Jump to content

Tristen

Advanced Member
  • Content count

    442
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

505 Excellent

2 Followers

About Tristen

Recent Profile Visitors

1,190 profile views
  1. God's Word

    God's motivation is to save you, not condemn you. Given this, and other questions, you seem to be looking for an excuse to disqualify yourself. So my "advice" - stop it. Read the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) and note the Father's response (verse 20). Your heavenly Father loves you. No matter who you are or what you have done, if you turn your face back to Him, He will run to you.
  2. How can a person be TRULY saved in this situation

    "Be patient. You'll know in 10 seconds"
  3. Tattoo or tattoos what's your thoughts

    Christians are not under law - so the decision is between God and the individual's conscience (assuming the subject of the desired tattoo is Christian appropriate). I appreciate the artwork involved in tattoos, but I personally prefer skin undecorated (i.e. the way God designed it).
  4. Struggling Christian

    The God of the universe loves you and desires personal fellowship with you. He permitted the sacrifice of His perfect Son, just so He would have the opportunity to spend forever with you. He has a unique purpose and destiny prepared specifically for your life. If you have nothing else, you have God - which means you have everything. You are a beloved child of the Most High God. His gaze is ever on you and He smiles when He thinks of you. As we mature, we must learn to encourage ourself. We are expected to learn how to take control of our thoughts and bring them into submission to God's truth (2 Cor 10:5). Your value is in the name of Him who made you. And no matter how you feel right now, you are and ever will be, the apple of His eye. That is His truth for you. Psalm 42:5-11 5 Why are you cast down, O my soul? And why are you disquieted within me? Hope in God, for I shall yet praise Him For the help of His countenance. 6 O my God, my soul is cast down within me; Therefore I will remember You from the land of the Jordan, And from the heights of Hermon, From the Hill Mizar. 7 Deep calls unto deep at the noise of Your waterfalls; All Your waves and billows have gone over me. 8 The Lord will command His lovingkindness in the daytime, And in the night His song shall be with me— A prayer to the God of my life. 9 I will say to God my Rock, “Why have You forgotten me? Why do I go mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?” 10 As with a breaking of my bones, My enemies reproach me, While they say to me all day long, “Where is your God?” 11 Why are you cast down, O my soul? And why are you disquieted within me? Hope in God; For I shall yet praise Him, The help of my countenance and my God. Psalm 43 43 Vindicate me, O God, And plead my cause against an ungodly nation; Oh, deliver me from the deceitful and unjust man! 2 For You are the God of my strength; Why do You cast me off? Why do I go mourning because of the oppression of the enemy? 3 Oh, send out Your light and Your truth! Let them lead me; Let them bring me to Your holy hill And to Your tabernacle. 4 Then I will go to the altar of God, To God my exceeding joy; And on the harp I will praise You, O God, my God. 5 Why are you cast down, O my soul? And why are you disquieted within me? Hope in God; For I shall yet praise Him, The help of my countenance and my God. Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. 1 John 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. Matthew 11:28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. John 10:10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. Romans 8:38-39 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. If you have found Christ, you win the game of life - no matter what else happens.
  5. Is it the pastor's idea? 1 Timothy 5:17-18 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”
  6. A Christian is someone who has sincerely surrendered ownership of their life to Christ as a faith response to His Gospel. As the process of sanctification proceeds, the sincerity of our surrender (i.e. our faith response) will be evident in the good works God has prepared for us as part of our destiny. Ephesians 2:8-10 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Those good works are manifestations of the influence of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the believer. Galatians 5:22-23 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law The absence of change away from sin and towards righteousness casts a question over the sincerity of one's faith confession of surrender - i.e. whether Jesus is really one's Lord.
  7. Days of Creation - Must they be Consecutive?

    Hey One, I understand your point, but I think when you ask if it is within the realm of logical "possibility" to read an idea into a communication from God for which there is no textual basis, you set a very low (and potentially dangerous) standard for Biblical interpretation. In my opinion, when you start down that path you should experience flashing red lights, the ringing of alarm bells, and the tingling of spidey senses (in a spiritual sense, of course). To close down that "possibility" would require an unreasonable degree of redundancy. The Bible would be huge. I.e. God would have had to summarised His account in Genesis 1 with the caveat, "By the way, when I say day, I mean day in the ordinary, everyday, 24 hour sense of the word. And when I number the days, I mean that the start of the subsequent day immediately follows the end of the previously numbered day. And when I say I created something on a particular day, I mean that I created literal, physical entities which did not exist before the day I created them (and I am still using day in the ordinary, everyday, 24 hour sense of the word - so don't even go there)." (Somewhere in Genesis 1) Such caveats are completely unnecessary for, and intrinsically obvious to, everyone reading the account without an agenda to fit ancillary ideas into the narrative.
  8. Days of Creation - Must they be Consecutive?

    The text explicitly defines each day as consisting of day and night, evening and morning. Then it numbers the days in "consecutive" order. As with any communication, it is "possible" to read ideas into the message that don't actually exist in the text itself - if one is so motivated. I find that approach sets a very dangerous precedent for interpreting scripture (technically called eisegesis). I don't see any objective reason to submit the authority of scripture to the highly assumptive process of "radiometric dating". The actual facts don't "suggest" anything about the age of the earth until interpreted to do so.
  9. Iridium and the K-T Boundary Layer

    I think you are confusing issues. I haven't made the distinction you are claiming (i.e. between being skeptical of modern supernatural claims but accepting of past claims). The distinction I have made is between what is stated in God's own communication to humanity, verses a 'God-of-the-gaps' approach - which amounts to unsupported speculation that God might have been involved somehow. You initially asked a question about when, in the Christian paradigm, I am allowed to "invoke" a supernatural explanation. I can only do so with authority when the claim is reflected in scripture. I have personal fellowship (i.e. "experience") with my God - which adds to my own faith, but I am aware this is meaningless beyond my own experience (with regards to generating faith in others). However Moses, for example, had an association with God that was confirmed to millions of witnesses through the Egyptian plagues and curses, the parting of the Red Sea, Clouds and pillars of fire guiding the Jews through the wilderness, and a plethora of other extraordinary supernatural manifestations. Old Testament prophets were under sentence of death if even one of their proclamations were shown to be false. Likewise Jesus and the Apostles performed great public miracles. So God confirmed the authority of His Word to the initial audience through signs and wonders. It wasn't just someone like me claiming to have had a personal experience. But to the point, if one accepts the premise of the Biblical reality, with regards to supernatural claims there is a distinction between what is explicitly claimed in the Bible, and someone trying to answer a question about nature by suggesting maybe God supernaturally intervened. There is no weight of authority in the latter approach. That doesn't make it untrue or irrational, but it remains simple conjecture.
  10. Discontinuity of the flood boundary

    You lost me as well.
  11. Iridium and the K-T Boundary Layer

    Hey Bonky, Not sure exactly what you're asking me to address. The fundamental premise of my belief is that reality incorporates God, as revealed in His Word, the Bible. So if there is a question that I can't answer naturally, I might speculate about whether or not God could have been involved. But I can't state that God was involved (i.e. as a matter of doctrine or dogma) unless the Bible explicitly states God was involved. If the Bible states God's involvement, then the claim is intrinsic to the model. Most of the Biblical texts were penned by people who, was claimed at the time, had direct, physical interactions with God. So they weren't speculating. They were reporting their experience. My confidence in past claims (or supernatural claims) is not scientific. I have a model provided in the Bible, and I can look at the current facts and demonstrate consistency between the facts and the model. But the current facts can only tell me what exists now. They cannot be used to generate any mathematical confidence about either the supernatural, or what actually happened in the past. To fill the logic gaps between the current facts and the past requires faith (regardless of which premise one prefers). To try and claim scientific confidence in past claims, on the basis of current facts, commits the logic fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. The scientific method can't be legitimately applied to that kind of claim (i.e. the past or supernatural).
  12. Iridium and the K-T Boundary Layer

    “Earlier you seemed to imply that we have tested for these affects here on earth and around earth but that we haven't tested decay rate constants in other galaxies or elsewhere in the Universe.” I think I was referring to assumptions about what may have affected the path of light before it was detected here on earth. But I would agree that we have not “tested decay rate constants in other galaxies”, since we have not been to “other galaxies or elsewhere in the Universe” to perform those experiments. The only facts we have access to have been tested on and around earth. “So now you are questioning that heating something up with cause the isotopes to decay differently? We can test for that.” Yes. Anomalous ‘dates’ are often attributed to a reheating of the rock – which voids the assumption of knowing the original conditions. Note the “partial melting” option mentioned in my first isochron example. When we talk about the ‘original’ isotope levels, that means the isotope levels at the point of cooling (e.g. when the magma turned into rock). Reheating introduces the possibility of new isotopes being added to the mix (as well as some escaping) – i.e. contamination subsequent to the original formation of the rock. “Not in another galaxy but within our solar system certainly” We haven’t tested the decay rates over the prescribed periods for either earth or space rocks. We have simply analyzed the samples for their current isotopes, and placed those figures in a formula that accepts all the secular assumptions about decay rates, then accepted the ‘dates’ which conform to secular thinking as correct. Same process for both space and earth rocks. “Out of curiosity, if various dating methods kept pointing to 6000 - 6500 years would this not be hoisted as solid evidence that the solar system is young? I mean I know it would be amongst creationist circles in general but would you personally tout that as significant evidence?” It’s hard to say. Before I considered creationism, I accepted the propaganda about radiometric dating uncritically. Perhaps if it agreed with me, I would have continued to accept it uncritically. But that would have been my error. Nowadays, I would be compelled to acknowledge the uniformitarian assumptions required for confidence in such conclusions. “You mentioned that archaeology supports biblical claims, did you investigate them to find out if they used radio metric dating so that you could discard the "evidence"? Another words I'm making sure you're not just accepting the science when it's convenient.” When dealing with issues within the time frame of recorded history, we don’t need to rely on “radio metric dating” methods. Carbon dating is utilized as ancillary evidence to the facts in record. But my position doesn’t need it. “You seem to be engaging in equivocation here. If you want to use the word "faith" to just mean "what you believe when you don't have 100% certainty" that's one thing.” The word “faith” can have several connotations, depending on the context. The phrase ‘a faith’ could refer to a belief system. When the Bible speaks of ‘faith’ for miracles, it is referring to certainty (i.e. the absolute lack of doubt). But faith can also refer to any confidence beyond what can be justified by the facts. That is the main way I am using the term. “The "faith" that religion engages in is a different animal and I can prove it to you. The scientific community gets knocked because they change their story based on new data. Why rely on science when you can't trust it right? That argument proves that the scientific community is WILLING to change it's view based on new evidence.” I think firstly, you have misunderstood the context of the argument. The secular default is that “science” should be trusted over faith. But science is not designed to be trusted at all. Science encourages skeptical, critical reasoning. Too many people hear a claim about what scientists think, and wobble their heads in ignorance exclaiming ‘Wow, Isn’t that amazing?’. But that trusting approach is the opposite of scientific reasoning. Note that this is not a criticism of science – it is this intensely skeptical approach which contributes to the logical robustness of the scientific method. But implying that science should be uncritically trusted misrepresents the role of science in investigation. Faith makes logical provision for certainty. Science does not. And that is exemplified by the fact that science has to change its story to accommodate new facts. I would secondly ask you how “WILLING” you think “the scientific community” would be to “change it’s views” on the secular, naturalistic story - in the light of contrary or “new evidence”. Because that is the actual contention we are debating (i.e. not the fact vs faith argument as you are trying to frame it. It’s a faith vs faith argument – naturalism vs Biblical theism). I have several times raised the discovery here of fossilized pollen found in Precambrian rock (in the 1960s) – i.e. 1.3 billion years out-of-place. No one ever came close to questioning either the evolution story or radiometric dating. It was simply left as an “intriguing geological mystery” – and the world moved on. And there are other examples; like soft tissue and intact DNA found in dinosaur fossils; supposedly more-than 60 million years old (some more than 200 million years old). There is no plausible way for such complex molecules to survive for that long – even in ideal lab conditions. But the secular story is never questioned. It’s left entirely to conjecture. I acknowledge that secularists are prepared to question how the universe progressed, but not that it progressed in a naturalistic way. The Christian appeal to our faith premise is no different. “Tell me now how quickly the church will change it's view based on new evidence.” The supernatural and the past are unfalsifiable. Neither position will ever be logically obligated to change their faith premise based on new facts coming to light. Even seemingly contrary fact can be written off as, ‘we haven’t figured out how these facts fit our model yet’ or “it’s an intriguing geological mystery”. That is the nature of such claims. This applies as readily to both Biblical and naturalistic faith. “Over and over I've seen religious sites proudly and boldly proclaim that they will not look at secular evidence if it contradicts scripture. It will be by default, a priori, dismissed because it goes against the story line.” Have I refused to “look at” any “secular evidence”? Have I “by default, a priori, dismissed” any fact? I can’t speak for “religious sites”, but “the church” is a large grouping to be making generalisations about. I would propose that there are equal numbers of secularists who have not looked at the evidence, but who will readily, “by default, a priori, dismiss” any creationist argument. “I don't doubt at all there are individual scientists who have religious faith, but I don't support that approach at all.” Any scientist who is human brings with them their faith presupposition about reality – through which they will interpret the facts. I agree, it’s not ideal. But it’s hard to do science without humans. But again, this is not exclusive to people of religious faith. It is universal. “It's also irrational to have confidence in something that has the same evidence as something that doesn't exist.” You are assuming that naturalism is the only legitimate default position. I think that explains quite a bit about why you require a different standard of evidence for my position than you do for your own. If naturalism is the logical default, and you can formulate stories to be consistent with naturalism, then why consider any other unverifiable/unfalsifiable story without extraordinary reason to go beyond that default. But I dispute that naturalism is any more valid as the logical default, than Biblical theism. I look to the rational order evident in the universe (i.e. that which makes science logically possible) and the stupendous complexity of life; having arisen on the perfect planet in the perfect solar system, with a protective magnetic field and the right distance from the nearest star to facilitate the existence of liquid water etc. – I see design and order implicit in nature. I would suggest that before Darwin and contemporaries tried explaining the universe without God, that the existence of the supernatural was the default position. Even beliefs without God (like Buddhism) assume a grand design. I’ve also seen studies of children (including children raised explicitly atheist) where all the children (i.e. not yet spoiled by their parents agendas) interpret the world as having purpose and function. I understand this doesn’t verify my faith premise as the default either, but you’ll continue to find it hard to consider my arguments if you can’t think outside of assuming I need a better standard of evidence than you. “When is it a good time to invoke supernatural explanations and when is it not?” From a Christian perspective, I can only be dogmatic about the supernatural when it is explicit in the Bible – i.e. when stated in my model. Those are the static parts of the Christain model. “Invoke” is a fairly general term. The theistic faith paradigm makes logical provision for supernatural explanations. So we can speculate beyond the specifics of the model, but only as speculations. “If you can't distinguish with any confidence what is the use? Even if I concede the supernatural exists, now what? Do you just invoke it when it's handy?” “The use” is in the possibility that the claim may represent the truth. The naturalistic faith paradigm filters that possibility out before it is even considered. The religious faith paradigm permits us to speculate about the supernatural “when it's handy”, but unless explicitly supported by the Bible, it can't be considered a settled position. “I don't demand that there is no supernatural component, but I personally believe that belief in the supernatural can be very dangerous [on top of largely being unwarranted]” “Unwarranted” – meaning you have explanations that suite your current beliefs, so why bother considering the possibility of others? That the problem with assuming yours is the only logical default – you feel free to avoid consideration of positions which are, objectively, at-least logically possible. Secular faiths have also resulted in atrocities (such as eugenics, and the 10s-of-millions of people killed in Soviet gulags or during the establishment of communist China etc.). So your generalization about what is “very dangerous” can be extended to all human beliefs, not just religious ones. But at its core, your argument here is an Appeal to Consequence. Truth is not necessarily an artifact of what agrees with our sensibilities. Objectively, Allah might enjoy seeing infidel’s heads being cut off. I can’t outright reject the possibility because I don’t like it. I have to consider the arguments in their own context. “Even today we have places in Africa and elsewhere where children who have albinism are tortured or killed because they think they are witches etc. Under your worldview they could be viewed as "rational".” I would hear their arguments before determining whether or not their position is rational. I do not consider skin colour to be a rational determinant of witchcraft. I don’t see the logical link between the two. “I completely reject the notion that I have religious faith.” You have confidence in claims which cannot be verified by the available facts. They are not “religious” claims so I wouldn’t call it “religious faith”. But it is faith nevertheless. It’s the same principle of being confident in things which cannot be established by objective consideration of the facts. “I didn't say anything about bias, I used the words "feelings" and "emotions". I concede that bias can be rooted in emotion but that's not necessarily the case. Culture and upbringing can play a large part in bias, how do we combat that? Certainly not by appealing to emotions! Religious faith often employs rituals and rites that invoke human emotion. I'm no stranger to church or Christian practices. When is the last time someone tried to convince you of a scientific claim starting with "Do you know where you're going to go when you die?". Religion definitely tries to tap into the psyche of humanity, not just share cold evidence. So the day that science, or really specifically me since that's who you're addressing, says that secular views are infallible then I would say we're using "faith" the same way.” Have I asked you, “Do you know where you're going to go when you die?”? Have I appealed to your “emotions”? Have I tried to “tap into the psyche of [your] humanity”? The Bible teaches Christians that we should be concerned about the eternal state of people’s souls – so these aren’t really outrageous issues to address. But the scope of such claims is different to the scope of science – which is only designed to investigate current, natural phenomena. Encouraging one consider the state of their soul is perfectly legitimate and reasonable in the Christian context. But it is an appeal to faith, not science. “So you want to invoke the supernatural when it's handy. Got it.” Has it really taken you this long to figure out that I am only defending the Biblical account of reality? “If you can't distinguish your supernatural claim against someone elses, you are NOT on equal footing with two people discussing the natural world. You know darn well with the natural world I can't just blow smoke up people's dresses.” I’m not sure this makes any sense. I don’t recall debating supernatural claims with someone else (at least not here). You generalized about all supernatural claims, and I clarified that I’m only prepared to defend Biblical claims. Was that unreasonable? “People can take my claims and study, verify, test etc etc.” How can I “verify” that all life on earth is related through a common ancestor? How can I “verify” that a Big Bang occurred, followed by a Cosmological inflation event? How can I “verify” that light has traveled an unimpeded path across space over millions or billions of years? How can I “verify” that the assumed isotope ratios were present when the rock first formed, or that the decay rates of the isotopes have remained consistent for millions to billions of years in a closed system? How can I “verify” that the natural universe has progressed independently of any supernatural intervention? What “test” can I perform in the past, or in the supernatural to study such “claims”? What are the appropriate controls allowing me to generate legitimate mathematical confidence in the conclusions? Your statement here is empty bluster.
  13. Iridium and the K-T Boundary Layer

    “I could be mistaken but I believe that's why meteorites are favored over terrestrial samples, the meteorites wouldn't be susceptible to contamination. The dating of many meteorites are showing age calculations of 4.4 to 4.6 billion years. I'm not saying there are no assumptions here but I think it strengthens the argument for ancient ages. ” This is highly problematic. To assume you can use meteorites to 'date' the earth, you have to make the massive assumption that they formed around the same time; i.e. the unverifiable/unfalsifiable secular story called the Nebular Hypothesis. Even if the dating methods could be considered reliable, you are dating meteorites, not the earth. How can anyone know the “meteorites wouldn't be susceptible to contamination”? What kind of forces and energy would they encounter on their journey through space; i.e. with the potential to compromise their isotope integrity? They would be subject to massive gravitational forces and have been constantly bombarded with solar radiation. Presumably the meteorites themselves are fragments of some catastrophic event in space occurring after the rock had formed. And where are you finding these meteorites? Because if you find them on earth, then they have been subject to the exact same forces as earth rocks – not to mention having been superheated as they traversed our atmosphere as well as the effect of the impact with the ground. Presuming to 'date' the earth by meteorites does not mitigate the complexity of the assumption set, but rather adds significant complexity to it. “My point here is more about the idea that if you have facts that can support your model then you're a rational person with a case or argument that is on par with everyone else. Clearly, just being able to connect a model to given facts doesn't mean your argument is solid.” When it comes to claims of the ancient unobserved past, all any argument has is “just being able to connect a model to given facts” - and are therefore equally valid in terms of rational consideration. If you think your position is rationally superior, then it is your responsibility to present an argument quantifying that superiority mathematically, rather than relying upon empty rhetoric. Operational science accomplishes this through experimentation; statistically comparing the treatments against appropriate controls. But we can't logically apply that method to claims about the past. “No I think it's possible, what is problematic for your argument is that isotopes don't all decay in the same way. So you're banking on something influencing the decay rates across the board.” For 'dating' purposes, radiometric decay is only measured through either alpha or beta decay (the paper you provided investigated observed fluctuations in the alpha decay using Plutonium). So I'm not really “banking” on all that much. Your position is “banking” entirely on the truth of the naturalistic, uniformitarian philosophy. Which I have no problem with in the sense of logic (obviously I hold to a different paradigm), except that you then imply the rational superiority of your position which is fundamentally premised on these faith assumptions. “Is it an assumption that supernovae produce radioactive isotopes?" Yes, absolutely. "It seems odd to me that an attempt to cross check things results in what appears to be borderline mockery. You want absolute undeniable proof I guess, if you are looking for that then yeah I'm going to fall short.” There is no such thing as “absolute undeniable proof”. What you have attempted here is an emotive Strawman strategy. I'm pointing out the logical weaknesses undermining the legitimacy of your claimed levels of confidence, and you try and turn it around to imply I'm being unreasonable. You have made claims, and I presume the right to subject those claims to scrutiny – otherwise why are we having this conversation? The initial point of this thread is to address how we interpret energy detected on earth to infer the history of that energy. Even though my presented models have no intrinsic problem with much of the interpretation, I have to acknowledge that the only facts we have are the current detections of energy. Assuming the history of that energy requires applying assumptions of stupendous orders of magnitude; given the available facts. Now the conversation has turned to radiometric dating – which suffers the same 'magnitude of assumption' problem. And you are proposing that I look at one to justify the other? I didn't mock, but I thought it necessary to highlight the irony of what you were proposing. “Ok, show me a couple documented examples where you have of a date estimate being wrong and where "contamination" [or whatever] was used as a scapegoat. ” Ok, good. If you don't mind I'll jump straight to isochron examples. Generally, when I start with more traditional methods, the conversation eventually gets to the 'what about isochrons?' question – so figured I'd skip to the chase. The mathematics of the isochron method is a bit more complex – which seemingly allows people to be more easily duped into believing it saves radiometric dating from the peril of assumptions. One of the main problems with isochron dating is that there is no experimental way to distinguish an isochron from a mixing line (a line that looks exactly the same as an isochron, but is derived from a contaminated source). There is a good paper covering the problem here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0168962289900432 ). Note the date of this paper (1989). This has been a known issue for decades. As with all radiometric dating, whether or not the isochron 'ages' are accepted is determined by their conformity to evolutionary expectation. The Examples; Example 1 – (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00539537) Lava which is less than 1.6 million years old (according to secular assuptions) was isochron dated (Rb/St) to be 773 million years old. “Such relationships could have been produced either by a mixing process or by partial melting, without isotopic homogenization, of an old parent. The opposite kinds of correlations, for example an inverse relationship between Sr87/Sr86 and gb/Sr ratios, can be explained by mixing of appropriate materials, but not in any simple way by melting of an old parent.” They also noted that “There are several possible mechanisms by which crustal radiogenic strontium could have been introduced into the parent melts of these rocks.” - i.e. undermining both the assumptions of knowing the original condition and the assumption of a closed system. Example 2 - (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X71902044) Lava rock considered to be less tan 3,000 years old was isochron 'dated' (Rb/St) to 570 million years (in an overall study in which supposedly 5 million year old rock was also dated as old as 870 million years). “the other basalt (69-28) erupted from the rift zone along the eastern margin of the Craters of the Moon lava field less than 2080 years ago. … The Rb-Sr data are plotted in a conventional isochron diagram (fig. 5), in which the Craters of the Moon basalts define a pseudo-isochron with an apparent age of 570 my and initial 87Sr/86Sr ratio of 0.706. We interpret the pseudo-isochron as a mixing line for magmatic and crustal Sr.” “When the King Hill data are plotted on an isochron diagram (fig. 5) four of the six samples define a pseudo-isochron with an apparent age of 870 my and an initial 87Sr/86Sr ratio of 0.709. We interpret this apparent isochron as a contamination mixing line.” Example 3 - (http://www.ajsonline.org/content/275/4/461.extract) Ok, so I know you only asked for a “couple” of examples, but I thought I'd include this one because I found it a bit funny. They attained a negative isochron for some of their samples – meaning that they 'dated' the origin of their samples into the future. “Negative slopes for supposedly comagnetic rocks are more difficult to understand, though they also may result from the mixing of magmas with different characteristics.” I once found a data set reporting a carbon date for bark fragments 3,000 years into the future. I downloaded it, but they've since taken it down from their website. Even though 'bad dates' are rarely reported, there is still plenty of information available – which should serve to dispel the myth of overwhelming consistency and agreement among radiometric 'dates' – that is, for anyone who cares to look beyond the propaganda. “Last I checked archaeologists used carbon dating to check the dates of organic findings.” Have I used “carbon dating” to support any of my claims? If not, I'm not sure how this relates to anything I've said. I'm only prepared to be accountable for arguments I've presented. “The fact that you have "full confidence" in something that is heavily rooted in the supernatural but yet you want empirical absolute confidence on secular claims.” This again? Apart from faith, there is no such thing as “absolute confidence”; “empirical” or otherwise. Faith makes logical provision for certainty. Science does not. Even confidence in facts relies on faith in the trustworthiness of observation. All I “want” is for the levels of confidence expressed in secular claims to reflect what can actually be justified by logic; given the available facts. Because my position can't even begin to be fairly considered while you think yours is the only position with any intellectual integrity. “What "facts" do you have about the supernatural?” Are you asking me for natural observations of the supernatural – because that would be irrational? You are confusing the faith premise with the argument proper. If you are asking me for “facts” that support the Biblical model more generally (i.e. a model that also incorporates the supernatural), that's a different matter. But then I'd employ exactly the same logical process you'd use to support a Big Bang, or common ancestor etc. That is, I'd only have to demonstrate consistency between the model and the available facts. But we've discussed this before – and you only recognise the process when it supports the secular model, but call it conjecture (or some such) when I use the same process to support my model. You complain that my facts don't lead to a necessary conclusion about the supernatural. But when I ask for the same standard from you, you make some vague claim about the superiority of your position based on 'evidence'. “You are really suggesting that we have the same confidence in the supernatural as we do in the natural world?” Is anyone “really” contesting the existence of the “natural world”? What we are contesting is faith paradigms. My starting faith paradigm is the Biblical model of reality. Your starting faith paradigm is that reality is absent of supernatural involvement (i.e. naturalism/materialism/atheism). You think your faith is superior. I think my faith provides a more consistent explanation of reality. The difference between us is that I understand where the facts end and my faith begins (and therefore make the distinction between fact-based confidence and faith), whereas you appear think the facts exclusively and unequivocally support your position. “Ahhh but feelings don't help us discover truths about the world around us. I realize we all share them but I wouldn't want to use my emotions or feelings to guide my analysis of something, that's exactly what science would have us shy away from and for good reason.” Right, but the moment you add humans to the process, you incorporate their presuppositions, agendas and biases. Somewhat ironically, the existence of confirmation bias in scientific literature is commonly reported in the scientific literature. “I would also like to remind you that there have been many times in the past where "spirits" [and the like] were used as an explanation or root cause of something. I wonder how many times we ended up settling on "spirits" as the solid explanation of something years and years later.” I'm only advocating for the Biblical model. If you have a specific claim against the Biblical model, I'll be happy to address it as best I can. “You can have firm faith in that if you want but I don't see anything that gives me confidence.” Right, and “I don't see anything that gives me confidence” in an historical Big Bang, or Cosmological Inflation, or the Common Ancestry of all life on earth etc. The evidence for each position is all indirect.
  14. Of course the elements in the human body are found on the earth's crust and atmosphere. Where else are they going to come from? That's where we reside and that's where all our primary food is sourced. I appreciate that people are interested in finding empirical support for scripture, but the reasoning behind this particular claim is specious.
  15. So my issue is that I don't understand the objective standard by which you (or your friend) could presume to extract some details as historical, from an overall narrative you consider to be "figurative". This proposed story is not derived from the text of Genesis, but read into the text in an attempt to reconcile Genesis to the secular narrative. I don't see that as necessary. There is no objective reason to distrust the most obvious reading of the Genesis account. God has given us the details. There is no fact or objective argument obligating any distrust of the detailed account given by God in Genesis. No new stories are required.
×