God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[outhouse]

but let's not avoid the fact that you've yet to present a single piece of evidence against dating methods or for a global biblical deluge.

He cannot even provide a date when this supposed event happened. How weak is that!

Then has the nerve to attack the credibility of modern science and academia

 

[outhouse]

I think you're missing some facts:

No, your missing all of them.


Evolution and an old earth is fact, and not up for debate because of your faith.

 

[Looncall]

1. You are creating a straw man because you request evidence for paranormal things but then give qualifiers! I had this awesome proof about a friend who married bigfoot's daughter, but you knocked it out before I could present it! Sorry.

2. YES, you have a confirmatory bias, demonstrated with statements like "You can do this because of the hundreds of thousands of hours of work put into these studies by professionals in the respective fields." You bet, and I could also take thousands of radiometric readings, and get the same numbers on my mass spectrometer as they do, and then I will go to the same table where it shows radiometric data against age, and come up with the same readings, sure. Doing the wrong thing 100 times doesn't enhance it's rightness. You still refuse to acknowledge (perhaps you don't understand, for which I apologize) my main point. I say 100 degrees and you say 212 degrees and we have a big fight until we assess the scales we're using to right them and at least define terms. I AGREE that scientists accurately measure many things via a number of dating rubrics. I just disagree regarding the accuracy of the age numbers on their charts.

Do you really want to define terms? That's a BIG thing in any debate. Will you begin by admitting that ALL radiometric data ever recorded will undergo a DATING change if it is discovered that there were huge fluctuations in solar radiation in the past?

So, exactly what is it that you think is wrong about radiometric dating?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well shouldn't evidence have some sort of burden of accuracy?

Construct a house with 20,000 toothpicks, and you'll have pretty substantial proof that toothpicks can build houses.
Try to stack that house on a handful of loosely placed pebbles and you'll get a mixed up pile of toothpicks and pebbles... That's what creationism accounts to; toothpicks and pebbles.
Just build the house and let the structure stand for itself. If it can't stand, then so goes your argument.

For clarification, the only thing you have to do is provide cohesive evidence and theories... The fact that you (or anyone else in the creationist community) can't do so should tell you everything you need to know about creationism. You can argue against my point of view all day long, telling me that it's founded on strawmen and conjecture, but let's not avoid the fact that you've yet to present a single piece of evidence against dating methods or for a global biblical deluge. The closest you've come is making the statement that 5,000 BCE is when the flood happened, and that dinosaur soft-tissue has been found in sparse amounts in a T-tex femur... That's nothing.




Why?
Based on what?



Anytime that more new discoveries are made, information and data gets reconciled through those discoveries.
So, yes. If/when data gets more accurate then those numbers will change... This is not some ground-breaking assertion. It's the very foundation of science.
Please note that, thus far, all corrections to geologic and radiometric dating have shown the Earth to be much older than previously thought, not younger.

What you're asserting (with this 7,000 year old flood leading to a complete re-population of the world in just a few generations) would require simply incredible adjustments to all current models of understanding.

Given that you're asking me to replace our current model of understanding, which very substantially suggests that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, with one suggesting that all life adapted and spread within the lifetime of some Joshua Trees, you'll forgive me if I require a little more supporting data than you simply saying "Jesus will reveal it to you. The Bible tells me so. I don't trust current science."

Right?

I will not argue with you if you continue to misrepresent my position so utterly. You are the polar opposite of my statements with your "Jesus will reveal it to you. The Bible tells me so. I don't trust current science."

1. Jesus will reveal little or nothing to you at this time if you oppose Him.

2. I don't believe anything merely because it's in the Bible. Patient research is required.

3. I do trust current science. I live and move and breathe in a scientific, modern world. I have taught some science. I have children considering careers in science, both my son and daughter showed interest in chemical engineering and etc.

Let's start by defining terms. There is data and there is interpretation. Over times, when dating events in pre-history, dates fluctuate and change as underlying assumptions and models change. This has happened in our lifetimes, and is happening now.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, exactly what is it that you think is wrong about radiometric dating?

Radiometric dating isn't "wrong" if certain states of our sun and Earth have been wholly consistent and unchanging for eons before now. There was a time when people were unsure how the dinosaurs met extinction. Then it was theorized, and this theory was based on geologic and other data, that a catastrophe greatly altered the atmosphere and volcanism, etc. worldwide in the ancient past. At this time, some believe in a meteor(s) based catastrophe(s) and other scientists do not. For radiometric dating to work perfectly there must be either no significant solar radiation/ozone/atmosphere, etc. changes OR we must be able to use non-radiometric tools to ascertain the breadth and width of such changes.

 

[outhouse]

At this time, some believe in a meteor(s) based catastrophe(s) and other scientists do not.

No credible scientist thinks the meteor/s 65m years ago did not happen. Its not even up for debate.

The only thing question is how much life it destroyed along with volcanism.

 

[outhouse]

The Bible tells me so. I don't trust current science."

I don't trust a book that has factual historical errors and mythology.

Credible people tell me so.

 

[outhouse]

2. I don't believe anything merely because it's in the Bible. Patient research is required.

I don't buy it.


Your literal interpretation requires more then study and research. It takes extreme bias and fanaticism.

 

[outhouse]

3. I do trust current science.

No you factually do not. YOu have already given examples of exactly how you do not trust science. Do you understand the definition of honesty?

You pick and choose from a point of blindness, factually throwing out many different branches of credible science not in any kind of dispute.

 

[metis]

Let's start by defining terms. There is data and there is interpretation. Over times, when dating events in pre-history, dates fluctuate and change as underlying assumptions and models change. This has happened in our lifetimes, and is happening now.

But what's missing with the above is the fact that dating whatever has been getting more and more accurate over the decades.

 

[metis]

For radiometric dating to work perfectly there must be either no significant solar radiation/ozone/atmosphere, etc. changes OR we must be able to use non-radiometric tools to ascertain the breadth and width of such changes.

Only for C-14. Most forms of radioactive dating techniques are not affected by the above.

 

[David M]

For radiometric dating to work perfectly there must be either no significant solar radiation/ozone/atmosphere, etc. changes

Those factors only affect C14 dating, they are irrelevant to forms of dating such as Ar/Ar.

 

[Looncall]

Radiometric dating isn't "wrong" if certain states of our sun and Earth have been wholly consistent and unchanging for eons before now. There was a time when people were unsure how the dinosaurs met extinction. Then it was theorized, and this theory was based on geologic and other data, that a catastrophe greatly altered the atmosphere and volcanism, etc. worldwide in the ancient past. At this time, some believe in a meteor(s) based catastrophe(s) and other scientists do not. For radiometric dating to work perfectly there must be either no significant solar radiation/ozone/atmosphere, etc. changes OR we must be able to use non-radiometric tools to ascertain the breadth and width of such changes.

Certain states? Which ones? Please be specific.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I will not argue with you if you continue to misrepresent my position so utterly. You are the polar opposite of my statements with your "Jesus will reveal it to you. The Bible tells me so. I don't trust current science."

How am I misrepresenting your statements?

These are your quotes, aren't they?

You may be unaware that the Bible teaches that:
1) The planet was shaken catastrophically during the Flood.
2) Only some of the waters came down via rain over 40 days.

The Bible says Noah's ark is a picture or foreshadowing of baptism in Jesus Christ.

There are evidences of many other things in the Bible besides the Flood...

Again, if you want to go wherever truth leads, you don't actually need me for an agent. Jesus will reveal truth to you.

You're main argument thus far is that current scientific models are somehow lacking, Jesus will show me the truth if I seek him first, and that the Bible is legitimate... I can understand why you wouldn't like someone deconstructing your argument to show it's flawed simplicity, but it is the whole of your argument, nevertheless. Aside from the whole Jesus and the Bible thing, you've also made the argument, many times, that scientific consensus is wrong, or that interpretation of the data is flawed, apparently because scientists have long stopped considering the Biblical flood hocus-pocus when constructing historical models of our existence.

Nothing that I have said in this conversation misrepresents the points that you have made in this thread.

1. Jesus will reveal little or nothing to you at this time if you oppose Him.

Interesting how the revelation of "truth" is wholly dependent on buying into a particular faith, isn't it?
It's almost like the Global Flood requires a combination of willful ignorance and confirmation bias before it can be believed in...

2. I don't believe anything merely because it's in the Bible. Patient research is required.

Patient research and a spattering of ignorance.
If you're already convinced that the Global Flood occurred, then doesn't it seem likely that you're only going to pay attention (or take to heart) articles and "research" that help to confirm your position?

In all honesty, did you come to this belief in a global flood before or after you chose this particular faith?
I highly doubt that you believed in it before it was a necessary theological construct to your faith system.

3. I do trust current science. I live and move and breathe in a scientific, modern world. I have taught some science. I have children considering careers in science, both my son and daughter showed interest in chemical engineering and etc.

Well that's all well and good, but then why do you attempt to discredit the very science that you claim to trust when it confronts your faith?
Why do you assert that a global flood happened 7,000 years ago when there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea?
Why do you, who values science as you say you do, not use the principles of science to test the claims and hypotheses of your faith?

Those are pretty serious questions, and they are the root of the problem between science and religion.

Let's start by defining terms. There is data and there is interpretation. Over times, when dating events in pre-history, dates fluctuate and change as underlying assumptions and models change. This has happened in our lifetimes, and is happening now.

You're right. As data become more accurate, we are learning that things are much older than we previously thought.
Please cite anything to the contrary if you have it.

For radiometric dating to work perfectly there must be either no significant solar radiation/ozone/atmosphere, etc. changes OR we must be able to use non-radiometric tools to ascertain the breadth and width of such changes.

I won't harp on this because three other people have already shown you why this isn't how it works.
So now I must ask, is your assertion that the global flood took place 7,000 years ago wholly dependent on your flawed idea that radiometric dating is inaccurate, or that the scientists who use those methods don't know their limitations? If so, doesn't this kind of throw a giant towel over your Biblical deluge theory?

 

[BilliardsBall]

How am I misrepresenting your statements?

These are your quotes, aren't they?









You're main argument thus far is that current scientific models are somehow lacking, Jesus will show me the truth if I seek him first, and that the Bible is legitimate... I can understand why you wouldn't like someone deconstructing your argument to show it's flawed simplicity, but it is the whole of your argument, nevertheless. Aside from the whole Jesus and the Bible thing, you've also made the argument, many times, that scientific consensus is wrong, or that interpretation of the data is flawed, apparently because scientists have long stopped considering the Biblical flood hocus-pocus when constructing historical models of our existence.

Nothing that I have said in this conversation misrepresents the points that you have made in this thread.



Interesting how the revelation of "truth" is wholly dependent on buying into a particular faith, isn't it?
It's almost like the Global Flood requires a combination of willful ignorance and confirmation bias before it can be believed in...



Patient research and a spattering of ignorance.
If you're already convinced that the Global Flood occurred, then doesn't it seem likely that you're only going to pay attention (or take to heart) articles and "research" that help to confirm your position?

In all honesty, did you come to this belief in a global flood before or after you chose this particular faith?
I highly doubt that you believed in it before it was a necessary theological construct to your faith system.



Well that's all well and good, but then why do you attempt to discredit the very science that you claim to trust when it confronts your faith?
Why do you assert that a global flood happened 7,000 years ago when there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea?
Why do you, who values science as you say you do, not use the principles of science to test the claims and hypotheses of your faith?

Those are pretty serious questions, and they are the root of the problem between science and religion.



You're right. As data become more accurate, we are learning that things are much older than we previously thought.
Please cite anything to the contrary if you have it.



I won't harp on this because three other people have already shown you why this isn't how it works.
So now I must ask, is your assertion that the global flood took place 7,000 years ago wholly dependent on your flawed idea that radiometric dating is inaccurate, or that the scientists who use those methods don't know their limitations? If so, doesn't this kind of throw a giant towel over your Biblical deluge theory?

1. I didn't assert the Flood took place 7,000 years ago--you may want to look up the term "BP" online.

2. I will not argue anymore with you since you only ask rhetorical questions, like "How will you defend this since you have shown us no evidence?" Until you are willing to understand that both the Flood and pre-history began 5,000 BP you will not understand that there is evidence.

3. I didn't say, and have never said, and continue to repeat, radiometric dating isn't accurate. It IS accurate and carefully done. And the data is relevant, but interpreted incorrectly. I never said it was a scientific conspiracy, etc.

Please stop misrepresenting me, my worldview and my statements. Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Those factors only affect C14 dating, they are irrelevant to forms of dating such as Ar/Ar.

Baloney. Do you have a conception regarding how items are dated via their approximation to other fossilized items, other states, similar readings, etc.? Are you unaware that other methods rely on the same uniform assumptions as C14 dating?

 

[Ouroboros]

1) The planet was shaken catastrophically during the Flood.

I'm trying to find where it says Earth was shaken. I just woke up so I'm probably just not clear enough to read well enough, but I don't remember that there was anything about earth shaking in the story when I've read it in the past, and I can't really find it. So can you please point out which verse it's in?

2) Only some of the waters came down via rain over 40 days.

The deep wells of water underground?

3) Most creation scientists believe there was a post-Flood ice age as just one of many geology-altering events that followed in the wake of the Flood. In fact, there would have been centuries of upheavals, drastic changes, and likely, extreme volcanism.

uhm... how many volcanoes and how big where they and how big was this ice age and for how long did it last? Was that ice age worldwide as well? And were there more volcanos suddenly active than there's today? How many?

 

[outhouse]

. I didn't assert the Flood took place 7,000 years ago--

That is right, because a flood would have to have actually happened for you to provide a date

 

[outhouse]

you will not understand that there is evidence.

There factually is NO EVIDENCE for a mythical flood.

 

[outhouse]

but interpreted incorrectly.

You do not have the education in this area to attack science with such vitrol