Radiometric Dating and Creation Science

[R. Hartono]

1 hour ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

From the Torah:

and it was evening, and it was morning, one day.

and it was evening, and it was morning, a second day.

And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day.

And it was evening, and it was morning, a fourth day.

And it was evening, and it was morning, a fifth day.

and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.

^

Notice, we have Evening and Morning, where is the Time Period between [Noon/Mid-Day] defined at? 

 

Nowhere between the Span of (Evening, and it was Morning) would I ever believe this was equal to 24 hour days, Maybe 8 hour days, but from Evening and it was Morning seems like a very short Time Period! 

At the first day the sun was not yet created so to define the day as 24 hours is not correct.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

Hi all, apologies for being late to the party.

I’m not really sure about the purpose of the OP. Was it just to provide a list of counter arguments to Young-Earth-Creationism for consideration? Or was it an attempt to engage with Young-Earth-Creationists?

As a YEC myself, there is not much here of rational substance to respond to. Creationists and non-creationists bounce back and forth with arguments and counter arguments. The OP provides a list of links to arguments for one side of the debate. I would happily provide my creationist perspective to any of these issues – but who would I be responding to? It does not seem fair-minded to criticize an argument when the author is not present to defend themselves in the conversation.

The introduction strikes me as intellectually untrustworthy. For example, “vicious attacks” – really??? Does that just mean effective counter arguments? Or have these “young earth creation science theorists” said things so nasty, as to hurt the feelings of “The topic of radiometric dating”? It’s just silly hyperbole.

And supposedly “none of the criticisms of young earth creationists have any scientific merit”. Really – just because the author says so - without any supporting arguments? Is there some ‘knockout punch’ in any of the links that can not be rationally rebutted? We know that is not the case – otherwise that would be the lead and there would be no debate. Where in the scientific literature can I find this mystical standard of “scientific merit” used to invalidate the YEC “criticisms”?

And “Radiometric dating remains a reliable scientific method”. Again – Really??? Did they invent a time machine when I wasn’t looking – so they could go back and verify what actually happened in the past? Or is this just more empty rhetorical bluster designed to coax the reader into confirmation bias before considering the evidence and arguments?

Once again, claims without proof.

[Omegaman 3.0]

9 hours ago, R. Hartono said:

At the first day the sun was not yet created so to define the day as 24 hours is not correct.

Actually, since the the text does not state a time period for those first days, one way or the other, it is also not incorrect. It might be 24 hours, it might not be, it just does not say.

However, on the 4th day, the sun was apparently set in place.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

Whether or not the first three days were 24 hours, it does not indicate. However, it would seem that from day 4 onwards, the sun is synched to one rotation of the earth, on cycle of day and night, which apart from other information, the most natural understanding would be about 24 hours. While it does not say that the first days were 24 hours, it also does not say that they are of different length than subsequent days, so there is no scriptural reason to jump to such a conclusion.

Additionally, if a cycle of day and night were some longer period, let's say for example 1000 years each, one might want to consider what effect that would have on the plant life created the day before! Of course, God could have supernaturally preserved the plants from extreme temperatures and lack of photosynthesis, but it also does not say that. God also could have created the earth in a microsecond. God exists outside to time, and time itself is part of the creation, to timelines may be totally irrelevant. Instead of looking to our brilliant minds to speculate on what the text might mean, why not stick with what the text actually says?

Basically, I am not stuck on six, 24 hours of creation, but I see no scriptural reason to think otherwise either.

I don't want to hijack the thread, so I will end now, but I have posted some thoughts that I think related to these issues here, if anyone is interested:

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/46-on-the-significance-of-the-age-of-the-earth/

[Omegaman 3.0]

Ah, and just to comment on the OP slightly for the fun of it, lol:

When I was an Atheist, I had mail correspondence with Dr. Libby when he was a prof. at UCLA. His letter to me in response to a question I had, left me with the uncomfortable impression, that while he knew his method was flawed, he was sticking to his guns that it was accurate in spite of it's errors. 

That did not sit well with be as a scientifically minded Atheist who was seeking to refute those silly young earth Christians, but it did open my eyes to how often scientists were willing to compromise their principles to protect their own dogmas. I was beginning to understand that as an Atheist, I had my own form of faith, one that believed in the ability of man and his science to explain the unexplainable, and know the unknowable.

Later, I would repent, and submit to God and His word. Thank you Lord for choosing me!

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Once again, claims without proof.

I'm not sure exactly what this means in the context of my response.

I did not make any "claims" in the relevant post. I criticized the quoted introduction in the OP for making hyperbolic, Unsupported Assertions, and for giving me nothing of rational substance to respond to in a fair-minded way (assuming the goal was to invoke a conversation with creationists).

 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Ah, and just to comment on the OP slightly for the fun of it, lol:

When I was an Atheist, I had mail correspondence with Dr. Libby when he was a prof. at UCLA. His letter to me in response to a question I had, left me with the uncomfortable impression, that while he knew his method was flawed, he was sticking to his guns that it was accurate in spite of it's errors. 

That did not sit well with be as a scientifically minded Atheist who was seeking to refute those silly young earth Christians, but it did open my eyes to how often scientists were willing to compromise their principles to protect their own dogmas. I was beginning to understand that as an Atheist, I had my own form of faith, one that believed in the ability of man and his science to explain the unexplainable, and know the unknowable.

Later, I would repent, and submit to God and His word. Thank you Lord for choosing me!

When I was an agnostic, I knew the Earth was older than YEC claimed.  Thank God I've been proven correct.  

[Omegaman 3.0]

29 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

When I was an agnostic, I knew the Earth was older than YEC claimed.  Thank God I've been proven correct.  

Yes, I was an Atheist, and I knew everything too, lol, like the earth was ancient. Then I was an agnostic, and mostly knew that I did not know everything, but I still thought I knew a lot, including a belief in an ancient earth and naturalistic evolution, scientific cosmology, etc. oh, and I might add that I though morality was somewhat subjective also.

I will say though, that I abandoned my certainty of those things, while I was still not a believer. I do not lean toward a youngish earth (and I still don't know how old it is), nor toward intelligent design (as opposed to unexplained, unobserved factors that led to life and existence as we observe them now) because I am a believer.

In my case, I just came to realize my shortcomings, and admit the shortcomings of scientists, because I understood that we are all human, and make mistakes. That opened my mind, but did not make be a believer.

That you think you have been "proven correct" is a very interesting and telling admission. May I suggest to you, that what you accept as proof, is subjective? Your standards of what constitutes proof, are open to debate, unless you are God Himself. As an example, I was at one time convinced (and I still believe it has value) that part of proof was what we now refer to as the scientific method. Then I realized, that you cannot prove the scientific method is correct using the scientific method. 

I got to the point that I realized is that proof is an individual choice or opinion, it amounts to what we have decided is sufficient evidence to command our belief, nothing more. We cannot collect the opinions of people who believe as we do and rationally conclude that they must be right. Truth is not a democracy, consensus is just a matter of counting votes, and voters can be wrong, believe it or not!

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Yes, I was an Atheist, and I knew everything too, lol, like the earth was ancient. Then I was an agnostic, and mostly knew that I did not know everything, but I still thought I knew a lot, including a belief in an ancient earth and naturalistic evolution, scientific cosmology, etc. oh, and I might add that I though morality was somewhat subjective also.

As a Mechanical Engineer where proofs and mathematics are essential, I found the Douay-Rheims Bible unacceptable.  I was trying to reconcile God saving me from a near death experience where I gave up my life accepting immediate death.  With the Bible not supplying the answer I was looking for, and no other religion either, I became an agnostic for 10 to 12 years or so.  It wasn't until I heard another Christian's own near death experience that I became a Christian.  Read my testimony.

47 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I will say though, that I abandoned my certainty of those things, while I was still not a believer. I do not lean toward a youngish earth (and I still don't know how old it ise), nor toward intelligent design (as opposed to unexplained, unobserved factors that led to life and existence as we observe them now) because I am a believer.

I have studied YEC and ID but find both lacking substance.  I am a firm believer in the Gap Theory.

47 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

In my case, I just came to realize my shortcomings, and admit the shortcomings of scientists, because I understood that we are all human, and make mistakes. That opened my mind, but did not make be a believer.

That you think you have been "proven correct" is a very interesting and telling admission. May I suggest to you, that what you accept as proof, is subjective? Your standards of what constitutes proof, are open to debate, unless you are God Himself. As an example, I was at one time convinced (and I still believe it has value) that part of proof was what we now refer to as the scientific method. Then I realized, that you cannot prove the scientific method is correct using the scientific method. 

I got to the point that I realized is that proof is an individual choice or opinion, it amounts to what we have decided is sufficient evidence to command our belief, nothing more. We cannot collect the opinions of people who believe as we do and rationally conclude that they must be right. Truth is not a democracy, consensus is just a matter of counting votes, and voters can be wrong, believe it or not!

I see and understand the truth as written by others, and discern when I'm being deceived by those saying they're speaking truth who are not.  If they want to remain ignorant of God's truth as literally written in the Bible, maybe I shouldn't care.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[Omegaman 3.0]

2 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

If they want to remain ignorant of God's truth as literally written in the Bible, maybe I shouldn't care.

I did not respond to the rest of your comment above, as it is all fine, but I think that I would remark on what I quoted above. Two things,

1. I know what YOU mean about literally written in the Bible, but what you are defending is hardly taking the Bible literally. That is however an aside, and not the reason I responded. My main response is:

2. Of course you should care. Truth, real truth is as important as anything can be. You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free. Now there I doubt that the truth setting us free means knowing that 2+2=4, knowing whether the earth is flat of spherical, knowing who "really killed JFK" or other things that do not relate to our spiritual condition. If I might add mere opinion to that phrase, I would suggest that the freedom we will receive, is the freedom from bondage to sin, and that the knowing the truth is not about knowing facts, but about knowing in the sense of intimate relationship, and the relationship here, is with the truth. Again, my opinion, but I think Jesus told us what that truth is:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Knowing Jesus, is knowing the truth. So why should you care about people's ignorance or not? "God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son"

If God loved the world by giving His Son to die for us, and if we are to be imitators of Him, and His disciples as well, then shouldn't we tell them (everyone) what the Bible says, and not leave them in ignorance. Would that be the loving things to do? Are we not called, as disciples, to love even our enemies? So yes, indeed you should care.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I did not respond to the rest of your comment above, as it is all fine, but I think that I would remark on what I quoted above. Two things,

1. I know what YOU mean about literally written in the Bible, but what you are defending is hardly taking the Bible literally.

There is obviously a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 where the Bible indicates a judgement has been placed upon creation by God.  This judgement is explained in passages throughout the Old Testament.  I am not willing to strike those passages out of the Biblical text just to please others.

1 minute ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

That is however an aside, and not the reason I responded. My main response is:

2. Of course you should care. Truth, real truth is as important as anything can be. You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free. Now there I doubt that the truth setting us free means knowing that 2+2=4, knowing whether the earth is flat of spherical, knowing who "really killed JFK" or other things that do not relate to our spiritual condition. If I might add mere opinion to that phrase, I would suggest that the freedom we will receive, is the freedom from bondage to sin, and that the knowing the truth is not about knowing facts, but about knowing in the sense of intimate relationship, and the relationship here, is with the truth. Again, my opinion, but I think Jesus told us what that truth is:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Knowing Jesus, is knowing the truth. So why should you care about people's ignorance or not? "God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son"

If God loved the world by giving His Son to die for us, and if we are to be imitators of Him, and His disciples as well, then shouldn't we tell them (everyone) what the Bible says, and not leave them in ignorance. Would that be the loving things to do? Are we not called, as disciples, to love even our enemies? So yes, indeed you should care.

I've been warned 3 or 4 times in the last few months for something I said where someone is offended.  I don't think I've attacked anyone personally but some people are against me having opinions on stuff like the Gap Theory, or Science, Covid, or any number of things.  I'm not sure what I can say anymore.  I didn't think I was being argumentative or confrontational.  Maybe I am and don't know it.