Jump to content
IGNORED

6 days Creation


Zoltan777

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  14
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  364
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/02/2017
  • Status:  Offline

25 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

The fluctuation in atmospheric carbon-14 explains why an equilibrium has not been reached. It does not nullify the validity of the technique. Carbon-14 dating on old tree samples is consistent with the tree-dating technique of counting growth rings. Yes, the fluctuation can affect dating, but the effect has been in the trend of making samples appear younger than they really are, not older.

I should probably add that the theory of evolution is in no way dependent on carbon-14 dating. Other isotopes are used for fossil dating. It erroneous to suggest that problems with carbon-14 dating are problems with the theory of evolution.

So it fluctates to disprove my point but it does not fluctate when you date fossils oh i see , everything is fine then .

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, Amazing Horse said:

So it fluctates to disprove my point but it does not fluctate when you date fossils oh i see , everything is fine then .

I offered an explanation for how carbon-14 fluctuation can affect equilibrium and still be used for accurate dating. It was not a personal attack on your argument.

Note: Carbon-14 is not used for fossil dating, it is used for dating of organic samples. Scientists believe carbon-14 dating is accurate for about 10,000 years, but not reliable much past that. Dating of fossils typically uses 87Rb/86Sr, 147Sm/143Nd, or a couple of different U/Pb radioactivity pairs. These other radioisotopes have much longer half-lives and are much more appropriate for the dating of rock samples.

Again, the theory of evolution is not dependent upon accurate carbon dating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  14
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  364
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/02/2017
  • Status:  Offline

48 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I offered an explanation for how carbon-14 fluctuation can affect equilibrium and still be used for accurate dating. It was not a personal attack on your argument.

Note: Carbon-14 is not used for fossil dating, it is used for dating of organic samples. Scientists believe carbon-14 dating is accurate for about 10,000 years, but not reliable much past that. Dating of fossils typically uses 87Rb/86Sr, 147Sm/143Nd, or a couple of different U/Pb radioactivity pairs. These other radioisotopes have much longer half-lives and are much more appropriate for the dating of rock samples.

Again, the theory of evolution is not dependent upon accurate carbon dating.

What does it depend then ? Maybe could you explain how do we get heavier elements than iron if stars can only fuse elements as far as iron?

Edited by Amazing Horse
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Er, well not exactly. 

Young's Literal Translation
"Stretching out the heavens by Himself, And treading on the heights of the sea,"
(speaking of our Lord God of Creation).

If the earth were billions of years old, then not so very long ago our moon would have brushed the surface of our earth, and all the dinos would have gotten squashed. (at current precession rates that is)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  57
  • Topic Count:  1,546
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  10,320
  • Content Per Day:  1.42
  • Reputation:   12,323
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  04/15/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/05/1951

2 hours ago, Amazing Horse said:

If C14 is not constant then you can't date any fossils with it and it disproves evolution aswell , can't escape it im sorry .

Gee, while i agree with you in principle AH, and am a young Earther myself, I don't think I should let that statement go uncorrected or unclarified.

The c14-c12 decay rate, is not in equilibrium, that much is true, last I knew, I even possess a letter from Dr. Libby himself which mentions this. However, fossils are not dated with the C!4 method anyway, fossils are make of rock, C14 is used for organic materials such as skin, bone, wood, etc. 

Furthermore, the age at which things are dated, does not impact the veracity of evolution. Evolution, if it happened, could have taken longer of shorter amounts of time that any theory supposed. While I go by what I believe the Bible to say, and I believe accurate science will support, there is no proof that God could not have created over a long period of time, not that evolution had to take millions upon millions of years.

All sides of these theories of origins, at some point, depend on taking some things by faith. Most Christians, I think, understand that they accept by faith first, while perhaps, the majority of those who deny special creating, are slow to admit that they also, take things by faith.

The main difference is, some people believe in the pronouncements of an all knowing, all powerful God, while other believe that fallible and weak mankind, is a better source of truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  14
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  364
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/02/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Gee, while i agree with you in principle AH, and am a young Earther myself, I don't think I should let that statement go uncorrected or unclarified.

The c14-c12 decay rate, is not in equilibrium, that much is true, last I knew, I even possess a letter from Dr. Libby himself which mentions this. However, fossils are not dated with the C!4 method anyway, fossils are make of rock, C14 is used for organic materials such as skin, bone, wood, etc. 

Furthermore, the age at which things are dated, does not impact the veracity of evolution. Evolution, if it happened, could have taken longer of shorter amounts of time that any theory supposed. While I go by what I believe the Bible to say, and I believe accurate science will support, there is no proof that God could not have created over a long period of time, not that evolution had to take millions upon millions of years.

All sides of these theories of origins, at some point, depend on taking some things by faith. Most Christians, I think, understand that they accept by faith first, while perhaps, the majority of those who deny special creating, are slow to admit that they also, take things by faith.

The main difference is, some people believe in the pronouncements of an all knowing, all powerful God, while other believe that fallible and weak mankind, is a better source of truth.

Exodus 20:11

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

Numbers 23:11

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

 

Sabbath could not exist without 6 day creation . So if you take bible seriously there is no room for evolution.

Also untill somebody explain how stars fuse heavier elements than iron then you just laught at evolutionists because it's not possible .

Planets can't form themselfes from dust aswell because of pressure .

 

Edited by Amazing Horse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  6
  • Content Per Day:  0.00
  • Reputation:   6
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/26/2017
  • Status:  Offline

If God created everything in 6 days, God is also infinite in his wisdom and power, there are more than a few passages that support that in the bible, why did he need to rest on the 7th day? Now if God needs rest, can one assume He isn't exactly infinite if He needs to replenish His energy or equivalent? Also, as He created Man after this, is it not logical to think that Man was created TO replenish His energy or equivalent? That we are actually being matured for a spiritual battery and God created Hell to collect the negative and Heaven to collect the positive and that what He tells us to do and why the world is the way it is, is merely a manipulation by God to coerce us into becoming either one of the two?

 

I was asked this by somebody, I found it interesting that they came up with such a theory on creation and had to be very careful in the way I answered as it's a very thought out theory, to type the whole dialogue would take a while but this was the gist of it. I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on this and how they would have approached this question, bearing in mind that how you answer these types of challenges can be the difference in pushing someone away or pulling someone towards you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
7 minutes ago, Adifferenttruth said:

If God created everything in 6 days, God is also infinite in his wisdom and power, there are more than a few passages that support that in the bible, why did he need to rest on the 7th day? Now if God needs rest, can one assume He isn't exactly infinite if He needs to replenish His energy or equivalent? Also, as He created Man after this, is it not logical to think that Man was created TO replenish His energy or equivalent? That we are actually being matured for a spiritual battery and God created Hell to collect the negative and Heaven to collect the positive and that what He tells us to do and why the world is the way it is, is merely a manipulation by God to coerce us into becoming either one of the two?

 

I was asked this by somebody, I found it interesting that they came up with such a theory on creation and had to be very careful in the way I answered as it's a very thought out theory, to type the whole dialogue would take a while but this was the gist of it. I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on this and how they would have approached this question, bearing in mind that how you answer these types of challenges can be the difference in pushing someone away or pulling someone towards you.

God is entirely self-sufficient and doesn't stand in need of anything from us.   He doesn't even need us.  We do not fulfill any need in God as God has no needs.

When the Bible says that God "rested"  it is an anthropomorphism.  There is a pattern that God is calling on us to imitate.  We are in need of being refreshed and God speaks to us in terms that we can identify with.   The creation of the world did not tax or exhaust God's power.

We do not give energy or strength to God.   He is the source of our life.  We get energy and life from Him, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  6
  • Content Per Day:  0.00
  • Reputation:   6
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/26/2017
  • Status:  Offline

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

God is entirely self-sufficient and doesn't stand in need of anything from us.   He doesn't even need us.  We do not fulfill any need in God as God has no needs.

The second part I can agree with saying to someone who has shaken faith and is on the line between following Jesus and not however, The first part I would have to argue is rather counter-productive in the sense that, if I was on the fence and that was your opening line, rather than an informative debate and the chance of maybe getting some good scripture and reassurance that what I am thinking is just out of whack, I'm actually going to be receiving a bit of a bible bash and a 'this is how it is you're just wrong' sort of retort.

 

However, you are right in that first part but I would say that would be a little strong to start off with for a shaken faith convert so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
10 minutes ago, Adifferenttruth said:

The second part I can agree with saying to someone who has shaken faith and is on the line between following Jesus and not however, The first part I would have to argue is rather counter-productive in the sense that, if I was on the fence and that was your opening line, rather than an informative debate and the chance of maybe getting some good scripture and reassurance that what I am thinking is just out of whack, I'm actually going to be receiving a bit of a bible bash and a 'this is how it is you're just wrong' sort of retort.

 

However, you are right in that first part but I would say that would be a little strong to start off with for a shaken faith convert so to speak.

The answer is true regardless if you like it or how it is worded.  The first part is not going to damage anyone with a "shaken" faith, or whatever.   Often, I have found that "shaken" faith is just a pretext for people who don't want to believe the Bible and have hardened their heart against it.   There is nothing counter productive about the truth.   What's counter productive is when someone is faced with truth that they don't like and don't want to accept and then blame the person who spoke it.

Asking about whether or not we replenish God's energy isn't the kind of question people ask when their faith is shaken, so I have concerns about what's really behind your question.

Edited by shiloh357
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...