A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[EarlyActs]

An Oxford Professor in the Late 1800s Rejects Genesis

From the novel FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIP based on the journals of Professor Palin.



How do the godly readers of Genesis justify the recent geologic discoveries? They would have us believe that there had been no gradual modification of the surface of the earth, no slow development of the organic forms. But when one catastrophic act of creation took place, the world presents instantly the structured appearance of a planet on which life had long existed.

It is no easy task to change or even refute sincerely held beliefs and yet we shall achieve nothing if we cannot adapt as a species to new ideas.

--Prof. “Syme” in class

At the 34th min of the 1996 production. Youtube.


Prof. Syme assumed all the new findings were correct. Momentum was so strong against catastrophism that Pellegrini's tectonic study was quashed in 1859, and Bretz study of N America was silenced for 4 decades.

I don't know too many places where creation is described as catastrophic; I wonder if he had Ps 104 in mind or some other research about 'tohu wa-bohu.'

Notice that co-evolving is an assumed way of operating.

 

[Arial]

The arrow of Forums was taking me elsewhere.

The site only wants 20 mins max. So nevermind.

There are longer ones on there. That is mainly so admin can review them before they are posted is my understanding. It is pretty easy to tell what is what without looking at the entire things and we only worry about inappropriate material or anit-Christian stuff, and anti-trinitarian teachings would qualify as such. Go ahead and post it.

 

[Arial]

@EarlyActs

Also if you just click the word forum and not the arrow it will take you to the forum list.

 

[EarlyActs]

There are longer ones on there. That is mainly so admin can review them before they are posted is my understanding. It is pretty easy to tell what is what without looking at the entire things and we only worry about inappropriate material or anit-Christian stuff, and anti-trinitarian teachings would qualify as such. Go ahead and post it.

Oh, OK, it's Dr. M. Ross on post-flood geology.

 

[Sereni-tea]

One was that C14 only has a span of 23K years. I have often heard of its half life; I don't recalling hearing of its overall span.

Generally carbon-14 dating is accurate to around 50,000 years. Some specialised labs may be able to increase that to 80,000 years.

 

[EarlyActs]

Generally carbon-14 dating is accurate to around 50,000 years. Some specialised labs may be able to increase that to 80,000 years.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=snelling+rate+project+

re the velocity of helium escape

 

[EarlyActs]

Generally carbon-14 dating is accurate to around 50,000 years. Some specialised labs may be able to increase that to 80,000 years.

I'm not finding this. Not when its span is 23K years. Are general scientist just doubling that span as a safe margin?

 

[Sereni-tea]

I'm not finding this. Not when its span is 23K years. Are general scientist just doubling that span as a safe margin?

I don't know what you are talking about regarding span of 23K years. What do you mean by span?
And what do you mean by not finding this? A simple google search will show it.

 

[EarlyActs]

I don't know what you are talking about regarding span of 23K years. What do you mean by span?
And what do you mean by not finding this? A simple google search will show it.

It's the range of time of effective use, as stated by geologist/paleontologist Dr. Ross in the recent conference. It is depleted after that. That is, the longest time frame that can be read from it is 23K years. I look for hard natural evidence, not what labs say or what models can 'construct.'

That's why textually and elementally, I still find the time of the 'spreading out' to be between 23Ky ago and 4y before Day 1. Hydrogen's history keeps this at the short end. The spreading out is the event which released lifeless materials all over the universe, before Day 1, resulting in the 'kavov' being there already, and in the fragment called the earth being there, and used by God to make the 'shama'.

The minimum of 4y before Day 1 (at least 6K ago) because of the distance to Centauri and studies on tectonic movements (continent relocations) through the cataclysm.

A minimum (4y before Day 1 + irregular years) may be shorter for the reasons Velikovsky gave about the effect of collisions throwing off our tally of time (the genealogies, even allowing for skipping less significant names); earth's orbit would have been slowed even by a near-collision during the cataclysm.

 

[Sereni-tea]

It's the range of time of effective use, as stated by geologist/paleontologist Dr. Ross in the recent conference. It is depleted after that. That is, the longest time frame that can be read from it is 23K years. I look for hard natural evidence, not what labs say or what models can 'construct.'

Dr Ross is wrong. I am not sure what you mean by "hard natural evidence, not what labs say." Carbon-14 is measured in a lab using very sensitive equipment. How do you think this type of data comes about?

 

[EarlyActs]

It is curious to me that the Canadian star-brightness index bothers with "meaning" and 2, when it does, hops willy-nilly between mostly Greek and Arabic sources. Seems like a huge credibility gap to do so.

 

[EarlyActs]

Dr Ross is wrong. I am not sure what you mean by "hard natural evidence, not what labs say." Carbon-14 is measured in a lab using very sensitive equipment. How do you think this type of data comes about?

It seems common sense that if a substance has a half-life of indicating what it is, that there is a vanishing point. To pile on X000s of years at the weak end of its spectrum is nonsense. I have not found much sense in 'science' for quite a while, especially in recent years.

 

[EarlyActs]

It seems common sense that if a substance has a half-life of indicating what it is, that there is a vanishing point. To pile on X000s of years at the weak end of its spectrum is nonsense. I have not found much sense in 'science' for quite a while, especially in recent years.

Here's Dr. Ross address, let us know what he says!
[email protected]

 

[EarlyActs]

A great new CGI about creation and the cataclysm.

See note below about this issue of the scientific realism of Gen 1.

Stunning CGI of Noah's Flood​

The Rational Creationist
9.3K subscribers


<__slot-el>
Subscribe



<__slot-el>







20K






Share








476K views 3 months ago
This is a stunning 4K CGI visualisation of creation, the fall, the great flood, the Tower of Babel, and the future rise of the Antichrist. It is an edited version of the longer documentary 'The Ark and the Darkness' from Sevenfold Films. click on this link to find it • The Ark and the Darkness - Free Offic...



Here is something about the provenance of Gen 1. One thing that helped Pellegrini form his map, which proved to be reliable, was the record of Gen 1 that there was just one body of land. this helped him work backward from what he saw as the dividing of that one piece.

I mention this because one of the ongoing claims that I find to be supportable is that there are descriptions that are very simple but realistic nonetheless. If we apply the fact of such a feature to 1:2 and so on, we find a text that is staying close to the physical realities. So Day 1 light has that much more reason to be the arrival of starlight.

 

[EarlyActs]

Here's Dr. Ross address, let us know what he says!
[email protected]

I'm not saying there isn't a trace of c14 that long, but I don't see the point of relying on it past its own span. Either way, this is far, far shorter than the conventional scheme.

 

[EarlyActs]

After some 4 pages in Britannica, I think I see where the span of @ 50K of C14 comes from: The 5800 year half life, when traced as a declining %, is under 1% in 10 half-lives, ie, 58K.

Would you agree that is their meaning?

I hoped to get the clearest simple explanation.

 

[Sereni-tea]

There are different techniques that are used in radiometric dating. Some rely on counting the decay particles from atoms (which has a relationship with the half-life) but others do not.

In the case of carbon-14, samples today are measured using an accelerator mass spectrometer. This is an ultra sensitive technique with high precision, especially at very low levels. In this method, the sample is loaded into the instrument which is basically a particle accelerator with a mass spectrometer as a detector. Due to the design of the instrument, it is able to separate the target (in this case carbon-14 ions) from other ions with the same mass. This method is able to directly quantify the concentration of a rare isotope (e.g. carbon-14) and is independent of decay. It is actually around 1000 times more sensitive that decay methods.

 

[EarlyActs]

There are different techniques that are used in radiometric dating. Some rely on counting the decay particles from atoms (which has a relationship with the half-life) but others do not.

In the case of carbon-14, samples today are measured using an accelerator mass spectrometer. This is an ultra sensitive technique with high precision, especially at very low levels. In this method, the sample is loaded into the instrument which is basically a particle accelerator with a mass spectrometer as a detector. Due to the design of the instrument, it is able to separate the target (in this case carbon-14 ions) from other ions with the same mass. This method is able to directly quantify the concentration of a rare isotope (e.g. carbon-14) and is independent of decay. It is actually around 1000 times more sensitive that decay methods.

And so that is the explanation of the range you gave above, right?

I'm sincerely interested because the central proposition of my journal, as you may know, is that some lifeless time before Day 1 does not matter. (btw, one helpful remark from Dr. Ross--maybe about lifelessness and your reported range) is that 'life' in Gen 1 is not microscopic. When it refers to life, it is always things the ordinary person can see.

Likewise, you may have noticed what Pellegrini was saying about land in the ARK IN THE DARKNESS doc. He believed that there was one body of land at first because of Gen 1. My point was that there is ordinary science there, and that the same interpretive rule should apply when we identify light on Day 1, if at all possible. It was not a mystical or mythical statement, born of responding to later paganism, about the land. Instead it is a proof of revelation to Adam of what he could not have seen.

But this tens of thousands of years range does not satisfy the observations of the escape velocity of helium, the RATE project, Snelling et al.

 

[Sereni-tea]

And so that is the explanation of the range you gave above, right?

The testing range of the technique is the limits between which the results are shown to have acceptable accuracy and repeatability. The accelerator mass spectrometer will have a limit to the concentration at which is can accurately quantitate the amount of carbon-14 (currently between femtomole and attomole levels of carbon-14). This currently equates to around the 50K year range but can be improved on in specially designed laboratories which are capable of reducing the background carbon-14, for example. It is likely in future that more sensitive instruments will be designed that can extend the range further.

I'm sincerely interested because the central proposition of my journal, as you may know, is that some lifeless time before Day 1 does not matter. (btw, one helpful remark from Dr. Ross--maybe about lifelessness and your reported range) is that 'life' in Gen 1 is not microscopic. When it refers to life, it is always things the ordinary person can see.

Likewise, you may have noticed what Pellegrini was saying about land in the ARK IN THE DARKNESS doc. He believed that there was one body of land at first because of Gen 1. My point was that there is ordinary science there, and that the same interpretive rule should apply when we identify light on Day 1, if at all possible. It was not a mystical or mythical statement, born of responding to later paganism, about the land. Instead it is a proof of revelation to Adam of what he could not have seen.

The problem is you are trying to fit the text into your beliefs. You need to let the text speak for itself. Look at the literature - the repetition, rhythm, the number symbolism, the chiastic structure, rhyming words, etc. Look at the structure of the text - the two triads - one where the domains are created and the other where they are filled. Stop trying to force the text into a linear chronological structure which is a very modern, western way of thinking. See the cosmology as it fit into the ancient world. This is what the ancient Hebrews actually believed and the three-tiered structure is seen right through the Scriptures. Stop trying to separate the 'natural' from the 'supernatural'. Again this is a very modern western way of thinking.

Whether you think the material came from Adam or not, you have to admit that Adam did not write it down. Therefore you have to allow the author of Genesis to have written it in their own way to convey their own message under the inspiration of God.

Put the text in its proper context.

But this tens of thousands of years range does not satisfy the observations of the escape velocity of helium, the RATE project, Snelling et al.

The RATE project has many, many problems.

 

[EarlyActs]

The testing range of the technique is the limits between which the results are shown to have acceptable accuracy and repeatability. The accelerator mass spectrometer will have a limit to the concentration at which is can accurately quantitate the amount of carbon-14 (currently between femtomole and attomole levels of carbon-14). This currently equates to around the 50K year range but can be improved on in specially designed laboratories which are capable of reducing the background carbon-14, for example. It is likely in future that more sensitive instruments will be designed that can extend the range further.



The problem is you are trying to fit the text into your beliefs. You need to let the text speak for itself. Look at the literature - the repetition, rhythm, the number symbolism, the chiastic structure, rhyming words, etc. Look at the structure of the text - the two triads - one where the domains are created and the other where they are filled. Stop trying to force the text into a linear chronological structure which is a very modern, western way of thinking. See the cosmology as it fit into the ancient world. This is what the ancient Hebrews actually believed and the three-tiered structure is seen right through the Scriptures. Stop trying to separate the 'natural' from the 'supernatural'. Again this is a very modern western way of thinking.

Whether you think the material came from Adam or not, you have to admit that Adam did not write it down. Therefore you have to allow the author of Genesis to have written it in their own way to convey their own message under the inspiration of God.

Put the text in its proper context.



The RATE project has many, many problems.

What is non linear about 6 successive days?

What is foreign about the logic of dealing with waters, then land then atmosphere in both of the threes?

I find that the Pellegrini example is exactly ‘seeing what is there’ rather than importing something foreign.

As you may know God based his document in a location that specifically connects to both parts of the physical world, as far as the east-west dilemma goes.

I don’t know of any separation of natural VERSUS supernatural. The whole is a miracle, but there are natural elements ongoing, others not. Cf Lewis on natural vs supernatural miracles.