God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[BilliardsBall]

He should not admit it because its not true, Carbon dating and Ar/Ar dating are not the only methods. The pre-circa 5,000BP period fits well with the ranges of the following methods.

Thermoluminescense
Optical Dating
Archeomagnetic
Lead Corrosion
Amino-Acid
Rehydroxylation (Probable. Still being tested but should be good for about 10k years back).

And all these give consistent dates with the radiometric techniques.

These ARE radiometric in nature:

Thermoluminescence (TL) dating is the determination, by means of measuring the accumulated radiation dose Thermoluminescence dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Optical dating... All sediments and soils contain trace amounts of radioactive isotopes including uranium, thorium, rubidium and potassium. These slowly decay over time and the ionizing radiation they produce is absorbed by other constituents of the soil sediments such as quartz and feldspar... In 1994, the principles behind optical and thermoluminescence dating were extended to include surfaces made of granite, basalt and sandstone, such as carved rock from ancient monuments and artifacts. Optical dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**

Archaeomagnetic dating makes unfalsifiable assumptions about Earth's magnetic field in the past

Lead corrosion dating - Data analysis requires the consideration of kinetics in addition to thermodynamics, due to the temporal component of voltammetry. Idealized theoretical electrochemical thermodynamic relationships such as the Nernst equation are modeled without a time component.

Amino acid dating requires biological tissue to be present. To date something circa 5,000 BP we have to be certain (or else assume) the biologic material did not contaminate the sample at some later date.

And as you said, rehydroxylation is consistent with the other dating techniques, even though it is speculative in nature. Now, there's no assumption there (rolls eyes).

 

[BilliardsBall]

If all data surrounding a find indicate that it's definitely millions of years old, and there are very good and reasonable explanations for how such tissue was preserved, then why should a limited dating method be applied to such a discovery?

I'm a busy person and I lack time to debate someone who merely echoes circular arguments from other scientists. All the data at a find location is inconsistent with some of the data inside the location, so let's not even test some of the data. Please read your sentence above a few more times.

PS. Jesus is not a zombie, He is my Savior. I haven't heard you make an apology yet. Your terms used for me and for my Lord are incredibly offensive.

 

[outhouse]

I'm a busy person and I lack time to debate someone who merely echoes circular arguments from other scientists

Im a busy person and I lack the time to debate things that are now facts and not even up for debate.

But I do want people to know the REAL TRUTH about academia and what people with educations in their specific field have found.


Not some biased non academic position of fanaticism and severe fundamentalism due to people that believe ancient mythology with no evidence AT ALL to support their claims.

 

[David M]

And as you said, rehydroxylation is consistent with the other dating techniques, even though it is speculative in nature. Now, there's no assumption there (rolls eyes).

It is consistent, up to its currently established limits.So no assumption is needed.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants. I believe that according to the first few verses of Holy scripture in the book of Genesis, the Earth already had existed with water during the first day of its recreation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" - (Genesis 1:1-2)

I believe there was an older version of Earth that God had destroyed with a cloud of darkness and water, so that He could recreate the Earth with the right conditions for us humans who have souls. I think the first chapter of Genesis is widely misinterpreted as a narrative about the creation of Earth; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a narrative about the recreation of the Earth with more favorable conditions for human souls to exist. Does anybody else agree that the first few verses in the book of Genesis have been widely misinterpreted as a creation narrative; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a recreation narrative?

Alright I'm gonna be a nice guy on this for once.
I'm not a nice person though, so don't expect too much

You believe things, and that's great don't get me wrong.
But saying "I believe [this and that]" doesn't make for a good argument on your side.

So, in advice, I will throw you some debate tips that were passed on to me.

For starters, you need an argument.

You currently have none.
"I believe" wont get you too far into the heads of this community.

When you start an argument you need to provide two things specifically.

1. Factual proof of some sort,
if you're debating religion then use a "holy" something or another.

2. Present logical statements that are in your favor.
Other than facts you need opinions, present your opinion very specifically.
You would also do good to present it in a way that would give you high ground.

Secondly, Science.

A religion is only a theory within scientific communities.
You can't just play second base the whole game, you have to hit the ball too.
Hitting the ball in their field is difficult. Very much so.
To get an argument like this to them you need one thing, and one thing only.

Proof.

If you can provide proof then they will provide acceptance.
Though they probably wont ever really follow the "I believe" aspect in your logical arguments...

Third and foremost, you need to be perfect.

Read what you say.
Re-read it.
Re-Read it again.

There must never be a contradiction or false statement.
If one is found it's like taking a needle to a balloon.
Your entire argument just blows up, dies, then gets ridiculed.

Not in any specific order.

Well that's all I could think to say to you at 3am.
Enjoy life mate.

Peace.

 

[Thief]

I believe Chapter Two of Genesis is NOT a retelling of Chapter One.
been posting this for years.

There will never be any proof.

 

[outhouse]

You can't just play second base the whole game, you have to hit the ball too.

Something creationist never do.

They don't have any evidence outside mythology to present an alternative explanation.


And the cop out "godidit" does not fly in the face of factual evidence in our possession.

 

[Salvador]

Alright I'm gonna be a nice guy on this for once.
I'm not a nice person though, so don't expect too much

You believe things, and that's great don't get me wrong.
But saying "I believe [this and that]" doesn't make for a good argument on your side.

So, in advice, I will throw you some debate tips that were passed on to me.

For starters, you need an argument.

You currently have none.
"I believe" wont get you too far into the heads of this community.

When you start an argument you need to provide two things specifically.

1. Factual proof of some sort,
if you're debating religion then use a "holy" something or another.

2. Present logical statements that are in your favor.
Other than facts you need opinions, present your opinion very specifically.
You would also do good to present it in a way that would give you high ground.

Secondly, Science.

A religion is only a theory within scientific communities.
You can't just play second base the whole game, you have to hit the ball too.
Hitting the ball in their field is difficult. Very much so.
To get an argument like this to them you need one thing, and one thing only.

Proof.

If you can provide proof then they will provide acceptance.
Though they probably wont ever really follow the "I believe" aspect in your logical arguments...

Third and foremost, you need to be perfect.

Read what you say.
Re-read it.
Re-Read it again.

There must never be a contradiction or false statement.
If one is found it's like taking a needle to a balloon.
Your entire argument just blows up, dies, then gets ridiculed.

Not in any specific order.

Well that's all I could think to say to you at 3am.
Enjoy life mate.

Peace.

Thanks for the good advice.
"I've given up on my argument a long time ago that God recreated the Earth 6,000 years ago to make way for the first human souls such as Adam and Eve.
....there is ample genetic evidence that every generation of humans have had at least
10,000 people. Proof That Quranic/Biblical Adam Did Not Exist | ReligiousForums.com " ( Post # 603 and 604 )

 

[Thief]

Something creationist never do.

They don't have any evidence outside mythology to present an alternative explanation.


And the cop out "godidit" does not fly in the face of factual evidence in our possession.

When all other explanations fail....there is God.

Dead things do not beget the living.
If substance first.....then you are contrary to the nature of things.
Something dead made you.

 

[Thief]

Thanks for the good advice.
"I've given up on my argument a long time ago that God recreated the Earth 6,000 years ago to make way for the first human souls such as Adam and Eve.
....there is ample genetic evidence that every generation of humans have had at least
10,000 people. Proof That Quranic/Biblical Adam Did Not Exist | ReligiousForums.com " ( Post # 603 and 604 )

No proof allowed.....just reasoning.

and it does stand to reason....If God ever made contact with Man....someone had to be first.

That would be Adam.

 

[Deathbydefault]

No proof allowed.....just reasoning.

and it does stand to reason....If God ever made contact with Man....someone had to be first.

That would be Adam.

This debate is obviously religion only due to how easily it can be destroyed by science.

However, even in an only religious debate you need to cite your religious items such as the bible.
Through those citations you should then make a logical argument, what you call an interpretation.

You cannot reason that the first person to meet God was Adam.
You would need proof for that.
Such as,

Where in what book it said that.
Or my interpretation of this leads me into this point, which in turn proves my argument.

I'm assuming you mean the second definition of reasoning, which involves logic.
If we were to use logic at all then this topic never would have came up.

Reasoning involves finding out something through various processes such as the process of elimination.
Wherein you destroy every outcome that doesn't make sense or is impossible.

You cannot reason that God showed himself to Adam without referring to the bible,
Therefore would be citing the bible.

Citing proof.

Peace.

 

[Looncall]

When all other explanations fail....there is God.

Dead things do not beget the living.
If substance first.....then you are contrary to the nature of things.
Something dead made you.

When all other explanations fail, the god one must still be justified.

"Dead things do not beget the living": a gross assumption.

 

[fantome profane]

When all other explanations fail....there is God

... of the gaps.

 

[jonathan180iq]

These ARE radiometric in nature:

Thermoluminescence (TL) dating is the determination, by means of measuring the accumulated radiation dose Thermoluminescence dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Optical dating... All sediments and soils contain trace amounts of radioactive isotopes including uranium, thorium, rubidium and potassium. These slowly decay over time and the ionizing radiation they produce is absorbed by other constituents of the soil sediments such as quartz and feldspar... In 1994, the principles behind optical and thermoluminescence dating were extended to include surfaces made of granite, basalt and sandstone, such as carved rock from ancient monuments and artifacts. Optical dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**

Archaeomagnetic dating makes unfalsifiable assumptions about Earth's magnetic field in the past

Lead corrosion dating - Data analysis requires the consideration of kinetics in addition to thermodynamics, due to the temporal component of voltammetry. Idealized theoretical electrochemical thermodynamic relationships such as the Nernst equation are modeled without a time component.

Amino acid dating requires biological tissue to be present. To date something circa 5,000 BP we have to be certain (or else assume) the biologic material did not contaminate the sample at some later date.

And as you said, rehydroxylation is consistent with the other dating techniques, even though it is speculative in nature. Now, there's no assumption there (rolls eyes).

Yes. They all make different assumptions about different things, yet they still provide overlapping and rather contiguous date ranges.
Isn't that interesting, since, as you say, these dating methods are so terribly flawed?

If there was a huge academic problem with these dating methods, wouldn't the date ranges be all over the map?

Also, for the record...

We can date things just fine, going back tens of thousands of years, without having to resort to your maligned radiometric methods. In fact, there is a very thorough scientific organization called the American Scientific Affiliation, which provides resources for understanding how and why there is really no problem at all with radiometric dating methods. This organization also provides references showing how radiometric date ranges have aligned consistently with tree rings, ice cores, stalagmites and other physical natural methods. This organization is also purely Theistic and Christian in practice.

American Scientific Affiliation

Radiometric Dating

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm a busy person and I lack time to debate someone who merely echoes circular arguments from other scientists. All the data at a find location is inconsistent with some of the data inside the location, so let's not even test some of the data. Please read your sentence above a few more times.

PS. Jesus is not a zombie, He is my Savior. I haven't heard you make an apology yet. Your terms used for me and for my Lord are incredibly offensive.

Your dinosaur soft-tissue argument has been addressed.
If literally thousands of data points suggest that the specimen where this soft tissue was found is millions of years old, yet through a bit of luck a very small amount of soft tissue has been preserved, what would be the point in dating this soft tissue using a method with a range limit of 50,000 years? So what if it came back with a date range of 37,000-50,000 years? Every other data set at the site tells you that this carbon-limited dating range would be inaccurate. It would be an anomaly; a false number. It would be worthless. It would be like asking why my grandfather's bones weren't dated using the Potassium-40 method... I mean, what could be the harm in dating my grandfather's remains with a dating method limited to a start point of 100,000 years?

Please note that I did not say that Jesus ate the flesh of the living and fed on brains for his sustenance. That would be silly.

Jesus, as the mythology goes, rose from the dead and walked around for a few days, even going so far as to show people the holes in his hands and feet. Paul even claims that Jesus revealed himself to something like 500 people before finally ascending to heaven on a cloud, complete with horns blaring.

In Hatian folklore, which is the origin of our modern Western understanding of the term "zombie", zombies are any being that has been raised from the dead using some sort of magic.
Jesus was raised from the dead by the magic power of God, his father in heaven, correct?

Thus, by all accounts, Jesus was a zombie.

So as to not seem directly offensive to your faith, Lazarus was also a zombie.
Tabitha was a zombie.
All of the people who were raised from their graves at Jesus' Crucifixion were zombies.
Zarepath's widow's son was a zombie.
The guy who was thrown into Elisha's tomb came back to life, a zombie.
The widow's son in Luke 7 was a zombie.
Etc..etc...

EDIT: Come to think of it, why were there so many claims of miraculous magical happenings in a book that supposedly tells the factual history of the world? What business do flying people, magic powers, talking animals, doppelgangers, shape-shifters, and global floods have to do with factual reality?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Alright I'm gonna be a nice guy on this for once.
I'm not a nice person though, so don't expect too much

You believe things, and that's great don't get me wrong.
But saying "I believe [this and that]" doesn't make for a good argument on your side.

So, in advice, I will throw you some debate tips that were passed on to me.

For starters, you need an argument.

You currently have none.
"I believe" wont get you too far into the heads of this community.

When you start an argument you need to provide two things specifically.

1. Factual proof of some sort,
if you're debating religion then use a "holy" something or another.

2. Present logical statements that are in your favor.
Other than facts you need opinions, present your opinion very specifically.
You would also do good to present it in a way that would give you high ground.

Secondly, Science.

A religion is only a theory within scientific communities.
You can't just play second base the whole game, you have to hit the ball too.
Hitting the ball in their field is difficult. Very much so.
To get an argument like this to them you need one thing, and one thing only.

Proof.

If you can provide proof then they will provide acceptance.
Though they probably wont ever really follow the "I believe" aspect in your logical arguments...

Third and foremost, you need to be perfect.

Read what you say.
Re-read it.
Re-Read it again.

There must never be a contradiction or false statement.
If one is found it's like taking a needle to a balloon.
Your entire argument just blows up, dies, then gets ridiculed.

Not in any specific order.

Well that's all I could think to say to you at 3am.
Enjoy life mate.

Peace.

"I believe" does not get me too far at RELIGIOUSFORUMS.com? Really? You are joking?

However, it's more than "I believe", rather I have reasons to believe and to continue to believe.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your dinosaur soft-tissue argument has been addressed.
If literally thousands of data points suggest that the specimen where this soft tissue was found is millions of years old, yet through a bit of luck a very small amount of soft tissue has been preserved, what would be the point in dating this soft tissue using a method with a range limit of 50,000 years? So what if it came back with a date range of 37,000-50,000 years? Every other data set at the site tells you that this carbon-limited dating range would be inaccurate. It would be an anomaly; a false number. It would be worthless. It would be like asking why my grandfather's bones weren't dated using the Potassium-40 method... I mean, what could be the harm in dating my grandfather's remains with a dating method limited to a start point of 100,000 years?

Please note that I did not say that Jesus ate the flesh of the living and fed on brains for his sustenance. That would be silly.

Jesus, as the mythology goes, rose from the dead and walked around for a few days, even going so far as to show people the holes in his hands and feet. Paul even claims that Jesus revealed himself to something like 500 people before finally ascending to heaven on a cloud, complete with horns blaring.

In Hatian folklore, which is the origin of our modern Western understanding of the term "zombie", zombies are any being that has been raised from the dead using some sort of magic.
Jesus was raised from the dead by the magic power of God, his father in heaven, correct?

Thus, by all accounts, Jesus was a zombie.

So as to not seem directly offensive to your faith, Lazarus was also a zombie.
Tabitha was a zombie.
All of the people who were raised from their graves at Jesus' Crucifixion were zombies.
Zarepath's widow's son was a zombie.
The guy who was thrown into Elisha's tomb came back to life, a zombie.
The widow's son in Luke 7 was a zombie.
Etc..etc...

EDIT: Come to think of it, why were there so many claims of miraculous magical happenings in a book that supposedly tells the factual history of the world? What business do flying people, magic powers, talking animals, doppelgangers, shape-shifters, and global floods have to do with factual reality?

Nothing in this remotely resembles an apology. However, let's drop the matter--I forgive you.

But then you are going on the attack on non-thread topics in your edit. You are further employing special knowledge to an immense degree within. I might continue discussing with you data and interpretations that may disagree or agree with the Flood theory(s), but trying to discredit the entire Bible, which is actually 60-plus different texts written by 40 authors across hundreds of years, by imposing your special knowledge upon it that nothing paranormal may ever occur to any person, anywhere at any time, is a stretch.

 

[BilliardsBall]

We can date things just fine, going back tens of thousands of years, without having to resort to your maligned radiometric methods. In fact, there is a very thorough scientific organization called the American Scientific Affiliation, which provides resources for understanding how and why there is really no problem at all with radiometric dating methods.

These two subsequent sentences of yours above read as a contradiction to me.

Also, of course we will find different methods arriving at the same approximate datings for similar items, as long as the same uniform assumptions are also employed. Personally, if I were you, I wouldn't rely on things like ice cores to try to disprove the Flood. They are many issues with ice core theory, or at least several painfully glaring issues IMHO.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Nothing in this remotely resembles an apology. However, let's drop the matter--I forgive you.

Wunderbar!

But then you are going on the attack on non-thread topics in your edit. You are further employing special knowledge to an immense degree within. I might continue discussing with you data and interpretations that may disagree or agree with the Flood theory(s), but trying to discredit the entire Bible, which is actually 60-plus different texts written by 40 authors across hundreds of years, by imposing your special knowledge upon it that nothing paranormal may ever occur to any person, anywhere at any time, is a stretch.

Yeah, that's just an aside. Don't get lost in it.
I'm still just waiting on your rebuttals for why we shouldn't trust radiometric dating.

These two subsequent sentences of yours above read as a contradiction to me.

Also, of course we will find different methods arriving at the same approximate datings for similar items, as long as the same uniform assumptions are also employed. Personally, if I were you, I wouldn't rely on things like ice cores to try to disprove the Flood. They are many issues with ice core theory, or at least several painfully glaring issues IMHO.

I assure I don't rely on ice cores to discredit the flood assertion... You have yet to make an argument for it's actual occurrence, other than simply asserting that it is so.
Once you make an actual defense of your position, I will choose an appropriate method for discrediting it.

 

[outhouse]

I have reasons to believe

But little to none is outside mythology and IT ALL Lies under pseudoscience.