JassyRadlett Sun 26-Oct-14 15:13:26
The Bible itself is packed with contradictions - Christianity itself is compromise.?
What examples can you give to support this opinion?
If the reason scientists are scared to speak out is because it goes against the prevailing theory base, why don't we see more young earth science being peer reviewed and coming out of other countries with a greater religious monoculture
Can you give an example of a country that you speak of?
bigbluestars Sun 26-Oct-14 15:34:10
pickled- you see I just don't get that. If the bible is truly god's word then surely it should be accessible to all.
It is; very much so. However, so as not to fall into the pit of misinterpretations, you need to make sure you’re understanding the words used. Because it’s translated we need to uncover the original words and meanings. ?It’s very easy to do with a good word reference concordance and expository dictionary.
BackOnlyBriefly Sun 26-Oct-14 15:40:58
And the way you know which bits are the word of god is that those bits agree with what you think is right.
Not at all, quite the opposite actually. I read, study, understand, and then agree with it because it matches everything else that’s written in the same book. I don’t go in with a belief or a theory and try to twist it to match my thoughts. I’m not an evolutionary scientist, you know! ;)
JassyRadlett Sun 26-Oct-14 15:48:04
how arrogant to assume that anyone who doesn't share your views hasn't studied it enough I think I said people who follow the crowd without really bothering to read the book, or people who deliberately twist the words of the book; nothing to do with everyone agreeing with me!
I know plenty of theologians who will tell you the bible is full of contradictions, and therefore literalism is problematic.
I'm interested if you can name any that aren’t atheists? Literalism is only problematic if it is taken out of context or twisted deliberately. Some of the bible is based on personal conscience, like whether to drink alcohol, but some of it is an absolute, like never to get drunk. The bible is clear when someone is a command or a choice.
You haven't explained why you think the prevailing cultural view shifted from creationism to evolution. That's an awful lot of people simultaneously 'turning their backs on God' (including a large number who consider themselves Christians)
Yes and that’s actually forecast in the bible too, so if you have read it as thoroughly as you say, you might recall reading that part.
VelvetGreen Sun 26-Oct-14 21:54:58
1. There is zero evidence for any variation in the rate of decay of any of the isotopes used for radiometric dating
Physicists are stirred by claims that the sun may change what’s unchangeable—the rate of radioactive decay
2. There is some suggestion that there may be some small fluctuations of some other isotopes. If these are eventually proven then science will accommodate this new information. They still would not prove a young earth.
You’re actually missing my point. I said that there are many assumptions, constant radioactive decay is just one of them. But put them all together and the tower starts to wobble.
i'm not going to repeat my previous post but for example did you read the article explaining why, if things transpired the way you are suggesting, that 6000 years ago the earth would be molten and we would be burnt to a crisp?
I take it you refer to your cut and paste article from the talkorigins website??Yes I read it but was a little concerned to see you have only written half the story on the irc website. You cut and paste the past where they pose a question but left out the part where they follow immediately by posing an answer. I followed your example and cut and paste it below:
The rest of the VelvetGreen cut and paste that had a missing –chunk-- link!
The group decided that the principal tentative approach to this research effort will be to explore accelerated rates of decay of radioisotopes during one or more of the Creation, Fall, and Flood events. Several sources of data suggest that significant quantities of radioactive decay have occurred in the history of the earth and cosmos. The conventional model assumes that this decay has occurred slowly over billions of years rather than in concentrated episodes over short periods of time. Research may be able to distinguish between these models.
Whether accelerated decay is the only and/or final approach followed or not, the geochemical/geophysical evidence in the rocks must be consistent with whatever theory is proposed. In other words, the distribution of parent and daughter elements in the stratigraphic record must occur in a manner which would validate the theory, and any deviations able to be explained by geological/geochemical processes. For example, if accelerated decay occurred only during the Flood, then strata which were laid down before the Flood should show different ratios of radioisotopes and daughter products than strata laid down during or following the Flood. Because there are still differences of opinion about the location of Flood boundaries, this may be difficult. In fact, a study of the distribution of parent and daughter elements relative to the Flood may go a long way toward helping define the boundaries of Flood strata. Radioisotope data from the Moon or Mars may add additional insights.
One major obstacle to accelerated decay is an explanation for the disposal of the great quantities of heat which would be generated by radioactive decay over short periods of time. For example, if most of the radioactive decay implied by fission tracks or quantities of daughter products occurred over the year of the Flood, the amount of heat generated would have been excessive, given present conditions.
At least one theory of cosmology has been proposed which would compensate for this large amount of heat and possibly even result in net volumetric cooling in places. Such theories seem to ultimately to depend upon supernatural intervention at the time of Creation, Fall, and the Flood. God's intervention is explicitly stated in Scripture (II Peter 3:5,6 and implied elsewhere). Although these theories have not been adequately explored at this time, they could well result in an alternative explanation to many processes in the earth and cosmos. The group is strongly committed to exploring various ways in which data for large quantities of radioactive decay can be explained within a young-earth time frame. In this effort, the group is committed to a literal interpretation of the Bible which honors God as Creator and Sustainer of this world.