Perceptions of God, Creationism and Evolution

[Phoenix]

Are we really questioning the desgigner & master of the universe??We want answers to the unknown.I had a chat years ago whether the bible contains all the answers that we might ask the answer is no.I would say that now is not the time for god to be revealing everything even though we yearn for it.I think in the next life we are going to know everything because we will be as god.If you want all your zany questions you have to wait.

What zany questions GS...?

We're discussing geochronology as a valid science that puts into perspective certain 'divine' questions such as young V old Earth theories.

I really struggle why so many of you guys refuse to accept scientific fact in preference for the literal interpretation of the Bible...I wonder how strong your faith really is

[Vangelovski]

Further to the article above:

The full details can be found here: http://www.sedimentology.fr/

A team of Russian sedimentologists, directed by Alexander Lalomov (Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Ore Deposits) applied paleohydraulic analyses to geological formations in Russia. One example was the publication of a first report in 2007 by the “Lithology and Mineral Resources”, journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It concerned the Crimean Peninsular. It showed that the time of sedimentation of the sequence studied corresponded to a virtually instantaneous episode, whereas according to stratigraphy it took several millions of years. Moreover, a second report concerning the North-West Russian plateau in the St. Petersburg region shows that the time of sedimentation was much shorter than that attributed to it by the stratigraphic time-scale: 0.05% of the time.

The third report concerning the the Ural determines equally the time of sedimentation.

I concluded an agreement with the Institute of Kazan for the Moskovite team of sedimentologists to determine the paleohydraulic conditions of the local transgressive sequence studied in 1868 by Golovkinskii, founder of sequence stratigraphy.

This forth report determines equally the time of sedimentation.

We presented their report to the 33rd International Congress of Geology held in Oslo in August 2008, and in Ekaterinburg (Russia), in October at the 5th Conference on Lithology.

A new series of experiments was arranged with the St. Petersburg Institute of Hydrology to study erosion of different types of rocks (sandstone, limestone) at higher velocities of water current up to 27m\s to ascertain their rate of erosion over time and to provide the formation of conglomerates, to know the critical velocity of erosion of conglomerates seen in sandstone at the base of transgressive sequences. Initially, the water current was parallel to the surface plane of the sedimentary sample. The results show that at a velocity of around 25m\s, erosion was nil; where the period of the experiment was less than an hour. However, when the period reached 18h the erosion was around 2 grams. Experiment 25 was done with a sample whose surface was at an angle of 2.5 degrees to the direction of the current. In this case erosion reached 6.6g. in 18h.

[Vangelovski]

No I'm not saying that...you are, you're looking for the faults, not me.

Scientists will use multiple techniques and the most appropriate for the sample at hand. This is a very time consuming and costly endeavour which is open to scrutiny from the scientific community...every measurement technique has an acceptable tolerance range for error and repeatibility but what you do is to deliberately mock science with ridiculous examples of errors in the order of "hundreds of millions of years"...that's just fuckin bullshit TV.

No, its not BS. I've provided various examples of experimentation - including the one just above. You've just given me sweeping statements without anything to back them up.

[Vangelovski]

Analysis of the Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data

A new approach : paleohydraulic analysis by Guy Berthault
When I started my experiments on strata formation I was surprised to find how little work had been done on the subject in the past. Of course, sediments had been examined and flume experiments performed in connection with building and other projects, but none with the object of explaining the mechanics of stratification. I searched the data banks but found little to help with my research.

I began to realise that the basic principles of superposition, continuity and initial horizontality laid down in the seventeenth had been accepted, albeit with development, virtually without question. There seemed to have been little attempt to examine the actual mechanics involved.

Yet a few simple experiments, first with laminae and later with strata revealed that the time needed for micro or macro strata form was of quite a different order to that generally accepted. The implications were far-reaching both as concerns the geological time-scale and the fossil record. It was not until 1999 that there seemed to be an awakening to the idea that geological ages are measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit and not by biological revolutions or orogeny.

Prof. Gabriel Gohau of the French Geological Society confirmed this fact in his book A History of Geology (1999):

« Ce qui mesure le temps, ce sont les durées de sédimentation, sur lesquelles tout le monde est plus ou moins d’accord, et non celles des orogenèses et des « révolutions » biologiques. »

(Translation: Time is measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit, a fact upon which everybody is more or less agreed, and not by orogenesis or “biological “revolutions”)

Prof. Gohau mentioned in his work how Charles Lyell was influenced in the construction of the geological time scale by his belief in biological « revolutions» occurring over 240 millions of years.

In the 20th century this figure was replaced by radiometric “absolute” dating of 525 million years. Such a figure is based upon the belief that igneous rocks can be dated radiometrically. Criticisms of radiometric dating have been growing over recent years and following the chronology shown by our experiments I have looked at the basic premises upon which such dating is based. There indeed seem to be good physical reasons to challenge it.

In his book “Radioelements” (Masson 1966) Daniel Blanc wrote:

“no variation of the radioactive constant has been observed whatever the experimental conditions, showing that it is independent of the conditions in which the radio-elements are placed.”

This is particularly the case for temperature and pressure which determine the change of state of magma to crystalline rock. Radioactivity would not, therefore, appear to be affected by the change of state; consequently it could not be used to date an igneous rock at the moment of its crystallisation.

Moreover, the elements present in the rock at the time of crystallisation came from the magma in which gravitation determined their position: they need not necessarily, therefore, be parent and daughter from the same radioactive element.

The problem of exaggerated time scales resulted from the work of Nicolas Stenon, originator of geological principles in the seventeenth century. Stenon did not take into account the effect of a turbulent water current on the formation of strata. His principles were based upon his observations but since no hydraulic laboratories existed at the time his principles were not tested experimentally.

Our experiments on the formation of strata are fundamental because they demonstrate, ‘inter alia’, that in a continuous turbulent current many superposed strata form simultaneously and progress together in the direction of the current; they do not form successively as believed originally. These experiments explain a mechanism of strata building, showing empirically the rapid formation of strata.

The important advances in sequence stratigraphy that have been taking place during the period of our research harmonise with our experiments. For instance, systems tracts composed of several strata are considered isochronous by sequential stratigraphy; a fact that we have demonstrated in the laboratory.

The paleovelocity of current below which particles of given size are deposited and the corresponding capacity of sedimentary transport of the current can be determined experimentally. These two criteria ascertain the time required for sequence deposition. Consequently, recent paleohydraulic analyses undertaken by our colleagues in Russia confirm the shorter time for sequences to deposit than the geological time attributed to it.

As reported in the latest publication (G.Berthault, A.Lalomov, M.Tugarova., Lithological and Mineral Resources. Vol.1, 2011) the time of sedimentation of the St. Petersburg sequence represents only 0.05% of the time refered to by the geologic time scale.

We believe the foregoing shows the need for a fundamental revision of geological chronology integrating the new data and based upon observation checked by experiment.

Guy Berthault.

[George S.]

Are we really questioning the desgigner & master of the universe??We want answers to the unknown.I had a chat years ago whether the bible contains all the answers that we might ask the answer is no.I would say that now is not the time for god to be revealing everything even though we yearn for it.I think in the next life we are going to know everything because we will be as god.If you want all your zany questions you have to wait.

[Phoenix]

So you're saying that if numerous flawed dating methods are used (instead of just one) we will gain an accurate date?

No I'm not saying that...you are, you're looking for the faults, not me.

Scientists will use multiple techniques and the most appropriate for the sample at hand. This is a very time consuming and costly endeavour which is open to scrutiny from the scientific community...every measurement technique has an acceptable tolerance range for error and repeatibility but what you do is to deliberately mock science with ridiculous examples of errors in the order of "hundreds of millions of years"...that's just fuckin bullshit TV.

[Vangelovski]

But that's only part of the story TV, you only ever provide part of the story.

NOBODY hides the limitations of any of these techniques, what you failed to mention and what is vitally important is that not one single technique is ever used in any credible research...the final age is determined only after many different techniques have been used, compared and re-tested

So you're saying that if numerous flawed dating methods are used (instead of just one) we will gain an accurate date?

[Phoenix]

Actually, radiocarbon dating was only ONE example I provided. If you bothered reading my posts, you will find research on others as well.

But that's only part of the story TV, you only ever provide part of the story.

NOBODY hides the limitations of any of these techniques, what you failed to mention and what is vitally important is that not one single technique is ever used in any credible research...the final age is determined only after many different techniques have been used, compared and re-tested

[Vangelovski]

That's what you want to believe because it suits the tight confines of your belief system.

Geochronology has many techniques, all have their limitations and that is taken into consideration when evaluating the age of geologic materials. Often multiple techniques are used to determine the materials age and to eliminate any errors of one technique over the other.

But what you do is put up a technique like Carbon Dating which has limitations beyond the age of 40,000 years as proof that the science of geochronology is flawed because you've deliberately chosen an inappropriate technique that would cause unacceptable errors in determining materials that are significantly older than 40,000 years.

This is the degree of your charlatanism TV, a deliberate and carefully crafted misappropriation of the facts.
It's not only geochronology in your sights but every branch of physics, biology, astronomy, paleontology and every other credible science.

Somehow you need to be dragged from your pre-Copernican world...

Actually, radiocarbon dating was only ONE example I provided. If you bothered reading my posts, you will find research on others as well.

[Vangelovski]

Most people don’t realize that in terms of numbers of fossils 95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish.1 Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects. Thus the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil record—in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. So comparatively speaking there are very, very few amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils, yet so much is often made of them. For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100.2 Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! For example, there’s only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!3

1. Wise, K.P., ‘The Flood and the fossil record’, an informal talk given at the Institute for Creation Research, San Diego (USA) on August 17, 1988.

2. Lewin, R., 1990. New Scientist, 128(1745), p. 30.

3. Wise, Ref. 6.

[Phoenix]

Thanks Julie, I did provide an article a number of pages back that discusses most of these methods and the problems with them. None are conclusively accurate, and most have been demonstrated to be inaccurate by hundreds of millions of years.

That's what you want to believe because it suits the tight confines of your belief system.

Geochronology has many techniques, all have their limitations and that is taken into consideration when evaluating the age of geologic materials. Often multiple techniques are used to determine the materials age and to eliminate any errors of one technique over the other.

But what you do is put up a technique like Carbon Dating which has limitations beyond the age of 40,000 years as proof that the science of geochronology is flawed because you've deliberately chosen an inappropriate technique that would cause unacceptable errors in determining materials that are significantly older than 40,000 years.

This is the degree of your charlatanism TV, a deliberate and carefully crafted misappropriation of the facts.
It's not only geochronology in your sights but every branch of physics, biology, astronomy, paleontology and every other credible science.

Somehow you need to be dragged from your pre-Copernican world...

[Delodephius]

Day one - Heavens and earth are created. "Let there be light." Day and Night.

Day four - Sun, moon, stars are made.

Wait, so what was the source of light before the Sun was made?

[Vangelovski]

lol, here you have your example ^ you just provided it yourself.

How's a statement of fact "hateful" or "denigrating"?

[George S.]

Introduction to Bible Difficulties and Bible Contradictions
by Matt Slick

Bible difficulties, or apparent Bible contradictions, exist. The opponents of Christianity often use them in their attempts to discredit Christianity. Sometimes these attacks undermine the faith of Christians who either don't understand the issues or don't have the resources to deal with them.

Opponents of Christianity will cite what they consider a Bible contradiction or difficulty by comparing one verse to another (or more) that seems to disagree with the first. In doing this, several verses are often referenced as being contradictory or problematic. Therefore, to make this section of CARM easy to use, it is arranged by verse for easy lookup. Since many of the same "difficulties" deal with one verse in opposition to another or even several others, I have listed all the verses addressed in the same answer. This makes the initial list look larger than it really is. For example, how many animals did Noah bring into the ark? Genesis 6:19-20 says two while Gen. 7:2-3 mentions seven. Therefore, both verses are listed and both links point to the same answer.

The Originals are Inspired, not the copies.

What a lot of Christians don't know is that the autographs (original writings) are inspired, not the copies. The autographs are the original writings--the original documents penned by the biblical writers. The copies are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired"; that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. But don't worry, the Bible manuscripts are 98.5% textually pure. Only a very small amount of information is in question because we have repetitive facts, instructions, and information found elsewhere in the Bible. Nevertheless, through the copying method over the years, various textual problems have arisen. Following is a list of the types of errors that have occurred in copying the manuscripts. I've used English as examples instead of going into the original languages for examples.

Dittography - Writing twice what should have been written once. Example: writing "latter" instead of "later." "Latter" means nearest the end. "Later" means after something else.
Fission - Improperly dividing one word into two words. Example: changing "nowhere" into "now here."
Fusion - Combining the last letter of one word with the first letter of the next word. Example: "Look it is there in the cabinet... or Look it is therein the cabinet."
Haplography - Writing once what should have been written twice. Example: "later" instead of "latter." "Later" means after something else. "Latter" means nearest the end.
Homophony - Writing a word with a different meaning for another word when both words have the exact same pronunciation. Example: Meat and meet have the exact same sound but different meanings. Also, there and their and they're are another example.
Metathesis - An improper exchange in the order of letters. Example: Instead of writing "mast," someone writes "mats," or "cast" and cats."
Does this mean we cannot trust the Bible?

Does this mean that the Bible we hold in our hand is not inspired? Not at all. Inspiration comes from God, and when He inspired the Bible it was perfect. Our copies of the original documents are not perfect, but they are very close to being so. The critics often erringly assume that even the copies are supposed to be perfect. But when we point out that God never said the copies would be perfect, they then ask how can the Bible be trusted at all? Quite simply, it is redundant in its facts and information and the amount of material that has any variation at all is so minute compared to the whole Bible that the Bible is considered to be almost 100% accurately copied. Furthermore, the copyist errors present no problems doctrinally.

Still, some will say that since there are, for example, copyist errors then we must throw out the entire Bible. But this argument is very weak. Are we to throw out a science textbook because there is a misspelled word or two in it? Does this mean that the whole book cannot be trusted? Of course not. Furthermore, compared to other ancient documents, the New Testament, for example, has far more textual evidence in its favor than any other ancient writing. Please consider the chart below.1

Author When Written Earliest Copy Time Span No. of Copies
Homer (Iliad) 900 BC 400 BC 500 years 643
Ceasar (The Gallic Wars) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10
Plato (Tetralogies) 427 - 347 BC 900 AD 1,200 years 7
Aristotle 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 49
Herodotus (History) 480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8
Euripedes 480 - 406 BC 1,100 AD 1,500 years 9
New Testament 50 - 90 A.D. 130 AD
30 years 24,000


If the Bible cannot be trusted as being reliable because it has only a small percentage of copyist errors, then neither can the above documents that have far less textual support be trusted. In other words, the critics (to be consistent) would have to reject the Iliad, The Gallic Wars, Plato's Tetralogies, Aristotle's works, Hoerodetus' history, and Euripedes' writings. Are the critics willing to disregard all those writings -- which are far less well preserved -- if they throw out the Bible as being reliable? They should if they are fair in how they apply their criticism. Since basically no one discards those writings as being so bad that they can't be trusted, why would anyone apply the double standard to the Bible . . . unless they have an agenda.

We can see that the Bible is an ancient document that has withstood thousands of years of transmission with remarkable accuracy and clarity, far more so than the great works of old listed in the chart above. We can trust it to be what it says it is: the word of God.

[George S.]

Don't Genesis 1 and 2 present contradictory creation accounts?
Genesis 1
Day one - Heavens and earth are created. "Let there be light." Day and Night.
Day two - Atmospheric waters separated from earth waters.
Day three - Land appears separating the seas. Vegetation is made.
Day four - Sun, moon, stars are made.
Day five - Sea life and birds are made.
Day six - Land animals, creeping things, and man (male and female) are made.
Genesis 2
States heaven and earth were created. There was no plant yet on earth, no rain yet, and no man. But, a mist rose watering the surface of the ground. Then the Lord formed man from dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Finally, God made Eve.
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created .