Hakluyt's Voyages.......

[Hakluyt]

........just in case anyone fancies continuing them.

We were, I think, discussing the issue around dating dinosaur bones........among other things.

Pickled could you explain how you are demonstrating more common sense by believing in your chosen religion than the followers of the Prince Philip Movement?

I thought everybody knew that Prince Philip, along with the other members of the Royal Family, is one of the Illuminati.

Shape-shifting lizardy satanists, the lot of them!

Just a few problems with your article (I’ve only covered the first 12 pages out of 90).

Figure 1: Simplified geological time scale. The relative order of the eras, periods, and epochs was determined on the basis of stratigraphy and paleontology. The time scale was independently confirmed and quantified by radiometric dating.

So radiometric data, does, after all (despite many evolutionary arguments against this) underpin the evolutionary belief.

Page four states: “No technique, of course, is ever completely perfected and refinement continues to this day, but for more than two decades radiometric dating methods have been used to measure reliably the ages of rocks, the Earth, meteorites, and, since 1969, the Moon.”

Interestingly on page 5 he states “Some methods work only on closed systems, whereas others work on open systems.”

Funny how the evolutionists like to cherry pick!

“One of the primary functions of the dating specialist (sometimes called a geochronologist) is to select the applicable method for the particular problem to be solved, and to design the experiment in such a way that there will be checks on the reliability of the results.” Could easily be interpreted as “we have to ensure the method we use fits the dates we need it to, or else the evolutionary theory crumbles”.
Despite saying “Mistakes do occur but they are usually caught by the various checks employed in the well-designed experiment.” The paragraph stating: “The geochronologist takes this factor into account when assigning experimental errors to the calculated ages” is very open to being accused of accepting only that which fits, and ignoring the rest as ‘experimental errors’.

In a moment of truthfulness the author states: Like any complex procedure, radiometric dating does not work all the time under all circumstances. Each technique works only under a particular set of geologic conditions and occasionally a method is inadvertently misapplied. In addition, scientists are continually learning, and some of the “errors” are not errors at all but simply results obtained in the continuing effort to explore and improve the methods and their application. There are, to be sure, inconsistencies, errors, and results that are poorly understood,…”

So that’s ok for an evolutionist to admit to, but not a creationist? Hmmm.

I notice that they use typical evolutionary ‘emotive’ language such as “overwhelming evidence”, and “tremendous intellectual leap” etc. It’s all a bit daily mail really.

However, I would like to point out I answered your question about the heat. It was included in your missing cut & paste from ICR website. I can include a few others for you to read as well if you like. Just so you really do get an undisputed SECOND full reply. Unless you’re one of those people who always call a reply a “non-reply” if it just doesn’t suit them?

Because God is the Creator of physical principles, it would be wrong to state that He must act in a certain way. However, Scripture is a reliable record of His actual Creation. The models considered here merely point out some unnecessary assumptions involved in interpreting radioactive decay: half-lives may not have been constant. In our studies of ?-decay, it is found that small changes in the strength of the nuclear force can lead to large changes in the half-life of a nucleus such as U238. Using realistic values for the strength and range for the nuclear force it was found that a small change in the depth of the nuclear potential well can cause a change in the number of nodes in the ?-particle wavefunction, resulting in a change in the half-life that in some cases could be as much as a factor of 108. It was found that these models are consistent with the U isotope distributions found in nature, and their approach to radioactive equilibrium. These results enable one to conjecture about how much the variation in nuclear force must have been in order to explain present- day isotopic abundances. Since there is no precise number to match with theory, and since various approaches to the final, present-day abundances are possible, these results remain exploratory in nature. In the case of the Oklo natural reactors, a study of the resonance absorption of neutrons by 149Sm was found to place some constraints on the time during earth history when the reactions could have occurred, and/or the type of model that is consistent with the data. Borrowing some ideas from Kaluza-Klein theory and string theory, we found that changes in the radii of compact extra dimensions can lead to a change in the effective coupling constant for the strong force, hence in the strength of the nuclear force. Although extended Kaluza-Klein and string theories must be considered as highly tentative theories, in this work we find some explicit equations showing the possible variation of the strong and weak coupling constants. We discussed the connection between coupling constants and the sizes of the holes in a Calabi-Yau shape. We also discussed modern unified theories of the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces and the implications of changes in coupling constants and Yukawa couplings as far as the effect on particle masses is concerned. We conclude that, although all the relevant measurements and theories are not yet available, consistent theories which allow accelerated decay seem to be possible. It seems that the best models, the ones which would be most likely to be successful, would involve a variation in the strong force rather than the electromagnetic force. Whether the weak force can vary in a way consistent with observation seems doubtful. We discussed the idea of a forbidden transition in ?-decay theory, and found that most of the nuclei that are of interest in radioisotope dating problems undergo forbidden transitions with a comparatively small decay energy (the Q-value). The sensitivity of a theoretical value of the half-life of a ?-decay was found to be increased by a smallness of the relevant Q-value. A change in the strong force could therefore affect the ?-decays of these nuclei through change in the Q-value. Double ?-decay promises to provide a check on whether accelerated decay has occurred. The double ?-decay of 82Se already gives some evidence of this type, but more data will possibly become available in the next few years if direct measurements of the half-life of 130Te are successful. Perhaps future studies will be able to connect more precisely with the data. www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Accelerated-Decay-Theoretical-Considerations.pdf

Accelerated decay is in direct opposition to the main assumption of radiometric dating within the evolutionary scientific establishment which is that the radioactivedecay rates are constant with time. If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any date based on radioactive decay within the evolutionary context is worthless.
A scientific research group called RATE ( Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth ) was formed by the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society to study this issue from a creationist perspective. They have determined that the most likely times for accelerated decay were the first 2.5 days of the creation week, and during the flood and shortly thereafter.
Contents [hide]
1 Evidence for Accelerated Decay
2 Theoretical Bases for Nuclear Decay
3 Dealing With the Heat
4 News
5 References
6 Further Reading
7 See Also
Evidence for Accelerated Decay

Estimated He diffusion rates for both Creation and Uniformitarian models. Made on from data on pages 51 and 54 of Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth II
If radioactive decay has been going on for millions and billions of years, there has been insufficient argon diffusion and insufficient lead diffusion, there is insufficient Heliumin the air, and too much Helium in rocks.
Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE groupindicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay have taken place, but in one or more short periods 4000 - 8000 years ago. This would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth to only a few thousand years.
This was done by extracting hard, dense, microscopic crystals called zircons. Much of the uranium and thorium in the earth's continental crust is in zircons and it is often embedded in flakes of biotite; a black mica. Helium is made by the decay of uranium to lead; as a uranium atom decays, it emits eight alpha particles (helium nuclei) per atom. These helium nuclei quickly gather two electrons from the crystal and thus become complete helium atoms.
Los Alamos measurements of uranium, thorium, and lead showed "1.5 billion" years worth of nuclear decay at today's rates. After calculating how much helium had been deposited by decay, they then measured how much helium was still in the zircons. It turned out that up to 58% of the helium had not diffused out of the zircons; the percentages decreased with depth and temperature. At the time that the RATE group began its work, the diffusion rates had not been measured for the zircons and biotite. On the basis of the helium found in zircons, Dr. Russell Humphreys calculated the diffusion rates for both the Creation and the Uniformitarian models. He found that the diffusion rates for the two models differ by a factor of 100,000.

Estimated He diffusion rates for both Creation and Uniformitarian models, compared to measured He diffusion rates. Made on from data on pages 45, 51 and 54 of Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth II
When the diffusion rates in zircons were measured, they matched the Creation model but were found to be totally incompatible with the Uniformitarian model. These results, along with the helium actually observed in zircons, show that diffusion has been occurring for 6000 ± 2000 years. These rates are about 250,000 times too high for the Uniformitarian model. This demonstrates that the observed decay of uranium cannot have taken 1.5 billion years.
In order for zircons to retain the observed amount of helium for 1.5 billion years, they would have had to have been at the temperature of liquid nitrogen (-196ºC below zero) for all that time, which is, of course, both incompatible with life and with any known or conjectured history of the earth..
? See: Criticism of RATE’s helium diffusion data
There is some evidence for a correlation between nuclear decay rates and the distance it is from the sun. Jere Jenkins et al at Purdue University have reexamined raw data from various experiments and seem to support this conclusion.[1]
Theoretical Bases for Nuclear Decay
In the conventional theory on radioactive decay, alpha particles are trapped in the nucleus by a strong force potential barrier. In radioactive nuclei, alpha particles sometimes tunnel through the barrier. This process has only been treated statistically. It is claimed that quantum mechanics does not allow accelerated decay. This is not really true, because quantum mechanics treats the subatomic world statistically; it does not provide any cause and effect explanation of decay.
One simple case is that a variation in the strong force would change decay rates.
String theory hypothesizes the existence of spatial dimensions, which are confined to approximately 10-34 m, in excess of the three we directly observe. In this theory, decay rates are related to the size of these dimensions. A change in the size of these dimensions would change decay rates.
Nikola Tesla, who did a lot of experimental work with Electromagnetism, suggested that some type of ray may trigger radioactive decay. Others have taken up this idea and have proposed various ideas about what the rays could be. Some suggest neutrinos, since they are associated with nuclear reactions and are detected by their triggering a nuclear reaction. If neutrinos or some other agent trigger nuclear decay, an increase in the presence of this agent would accelerate nuclear decay. This model predicts that there should be a small annual variation in decay rates as the Earth’s distance from the sun varies, According to a recent article in New Scientist] this affect has been observed, in a variety of isotopes in several different experiments.[2]
It has been demonstrated in both Alpha and Bata decay

Isotope Half-life Decay Type
silicon-32 172 years Beta
radium-226 1600 years Alpha
chlorine-36 301,000 years Beta
It also known carbon-14 dating has wiggles that annoy researchers, and according to the article it is consistent with a 200 year cycle in solar activity. This would also be consitent with neutrino triggered decay.
The sad thing is that this annual variation in decay rates was first observed in 1986 and ignored as equipment error, on the bases that the scientists “knew” that decay rates were constant. As a result further research was prevented for 24 years until it was rediscovered. This makes it an excellent example of scientific research being stifled the preconceptions of scientists who ignored data contrary to accepted dogma.
An interesting mechanism is suggested by General Grand Unification model. In this model, probabilistic behavior such as tunneling is controlled by an intelligent agent; it makes no difference to the theory whether this is an actual being, an algorithm preprogrammed by God, or God's thoughts. In any case, God could have simply adjusted the controls governing quantum tunneling so as to speed up nuclear decay for a time.
Dealing With the Heat
The biggest objection to the possibility of accelerated nuclear decay is the fact that nuclear decay produces heat. If decay were accelerated too much, the heat would cause problems.
Interestingly God gave us the solution about 3,000 years ago, in Psalms 104:2.
Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Psalms 104:2 (KJV)
This is a reference to the expansion of space described by General Relativity. If accelerated decay had occurred at the same time as a rapid stretching of space, that would get rid of the excess heat. So accelerated nuclear decay could have occurred as long as it was accompanied by a rapid expansion of space.
The Bible definitely indicates that such an expansion occurred during the creation week.

1. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis 1:6-7 (KJV)

An additional expansion could have occurred during the Flood.

1. There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. 10. He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet. 11. And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind. 12. And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies. 13. Through the brightness before him were coals of fire kindled. 14. The Lord thundered from heaven, and the most High uttered his voice. 15. And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; lightning, and discomfited them. 16. And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered,At the rebuking of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.2Samuel 22:9-16 (KJV)

Both Henry Morris (in The Henry Morris Study Bible) and Dr. Russell Humphreys(in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) indicate that David was comparing his own deliverance to the Flood in these verses. Dr. Russell Humphreys goes on to indicate that the reference to "fire out of his mouth devoured" to be an indication that accelerated nuclear decay occurred during the Flood, since the Hebrew word translated fire can mean any consuming heat. He also shows that the Hebrew word translated "bowed" can mean to stretch out. So this passage seems to indicate both accelerated nuclear decay and an expansion of space during the Flood. Accelerated nuclear decay is not a theory of desperation as some critics claim, since there are both Biblical and scientific support for it. Furthermore, accelerated nuclear decay explains a lot more than reconciling detected amounts of nuclear decay with a young Earth; in fact, it provides a mechanism for triggering the Flood and more. One sign of a good theory is that it explains more than what it is intended to. creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay

JassyRadlett Tue 28-Oct-14 12:37:28
It also makes you wonder why mainstream global Christianity, as guided by god, followed the 'wrong' version for 1500 years until the Reformation when the Protestant churches rejected the non-Hebraic books of the Old Testament.??

Aside from the additional books which were written much later and were considered not to be original inspired word of God, the main text (66 books) still have the same message of sinners and redemption.

It's worth remembering that Martin Luther tried to go much further in his changes to the bible by going into the New Testament, but this wasn't acceptable to his followers, who kept Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

There are warnings within the bible not to add to, or take from, the books written, so it is right that Martin Luther was not able to modify it like that. Or Mohammad for that matter.

For so many people today, it would appear that the Bible is not enough. This is the case even (or perhaps especially) among people who have not actually read it. Witness the current popularity of those who would add extra books to the canon of Scripture. Or witness the claims that certain ancient documents are supposedly more reliable than the books of the Bible but were kept out of the canon because of petty jealousies.

THE BOOKS THAT ALLEGEDLY “DIDN’T QUITE MAKE IT” ARE NOT INSPIRED AND HAVE NO MERIT.
The last few years have seen the publication of books such as Holy Grail, Holy Blood; The Da Vinci Code; and The Gospel of Judas. What such works proclaim, along with myriad TV documentaries, is that our Bible is suspect, allegedly having been compiled some three centuries after Christ by the winners of an intense theological/political debate. Are such claims true? Are there really other books that should be viewed as Scripture?

Other chapters in this book lay to rest the myth that the Bible was compiled three centuries after Christ. It is the purpose of this chapter to show that the books that allegedly “didn’t quite make it” are not inspired and have no merit compared with the books that are part of the canon of Scripture.
Canon
We have become quite used to the word canon these days. The word is frequently used of a body of literature. For example, one can refer to the complete works of Shakespeare as the Shakespearian canon. More bizarrely, I recently read a discussion about whether certain novels about Doctor Who could be considered to be part of the Doctor Who canon. Strangely, this last usage was closer to the correct use of the word canon, as applied to Scripture. The argument went that the novels introduced concepts and ideas that were later contradicted or not found to be in harmony with events reported in the recent revised TV series. Presumably, the writer of the article felt that these Doctor Who novels were not following an accepted rule or pattern.
The word canon, in the context of literature, comes from a Greek word meaning “rule.” We see the word used in Galatians 6:16.
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.
The Strong’s number1 for the word rule is 2583 and catalogues the Greek word from which we derive the word canon. The word is not referring to a law, but rather a way of doing things—a pattern of behavior. In the context of biblical literature, the word implies that the Bible is self-authenticating—that it is not merely complete, but that it is also internally self-consistent.
Another chapter in this book deals with the subject of alleged discrepancies in the Bible. In that chapter, we see that it is possible to interpret different passages of the Bible as if they contradict each other, but that if one approaches the Bible acknowledging that it is internally self-consistent, then the alleged discrepancies all easily disappear. That is why the apostle Peter describes the people who twist Scripture in this way as “untaught and unstable” (2 Peter 3:16). In our present study, we will see that the extrabiblical writings—and the so-called missing gospels—do not pass the test of self-consistency with the rest of Scripture and are therefore easy to dismiss as not being part of the consistent whole pattern of the Bible—the canon.
Apocrypha
The existence in the English language of names such as Toby (from Tobit) and Judith testify to the fact that the so-called Apocrypha was once influential in English society. The word apocrypha comes from the Greek word meaning “hidden.” However, it popularly refers to a group of books considered by the Roman Catholic Church as part of the Old Testament.
Traditionally, Protestant churches have dismissed the apocryphal books. For example, Article VI of the Church of England’s Thirty-Nine Articles lists first the canonical books of the Old Testament, and then lists the apocryphal books prefaced with this warning:
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom, The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach, The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses, The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.
The Hierome referred to in the Articles is Jerome. Jerome lived c. 347 to c. 420. He translated the Bible into Latin—the well-known Vulgate or common version. Originally, he used the Septuagint as the source of his Old Testament translation. The Septuagint (usually abbreviated to LXX) is a translation of the Old Testament into Greek. Many LXX manuscripts contain the apocryphal books. However, Jerome later revised the Vulgate, going back to Hebrew manuscripts for the Old Testament. It was at this point that he expressed dissatisfaction with the apocrypha, making the comment the Church of England used in its Articles above.

THE APOCRYPHA WAS NEVER ORIGINALLY PART OF THE OT CANON AND WAS ADDED LATER.
This illustrates that it was not merely a Protestant Reformation decision to remove the Apocrypha. In fact, the Apocrypha was never originally part of the OT canon and was added later. Interestingly, the apocryphal books themselves do not actually claim to be canonical. For example, in 1 Maccabees 9:27, the writer states: “So there was a great affliction in Israel, unlike anything since the time a prophet had ceased to be seen among them” Moreover, New Testament writers do not quote from apocryphal books, even though they are prepared to quote from other extrabiblical books (e.g., Paul quoted from Greek poets in Acts 17, and Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch).

The apocryphal books fail the internal self-consistency test. For example, 2 Maccabees 12:42 contains this exhortation to pray for the dead.
And they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed [by the dead] might be wholly blotted out (Revised Oxford Apocrypha).
This sentiment is contrary to what is found in the rest of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, such as Deuteronomy 18:11 and Hebrews 9:27. Similarly, inconsistencies and inaccuracies can be found between other apocryphal books and the correct canon of Scripture.

Scripture is a reliable record of His actual Creation Which one? I seem to recall two different creations (two lots of commandments too, but that's another thread)

If I write a book and include that line from Galatians will my book be automatically self-authenticating and internally self-consistent too? How can it not be if it contains the line?

One point that has been made several times and not answered is this.

Why would we bother to invent evidence for Evolution?

See, there's an advantage to inventing evidence for your religion. It's your religion and you want it to be true, but if it turned out that there was a different explanation for life on earth I wouldn't mind one bit. I certainly wouldn't lift a finger to stop it coming out. If I were a scientist then no doubt I'd rush to be the first person to release the information in hopes that it would be named after me.

Righty-ho. A bit of reminding you about history is needed at this point. Though I'm obviously very sad to get in the way of some exceptional cut and paste action. Source, by the way?

The deutorocanonical books, also known as the apocrypha, of course refer to the part of the Old Testament of the early Catholic and Eastern churches that wasn't in the Hebrew bible.

The very earliest Christians didn't have a canonical bible. The early Church used the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which included the deuterocanonicals.

Fragments of these were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and they have been part of the Catholic canon since early Christianity - included in the compilations of Marcion onwards in the early second century, in the times when the Gospel and Epistles were still on the way to being standardised. Up until the fourth century there was disagreement over what made up the bible - not just the deuterocanonical books but significant disagreement over other aspects of what was considered canon. Around this time there were a number of instances where the canon was formally identified including the Synod of Hippo and the Councils of Carthage (both 4th century). To say the deuterocanonical books weren't included (or written!) before then is ignoring large mountains of manuscript evidence during the years the bible was unstable, and in fact ignored evidence in the New Testament that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint version of Isaiah and Jesus and the Apostles make numerous other reference to Septuagint versions of the Old Testament.

The Catholic and Eastern churches still include them among the inspired texts.

So we're in a situation where everyone until the sixteenth century was taught there were 73 'inspired' books. Post-Reformation, Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe there are 73 (or more for some Orthodox churches), Protestants believe there are 66. Who's right? Why?

Why did God let people follow the wrong version of the bible for more that a millennium if some wasn't divinely inspired?

The problem with saying that the deutorocanonical books fail the self-consistency test is that it's a logical fallacy. You are setting up an impossible test. Only the books that are consistent can be in the bible (even when they're not, depending on how open minded you are), and therefore the books that are in the Catholic and Orthodox bibles cannot be considered part of the bible, because the bible must be self-consistent. If the bible is not in fact self-consistent then there are major theological problems, so it cannot be contemplated. And around and around we go. The paragraph you've quoted is revealing - if we work from an assumption of consistency, we will find it. Isn't that the sort of sentiment you complain evolutionary scientists are applying to their work (with no evidence that they are in fact doing so?)

These books were removed in part because they didn't support Protestant doctrine - such as praying for souls in Purgatory - and in removing them from the scripture they actually worked against the sola scriptura doctrine.

There are warnings within the bible not to add to, or take from, the books written, so it is right that Martin Luther was not able to modify it like that.

But he did. He took a lot out of what was accepted and declared to be divinely inspired canon. He couldn't get support to go as far as he wanted to, but he still ignored the biblical warnings against changing it. Why? How did he decide when to ignore the warnings and when not to?

THE BOOKS THAT ALLEGEDLY “DIDN’T QUITE MAKE IT” ARE NOT INSPIRED AND HAVE NO MERIT.

Says who?

Because God is the Creator of physical principles, it would be wrong to state that He must act in a certain way. However, Scripture is a reliable record of His actual Creation.

Two assertions which you know that other people debating with you don't accept; the majority of Christians don't believe the second part literally either.

'THE BOOKS THAT ALLEGEDLY “DIDN’T QUITE MAKE IT” ARE NOT INSPIRED AND HAVE NO MERIT.'
well, TBH I'd agree they aren't inspired but then again I don't think that the protestant cut of 66 are 'inspired' either (some of the books do have merit - as interesting mythology, poetry and some of the teachings of Jesus are fine - the parable of the Good Samaritan for instance).

Being challenged by a friend at university as to why I believed in the Bible was one of the things which started to open my eyes - though I clung on to faith for quite a while after.

There's no such thing as an 'evolutionist' - it's not a tenet ofsome faith. Whereas those who deny scientific evidence and especially the ones who still insist on trying to squash billions of years into a few thousand are all motivated by bible literalism.

Here (from TalkOrigins, just for you ) are some of the reasons i am not likely to be swayed by your 'evidence'. If you really want to understand about zircon i suggest you read this.

Pickled said (well, c&p'd someone else saying):
The biggest objection to the possibility of accelerated nuclear decay is the fact that nuclear decay produces heat. If decay were accelerated too much, the heat would cause problems. Interestingly God gave us the solution about 3,000 years ago, in Psalms 104:2. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Psalms 104:2 (KJV) This is a reference to the expansion of space described by General Relativity. If accelerated decay had occurred at the same time as a rapid stretching of space, that would get rid of the excess heat. So accelerated nuclear decay could have occurred as long as it was accompanied by a rapid expansion of space. The Bible definitely indicates that such an expansion occurred during the creation week.

That pretty much sums up why your arguments have so little credibility. If you had any actual evidence you would be able to answer the question without recourse to the supernatural.

Btw, here's an interesting footnote to the one bit of evidence that may have suggested variable rates of decay in some isotopes.

VelvetGreen Wed 29-Oct-14 23:47:59

Here (from TalkOrigins, just for you ) are some of the reasons i am not likely to be swayed by your 'evidence'.

Your talk origins link discusses how one particular young Earth Scientist seems to stand alone. Did you think he would attract the masses? Unfortunately we've already been told not to expect that to be the case. In Matthew 7:13 we read: Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

Which of course only leaves the option for few to enter the narrow gate.

Out of interest, did your evolutionary bloke ever reply to this by way of peer reviewed article? I’d be very interested to hear (preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific journal) how he thinks the zircons suffered 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay but only 6,000 years worth of helium losses!

That pretty much sums up why your arguments have so little credibility. If you had any actual evidence you would be able to answer the question without recourse to the supernatural.

Of course I follow the biblical model. It's what I believe in and put my trust in. Just as you believe on evolution and put your trust in mankind to guide you on your understanding of how we came about. In my model it's an almighty God who created all things, in your model it's unknown bang out of nowhere that lead from "goo to you".

You see, none of us were there. So it is entirely a matter of faith either way.

?Btw, here's an interesting footnote to the one bit of evidence that may have suggested variable rates of decay in some isotopes

Your last link I had also come across funnily enough and had considered showing to you for the last line in it: "There are always more unknowns in your measurements than you can think of," Lindstrom says.

Ultimately it is like the run up to an election. Each political party presents their side and opposes the opposition. But every person voting does so based on what they believe to be the best option.

ErrolTheDragon Wed 29-Oct-14 23:33:27
Being challenged by a friend at university as to why I believed in the Bible was one of the things which started to open my eyes - though I clung on to faith for quite a while after.

I know you say you’ve changed your mind since, but out of interest, what were your reasons for believing in the bible?

There's no such thing as an 'evolutionist' - it's not a tenet of some faith.

Were you there? Were any scientists there? No, me neither.

So whatever we follow about the origins of the world and all who live within it, is a belief. It’s based on assumptions that we trust in. For me it’s God, for you it’s mankind.

But mankind, great though it can be at times, is fallible and will always let you down. God knows we even let ourselves down occasionally! So how can we expect our fellow-man to be any different?

JassyRadlett Wed 29-Oct-14 21:47:07
Righty-ho. A bit of reminding you about history is needed at this point.
Jassy that comes across quite patronising, is it meant to?

Though I'm obviously very sad to get in the way of some exceptional cut and paste action. Source, by the way?

Yeah I noticed it seemed to be the “done thing” so decided to join the ‘cut and paste’-ers. Play them at their own game, so to speak. Which source are you after?

Fragments of these were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls
Not one of them referred to the acrophya as being inspired word of God like the rest of the bible.

Who's right? Why?
Regarding the 39 books of the Old Testament, God in the flesh—Jesus Christ—confirmed these books. He never indicated or suggested that any be removed or added. In fact, He used them. For example, when Satan tried tempting Jesus in Matthew 4, Jesus three times quoted from Moses’ books.
The overall Hebrew breakdown of the Old Testament books is in three major categories:

1. The Law (Torah): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
2. The Prophets (Nebhim): a. Early prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings b. Later prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve (minor Prophets)
3. The Psalms/Writings (Kethubhim): a. Poetic books: Psalms, Proverbs, and Job b. Five Rolls: Songs of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, and Ecclesiastes c. Historical books: Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles The Jewish canon includes exactly what was in the Protestant Bible and was what was used in the early churches. The number of books is different, but it is the same text. Where Protestants and early Catholics divided Kings, Samuel, and Chronicles into two books apiece, the Jews had them as one. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were also compiled as one book in the Jewish list. The twelve Minor Prophets were also accumulated into one book. Jesus confirms all three divisions in the Old Testament in Luke 24:44, showing that they were authoritative. Luke 24:44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

Jesus also gives further confirmation by mentioning the extent of prophets—from Abel to Zechariah:
Matthew 23:35
so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

This is from Genesis to Chronicles—the first and last books in the typical listing of the Hebrew Old Testament that Jesus used. Even other New Testament authors openly confirmed the Old Testament. For example, Paul affirms them as oracles of God (Romans 3:1–2).

--
Other reasons the Apocrypha is not included:

1. The books of the Apocrypha were never classed as Scripture by Christ or the Jews, nor did the writers of the New Testament use them.
2. However, they appear in the Latin Vulgate in the 5th century A.D. and the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures about 250 B.C. and denoted as the LXX). But the earliest extant copies of the LXX are from the 5th century A.D. and that does not tell us whether or not the original LXX contained the Apocrypha.
3. The Apocrypha were also at the end of a biblical manuscript called Codex Sinaiticus about the 4th century A.D., but the presence of the Apocrypha in any of these documents does not necessarily mean that they were regarded as Scripture. Regardless, modern Catholic Bibles now contain the Apocrypha—as did the KJV in 1611 A.D. (first edition of the King James Version) and early editions of the Geneva Bible.
4. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate in the 5th century made it abundantly clear that the Apocrypha were not Scripture, even though they were included with the Vulgate. But like many other ancient pieces of literature, Jerome felt it worthy to be translated into Latin, the common tongue of the day. Even many early Church Fathers such as Melito, Origin, Athanasius, Cyril, and others rejected the Apocrypha.
5. Jews, before and during the time of Christ, often used the Septuagint (whether it contained the Apocrypha or not) but never classed the Apocrypha as Scripture for various reasons.
6. One such reason for it’s exclusion is that it never claimed to be Scripture, unlike other books of the Bible that claim such things. Even one of the apocryphal books affirms there was no one speaking on God’s behalf at that time (1 Maccabees 9:27) when it says: “There had not been such great distress in Israel since the time prophets ceased to appear among the people.”

Today, the Roman Church views 12 of the Apocryphal books as Scripture and has included them in their Bible translations (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). The books that are excluded are 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. This happened in A.D. 1546 at the Council of Trent. Some have claimed that apocryphal books were recognized as full scriptural canon by the Church as far back as the First Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 with Augustine. There are no extant records of this Synod, so no one can say exactly what was decided, though the summary offered by the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397 is assumed to be generally accurate. However, the Synod of Hippo was regional, as was the following Council at Carthage where this new canon was approved; hence, it didn’t hold authority over the whole of the Roman Church. It wasn’t until A.D. 405 that Pope Innocent I endorsed the Apocrypha—after the Council of Carthage—even though Jerome (who translated the Bible and Apocrypha into Latin and was also Catholic) strictly opposed it as Scripture. Catholic Cardinal Cajetan around the time of the Reformation in the 16th century A.D. reveals that there were two different levels of canon in the Roman Church (a strict canon and non-official canon that was still useful for teaching in the church). In regards to this council he says in his commentary that the words are reduced to the correction of Jerome and of the non-canonical books; “they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful” but “not in the nature of any rule for confirming matters of faith”. This was presumably the real difference between the Deuterocanonical (“second canon,” or books that were useful but not fully canonical) and Protocanonical (fully inspired). Up to the Council of Trent in 1546, the view of Jerome dominated that Apocryphal books were not classed as fully inspired canon, but were “second canon,” and the Catholic Polyglot Bible even left the Apocrypha out after the Council of Florence in 1451. This shows that the official fully inspired Old Testament canon accepted by the Roman Church was the same as the canon being used by the Protestants and Jews until the Council of Trent; at this point in time the second canon books were fully promoted to the position of inspired canon by the Roman Church. This is why 1546 is the official date of additions because it was then that the Apocrypha were officially classed as full canon by the Roman Church, even though the listing at Carthage (397) and Florence (1445) included the Apocrypha. Of course, there were Catholic leaders on both sides of the issue between Pope Innocent I and the Council of Trent. But at the Council of Trent, there was no longer a real distinction between Apocryphal books and the rest of Scripture in Catholicism.

Brief Overview in History of the View of the Apocrypha

c. 400 BC
Malachi ends the O.T. Scripture.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired

c. 100 BC–c. A.D. 100
The community who copied the Dead Sea Scrolls never referred to the Apocrypha as “It is Written” or “God Says” as they did with other canon books.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired

c. A.D. 30
Jesus never rejected the Jewish Canon (which was the same as the Protestant O.T.); Jesus never quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired

A.D. 40
Philo, Jewish philosopher, refers to all but 5 O.T. books and never quotes from the Apocrypha.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired

c. A.D. 40–90
The New Testament writers do not quote from the Apocrypha as Scripture.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired

A.D. 90
The Council of Jamnia drew up a list of canonical books for Judaism at the time—the Apocrypha are excluded.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired

A.D. 80–100
Josephus, Jewish Historian, never lists the Apocrypha as Scripture.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired

A.D. 170
The first verifiable canon listing from the Church Fathers was found in the writings of Melito of Sardis and the Apocrypha are missing.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired

A.D. 320s
Another listing by Athanasius lists canon books, but the Apocrypha are missing.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired

A.D. 382–405
Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin, opposed the Apocrypha as Scripture, though he translated it.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired

c. A.D. 350–370
Rufinius lists the Canon books, and the Apocryphal books are not among them.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired

c. A.D. 350–370
Cyril of Jerusalem rejected the Apocrypha.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired

c. A.D. 343-381
Council of Laodicea rejects most of the Apocrypha except Baruch.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired except for one book.

A.D. 393 Regional Synod of Hippo, influenced by Augustine, is the first listing of the Apocrypha as Scripture and approved at the regional Council of Carthage.
Apocrypha FIRST considered to be inspired, going against biblical warnings not to add or remove the words written between Genesis and Revelations.

A.D. 590–604
Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, in his writings denies Maccabees as canonical but still says it is useful according to Roman Catholic patristics scholar, William Jurgens.
Apocrypha continues to be considered as inspired

A.D. 1445
Council of Florence declares the Apocryphal books are canonical.
c. early A.D. 1500
Apocrypha continues to be considered as inspired

Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (who opposed Luther) points out that there are two levels of inspiration, and the Apocrypha, Judith, Tobit, books of Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus were the lesser of inspiration and seen as non-canon books.
PARTIALLY REVERTED BACK TO ORIGINAL “NON-INSPIRED” APOCRYPHA (secondary canon).

A.D. 1520
Polyglot Bible of Cardinal Ximenes (approved by Pope Leo X) published.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired once again.

A.D. 1517–1520s
Protestant Reformation retains the Jewish canon and that of Jerome and many others with no Apocrypha.
Apocrypha NOT considered fully inspired

A.D. 1546 The Council of Trent finalized the Roman Church additions of the Apocrypha as full canon.
RC CHURCH REVERTED BACK TO ADDING TO THE SCRIPTURES AND CONSIDERING APOCRYPHA “INSPIRED” ONCE AGAIN

Why did God let people follow the wrong version of the bible for more that a millennium if some wasn't divinely inspired?
You could also ask why does God let people follow their own way and go against His Will, hurting themselves, each other, and Him in the process? He’s a very merciful God, that’s why. Full of undeserved grace and compassion.

??The paragraph you've quoted is revealing - if we work from an assumption of consistency, we will find it. Isn't that the sort of sentiment you complain evolutionary scientists are applying to their work The evolutionary thing is like a death by a thousand cuts. If you look at one cut, like closed systems, you think it’s not much really. But the problem comes when you add it to all the others.

He couldn't get support to go as far as he wanted to, but he still ignored the biblical warnings against changing it. Why?
I have no idea, do you?

How did he decide when to ignore the warnings and when not to?
He should have, but clearly tried not to. I can’t claim to understands the man’s mind anymore than I can claim to understand anyone else’s. I do know that if anyone knowingly contravenes the bible’s commands then it is rebellion against God. That’s what what, rather than the why.

THE BOOKS THAT ALLEGEDLY “DIDN’T QUITE MAKE IT” ARE NOT INSPIRED AND HAVE NO MERIT.??Says who?
I have covered that above. I’m only writing this because I have answered various posts on this thread and people have taken it as a refusal to reply. So, just to be clear, in a nice way, your reply is already provided above.

BackOnlyBriefly Wed 29-Oct-14 21:41:40
Scripture is a reliable record of His actual Creation Which one? I seem to recall two different creations?

Please refer to my post dated where I show how this is a terribly blatant attempt to twist the bible. You can find the post at: PickledInAJar Tue 28-Oct-14 08:50:18

If I write a book and include that line from Galatians will my book be automatically self-authenticating and internally self-consistent too?

What line from Galatians? I had a quick look back and couldn’t easily see which one you might be referring to.

One point that has been made several times and not answered is this. ??Why would we bother to invent evidence for Evolution? I didn’t see this as an unanswered question. It looks more rhetorical. But anyway, I am happy to answer it. Firstly I am not saying anyone is inventing evidence but they are calculation numbers based on assumptions because they weren’t there. Now, if you’re an atheist scientist and are presented with calculations that correspond with the bible, or calculations that correspond with the big-bang theory, of course you will follow the latter. It satisfies the resistance to God and removes the responsibility to face up to the sin-nature of man.

if it turned out that there was a different explanation for life on earth I wouldn't mind one bit There is – and you do!

It's what I believe in and put my trust in. Just as you believe on evolution and put your trust in mankind to guide you on your understanding of how we came about.

So whatever we follow about the origins of the world and all who live within it, is a belief. Its based on assumptions that we trust in. For me its God, for you its mankind.

Ah, here's where you're going wrong. You're treating evolution as a belief equivalent to your belief in God. The difference is that you believe in God as a tenet of faith, and as you've said nothing would move you from that or shake your faith.

We 'believe' in evolution in a very different way - as the best model to explain the evidence that exists, that has been tested particularly through the emergence of considerable amounts of new evidence, and that changes over time as our understanding improves. We're open to new ideas, new evidence, and the idea that there may be a different, better explanation out there -but this is one that is supported by the evidence.

The fact it changes isn't a weakness. It's a strength of the approach to me shows the openness of science to new ideas. It's what differentiates it completely from your idea of religious belief.

You weren't there Jassy, and neither was I. So anything we follow in relation to the origins of the world and of ourselves is based on assumptions because we were not able to witness it in person.

If you believe something to be right but didn't witness it first hand then you believe it to be the case.

I personally think it takes more blind faith to believe in "goo to you" than in a creator God.

Which source are you after?

The source for the cut and paste response to me. When I cut and paste, I tell you where it comes from.

If you take only books Jesus quoted from, you have to chuck out a good whack of the Protestant Old Testament. There is evidence in the New Testament that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint version of the OT, which included the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha as canon.

Just as many early church fathers included the deuterocanonicals, including St Augustine and others, as didn't - who's right? And even St Jerome was pretty shaky and inconsistent on the issue.

The Jewish canon isn't an exact copy, and certainly wasn't in the first millennium. You can see this in the way that Ethiopian Jews have as their scripture pretty much what the Catholics have as their Old Testament.

^How did he decide when to ignore the warnings and when not to?
He should have, but clearly tried not to. I cant claim to understands the mans mind anymore than I can claim to understand anyone elses. I do know that if anyone knowingly contravenes the bibles commands then it is rebellion against God. Thats what what, rather than the why.^

He took out bits that had been agreed as canonical and used that way for a milllennium. Quite a rebellion against God.

I'm sorry if I've missed it - you must be patient with me as you do post large chunks of unedited text. Do you agree that the people who decide what is inspired are themselves fallible, which is why there are such disagreements over what constitute the inspired texts? That there is no infallbile human who can pronounce on what is and is not an inspired text?

Simply saying 'is NOT inspired' doesn't make it true, you know.

And you've missed out an awful lot of early bible scholars and councils in your list.

You weren't there Jassy, and neither was I. So anything we follow in relation to the origins of the world and of ourselves is based on assumptions because we were not able to witness it in person.

You've had it explained to you repeatedly about the value in being able to test those assumptions as new evidence comes to light - meaning that the are not beliefs in the 'unshakeable faith' sense, rather an understanding based on the evidence and the tested theories that explain it. Quite a difference in my view when we are talking about a fundamental philosophical idea such as belief.

Incidentally, have you read what St Jerome acutally said about the deuterocanonicals? Makes interesting reading and quite a useful insight into the workings and disagreements of the early Church.

I personally think it takes more blind faith to believe in "goo to you" than in a creator God.

Well that's the thing, it's about going where the facts lead you regardless of what you think should be the explanation. You want it to be god, your god, so you ignore facts to the contrary. I want to know what it is, whatever it is,

We see the word used in Galatians 6:16. ....... In the context of biblical literature, the word implies that the Bible is self-authenticating—that it is not merely complete, but that it is also internally self-consistent.

^^ That. It makes no sense really and maybe you forgot where you were going, but sounds like you mean the bible uses the word therefore the bible is all one canon and also accurate.

two different creations I know you're saying they mean the same thing even though they don't say the same thing, but we've only got your word for that. Don't you think people should believe what Jesus said over what ordinary people say? :)

if it turned out that there was a different explanation for life on earth I wouldn't mind one bit There is – and you do!

We've covered this because of course just someone saying at the bus stop "oh I think the world was created by Zeus" isn't good enough. There has to be something to back it up.

But you talk about us resisting the Christian story which is an ongoing misunderstanding. How hard are you working right now to resist believing in Donald Duck? Is it difficult to resist? If you have a bad day might you succumb to the temptation to worship him? Do you feel you must examine everything you do or say in case it sounds like you might be wavering?

"Now, if you’re an atheist scientist and are presented with calculations that correspond with the bible, or calculations that correspond with the big-bang theory, of course you will follow the latter. "

No I wouldn't. I would look at both sets of calculations and see which one fitted more of the evidence, which one made more sense and choose that one. Because that's what scientists do.

I’d be very interested to hear (preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific journal) how he thinks the zircons suffered 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay but only 6,000 years worth of helium losses!

I strongly suggest you read the second article that i linked to.

Your last link I had also come across funnily enough and had considered showing to you for the last line in it: "There are always more unknowns in your measurements than you can think of," Lindstrom says.

I knew you'd jump on that bit! It is called intellectual honesty. Some anomalous results are detected. Scientists start to think about possible mechanisms. They test those mechanisms. In this case the suspected mechanism has been shown to have no effect. There are also other theoretical possibilities (such as a particle we know nothing about), but the most likely and plausible explanation is that the variations observed have been due to environmental conditions (in this case solar flare) interfering with the instruments themselves.

It happens - remember the neutrinos detected travelling faster than the speed of light? That was a case that if, proven to be true, could have turned things on their head. Scientists didn't go 'wow, Einstein was wrong' - they tested the data, looked for reasons it may have been in error, and looked for hypotheses to account for the results. It is quite obvious that this wasn't hushed up in an attempt to preserve current scientific thinking - it was all over the media. It also wasn't dismissed out of hand despite how incredibly unlikely it was to be true. Most creationist ideas are dismissed as they are built on fallacies. As the coverage of the anomalous decay results shows, there would be huge interest if you could prove variable decay rates - we've been trying to do it for years.

Like Jassy said, the willingness to change ideas is a strength not a weakness. Of course you think god did it - trouble is you can't prove that. What you have to do is disprove every single piece of evidence from biology, geology, archaeology, astrophysics etc that contradicts your faith. The difficulty for you is that as time goes by science gets stronger and your case gets weaker, largely because science does adapt to new knowledge and doesn't cling on blindly to old paradigms.

I want to know what it is, whatever it is

Me too.

It's interesting that Hindu scripture entirely supports an old earth. They are of a similar age to the earliest abrahamic texts. Why does this have less weight than your god? At least their claim is supported by the evidence.