Creation vs. Evolution

[Jacob]

How many tree rings were in the apple trees in the Garden of Eden?
Should Christians count the rings... or believe the tree is days old?
We accept God's Word as our ultimate source of truth...period.

How long were Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden? I don't know.

 

[Jacob]

How do YOU know that the Bible really is infallible?
Since you obviously prefer to spend more of your time studying the Bible than science then perhaps your confirmation bias is misleading you despite your claimed critical thinking skills?

Well, the Bible contains the word of God. (It can summarily be called the word of God. That is why I can say the Bible is the word of God.) That is how I know it is infallible. I trust you know there is a difference between scripture being inspired by God (God-breathed) and being infallible. I believe the scriptures were without error in the original manuscripts.

 

[Jacob]

You can measure the age of a death by the body's temperature.

Stuart

How long was the person or creature, you are measuring the age of a death of, alive before they died?

 

[Jacob]

What the hell are you talking about?

Stuart

Evidence. The age of a thing.

 

[Jacob]

That is not always true, since it was the heat flow out of the earth that Lord Kelvin used to derive his estimate that the earth is tens of millions of year old.

But since you are clearly stuck on page one of this 500 page radiological dating idea, let me see if I can put it in terms that even a brand-new, just starting, recently graduated, hopeful-for-the-future, tinker toy engineer can understand.

A few days ago The Barbarian posted that Steve Austin, a prominent YEC scientist with good academic credentials, submitted a sample of material from the recent eruption of Mt. St. Helens to a laboratory for radiological dating. The lab that he selected not one that was equipped to date recently solidified magma, but Austin used them anyway. The sample he submitted to the lab was not a pure sample of just recently cooled magma. The date they came up with was millions of years, which is clearly nonsense for Mt. St. Helens. (post 5221)

In post 5245 you asked why a person would need to know the date of something before it can be dated.

(Now the analogies start) in answer to your question in post 5221, The Barbarian likened it to measuring temperatures of fudge or of a blast furnace. Barbie was not saying that the dating was a matter of measuring temperatures. He was saying that just like a low temperature substance (like fudge) needs one kind of thermometer, and a high temperature substance like molten steel needs a completely different kind of thermometer, likewise measuring recent dates in rocks required a different type of measurement than measuring dates of very old rocks. Get it? Low temperature fudge takes one kind of thermometer, and high temperature molten steel needs a different kind of thermometer, just like recently cooled magma has to be dated by one method, and very old magma has to be dated by a different method. That type of comparison is known as an analogy.

In post 5253 you asked how would you know the age before submitting it to determine the age?

Barbie, in post 5256 says you don’t always know the date, but Austin knew darn well that Mt St. Helens was recent, yet he submitted the sample to a lab that did dating of older rocks.

Kinda like if you are an engineer (know what that is?), and you specialize in designing dams that go across thousand-foot wide canyons. Then a customer asks you to measure something for them - the thickness of a strand of spider web.
You: “Whoa, my transit is designed to measure hundreds or thousands of feet.”
Cust: “It’ll be fine, just do the best you can with this spider web, and see what you get.”
You: “Ok, it’s your money. One foot (that’s as low as my transit will go).”
Cust: “Thanks, now I am going to tell everyone you idiots think spider web strands are one foot thick.”
(That was an analogy. I hope you see how using the wrong tool means you will get the wrong answer, whether it be in measuring spider web thickness or in dating recent lava or in measuring the temperature of hot liquids.)

It's just silliness here.

But how do you know that the temperature of a thing can determine how long it has been around? If the thing existed before the eruption, how do you know that the temperature after the eruption will tell you how old it is?

 

[noguru]

It's just silliness here.

Oh the irony is too much sometimes.

But how do you know that the temperature of a thing can determine how long it has been around? If the thing existed before the eruption, how do you know that the temperature after the eruption will tell you how old it is?

And you have the audacity to call his post silliness?



Are you familiar with the work of Lord Kelvin? Do you realize there is a whole other temperature scale based on his work?

 

[Jacob]

Oh the irony is too much sometimes.



And you have the audacity to call his post silliness?

What was I supposed to learn from it? But I wasn't talking about the post I was talking about the content pertaining to temperature.

Are you familiar with the work of Lord Kelvin? Do you realize there is a whole other temperature scale based on his work?

Not all of his work. I know of three different units of measure pertaining to temperature. One is the Kelvin.

 

[noguru]

What was I supposed to learn from it? But I wasn't talking about the post I was talking about the content pertaining to temperature.
Not all of his work. I know of three different units of measure pertaining to temperature. One is the Kelvin.

You obviously need to get caught up on a lot of science as well as history, including the history of science, if you want to have any relevant input here. Otherwise, you just make yourself look foolish.

In my previous post there was a link to the wiki article on Lord Kelvin. That is a good place to start if your really want to understand what DavisBJ is describing. Until you get some background on theses subjects, you can only expect to remain irrelevant in regard to any of these subjects.

 

[Jacob]

You obviously need to get caught up on a lot of science as well as history, including the history of science, if you want to have any relevant input here. Otherwise, you just make yourself look foolish.

God created the universe no matter what you or I say.

 

[noguru]

God created the universe no matter what you or I say.

And?

So you admit you are irrelevant on two fronts. A theological front, as well as in regard to science.

Then may I ask, exactly what it is you think you are doing in this thread?

 

[Jacob]

And?

So you admit you are irrelevant on two fronts. A theological front, as well as in regard to science.

Then may I ask, exactly what it is you think you are doing in this thread?

Talking about God's creation over (macro) evolution.

 

[noguru]

Talking about God's creation over (macro) evolution.

You keep claiming that God's creation negates "macro" evolution. But you have yet to demonstrate the veracity or your claim.

 

[alwight]

Well, the Bible contains the word of God. (It can summarily be called the word of God. That is why I can say the Bible is the word of God.) That is how I know it is infallible.

But that is simply your assertion that it is the word of God, why should I believe it is?
You seem to believe the Bible credulously simply because the Bible says so, but if I told you that you owed me $100 would you simply believe me too or would you want to see some evidence?

I trust you know there is a difference between scripture being inspired by God (God-breathed) and being infallible. I believe the scriptures were without error in the original manuscripts.

I believe that all scriptures were written by fallible humans who perhaps had an agenda of their own, to evangelise perhaps? I am also quite sure that typically most later third party and/or non-evidence based accounts, intending to perhaps make a moral and/or political point, will quite naturally involve exaggerated embellishments and special wondrous effects (supernatural?) to keep the punters interested. If supportive evidence is not a strict requirement then the imagination does have rather more freedom to dramatize imo.

 

[Jacob]

You keep claiming that God's creation negates "macro" evolution. But you have yet to demonstrate the veracity or your claim.

I spoke of how land and sea creatures have not evolved from each other.

 

[noguru]

I spoke of how land and sea creatures have not evolved from each other.

You spoke of that?

:rotfl:

:help:

How old are you, 10, 11, younger? Because I had a better understanding of science when I was 12 than you seem to have right now.

 

[Jacob]

But that is simply your assertion that it is the word of God, why should I believe it is?
You seem to believe the Bible credulously simply because the Bible says so, but if I told you that you owed me $100 would you simply believe me too or would you want to see some evidence?

I read the Bible as a child, but it was with time that it was reconfirmed within me that it is the inspired word of God (holy scripture) and without error in the original manuscripts. Studying the Bible is a joy to me.

I believe that all scriptures were written by fallible humans who perhaps had an agenda of their own, to evangelise perhaps? I am also quite sure that typically most later third party and/or non-evidence based accounts, intending to perhaps make a moral and/or political point, will quite naturally involve exaggerated embellishments and special wondrous effects (supernatural?) to keep the punters interested. If supportive evidence is not a strict requirement then the imagination does have rather more freedom to dramatize imo.

The rest of history attests to the truth of the Bible. So even though internal tests can be made, externally the Bible is true as well.

 

[Jacob]

You spoke of that?

:rotfl:

:help:

How old are you, 10, 11, younger? Because I had a better understanding of science when I was 12 than you seem to have right now.

I spoke of what? What are you talking about? I think you are arrogant to say you had more understanding about anything, if you do not accept that God created the universe.

 

[alwight]

I read the Bible as a child, but it was with time that it was reconfirmed within me that it is the inspired word of God (holy scripture) and without error in the original manuscripts. Studying the Bible is a joy to me.

The rest of history attests to the truth of the Bible. So even though internal tests can be made, externally the Bible is true as well.

Then perhaps you should simply continue with avoiding unpleasant facts, evidence and rigorous scientific conclusions?

 

[DavisBJ]

It's just silliness here.

But how do you know that the temperature of a thing can determine how long it has been around? If the thing existed before the eruption, how do you know that the temperature after the eruption will tell you how old it is?

I concede. You are either a troll having a great laugh on us, or you are the first engineer I have ever seen who is dumber than a doorknob.

 

[Jacob]

Then perhaps you should simply continue with avoiding unpleasant facts, evidence and rigorous scientific conclusions?

I'm not sure what you mean. Again, I am not against science. I have said this a number of times now.