Jesus4u Thread...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SurfDemon
Well, I'll re-post one of my unanswered questions for the umpteenth time.

What about the dinosaurs?


SD

---

Dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses ancient names like "behemoth" and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term which includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squids, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs that may have become extinct.

The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is recorded in Job chapter 40. "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..."(Job 40:15-19) The book of Job is very old, probably written around 2,000 years before Jesus was born. Here God describes a great king of the land animals like some of the biggest dinosaurs, the Diplodocus and Apatosaurus. It was a gigantic plant-eater with great muscles and very strong bones. The long Diplodocus had leg bones so strong that he could have held three others on his back.

The behemoth were not afraid. They did not need to be; they were huge. Their tails were so long and strong that God compared them to cedars - one of the largest and most spectacular trees of the ancient world.

After all the behemoth had died out, many people forgot them. Dinosaurs were extinct and the fossil skeletons that are in museums today did not begin to be put together until about 150 years ago. Today, some people have mistakenly guessed that the behemoth mentioned in the Bible might be an elephant or a hippopotamus. But those animals certainly do not have tails like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees! Although it cannot be stated with certainty, it appears that dinosaurs may have actually been mentioned in the Bible. This should not sound so strange. After all, God tells us that He created all the land animals on the 6th day of creation, the same day that he created mankind. Man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. There was never a time when dinosaurs ruled the earth. From the very beginning of creation, God gave man dominion over all that was made, even over the dinosaurs.

There he goes again, taking all that time out of his busy working life to say something empty and useless.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HarryW
There he goes again, taking all that time out of his busy working life to say something empty and useless.

---

Now YOU are the ignorant! I HAVE taken the time to answer SD's Question and you answer me with that?

May you NEVER accuse me of answering your questions :mad:

I have him ignored. Did he actually say something that I should take the time to read?

(I'm not sure why I'm asking that, the answer is most assuredly no.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
I have him ignored. Did he actually say something that I should take the time to read?

(I'm not sure why I'm asking that, the answer is most assuredly no.)

---

You sound like a child who runs around with his hands covering his ears saying

"I can't hear you, I can't hear you!" :D :D :D

Well that was originally intended to be in response to your accusation that we were all very sad individuals. I have a woking life too you know, and I got delayed in pressing the submit button.

Anyway....

So how old do you reckon the earth is then?

Is there any mention of a maximum age limit that any human will reach? A while ago in a discussion of Islam it transpired that the Koran states that no human will ever achieve an age greater than 120 years. Unfortunately for that little nugget of wisdom, the oldest known person is down in the Guinness Book of Records as being a bit over that - around 123 or thereabouts. I'm just wondering if there is anything similar in the Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jesus4u


You sound like a child who runs around with his hands covering his ears saying

"I can't hear you, I can't hear you!" :D :D :D

---

More like he's saying

"Shut up, shut up, if I listen to any more crap my ears will start to bleed"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HarryW
Well that was originally intended to be in response to your accusation that we were all very sad individuals. I have a woking life too you know, and I got delayed in pressing the submit button.

Anyway....

So how old do you reckon the earth is then?

Is there any mention of a maximum age limit that any human will reach? A while ago in a discussion of Islam it transpired that the Koran states that no human will ever achieve an age greater than 120 years. Unfortunately for that little nugget of wisdom, the oldest known person is down in the Guinness Book of Records as being a bit over that - around 123 or thereabouts. I'm just wondering if there is anything similar in the Bible.

---

check this nugget I dug out of my files



How old is planet Earth? There are enormous differences of opinion. The most common view is that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.1 Others say it is older or younger. The lowest age defended on a scientific basis is in the 6 to 10 thousand year range. Evolutionism, of course, requires billions of years to support the plausibility of life's emergence and of subsequent Evolution from "amoeba" to man. Theoretically, Creationism remains workable within a wide range of age estimates.
Scientists have proposed numerous age estimation methods. Most systems promoted by Evolutionists involve radioactivity. Various radioactive elements are involved, including Carbon-14, Uranium-238, Thorium-232, and Potassium-40. By the way, it is important to understand that most rock strata "dates" were actually assigned long before the first use of radioactive age estimating methods in 1911.2

The Carbon-14 age estimating method is, at best, only useful for estimating the age of things that are thousands of years old, not millions or billions. And it does not work on rocks or thoroughly mineralized fossils; it is only useful for relatively well-preserved organic materials such as cloth, wood, and other non-fossilized materials. Other methods must be used to estimate the age of rocks and minerals. Two of the most widely-known systems are the potassium-argon method and the uranium-lead method.

A radioactive form of potassium is found in minute quantities in some rocks. It disintegrates at a measured rate into calcium and argon. Similarly, the radioactive element uranium decomposes into lead and some other elements.

How are these processes used to estimate the age of rocks? The principle is similar to that used with Carbon-14. The speed of the disintegration process is measured. A portion of the material is ground up and a measurement is made of the ratio of radioactive "parent" atoms to the decomposition products.

Age estimates which are obviously wrong or contradictory are sometimes produced.3 For example, new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produced estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were actually less than 200 years old.4

A popular and supposedly foolproof method was used on two lava flows in the Grand Canyon that should be ideal for radioactive age estimation. The results were similarly bad. Young basalt rock at the Canyon's top produced an age estimate 270 million years older than ancient basalt rock at the Canyon's bottom. The problem seems to arise from basic wrong assumptions in the method (rubidium-strontium isochron). If such a sophisticated method is so flawed, geologist Dr. Steven Austin rightly wonders, "Has anyone successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock?"5


Assumptions and More Assumptions
Arriving at a "date" depends upon a chain of assumptions,6 each link in the chain being an assumption. The validity of the calculated date can be no stronger than the weakest link (weakest assumption) used in the calculation. What are some of the assumptions made by most Evolutionists in using these systems?


ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists generally assume the material being measured had no original "daughter" element(s) in it, or they assume the amount can be accurately estimated. For example, they may assume that all of the lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium.
PROBLEM: One can almost never know with absolute certainty how much radioactive or daughter substance was present at the start.


ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists have also tended to assume that the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved.
PROBLEM: The age estimate can be thrown off considerably, if the radioactive element or the daughter element is leached in or leached out of the sample. There are evidences that this could be a significant problem.7 Simple things such as groundwater movement can carry radioactive material or the daughter element into or out of rock. Rocks must be carefully tested to determine what outside factors might have changed their content.


ASSUMPTION: They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant.8
PROBLEM: How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet Evolutionists are boldly making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change.9 If the decay rates have ever been higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly "date" as being old rocks.


Evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated:

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'."10

Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation:

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."11

REFERENCES AND ENDNOTES

1


EVOLUTIONARY AGE OF THE EARTH. The current age estimate accepted by most Evolutionists for the Earth and our solar system is 4.54 billion years, plus or minus 0.02 billions years. What is this based on? This estimate was deduced from the ratios of different lead isotopes found in meteorites, Moon rocks, and Earth rocks. By other means, the oldest age estimate, to date, for an Earth rock is 3.96 billion years (Slave Province, Canada). The oldest age estimate for a meteorite is 4.6 billion years.
"The best value for the age of the earth is based on the time required for the isotopic composition of lead in the oldest (2.6-3.5 b.y.) terrestrial ores, of which there are currently only four [235U to 207Pb to 238U to 206Pb], to evolve from the primordial composition, recorded in meteoritic troilite, to the composition at the time (measured independently) the ores separated from their parent rocks in earth's mantle. These calculations result in ages for the earth of 4.42 to 4.56 b.y. with a best value of 4.54 b.y."

[List of methods used to arrive at old-age estimates]


EVOLUTIONARY AGE OF THE UNIVERSE:

"The age of the universe has been estimated by astronomers from the velocity and distance of other galaxies as they recede from earth's perspective in the expanding universe. These estimates range from 7 to 20 b.y., depending on whether the expansion is considered to be constant or slowing due to gravitational attractions of galaxies to each other."

[G. Brent Dalrymple, "So How Old Is the Earth, Anyway?," NCSE Reports, Volume 11, No. 4 (Winter 1991), pp. 17., also see: G. Brent Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991).]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2


These pre-1911 "dates" were based on Evolutionary, uniformitarian presuppositions. Evolutionists have since attempted to lend increased credibility to these assumptions by use of radiometric dating (which, of course, is also based on uniformitarian presuppositions - as shall be shown).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INACCURATE AGE ESTIMATES USING RADIOACTIVE SYSTEMS

3


The uranium-lead dating method has produced so many anomalous readings that it has fallen into disrepute, even among Evolutionists.

"It should be noted that dates (absolute dates) obtained by different methods [radioactive dating methods] commonly show some discrepancies... As the Committee on the Measurement of Geological Time said in 1950, 'These figures (i.e. dates) are, as railway timetables say, subject to change without notice.'" (p. 378)
[D.G.A. Whitten and J.R.V. Brooks, The Penguin Dictionary of Geology (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1972), 520 pp. (emphasis added).]


Robert H. Brown, "Graveyard Clocks: Do They Really Tell Time?", Signs of the Times (June 1982), pp. 8-9.

John Woodmorappe, "Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16 (September 1979), pp. 102-129.

Randy L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland, Michigan: Inquiry Press, 1976), pp. 154-156.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


4


John G. Funkhouser, et al., "The Problems of Dating Volcanic Rocks by the Potassium-Argon Methods," Bulletin Volcanologique, Vol. 29 (1966), p. 709.

John G. Funkhouser and John J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14 (July 15, 1968), pp. 4601-4607 (especially p. 4606) (volcanic eruption of 1800 on Hualalai Island, Hawaii, produced rocks which falsely "dated" 160 million to 3 billion years).

C. Noble and John J. Naughton, "Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas Content and Uncertainties in Age Dating," Science, Vol. 162 (October 11, 1968), p. 265.

William Laughlin, "Excess Radiogenic Argon in Pegmatite Minerals," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 74, No. 27 (December 15, 1969), p. 6684.

Sidney P. Clementson, "A Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 3 (December 1970), pp. 137-141.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


5


The two lava flows are the western Grand Canyon lava flows (basalt, 1.34 0.04 billion years) and the Precambrian Cardenas Basalt (1.07 0.07 billion years).
[Steven A. Austin, "Excessively Old 'Ages' for Grand Canyon Lava Flows," Impact, No. 224 (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, February 1992), 4 pp.; "Grand Canyon Lava Flows: A Survey of Isotope Dating Methods," Impact, No. 178 (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, April 1988), 4 pp.]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Assumptions and Problems of Radioactive Methods

6


Radiochronologists must make certain basic assumptions about the rocks they "date", assumptions about their total past environment, formation, and radioactive decay rates. However, Creationist Dr. Duane Gish claims:
"Radiochronologists must resort to indirect methods which involve certain basic assumptions. Not only is there no way to verify the validity of these assumptions, but inherent in these assumptions are factors that assure that the ages so derived, whether accurate or not, will always range in the millions to billions of years (excluding the carbon-14 method, which is useful for dating samples only a few thousand years old)."

[Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, 3rd edition (Santee, California: Master Books, 1979), p. 63 (emphasis added).]


Also, see: John D. Morris, The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Master Books, 1994), pp. 52-62.

Physicist Donald DeYoung, Ph.D.:
"The different methods of radiometric dating, when checked against each other, often are in approximate agreement. If the results are misinterpreted as to age, as proposed here, then a common unknown factor (a measurement or an assumption which is defective) may be perturbing all the age values to a longer apparent age than actual. Another explanation in some isolated cases of dating conclusions may be a 'tracking phenomenon.' By this is meant, a tendency of reported scientific measurements to cluster about an incorrect value. Researchers are often reluctant to report findings too far different from previous results in their published findings. This clustering effect shows up in reports of nuclear half-life determinations, and it may also rule the 4.5 billion year assumed history of the earth and moon."

[John C. Whitcomb and Donald B. DeYoung, The Moon: Its Creation, Form and Significance (Winona Lake, Indiana: BMH Books, 1978), p. 102 (emphasis added).]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Leaching and contamination

7


U.S. Geological Survey:
"...As much as 90 percent of the total radioactive elements of some granites could be removed by leaching the granulated rock with weak acid...as much as 40 percent of the uranium in most fresh-appearing igneous rocks is readily leachable."

[M.R. Klepper and D.G. Wyant, Notes on the Geology of Uranium, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin No. 1046-F (1957), p. 93 (emphasis added).]


John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1961), pp. 335-340.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decay Rate Changes

8


This most basic assumption is evidenced in the statement of Evolutionists Dott and Batten:
"Neither heating nor cooling, changes in pressure, nor changes in chemical state can affect in any detectable way the average rate of spontaneous decay. Because the rate cannot be artificially changed in the laboratory, it is assumed that it always has been uniform for a given isotope."

[R.H. Dott and R.L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth (New York: McGraw Hill, 1971), p. 99 (emphasis added).]


Geologist Andrew Snelling:
"It is special pleading on the part of geochronologists and physicists to say that the radioactive decay rates have been carefully measured in laboratories for the past 80 or 90 years and that no significant variation of these rates has been measured. The 'bottom line' is really that 80 or 90 years of measurements are being extrapolated backwards in time to the origin of the earth, believed by evolutionists to be 4.5 billion years ago. That is an enormous extrapolation. In any other field of scientific research, if scientists or mathematicians were to extrapolate results over that many orders of magnitude, thereby assuming continuity of results over such enormous spans of unobserved time, they would be literally 'laughed out of court' by fellow scientists and mathematicians. Yet geochronologists are allowed to do this with impunity, primarily because it gives the desired millions and billions of years that evolutionists require, and because it makes these radioactive 'clocks' work!"

[Andrew A. Snelling, "Radioactive Dating Method 'Under Fire'!, " Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 2 (P.O. Box 710039, Santee, California 92072: Creation Science Foundation, March-May 1992), p. 44 (emphasis added).]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Documentation of Decay Rate Changes
Researchers have also pointed out various reasons why small changes in decay rates in modern laboratory work would tend to be overlooked.


9


Theodore W. Rybka, "Consequences of Time Dependent Nuclear Decay Indices on Half Lives," Acts & Facts, ICR Impact Series, No. 106, (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, April 1982).

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 35 (1971), pp. 261-288, and Vol. 36 (1972), p. 1167. (Includes data indicating that different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean gave results varying from 100 thousand to 4.4 billion years. Results from different methods were contradictory.)

Donald B. DeYoung, "A Variable Constant," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2 (September 1979), p. 142, and "The Precision of Nuclear Decay Rates", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 2 (March 1976), pp. 38-41. (The latter lists half-life decay variation in 20 radioactive isotopes, including Carbon-14, and variations up to 5%).

K.P. Dostal, M. Nagel, and D. Pabst, "Variations in Nuclear Decay Rates," Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung, Vol. 32a (April 1977), pp. 345-361.

P.A. Catacosinos, "Do Decay Rates Vary?", Geotimes, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1975), p. 11.

J. Anderson and G. Spangler, "Radiometric Dating: Is the 'Decay Constant' Constant?", Pensee, Vol. 4 (Fall 1974), p. 34.

Harold L. Armstrong, "Decay Constant: Really Constant?", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1 (June 1974).

W.K. Hensley, W.A. Basset, and J.R. Huizenga, "Pressure Dependence on the Radioactive Decay Constant of Beryllium-7," Science, Vol. 181 (September 21, 1973). (Documents that the radioactive decay rate of Beryllium-7 varies with pressure).

J.L. Anderson, "Non-Poisson Distributions Observed During Counting of Certain Carbon-14 Labeled (Sub) Monolayers," Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 76, No. 4 (1972). (Shows that the decay rate of Carbon-14 is influenced by the local atomic environment.)

G.T. Emery, "Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates," Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Vol. 22 (1972), pp. 165-202 (Shows that many radioactive elements, including Carbon-14 and Uranium-235, have had their decay rates altered in the laboratory.)

J.L. Anderson, Abstracts of Papers for the 161st National Meeting, Los Angeles (American Chemical Society, 1971).

SOME FEEL THIS PRECLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF ACCURATE RADIOMETRIC DATING: See: A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," Bulletin #80 of the National Research Council (June 1931), p. 107.

A unique study in regard to evidence of changing radioactive decay rates is being made by Robert Gentry (formerly associated with Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Atomic Energy Commission). Dr. Gentry believes the measurements of ancient radiohalos provide possible evidence of past rate variation. These halos are permanently etched into certain crystallized minerals and were caused by the energy released by the disintegration of the radioactive atom at their center. Dr. Gentry measured and compared the radiohalos in various rocks and discovered what appear to be significant variations in the measured ring diameters. This may indicate that radioactive decay rates have changed. However, measurement uncertainty in the tiny radiohalo diameters may preclude any definitive statement on this matter.
See:
John D. Morris, The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Master Books, 1994), pp. 62-64

Robert H. Brown, "Radiohalo Evidence Regarding Change in Natural Process Rates," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3 (December 1990), pp. 100-102

Robert V. Gentry, "Critique of 'Radiohalo Evidence Regarding Change in Natural Process Rates'," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3 (December 1990), pp. 103-105

Robert H. Brown, Harold G. Coffin, L. James Gibson, Ariel A. Roth, and Clyde L. Webster, "Examining Radiohalos," Origins, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Loma Linda, California: Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, 1988), pp. 32-38 (Creationists suggest problems with some aspects of Gentry's interpretations)

Dennis Crews, "Mystery in the Rocks," The Inside Report (October/November 1987), pp. 3-6, (January 1988), pp. 3-6, (March/April 1988), pp. 3-10 (Provides an interesting account of Gentry's research - described in layman's language)

Robert V. Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery, 2nd edition (Knoxville, Tennessee, 37912-0067: Earth Science Associates, 1988), 347 pp.

Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1986), pp. 101-110 (easy layman-type explanation)

Jim Melnick, "The Case of the Polonium Radiohalos," Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1982), pp. 4-5.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


General Problems with Radioactive Dating Methods

John D. Morris, The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Master Books, 1994).

Henry M. Morris and John D. Morris, Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1989), pp. 39-52.

Russel Arndts and William Overn, Isochron Dating and the Mixing Model (Minneapolis: Bible-Science Association, 1983), 36 pp.

Randal L.N. Mandock, Scale Time Versus Geologic Time in Radioisotope Age Determination, Master of Science Thesis (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research Graduate School, August 1982), 160 pp.

Henry M. Morris, editor, Scientific Creationism, General Edition (Santee, California: Master Books, 1974), pp. 131-149.

Sidney P. Clementson, "A Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7 (December 1970), pp. 137-141.

Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish and Co., 1966), pp. 23-72 (includes suggestion that most of the "radiogenic" lead in Earth's crust could have been produced by capture of free neutrons in the vicinity).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10


William D. Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.

William D. Stansfield: Evolutionist / Ph.D. / Biology Department, California Polytechnic State University.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


11


Frederic B. Jueneman, "Secular Catastrophism," Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 24 (June 1982), p. 21.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HarryW
More like he's saying

"Shut up, shut up, if I listen to any more crap my ears will start to bleed"

---

:D :D :D :D :D :D

no rebuttal?

:confused:

Uhh... since I am, as previously mentioned, quite busy, maybe you'd like to just answer the question yourself (ie in your own words) instead of pasting a small novel on the subject which you've obviously found at some Christian site.

no way this has all the info you need to answer your question.

Better than read this book read that book like kzin use to come with. I'd be thankful :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jesus4u
no way this has all the info you need to answer your question.

---

Why are you so keen to express other people's opinions and so reluctant to express your own?

I have read arguments like the one above before. I'm not an expert on geology or whatever scientific field this falls under, so I can't refute any of it on scientific grounds, but also (again, since I'm not an expert) it would be silly for me to blindly take what it says at face value because it is, in essence, religious propaganda. It might be true, I don't dispute that, but I'm not in a position to decide if it is or not. So I just remain open-minded to either possibility.

So what's the problem with expressing your own opinion?

I also asked you another question which you didn't respond to: is there anything in the Bible which specifies or indicates the gratest age a human will live to?

if you can't study for yourself over time and come to conclusions then I don't know what to say. I posted what I did because IF you do your homework you will find out that what it is saying IS true.

In response to ur other Q. I don't think the Bible does....

Wow, this sounds like it is hopping. Tell me if he answer the "why god mad man" question, and I'll take him off the ignore list.

And don't think of it as me running around singing "I can't hear you." Think of it as me screening my calls. I have no desire to listen to narrowminded zealots whom have nothing more substainal to say than quote someone else's propaganda.

And this saves me so much time. :)

Jesus4u

Quote:

---

I posted what I did because IF you do your homework you will find out that what it is saying IS true.

---

What you have quoted here is an array of biased and one sided reports. You (or the source you took them from) have cherry picked and selected the pieces of evidence and scientific opinions that happen to cast aspertions on the methods employed by geologists, biologists and physisists.

What you constantly refer to as "evolutionists" are actually a broad range of scientists from many different fields of and are most certainly not specialists (or indeed advocates) in evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory has been predominately accepted amoung biologists, not because it is (anywhere near) perfect in every detail, but because it offers the best explanation for life currently available to us. It will undoutably be refined immeasurably over time and, no doubt, much of what we now suspect to be true will turn out to be false.

Thist does not change the fact that it, still is, the best explanation we have. The problems, discrepancies, flaws and so on that you have quoted regarding evolutionary (as well as geographic, physical and chemical) theories will serve only to hone these theories and make them stronger. It is an innevitable that science is constantly critisised, analysed and refined to ensure that we arrive at better, more accurate explanations than what we had previously.

If you actually believe that much of the science that makes up what we know about life and the universe today will suddenly, one day, be thrown out the window and we will revert back to a creationist explanation, then you are sorely deluding yourself. The idea of divine creation offers no explanations. It does not empower us with an insight into the nature of living things and the workings of the universe. That is why it will never (again) prevail.

Scientists seek theories that increase our understanding of the universe, that give us more useful explanations. They will never just give up and decide that it cannot beknown. That is not in their nature. The only scientists who will are those that seek reinforcement of their religous notions more strongly than a greater understanding of the mechanisms of existance.

At the end of the day, relgiously motivated people have an agenda. A predisposition to prove what they have already decided to be truth. Those that don't have this predisposition, will not have their judgement clouded and it is them we look to for real progress.

ok then how about this ?

A couple of youngsters asked me a question on evolution and the Bible:
"How can the Bible be true if life has evolved over millions of years? Evolution is a fact. Look what's happened to the horse."
"What has happened to the horse?" I asked.

"Well, over a period of 60 million years it's grown from being a small fox-like animal only 61 centimeters tall to the modern-day horse that stands more than two meters high. And it's lost all its toes too."

"Really?" I said. "That's a spectacular change. Can you show me your textbook?"


When the textbook finally arrived, this is what it said:
The horse did not always look like it does today. The diagrams below show how the horse has changed. It took about 60 million years for the horse to develop. Here's a surprise. The earliest horse was only about 61 centimeters [two foot] tall.

At the bottom of the page was this fascinating piece of logic:
A tiger eats only meat. A tiger's teeth are mainly pointed. The earliest horse had pointed teeth. What does this tell us about what it ate?

My young friend had filled in the answer:
"Meat. It was a carnivore."
I was staggered. If the Melbourne Cup had been held 60 million years ago, it would have probably been a dog race held at Wentworth Park! Could this really be true? I decided to get to the bottom of it for the sake of my young friend, and so I set off to the library. This is what I discovered after digging around on the shelves.


In 1841, the earliest so-called "horse" fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox's head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse.

In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse.

In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in "the evolution" of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks.

The question is: "Is the scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh true?"
The simple answer is "No". While it is a clever arrangement of the fossils on an evolutionary assumption, even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.

So what's the difficulty for the horse with the theory of evolution?


If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed "earliest" horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O. C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where "both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus". In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: "Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains." Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?

There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.

The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly "intermediate" stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.

Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 43 Callable (17 inches) [43.17999999999999 centimeters] tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

My research has left me troubled. Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific? Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said:
"I admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ...".
I agree.


The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living Fallabella horses only 43 hind leg (17 inches) [43.17999999999999 centimeters] tall.

My Grandma had a pet dinosaur. But she had to give it up when it started eating the neighbours. I miss little Rex :(

Simon has a point, the theory of evolution is still a theory, we may never have an answer, but it is the best theory. It not only describes everything we've observed, but it can stand up to scrutiny.

Something I want to mention are three examples of evolution that we have observed, can record and document. Everyone seems to think that the process is something that has happened, is over, and we can't see it. We can, it is there, it is just very very slow.

Example one is the least concrete, but I still want to share it. True, we don't have very thorough census from history, but from what we can gather, man is, on average, taller than he was just 1000 years ago. Where today 6' may be a normal height for a European male, William the Conqueur and his armies may have only averaged 5'10".

How is this evolution? Well, the species is selecting a trait it finds favorable. Taller men are allowed to have more children on average than their shorter cohorts. This raises the chances of taller children, where the selection will continue in the next generation. In other words, tall is in fashion, so the species slowy moves toward that standard by naturally selecting the most attractive members of procreation.

Another example is what is referred to as speciation. I've heard the fairy tale that there was a squirrel indegionous to a region that was eventual split by a gorge. The squirrels on the north side of the gorge eventually got bushier tails, and the squirrels on the south side eventually got sleeker whatevers. The idea is, they were seperated by something, and developed seperately.

Now you can point to any breed of dog, cat, or horse and say that is a type of speciation. But in Japan, there are men who can have beards, and men who can't. The men who can't dominate the island. The men who can came from the reaches of the mountains on the northern island. These are all the same Japanese men, but they grew for centuries seperated, and now have a disguishing characteristic.

It is speculated that if man if allowed to live for generations on Mars, or Luna, or whereever, that man will start to speciate, and begin to develop a characteristic to distinguish that man from a Terran man. It is just as likely that these colonies will fail to develop a trait that Terran men may develop. I, for one, am eager to see the results. But this will take several generations of seperation.

As a side note, it is speculated that all breeds of man are just speciation. I'm not sure as to the creationist rational behind why we have European, African, Arabian, Asian, North American, Central American, and Australian Aboriginee breeds. Heck, we have lots of differences within several of these distinctions.

The third example is a particular moth in England durning the industrial revolution. If someone knows the name of this moth, let me know. Short version of the story.

There are trees with white bark. These moths have white wings and will blend into the bark to hide from preditors. There are on occasion, black winged moths born. They don't live very long since they stand out. Factories go up and start billowing lots of soot. The trees are covered in soot and appear black. The white winged moths are gobbled up. The black winged moths live, and now are allowed to have baby moths of their own. Within a few generations of moths (which isn't very long), that specie of moth has evolved from having white wings to having black.

That is the best documented case of natural selection. It isn't a dramatic as the move from CroMag to Homo Sapien, but it is notable enough.

Sorry it took so long to reply (I had to work).

Thank you J4U for at least attempting to answer the questions. As has already been mentioned your selection does read as an incredibly biased read. For example one "evolutionists" admits that the world might be as young as mans memory... er, that doesn't really make him an "evolutionists" does it...

Your point about the giant creatures is deliberatly being misinterpreted. It says it's tail sways like a cedar tree..... not that it is as big as a cedar tree. Again very selective use of argument.

However, the most glaring fault in all the text was the obvious ignoring of the ice-core samples from the polar regions. These show changes in the world summer/winter climates, and from there can be used to acucrately date other soil samples etc. There are somewhere between 60,000 and 250,000 years worth of cyclicle changes registered in the ice packs.

So that puts the earth as being at least that old.

Additionally, the area which I live in right now is quite famous for dinosaur fossils as it apparently used to be part of the sea bed. It is at present approximately 1 mile above sea level..... so, are you honestly trying to say to me that most of Canada rose out of the sea (by what force) over the last few thousand years and nobody noticed the massive tidle wave that this would have caused. (I know your going to quote the flood here, but that would mean that all life in North America would have been killed. Didn't Noah land on the Europe/Asian/African continent?

SD

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jesus4u
if you can't study for yourself over time and come to conclusions then I don't know what to say. I posted what I did because IF you do your homework you will find out that what it is saying IS true.

In response to ur other Q. I don't think the Bible does....

---

I am quite capable of studying for myself thank you very much, and I am not asking you for the answers because, quite frankly, I don't trust your judgement. What I asked from you (twice) was your own opinion in your own words.

I don't understand why you are so reluctant to converse like a normal, intelligent human being. Most (sane) people in a situation like this would make a suggestion, state their opinion or otherwise place an issue into the spotlight for scrutiny and discussion, and would then respond to criticisms with clarification and backup of their position, or if sufficient critical evidence was shown, would retract their suggestion and acknowledge their possible mistake.

Now, I don't expect you to do any retraction (I'm not that optimistic :rolleyes: ) but I do expect a certain level of discussion in a debate like this. You seem very happy to supply supporting material for your general position, but you are evidently very reluctant to discuss that and explain how your evidence is relevant. Sure, it may be obviously relevant to something, but a little personal input might actually make it worth reading.

The whole point in a debate like this is that it's interactive. If you're not going to get personally involved and just want to copy & paste things from websites, you're not bringing anything of value to the forum. If we want to gather information like that we can go and read a textbook, or a website documenting Christian beliefs, or whatever else.

Basically what I'm saying is if you're not going to get involved, just don't bother wasting everyone's time (you're a very busy man remember?) with your plagiarism.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jesus4u


You sound like a child who runs around with his hands covering his ears saying

"I can't hear you, I can't hear you!" :D :D :D

---

well, thats funny, I'd say alot of people on this forum would say that your quote describes you exactly :D :D :D

Jesus4u

Your citation about the horse (and it's evolution) is quite interesting and I wouldn't know about it's details to either contradict or agree with you.

To be honest, I've never even heard of that particular example of evolution and it's not one I hear refered to as a "prime" example.

What seems strage to me is your assertion that the theory of evolution somehow rests on this particular illustration and that there is little other strong evidence around to support it. That couldn't be further from the truth.

What anti-evolutionists tend to do is pick over "gaps" and inconsistancies in the supposed history of evolution and cite them as reasons for abandonning the whole thing. Once again they ignore the fact there are many examples that illustrate the history of evolution without the sort of flaws you've highlighted in your example.

We can see evolution at work (before our very eyes) when we observe bacteria and viruses (who have very fast evolution due to short generation gaps). They are mutating and evolving all the time and it is one reason why anti-biotics are becomming innefective against the new, evolved strains.

Evolution, as a mechanism for change, is a model that is succesfully employed in a wide range of biological fields. The fact that a few creationist "nuts" still debate the history of evolution does not stop them using these models to accurately predict the behaviour of many different systems.

If the creationists want to dwell on the history of evolution, that's fine. Find flaws with it and do what ever you like but just don't hold the rest of us back, OK?

Looks like J4U's decided not to throw his pearls before swine.

The problem is.....they aren't his pearls........no original thoughts allowed.

I can think of more appropriate nouns for them than 'pearls' too.

yep!

Hello all. Been away for a while.

Here is something funny but true..:)

Subject: FW: Job Opening

Hello Friends & Family,

I know many of you were hired long ago, but the need of more workers is
great.....Pass it on!

JOB TITLE: DISCIPLES FOR CHRIST

JOB DESCRIPTION: Tell the dying world how they can live through
Jesus Christ.

NUMBER OF AVAILABLE POSITIONS:
Unlimited----Preachers, teachers, singers, disciples, etc. For
those seeking positions of being boss, that position has already been
filled by the Holy Spirit.

QUALIFICATIONS:

Must have previously sinned and been blood washed.

Must be willing to press toward the mark of the high calling in
Christ Jesus.

EXPERIENCE: None necessary.

EDUCATION: Holy spirit will teach you all things.

BENEFITS PACKAGE:
SALARY:----My God (the employer)shall supply all your needs
according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

INSURANCE---Assurance that employees have access to the Master
Physician.

PACKAGE ALSO INCLUDES: Love, joy, peace, patience, long suffering... A
Lawyer, A Comforter,
and Wonderful Counselor. After the employees complete the job assignment,
they
will receive their most important benefit...ETERNAL LIFE with the
employer.

DEADLINE TO APPLY: Right Now!

NOTE: Satan and demons need not apply.

Quote:

---

Must have previously been blood washed.

---

:eek: I thought only serial killers bathed in blood!

Refers to Jesus' blood being shed on the cross for your sins! :)

Oooo... the thread is active again. I guess it is time for me to ask the question no one can answer.

Why did your god make man?

The answer should be obvious...




Because cows can't play frisbee.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HarryW
I am quite capable of studying for myself thank you very much, and I am not asking you for the answers because, quite frankly, I don't trust your judgement. What I asked from you (twice) was your own opinion in your own words.

I don't understand why you are so reluctant to converse like a normal, intelligent human being. Most (sane) people in a situation like this would make a suggestion, state their opinion or otherwise place an issue into the spotlight for scrutiny and discussion, and would then respond to criticisms with clarification and backup of their position, or if sufficient critical evidence was shown, would retract their suggestion and acknowledge their possible mistake.

Now, I don't expect you to do any retraction (I'm not that optimistic :rolleyes: ) but I do expect a certain level of discussion in a debate like this. You seem very happy to supply supporting material for your general position, but you are evidently very reluctant to discuss that and explain how your evidence is relevant. Sure, it may be obviously relevant to something, but a little personal input might actually make it worth reading.

The whole point in a debate like this is that it's interactive. If you're not going to get personally involved and just want to copy & paste things from websites, you're not bringing anything of value to the forum. If we want to gather information like that we can go and read a textbook, or a website documenting Christian beliefs, or whatever else.

Basically what I'm saying is if you're not going to get involved, just don't bother wasting everyone's time (you're a very busy man remember?) with your plagiarism.

---

Since you obviously don't like reading anything that isn't fanatically religious, I'll summarise:

• Discussion <--- good
• Interactive <---- good
• Plagiarism <---- bad

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Oooo... the thread is active again. I guess it is time for me to ask the question no one can answer.

Why did your god make man?

---

God made man so that man could personally experience and know Him. To understand and appreciate God's love for man which is an unconditional love not based on mans' performance or merit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jesus4u
To understand and appreciate God's love for man which is an unconditional love not based on mans' performance or merit.

---

This has to have been stated a lot in this thread already, but,

(Man's performace = bad in God's eyes) = Man goes to Hell for eternal punishment.

Isn't that a contradiction to your last statement? How can you love something unconditionally, but eternally punish it if it doesn't live up to your standards? I don't get it.

Quote:

---

God made man so that man could personally experience and know Him. To understand and appreciate God's love for man which is an unconditional love not based on mans' performance or merit.

---

Yeah, you are contradicting yourself, and your god. Your god is a very vengeful and wrathful god, who doesn't hesitate to destroy or damn those who do not do as he says. I'm missing that unconditional love thing.

But the only reason you can give is... god made man so that man could know god. Before god made man, there was no man, so man wasn't lacking in its knowledge of anything. Which conludes that the problem (man not knowing god) was a result of our creation, not a cause for it.

Yeah... sounds like your god made man just so he would have company. We were all perfectly happy in our bliss and non-existant state before he came along. Selfish much?

Dude, I have the most wicked of post counts right now.

*shrug* Read into it what you want.