Breaking News from Genesis 1:9

[Newtonian]

Who are these creation scientists you reference? Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.

The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.

RATE stands for "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" They are a group of zealots, some with science degrees, who try to twist radiological dating conclusions by sometimes denying basic laws of nuclear physics and sometimes denigrating scientific techniques. They have a website here: RATE

I do not consider them as scientists in this regard: They assume the bible tells them the age of the universe, and then they attempt to distort legitimate science to agree with them. That is backwards. Scientists should start with an open mind and draw conclusions from their measurements.
.

True that is false.

 

[Wuwei]

I am not sure how you are dating the various flood accounts in most ancient writings from all parts of the planet. Many are similar on various key points but only the Biblical account can be confirmed by scientific study. The other stories are too similar to be coincidence.

If there were flood accounts from all parts of the planet who wrote those accounts? There had to have been many survivors other than just Noah and family.

 

[Hollie]

F

Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.

That's illogical fallacious reasoning. Look at how diamond forms. We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating. I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.

What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.

Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.

That's a lie. Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis. What you called established science is fake science. The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.

Who are these creation scientists you reference? Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.

The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.

I have read the Creation Research Quarterly many years ago and found that its information is based on scientific study though obviously biased towards creationist teachings. Some of their conclusions are correct or likely correct - other conclusions are mistaken or likely mistaken. You would have to specify which points you disagree with from them for me to respond point by point.

You also fail to document your assertions. From past conversation with you about the fine tuning of planet earth I know you ignored the scientific evidence I posted.

It’s a simple matter to look at the webpages of the primary fundamentalist ministries: creation.com, the ICR, Discovery Institute to name a few. They all have “statements of faith” which explicitly require that conclusions about the world around us agree with biblical dogma.

The conversation about “fine tuning” of the planet was, from your point, largely volumes of cut and paste material from the JW website. As we discussed, the “fine tuning” argument ignores the fact of a planet often hostile to life. Your argument presupposes one or more gods who supernaturally created a fine tuned planet yet you made no argument at all for the gods required to supernaturally create such fine tuning.


The JW’s are very similar to any of the other creation ministries:

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/

There is a predefined bias toward a version of Christianity with little to distinguish between the various versions of some claimed “true” Christianity.

False. My first example involved carbonates in earth's crust and I did not cite any links to our literature on that point. I did cite Britannica though. You have no excuse for ignoring the scientific evidence I posted.

Also, to belong to the Creation Research Society one must believe in the trinity - Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the trinity -neither did Isaac Newton.

Most creationists believe the creative days in Genesis chapter 1 were 24 hours each - we do not believe this - the rate of the geologic carbon cycle removing CO2 from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters could not have occurred in a week - or even in 10,000 years.

But you do have to go to our website to find out what we actually believe - there are many lies and deceptions about our beliefs on the internet - but we know what we believe.

My excuse for not accepting an encyclopedia over peer reviewed science journals / studies has to do with credibility. Selectively cutting out a Britannica article about carbonates does nothing to support an argument for supernatural design.

One of the classical arguments of religionists is to:

A. Use the bible as the source from where you heard about Jesus and God (or god(s) of your choosing) and salvation in the first place

only to

B. Dismiss what the bible says about Jesus and God in the first place in favor of something you'd like it to be instead of what it says it is.

The Bible’s speak to days. If you want to re-write that to something else, that’s fine.

Finally, lest anyone think I am focusing on the Bible alone, the above also holds true for the koran, The Bhagavad-Gita, The Book of Mormon, and so on. A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men.

Although now, we may be edging into that really bizarre world of Theism where some things you believe as literal, others not, which is really your garden variety of pick-and-choose what you want to believe. If you can say, "Well, Genesis is true but Pauline rules on women is not" (or whatever), well, then I can -- with equal "authority" -- by your own standards, say "Well, the siege of Jericho is true, but the resurrection is not". Such game playing with one's beliefs is certainly your right to do, but it only strips your argument of credibility, it doesn't support your case at all.

 

[Newtonian]

F

Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.

That's illogical fallacious reasoning. Look at how diamond forms. We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating. I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.

What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.

Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.

That's a lie. Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis. What you called established science is fake science. The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.

Who are these creation scientists you reference? Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.

The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.

I have read the Creation Research Quarterly many years ago and found that its information is based on scientific study though obviously biased towards creationist teachings. Some of their conclusions are correct or likely correct - other conclusions are mistaken or likely mistaken. You would have to specify which points you disagree with from them for me to respond point by point.

You also fail to document your assertions. From past conversation with you about the fine tuning of planet earth I know you ignored the scientific evidence I posted.

It’s a simple matter to look at the webpages of the primary fundamentalist ministries: creation.com, the ICR, Discovery Institute to name a few. They all have “statements of faith” which explicitly require that conclusions about the world around us agree with biblical dogma.

The conversation about “fine tuning” of the planet was, from your point, largely volumes of cut and paste material from the JW website. As we discussed, the “fine tuning” argument ignores the fact of a planet often hostile to life. Your argument presupposes one or more gods who supernaturally created a fine tuned planet yet you made no argument at all for the gods required to supernaturally create such fine tuning.


The JW’s are very similar to any of the other creation ministries:

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/

There is a predefined bias toward a version of Christianity with little to distinguish between the various versions of some claimed “true” Christianity.

False. My first example involved carbonates in earth's crust and I did not cite any links to our literature on that point. I did cite Britannica though. You have no excuse for ignoring the scientific evidence I posted.

Also, to belong to the Creation Research Society one must believe in the trinity - Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the trinity -neither did Isaac Newton.

Most creationists believe the creative days in Genesis chapter 1 were 24 hours each - we do not believe this - the rate of the geologic carbon cycle removing CO2 from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters could not have occurred in a week - or even in 10,000 years.

But you do have to go to our website to find out what we actually believe - there are many lies and deceptions about our beliefs on the internet - but we know what we believe.

My excuse for not accepting an encyclopedia over peer reviewed science journals / studies has to do with credibility. Selectively cutting out a Britannica article about carbonates does nothing to support an argument for supernatural design.

One of the classical arguments of religionists is to:

A. Use the bible as the source from where you heard about Jesus and God (or god(s) of your choosing) and salvation in the first place

only to

B. Dismiss what the bible says about Jesus and God in the first place in favor of something you'd like it to be instead of what it says it is.

The Bible’s speak to days. If you want to re-write that to something else, that’s fine.

Finally, lest anyone think I am focusing on the Bible alone, the above also holds true for the koran, The Bhagavad-Gita, The Book of Mormon, and so on. A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men.

Although now, we may be edging into that really bizarre world of Theism where some things you believe as literal, others not, which is really your garden variety of pick-and-choose what you want to believe. If you can say, "Well, Genesis is true but Pauline rules on women is not" (or whatever), well, then I can -- with equal "authority" -- by your own standards, say "Well, the siege of Jericho is true, but the resurrection is not". Such game playing with one's beliefs is certainly your right to do, but it only strips your argument of credibility, it doesn't support your case at all.

So now you doubt Britannica because it is not peer reviewed????

Did you even try to read the Britannica article I linked to? I am not about to cut and paste the entire article - it is up to you to examine the facts Britannica states. I did post the chart on earth's crustal carbon content.

So, again, how did earth's crust end up with over 64 million petagrams of carbon in carbonates?

Are you willing to address the scientific evidence?

Oh, and I will not bite on your bait and switch debate tactics.

 

[Newtonian]

I am not sure how you are dating the various flood accounts in most ancient writings from all parts of the planet. Many are similar on various key points but only the Biblical account can be confirmed by scientific study. The other stories are too similar to be coincidence.

If there were flood accounts from all parts of the planet who wrote those accounts? There had to have been many survivors other than just Noah and family.

That goes back to the scattering of the descendants of Noah at Babel. And the table of nations in Genesis chapter 10. Remember, though, that Shem lived 600 years and was still alive when Abraham lived - long after those at Babel babbled on!

 

[Hollie]

F

Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.

That's illogical fallacious reasoning. Look at how diamond forms. We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating. I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.

What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.

Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.

That's a lie. Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis. What you called established science is fake science. The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.

Who are these creation scientists you reference? Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.

The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.

I have read the Creation Research Quarterly many years ago and found that its information is based on scientific study though obviously biased towards creationist teachings. Some of their conclusions are correct or likely correct - other conclusions are mistaken or likely mistaken. You would have to specify which points you disagree with from them for me to respond point by point.

You also fail to document your assertions. From past conversation with you about the fine tuning of planet earth I know you ignored the scientific evidence I posted.

It’s a simple matter to look at the webpages of the primary fundamentalist ministries: creation.com, the ICR, Discovery Institute to name a few. They all have “statements of faith” which explicitly require that conclusions about the world around us agree with biblical dogma.

The conversation about “fine tuning” of the planet was, from your point, largely volumes of cut and paste material from the JW website. As we discussed, the “fine tuning” argument ignores the fact of a planet often hostile to life. Your argument presupposes one or more gods who supernaturally created a fine tuned planet yet you made no argument at all for the gods required to supernaturally create such fine tuning.


The JW’s are very similar to any of the other creation ministries:

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/

There is a predefined bias toward a version of Christianity with little to distinguish between the various versions of some claimed “true” Christianity.

False. My first example involved carbonates in earth's crust and I did not cite any links to our literature on that point. I did cite Britannica though. You have no excuse for ignoring the scientific evidence I posted.

Also, to belong to the Creation Research Society one must believe in the trinity - Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the trinity -neither did Isaac Newton.

Most creationists believe the creative days in Genesis chapter 1 were 24 hours each - we do not believe this - the rate of the geologic carbon cycle removing CO2 from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters could not have occurred in a week - or even in 10,000 years.

But you do have to go to our website to find out what we actually believe - there are many lies and deceptions about our beliefs on the internet - but we know what we believe.

My excuse for not accepting an encyclopedia over peer reviewed science journals / studies has to do with credibility. Selectively cutting out a Britannica article about carbonates does nothing to support an argument for supernatural design.

One of the classical arguments of religionists is to:

A. Use the bible as the source from where you heard about Jesus and God (or god(s) of your choosing) and salvation in the first place

only to

B. Dismiss what the bible says about Jesus and God in the first place in favor of something you'd like it to be instead of what it says it is.

The Bible’s speak to days. If you want to re-write that to something else, that’s fine.

Finally, lest anyone think I am focusing on the Bible alone, the above also holds true for the koran, The Bhagavad-Gita, The Book of Mormon, and so on. A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men.

Although now, we may be edging into that really bizarre world of Theism where some things you believe as literal, others not, which is really your garden variety of pick-and-choose what you want to believe. If you can say, "Well, Genesis is true but Pauline rules on women is not" (or whatever), well, then I can -- with equal "authority" -- by your own standards, say "Well, the siege of Jericho is true, but the resurrection is not". Such game playing with one's beliefs is certainly your right to do, but it only strips your argument of credibility, it doesn't support your case at all.

So now you doubt Britannica because it is not peer reviewed????

Did you even try to read the Britannica article I linked to? I am not about to cut and paste the entire article - it is up to you to examine the facts Britannica states. I did post the chart on earth's crustal carbon content.

So, again, how did earth's crust end up with over 64 million petagrams of carbon in carbonates?

Are you willing to address the scientific evidence?

Oh, and I will not bite on your bait and switch debate tactics.

Yes. I doubt Britannica because it is not peer reviewed. Without knowing the background of the author(s) and their sources, I’m under no obligation to uncritically accept an article as true.

If, as you claim, the earth’s crust has over 64 million petagrams of carbon in carbonates, in what way does that support a claim to gods?

Are you willing to contribute scientific evidence? Linking to articles from the JW’s predefines a bias. I’ll be glad to review any scientific evidence you might have but I’m not going to spend time refuting religious dogma.

 

[Hollie]

I am not sure how you are dating the various flood accounts in most ancient writings from all parts of the planet. Many are similar on various key points but only the Biblical account can be confirmed by scientific study. The other stories are too similar to be coincidence.

If there were flood accounts from all parts of the planet who wrote those accounts? There had to have been many survivors other than just Noah and family.

That goes back to the scattering of the descendants of Noah at Babel. And the table of nations in Genesis chapter 10. Remember, though, that Shem lived 600 years and was still alive when Abraham lived - long after those at Babel babbled on!

What evidence do you have that any human, ever, lived for 600 years? Something other than “the Bibles say so, so it must be true”.

 

[james bond]

I specifically mentioned diamonds and zirconium because they don't crumble and the long-lived isotopes trapped inside those minerals are protected from contamination. They found no C-14 on the outside of the diamonds that were within the instrument error.

We already discussed this, so will just post the link -- Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed. It shows young Earth. I don't think you understood what they did from what you claim today.

A lie? RATE scientists are the ones who think they established that diamonds presumably are 80 to 1000 thousand years old. You are the one who gave me the references.

What you claim now is a lie.

RATE stands for "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" They are a group of zealots, some with science degrees, who try to twist radiological dating conclusions by sometimes denying basic laws of nuclear physics and sometimes denigrating scientific techniques. They have a website here: RATE

I do not consider them as scientists in this regard: They assume the bible tells them the age of the universe, and then they attempt to distort legitimate science to agree with them. That is backwards. Scientists should start with an open mind and draw conclusions from their measurements.

RATE aren't a group of zealots and I already proven that creation scientists founded science and the scientific method.

Instead, you have wrong and racist pseudoscientist Darwin and his family (at least father and cousin). What do you call the evolutionist group who tried to claim millions and then billions of years up to 3 billion years and it still wasn't good enough for Darwin? They had to wait until 1956 for their lies to be good enough. They had to make the facts fit their Darwin's lie. Darwin was in the ground by then. I would call that being a zealot to make the facts fit the hypothesis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When it does this every roughly 13,000 years, it causes a geomagnetic pole reversal on earth, resulting in a biblical cataclysm.

Total bullshit. Hilarious, too.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That goes back to the scattering of the descendants of Noah at Babel.

You know that didnt actually happen, right?

 

[james bond]

Where's ding? I'm still waiting how he explains Noah and still think he just uses the Bible to back up his fallacious weird science.

Does he support Ken Ham and what he has built?

The other weird part is he seems to know nothing about the prophecies. I wouldn't call him a Catholic as it isn't what he is. Maybe he's a deist. I think that's a close description of him with his belief in nature. What do others think?

 

[Hollie]

I specifically mentioned diamonds and zirconium because they don't crumble and the long-lived isotopes trapped inside those minerals are protected from contamination. They found no C-14 on the outside of the diamonds that were within the instrument error.

We already discussed this, so will just post the link -- Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed. It shows young Earth. I don't think you understood what they did from what you claim today.

A lie? RATE scientists are the ones who think they established that diamonds presumably are 80 to 1000 thousand years old. You are the one who gave me the references.

What you claim now is a lie.

RATE stands for "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" They are a group of zealots, some with science degrees, who try to twist radiological dating conclusions by sometimes denying basic laws of nuclear physics and sometimes denigrating scientific techniques. They have a website here: RATE

I do not consider them as scientists in this regard: They assume the bible tells them the age of the universe, and then they attempt to distort legitimate science to agree with them. That is backwards. Scientists should start with an open mind and draw conclusions from their measurements.

RATE aren't a group of zealots and I already proven that creation scientists founded science and the scientific method.

Instead, you have wrong and racist pseudoscientist Darwin and his family (at least father and cousin). What do you call the evolutionist group who tried to claim millions and then billions of years up to 3 billion years and it still wasn't good enough for Darwin? They had to wait until 1956 for their lies to be good enough. They had to make the facts fit their Darwin's lie. Darwin was in the ground by then. I would call that being a zealot to make the facts fit the hypothesis.

To claim you proved something you call “creation scientists” founded science and the scientific method is, you know, kinda’ silly.

 

[Hollie]

Where's ding? I'm still waiting how he explains Noah and still think he just uses the Bible to back up his fallacious weird science.

Does he support Ken Ham and what he has built?

The other weird part is he seems to know nothing about the prophecies. I wouldn't call him a Catholic as it isn't what he is. Maybe he's a deist. I think that's a close description of him with his belief in nature. What do others think?

I think both of you should not breed.

 

[james bond]

True that is false.

No, RATE is true.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Earth may have been a waterworld covered by global ocean 3.2 billion years ago, study suggests.

Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.

Uhm, there is no "Breaking News" from the book of Genesis.

I got some "Breaking News"!

 

[luchitociencia]

I seem to recall you saying something about the water that flooded the earth came from underground. Is that correct?

Again, I believe it is an allegorical account. I don't read it literally like you. But I am trying to understand where you think the water came from that flooded the entire surface of the planet. As I have already explained I don't think the account meant the entire surface of the planet was covered in water but I do believe catastrophic flooding did happen around the globe and that the cause was an asteroid strike in the northern polar region which vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice and altered the climate of the earth. Not sure why my confirming the account in the Bible would be so upsetting to you.

Ken is a good guy. I doubt he would take offense at anyone who had a different understanding of biblical accounts than he did like you do.

The land was only one in Noah's time. The known Pangaea.

This sole continent was totally different to what you see today. Mountains were different and not necessarily high as the new mountains of today. The current chains of mountains seem to be formed by the crushing of the plates causing flat land to be elevated.

And more to aggregate. Satellites detected solar activity causing waves strong enough to cut off a tangent in our atmosphere and taken it to outer space. The rest of our atmosphere patched up the lost part and we ended with a lesser atmosphere volume.

Who knows how many times this event has happened in the past.

You are calculating the amount of water in base of our current status, but you must read the bible and notice that the narration is telling you a complete different status of the earth in those years.

 

[luchitociencia]

Um, give one single example of this things being found where they "could not have existed". One.

We have a comprehensive theory for the movement of the earth's crust: tectonic plate theory.

In the 1960s, the measurement made -not by satellite- was the separation distance between America and Europe/Africa as 5 meters per year.

Today such a separation is merely inches per year. This is telling you that it is slowing.

When the continents separated one from another in Noah's time, the speed of the separation of lands was faster. This event created several catastrophes and peoples confronted strong oceanic perturbations but were more capable at the same time to visit one to the other.

The tectonic plate theory was not validated until the 50s/60s, and apparently not many people today know how simple was the method used to verify such a continued separation. Lol.

 

[Newtonian]

True that is false.

No, RATE is true.

I was agreeing with you. You missed my sense of humor!

Another example:

the rate is true only if the rate is true!

i will have to go offline soon - getting tired and hungry which makes me get silly!

 

[Newtonian]

Um, give one single example of this things being found where they "could not have existed". One.

We have a comprehensive theory for the movement of the earth's crust: tectonic plate theory.

In the 1960s, the measurement made -not by satellite- was the separation distance between America and Europe/Africa as 5 meters per year.

Today such a separation is merely inches per year. This is telling you that it is slowing.

When the continents separated one from another in Noah's time, the speed of the separation of lands was faster. This event created several catastrophes and peoples confronted strong oceanic perturbations but were more capable at the same time to visit one to the other.

The tectonic plate theory was not validated until the 50s/60s, and apparently not many people today know how simple was the method used to verify such a continued separation. Lol.

lol = lots of love!

Yes, I think the plates are slowing also, and that the motion was catastrophic at the Noachian flood:

Psalms 104:6-8
You covered it with deep waters as with a garment.+
The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At your rebuke they fled;+
At the sound of your thunder they ran away in panic
8 —Mountains ascended+ and valleys descended—
To the place you established for them.

I am going offline for awhile.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, I think the plates are slowing also

Haha...is that what your "gut feeling" tells you?