Why Trust the Bible?

[blackbird]

9 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

If you can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, Phil Stott is the guy for you. I'm not here to change you. Just pointing-out his obvious lack of chemistry background while he uses pseudo-chemistry as a method to convince you to buy his books.

OK I don't know how much he knows about chemistry so would not comment on that.  But any errors he has on a peripheral subject as a couple errors in chemistry which he may have made is irrelevant in the whole scheme of things.  It is really irrelevant in the whole series of slide presentations which lasted four hours altogether.  Plus at least one book he wrote.   Gotta run for now.  Not finished cutting the grass.

Edited June 6, 2017 by blackbird

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

OK I don't know how much he knows about chemistry so would not comment on that.  But any errors he has on a peripheral subject as a couple errors in chemistry which he may have made is irrelevant is the whole scheme of things.  It is really irrelevant in the whole series of slide presentations which lasted four hours altogether.  Plus at least one book he wrote.   Gotta run for now.  Not finished cutting the grass.

 

There's no such thing as sorta pregnant. A "couple of errors in physics/chemistry" = H-Bomb no workee.

[blackbird]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

There's no such thing as sorta pregnant. A "couple of errors in physics/chemistry" = H-Bomb no workee.

Well you would have to apply the same rigidly in every opinion you present on here then.  If there is the slightest error, everything you say would then have to be dismissed as false, correct?

I don't think there was really much delving into the details of chemistry in his presentation.  There were some references to carbon 14 dating.  That was probably about 10 or 15 years ago.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, blackbird said:

Well you would have to apply the same rigidly in every opinion you present on here then.  If there is the slightest error, everything you say would then have to be dismissed as false, correct?

I don't think there was really much delving into the details of chemistry in his presentation.  There were some references to carbon 14 dating.  That was probably about 10 or 15 years ago.

 

There is zero evidence the Earth is 6,000 years old.

[DogOnPorch]

There is, however, mountains of evidence...growing daily as opposed to shrinking...that this model is pretty durn close.

Delightfully illustrated by Walter Myer...to get an idea of each age.

http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/earth/index.htm

(worth a peek...good art)

And of course, continental drift over the eons...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNmUd43pabg

 

[blackbird]

Creationists or bible believers who take Genesis literally would put a young age on the earth.  Perhaps 6,000 years.

Professor Philip Stott says:

Quote

Science needs observations to work on, and none covering the critical times and events are available. The best we can hope for is to propose a selection of hypotheses and examine extant data to see how well it fits those hypotheses. We are forced to make many assumptions in our analysis, crucial data is missing and we can never gain anything close to certainty for our conclusions.

Data is available concerning the world as it is today. Using what appear to be reasonable assumptions much of this data seems to point to an age of the earth and the universe of the order of thousands of years. Other data seems to point to a far greater age, some to millions, some to thousands of millions of years. Not surprisingly secular humanists esteem the data pointing to great ages very highly, and tend to ignore that pointing to a young age. Creationists tend to place far more emphasis on the data the humanist prefers not to dwell on.

Modern secular humanist scientists tend to give the impression that no real scientist believes in creation and its short time scale. However, some of the greatest scientists have been creationists - Isaac Newton, Leonard Euler, James Clerk Maxwell, J.J. Thomson, and Michael Faraday to mention just a few. Many fine scientists today are creationists and hold to a time scale far shorter than that popularly put forward. Unfortunately such a stance is unpopular with the ruling authorities in science, and some good scientists, Robert V. Genty and Richard Sternberg, for example, have been penalized for their stand. It is likely that this unfortunate situation prevents a number of scientists from openly supporting a short time scale.  Unquote

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/ages/index.htm

Edited June 6, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

There is, however, mountains of evidence...growing daily as opposed to shrinking...that this model is pretty durn close.

Delightfully illustrated by Walter Myer...to get an idea of each age.

http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/earth/index.htm

(worth a peek...good art)

And of course, continental drift over the eons...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNmUd43pabg

 

Don't forget those geological time charts are theoretical using flawed science.

Check this article out.  "Toppling the Timescale".

  http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/45/45_1/CRSQ Summer 08 Reed.pdf

 

Edited June 6, 2017 by blackbird

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Creationists or bible believers who take Genesis literally would put a young age on the earth.  Perhaps 6,000 years.

Professor Philip Stott says:

Quote

Science needs observations to work on, and none covering the critical times and events are available. The best we can hope for is to propose a selection of hypotheses and examine extant data to see how well it fits those hypotheses. We are forced to make many assumptions in our analysis, crucial data is missing and we can never gain anything close to certainty for our conclusions.

Data is available concerning the world as it is today. Using what appear to be reasonable assumptions much of this data seems to point to an age of the earth and the universe of the order of thousands of years. Other data seems to point to a far greater age, some to millions, some to thousands of millions of years. Not surprisingly secular humanists esteem the data pointing to great ages very highly, and tend to ignore that pointing to a young age. Creationists tend to place far more emphasis on the data the humanist prefers not to dwell on.

Modern secular humanist scientists tend to give the impression that no real scientist believes in creation and its short time scale. However, some of the greatest scientists have been creationists - Isaac Newton, Leonard Euler, James Clerk Maxwell, J.J. Thomson, and Michael Faraday to mention just a few. Many fine scientists today are creationists and hold to a time scale far shorter than that popularly put forward. Unfortunately such a stance is unpopular with the ruling authorities in science, and some good scientists, Robert V. Genty and Richard Sternberg, for example, have been penalized for their stand. It is likely that this unfortunate situation prevents a number of scientists from openly supporting a short time scale.  Unquote

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/ages/index.htm

Do those fine scientists' opinions differ greatly from the time scale popularly put forward, or is it just a few weeks here and there?

[blackbird]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Do those fine scientists' opinions differ greatly from the time scale popularly put forward, or is it just a few weeks here and there?

You are asking a huge question.  There are an infinite number of articles on the subject.  Here is a link to dozens.  If you want to some interesting reading, you may find it here.

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/stott-intro.htm

[Guest]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

You are asking a huge question.  There are an infinite number of articles on the subject.  Here is a link to dozens.  If you want to some interesting reading, you may find it here.

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/stott-intro.htm

As long as their view stretches into the billions of years, I can see cutting them some slack.

[blackbird]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Do those fine scientists' opinions differ greatly from the time scale popularly put forward, or is it just a few weeks here and there?

Here is a page that relates to your question about age of earth.

Quote  There have been many ideas - stories, myths - about age and origins. But since the birth of science most of them have become mere curiosities. Two remain in serious contention. The account developed by secular humanist reasoning, characterized by naturalistic processes working over thousands of millions of years, is today by far the more popular. The other, characterized by supernatural creation a few thousand years ago, after having almost disappeared from serious discussion by the middle of the 20th century, has experienced a remarkable return to favour in the last decades.

Before looking at these two competing ideas it should be noted that science is powerless to discover anything about origins with any degree of certainty. Science needs observations to work on, and none covering the critical times and events are available.   Unquote

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/ages/index.htm#

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

There is, however, mountains of evidence...growing daily as opposed to shrinking...that this model is pretty durn close.

Delightfully illustrated by Walter Myer...to get an idea of each age. rest

http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/earth/index.htm

(worth a peek...good art)

And of course, continental drift over the eons...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNmUd43pabg

 

Prof Stott presented an interesting point.  The secular humanist theories about the earth being billions of years old rests on a principle called uniformitarianism if I recall that word correctly.  It means everything happens in a uniform manner and over a predictable time period and always has.  Prof Stott demonstrated this assumption has been proven false.  I wish I could find an article on this.   It would be interesting.  I can't remember his explanation.

[blackbird]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

As long as their view stretches into the billions of years, I can see cutting them some slack.

You can do that if you wish.  If you wish to find out about the other side of the subject, you will have to do some reading.  I gave some links for that.

[Omni]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Science needs observations to work on, and none covering the critical times and events are available.

Never heard of carbon dating I guess.

[blackbird]

I found the information on the word uniformitarianism:

Quote
Catastrophism versus uniformitarianism describes alternative process which could be primarily responsible for the formation the geological strata and embedded fossils. Quwas accepted as the only possible explanation until the about the 18th century. Catastrophism taught that the geologic rock strata were primarily a result of catastrophes like the worldwide flood of Noah. At that time James Hutton and Sir Charles Lyell proposed an alternative explanation of uniformitarianism. The theory of uniformitarianism taught that the present was the key to the past and exactly the same slow process that we see today is the one responsible for the formation of all the geological rock strata.

Since deposition with the uniformitarianism theory was so slow, long eons of time were required. This meant that the current biblical beliefs at that time of a young earth, the recent history of life on earth and the worldwide flood of Noah were discredited. In addition, uniformitarianism laid the foundation for Darwin’s theory of evolution, which also needed an old earth to be credible.

So uniformitarianism dethroned catastrophism and evolution dethroned biblical creationism and both became the dominant theories in academia and science until the present time. Currently, academia and science are clinging to uniformitarianism and biological macroevolution with all the strength they can muster. However, large splits have been seen in the ranks. During the last 50 years an enormous amount of information has been collected that supports catastrophism and intelligent design.

The Mount St. Helens eruption and subsequent erosion has taught us that rapid deposition and rapid canyon erosion is a fact. It doesn’t take years to form. It doesn’t take rocket science to know that life forms cannot be fossilized unless buried rapidly.  Unquote

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/catastrophism-versus-uniformitarianism-faq.htm

[blackbird]

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

Never heard of carbon dating I guess.

Apparently there are problems with that.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Apparently there are problems with that.

As there are problems with a book written, and then rewritten more than a few times, by men, who have used the force of fear to steamroll people into their respective tents. Sorry, I don't buy it. I have more faith in things that can be replicated and proven. I doubt for instance aviation was discovered due to some verse in the bible, quran etc. 

[DogOnPorch]

13 minutes ago, Omni said:

Never heard of carbon dating I guess.

 

Carbon Dating has never been used to determine the age of the Earth. Uranium-Lead dating is used.

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

 

[blackbird]

17 minutes ago, Omni said:

Never heard of carbon dating I guess.

Quote

Can we use radioactive carbon dating to determine the age of the earth? The answer is no, we can't. The reason is twofold. Dr. Gerald Aardsma explains, "Radiocarbon is not used to date the age of rocks or to determine the age of the earth. Other radiometric dating methods such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium are used for such purposes by those who believe that the earth is billions of years old. Radiocarbon is not suitable for this purpose because it is only applicable: a) on a time scale of thousands of years and to remains of once-living organisms (with minor exceptions, from which rocks are excluded)."¹

Radioactive carbon dating can't be used to determine the age of the earth simply because it can't be applied to the earth. It can only be applied to earth's organisms. 

Unquote

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/radioactive-carbon-dating-faq.htm

[DogOnPorch]

Remember, your expert got the Thorium decay chain wrong and Carbon 14 decay backwards.

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Quote

Can we use radioactive carbon dating to determine the age of the earth? The answer is no, we can't. The reason is twofold. Dr. Gerald Aardsma explains, "Radiocarbon is not used to date the age of rocks or to determine the age of the earth. Other radiometric dating methods such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium are used for such purposes by those who believe that the earth is billions of years old. Radiocarbon is not suitable for this purpose because it is only applicable: a) on a time scale of thousands of years and to remains of once-living organisms (with minor exceptions, from which rocks are excluded)."¹

Radioactive carbon dating can't be used to determine the age of the earth simply because it can't be applied to the earth. It can only be applied to earth's organisms. 

Unquote

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/radioactive-carbon-dating-faq.htm

Carbon dating doesn't work for things over about 50,000 years old. Most tock is older than that. 

[DogOnPorch]

Radio Carbon Dating is accurate to about 50,000 years before the present...Shroud of Turin, for example...a famous carbon dated target.

[blackbird]

quote

Geologic Time Scale: Circular Reasoning
The geologic time scale employs yet another circular argument. We determine the age of the rock by the assumed age of the index fossils it contains, then, to determine the age of all the other fossils in the same layer of rock, we look at the age of the layer of rock in which they are found. "…Geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain." (R. H. Rastall, "Geology", Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 10, 1954, p. 168)

"In about 1830, Charles Lyell, Paul Deshayes, and Heinrich George Bronn independently developed a biostratigraphic technique for dating Cenozoic deposits [the geologic time scale]…. Strangely, little effort has been made to test this assumption. This failure leaves the method vulnerable to circularity." (Steven A. Stanley, Warron O. Addicott, and Kiyotaka Chizei, "Lyellian Curves in Paleontology: Possibilities and Limitations", Geology vol. 8, September 1980, p. 422)

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." (J. E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy", American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47)   Unquote

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

quote

Geologic Time Scale: Circular Reasoning
The geologic time scale employs yet another circular argument. We determine the age of the rock by the assumed age of the index fossils it contains, then, to determine the age of all the other fossils in the same layer of rock, we look at the age of the layer of rock in which they are found. "…Geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain." (R. H. Rastall, "Geology", Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 10, 1954, p. 168)

"In about 1830, Charles Lyell, Paul Deshayes, and Heinrich George Bronn independently developed a biostratigraphic technique for dating Cenozoic deposits [the geologic time scale]…. Strangely, little effort has been made to test this assumption. This failure leaves the method vulnerable to circularity." (Steven A. Stanley, Warron O. Addicott, and Kiyotaka Chizei, "Lyellian Curves in Paleontology: Possibilities and Limitations", Geology vol. 8, September 1980, p. 422)

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." (J. E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy", American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47)   Unquote

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm

 

Non-scientists hoping desperately you are too dumb to check their work.

[DogOnPorch]

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Prof Stott presented an interesting point.  The secular humanist theories about the earth being billions of years old rests on a principle called uniformitarianism if I recall that word correctly.  It means everything happens in a uniform manner and over a predictable time period and always has.  Prof Stott demonstrated this assumption has been proven false.  I wish I could find an article on this.   It would be interesting.  I can't remember his explanation.

 

False: there's a field known as Quantum Physics that puts that little gem to bed.