Millions of years ago ! ?
- Thread starter wincam
- Start date
-
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.
Not only that all they can measure with radiometric testing is how much radio material they have left. No one has a control sample against which to test their theories. They have no idea HOW much radio active material it started with. The tests are ALL FLAWED because they start with ASSUMPTIONS of how much radio active it actually had to begin with. 
Never heard of Jerry Bergman until this thread frankly. Though your article says it was written by one hight Paul S. Braterman, not a man named Jerry Bergman. So I'm not quite sure your point on that one.
This article made me laugh. I noted that it does not mention that when old earth mythology first formed, they thought in only millions of years. The reason they have had to continually revise it is because their own theories don't line up with either reality or their own myth. Every new theory they come up with necessitates them to revise the age upwards to gain time for their theory to have plausibility. This is amusing because they have essentially gone so far overboard with adding time that it has essentially become ludicrously impossible and negates almost all their own theories.
To examine their three points which they think support the old earth mythology, but which ironically prove it to be absurd. Sediment layers, radioatomic dating, and earth & cosmos models.
Firstly, the sediment layers. In the old earth mythology even this disproves so much of the myth. For we all ready know you can only have sediment if it is deposited by water. Furthermore the fact fossils are found in many different layers, and that there are even polystrata fossils proves that they were laid down in a cataclysm. Even moreso, the fact there are fossils at all. For if there was a gradual laying down of the layers, no fossil could be made due to decay and scavengers. Even moreso just to have fossilization occur one must have a lot of water and earth cover up the specimen in a very brief timeframe.
So it is clear that the only way you can have the layers or the fossils is via massive worldwide cataclysm involving lots of water. This would be the Flood. This is actually not that controversial outside of hardcore atheist circles. Just about all religions of antiquity and even the more secularist of ancient histories describe this event as happening. In fact the Flood is one of the very few things human civilizations have ever commonly agreed upon. And in theory, you could still have the worldwide Flood, and still have an old earth mythology.
The next point of radiometric dating is the most dominant today. Yet radiometric dating is also the most flawed and depends on the assumption of constant and uniform earth. For the only way to have a reliable radiometric date is if we live in a uniform and constant and relatively peaceful world in which cannot exist outside factors to change the properties of materials. However, we live in a self-evident dynamic world. Radiometric dating cannot be trusted as the properties of any single object are subject to change by various factors (ie: time and decay, the classical elements, spirit, and God.) Furthermore there have been many experiments on radiometric dating which solidly prove it to be extremely inaccurate (ie: tests wherein a freshly killed creature were dated back to hundreds of thousands of years.) Even though radiometric dating is a lie, this does not negate old earth mythology by reason that within the mythology itself are mythological cataclysms which would alter the property of materials anyways.
The last point which the article curiously underwrites is actually the most important, which is the formation and shape of the earth and cosmos. This is important because the old earth mythological model for the earth and cosmos actually undermines almost all of the other old earth theories when they are taken in combination. A good example of this is the relationship of the earth and moon in the old earth mythology. For this are made three assumptions; 1. earth is a tilted, wobbling, spinning sphere 2. gravity exists 3. they have existed for billions of years. These three would mean that the moon would have either escaped orbit or collided with the earth millions to billions of years ago. So one can easily see that either one of these theories, or all three, must be false.
This article made me laugh. I noted that it does not mention that when old earth mythology first formed, they thought in only millions of years. The reason they have had to continually revise it is because their own theories don't line up with either reality or their own myth. Every new theory they come up with necessitates them to revise the age upwards to gain time for their theory to have plausibility. This is amusing because they have essentially gone so far overboard with adding time that it has essentially become ludicrously impossible and negates almost all their own theories.
To examine their three points which they think support the old earth mythology, but which ironically prove it to be absurd. Sediment layers, radioatomic dating, and earth & cosmos models.
Firstly, the sediment layers. In the old earth mythology even this disproves so much of the myth. For we all ready know you can only have sediment if it is deposited by water. Furthermore the fact fossils are found in many different layers, and that there are even polystrata fossils proves that they were laid down in a cataclysm. Even moreso, the fact there are fossils at all. For if there was a gradual laying down of the layers, no fossil could be made due to decay and scavengers. Even moreso just to have fossilization occur one must have a lot of water and earth cover up the specimen in a very brief timeframe.
So it is clear that the only way you can have the layers or the fossils is via massive worldwide cataclysm involving lots of water. This would be the Flood. This is actually not that controversial outside of hardcore atheist circles. Just about all religions of antiquity and even the more secularist of ancient histories describe this event as happening. In fact the Flood is one of the very few things human civilizations have ever commonly agreed upon. And in theory, you could still have the worldwide Flood, and still have an old earth mythology.
The next point of radiometric dating is the most dominant today. Yet radiometric dating is also the most flawed and depends on the assumption of constant and uniform earth. For the only way to have a reliable radiometric date is if we live in a uniform and constant and relatively peaceful world in which cannot exist outside factors to change the properties of materials. However, we live in a self-evident dynamic world. Radiometric dating cannot be trusted as the properties of any single object are subject to change by various factors (ie: time and decay, the classical elements, spirit, and God.) Furthermore there have been many experiments on radiometric dating which solidly prove it to be extremely inaccurate (ie: tests wherein a freshly killed creature were dated back to hundreds of thousands of years.) Even though radiometric dating is a lie, this does not negate old earth mythology by reason that within the mythology itself are mythological cataclysms which would alter the property of materials anyways.
The last point which the article curiously underwrites is actually the most important, which is the formation and shape of the earth and cosmos. This is important because the old earth mythological model for the earth and cosmos actually undermines almost all of the other old earth theories when they are taken in combination. A good example of this is the relationship of the earth and moon in the old earth mythology. For this are made three assumptions; 1. earth is a tilted, wobbling, spinning sphere 2. gravity exists 3. they have existed for billions of years. These three would mean that the moon would have either escaped orbit or collided with the earth millions to billions of years ago. So one can easily see that either one of these theories, or all three, must be false.
Last edited:
This is a really interesting question,
And have no real answer to it, but just some philosophical speculation:
Could something exists without a beginning?
I my post I did not said that God needs to be created, I just said how the something out of nothing theory has and issue when we applied to God.
I have no concrete answer to your Question,
I believe God exists, I believe is merciful, loving, forgiving.
but I do not Believe He is Revengeful, Genocide, authorizing rape and slavery etc etc, What I said in that respect is that people wrote his mites and legends in the old testament and made God look as such.
And have no real answer to it, but just some philosophical speculation:
Could something exists without a beginning?
I my post I did not said that God needs to be created, I just said how the something out of nothing theory has and issue when we applied to God.
I have no concrete answer to your Question,
I believe God exists, I believe is merciful, loving, forgiving.
but I do not Believe He is Revengeful, Genocide, authorizing rape and slavery etc etc, What I said in that respect is that people wrote his mites and legends in the old testament and made God look as such.
The article is laughable for its absurd assertions based upon contradictions to reality or to its own mythology which it seeks to portray as fact. There is no such thing as an expert of theories. All one has to do is observe them, compare them, test them, or weigh them for themselves. Anyone is capable of this. Though I do understand it is very common for atheists when confronted with logic to resort to petty personal attacks and to demand experts or demand affiliation to an institution, which they themselves deem credible. All for the purpose of trying to undermine the credibility of anyone that can easily point out the severe flaws of their illogical mythology.
To be ignorant is to be uninformed. If one has all ready received such information, and such information as this is forcibly taught to all whom have ever attended a public school, and if someone has learned more information beyond such; you cannot insult them by calling them ignorant for simply pointing out the massive absurdities that exist in the old earth mythology.
To be ignorant is to be uninformed. If one has all ready received such information, and such information as this is forcibly taught to all whom have ever attended a public school, and if someone has learned more information beyond such; you cannot insult them by calling them ignorant for simply pointing out the massive absurdities that exist in the old earth mythology.
If you are not going to accept what the Word of God says concerning the origin of matter and how it came into existence then what do you think I could possibly provide you that would make a difference. Faith is not about empirical proofs. This is completely contrary to the dynamics of faith. It is the opposite of faith. This is unbelief. You claimed to have the gift of wisdom. How do you claim to posses such a gift and then reject the testimony of scripture? This is not wisdom, this is foolishness. You are reasoning dyadically. Do you understand the difference between dyadic reason and triadic reasoning? If not I can teach you if you are not too proud to learn and if you are not too lazy to READ. I await your response.
Last edited:
When you apply the question to God, you are taking away his power....
Based on logic, the only way something can exist without a beginning is if it is not bound by time....
The world had to have a beginning, or we would not get to where we are today. If you are driving to Florida and the road sign says "Florida: Infinity miles away" When will you get there? As we know based on the Bible, God did not have a beginning, he has always existed, because He is not bound by time.
Does this clear up your confusion on the "can something exist without a beginning" question?
Based on logic, the only way something can exist without a beginning is if it is not bound by time....
The world had to have a beginning, or we would not get to where we are today. If you are driving to Florida and the road sign says "Florida: Infinity miles away" When will you get there? As we know based on the Bible, God did not have a beginning, he has always existed, because He is not bound by time.
Does this clear up your confusion on the "can something exist without a beginning" question?
So now you see God is an option in creating the universe. The science you are talking about. You are saying If your views on this science are wrong, God could not have created the world like the Bible describes? There is actually science that supports young earth and God.....you cannot just discredit our existence if one theory made by man is wrong.