I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[JudgeRightly]

yes, I've heard that claim. It is a rather odd one, considering on how the different fossils appear in different layers-

The process of how the layers were "sorted" has been explained to you.

and those layers have been dated to different periods.

Radioactivity is typically the reason for those dates, but God didn't create a radioactive Earth, because that would have harmed His creation. The origin of radioactivity is the Flood.

The conversation at this point usually goes to a few creationist site references,

Excluding a source of information because of the source's background is called cherry picking, Chair, and it's an "appeal to motive" fallacy.

a lack of real scientific sources,

National Geographic, Phys.org, Science Mag...

Those aren't "real" scientific sources?

then a complaint that the scientific community has a conspiracy to hide the Truth.

That man typically rejects truth when shoved in his face is a given.

Is that where we are headed?

Only if you want it to.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Ah, if you want to have a discussion about what it says in some site for kids, be my guest.

If you want to have a serious discussion, then stop running away from the topic.

Really?
You are trying to claim that "common descent from a single common ancestor" is not being taught as the theory of evolution in schools from pre-school to Bachelor degree?

 

[chair]

Really?
You are trying to claim that "common descent from a single common ancestor" is not being taught as the theory of evolution in schools from pre-school to Bachelor degree?

I am quite certain that it is being taught. It should not be taught as being the theory of evolution, but rather as a consequence of the theroy.

 

[Stripe]

I am quite certain that it is being taught. It should not be taught as being the theory of evolution, but rather as a consequence of the theroy.

Nope. Evolution is just a theory.

 

[chair]

Radioactivity is typically the reason for those dates, but God didn't create a radioactive Earth, because that would have harmed His creation. The origin of radioactivity is the Flood.

This is a claim that I haven't heard before, or at least don't recall having heard. What's the idea- that God created radioactivity as part of the Flood punishment? please explain, with some sources, if you don't mind.

National Geographic, Phys.org, Science Mag...

Those are definitely real publications, though the first two are popular ones. If you have some specific references that support your view, I'd like to see them. Just 3 or 4 would be fine.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is a claim that I haven't heard before, or at least don't recall having heard. What's the idea- that God created radioactivity as part of the Flood punishment?

No. Radioactive elements were formed as a result of the Flood.

please explain, with some sources, if you don't mind.

Would you accept a detailed video explanation?

https://youtu.be/Xq6kUbLzYCc

Brian also has an entire playlist on YT that explains the HPT (what I believe is the best model of the Flood) in detail.

See also https://rsr.org/radioactivity

Those are definitely real publications, though the first two are popular ones. If you have some specific references that support your view, I'd like to see them. Just 3 or 4 would be fine.

We'll come back to this in a moment, I want to address the first part of this post.

 

[Right Divider]

No. Radioactive elements were formed as a result of the Flood.

Would you accept a detailed video explanation?

https://youtu.be/Xq6kUbLzYCc

Brian also has an entire playlist on YT that explains the HPT (what I believe is the best model of the Flood) in detail.

See also https://rsr.org/radioactivity

We'll come back to this in a moment, I want to address the first part of this post.

Excellent video:

 

[chair]

No. Radioactive elements were formed as a result of the Flood.



Would you accept a detailed video explanation?

https://youtu.be/Xq6kUbLzYCc

Brian also has an entire playlist on YT that explains the HPT (what I believe is the best model of the Flood) in detail.

See also https://rsr.org/radioactivity



We'll come back to this in a moment, I want to address the first part of this post.

I'v watched part of it. I generally do not watch these videos. I can read the content of a half hour video in 4 minutes, and easily go back if I want to check something.

By the way, the volume on this video is very low- hard for me to hear on my laptop.

There are some proper facts in the video, but there are some interesting leaps of logic (not to mention unsupported assertions). One that strikes me (if I didn't miss this- I would really prefer a written text), is that the forces in stars are claimed to not be strong enough to create the heavier elements. But common lightening is-quite a leap of logic. Later on he claims that the hydroplate 'flutter' create huge forces- but somehow Noah supposedly survived all that. The Zircon story has been debunked (https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/helium-gl3.pdf )

It certainly is presented in a very scientific sounding way, but it really isn't convincing.

 

[chair]

There is a huge amount of evidence from many fields of science for the earth being much older than the claimed Biblical age of ~6,000 years. Take a look at this link for a list and explanations.
It requires reading, and includes notes and extensive references.

Please note that accepting an old earth does not make one an atheist. There's plenty of old earth creationists around. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

 

[Right Divider]

There is a huge amount of evidence from many fields of science for the earth being much older than the claimed Biblical age of ~6,000 years. Take a look at this link for a list and explanations.
It requires reading, and includes notes and extensive references.

Please note that accepting an old earth does not make one an atheist. There's plenty of old earth creationists around. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

You gotta love an article that starts out with some elephant hurling.

The evidence against a recent creation is overwhelming.

:french:

And then there's this idiotic and illogical quote.

The fact that young earth creationists have to form a committee for six years to argue against a scientific principle, is evidence in and of itself that the earth is old.

—Greg Neyman, old-earth creationist[1]

So much for the "rational" side of the "RationalWiki". :rotfl:

 

[Alate_One]

False.

Here's a mammal fossil.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-mammal-species-fossil-utah-pangea/654547002/

And? Mammals and Dinosaurs coexisted.

Mammals (or amphibians or reptiles for that matter) did not exist in the Cambrian era.

Drawings below of the Burgess shale fossils.

Not even fish are present . . .

 

[JudgeRightly]

And? Mammals and Dinosaurs coexisted.

THAT we agree on.

Mammals (or amphibians or reptiles for that matter) did not exist in the Cambrian era.

You mean a specific layer of sediments laid down by the waters of the global flood?

Drawings below of the Burgess shale fossils.

Not even fish are present . . .

Yeah, because fish could outswim those creatures.

Useful if the world is flooding.

 

[Alate_One]

THAT we agree on.

Mind you not MODERN mammals . . . only primitive ones. The mammals we recognize today did not coexist with dinosaurs.

You mean a specific layer of sediments laid down by the waters of the global flood?

Said layer magically lacks fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds . . .well everything we recognize as animals alive today. You can claim that's from a global flood, but the first Christian geologists figured out pretty quickly that the idea of a global flood was not compatible with the evidence.

Yeah, because fish could outswim those creatures.

Useful if the world is flooding.

Is that why fish are extremely common fossils almost everywhere else? :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

I can read the content of a half hour video in 4 minutes.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html

 

[Stripe]

One that strikes me (if I didn't miss this- I would really prefer a written text), is that the forces in stars are claimed to not be strong enough to create the heavier elements. But common lightening is-quite a leap of logic.

The same way an oven can bake a cake, but the sun can't. A typical objection is: Too much energy (next quote from you). Your objection here is related. It's not solely about the energy available, it's about the process and conditions as well.

Later on he claims that the hydroplate 'flutter' create huge forces- but somehow Noah supposedly survived all that.

The same way I can hold my hand mere centimeters from a gas torch at full power. It's not about the energy expended, it's about where the energy goes.

There is a huge amount of evidence from many fields of science for the earth being much older than the claimed Biblical age of ~6,000 years.

There is a huge amount of evidence from many fields of science for the earth being the Biblical age of ~6,000 years.

Accepting an old earth does not make one an atheist.

:AMR:

Why is this a part of the conversation?

 

[chair]

You gotta love an article that starts out with some elephant hurling.
:french:

And then there's this idiotic and illogical quote.

So much for the "rational" side of the "RationalWiki". :rotfl:

You are absolutely right that the site starts out very angry, with statements that aren't fact related. Now scroll down, and read the actual content.

 

[Stripe]

You are absolutely right that the site starts out very angry, with statements that aren't fact related. Now scroll down, and read the actual content.

There's no point in a discussion with someone who has asserted the truth of their agenda and denied any possibility that they are wrong.

 

[Silent Hunter]

There's no point in a discussion with someone who has asserted the truth of their agenda and denied any possibility that they are wrong.

... and so ends any discussion with a creationist. The pot meets the kettle.

 

[Stripe]

... and so ends any discussion with a creationist. The pot meets the kettle.

Feel free to quote a creationist asserting his theory as fact and denying the Darwinist a seat at the table of scientific discourse. OP shows an evolutionist doing it (along with virtually every other post they make).

Don't worry. We'll wait. :thumb:

 

[chair]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html

Much easier to read this. Thank you.

I'll point out just a couple of the misleading statements and assumptions the gentleman makes:

"Few scientists realize that on rare occasions heavy nuclei will decay by emitting a carbon-14 nucleus (14C).13 This invalidates the basic assumptions of the radiocarbon dating technique." He does point out that such events are "rare", then goes on to say that it invalidates dating techniques. If it is rare, then it won't invalidate the technique. Beyond that, such rare events will make samples look younger than they really are, not older. This makes matters worse for the YEC viewpoint, not better. By the way "few scientists realize" is an an unnecessary jibe at scientists. The information isn't exactly unknown- it is even in wikipedia articles:
"Carbon-14 may also be radiogenic (cluster decay of 223Ra, 224Ra, 226Ra). However, this origin is extremely rare."

One big chunk of his argument starts with the completely unproven assumption that: "All Earth’s nuclei were initially nonradioactive, lying at the bottom of the curved valley of stability—a “very good” condition",. There is no evidence of this, besides his creative Biblical interpretation. The other part of this argument is that conditions during the flood could create all the radioactive isotopes that we see today. He bases this on a handful of lab experiments that show that a few isotopes can be created by electric fields under unusual circumstances. It is a huge speculative leap to conclude from those experiments that all of the radioactive substances we see today are a result of the special circumstances of Noah's flood - circumstances that are also simple speculation.

And, as I said earlier, the idea that the conditions could be so extreme to create radioactive isotopes, and a a few kilometers away Noah and family are surviving in a wooden ship is stretching things just a tad, don't you think?

A point I didn't quite follow (maybe I'll have another look at this later). Does he claim that all the heavy elements were formed during the Flood? Or just radioactive ones? My impression is that he says that supernova didn't create the heavy elements- the Flood did. If that is the case, then he needs to claim that these elements reached the Moon from the earth. And mars as well.