The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

bonkey

Oh...also in the news...http://darwin-online.org.uk/ for anyone interested in the full set of Darwin's work. Its all there...20,000-odd pages of it.

Ekancone

bonkey wrote: »

In other interesting news....

There would appear to be a new record for the world's oldest living tree.

Dated using Carbon-14 techniques (which have previously in this thread been accepted by Creationists as the only accurate radiological dating method), the tree has been dated to between 9,000 and 9,500 years old.

Given that the YECs here have tended to put the earth's age at around 10,000 years, wouldn't this mean that we've found a tree that survived their alleged Flood?

Will carbon-14 dating suddenly become unacceptable? Will some other reason to reject this finding be invented? Will be asked to believe that spruce pine could have happily survived being submerged for the duration of the event?

Dear oh dear, how will they wriggle out of this one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7353357.stm

BBC NEWS
Swedes find 'world's oldest tree'

A tree said to be the oldest on the planet - thought to be nearly 10,000 years old - has been found in Sweden.

Scientists from Umeaa University discovered the spruce on Fulu Mountain in Dalarna province while carrying out a census of tree species there in 2004.

The age of its genetic material was recently calculated using carbon dating at a laboratory in Miami, Florida.

Scientists had believed the world's oldest trees were 4,000-year-old pine trees found in North America.

The oldest, a bristlecone pine named Methuselah located in California's White Mountains, is aged 4,768, according to the Guinness Book of World Records.

Cloning

The new record contender, which would have taken root just after the last ice age, was found among a cluster of around 20 spruces believed to be more than 8,000 years old at an altitude of 910m (2,985ft) on Fulu Mountain.

The visible portion of the spruce was comparatively new, but analysis of four "generations" of remains - cones and wood - found underneath its crown showed its root system had been growing for 9,550 years, Umeaa University said.

Our results have shown the complete opposite, that the spruce is one of the oldest known trees in the mountain range
Leif Kullmann
Umeaa University

Umeaa's professor of physical geography, Leif Kullmann, said the spruce's stems or trunks had a lifespan of around 600 years, but as soon as one died, a cloned stem could emerge from the root system.

The clones take root each winter as snow pushes low-lying branches of the mother tree down to ground level, Mr Kullmann added.

The discovery of the tree has been surprising, because the spruce had until now been regarded as a relative newcomer in the region.

"Our results have shown the complete opposite, that the spruce is one of the oldest known trees in the mountain range," Mr Kullmann said.

He explained that 10,000 years ago the spruce would have been extremely rare in the region and that it was conceivable Mesolithic humans might have imported the species as they migrated northwards with the receding ice cap.

The discovery also shows that it was much warmer in the region at the time than had been thought previously, perhaps even warmer than today, he added.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7353357.stm

Published: 2008/04/17 18:01:38 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Eschatologist

It's amusing how it's ok for creationists to use carbon-14 dating yet every other form of dating is based on "assumptions" and therefore irrelevant.

I think Dr. Roger Wiens summed it up best:

“Creationist argument number 7. A small change in the nuclear forces probably accelerated nuclear clocks during the first day of creation a few thousand years ago, causing the spuriously old radiometric dates of rocks.

Rocks are dated from the time of their formation. For it to have any bearing on the radiometric dates of rocks, such a change of nuclear forces must have occurred after the Earth (and the rocks) were formed. To make the kind of difference suggested by young-Earth proponents, the half-lives must be shortened from several billion years down to several thousand years--a factor of at least a million. But to shorten half-lives by factors of a million would cause large physical changes. As one small example, recall that the Earth is heated substantially by radioactive decay. If that decay is speeded up by a factor of a million or so, the tremendous heat pulse would easily melt the whole Earth, including the rocks in question! No radiometric ages would appear old if this happened.”

:pac:

Zombrex

bonkey wrote: »

In other interesting news....

There would appear to be a new record for the world's oldest living tree.

Dated using Carbon-14 techniques (which have previously in this thread been accepted by Creationists as the only accurate radiological dating method), the tree has been dated to between 9,000 and 9,500 years old.

Given that the YECs here have tended to put the earth's age at around 10,000 years, wouldn't this mean that we've found a tree that survived their alleged Flood?

Will carbon-14 dating suddenly become unacceptable? Will some other reason to reject this finding be invented? Will be asked to believe that spruce pine could have happily survived being submerged for the duration of the event?

I await the inevitable "God did it to test us" response. :pac:

Zombrex

AiG From 1995 wrote:

If there was a global Flood around 5,000 years ago, no living thing should be older than that. There are still some uncertainties with tree-ring dating, which is by no means absolute (for example, trees can form more than one ring per year). Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the maximum tree-ring ages for living trees fall just within this range. Apart from the biblical Flood, there seems no reason why, if certain trees are capable of living for 4,000 years, some should not have lasted much longer.

I suppose it is unfair to say that Creationists don't provide falsifiable theories. The clever folk at AiG have provided here a rather neat way to falsify the global Flood.

As they say, if there was a global flood 5,000 years ago no living thing should be older than that. The flip side of that being that finding a living thing older than that would invalidate the flood theory.

Now that scientists have identified a living thing older than 5,000 years lets see if these Creation "scientists" are prepared to stand by their own assertions




... I doubt it some how

Soul Winner

bonkey wrote: »

In other interesting news....

There would appear to be a new record for the world's oldest living tree.

Dated using Carbon-14 techniques (which have previously in this thread been accepted by Creationists as the only accurate radiological dating method), the tree has been dated to between 9,000 and 9,500 years old.

Given that the YECs here have tended to put the earth's age at around 10,000 years, wouldn't this mean that we've found a tree that survived their alleged Flood?

Will carbon-14 dating suddenly become unacceptable? Will some other reason to reject this finding be invented? Will be asked to believe that spruce pine could have happily survived being submerged for the duration of the event?

Sorry I'm not a scientist so maybe this sounds really silly but, isn't this tree still alive? How then can the Carbon 14 dating method be employed in order to date it? Doesn't the Carbon 14 dating method require what is being dated to be dead for a considerable amount of time first in order that the ratio of Carbon 12 to the decaying Carbon 14 can be adequately measured hence determining its age?

By all means, please point out blatant blind spot on my part

Eschatologist

Wicknight wrote: »

I await the inevitable "God did it to test us" response. :pac:

Prankster god... surely that's the Devil's job!?

Minder

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

Im sorry for not reading the 600+ pages, but i've read the last few. A quick question, im a right in saying that people actually believe in Noahs Ark and are giving arguments trying to prove the possability of its existance?

What's not to believe? Some fella from the book of Genesis built a boaty/bargy type thing into which he stuffed the complete animal and plant record that exists today. So anything from 30 to 100 million species of plants, animals and birds, in sevens or pairs were housed in a floating box with a volume of 1,500,000 cubic feet.

Apparently the fish, sponges, molluscs, echinoderms, coelenterates and protozoans were quite capable of surviving in the waters regardless of the salinity. Same water was used to feed the animals and water the plants after Noah had passed it through a primitive desalination plant made from gopher wood and horse feathers.

It is a little known fact that the olive tree is actually an aquatic plant. Equally at home in the sandy soils of the sub saharan deserts as it is under water for 150 days.

bonkey

Soul Winner wrote: »

Sorry I'm not a scientist so maybe this sounds really silly but, isn't this tree still alive? How then can the Carbon 14 dating method be employed in order to date it? Doesn't the Carbon 14 dating method require what is being dated to be dead for a considerable amount of time first in order that the ratio of Carbon 12 to the decaying Carbon 14 can be adequately measured hence determining its age?

By all means, please point out blatant blind spot on my part

The article that was in the post immediately after mine should explain it.

Ekancone

I am just loving this. We have AiG on record to boot, brilliant. I consider this to be the knockout blow. Hung by their own bootstrap!

robindch

daithifleming wrote: »

I consider this to be the knockout blow.

hmm... new to debating creationists, are you?

wolfsbane

Minder wrote: »

What's not to believe? Some fella from the book of Genesis built a boaty/bargy type thing into which he stuffed the complete animal and plant record that exists today. So anything from 30 to 100 million species of plants, animals and birds, in sevens or pairs were housed in a floating box with a volume of 1,500,000 cubic feet.

Apparently the fish, sponges, molluscs, echinoderms, coelenterates and protozoans were quite capable of surviving in the waters regardless of the salinity. Same water was used to feed the animals and water the plants after Noah had passed it through a primitive desalination plant made from gopher wood and horse feathers.

It is a little known fact that the olive tree is actually an aquatic plant. Equally at home in the sandy soils of the sub saharan deserts as it is under water for 150 days.

It would help new members if you would post what creationists actually say about the ark, rather than this 'straw-boat': e.g. your claim he stuffed the complete animal and plant record that exists today. So anything from 30 to 100 million species of plants, animals and birds.
See, for example:
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/595/

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

I am just loving this. We have AiG on record to boot, brilliant. I consider this to be the knockout blow. Hung by their own bootstrap!

I'm sorry to spoil the party, but could you point to the reference that states creationists accepted C-14 dating as accurate? That would be news to me.
See, for example, p67-72 of:
What about carbon dating?
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf

bonkey

daithifleming wrote: »

I am just loving this. We have AiG on record to boot, brilliant. I consider this to be the knockout blow. Hung by their own bootstrap!

I don't think its any such thing, to be honest.

I can already think of any number of Creationist arguments which could be placed against this find.

Even were similar techniques were to put some as-yet-unfound similar tree older than the Creationist-posited age of the earth (rather than pre-Flood), I could still think of a few arguments that would/could be used.

The reality is that if someone is conversant in the myriad of arguments currently favouring the scientific age of the earth, and still favours the Creationist arguments against them, they will do so with this new find as well.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

The Bible is a book and like all forms of communication require interpretation.

The over whelming conclusion by the vast vast majority of Christians is that you are interpreting the book wrong

They are entitled to their opinion - but the quality of their judgement is indicated by comparing it to (1) the historic view of the Church, (2) the view of scholars of the Biblical languages and (3) any commonsense reading of the Biblical account.

An honest handling of the Bible will lead one to conclude it teaches a 6 Day Creation about 6000 years ago, and a global Flood c.2300BC.

Ekancone

I have no doubt that they will arrive to another idiotic conclusion regarding this, I'm not fooling myself.

Mena

wolfsbane wrote: »

It would help new members if you would post what creationists actually say about the ark, rather than this 'straw-boat': e.g. your claim he stuffed the complete animal and plant record that exists today. So anything from 30 to 100 million species of plants, animals and birds.
See, for example:
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/595/

I had a quick scan of that document and the most prominent quotes I see are "perhaps" and "probably".

Religious or not, I can't believe any right minded person would buy into this Noah's Ark malarky. You'd need to suspend all rationalo thought to entertain this.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

If a scientist proposes the Big Bang as the starting point of the Universe, that is a falsifiable assumption. It has a wide variety of necessary implications, which can be tested - and the scientific journals are full of people battering away at the hypothesis.

If a Creationist proposes a mature universe, what are the necessary implications of that? Can such a starting point ever be disproved? Where are the legions of Creation scientists battering away testing it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I was asking what starting point had Big Bangers - if they start with the Big Bang, then that is indeed falsifiable. If they speculate what was before that, then they are no longer scientists I take it? Just as Creationists who speak of God creating disqualify themselves?

But if the Creationist starts his science with a mature, 6000 year old universe, then it is falsifiable - an unambigious geological record of evolution, a reliable dating method, a geological record that accounts for known rates of population growth, etc.

Why aren't creationists battering away to disprove it? Problably for the same reasons evolutionists aren't battering away to disprove evolution - they are sure it is true. Unlike the Big Bang, neither evolution nor a mature creation are questioned by their adherents.

Minder

wolfsbane wrote: »

It would help new members if you would post what creationists actually say about the ark, rather than this 'straw-boat': e.g. your claim he stuffed the complete animal and plant record that exists today. So anything from 30 to 100 million species of plants, animals and birds.
See, for example:
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/595/

Plenty of creationists around to post what creationists believe. The problem is that the arguments used (like those in your link) are full of supposition and specific interpretation to suit that side of the argument. Unfortunately they don't hold any water.

For example the idea that the insects were probably not included in the ark

However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.

So how did they survive? Or did god make all the insects after the flood?

wolfsbane

Mena wrote: »

I had a quick scan of that document and the most prominent quotes I see are "perhaps" and "probably".

Religious or not, I can't believe any right minded person would buy into this Noah's Ark malarky. You'd need to suspend all rationalo thought to entertain this.

I'm glad you took the time to check. My point was the misrepresentation of the creationist position.

As to its credibility, "perhaps" and "probably" are proper terms for speculation in the scientific field, at least in any evolutionist material I've read.

Minder

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm glad you took the time to check. My point was the misrepresentation of the creationist position.

As to its credibility, "perhaps" and "probably" are proper terms for speculation in the scientific field, at least in any evolutionist material I've read.

So my point of view is a straw boat but the speculation in that link you posted is valid?

wolfsbane

Minder wrote: »

Plenty of creationists around to post what creationists believe. The problem is that the arguments used (like those in your link) are full of supposition and specific interpretation to suit that side of the argument. Unfortunately they don't hold any water.

For example the idea that the insects were probably not included in the ark



So how did they survive? Or did god make all the insects after the flood?

I think the point he was making is that it made little difference to the capacity needed:
Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals.
And there were other means of survival:
Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well. The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes in their exterior skeleton.

I lean more to the idea that enough insects would have come on board without Noah bringing them - on the animals, on the fodder, crawling, flying. No specific arrangements were needed for them. Much the same as for bacteria and viruses.

So, no, insects were not created after the Flood.

wolfsbane

Minder wrote: »

So my point of view is a straw boat but the speculation in that link you posted is valid?

No. You are perfectly ientitled to speculate all you like about the ark, its credibility or otherwise.

What you are not entitled to do is say creationists teach that Some fella from the book of Genesis built a boaty/bargy type thing into which he stuffed the complete animal and plant record that exists today. So anything from 30 to 100 million species of plants, animals and birds, in sevens or pairs were housed in a floating box with a volume of 1,500,000 cubic feet. [underlining mine].

Ekancone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j07Y4IirWZ4

http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_fackmcin1.pdf

http://ie.youtube.com/user/cdk007

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions from New Scientist.


informatively,
Scofflaw

Very helpful in avoiding misunderstandings. I've added it to my Favourites. Thanks.

Minder

wolfsbane wrote: »

No. You are perfectly ientitled to speculate all you like about the ark, its credibility or otherwise.

What you are not entitled to do is say creationists teach that Some fella from the book of Genesis built a boaty/bargy type thing into which he stuffed the complete animal and plant record that exists today. So anything from 30 to 100 million species of plants, animals and birds, in sevens or pairs were housed in a floating box with a volume of 1,500,000 cubic feet. [underlining mine].

I don't remember mentioning creationists in that post...

MooseJam

wolfsbane wrote: »

I lean more to the idea that enough insects would have come on board without Noah bringing them - on the animals, on the fodder, crawling, flying. No specific arrangements were needed for them. Much the same as for bacteria and viruses.

So, no, insects were not created after the Flood.

sure lots of insects would have flown in and have been on animals, but they would just be a few insects local to the arc, insects live all over the world don't you know, what would happen to those ?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

They are entitled to their opinion - but the quality of their judgement is indicated by comparing it to (1) the historic view of the Church, (2) the view of scholars of the Biblical languages and (3) any commonsense reading of the Biblical account.

The historic view of the Church also was that the Catholic Church was the authority of God on Earth. A concept you don't put much weight in I imagine.

Also the view of scholars of Biblical languages is not universal in your interpretation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

An honest handling of the Bible will lead one to conclude it teaches a 6 Day Creation about 6000 years ago, and a global Flood c.2300BC.

Give that you have no way of judging that, even if it is true, it is a bit silly to make such statements.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No. You are perfectly ientitled to speculate all you like about the ark, its credibility or otherwise.

What you are not entitled to do is say creationists teach that Some fella from the book of Genesis built a boaty/bargy type thing into which he stuffed the complete animal and plant record that exists today. So anything from 30 to 100 million species of plants, animals and birds, in sevens or pairs were housed in a floating box with a volume of 1,500,000 cubic feet. [underlining mine].

That is what an "honest" reading of the Bible indicates, is it not?

The idea of that the word "kind" is actually some unknown biological classification is a modern invention of Creationists.

Every kind of clean and unclean animal means just that, every kind. The idea that a "kind" is actually a biological grouping much wider than something like species, is utterly ridiculous and gross distortion of the meaning of the original text (never mind completely unsupported by biology, not that you guys seem to bothered about that)

Its funny how Creationists like to go on about honesty of interpretation, until they run into a little problem themselves. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Hot Dog said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm glad to say I'm not one of them. If their light is darkness, how great is that darkness!

happily ignorant?

Yes, happily ignorant of their delusion.

The boat might have been built with "Nolledge of t3h ancients!!!11!one" but do you have any evidence that it actually was?

Scientific evidence? No, just like that for the existence of many ancient historical figures. I do have ancient records that purport to hand down that information, however. And I have God's Spirit within me confriming that record.

The animals may have entered hibenation on the ark, but do you have any evidence that they actually did?

No, it's just a reasonable speculation. They may have stayed awake all the time and been well-behaved.

The flood may have happened, but do you have any evidence that it actually did?

Scientifically, we have a geological record that can be interpreted in that manner. Historically, again we have the record given in the Bible.

Quote:
Seems so. Christians who don't believe the Bible are definitely not my sort.

I think that biblical literalists are small in number in this country, I suppose all the other church goers and religious types in this country are not True Christians (TM)

Yes, most 'Christians' in Northern Ireland and Ireland are not so in the Biblical sense. Most of them are nominal; and many of the practising ones are merely religious rather than true followers of Christ.