Is it time to stop [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-footing around?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
56
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟20,947.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
You know, I'm fed up.

I'm fed up with pretending that creationism is a rational option for an intelligent person. I'm fed up with pretending that it's reasonable to have examined the evidence, and concluded that creationism is true.

I'm fed up with letting people claim that the evidence is anything less that conclusive and compulsive.

I'm fed up with treating creationism as if it were any more scientifically credible than the ascent of the Navajo or the creation of the world from the body of Ymir.

So what I'm saying is, is it time to let our posts reflect the true imbalance between these two? Fact is, six day creationism is frankly ridiculous; is it time to shamelessly admit this fact?

Or am I just in need of a holiday?
 

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,619
935
59
✟36,100.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
to begin with--let me say--enjoy your holiday
s_space.gif


SEriously, let me take them one at a time:

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
You know, I'm fed up.
me, too!:thumbsup:


Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
I'm fed up with pretending that creationism is a rational option for an intelligent person. I'm fed up with pretending that it's reasonable to have examined the evidence, and concluded that creationism is true.
Here, I disagree. While I am fairly certain that Evolution has got to be the way in which God created--all the evidence says so--I cannot say for 100% certain that we have all the answers. God, for instance, could have changed the laws of physics in such a way that what we see as billions of years was sped up to 6 days--I don't think it's likely but hey, I can't pretend to know God that well, and no one was there but Him.
00000013.gif



Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
I'm fed up with letting people claim that the evidence is anything less that conclusive and compulsive.
Here, I generally agree. They do deny the evidence that is there as supporting evolution--it's as if you could show them God's home movies showing up--and they would deny it. It seems at times God could show up and tell them and they'd accuse him of not believing in His own word!;)


Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
I'm fed up with treating creationism as if it were any more scientifically credible than the ascent of the Navajo or the creation of the world from the body of Ymir.
abig_smile..gif

Then don't, but be patient with others who are not where you are. It really is their Faith, and for some reason they hold it very dear. When I see them saying their "whole faith" would be ruined or God would not be good in their eyes if he used evolution, or whatever--I tend to see that as sad that their faith would be based on such a remote issue. But it is their belief, so I try to be patient and let them believe it, since we all agree it will not be the basis of getting them into heaven or not. (and I know there are other dangers to the teaching, but they say the same thing about us).


Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
So what I'm saying is, is it time to let our posts reflect the true imbalance between these two? Fact is, six day creationism is frankly ridiculous; is it time to shamelessly admit this fact?
I think what we need to focus on is that our beliefs don't make us any less christian. They are not going to change their minds here about evolution---I just don't see it happening. :preach: But they should give us the respect of not calling us everything from weak in faith, to satan worshippers, to fools. ON that, we must take a stand and call them on it.
But, that means to me, we have to treat them with the same respect we desire from them, so that's my focus, but as always, we TE's may disagree.


Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Or am I just in need of a holiday?
as I said, send us a post card;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gold Dragon
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
I sympathize, Karl. But we have to present the alternative to creationism in a palatable manner if we truly care about them as brothers and sisters. Being too abrasive in debunking their beliefs without letting them know that our faith is real and uncompromised 1) gives them the impression that we value science more than our faith, 2) causes them to retreat to their own bastion of faith, where they can rest in comfortable literalism and continue to cause more to stumble. Of course there are some who just don't want to know, and the only good thing about debating with them is to inform the watching third party who is interested in the truth. With them, it's not cutting down trees - it's performing open heart surgery. I'm fed up with the ideas, too; when the occasion arises, we can turn on the juice as to why we are confident of our persuasion. But to deride their way will always turn them off. Patience is indeed a virtue. Thank God he never gives up trying to make me righteous; he does it by reminding me how righteous he is, not by condemning me as a filthy sinner.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
56
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟20,947.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
No. I'm fed up with creationists:

1) Lying
2) Misrepresenting
3) Presenting the same old debunked rubbish time and time again.
4) Running away the moment scientific evidence is presented
5) Talking nonsense about YEC having significant numbers of scientists supporting it (i.e. lying)
6) Denigrating the faith of people who can see the reality of the evidence
7) Insulting the intelligence of working scientists with their "it's obvious evolution is false because...."
8) Misquoting


That'll do for now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dal M.
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
56
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟20,947.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Read the post. I'm not fed up with creationists; I'm fed up with creationists doing the things listed.

The cynic in me might point out, though, that if one is fed up with creationists doing those things, one is fed up with creationists, but that would be too cynical, wouldn't it?
 
Upvote 0

GodSaves

Well-Known Member
May 21, 2004
840
47
49
✟1,243.00
Faith
Lutheran
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
No. I'm fed up with creationists:

1) Lying
2) Misrepresenting
3) Presenting the same old debunked rubbish time and time again.
4) Running away the moment scientific evidence is presented
5) Talking nonsense about YEC having significant numbers of scientists supporting it (i.e. lying)
6) Denigrating the faith of people who can see the reality of the evidence
7) Insulting the intelligence of working scientists with their "it's obvious evolution is false because...."
8) Misquoting


That'll do for now.
There are many creationists who will have the same list as you but input God where you chose scientists in some of the sentences in the list.

The only thing that will be accomplished by coming out and calling us these things and perhaps names will cause a greater divide. No one will turn and see things the way you want them to see it.

You can catch more bees with honey then you can with bee repellant.

I have found that there is no point in the discussion unless you just want to argue. No one is going to change, just hold onto their beliefs even more. Any person who wants to believe something can find the evidence to believe it. Goes both ways for TE's and YEC's.

The only problem I have these days is when someone says that if the earth is not old then God is a deceiver and a liar. This really bothers me. It is basically saying that if my interpretation is wrong then God is a liar. This is a horrible way to think.

Anyways just a creationists two cents worth.

God Bless you all!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Immanuel

Regular Member
Feb 3, 2004
553
17
New York City
Visit site
✟8,277.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
GodSaves said:
There are many creationists who will have the same list as you but input God where you chose scientists in some of the sentences in the list.

The only thing that will be accomplished by coming out and calling us these things and perhaps names will cause a greater divide. No one will turn and see things the way you want them to see it.

You can catch more bees with honey then you can with bee repellant.

I have found that there is no point in the discussion unless you just want to argue. No one is going to change, just hold onto their beliefs even more. Any person who wants to believe something can find the evidence to believe it. Goes both ways for TE's and YEC's.

The only problem I have these days is when someone says that if the earth is not old then God is a deceiver and a liar. This really bothers me. It is basically saying that if my interpretation is wrong then God is a liar. This is a horrible way to think.

Anyways just a creationists two cents worth.

God Bless you all!


I would have to say that some creationist are those things, but you know what? I don't know if it even matters because we are all sinners, but praise be to God that we are saved by grace.
 
Upvote 0

Father Gregory

Orthodox Fool
Site Supporter
Sep 15, 2004
146
38
Stockport, UK (near Manchester)
Visit site
✟22,999.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Well, I've caught up with you Karl LBS! As if one addiction wasn't enough! Anyway to your question / comment ....

I believe it is vitally necessary to explain and listen and debate and never to grow weary of it. Many of us defend positions that really we don't believe in any more but do so because (for a time) we feel we must.

The key issue to me really is "What is Truth and where may it be found?"

[Pontius Pilate's understudy]

Yours in Christ

Fr. Gregory
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
56
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟20,947.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Father Gregory said:
Well, I've caught up with you Karl LBS! As if one addiction wasn't enough! Anyway to your question / comment ....

Yours in Christ

Fr. Gregory
It's the Orthodox Plot(TM).....it will get me.....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Father Gregory

Orthodox Fool
Site Supporter
Sep 15, 2004
146
38
Stockport, UK (near Manchester)
Visit site
✟22,999.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Dear Scripture Girl

I admire your openness and humility. It matters though to those Christians who regard the Bible as absolutely correct in every detail. If just one eensy weensy thing can be shown to be wrong then the whole of that person's faith is teetering on the edge. That's why, I think, many creationists defend their position zealously. Those who surrender inerrancy for a more inclusive form of authority that doesn't reject truth outside the Scriptures can make the transition to a more (in my opinion) stable faith. Those who are rattled by these things and don't make the transition usually end up as atheists who remain incapable of thinking of Christianity in anything other form than than that which they rejected.
 
Upvote 0

United

Active Member
Jul 18, 2004
153
10
48
Perth, WA
✟15,360.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Father Gregory said:
Dear Scripture Girl

I admire your openness and humility. It matters though to those Christians who regard the Bible as absolutely correct in every detail. If just one eensy weensy thing can be shown to be wrong then the whole of that person's faith is teetering on the edge. That's why, I think, many creationists defend their position zealously. Those who surrender inerrancy for a more inclusive form of authority that doesn't reject truth outside the Scriptures can make the transition to a more (in my opinion) stable faith. Those who are rattled by these things and don't make the transition usually end up as atheists who remain incapable of thinking of Christianity in anything other form than than that which they rejected.
Hi Father Gregory,

I think YEC's tend to read more into scripture then is truely there - it was not ment as a science book. But at the same time, if we believe in "errors" in the bible - where do we draw the line?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Doesn’t carbon dating or Potassium Argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old?

Carbon dating: Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

Potassium Argon dating: "Potassium Argon dating is based on many of the same assumptions and gives wild dates shown below. Since so many wrong dates are found, how would we know which dates are "correct?"

For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!) Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, pp. 247-266

Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old.

Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999

Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old.

Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999

Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (AD 1959) gave K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999

Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (AD 1972) gave K-AR age of 350,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999, See: www.icr.org for lots more on dating methods.

In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column the radiometric date will be rejected. The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800's over a century before there were any radiometric dating methods. "Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425. Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object's supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased. For more information, see video tape #7 of the CSE video series on Creation, Evolution, and Dinosaurs; Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, or Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris (all available from CSE).

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:

Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61

Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637

A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211

"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.

"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30

"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 670 and 16,150 230 years respectively." --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." --Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." --O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.