Mark

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Bravus:

1. Recent creationism (with variants depending on which god/s did it)
2. Ancient creationism (ditto)
3. Theistic evolutionism (ditto)
4. Deism
5. Atheistic evolutionism
6. Panspermia of one kind or another

…So of the positions I don’t have, recent creationism that specifically uses the 6000 year age is the one that seems most problematic to me. Recent creationism that allows for something in the 20,000 year range is much less so.

Almost leads you to believe that Bravus is behind that 20,000 year idea.

Oh but WAIT!

OK, so I guess my position is that I find it difficult or impossible,, looking at both the scientific and the Biblical evidence, to absolutely accept recent creationism, ancient creationism, theistic evolutionism or deism.

Leaving us with TWO of the 6 that Bravus has not ruled out.

So in the ever twisting story behind Bravus’ oft repeated SIX — I guess we are down to two kinds of evolutionism.

(Unless Bravus wants to spin one of them as having a real 7 day week of Creation where all genomes appear)

@Bravus:

Could Moses understand the concept of a billion? It’s important to understand what ‘highly educated’ meant at that moment in history, rather than to read Bronze Age texts with literalistic Information Age minds.

Thus the recent creation 20,000 years ago idea is clearly being ruled out as yet another red herring?

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 0  1

Like or Dislike: 0  3

@Bravus:

God has the power to do absolutely anything. That’s not the question. But (1) he is not capricious – he doesn’t do things, especially major things like this, for no reason and (2) the claim made here repeatedly is that he told us everything he did in the Bible… and there is no mention there of any event like this, or even a hint.

Where did you come up with THAT straw man???

The only claim that is repeatedly made here is that of the LITTLE God told us about creation week – the details He did give slam the door shut on the atheist-centric doctrine on origins found in evolutionism. The SEVEN DAY fact is one of the few things we ARE given for dead sure.

It is not the Creationists – but rather the Evolutionists that then want to make the wild claim that IF we are to believe God on the 7day fact that He keeps insisting on – THEN God has to first “TELL US ALL” about how He created a world in 7 days then 1600 years later – destroyed it in single year with a flood.

BTW – you never did answer the question of why you think Moses would be confronted with a “Billion year” problem — when you claim to believe that life on earth has only been here for 20,000 years.

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 3  1

We’ve discussed this ‘speeded-up decay’ argument here on this site before. A speeded-up decay rate (by the required amount) would lead to massive amounts of heat and radiation, sufficient to kill all life on earth. Of course, it’s then possible to say ‘well, God shielded living things from the effects’. But that’s just piling ad hockery on ad hockery. God intentionally speeded up the rate of decay, but intentionally shielded the whole world from the effects of that speeded-up decay, except the atoms inside zircons… or radioisotopes generally. Why? What’s the purpose? To deceive us?

God has the power to do absolutely anything. That’s not the question. But (1) he is not capricious – he doesn’t do things, especially major things like this, for no reason and (2) the claim made here repeatedly is that he told us everything he did in the Bible… and there is no mention there of any event like this, or even a hint.

If they can establish a nuclear mechanism for changed decay rates, then they ought to publish it – they’d be well on the way to the Nobel Prize. As it is, they have no mechanism, they simply claim ‘God did it’, but with zero Biblical evidence.

Like or Dislike: 1  4

Have they in any way demonstrated these claims? Have they insured that their research is safeguarded from tampering and dishonesty? Have they brought disinterested third parties into the process as observers or participants? Have they taken sufficient precautions to prevent contamination or erroneous readings? If so, what justification do we have for throwing out their outlandish conclusions other than the fact they defy presently accepted physics?

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Mark

Like or Dislike: 0  3

When Creationists first came into vogue, the constant refrain was, ‘They don’t have degrees’ Hence some Creationists (Like a friend of mine in Ohio) even got multiple degrees. Then the refrain was, ‘Well there are only a handful of these persons.’ Now we know there are 1,000′s.
Now you often hear, ‘Well even though they have a degree, they are still incompetent and don’t even know how to conduct good science.’
I’m really not sure how someone gets a PhD from these Universities and cannot even write a decent paper. (RATE team degrees)

PhD in Geology from University of Sydney Australia
or a
PhD in Physics from Louisiana State University
or a
PhD in Geophysics and Space Science from the University of California
or a
PhD Geology from Pennsylvania State University
or a
PhD Physics Iowa State University
or a
PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University

Employment at etc.:
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Sandia National Laboratories

The final RATE study can be downloaded here for free – http://www.icr.org/rate/

The findings dealt with 3 major areas:

1. amount of helium in the zircons:

http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

2. detection of 14C in coal and in diamonds:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds

3. radiohalos and fission tracks.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/radiohalos-in-yosemite-granites

I’m not a scientist. When it gets really technical my brain shuts down.
Looks like Sean Pittman has quite a grasp on the issues:

http://educatetruth.com/science/?p=86

Of course, all of the RATE findings have been challenged by old earth scientists. That is to be expected. Frankly, I’m not smart enough to judge (I do understand the Bible pretty well – especially the plain parts like Exodus 20:11). Maybe you are smart enough to understand the technical stuff. Let me know what you think.

Like or Dislike: 5  0

I do enjoy increasing my own knowledge and understanding, even if it comes at the cost of being proven wrong.

Mark

Like or Dislike: 3  1

Like or Dislike: 1  1