Rodion_Raskolnikov_ Posted March 29, 2015 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 141 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 145 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/05/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/02/1974 Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) I think it is important to note that Evolution was first theorized at a time when a single cell was nothing to us but a gelatinous blob. Not only that, but the notion that the earth is older than what the Bible seems to indicate, did not originate with modern science. It originated some 200 years before modern scientific processes like carbon dating or radiometric dating even existed. The old earth idea more or less originated with philosophy during the Age of Enlightenment back in the 1700s. The old earth idea was first promoted by philosophers and modern scientists operate from the assumption that its true and have been trying to prop up that claim ever since. Science has to push the earth's age back further and further the more we learn about the complexity of a single cell in order to give time for evolution to happen. The age of the earth has less to do with real science and more to do with trying to accommodate an atheistic worldview. In fact, given what we know about the complexity of biological life and indeed the entire biosphere, if Evolution had been first proposed today, it would be laughed into the ground. Hah! You mentioned the "age of enlightenment". I like to call it the "age of willful ignorance". I know you agree. 'Just thought you might find my monkier as amusing as I do; since we're still living in it... Three of my favorite novels: "Les Miserables" (1), "A Tale of Two Cities" (2), and "The Count of Monte Cristo" (3) are all posed in the time directly after the "time of enlightenment". I have also read Voltaire, Robespierre, and (of course) Swift. When you read all these and cross reference them with their historical references (being written by men of the relative time) you find, not only a microcosm, of the day but real broad stroke view of the times as they were then (in the early 19th century). It is very fortunate for us to have the (literal) pen of those men who lived during the days of "enlightenment". The days of Darwin. I also have read Darwin's, "...on the Origin of Species". The philosophy still applies, I find. In that it applies to Providence. To God and His Law. The "reason" of those days have fallen by the way, as it were. God, and His teachings, and His Law is still applicable. The "junk science" of all those, so called, learned men is...well...junk, now. God and His Law is still here, for good reason. What a joke. What an absolute joke that we ever thought we could improve upon God's Law. No matter how many times we try, no matter how many ways we try...I used to love the French Revolution as an example of "Enlightenment". Now, I love it as an example of how God's Law is fact; has always been and always will be. 'Just had to add...I know 'Swift is out of place here. But, he's a definite political influence in the 18th century. So is Voltaire, which I also mentioned. 'Just using it as an example of literature during the "age of enlightenment". Oh crud. Is it really that late? I need to get off of here and think about going to church. Edited March 29, 2015 by Rodion_Raskolnikov_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted March 29, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,136 Content Per Day: 4.63 Reputation: 27,816 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 29, 2015 Blessings Shiloh... Love the article,I really thought it was very well put ,well written even for the simplest of minds but I guess when the heart is hardened & the spirit is unteachable ,there is nothing that can remove the scales from those eyes except the Power of the Holy Spirit,,,,,hmmmm..... To God be the Glory ,perhaps it has increased the knowledge for someone reading,I do hope so and thanks for sharing the link,,,,,,Praise the Lord! With love-in Christ,Kwik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted March 30, 2015 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 30, 2015 I think it is important to note that Evolution was first theorized at a time when a single cell was nothing to us but a gelatinous blob. Not only that, but the notion that the earth is older than what the Bible seems to indicate, did not originate with modern science. It originated some 200 years before modern scientific processes like carbon dating or radiometric dating even existed. The old earth idea more or less originated with philosophy during the Age of Enlightenment back in the 1700s. The old earth idea was first promoted by philosophers and modern scientists operate from the assumption that its true and have been trying to prop up that claim ever since. Science has to push the earth's age back further and further the more we learn about the complexity of a single cell in order to give time for evolution to happen. The age of the earth has less to do with real science and more to do with trying to accommodate an atheistic worldview. In fact, given what we know about the complexity of biological life and indeed the entire biosphere, if Evolution had been first proposed today, it would be laughed into the ground.According to what I'm reading the first published date of the age of the Earth using modern techniques was in 1956. CC Patterson using uranium-lead isotope dating on various samples [including Canyon Diablo meteorite] arrived at the date of 4.55 billion. That date hasn't changed much in over 50 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted March 30, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,136 Content Per Day: 4.63 Reputation: 27,816 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 30, 2015 The same U-Pb dating method is the same technique that Seva Harris used when he did his essay to support the hypothesis of a Young Earth..........this method is what they use to find relative presence of parent isotopes of uranium & their daughter species of lea to determine the age of crystallisation of certain minerals.Two separate decay schemes to determine ages of crystallisation of minerals ranging from about 10 million years, up to and beyond the age of the earth at 4.55 billion years (imo,that is a bit broad-lol) Anyway,if one can supposedly show the determination of a young earth & the other can show a very old earth by using the same technique,well-need I say more?But this thread is about the human body & proof ,regardless of whether the earth is young or old,no matter how long they try to make it seem the evolutionary process took to result in what we humans are....it doesn't work,,,,,,, To God be the Glory,our Wonderful Creator!!!! With love in Christ,Kwik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1x1is1 Posted March 31, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,146 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 732 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/30/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1950 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I think that the Theory of Irreducible Complexity fairly refutes evolution in a rational/logical manner. It turns evolution into a farce. I fully agree. Very simple, case closed. But you know that evolutionist will ague that using the 5 piece mouse trap (irreducible complexity) example. it could have merely existed as a 4 piece non functional mouse trap as a paper weight. Or it could have once been a 6 piece coffee cup that evolved downward losing 1 piece, thus making it a functional 5 piece mouse trap. Go ahead and give them that possibility. But the best way that I ever heard irreducible complexity explained was this..... space, time & matter need all three parts to exist. Take one away and there is nothing. You can't have matter without somewhere to put it (space), so what came first, matter or space, and without time, when did this occur? So you absolutely need all three elements to exist at the exact same time to have anything at all. No time.....when did it happen? No space.....where do you put it? No matter......why do you need space or time? They all had to come about at once...... thus irreducible complexity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Prior to Patterson, there were all kinds of theories about the age of the earth. Patterson was not the first to put forth an age of the earth Going back to 1700s they postulated something like 70 thousand years and then it kept going up from there, particularly as evolution grew in popularity. But the calculations assume a uniform level of Carbon 14 and a lot of other assumptions as well and that has made current dating procedures unreliable. The same methods used to claim that the earth is billions of years old is the same methods that tell us that a 80 year old tree is millions of years old or that newly formed volcanic rock from the 70's is 500,000 years old or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted March 31, 2015 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2015 Prior to Patterson, there were all kinds of theories about the age of the earth. Patterson was not the first to put forth an age of the earth Going back to 1700s they postulated something like 70 thousand years and then it kept going up from there, particularly as evolution grew in popularity. But the calculations assume a uniform level of Carbon 14 and a lot of other assumptions as well and that has made current dating procedures unreliable. The same methods used to claim that the earth is billions of years old is the same methods that tell us that a 80 year old tree is millions of years old or that newly formed volcanic rock from the 70's is 500,000 years old or something like that.Which is why the dating of meteors is handy. Those rocks floating around our solar system aren't being altered by geophysical forces on the Earth. When dating the actual Earth, carbon dating isn't useful at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Dating of meteorites isn't that handy at all. Again, Patterson was working from an assumption about meteorites that he could never hope to substantiate. For example, he would have to assume the original amount of lead, which he could not possibly know, particularly if the meteorite had been on the earth for some time. He would have to assume that the lead in the meteorite is the same as the earth when it was formed and since Patterson wasn't there and since no one was there, that assumption cannot be known as true. So the measurement and the methods and assumptions used in that measurement cannot be trusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted March 31, 2015 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2015 Dating of meteorites isn't that handy at all. Again, Patterson was working from an assumption about meteorites that he could never hope to substantiate. For example, he would have to assume the original amount of lead, which he could not possibly know, particularly if the meteorite had been on the earth for some time. He would have to assume that the lead in the meteorite is the same as the earth when it was formed and since Patterson wasn't there and since no one was there, that assumption cannot be known as true. So the measurement and the methods and assumptions used in that measurement cannot be trusted.If having some assumptions equates to conclusions that can't be trusted, then we really don't know anything about anything. Nothing can be trusted. I'm not sure you want to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I am not working from assumptions. The point is that scientists act as if the age of the earth is scientific fact, and it the locked down and beyond dispute. The truth is that they are operating on faith. They have faith in their assumptions. Yet they act as if they have proven and settled the issue. There is, ironically, a lot of faith that is in play in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts