-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
NO I bash YEC. I think the idea the earth is only 6,000 years old is laughable at best. It's based off of some random guy adding up birthdays in the OT. Please. Old-Earth, Gap-theory, theistic evolution all seem far more plausible to me.
On the day that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, and all this Big Bang and evolution foolishness is laid bare, when those who refused to accept Jesus are cast out, we will not feel vindication, as I once thought, just a profound joy in the Lord. So I pray we can, through the Holy Spirit, persuade as many as we can, so they won't see the grave error of their arrogance too late.
Snow ice cores, a 9000 year old tree, evidence for the Colorado river making the GC, dinosaurs, stars being way further than 6000 light years away, Neanderthals, 30,000 year old cave paintings, evolution, the pyramids, the Hindu religion being older than Judaism...
The earliest material found in the Solar System is dated to 4.5672±0.0006 bya;[167] therefore, it is inferred that the Earth must have been formed by accretion around this time. By 4.54±0.04 bya[24] the primordial Earth had formed. The formation and evolution of the Solar System bodies occurred in tandem with the Sun. In theory a solar nebula partitions a volume out of a molecular cloud by gravitational collapse, which begins to spin and flatten into a circumstellar disk, and then the planets grow out of that in tandem with the star. A nebula contains gas, ice grains and dust (including primordial nuclides). In nebular theory planetesimals commence forming as particulate accrues by cohesive clumping and then by gravity. The assembly of the primordial Earth proceeded for 10–20 myr.[168] The Moon formed shortly thereafter, about 4.53 bya.[169]
There will be a post debate analysis (probably a pro creationist stance) at 8pm est at
Post Debate Answers | Answers in Genesis
Post Debate Answers | Answers in Genesis
D
danschance
Guest
If anyone is interested, I would recommend a book called "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. I read this well written book years ago and really enjoyed it. It is dumbed down so a high school student could read and understand it. It is a good overview of the history science and the achievements of science. It gets into how they struggled to date the earth and how the came to conclude the age of the earth and universe.
We Christians have nothing to fear from science. I believe as science progresses it will show that abiogenesis, and speciation is not possible with out God.
We Christians have nothing to fear from science. I believe as science progresses it will show that abiogenesis, and speciation is not possible with out God.
I am always a little miffed when people don't listen to what I said.
I have educational credentials. I studied science for my undergrad degree at a secular institution. That means chemistry, physic, math, and my specialty of physical geography and biology. Which in those days was a degree in ecology! My Master's degree is an MDiv, and I might mention that one of my Seminary profs believed in theistic evolution. Lots of variety, I think!
I do not believe that science and engineering prove anything about long age earth or evolution. It is merely the way you look at it. If you have been brainwashed to believe in evolution, you will have to relearn and really investigate the claims for a short earth.
I have a cousin who is a geologist, and a son who is an engineer. My cousin does not believe in creationism, although he is an Anglican reader. My son believes in Jesus, but not a short earth believer either. Now, is that because of what they learned in University, or the lies they were taught in elementary school?
I have educational credentials. I studied science for my undergrad degree at a secular institution. That means chemistry, physic, math, and my specialty of physical geography and biology. Which in those days was a degree in ecology! My Master's degree is an MDiv, and I might mention that one of my Seminary profs believed in theistic evolution. Lots of variety, I think!
I do not believe that science and engineering prove anything about long age earth or evolution. It is merely the way you look at it. If you have been brainwashed to believe in evolution, you will have to relearn and really investigate the claims for a short earth.
I have a cousin who is a geologist, and a son who is an engineer. My cousin does not believe in creationism, although he is an Anglican reader. My son believes in Jesus, but not a short earth believer either. Now, is that because of what they learned in University, or the lies they were taught in elementary school?
It's because the evidence is overwhelming. Your relatives aren't dumb, YEC and creation in general are losing ground big time. Church attendance is also down. All due to knowledge and understanding.
Honestly with all of the evidence against creation I feel the only ones especially younger believers are brainwashed, if the bible didn't make the claim nobody would believe or come to the conclusion of those claims.
Honestly with all of the evidence against creation I feel the only ones especially younger believers are brainwashed, if the bible didn't make the claim nobody would believe or come to the conclusion of those claims.
B
BananaPie
Guest
Here's overwhelming evidence for ya.
Sunset Crater, Arizona, erupted in 1065 AD; rocks tested recently dated 200,000 yrs. old.
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii, erupted 1801; rocks tested recently dated 1.4 million years old. Funny thing, the volcano itself dated to 300,000 yrs old...
Mt. Ngaurhoe, New Zeland, erupted in 1949, 1954; rocks tested dated 275,000 yrs. old.
Mt. Etna, Sicily, Italy, erupted in 1971; rocks tested dated 140,000 to 350,000 yrs range!!
Mt. Helen, WA, erupted in 1980; rocks collected within days of eruption dated to 2.8 million yrs old. (I saw the thing erupting on TV...)
...yeah, it's funny math. I rather do calculus theorems & read the Bible...
Sunset Crater, Arizona, erupted in 1065 AD; rocks tested recently dated 200,000 yrs. old.
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii, erupted 1801; rocks tested recently dated 1.4 million years old. Funny thing, the volcano itself dated to 300,000 yrs old...
Mt. Ngaurhoe, New Zeland, erupted in 1949, 1954; rocks tested dated 275,000 yrs. old.
Mt. Etna, Sicily, Italy, erupted in 1971; rocks tested dated 140,000 to 350,000 yrs range!!
Mt. Helen, WA, erupted in 1980; rocks collected within days of eruption dated to 2.8 million yrs old. (I saw the thing erupting on TV...)
...yeah, it's funny math. I rather do calculus theorems & read the Bible...
S
st_sebastian
Guest
http://www.wnpa.org/research/wupa05-14.pdf This paper, working with strontium in the rocks and tree remains, places it in the AD 1000s. That was just the first paper I read. Which one are you reading?
Perhaps the rocks tested were from previous eruptions. I'm no expert and rocks aren't the only evidence of the earths age as I posted other examples above.
not all rocks are the same age and not all fossils are the same age... When you get some real evidence for the contrary you will get some serious press and probably be on the cover of every paper magazine and website in the world.
not all rocks are the same age and not all fossils are the same age... When you get some real evidence for the contrary you will get some serious press and probably be on the cover of every paper magazine and website in the world.
So a little bit on carbon dated, for the science-challenged at CC. (Not talking about Creationists, either!)
One intriguing thing about radioactive carbon is because it has such a short half-life, then the closer you get to the present the more reliable it becomes. If you then compare it with historic data what you find that the further back you get in known history the more unreliable it becomes.
In fact it has all the major problems of a clock that doesn’t tick the way it should. What do we mean by that? When you invent a new clock you need to know what the time is now, and if you’re setting the clock to run backwards, you need to know how fast it ticks. To do that you have to have a way of knowing what the time was at measured known intervals back into the past. So when you set your newly invented C14 Clock, as Willard Libby did when he developed the method, it has to have a known rate of decay that can be measured against known historical time lapses, e.g.. the Birth of Christ, the reign of Julius Caesar, etc. Whilst it is so casually overlooked these days, the first inventor of the Carbon 14 method Willard Libby is definitely on record that the thing surprised him most, was that he didn’t have any written records to compare his Carbon 14 method against that was older than 5,000 years. But he didn’t let that bother him in any way, shape or form. He just went ahead and used it as if that little fact was ignorable. (Science, March 3, 1961, p. 624)
A good reason that there were no written records prior to 5,000 years ago is that the whole world was in liquidation i.e. inundated by Noahs Flood, which would also mean that the entire planet had been changed, and the Carbon 14 method is one dramatic loser as a result.
In the beginning the God created the world very good. Adam and Eve would have been protected from every source of producing radioactive carbon. Remember they had no clothes on; the environment was one of created perfection, and the atmosphere had been deliberately designed by God to ensure man’s health and long life. In our modern world, high energy radiation from outer space bombards nitrogen, gives it extra energy, breaks it up and produces radioactive carbon 14 as a result. The radioactive carbon combines with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide (CO2), which is absorbed by plants and get into food that is eaten by man and animals. These and other radiation sources are one reason we don’t live to be “as old as Methuselah”. But while we are alive, what goes in also comes out because you breathe out CO2, which includes some of the radioactive stuff. But as is well known, when you die you stop breathing out CO2, as well as ceasing to take in any more food. So the amount of radioactive carbon in your body at death, from then on will simply disintegrate by radioactive decay. The simple principle is the longer you have been dead, the less radioactivity you will have in your body. Ultimately it will be so little that it will be immeasurable. At present that limit is around 70,000 years.
However, to use such a method you must assume the world that has always functioned the same as today. But it is highly unlikely that Adam and Eve and any created animals were ever exposed to high energy radiation, nor did they ever breathe in any radioactive gases in the beginning. Radioactivity causes disease and degeneration, which is not very good. However, the world ceased to be very good after Adam and Eve rebelled against God and God cursed the ground in judgement. The world degenerated even more rapidly after Noah’s Flood when the atmosphere changed drastically, and much more radiation could penetrate the atmosphere.
http://www.creationresearch.net/images/PDF_Items/dino-carbon-dating.pdf
This site also has some interesting confirmed carbon dates of dinosaur bones from the University of Arizona that range from 9890 ± 60, to 17420 ± 330.
One has to wonder if the University knew what it was dating?
One intriguing thing about radioactive carbon is because it has such a short half-life, then the closer you get to the present the more reliable it becomes. If you then compare it with historic data what you find that the further back you get in known history the more unreliable it becomes.
In fact it has all the major problems of a clock that doesn’t tick the way it should. What do we mean by that? When you invent a new clock you need to know what the time is now, and if you’re setting the clock to run backwards, you need to know how fast it ticks. To do that you have to have a way of knowing what the time was at measured known intervals back into the past. So when you set your newly invented C14 Clock, as Willard Libby did when he developed the method, it has to have a known rate of decay that can be measured against known historical time lapses, e.g.. the Birth of Christ, the reign of Julius Caesar, etc. Whilst it is so casually overlooked these days, the first inventor of the Carbon 14 method Willard Libby is definitely on record that the thing surprised him most, was that he didn’t have any written records to compare his Carbon 14 method against that was older than 5,000 years. But he didn’t let that bother him in any way, shape or form. He just went ahead and used it as if that little fact was ignorable. (Science, March 3, 1961, p. 624)
A good reason that there were no written records prior to 5,000 years ago is that the whole world was in liquidation i.e. inundated by Noahs Flood, which would also mean that the entire planet had been changed, and the Carbon 14 method is one dramatic loser as a result.
In the beginning the God created the world very good. Adam and Eve would have been protected from every source of producing radioactive carbon. Remember they had no clothes on; the environment was one of created perfection, and the atmosphere had been deliberately designed by God to ensure man’s health and long life. In our modern world, high energy radiation from outer space bombards nitrogen, gives it extra energy, breaks it up and produces radioactive carbon 14 as a result. The radioactive carbon combines with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide (CO2), which is absorbed by plants and get into food that is eaten by man and animals. These and other radiation sources are one reason we don’t live to be “as old as Methuselah”. But while we are alive, what goes in also comes out because you breathe out CO2, which includes some of the radioactive stuff. But as is well known, when you die you stop breathing out CO2, as well as ceasing to take in any more food. So the amount of radioactive carbon in your body at death, from then on will simply disintegrate by radioactive decay. The simple principle is the longer you have been dead, the less radioactivity you will have in your body. Ultimately it will be so little that it will be immeasurable. At present that limit is around 70,000 years.
However, to use such a method you must assume the world that has always functioned the same as today. But it is highly unlikely that Adam and Eve and any created animals were ever exposed to high energy radiation, nor did they ever breathe in any radioactive gases in the beginning. Radioactivity causes disease and degeneration, which is not very good. However, the world ceased to be very good after Adam and Eve rebelled against God and God cursed the ground in judgement. The world degenerated even more rapidly after Noah’s Flood when the atmosphere changed drastically, and much more radiation could penetrate the atmosphere.
http://www.creationresearch.net/images/PDF_Items/dino-carbon-dating.pdf
This site also has some interesting confirmed carbon dates of dinosaur bones from the University of Arizona that range from 9890 ± 60, to 17420 ± 330.
One has to wonder if the University knew what it was dating?
T
Tintin
Guest
I'm copying this comment on the Creation Ministries International website because it pretty much explains the way I felt about this 'debate' (except for the percentages he's cited).
Source: Ham Nye debate
Kenneth L., Canada
I regret to say that, as a YEC Christian, I watched the debate with sadness. Despite my respect for Ken Ham' immensely beneficial work (from which I have benefited greatly) and my affection for him, I have to say, in all honesty, that Bill Nye won the debate hands down. Why do I say that? Not because Nye had the facts on his side, which he did not. No, it was because Nye spent 90% of his time laying out scientific (albeit bad science) evidence for his long ages world view, and 10% of his time on that world view, whereas Ken Ham spent 90% of his time laying out his Biblical world view and 10% talking about the scientific evidence for YEC, hardly responding to Nye's arguments scientifically. Tragically, a golden opportunity to lay out our science and refute theirs in the public arena was lost. Evolutionists continually portray their side as being about science and our side as being about religion. If I were watching the debate without any background on either side, that is exactly the impression I would have left with. I expect the evolutionists are positively crowing today, knowing they can use this debate to reinforce that idea in the public's mind. If we want to break that ideological hold they have on much of the public, we have to do what Nye did, i.e. go on the offensive scientifically and debate them primarily on science. Otherwise they will continue to portray us as being about religion while they are about science, and that gives them the excuse to keep creation science out of science classrooms. So my message to Ken and the YEC community is: When debating evolutionists, confront them with scientific reasons to doubt long ages and evolution, and defend our science using scientific arguments. Otherwise you play into their narrative: 'science' vs 'creationism'.
Source: Ham Nye debate
Kenneth L., Canada
I regret to say that, as a YEC Christian, I watched the debate with sadness. Despite my respect for Ken Ham' immensely beneficial work (from which I have benefited greatly) and my affection for him, I have to say, in all honesty, that Bill Nye won the debate hands down. Why do I say that? Not because Nye had the facts on his side, which he did not. No, it was because Nye spent 90% of his time laying out scientific (albeit bad science) evidence for his long ages world view, and 10% of his time on that world view, whereas Ken Ham spent 90% of his time laying out his Biblical world view and 10% talking about the scientific evidence for YEC, hardly responding to Nye's arguments scientifically. Tragically, a golden opportunity to lay out our science and refute theirs in the public arena was lost. Evolutionists continually portray their side as being about science and our side as being about religion. If I were watching the debate without any background on either side, that is exactly the impression I would have left with. I expect the evolutionists are positively crowing today, knowing they can use this debate to reinforce that idea in the public's mind. If we want to break that ideological hold they have on much of the public, we have to do what Nye did, i.e. go on the offensive scientifically and debate them primarily on science. Otherwise they will continue to portray us as being about religion while they are about science, and that gives them the excuse to keep creation science out of science classrooms. So my message to Ken and the YEC community is: When debating evolutionists, confront them with scientific reasons to doubt long ages and evolution, and defend our science using scientific arguments. Otherwise you play into their narrative: 'science' vs 'creationism'.
Explain why this "bad science" is believed by the rest of the world? If evolution is false how can Monsanto splice fish dna into a strawberry? How do you explain the snow ice cores? How do you explain the distance of the stars?
With all of Kens money he cannot say openly idiotic things like evolution is false because he has no proof, that's why the debate went like it did. He has to stay within realistic guide lines, "god did it" is not acceptable neither are unpublished lies by evolution haters.
if he went in stage talking about fallen angels and how evolution is false he could loose everything in terms of credibility in his beliefs
With all of Kens money he cannot say openly idiotic things like evolution is false because he has no proof, that's why the debate went like it did. He has to stay within realistic guide lines, "god did it" is not acceptable neither are unpublished lies by evolution haters.
if he went in stage talking about fallen angels and how evolution is false he could loose everything in terms of credibility in his beliefs
Last edited:
T
Tintin
Guest
Tr, would you please edit your profile from Christian to non-Christian? You've already been asked this many times. It's highly deceptive. Thanks.