What's new

Science vs. Creationism

Dude the Earth wasn't even around 60,000 years ago...that's how unreliable carbon dating is!

....actually, the earth could be and probably is millions if not billions of years old! Neither time element disagrees with the Genesis account of "creation"! The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) A number of Bible scholars agree that this statement describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening words, the universe, including our planet, Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

Geologists estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science is not at odds with the Biblical text.
 
More insight on Carbon 14 dating accuracy!

The radiocarbon clock looked very simple and straightforward when it was first demonstrated, but it is now known to be prone to many kinds of error. After some 20 years’ use of the method, a conference on radiocarbon chronology and other related methods of dating was held in Uppsala, Sweden. The discussions there between chemists who practice the method and archaeologists and geologists who use the results brought to light a dozen flaws that might invalidate the dates. In the 17 years since then, little has been accomplished to remedy these shortcomings.

One nagging problem has always been to ensure that the sample tested has not been contaminated, either with modern (live) carbon or with ancient (dead) carbon. A bit of wood, for example, from the heart of an old tree might contain live sap. Or if that has been extracted with an organic solvent (made from dead petroleum), a trace of the solvent might be left in the portion analyzed. Old buried charcoal might be penetrated by rootlets from living plants. Or it might be contaminated with much older bitumen, difficult to remove. Live shellfish have been found with carbonate from minerals long buried or from seawater upwelling from the deep ocean where it had been for thousands of years. Such things can make a specimen appear either older or younger than it really is.

The most serious fault in radiocarbon-dating theory is in the assumption that the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is now. That level depends, in the first instance, on the rate at which it is produced by cosmic rays. Cosmic rays vary greatly in intensity at times, being largely affected by changes in the earth’s magnetic field. Magnetic storms on the sun sometimes increase the cosmic rays a thousandfold for a few hours. The earth’s magnetic field has been both stronger and weaker in past millenniums. And since the explosion of nuclear bombs, the worldwide level of carbon 14 has increased substantially.

On the other hand, the proportion is affected by the quantity of stable carbon in the air. Great volcanic eruptions add measurably to the stable carbon-dioxide reservoir, thus diluting the radiocarbon. In the past century, man’s burning of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, at an unprecedented rate has permanently increased the quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
 
....actually, the earth could be and probably is millions if not billions of years old! Neither time element disagrees with the Genesis account of "creation"! The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) A number of Bible scholars agree that this statement describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening words, the universe, including our planet, Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

Geologists estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science is not at odds with the Biblical text.

So what do you think was going on during those billions of years before Adam showed up? Nothing? How can you see the world around you, how things change, how things adapt, how things overcome, and not see "evolution"? Does the God you believe in just point his finger at a planet and say, "ABRA CADABRA!" and poof -- Humans? Maybe that's exactly what happened, who knows, but it makes more sense to me that if there is a God, then he would be the greatest scientist of all time, and thus, would enact evolution as a way to "perfect" his creation. I mean, ****, don't you believe that you're here on Earth in order to learn, progress, and evolve (die, I suppose) into a higher being/higher place?
 
More insight on Carbon 14 dating accuracy!

The radiocarbon clock looked very simple and straightforward when it was first demonstrated, but it is now known to be prone to many kinds of error. After some 20 years’ use of the method, a conference on radiocarbon chronology and other related methods of dating was held in Uppsala, Sweden. The discussions there between chemists who practice the method and archaeologists and geologists who use the results brought to light a dozen flaws that might invalidate the dates. In the 17 years since then, little has been accomplished to remedy these shortcomings.

One nagging problem has always been to ensure that the sample tested has not been contaminated, either with modern (live) carbon or with ancient (dead) carbon. A bit of wood, for example, from the heart of an old tree might contain live sap. Or if that has been extracted with an organic solvent (made from dead petroleum), a trace of the solvent might be left in the portion analyzed. Old buried charcoal might be penetrated by rootlets from living plants. Or it might be contaminated with much older bitumen, difficult to remove. Live shellfish have been found with carbonate from minerals long buried or from seawater upwelling from the deep ocean where it had been for thousands of years. Such things can make a specimen appear either older or younger than it really is.

The most serious fault in radiocarbon-dating theory is in the assumption that the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is now. That level depends, in the first instance, on the rate at which it is produced by cosmic rays. Cosmic rays vary greatly in intensity at times, being largely affected by changes in the earth’s magnetic field. Magnetic storms on the sun sometimes increase the cosmic rays a thousandfold for a few hours. The earth’s magnetic field has been both stronger and weaker in past millenniums. And since the explosion of nuclear bombs, the worldwide level of carbon 14 has increased substantially.

On the other hand, the proportion is affected by the quantity of stable carbon in the air. Great volcanic eruptions add measurably to the stable carbon-dioxide reservoir, thus diluting the radiocarbon. In the past century, man’s burning of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, at an unprecedented rate has permanently increased the quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

You are correct about all of those sources of error. The reason scientists know about these sources of error is because they correct for them in their measurements! Rest assured, carbon dating is a robust method of obtaining ages of materials.
 
So what do you think was going on during those billions of years before Adam showed up? Nothing?

You undoubtedly accept the idea of infinity—that something can be limitless, without beginning or end. You realize, for instance, that time is infinite, and that space has no beginning or end as far as man can determine. Thus, you can accept the fact that Jehovah God is the “King of eternity,” and that, as the Bible says, he has no beginning and will have no end.—1*Tim. 1:17; Ps. 90:2; Rev. 10:6.


How can you see the world around you, how things change, how things adapt, how things overcome, and not see "evolution"?

Things "change" but they don't "evolve"! Organic evolution, the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter, then, as it reproduced, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth....is not a Bible teaching. Striking as it does at the very basis of human existence, evolution robs the Creator of his due. It also belies its claim to be scientific and does no credit to mankind’s ongoing search for scientific truth. Science, the official magazine for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in the physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [a position about midway between extremes].” In both plants and animals, variations within a species will oscillate or move about like pellets shaken in a glass jar—the variations are held within the boundaries of the species just as the pellets are confined within the jar. Just as the Bible’s account of creation says, a plant or an animal may vary, yet it is restricted to reproduce “according to its kind.”—Genesis 1:12, 21, 24,*25.

Does the God you believe in just point his finger at a planet and say, "ABRA CADABRA!" and poof -- Humans? Maybe that's exactly what happened, who knows, but it makes more sense to me that if there is a God, then he would be the greatest scientist of all time, and thus, would enact evolution as a way to "perfect" his creation.

What moved Jehovah to begin creating? It was not that he was lonely and needed companionship. Jehovah is complete and self-contained, lacking nothing that someone else might supply. But his love, an active quality, naturally moved him to want to share the joys of life with intelligent creatures who could appreciate such a gift. From the start, Adam and Eve were virtually bathed in love. Everywhere they looked in their Paradise home in Eden, they could see evidence of the Father’s love for them. Note what the Bible says: “Jehovah God planted a garden in Eden, toward the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.” (Genesis 2:8)

I mean, don't you believe that you're here on Earth in order to learn, progress, and evolve (die, I suppose) into a higher being/higher place?

From the start, Adam and Eve were virtually bathed in love. Everywhere they looked in their Paradise home in Eden, they could see evidence of the Father’s love for them. Note what the Bible says: “Jehovah God planted a garden in Eden, toward the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.” (Genesis 2:8) The earth was going to be and still is the permanent home for humans! (Psalm 115:16) 16 As for the heavens, they belong to Jehovah, But the earth he has given to the sons of men.

Would be happy to answer more of your questions! Keep them coming!
 
Would be happy to answer more of your questions! Keep them coming!

You mean you'd like to keep using other peoples answers. If I wanted to read some zealots propaganda machine, I'd read TheBlaze. I know this is probably a stupid question, but are you incapable of producing your own ideas, thoughts and opinions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
You are correct about all of those sources of error. The reason scientists know about these sources of error is because they correct for them in their measurements! Rest assured, carbon dating is a robust method of obtaining ages of materials.

...."robust", but not very "accurate!"

adj. adjective

Full of health and strength; vigorous.

Powerfully built; sturdy.
a robust body.

Requiring or characterized by much strength or energy.
a robust workout.

ac·cu·rate
adjective \ˈa-kyə-rət, ˈa-k(ə-)rət\

: free from mistakes or errors

: able to produce results that are correct

: not making mistakes
 
I know this is probably a stupid question, but are you incapable of producing your own ideas, thoughts and opinions?

.....I am giving you my thoughts and opinions! You and others on this board post various opinions and thoughts that you have picked up from the "higher education" systems of this and other countries, so you are merely "parroting" what they have taught you! Why do you take issue with where I get my thoughts and opinions RATHER than with the "content" of what I pass on?
 
.....I am giving you my thoughts and opinions! You and others on this board post various opinions and thoughts that you have picked up from the "higher education" systems of this and other countries, so you are merely "parroting" what they have taught you! Why do you take issue with where I get my thoughts and opinions RATHER than with the "content" of what I pass on?

Rest assured, I have serious issue with your content as well, but that's ok, because I'm sure you have serious issues with what I believe too. I don't "parrot" anything, contrary to what you may think. Like everyone else here, I get information from a lot of the same places, read the same newspapers/websites, study the same books, etc. From there, we form our own opinions based on what we believe. I challenge you to find anyone on this forum who chooses to just quote other peoples opinions, efforts, and works on any given topic; you are the only one. On top of that, you don't even bother citing who you're copying, and have attempted to pass their work off as your own. It's pathetic.

The fact that you've been called out for blatant plagiarism in this very thread, have ignored it, and then continued to just copy/paste content is beyond absurd.
 
Top