How literally do you take the creation story?

[urroner]

Create the appearance of age?

What are his options? Which would you choose if you were all powerful?

1) Create with no appearance of age, and wait billions of years for the laws of physics he's created to actually develop or "create" what he really wanted...

2) Create with the appearance of age and set things up as he wanted in the beginning, and use the 6 days of creation as an example of a work week.

It doesn't make sense to me that an all powerful God would choose the first option.

What is time to God? To God, is there a difference between a day and a billion years?

[Tsuzuki]

You going to respond to my post or are you conceding?

The conclusion that ergo we must have evolved from a common ancestor is preposterous because evolution is empty and devoid of any mechanism that causes such diversity or creativity.

One word: nylonase.

On the flip side, if you have similar DNA, it stands to reason that you have similar codes that also aren't used for any traits. In other words. DNA comes from and intelligent source, and the designer could have just as easily supplied extra information, commonly called redundancies to make up for difficulties it might encounter.

Except that those noncoding regions aren't redundancies, and if they did code would cause all sorts of diseases.

[Zakuska]

Yes.

There may be plausibility to the claims that the Radiometric dating might be off within a few percentage points (millions of years).

But to claim they might be off by +/- 4.49 billion years, and that a 6000 year old earth is the true age - it's not ignorance, it's lunacy.

It seems to me that radioactive decay rates are more like soda bubbles in a glass. Leave the glass alone and they disipate at a pretty steady rate. Bump the table or glass, or stick your finger in the foam and the disipation accelerates.

THAT is what the data seems to show.

Several decades ago, strange fluctuations were observed in several radioactive decay systems. These systems have unstable nuclei that emit various particles and radiation until they stabilize. It was finally established that these seasonal fluctuations corresponded to the distance between the earth and the sun. When the earth is closest to the sun, solar neutrinos evidently accelerate nuclear decay.¹

Now, Italian research shows evidence that a process called

[thesometimesaint]

When you have all of eternity. What's a few billions years between friends?

[Ceeboo]

I don't consider Ceeboo to be in the ingnorant camp - he has a solid grasp on reality (most of the time).

"Most of the time" Indeed!

To be honest with you, the study is very shocking to me (I would have guessed that the GREAT majority of Christians would have absobatoootly belived the creation account. I most certainly DO!.

Again. I will repeat that I do not consider myself a "young earther" (and to be honest I don't think it SHOULD really matter amongst believers) but your suggestion about dating is just a small portion of what their claims are. Wether you happen to believe them or not, they are, IMHO, VERY interesting and there seems to be some VERY SMART Scientific folks who lay out , at the very least, some very interesting points to support their belief.

Anyhoo,

9,000, 14,000, or 768 Gazillion years, Ceeboo believes the account of creation told by the inspired word of Almighty God.

And I do NOT believe in macro evolution one bit.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Tarski]

How do they know its 100 Million years old in the first place? Our dating mechanisms are only "supposedly" accurate to about 50000 years ago. and even then I have my doubts.

How come you feel free to pontificate about science if you don't even know the answer to this basic question?

By the way, when are you going to stop pretending that a 3% error is just as bad as knowing nothing? It doesn't bother me if it is really 100 Million plus or minus 15,000. That's darn good information and my point stands.

All scientific measurements are meaningless without some idea of margins of error. Real science includes these usually explicitly even if it is left out of popular accounts.

[David T]

And I do NOT believe in macro evolution one bit.

Macroevolution: Misuse of that word

[Ceeboo]

When you have all of eternity. What's a few billions years between friends?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Tarski]

"Most of the time" Indeed!

To be honest with you, the study is very shocking to me (I would have guessed that the GREAT majority of Christians would have absobatoootly belived the creation account. I most certainly DO!.

Again. I will repeat that I do not consider myself a "young earther" (and to be honest I don't think it SHOULD really matter amongst believers) but your suggestion about dating is just a small portion of what their claims are. Wether you happen to believe them or not, they are, IMHO, VERY interesting and there seems to be some VERY SMART Scientific folks who lay out , at the very least, some very interesting points to support their belief.

Anyhoo,

9,000, 14,000, or 768 Gazillion years, Ceeboo believes the account of creation told by the inspired word of Almighty God.

And I do NOT believe in macro evolution one bit.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Then your head if full of falsehoods.

[Ceeboo]

Then your head if full of falsehoods.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Zakuska]

How come you feel free to pontificate about science if you don't even know the answer to this basic question?

By the way, when are you going to stop pretending that a 3% error is just as bad as knowing nothing? It doesn't bother me if it is really 100 Million plus or minus 15,000. That's darn good information and my point stands.

All scientific measurements are meaningless without some idea of margins of error. Real science includes these usually explicitly even if it is left out of popular accounts.

"In particular, it seems that cavitation caused radioactive thorium decay to accelerate by a factor of 10,000 times during a 90-minute experiment.^2"

Hmmm Thorim decay was accerated by a factor of 10,000 in a lab. That's a lot larger margin of error than 3%! And here I thought radioactive decay was a constant!

When are you going to start acknowledging the science, or in this case the uncertianty there of?

[cinepro]

For those interested in what the Church has published on the subject of the Flood (and the reliability of science in general when it comes to Earth's history), I highly recommend this article by Kent Nielson, assistant professor in the history of science at Brigham Young University:

The Gospel and the Scientific View: How Earth Came to Be

In sum, the ultimate conditions of uniformity that we observe in the course of nature in our present sphere are severely limited. From the time of the Fall until the end of the Millennium is described as seven thousand years (see D&C 77:6). And while seven thousand years is long in comparison to a human lifetime, from the perspective of eternity (and also from the perspective of modern theories of astronomy or geology), it is extremely short. In seven thousand years, neither stars nor earth nor biological species change enough, according to naturalist principles, to be very significant.

It is therefore helpful to remember, when pondering the millions of years secularists postulate to explain the formation of the earth, that all current geological dating processes are based on the assumption that the present order of nature preceded us and will continue uniformly hereafter. This secularist view also holds that God, if he exists, never has and never will interfere. However, the revelations Latter-day Saints have about the earth and God

[cinepro]

Here's a thought=

If the Flood can be regional, can the Garden Story be as well?

Could Adam & Eve have been two people living in the Fertile Crescent of Ancient Mesopotamia, the most lush and 'paradisiacal' region of the known world?

"Limited" theories are natural steps when we start to doubt the teachings of the scriptures, Prophets and Apostles. In an attempt to harmonize their teachings with reality, we "shrink" their claims to make them smaller and smaller until they are comfortably unfalsifiable.

A good example of this is the Jehovah's Witnesses, who expected Christ to "return" in 1914. Obviously, their expectation was for a resurrected man to return, but when that didn't happen, they had two choices: either discount the original claim as being falsified, or "shrink" the claim to make it true and unfalsifiable. They chose the latter:

"In the same way, Christ's return does not mean that he literally comes back to this earth. Rather, it means that he takes Kingdom power toward this earth and turns his attention to it. He does not need to leave his heavenly throne and actually come down to earth to do this. As we have seen in the previous chapter, Bible evidence shows that in the year 1914 C.E. God's time arrived for Christ to return and begin ruling. It was then that the cry was heard in heaven "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ." Revelation 12:10

"You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth", Watchtower Society, page 147

Granted, making a prophecy tied to a specific date instead of using looser words like "soon" or "quickly" is a bush-league mistake for religious leaders to make. But it's a good example of how religious claims can shrink as believers try to preserve them.

So theories of limited floods and limited gardens have a long and noble tradition in the field of apologetics and faith-preservation. Carry the torch, and just hope that it won't take too long for the Church to follow your lead in its teachings.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

As a believing scientist. I can accept that I, and all us mere mortals, don't know a heck of a lot. However as a scientist I can only comment on what the science shows. There is nothing in the geologic record that we mere mortals have been able to show that the earth's systems are a half a million times younger than 4.5 Billions of years +/- a few million years.

As I have suggested many times. If anyone wants to debunk evolution it is simple to do. A strong back, and ability to accurately describe what is found is all that is needed. In the hundred and fifty odd years since Darwin. NO ONE has successfully challenged him, to date. The evidence is only getting stronger and stronger.

It is sad to see intelligent members of the Church argue over the meaning of a few words written down by a pre-science people, and in some cases the camp fire side tales of preliterate peoples written down thousands of years later The Scriptures including the Bible were never meant to be a science book. That is not their purpose. The purpose of the Prophets is not to guide me to a better understanding of how the heavens go, but to teach me how to go to Heaven.

[Mortal Man]

"Limited" theories are natural steps when we start to doubt the teachings of the scriptures, Prophets and Apostles. In an attempt to harmonize their teachings with reality, we "shrink" their claims to make them smaller and smaller until they are comfortably unfalsifiable.

...it's a good example of how religious claims can shrink as believers try to preserve them.

So a theories of limited floods and limited gardens have a long and noble tradition in the field of apologetics and faith-preservation.

It's a good thing we have the Book of Mormon to stand against these "limited" theories... oh wait...

[Zakuska]

As I have suggested many times. If anyone wants to debunk evolution it is simple to do. A strong back, and ability to accurately describe what is found is all that is needed. In the hundred and fifty odd years since Darwin. NO ONE has successfully challenged him, to date. The evidence is only getting stronger and stronger.

And yet geneticist show us that we have Giraffes and Elephants still around today that have genetic counterparts all those "millions" of years ago. This shows life didn't evolve from lower forms but merely diversified in its already existant forms. (Ie complicated animals showed up on the scene suddenly millions of years ago that we still see in our day and age)

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

?

We still have amoeba's and alligators essentially unchanged from dinosaur times. Doesn't mean that evolution didn't happen. They still need to be in genetic isolation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=channel

[SilverKnight]

"Limited" theories are natural steps when we start to doubt the teachings of the scriptures, Prophets and Apostles. In an attempt to harmonize their teachings with reality, we "shrink" their claims to make them smaller and smaller until they are comfortably unfalsifiable.

Agree.

A good example of this is the Jehovah's Witnesses, who expected Christ to "return" in 1914. Obviously, their expectation was for a resurrected man to return, but when that didn't happen, they had two choices: either discount the original claim as being falsified, or "shrink" the claim to make it true and unfalsifiable.

It's not just LDS and JWs, all faiths are involved in this shrinkage.

As the gaps get smaller, so must God.

So theories of limited floods and limited gardens have a long and noble tradition in the field of apologetics and faith-preservation.

In the face of the blowing wind, religion has two choices: bend or break.

Carry the torch, and just hope that it won't take too long for the Church to follow your lead in its teachings.

I truly hope it doesn't follow my lead. I like to think that there is something genuinely miraculous somewhere in the church.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska:

?

We still have amoeba's and alligators essentially unchanged from dinosaur times. Doesn't mean that evolution didn't happen. They still need to be in genetic isolation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=channel

Ive watched the movie when you linked it the first time... it only hilights mutations within a genious, Like Calaco cats verses Tabbys, and then it tries to redifine the term Evolution to mean mutations. It has nothing to do with macro-evolution or single celled life mutating into billion celled life forms, Which is what Darwins master theory really was.

[Tarski]

"In particular, it seems that cavitation caused radioactive thorium decay to accelerate by a factor of 10,000 times during a 90-minute experiment.^2"

Hmmm Thorim decay was accerated by a factor of 10,000 in a lab. That's a lot larger margin of error than 3%! And here I thought radioactive decay was a constant!

When are you going to start acknowledging the science, or in this case the uncertianty there of?

When are you going to stop quoting creationist web sites as if it were science?

Folks, here is where he got this last one:

http://www.icr.org/article/radioactive-decay-rates-not-stable/

Institute for Creation Resarch "Biblical Accurate Certain".

Hilarious.

The author of the article is Mr. Thomas a "Science Writer" at the Institute for Creation Research

Actually, Zak you are actively promoting darkness and confusion. You are a force of anti-knowledge. That will be your legacy. Congratulations.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

As a believing scientist. I can accept that I, and all us mere mortals, don't know a heck of a lot. However as a scientist I can only comment on what the science shows. There is nothing in the geologic record that we mere mortals have been able to show that the earth's systems are a half a million times younger than 4.5 Billions of years +/- a few million years.

As I have suggested many times. If anyone wants to debunk evolution it is simple to do. A strong back, and ability to accurately describe what is found is all that is needed. In the hundred and fifty odd years since Darwin. NO ONE has successfully challenged him, to date. The evidence is only getting stronger and stronger.

It is sad to see intelligent members of the Church argue over the meaning of a few words written down by a pre-science people, and in some cases the camp fire side tales of preliterate peoples written down thousands of years later The Scriptures including the Bible were never meant to be a science book. That is not their purpose. The purpose of the Prophets is not to guide me to a better understanding of how the heavens go, but to teach me how to go to Heaven.

Religion and science only seem to blend together when you take Prophets out of the equation.

You seem very comfortable doing so, but I'm not so sure the Prophets themselves see it that way. In fact, the Church wants us to see the Prophet as being superior to "man's reasoning" (and what else is science than "man's reasoning"?)

And why else would we be taught "the prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time"?

I heartily endorse your acceptance of science, but I think it's possible to misstate the Church's teachings regarding certain things.

[Zakuska]

When are you going to stop quoting creationist web sites as if it were science?

Folks, here is where he got this last one:

http://www.icr.org/a...tes-not-stable/

Institute for Creation Resarch "Biblical Accurate Certain".

Hilarious.

The author of the article is Mr. Thomas a "Science Writer" at the Institute for Creation Research

Actually, Zak you are actively promoting darkness and confusion. You are a force of anti-knowledge. That will be your legacy. Congratulations.

So you dispute the findings that where repeated just last year and confirmed that Thorium decay does indeed change?

In a Letter appearing in this issue of Physics Letters A, Kowalski raises some critical comments on the experiment [F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956] that we carried out by cavitating a solution of Thorium-228. The experiment highlighted the anomalous decay of Thorium, thus confirming the results previously obtained by Urutskoev et al. by explosion of titanium foils in solutions. In this Letter, we reply to these comments. We agree with Kowalski that critical comments are one of the key factors of the process to improve the quality of experiments and the interpretation of results. However we do hope that these comments together with the details provided in the replies will promote further and better experiments which are certainly worth performing in order to shed a brighter light on this issue, as Kowalski himself suggests in his comment.

Notice the source => www.sciencedirect.com

And heres the names and credentials of the Scientists who performed the experiments at the University of Study in Tre Rome.

Fabio Cardone^a, Roberto Mignani^{b, c, ,} and Andrea Petrucci^a

^a Istituto per lo Studio dei Materiali Nanostrutturati (ISMN-CNR) Via dei Taurini, 00185 Roma, Italy

Dipartimento di Fisica

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

When are you going to stop quoting creationist web sites as if it were science?

Folks, here is where he got this last one:

http://www.icr.org/article/radioactive-decay-rates-not-stable/

Institute for Creation Resarch "Biblical Accurate Certain".

Hilarious.

The author of the article is Mr. Thomas a "Science Writer" at the Institute for Creation Research

Actually, Zak you are actively promoting darkness and confusion. You are a force of anti-knowledge. That will be your legacy. Congratulations.

I am not big on creation science. In the interest of debate it would be nice to get more than just the wave of the hand. I confess that I have not really even followed this thread.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

"The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.".

That is a close to a heresy as it comes. There is only one omniscient being and Prophets aren't him.

[Tarski]

These arn't cacamany creationist Tarski.

Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are not.

But then they aren't the ones claiming that radiometric dating is a bogus science. They probably understand quite well the irrelevance of such preliminary experiments on thorium to creationist fantasies. They know the difference between thorium under unusual or extreme lab conditions and C14 in nature. They most likely understand that our dating method are multiple and have been tested against each other! Tree rings, geological strata, multiple element radiometric dating on nonorganics such as rocks and C14 dating are all telling a consistant story to within understood margins.

If these dating methods were distorted by various unknown effects, they would not all magically be lined up with each other (to within understood margins--a concept I can see you don't understand). Instead we would see a confusing disagreement.

Scientists know what they are doing. You don't.