The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Doc Farrell wrote: »

That's why I compared his relationship with the Catholic Church as similar to Galileo's. in both cases their views were considered heretical in a period of history and in both cases the Church officially accepts that they were right.

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I guess this isn't really going to matter to you but I think it might help others who might not understand how human history works ie things change.

For the record, and again this doesn't apply to your position, but for others reading the Catholic Church has no interest in denying the scientific reality of our current understanding of how evolution works.

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

I wasn't aware that Genetic testing was (a) available at the time of Noah and (b) that it had been recorded somewhere for you to source it and tell us about it.

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Wow! so we all thought the universe was increasing but you think it is decreasing, but lets face it JC, you will say anything to try to fit into your theory. So you are actually saying that these galaxies which are recorded as being millions and millions of light years away are actually only 20 or thirty light years away, as the crow flies, so to speak.
What about your proof about the universe being only 10,000 years old. Lets stop trying to disprove all of our theories and facts and start to show us how you can prove your ones. Proof JC, Proof!

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

JC, nobody is ever going to convince you that the Universe is Millions of years old, no matter what evidence they present. But JC, you are avoiding my question, where is your PROOF that it is only 10000 years old. All you do is try to debunk the evidence without presenting your own proof, So where is it???

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

JC It is really interesting to debate, with someone like yourself, the various beliefs about the age of the Earth. You obvious have a technical mind which is why I can't really understand how you can believe the "young Earth" theories. There has been much written on both sides of the argument, like some of the references you quoted.
Variety (of opinion) is the 'spice of life' ... in pluralist societies ... and it leads to scientific and philosophical progress!!!
I find it very interesting debating with you guys as well ... and one of the reasons is that I was once one of you guys (a 'long ager' Evolutionist).
There are a number of parameters which, if extrapolated from the present without taking into account the changes in the Earth over time, would seem to suggest a somewhat younger Earth. These arguments can sound good at a very simple level, but they don't stand up when all the factors are considered. Some examples of these categories are the decaying magnetic field (not mentioning the widespread evidence for magnetic reversals),
A decaying magnetic field can be symptom of a reversal ... but the scale of the current decay indicates a much more rapid magentic polarity reversal than 'long age' assumptions would suggest.

the saltiness of the oceans (not counting sedimentation!),
Salt is dissolved in water ... and it doesn't accumulate to any substantive degree in sediment.

the sedimentation rate of the oceans (not counting Earthquakes and crustal movement, that is, plate tectonics),
Subduction can remove some sediment at the ocean margins ... but it doesn't affect the sediment throughout the rest of the oceans.
the relative paucity of meteorites on the Earth's surface (not counting weathering or plate tectonics),
Subduction would only 'erase' craters in active subduction areas

the thickness of dust on the moon (without taking into account brecciation over time),
breccation isn't an issue in relation moon dust.

the Earth-Moon separation rate (not counting changes in tides and internal forces), etc.
... tides and internal forces have no effect on the recession of the Moon.
While these arguments do not stand up when the complete picture is considered, the case for a very old creation of the Earth fits well in all areas considered.
I used to be a 'long ager' Evolutionist ... until I discovered all this evidence for a young Earth and Direct Creation.

The fact is that there are many Bible-believing Christians who are involved in radiometric dating, and who can see its validity first hand. A great number of other Christians are firmly convinced that radiometric dating shows evidence that God created the Earth billions, not thousands, of years ago.
That's true ... but it doesn't alter the fact that it's all based on the wishful thinking of Materialists.


Powerful telescopes, like Hubble, allow us to see supernovae (exploding stars) at distances so vast that the pictures take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to arrive at the Earth. So the events we see today actually occurred hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago, not unfortunately as you suggested, less than ten thousand years ago. And what do we see when we look back in time through Hubble? Much of the light following a supernova blast is powered by newly created radioactive parents. So we observe radiometric decay in the supernova light. The half-lives of decays occurring hundreds of thousands of years ago are thus carefully recorded! These half-lives completely agree with the half-lives measured from decays occurring today. We must conclude that all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives.
We see stars expanding and contracting through a full end of lifecycle in a few years ... something 'long agers' believe should take millions of years.
Quote:
For example, Sakurai’s Object in Sagittarius: in 1994, this star was most likely a white dwarf in the centre of a planetary nebula; by 1997 it had grown to a bright yellow giant, about 80 times wider than the sun (Astronomy & Astrophysics 321:L17, 1997). In 1998, it had expanded even further, to a red supergiant 150 times wider than the sun. But then it shrank just as quickly; by 2002 the star itself was invisible even to the most powerful optical telescopes, although it is detectable in the infrared, which shines through the dust (Muir, H., 2003, Back from the dead, New Scientist 177(2384):28–31).

Some people suggest as you did, that the speed of light must have been different in the past, and that the starlight has not really taken so long to reach us. However, the astronomical evidence, such as the supernovas, also suggests that the speed of light has not changed, or else we would see a significant apparent change in the half-lives of these ancient radioactive decays.
Remember JC, there are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other reliable methods..
Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favour a very old Earth. Thousands of laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Thousands of papers on radiometric dating have been published, in scientifically recognized journals in the last few years, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favour an older Earth than you suggest.
But, as I said before, no amount of evidence will convince you, because you have convinced yourself that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago, even though it says nothing in the Bible about the age of the Earth.

As I have said, I go where the evidence leads ... I was once a 'long ager' Evolutionist ... until I found that the evidence doesn't support it ... and I would go back to being a 'long ager' if the evidence merited it.
You guys are trying to create a perception of me being somebody who refuses to acknowledge evidence, for religious reasons ... when ye are the guys who are ignoring the evidence and remaining 'dyed in the wool' long agers and Evolutionists.

Cossax wrote: »

Would it surprise anyone to know that the quote from JC about Sakurai's Object turns up 4 results on a quick google search, and one of them is from here? Granted, if you allow in the repeat results, it hits 85 but it appears to come from Creation.com. Even the fact that there are only 85 hits on google leads me to believe that this isn't a regularly used by deniers like JC.

RationalWiki even has a nice little explanation
Sakurai's object[wp] is one of several observed "born again" objects that are believed to be white dwarfs which undergo a second phase of swelling to become red giants. Its transient nature indicates its origins as a star which first became a white dwarf prior to its swan song. This is not a good argument for a young universe.

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

JC there are a lot of people who will swear that smoking is not bad for you. Some have "proved " it to me by telling me that 4 people they knew smoked up to 60 cigarettes a day and lived until they were 80 or more. Therefore smoking doesn't kill or cause cancer. One woman I know told me that her doctor told her not to give up the fags because it would not be good for her to do so. She also told me that loads of people get cancer who never smoked in their lives. So there you are JC, proof that smoking doesn't cause cancer, she has "proved" that to me. She didn't say that she was 74 years old and had about 6 months to live, so giving up now would be too late and may cause unnecessary mental anguish.
Exceptions don't make the rule. Articles written by creationists, with limited facts, are as accurate as my smoker friends theories on the effects of cigarette smoke.