you provided and their explanation of the sorting of fossils into strata, here is a quote...

For scientists called flood geologists or catastrophists, the “major layers” or systems in the geologic column are eco-sedimentary zones, the remains of various ecological groups living in the pre-Flood world. The first creatures buried in greatest abundance in the rising Flood waters would be the heavy-shelled, bottom-dwelling sea creatures, and these would be followed successively by near shore forms and swimmers, then lowland plants and animals, and finally upland forms, with sea creatures found in all the systems of the geologic column as the waters finally covered everything. When the mountains rose and the valleys sank down (Ps. 104:8) at the end of the Flood, the continents were covered with layers of fossils formed as stages in the burial of eco-sedimentary zones during the catastrophe of Noah’s flood (Figure 32).

This "explanation" is laughable. Worldwide, the same organisms are found above each other, and this joker writes that "the remains of various ecological groups living in the pre-Flood world."

So worldwide the same fossils are found organised one group above another, yet he is saying that each ecosystem on earth got buried one after the other in order. Then why are the fossils found worldwide if local colonies were buried locally?

Click to expand...

The geologic column is not nearly so uniform as you pretend. You've not only bought their premise, you believe their propaganda too.

You just got through saying that evolution is "so called science". You understand that much of evolutionary theory is based on the so called fossil record and on the premise that is takes a very long time for fossils to form.

I cannot untangle the mangrove swamp of this writer's mind, neither do I need to, because hopefully you have a bull detector, and hopefully statements like the above get you hot and sweaty.

Click to expand...

You didn't even bother to read it past that paragraph.

Not everything everyone says in a particular article or theory has to be accepted in order for one to accept it in a general sense and to see that there is another way of thinking about things that isn't mindless stupidity. My entire point on this thread has been that what you are trying to reconcile cannot be reconciled. You ARE wanting to marry theism with atheism. I can't tell whether you're simply ignoring that point or if you just don't have what is needed to understand it. I suspect the former because I understand now that you aren't really interested in reconciling the two. What's really going on is that you desire to accept atheistic science as the truth and aren't willing even to entertain anything else. The evidence for that is your dash to debate evolution (because you think you could defeat me on that ground) and your instant rejection of the very explanation you claimed to be "all ears" for. If you looked at atheistic science with half as much skepticism as you do the bible and the biblical worldview, you'd have a chance. The fact that you don't says everything anyone needs to know about you and your motives here.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete said:

I didn't suggest you weren't a Christian. If you were an unbeliever then I'd expect you to behave as an unbeliever. As it is, you're a believer that is being foolish by accepting the premises of atheists. You're undermining your own faith and setting a poor example for those around you and providing ammunition to the enemy in this spiritual fight we in against the forces of evil in the world.

I would say, however, that the very same God who inspired the writing of the book of John also inspired the book of Genesis. Why do you believe the one and not the other?

And don't tell me that you believe Genesis because you don't. You give it lip service but take the side of the atheist's cosmology at every opportunity.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Click to expand...

No, I said you can't be a Christian. Please read my posts more carefully, this is the third time you have done this. Unless you can respond to what I am saying and not what you are imagining I am saying then there's no point continuing. And stop making up accusations about myself that too is a waste of my time. Are you mentally stable?

Clete said:

I already said this. Did you just miss the point or are you ignoring it?

They not only don't use C14 to date fossils, they don't even bother to look for it because their paradigm tells them that the fossils are way past being too old. And if their paradigm was correct, they'd be right not to look for it because it aught not be there. My point is that it is there. It is there in quantities several times above minimal detectable levels. There is so much C14 in fossils that there is no possible way that they could be even hundreds of thousands of years old, never mind millions or billions.
Clete

Click to expand...

I understood your point that fossils like dinosaurs are supposedly so old they should not have one atom of C14 left in them, but they do. I answered that C14 dating is flawed.

From the following site... http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
"Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old".

I fail to see how this helps your cause since this dates fossils as many times older than 6000 years, which you believe is the age of earth.

WatchmanOnTheWall said:

No, I said you can't be a Christian.

Click to expand...

I read it right, I just assumed you had written it wrong because the accusation against me made no sense whatsoever. When did I ever say or even imply that being a Christian had anything to do with the nature of light or what one thinks about it? Don't bother answering, I won't read it.

Please read my posts more carefully, this is the third time you have done this. Unless you can respond to what I am saying and not what you are imagining I am saying then there's no point continuing. And stop making up accusations about myself that too is a waste of my time. Are you mentally stable?

Click to expand...

Look, bub. You're the one who hasn't responded to what has been said. There isn't anyone on this site who can rightly accuse me of being unresponsive. You're the one who brings up arguments and then ignores their refutation. You're the one who tells people to "get over it" when you've been rationally ground to powder and have nothing to respond with. I responded to what I thought you were saying. It isn't my fault if you're not making any sense.

Just about the quickest way to land yourself on my ignore list is rank hypocrisy. Seemingly everyone on this entire website is a waste of my time. Good bye and good riddance - fool!

6days said:

I have not read any of the comments in this thread but you are obviously confusing what science is with real science requires observation and repeated experiments. Nobody was there at the beginning to observe things other than our creator and beliefs about the past. Science does always agree with God's word not man's opinions

Click to expand...

Google empirica science and one gets
The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment. Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.

This is what is meant by true science, which is what you alluded to when you said "real science requires observation and repeated experiments".

I am not sure what you meant by "Nobody was there at the beginning to observe things other than our creator and beliefs about the past."

Science specialises in finding things we cannot see with our usual senses. we see distant galaxies. We see quarks and subatomic particles, and gravity waves and... and...

A telescope is a time machine which we can use to see into the past, with our own eyes, for a few $.
Turns out we can see pretty far into the past.

Clete said:

I read it right, I just assumed you had written it wrong because the accusation against me made no sense whatsoever. When did I ever say or even imply that being a Christian had anything to do with the nature of light or what one thinks about it? Don't bother answering, I won't read it.


Look, bub. You're the one who hasn't responded to what has been said. There isn't anyone on this site who can rightly accuse me of being unresponsive. You're the one who brings up arguments and then ignores their refutation. You're the one who tells people to "get over it" when you have rationally ground to powder and have nothing to respond with. I responded to what I thought you were saying. It isn't my fault if you're not making any sense.

Just about the quickest way to land yourself on my ignore list is rank hypocrisy. Seemingly everyone on this entire website is a waste of my time. Good bye and good riddance - fool!

Click to expand...

That actually made me laugh. Be shame to ignore me now just when you're getting going.

iouae said:

I understood your point that fossils like dinosaurs are supposedly so old they should not have one atom of C14 left in them, but they do. I answered that C14 dating is flawed.

Click to expand...

No, actually, it isn't flawed. That's just the whole point. It is a perfectly valid way, at least conceptually, to date something if one does it consistently and with intellectual honesty. It is the atheistic evolutionists, who's premises you seem to trust implicitly, who's use of it is invalid. It is, for example, perfectly valid to use C14 to set a maximum possible age so long as it can be reasonably presumed that there is no source of additional C14 that could throw off the results. In any case, no specimen found to have ANY C14 could possibly have been alive more than 80,000 years ago - TOPS!

That's about one third of one percent of the age evolutionists claim most dinosaur fossils to be. And the vast majority of the time, even evolutionists won't use C14 to date anything older than 50,000 years - nearly half as old. So, if a dinosaur supposedly live 230 million years ago and there is C14 in the specimen consistent with 22,000 - 39,000 years ago (which is a gigantic range by the way - given that C14 can't typically be used for anything beyond 50,000 years old) then where does the evolutionist come up with the other 99.986% of the fossils age?

From the following site... http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
"Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old".

I fail to see how this helps your cause since this dates fossils as many times older than 6000 years, which you believe is the age of earth.

Click to expand...

Four things....

1. It helps my case because if they are less than 6000 years old, you'd expect to find C14, which you do. If the evolutionists were right, there aught not be any at all. Did it escape your notice that the evolutionists persist in their belief in evolution in spite of the C14 dating results you've cited? It should have been impossible to ignore, falsifying evidence but their paradigm blindness just lets them (and you it seems) to just go right on their merry way. Such confirmation bias is rampant throughout the so called "scientific" community that you seem so enamored with. In fact, it is rampant throughout the human race but there is a way to combat it. I notice that you made no effort to answer my question as to what that method is. Care to give it a shot? It isn't a trick question and the answer is very specific.

2. It falsifies - and I use that word intentionally - it falsifies any concept, theory or idea that requires dinosaurs to be millions or even hundreds of thousands of years old.

3. Any date derived from C14 requires the scientists performing the procedure to make assumptions. Those assumptions are directly dependent upon whether they believe the Earth to be very old and whether they believe that the things going on now are basically identical to the way things have always been (uniformitarianism). In other words, if you're an atheistic evolutionist, you will always get older dates than would the theist. It isn't a flaw in the test but in the assumptions used to interpret the data. Just the point I've been making this whole time.

4. You cannot rationally state that C14 dating is flawed and then, in the next breath, use C14 dating as evidence against my case as though its valid!

Clete

WatchmanOnTheWall said:

That actually made me laugh. Be shame to ignore me now just when you're getting going.

Click to expand...

I don't tolerate dishonesty well. If you want to continue like an adult then fine. If you want to be stupid then I'll ignore you and forget you ever existed.

You choose.