ASSUMPTIONS IN RADIODATING.

[pg4Him]

As I understand it, the Torah is neither the culture of the Jews, the culture of the Romans, or the culture of modern America. It is precisely the culture of the kingdom of heaven from Genesis to Revelation. When we begin to understand how to think like a heavenly Citizen, only then do we understand the culture of the Bible  

[HAZARD]

14 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hi Hazard,

oh no, it's the "Gap Theory". You don't have anything to back your allegation of pre-Adamite life up.

Rev 12:12 is in the future. It is at a time when the stars would have fallen down on earth, already. This was Rev 6.

Ezek. 28:11-18? "You were in Eden, the garden of God;" (verse 13a) sounds like the Garden ! ... just where Adam was in, too.

Isa. 14:12-14? How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! verse 12. There is nothing that indicates pre-Adamite life. This could very well have happened when Adam was there, too - maybe this happened when he ate the fruit.

So your first verse couldn't back up your theory, so I assume that the rest of it can't be supported by scripture, either. I don't have the time to go through all of it. Three verses that didn't provide any back up of what you say... is enough. Ok?

But let me discuss your purported "Lucifer's Flood".

There's no evidence to back this other flood up. Let me show that your first three arguments don't back up anything. If your first three arguments don't back up a "Lucifer's Flood", then it's likely to assume the rest of it won't back up anything either.

1. "L.F. Earth made waste (Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23-26; 2 Pet. 3:5-6)." you say. There is nothing in the text of Gen 1:2 that said "made" waste. This is your speculation. It says the earth was waste. Right from the start? Why not.

Jeremiah 4 is about Jerusalem. 2 Pet. 3:5-6 can very well describe Noah's flood.

Same applies to your arguments 2 and 3.

 

So let me conclude: your first arguments were nothing but unsupported allegation, since the Genesis passages didn't support a view that holds that the earth became dark/empty/waste after having been different from dark/empty/waste some time before.

I noted that the brothers and sisters couldn't refute you here, that's at least how I read the thread. That was sad to read.

Regards,

Thomas

 

 

 

In your personal opinion.

Ezekiel 28:13,  
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 

No earthly king of Tyre was ever in Eden, as was this angel, nor does this Eden refer to Adams Eden although Lucifer was in it also (Gen. 3; 2 Cor. 11:3) The Eden here was a garden in the earth when Lucifer ruled in perfection and sinlessness before he fell 

Edited July 25, 2019 by HAZARD

[Takoda]

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 1:21 AM, KiwiChristian said:

ASSUMPTIONS IN RADIODATING.

Evolutionists rely heavily on radiometric dating to give them the billions of years required for evolution to have any chance of happening. Major radiodating methods are:

i) Uranium – Thorium – Lead dating, based on the decay of Uranium and Thorium into Radium, Helium and Lead.

ii) Rubidium – Strontium dating based on the decay of Rubidium to Strontium.

iii) Potassium – Argon dating based on the decay of Potassium into Argon and Calcium.

These dating methods are only accurate if certain assumptions always apply to every specimen tested, these assumptions being:

i) Each system must be closed from any contamination of the parent or daughter products, from water, chemicals, changing radiation from space or rock pressure.
ii) In the beginning there were no daughter products in the sample, only elements at the top of the radioactive chain were present. For example, all the U238 had no lead 206 in it; and no lead 206 existed anywhere else.

At creation, all things were created with the appearance of age. Radioactive minerals would be partially decayed on the first day. How far decayed? No one knows.

Evolutionists think that Polonium only occurred as a daughter product of Uranium decay, yet Robert Gentry’s studies show that Polonium 218 was in granite when it was created in solid form.

It is impossible to know what was initially in any given sample of radioactive mineral.

iii) The decay rate must have always been the same, and never have changed.

The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered:
a) If the mineral is hit by high energy particles from space (such as cosmic rays, neutrons, etc)
b) If there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation.
c) If physical pressure is applied to the radioactive mineral.
d) If certain chemicals contact it.

iv) If any changes occurred in the past in earth’s atmospheric protecting blanket.

Cosmic rays, photons, high energy mesons, etc. enter our atmosphere continually, some travelling up to 100 metres underground and 1400 metres underwater. If our atmosphere was more heavily water saturated than today, it would produce a major change in radioactive minerals decay rates. Before the Flood, there was much more water in the air.

v) The Van Allen radiation belt encircling the earth about 450 miles above us is intensely radioactive. It emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as cosmic rays entering the earth.

Any change in the Van Allen belt would greatly affect the decay rate of radioactive minerals. But we know little about this belt or whether it has changed in the past, since it was only discovered in 1959.

vi) John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past. This would invalidate all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods. (A.F. Kovarik, Bulletin 80, National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107).

Why we cannot trust Uranium – Thorium – Lead Dating Methods.

3 types of U/Th dating are:

a) Uranium 238 decays to Lead 206, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years.
b) Uranium 235 decays to Lead 207, with a half-life of 0.7 billion years.
c) Thorium 232 decays to Lead 208, with a half-life of 14.1 billion years.

1) Contamination: Lead could be mixed in with the Uranium or Thorium.(Faul, Nuclear Geology,1954)
2) Leaching: Some of the Uranium and its daughter products could have leached out.
Lead can be leached out by weak acid solutions.
3) Neutron capture: Lead 207 (thought to have been formed only by decaying Uranium 235), could have been formed from Lead 206 by capturing free neutrons from neighbouring rocks. Also Lead 208 (thought of as forming only by Thorium 232 decay) could have been formed by capturing free neutrons from Lead 207. Lead 208 could have formed by capturing free neutrons from Lead 207. Cooke extensively checked this, and discovered that almost all radiogenic lead in the earth’s crust could have been produced by neutron capture instead of by Uranium or Thorium decay.

This alone totally invalidates Uranium and Thorium dating methods.

4) Intense heat damages radiodating clock settings.

Evolutionists think the earth was originally molten, yet molten rocks produce wild variations in radioactive materials clock settings.
Question: “Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?” (Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age, Glen R. Morton).

Why we cannot trust Potassium Argon dating:

Radioactive potassium decays into calcium and argon gas.

1) Argon gas has been found to quickly leave the mineral, escaping into other rocks and the atmosphere. (G.W. Wetherill, Science, Sep. 20, 1957, p.545).

2) Potassium can be leached out of rocks.

Rancitelli and Fisher found that 60% of potassium can be leached out of an iron meteorite by distilled water in 4.5 hours. (Planetary Science Abstracts, 1967, p.167).
Heavy rainfall transfers potassium from one location to another.
It is unbelievable – but true – that potassium-argon dating is a key dating method used to date sea floor spreading from ocean bottom basalt lava.

Key: Submerged volcanic rocks, produced by lava flows in 1800-1801 off the coast of Hawaii near Hualalai were dated using potassium-argon dating to range from 160 million years to 2960 million years (Science, Oct.11, 1968; Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968).

Note: Just one major catastrophe – such as a worldwide Flood would have ruined the usefulness of all our radiodating methods because of:

i) Massive contamination problems as water, chemicals and radioactive substances moved from one place to another.
ii) Major Radioactive rate changing activities (such as atmospheric, magnetic and radioactivity changes) would have reset the radiodating clocks.
iii) Redistributing of rock pressure above radiogenic rocks would have reset their clocks.
iv) Reversals of the earth’s magnetic core was caused by shock waves from surface events such as earthquakes, volcanoes, giant geysers, seafloor shrinking, and massive mountain building.

Note: H.C. Dudley, in laboratory tests, changed the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes by varying the pressure, temperature, magnetic field strength, stress, etc. (H.C. Dudley, “Radioactivity Re-examined”, Chemical and Engineering News, April 7, 1975, p2).

All these forces operated during and after the Flood. They would have dramatically affected rocks radioactive clocks, thus invalidating all radiometric dating methods used today.

I am reasonably certain that you did not put all this together yourself. It appears to be lifted entirely or at least in part from a creationist web site. When you do something like this the honest thing to do is cite your source so that everyone knows where you are coming from. I have neither the time nor the energy to deal with all this point by point. I will point out that many of the sources are quite outdated with a few dating back to the very early days of nuclear research. I will tackle one issue --- your post mentions Robert Gentry and his research on polonium halos. This has long been refuted.

I cite the following article in Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

 

Summary/Conclusions

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately, because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of polonium decay.

Footnote: Omphalos means navel, and is the title of a book by Phillip Grosse. He argued that God created Adam and Eve with navels even though they had not developed in a womb.

In 1981, Gentry was a defense witness in the McLean v. Arkansas case over the constitutional validity of Act 590 that mandated that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution.^[4] Act 590 was ruled to be unconstitutional (a verdict that was upheld by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard).

In his testimony during that case he admitted under oath that he had lied about some of his research.

[thomas t]

13 hours ago, HAZARD said:

[...] nor does this Eden refer to Adams Eden [...] The Eden here was a garden in the earth when Lucifer ruled in perfection and sinlessness before he fell 

Hi Hazard,

your entire quote as cited above is presumption I think.

Regards,

Thomas

@Tzephanyahu thank you for pointing out that assuming "hidden messages" in the Bible leads to nowhere.

Edited July 25, 2019 by thomas t
last line. Fits in nicely, I think.

[HAZARD]

13 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hi Hazard,

your entire quote as cited above is presumption I think.

Regards,

Thomas

@Tzephanyahu thank you for pointing out that assuming "hidden messages" in the Bible leads to nowhere.

"You think?" . . . . What you or I think doesn't matter, what's actually written in Scripture does.

Edited July 25, 2019 by HAZARD

[HAZARD]

 

 Here is Scriptural proof that there were two great floods on this Earth. Lucifers flood I will head "L.F and Noahs flood N.F. If you do nothing at all but read these Scriptures your eyes will be opened!

Praise His name for ever more.

And Noahs flood which I will post as . 'N.F.'

L.F. Earth made waste (Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23-26; 2 Pet. 3:5-6). " 

N.F. Earth not made waste (Gen. 8:11-12, 22 ; Heb. 11:7 ; 1 Pet. 3:20).

L.F. Earth made empty (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23).
N.F. Earth not made empty (Gen. 6:18-22 ; 8:16).

L.F. Earth made totally dark (Gen. 1:2-5 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Not made totally dark (Gen. 8:6-22)

L.F. No light from heaven (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Light from heaven (Gen. 8:6-22).

L.F. No day and night (Gen. 1:2-5).
N.F. Day and night (Gen. 8:1-22).

L.F. All vegetation destroyed Gen. 1:2 ; 2:5-6 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Vegetation not destroyed (Gen. 8:11, 21 ; 9:3, 20).

L.F. No continued abating of the waters off the earth (Gen. 1:6-12).
N.F. Continued abating of the waters from the earth by evaporation (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. Waters taken off the earth in one day (Gen. 1:10).
N.F. Months of waters abating off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. God supernaturally takes waters off the earth (Gen. 1:6-12).
N.F. Natural work of evaporation of the waters off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. No rebuke or miraculous work in fled away (Gen. 1:6-12 ; Ps. 104:7).
N.F. No rebuke or miraculous work is taking waters off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. The waters on earth in Gen. 1:2, hasted away when rebuked (Gen. 1:6-2 ; Ps. 104:9).
N.F. The bounds already eternally set for waters in Gen. 8:1-14).

L.F. All fish were totally destroyed in flood of Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. No fish were destroyed of created again after Noah's flood (Gen. 1:20-23 ; 6:18-22).

L.F. No Fowls left on the earth after (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26).
N.F. Fowls were left after Noah's flood (Gen. 6:20 ; 8:7-17).

L.F. No animals left after (Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. Some of all animals kept alive (Gen. 6:20 ; 8:17 ; 9:2-4, 10-16).

L.F. No man left on earth in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. Eight men and women left after Noah's flood (Gen. 6:18 ; 8:15-22 ; 9:1-16 ; 1 Pet. 3:20).

L.F. No social system left at all in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. A social system left after Noah's flood (Gen. 8:15-22 ; 9:1-16 ; 1 Pet. 3:20).

L.F. No ark made to save men in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).
N.F. An ark made to save men and animals alive (Gen. 6:8-8 : 22 ; 9:1-16 ; Heb. 11:7).

L.F. Cause: fall of Lucifer, now Satan (Isa. 14:12-14; Jer. 4:23-26; Ezek. 28:11-17 ; Luke 10:18).
N.F. Cause: wickedness of men (Gen. 6:5-13) ; and fallen angels (Gen. 6:1-4; Jude 6-7 ; 2 Pet. 2:4).

L.F. Result: became necessary to make new life on earth (Gen. 1:3-2 : 25 ; Isa. 45:18 ; Eph. 3:11).

N.F. Results: no new creation made, for all men and animals were not destroyed (Gen. 6:18-8 : 22 ; 9:1-16).

[thomas t]

5 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Here is Scriptural proof

Hazard please, there is no scriptural proof.

You have already written your "scriptural proof" in this post here, I see no reason to reiterate yourself, I answered it here. Please lets avoid going round in circles for reasons of time, thank you.

Thomas

[thomas t]

Hi Still Alive,

now I'd like to answer your links you brought up. The first link describes the earth as outlined in Genesis. The earth with a firmament in the sky. However, it came down during the flood. The whole earth was destroyed by the flood see 2 Peter 3:5-6. Hence, not all elements of the old earth are still there.

On 7/23/2019 at 6:19 PM, Still Alive said:

And this gets into the weeds: http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/Conundrum of Large Numbers in Numbers.pdf

There is no conundrum about numbers in the Bible. It's simple: when Bible says 1000 it means thousand. When Bible says 10, it is ten and so forth.

Actually, Michael Heiser doubts that an almighty God would have been poweful enough to feed 2 m Israelites in the desert. Michael Heiser doubting. Let us be faithful, please. I hope that you don't present Michael Heiser in your Sunday school? Let people be edified in their faith. In my opinion, it's better to teach Bible instead of Michael Heiser.

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1. Timothy 4:16

Regards,

Thomas

 

[Still Alive]

5 hours ago, thomas t said:

Actually, Michael Heiser doubts that an almighty God would have been poweful enough to feed 2 m Israelites in the desert. Michael Heiser doubting. Let us be faithful, please. I hope that you don't present Michael Heiser in your Sunday school? Let people be edified in their faith. In my opinion, it's better to teach Bible instead of Michael Heiser.

I don't think that is what he is saying. He speaks of the manna. He's talking about the period before the manna was offered. i.e. He believes God did feed them. But the point about the numbers not being what they say they are is a sound one. When you look at contemporaneous writings from the time it is a common literary style. Further, if you go to the places where they are said to have "camped out", there is simply not enough room for the numbers people infer from the scripture. 

Yes, God performs miracles. I've experienced many, two of which were miraculous healings. But for many of the events of bible history, it is not "unmentioned" miracles that explain the weird stuff. Rather, it is our 21st century brain incorrect inferences that make it weird.

And speaking of the waters above, have you ever read a book titled "The biblical flood and the ice epoch". I read it back in the late 80's and actually met and discussed the book with its author. It is closest to how I see the flood. And yes, unlike Heiser, I see it as worldwide. When the bible says that "the heavens were opened", it may mean that for the first time in human history, the clouds broke and we could see the stars, sun and moon.

[Still Alive]

5 hours ago, thomas t said:

There is no conundrum about numbers in the Bible. It's simple: when Bible says 1000 it means thousand. When Bible says 10, it is ten and so forth.

I simply disagree with that, and offered the link as one example of an explanation.

Here is more:

http://www.biblestudywithrandy.com/2016/06/large-numbers-old-testament/

And more:

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/40/40-3/40-3-pp377-387_JETS.pdf

 

And this "ramifications" paragraph from the last link gets to the core of the issue and also touches on why having a fully "literalist" perspective on the bible can get one in trouble (hence my rooster sig):

"One must wonder what implications the results of this study could have
on OT scholarship, particularly in the area of conquest models. As has been
noted earlier, the large numbers have often been a stumbling block for accepting the Biblical accounts as legitimate records of history. If the numbers
are simply reflective of a rhetorical device common in ancient Near Eastern
literature, however, one may no longer question the integrity of the record
by use of this argument. The large numbers are often simply figures of speech
employed to magnify King Yahweh, King David, or others in a theologically based historiographical narrative."