Perceptions of God, Creationism and Evolution

[Phoenix]

Opening a new thread would be a good idea. The amount of junk of this one is ridiculous thanks to nuts like Phoenix and TM

I only got involved after reading your dinosaur theory...that was some of the craziest shit that i've read...lol

[Phoenix]

I'm an not sure he was a creationist but if he is using an anonymiser proxy he may well be!

didn't 'fyrOM' have a black dinosaur on a yellow background as his avatar...?

[vojnik]

I don't know how else I can put this. Do you speak and understand English?

I only put that forward to prove a point are we clear on that?

The point that was being proven was that anyone can make absurd claims without any backing like evolutionists and athiests do.

I myself do not believe that theory I put forward put it forward to prove the above point.

Are we clear?

If so nod twice.

If Phoenix is such an old timer on this forum he would understand my argument and answer my questions and Tom's otherwise he comes across as a joke.

And these claims that I am some Fyrom guy what a joke ask any of the admins for my proxy and if you have any concerns with my idetity ask Tom.

Judging by FYROM's name he obviously supports the acronym where as my stance on Macedonia would be the opposite of this FYROM fellow.

GOOD DAY

[Vangelovski]

TV, clearly science has made its greatest advancements in the 20th century than any other time in human history but for balance how about you provide all the 20th century scientists who support the evolution model...?

The first list is a list of some current scientists that accept the Biblical version of events. I have not collected a list of scientists that support the theory of evolution, but that was not the point I was trying to make. My point was aimed at lay atheists who think that all scientists are atheists and that no intelligent person could possibly believe in the Bible. Clearly that is not the case.

Phoenix, your not really providing me with any of your views. For someone who likes to jump in on the religion threads, you're not really participating in a constructive way.

P.S. Vojnik is definately not fyrOM. fyrOM will not be coming back.

[Delodephius]

Quick question: why is the Bible the only book in question here? How about the holy books of other religions?

On the subject of cosmology the Hindu Vedas are in agreement with the evolution theory and that the current creation is millions of years old. The universe is created, endures for 4,320,000,000 years, then is destroyed, and after a same long pause it is re-created. This is one day of Brahma. The whole 100 years of Brahma's lifespan lasts for over 311,040 trillion years. After the creation the god Vishnu incarnates itself as a more evolved animal each time (first a fish, then a turtle, then a boar, then an ape, than a man, than a buddha, and so on).

Are we to take that the Vedas are less credible than the Bible?

[Vangelovski]

Something to think about (Does Slovak actually expect an answer to his most recent post???):


Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages

by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.

Download Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages PDF

Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time scale. Even if they cannot provide a naturalistic mechanism, they appeal to the "fact of evolution," by which they mean an interpretation of earth history with a succession of different types of plants and animals in a drama spanning hundreds of millions of years.

The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet's history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. This Biblical interpretation of the rock record implies that the animals and plants preserved as fossils were all contemporaries. This means trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals all dwelled on the planet simultaneously, and they perished together in this world-destroying cataclysm.

Although creationists have long pointed out the rock formations themselves testify unmistakably to water catastrophism on a global scale, evolutionists generally have ignored this testimony. This is partly due to the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.

With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century.

However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.

The AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically older fossil material.1 The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value!2 Since most of the scientists involved assumed the standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the 14C they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with its high level of 14C. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination, there still remained a significant level of 14C—typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument—in samples that should have been utterly "14C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.2

Let us consider what the AMS measurements imply from a quantitative standpoint. The ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every 5730 years. After 20 half-lives or 114,700 years (assuming hypothetically that earth history goes back that far), the 14C/12C ratio is decreased by a factor of 220, or about 1,000,000. After 1.5 million years, the ratio is diminished by a factor of 21500000/5730, or about 1079. This means that if one started with an amount of pure 14C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1.5 million years there should not be a single atom of 14C remaining! Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the uniformitarian framework.

This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin. The reality of significant levels of 14C in a wide variety of fossil sources from throughout the geological record has thus been established in the secular scientific literature by scientists who assume the standard geological time scale is valid and have no special desire for this result!

In view of the profound significance of these AMS 14C measurements, the ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken its own AMS 14C analyses of such fossil material.2 The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.

These values fall squarely within the range already established in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc for Pennsylvanian. Although the number of samples is small, we observe little difference in 14C level as a function of position in the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cenozoic is the product of the Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common 14C age.

Percent Modern Carbon

Applying the uniformitarian approach of extrapolating 14C decay into the indefinite past translates the measured 14C/12C ratios into ages that are on the order of 50,000 years (2-50000/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphere—organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is 100 times that of today. If one takes as a rough estimate for the total 14C in the biosphere before the cataclysm as 40% of what exists today and assumes a relatively uniform 14C level throughout the pre-Flood atmosphere and biomass, then we might expect a 14C/12C ratio of about 0.4% of today's value in the plants and animals at the onset of the Flood. With this more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). Even though these estimates are rough, they illustrate the crucial importance of accounting for effects of the Flood cataclysm when translating a 14C/12C ratio into an actual age.

Percent Modern Carbon

Some readers at this point may be asking, how does one then account for the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years that other radioisotope methods yield for the fossil record? Most of the other RATE projects address this important issue. Equally as persuasive as the 14C data is evidence from RATE measurements of the diffusion rate of Helium in zircon crystals that demonstrates the rate of nuclear decay of Uranium into Lead and Helium has been dramatically higher in the past and the uniformitarian assumption of a constant rate of decay is wrong.3 Another RATE project documents the existence of abundant Polonium radiohalos in granitic rocks that crystallized during the Flood and further demonstrates that the uniformitarian assumption of constant decay rates is incorrect.4 Another RATE project provides clues for why the 14C decay rate apparently was minimally affected during episodes of rapid decay of isotopes with long half-lives.5

The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended.
Acknowledgement: The RATE team would like to express its heartfelt gratitude to the many generous donors who have made the high precision analyses at some of the best laboratories in the world possible. The credibility of our work in creation science research depends on these costly but crucial laboratory procedures.

Endnotes and References

1. F. H. Schmidt, D. R. Balsley, and D. D. Leach, "Early expectations of AMS: Greater ages and tiny fractions. One failure?—one success," Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 29:97-99, 1987.
2. J. R. Baumgardner, D. R. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, and S. A. Austin, "Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: Confirming the young earth creation/Flood model," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh, Editor, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 127-142, 2003.
3. D. R. Humphreys, J. R. Baumgardner, S. A. Austin, and A. A., Snelling, "Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175-196, 2003.
4. A. A. Snelling and M. H. Armitage, "Radiohalos—A tale of three granitic plutons," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 243-268, 2003.
5. A. A. Snelling, S. A. Austin, and W. A. Hoesch, "Radioisotopes in the diabase sill (upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: An application and test of the isochron dating method," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 269-284, 2003.

[Delodephius]

Yes, I do expect the answer. Why is the Bible the only book in question?

[Vangelovski]

Yes, I do expect the answer. Why is the Bible the only book in question?

Obviously noone consider's them worthy of any attention. Its ammusing how atheists, who claim they do not believe in the existence of God can't stop banging on about the Bible. I wonder why that is? I don't believe in unicorns, but I also don't waste a single moment thinking about them, let alone thousands of hours and virtual space writing about how I don't believe in them.

[Delodephius]

I'm not an atheist. I'm just not a Christian. Nor a member of any other Abrahamic religion.

My only concern here is that in their arrogance Christians take a blind eye on other scriptures simply because they don't suit them. These books are just as much worthy of attention as the Bible if not more.

[Vangelovski]

I'm not an atheist. I'm just not a Christian. Nor a member of any other Abrahamic religion.

My only concern here is that in their arrogance Christians take a blind eye on other scriptures simply because they don't suit them. These books are just as much worthy of attention as the Bible if not more.

Well, if you feel that way then state your case. Everyone else ignores the original thread topic.

[Delodephius]

The original topic being this?:

Kittim was one the decendants of Noah who is said to have founded Macedonia and later Rome. I found this interesting after searching the web. That there are ancient sources which state that Alexander the Great was of Macedonian blood and was hailed from the land of Kittim. Just goes to show how ancient Macedonia is, how the name Macedonia emerged from Kittim is still unknown but Macedonia has also been tied with end of World Prophecies. The funny thing about Kittim is the Greeks believe that are the decendants of him when it cleary states that only the Macedonians and Romans came from Kittim and what was later to become his land. I am sure everyone is familiar with the Noah flood story and the creation of nations.

To me it seems the main part of the topic has been ignored for the final sentence.

[Bill77]

Bill you're a sensible and intelligent person whom I believe has alot of common sense. Is it possible that you can watch the video I posted above (from 14:00-27:00) and can you give me your opinion afterwards?

TM, i don't know about your intelligent claims about me but thanks anyway and i gave the video a go.

Its hard making judgements on these sort of lectures that are posted on video. Why.....because there are always questions to ask so things can be clarified and i can come to a conclusion. Obviously watching it on video, questioning can not be done. But here are some points i would have brought up. And i am sure there would be more the more times i watch it over.

A) He Mentions something about no Archaeological evidence of Jesus is found nor about the resurrection. In the eyes of a Christian, i would say to him "I told you so". We believe he resurrected, so what trace of evidence would he expect? does this not justify Christians belief instead of proving them wrong?

B) Mention of theology scholars drifting away from believing the bible as historical, but i have equally heard of scientists that for some reason switch sides also. I know of Christians loosing their faith or changing religions, but equally, i know of Christian pastors that once were religious Jews. So i don't know what this proves and what to take out of it.

C) A mention about Millions of Jews led by Moses sounds an awful lot of people. His opinion on what is many or what is few is irrelevant. I am sure their is many cases in history where there has been large number of migration happening around the globe. But he does mention something about the Date of this exodus and migration to Isreal and that Israel was not mentioned in some script that was found dating back in that period this so called migration happened. That is interesting and would have liked to hear the other side of the story (coming from a theologian). There is always two sides of an argument.

D) He criticises Dever (a theologian i assume) a bit and accuses him of contradiction. Lets assume this "Dever" has no idea what he talks about. All we can conclude is Dever is only human and got his dates wrong.

Like i said, there are always two sides of an argument. I have listened to Evangelists go on about science aswell and bring up some good points and some irrelevant info aswell. The bottom line is unless there is two sides debating at the same time, you can't make judgements on one side or the other that aren't instantly challenged.

[Vangelovski]

The original topic being this?:

To me it seems the main part of the topic has been ignored for the final sentence.

Whatever. Weren't you going to talk about your religion?

[Delodephius]

Whatever. Weren't you going to talk about your religion?

Isn't my religion my private thing? I haven't talked about it to anyone ever, not that I didn't want to, I just never met a person who could understand. I just stated that I wasn't an atheist but that I'm not a Christian, Jewish or Muslim either. And I was just asking a question, I wasn't planning on discussing, this isn't really my environment. I just wanted to help the discussion.

[Vangelovski]

Isn't my religion my private thing? I haven't talked about it to anyone ever, not that I didn't want to, I just never met a person who could understand. I just stated that I wasn't an atheist but that I'm not a Christian, Jewish or Muslim either. And I was just asking a question, I wasn't planning on discussing, this isn't really my environment. I just wanted to help the discussion.

Get with the program. You said you wanted to bring up some eastern belief system. I said go ahead. Now it seems you don't want to, which is even more annoying than going off topic.