Why Trust the Bible?

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I'm asking you.

If Kangaroos hopped from Turkey to Australia, why didn't any stop and stay along the way?

I don't know why there are animals in some parts of the world and not others.  Climate, vegetation, etc.??   You would have to ask someone who studies animals.  Gotta run.  Might go fishing now.

Edited June 6, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I'm asking you.

If Kangaroos hopped from Turkey to Australia, why didn't any stop and stay along the way?

I don't know.  It would be pure speculation.  Why are kangaroos only in Australia?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't know.  It would be pure speculation.  Why are kangaroos only in Australia?

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess it's because that's where they evolved, and it's surrounded by water. 

Catch anything?

Edited June 6, 2017 by bcsapper

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess it's because that's where they evolved, and it's surrounded by water. 

I should have anticipated someone would come up with that. 

No, evolution has been debunked by professionals like Philip Stott.

Edited June 6, 2017 by blackbird

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I should have anticipated someone would come up with that. 

No, evolution has been debunked by professionals like Philip Stott.

Ah, I had no idea.  I haven't been keeping up.

[dialamah]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

No, evolution has been debunked by professionals like Philip Stott.

Ah, I had no idea.  I haven't been keeping up.

Glad that's been settled.  

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess it's because that's where they evolved, and it's surrounded by water. 

Catch anything?

Evolution has been de-bunked.

No. The boat launch was too crowded with people launching boats (upper 20s today).

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Glad that's been settled.  

I think we have been wandering quite far from the topic, Why Trust the Bible? 

Edited June 7, 2017 by blackbird

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Evolution has been de-bunked.

No. The boat launch was too crowded with people launching boats (upper 20s today).

I think we have been wandering quite far from the topic, Why Trust the Bible? 

I know it helped with good Rocky's revival, but other than that, I can't think of a good reason.

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I know it helped with good Rocky's revival, but other than that, I can't think of a good reason.

Who is Rocky?

[DogOnPorch]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Who is Rocky?

 

Only to find Gideon's Bible.

Rocky had come, equipped with a gun....

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I know it helped with good Rocky's revival, but other than that, I can't think of a good reason.

 

Now the doctor came in stinking of gin
And proceeded to lie on the table
He said Rocky you met your match
And Rocky said, doc it's only a scratch

[TTM]

On 2017-06-06 at 11:16 AM, blackbird said:

Such claims may not be credible.  There has to be proof, not just claims.  If the flood happened between 4000 and 4500 years ago, then possibly some descendants dispersed to China after that, but where is the proof? 

I offer as proof that there were modern humans living on the planet for tens of thousands of years before 4000ish BC the entire field of archeology (but especially prehistoric archeology), consisting of thousands of highly trained and educated members, operating over a couple of hundred years, producing over that time tens (hundreds? more?) of thousands of academic papers through which the current consensus has been achieved.  You?

Edited June 8, 2017 by TTM

[blackbird]

45 minutes ago, TTM said:

I offer as proof that there were modern humans living on the planet for tens of thousands of years before 4000ish BC the entire field of archeology (but especially prehistoric archeology), consisting of thousands of highly trained and educated members, operating over a couple of hundred years, producing over that time tens (hundreds? more?) of thousands of academic papers through which the current consensus has been achieved.  You?

That has been disputed and debunked for ages.

Right now I am tied up with other things.   You might want to take a look at this website.  Many great minds have done extensive research and written lengthy articles on their findings.

http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by blackbird

[TTM]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I had just typed out several paragraphs and hit some key that caused it all to disappear.  Very frustrating. I am not ready right now to reply to your claim because it would require me to spend a lot of time delving into it.  It is very involved and time consuming, which I can't right now.   Maybe in the future.  Right now I am tied up with other things.   You might want to take a look at this website:

http://creation.com/pre-adamites-and-human-fossils

Based on your link, your "proof" to reject humans 6000 + years ago is a house of cards based of a single document of dubious origin and merit.  And also that basing science off of religion leads nowhere good.

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, TTM said:

Based on your link, your "proof" to reject humans 6000 + years ago is a house of cards based of a single document of dubious origin and merit.  And also that basing science off of religion leads nowhere good.

There are countless article delving into this, not a single document.  It is a very large topic with huge implications that you should research.

Quote

Yet the ‘big picture’ is very different, and encouraging for the biblical creationist. For many decades now, with few exceptions,² a consistent pattern has emerged. It’s as if each find switches on some more pixels in a grainy image, maybe sharpening but not changing the picture, which was long obvious in outline. All of the finds more or less naturally fall into one of only three major groups. And two of these, Neandertal and Homo erectus, are similar anyway. Both are clearly human descendants of Adam.³

Virtually all others, including the famous ‘Lucy’, are in the remaining group, which generates the most evolutionary excitement. But it turns out to be an extinct non-human primate group, anatomically not between apes and humans  Unquote

from the above link

[blackbird]

In geology, the layers of the earth with fossils in them is generally accepted as evidence of an old earth.  This is based on uniformitarianism.  That means the layers developed very slowly over long periods of time.  But it has been found and shown that the earth layers could have been formed very rapidly as a result of the flood in Genesis.

This is called the catastrophism principle.  The is means a great catastrophy such as a Noah's flood could have caused the layers to be placed very quickly with the fossils within them.

Quote

The vast thicknesses of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for vast age. First, Teaching about Evolution gives a useful definition on page 33:

Sedimentary rocks are formed when solid materials carried by wind and water accumulate in layers and then are compressed by overlying deposits. Sedimentary rocks sometimes contain fossils formed from the parts of organisms deposited along with other solid materials.

The ‘deep time’ indoctrination comes with the statement ‘often reaching great thicknesses over long periods of time.’ However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. We have already discussed how different biases can result in different interpretations of the same data, in this case the rock layers. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates (‘the present is the key to the past’) is often called uniformitarianism.

Uniformitarianism was defined this way in my own university geology class in 1983, and was contrasted with catastrophism. But more recently, the word ‘uniformitarianism’ has been applied in other contexts to mean also constancy of natural laws, sometimes called ‘methodological uniformitarianism,’ as opposed to what some have called ‘substantive uniformitarianism.’

It should also be pointed out that uniformitarian geologists have long allowed for the occasional (localized) catastrophic event. However, modern historical geology grew out of this general ‘slow and gradual’ principle, which is still the predominantly preferred framework of explanation for any geological formation. Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophic formation is so pervasive that there is a growing body of neo-catastrophists. But because of their naturalistic bias, they prefer, of course, to reject the explanation of the Genesis (global) flood.  Unquote

part of article from:

http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth

[OftenWrong]

On 2017-06-08 at 2:12 AM, blackbird said:

In geology, the layers of the earth with fossils in them is generally accepted as evidence of an old earth.  This is based on uniformitarianism.  That means the layers developed very slowly over long periods of time.  But it has been found and shown that the earth layers could have been formed very rapidly as a result of the flood in Genesis.

Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods.

That's not the only problem you have to solve to eliminate evidence of an old Earth. There is also the decay of nuclear elements like carbon-14, which necessarily takes a long, long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

[eyeball]

I thought this problem was eliminated by creating old age along with the young Earth.  Its like God was in a hurry or something.

[DogOnPorch]

11 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

That's not the only problem you have to solve to eliminate evidence of an old Earth. There is also the decay of nuclear elements like carbon-14, which necessarily takes a long, long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

 

For very long periods of time, elements with longer decay chains are used. Uranium-Lead for the age of the Earth, for example. Carbon 14 is useful only for dating objects from a short time ago. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium–lead_dating

[DogOnPorch]

Also...if all fossils were laid down in a single flood event...they'd be uniformly mixed-up...but they are separated. Fossil "A" being only found in layer "X"...for example.

 

[blackbird]

On 2017-06-09 at 8:34 PM, OftenWrong said:

That's not the only problem you have to solve to eliminate evidence of an old Earth. There is also the decay of nuclear elements like carbon-14, which necessarily takes a long, long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Evidence of an old earth has already been debunked.  Carbon 14 dating is only good for a few thousand years.  People mistakenly think it was used to measure things millions of years old.  Check this article:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf

http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers

I believe the biblical account of creation in Genesis.  I believe the earth was created with an apparent age built in it at the time of creation.  For instance a tree had to have a certain age at the moment of creation.  So, one can look at these debates but the way I see it eliminates doubts.  One must accept that creation was a supernatural event of course.  God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day.  That avoids the endless debate about how it happened.  But if one wishes to delve into all the scientific information that some creation believers have, one is free to do so.  But I'm not sure it will satisfy someone who will not accept it.  I see it as a matter of faith in the written word, the King James Bible (1611).  The Bible is a spiritual book full of supernatural events.  Men wrote it under the inspiration of God.  The evidence for the inspiration of the Bible is within the Bible itself.

Edited June 11, 2017 by blackbird

[DogOnPorch]

50 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Evidence of an old earth has already been debunked.  Carbon 14 dating is only good for a few thousand years.  People mistakenly think it was used to measure things millions of years old.  Check this article:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf

http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers

I believe the biblical account of creation in Genesis.  I believe the earth was created with an apparent age built in it at the time of creation.  For instance a tree had to have a certain age at the moment of creation.  So, one can look at these debates but the way I see it eliminates doubts.  One must accept that creation was a supernatural event of course.  God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day.  That avoids the endless debate about how it happened.  But if one wishes to delve into all the scientific information that some creation believers have, one is free to do so.  But I'm not sure it will satisfy someone who will not accept it.  I see it as a matter of faith in the written word, the King James Bible (1611).  The Bible is a spiritual book full of supernatural events.  Men wrote it under the inspiration of God.  The evidence for the inspiration of the Bible is within the Bible itself.

 

Uranium-Lead Decay Dating says otherwise.

Is chemistry wrong?

[TTM]

On 2017-06-07 at 11:32 PM, blackbird said:

Virtually all others, including the famous ‘Lucy’, are in the remaining group, which generates the most evolutionary excitement. But it turns out to be an extinct non-human primate group, anatomically not between apes and humans 

Um, no. Quite clearly anatomically between apes and humans.  Self evident even to a layman.  See for example homo erectus:

 

On 2017-06-08 at 0:12 AM, blackbird said:

In geology, the layers of the earth with fossils in them is generally accepted as evidence of an old earth.  This is based on uniformitarianism.  That means the layers developed very slowly over long periods of time.  But it has been found and shown that the earth layers could have been formed very rapidly as a result of the flood in Genesis.

This is called the catastrophism principle.  The is means a great catastrophy such as a Noah's flood could have caused the layers to be placed very quickly with the fossils within them.

We already discussed this.  Unless it was a "magical flood", you cannot explain how fossils are separated into distinct layers rather than all jumbled together.

[TTM]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

I believe the biblical account of creation in Genesis.  I believe the earth was created with an apparent age built in it at the time of creation.

Fair enough. Why did God create a "fake" fossil record that when looked at objectively would inevitably lead to the conclusion that we were created by evolution rather than creation? And a "fake" geology that would lead us to believe the world was billions of years old rather than thousands. And a "fake" cosmology that would lead us to believe the universe is billions of years older than the earth, and that the earth are an infinitessimally tiny random mote floating within it, rather than the center of creation?

Edited June 11, 2017 by TTM

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

Evidence of an old earth has already been debunked.  Carbon 14 dating is only good for a few thousand years.  People mistakenly think it was used to measure things millions of years old.

Yes I know, DOP already pointed out that there are other nuclear materials used to measure older dates. Even radiocarbon decay can be used to measure back to about 50,000 years. That's still 10 x what some people believe it says in the bible about the age of the earth.

I have no problem with people who want to believe in god, or follow the teaching in the bible but one should not confuse physics with metaphysics. Science is what it is, there shouldn't be any dichotomy.

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

but one should not confuse physics with metaphysics. Science is what it is, there shouldn't be any dichotomy.

You're quite the hypocrite, aren't you, OftenWrong. What kind of pretense is this - you pretending that science is important to you?

Edited June 11, 2017 by hot enough