Why radioactive decay dates beyond around 4300 years are invalid

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

But trying to convert the days of creation to literal ones,is a revision. 

Proven false.  As I pointed out, with a few exceptions, the six day creation was taught by the church as an undisputed fact until the 17th century, when some began to entertain other doctrines.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You don't believe the Bible as written and accuse Christians who do believe it, of not believing the Bible.

Pretending that the Bible doesn't say things that it clearly states does not change what is actually written.  Of all the things I say you reject, you can't point to any of them and say you believe them.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You don't believe that the Earth brought forth life, as God tells us.

More misrepresentations and lies from you.  All the land animals were created on day six, and then man was created in the image of God from the dust of the earth.  This is what the Bible says, and what you do not believe.  You can't argue that fact.  One cannot believe that the Bible is the word of God and then disbelieve 25% of it.

From Genesis 1.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

[RV_Wizard]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

But trying to convert the days of creation to literal ones,is a revision. 

For most of its history, the church has believed that God created everything that exists ex nihilo (out of nothing). The church affirmed this doctrine based primarily on the opening verse of Scripture: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). God, who eternally exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, purposed to and did create a universe distinct from himself.

Other passages add to the foundation of this belief. For example, the psalmist attributes creation to the word and breath of God: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. . . . For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm” (Psalm 33:6, 9). According to a traditional understanding of this passage, God the Father spoke the universe into existence through the Word (God the Son) and by his Breath (God the Holy Spirit). Creation was a mighty act of the triune God.

Furthermore, Scripture itself denies that God used preexisting materials when he created: “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). For example, God did not take two preexisting hydrogen (H) atoms and one oxygen (O) atom and fuse them into water (H2O). Rather, he created both hydrogen and oxygen atoms as well as the water. Divine creation was out of nothing!

In accordance with the rest of the creation account in Genesis 1, the church also has believed that God created every kind of thing that exists: light, water, air, soil, vegetation, the sun and the moon and the stars, sea creatures, winged birds, earth creatures, and, ultimately, human beings in the divine image.

Importantly, the church never countenanced the idea that all nonliving and living things came into existence and developed according to processes like natural selection, speciation, and random mutations. Indeed, the early church soundly denounced the “atomic” theory that everything that exists started out by the accidental collision of small elements (“atoms”) and then fortuitously developed by chance. Rather than embrace randomness, the church praised the Creator, as Origen did: “We Christians, however, who are devoted to the worship of the only God, who created these things, feel grateful for them to him who made them” (Against Celsus, 4.75).

It wasn’t until the nineteenth century that the church, faced with many attacks against the authority and truthfulness of Scripture, began to waver on its doctrine of creation. With the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859), a new and all-encompassing worldview arose that denied creation ex nihilo, divine design and development of the many kinds of nonliving and living things, and the special creation of human beings in the divine image. This evolutionary worldview now dominates most sectors of our contemporary Western society. Tragically, it presents one of the fiercest challenges to biblical and historical Christianity today.

Put simply, the church has always affirmed the doctrine of creation as presented above. One of its earliest statements of faith — the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (AD 381) — affirmed, “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” In a later theological development, Thomas Aquinas “rejected the idea that the creation itself possesses the ability to create or develop other living realities.” He reasoned that only God, “as absolute being, possesses the power of creating, which is impossible for created things. His position stands against theistic evolution views that attribute creative power to matter and its development by purely natural processes” (Theistic Evolution, 935–936). Similarly, Protestant theology continued to affirm the traditional doctrine of creation.   source

So, no, this is not a revision.  I've proved this before.  You are quite simply lying.

[The Barbarian]

24 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

So, no, this is not a revision. 

The revision is trying to force the creation account into a literal history.    Your failure to prove your revision is here for everyone to see.   I won't say you're lying.   I would prefer to think that you have been so programmed to reject His word as it is, that you can't accept anything else.

 

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

The revision is trying to force the creation account into a literal history.   

As opposed to denying at least 25% of the Bible?  No thanks.  I'll stick with the Word.  You can have your heresies. 

[The Barbarian]

4 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

As opposed to denying at least 25% of the Bible? 

Is there any of it, you believe?     Is there any at all  you don't put your own revisiions above God's actual word?    Technically, you aren't a heretic; your new beliefs are errors, not heresies.

 

Edited April 1 by The Barbarian

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Is there any at all  you don't put your own revisiions above God's actual word? 

Which of us posts complete verses and which of us again takes phrases out of context and denies pretty much the entire book of Genesis?  I've already demonstrated that the church was unwavering on its doctrine of the six day creation until the 19th century.  Do you not know what a revision is?  I will help you then.  To revise is "to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections."  

[The Barbarian]

29 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Which of us posts complete verses

I do.

29 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

and which of us again takes phrases out of context and denies pretty much the entire book of Genesis? 

You do.

29 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

I've already demonstrated that the church was unwavering on its doctrine of the six day creation until the 19th century. 

As I showed you, over 1500 years ago, Christians knew the creation days could not be literal ones.    Even Augustine, who is a revered theologian by all three major branches of Christianity, pointed this out.

29 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Do you not know what a revision is?

It's called "young Earth creationism."

Most Christians assume that young-earth creationism has always been a core tenet of American fundamentalist Christianity—but this linkage is more tenuous than is often presumed. The story of how American fundamentalists—and, by extension, many conservative evangelicals—came to associate young-earth creationism with biblical Christianity is one that all contemporary Christians should understand.

Published in response to the early twentieth century’s challenges to Scripture’s trustworthiness, The Fundamentals, a collection of 90 essays, addresses a wide range of issues relevant to core Christian doctrine, including creation and evolution (see part 1). Though the essayists present sharp critiques of Darwinian evolution, they do not promote young-earth creationism. Despite the belief that fundamentalist Christianity and young-earth creationism have always been intertwined, the connection wasn’t forged until the anti-evolution campaigns of the 1920s.

Though Baptist pastor William Bell Riley, founder of the interdenominational World’s Christian Fundamentals Association, and William Jennings Bryan, a former secretary of state and three-time presidential candidate, were the most formidable defenders of fundamental Christianity in the early twentieth century, they and many other fundamentalists of the time, were not young-earth creationists. Although somewhat ambivalent, Bryan conceded that the universe certainly could be millions of years old and that all life-forms, including humans, could have been created by God more than a few thousand years ago—a point that he admitted under cross-examination by Clarence Darrow in the famous Scopes Trial in 1925. By far the most influential proponent of young-earth creationism in the 1920s and 1930s was George McCready Price, the acknowledged “father” of modern young-earth creationism.

George McCready Price

Price, a Seventh-Day Adventist¹ and a self-described “geologist,” had nothing beyond an elementary school-level education in the sciences. However, historian Ronald Numbers points out that Price “considered it a virtue that he had never been infected with the disease of ‘universityitis.’”² Undaunted, and believing that God had called him to uphold the true biblical view of creation, Price began researching and writing on science-related issues in the early 1900s.

Price rejected the day-age theory and advocated what he labeled “the new catastrophism” or “flood geology,” a theory that held that a universal flood had reshaped the earth according to its current features. This was an extreme position that relatively few Christians held, including most educated anti-evolutionists—but the theory gradually gained wider acceptance due to Price’s exhaustive efforts.

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/how-young-earth-creationism-became-a-core-tenet-of-american-fundamentalism-part-2

Edited April 2 by The Barbarian

[RV_Wizard]

Jesse Kilgore was a bright, inquisitive community college student in New York who loved to debate issues. But one day in the fall of 2008, the 22-year-old walked into the woods and killed himself.1 Jesse had been raised in a devout evangelical Christian home, and his father served as a military chaplain. He enjoyed defending his faith to his friends and acquaintances. However, in the last months of his life, Jesse had been hiding a deep secret from his father: A college professor had recommended that Jesse read atheist biologist Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, which argues that science refutes belief in God. The book left Jesse devastated...

At America’s top research universities, nearly 64% of faculty in the natural and
social sciences identify themselves as atheists or agnostics.
• At two-year and four-year colleges and universities, 61% of biologists consider
themselves atheists or agnostics.
• Among leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God,
88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution is directed
toward an “ultimate purpose.”
The secularism of many science professors finds its way into some college-level science textbooks, which undercut traditional religious beliefs in the name of science. For example, one prominent college-level evolutionary biology textbook told students: “By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”  
Even outside of science classes, the science refutes religion message can be a
prominent theme at colleges and universities.  source

The legacy of evolution is that it is leading people away from God and salvation, down the dark path that leads to Hell.  It is, was, and will always be a Satanic lie.

[RV_Wizard]

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

26 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Which of us posts complete verses

I do.

I've never seen you do much of anything but take phrases out of context.

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Even Augustine, who is a revered theologian by all three major branches of Christianity,

Augustine said "For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation..."

“Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.”  source

For as much as you quote him, Augustine wouldn't believe any of your posts.

 

Edited April 2 by RV_Wizard

[The Barbarian]

2 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

The legacy of evolution is that it is leading people away from God and salvation,

Well, that's a testable assumption.  Let's take a look...  Here's the testimony of a former YE creationist, a graduate of the ICR, and a prolific creationist writer:

I worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired.

In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. I was living the life of a double-minded man–believing two things.

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication.

...

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

https://peacefulscience.org/articles/glenn-morton/

YE creationist is a very efficient atheist-maker.     That is the real damage that creationism does to God's church.