“Five Biblical reasons I am not a Young Earth Creationist”

[The Barbarian]

Trying to revise scripture into a literal history is impossible, since the text itself says it's not so.   Early Christians cited the impossibility of mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them, as evidence.   You cannot be a Bible believer with the authority of Scripture and be a YE creationist also.

51 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

sorry but you did not even address my point in the post so... your quote of me is moot  

Just pointing out that you  new revision of Genesis is refuted by the text itself.   If you take Genesis as it is, you cannot consistently be a YE creationist.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

Yehren asks:

They were determined by scientists who specialize in dating rocks.   Can you give precise reasons why you think the dates are wrong?

1 hour ago, JustPassingThru said:

Yep sure can, ...back in the 80's a Christian group took some stalactites to be dated to various scientific labs that specialize in dating, ...their results was between 25 million and 150 million years ago,

But you don't have any evidence for this belief?    I think I know why.

1 hour ago, JustPassingThru said:

Our pastor showed the newspaper clipping to us (150 people) one Sunday in Church,

I was hoping for actual data rather then a story about some unavailable news clip.    Depending on the mineral, humidity, temperature, and so on, some can grow very quickly:

https://www.amazon.com/NATIONAL-GEOGRAPHIC-Mega-Crystal-Growing/dp/B01C3DSKTY?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-ffab-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B01C3DSKTY

In other cases, they can take years, centuries, or much, much longer to form.

Stalactites form when water containing dissolved calcium bicarbonate from the limestone rock drips from the ceiling of a cave. As the water comes into contact with the air, some of the calcium bicarbonate precipitates back into limestone to form a tiny ring, which gradually elongates to form a stalactite.

Stalagmites grow upwards from the drips that fall to the floor. They spread outwards more, so they have a wider, flatter shape than stalactites, but they gain mass at roughly the same rate. Limestone stalactites form extremely slowly – usually less than 10cm every thousand years – and radiometric dating has shown that some are over 190,000 years old.

 

Stalactites can also form by a different chemical process when water drips through concrete, and this is much faster. Stalactites under concrete bridges can grow as fast as a centimetre per year.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-long-does-it-take-stalagmites-and-stalactites-to-form/

The concrete stalagtites under the Washington Monument would have to test as very ancient, unless the minerals from which the concrete was made, were produced from atmospheric carbon very recently.    Since the production of concrete is from mining very ancient carbonate rock that was was not atmospheric carbon for thousands or millions of years, I'd be very surprised if it tested recently.

This is one of those things that we can't be sure if creationists are attempting a hoax, or just don't understand the process.   The carbon in most living things is obtained from the atmosphere, which is partially radioactive, from cosmic rays converting Nitrogen to Carbon-14.   But things like clams and snails get much of their carbon from geologic sources,and so generally test as very ancient, by C-14 testing.   No scientist is puzzled by that.   Your minister was hornswoggled, possibly by someone who knew no more then he did about it.

And now you know the rest of the story.

 

 

 

[enoob57]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Trying to revise scripture into a literal history is impossible, since the text itself says it's not so.   Early Christians cited the impossibility of mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them, as evidence.   You cannot be a Bible believer with the authority of Scripture and be a YE creationist also.

Just pointing out that you  new revision of Genesis is refuted by the text itself.   If you take Genesis as it is, you cannot consistently be a YE creationist.

 

 

You still have not addressed the point I made and yet you keep quoting...  Genesis does not stand alone and one must evaluate with the entirety of Scripture as I posted the Exodus reference does not allow anything but literal days as it is in comparative with Gen 1... now don't quote this unless you wish to address this point!

[ARGOSY]

22 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Since scientists accurately dated (using argon/argon methods) the eruption that buried Pompeii, it seems the reasons don't fit reality very well.

Sure, the air pressure and magnetic field have been approximately consistent the last 2000 years. So the dates would be correct. But if you go earlier, there were more barriers to background radiation. And knowing that solar flares can change decay rates even on short half - life isotopes, decay rates would  change even more on long life isotopes when conditions were completely different to now. 

[ARGOSY]

On 10/16/2019 at 7:28 PM, one.opinion said:

You were recently presented with significant evidence to the contrary.

That is a bit vague. Do you think you could elaborate a little?

I didn't feel the evidence was worthy of debate. Sometimes you chat to someone who is open minded and acknowledges a good point, sometimes people are so stubborn a chat becomes an ego filled debate. I don't enjoy that. In the meantime anyone can research  the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian to confirm what I am saying. A few quick searches and an honest person will start to see the problems that the Cambrian Explosion presents to evolutionists. It points to creation. 

[ARGOSY]

4 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

Yep sure can, ...back in the 80's a Christian group took some stalactites to be dated to various scientific labs that specialize in dating, ...their results was between 25 million and 150 million years ago, ...when asked where did they come from, ...their answer, ...get ready, ...from under the Washington Monument in Washington D. C.!

Our pastor showed the newspaper clipping to us (150 people) one Sunday in Church, ...maybe you can search Google and find it if they haven't removed it from public view like they have with so much historical evidence that refutes their modern day agendas.

Lord bless

Haha

There are so many examples of this, you just cannot trust their dates. I would rather go with the Bible than believe  their inconsistencies and errors. 

Edited October 17, 2019 by ARGOSY

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

In the meantime anyone can research  the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian to confirm what I am saying.

I wish they would! Then they would discover that statement like "I'm just saying that all those species appeared in the Cambrian explosion, yet without any sign of fossil ancestry." are completely contradicted by evidence.

5 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

sometimes people are so stubborn a chat becomes an ego filled debate.

Do you mean when some amateurs think they know more paleontology than hundreds of experts in the field and won't admit error?

[ARGOSY]

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Journal of Paleontology

• Volume 61, Issue 3
• May 1987 , pp. 425-438

A pre-trilobite shelly fauna from the White–Inyo region of eastern California and western Nevada

• Philip W. Signor ^(a1), Jeffrey F. Mount ^(a1) and Beth R. Onken ^(a1)
   
• • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022336000028614
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 May 2016

 

Abstract

A low-diversity shelly fauna occurs in the Deep Spring Formation of the White–Inyo Mountains of eastern California and in Esmeralda County, Nevada. Although poorly preserved, specimens can be recovered through acid digestion of the limestone matrix. The fauna is composed of three tubes of uncertain affinities and a hyolith. Nevadatubulus dunfeei n. gen. and sp., a distinctive, randomly curved and annulated tube, is abundant and far outnumbers the remaining three elements: Coleoloides inyoensis n. sp., Sinotubulites cienegensis McMenamin, and the hyolith Salanytheca sp. The original composition of the faunal elements appears to have been calcite or aragonite, but recrystallization has destroyed any ultrastructure. No phosphatic elements occur with the fauna nor have phosphatic fossils been recovered from the underlying Wyman and Reed Formations or the other members of the Deep Spring Formation.

The fauna occurs 1,500 meters below the first trilobite body fossils and may be coeval with faunas from the basal Cambrian Tommotian Stage of the Siberian Platform. Wyattia, the only previously described pre-trilobite shelly fossil from the region, occurs in approximately the same stratigraphic interval but was not recovered in our samples.

You probably think that article had some relevance. All it is saying is that in an area that they normally don't find small Shelly's they found some. The article is not implying that those fossils are ancestral to the trilobite. 

[The Barbarian]

43 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Sure, the air pressure and magnetic field have been approximately consistent the last 2000 years. So the dates would be correct. But if you go earlier, there were more barriers to background radiation. And knowing that solar flares can change decay rates even on short half - life isotopes, decay rates would  change even more on long life isotopes when conditions were completely different to now. 

Show us your data on how air pressure and magnetic fields affect radioactive decay.   We know that there was never a significantly faster decay in the past on Earth for one simple reason; if it had, the increase in ionizing radiation from the decay would have fried all living things on Earth. 

But let's see what you have.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

Trying to revise scripture into a literal history is impossible, since the text itself says it's not so.   Early Christians cited the impossibility of mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them, as evidence.   You cannot be a Bible believer with the authority of Scripture and be a YE creationist also.

Just pointing out that you  new revision of Genesis is refuted by the text itself.   If you take Genesis as it is, you cannot consistently be a YE creationist.

2 hours ago, enoob57 said:

You still have not addressed the point I made and yet you keep quoting...  Genesis does not stand alone and one must evaluate with the entirety of Scripture as I posted the Exodus reference does not allow anything but literal days as it is in comparative with Gen 1... now don't quote this unless you wish to address this point!

Exodus doesn't say the days of Genesis were literal days.   If your argument is that scripture repeating figurative verses from Genesis converts them to literal history, I'd be willing to hear why you think so.  What do you have?   As you have seen, Genesis itself says it's not literal days.