Detaching evolution from time

[EarlyActs]

I recently finished a small study that I think can help people with Genesis. I think it may be 'time' for us to get over the time problem. That problem is that most research says there are huge time periods going back. When evolutionary theory is added to this, it becomes an explanation of sorts of our biological life. And it is pretty dismal.

Now what we should notice is the attachment to time because evolution would need that to succeed. It could never happen in a few thousand.

But evolution is really falling apart lately. See discovery.org's Evolution News. There is no such thing.

So the position of my book is that if there is no advantage to their being long ages past and no evolution, what difference does it make if the vast universe around us (not the local objects) are very old?

I not only find support for this in certain word-choice in Genesis, but in Peter's own comments.

My book is online, Back In Business. Marcus Sanford.

 

[CrowCross]

I recently finished a small study that I think can help people with Genesis. I think it may be 'time' for us to get over the time problem. That problem is that most research says there are huge time periods going back. When evolutionary theory is added to this, it becomes an explanation of sorts of our biological life. And it is pretty dismal.

Now what we should notice is the attachment to time because evolution would need that to succeed. It could never happen in a few thousand.

But evolution is really falling apart lately. See discovery.org's Evolution News. There is no such thing.

So the position of my book is that if there is no advantage to their being long ages past and no evolution, what difference does it make if the vast universe around us (not the local objects) are very old?

I not only find support for this in certain word-choice in Genesis, but in Peter's own comments.

My book is online, Back In Business. Marcus Sanford.

Considering gravity slows time down something existing in a lesser gravitational field would appear older to something in a greater gradational field.

Time on the International Space Station moves slightly slower than with a person sitting on a beach chair by the ocean.

 

[Frank Robert]

I recently finished a small study that I think can help people with Genesis. I think it may be 'time' for us to get over the time problem. That problem is that most research says there are huge time periods going back. When evolutionary theory is added to this, it becomes an explanation of sorts of our biological life. And it is pretty dismal.

Now what we should notice is the attachment to time because evolution would need that to succeed. It could never happen in a few thousand.

Why do you doubt the 20th century science that evolution happened over 4.55 billion years old, which by the way, is the age of the earth?

By dating the rocks in Earth's ever-changing crust, as well as the rocks in Earth's neighbors, such as the moon and visiting meteorites, scientists have calculated that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years. Source...​

But evolution is really falling apart lately. See discovery.org's Evolution News. There is no such thing.

So you say. There is zero scientific evidence at Evolution News to substantiate their erroneous claims.

So the position of my book is that if there is no advantage to their being long ages past and no evolution, what difference does it make if the vast universe around us (not the local objects) are very old?

That is your point of view which is totally non nonsensical as it is not based on any scientific facts.

I not only find support for this in certain word-choice in Genesis, but in Peter's own comments.

Peter could have had a 20th century understanding of the search for order in the world through physical laws and conservation principles.

 

[CrowCross]

Why do you doubt the 20th century science that evolution happened over 4.55 billion years old, which by the way, is the age of the earth?
By dating the rocks in Earth's ever-changing crust, as well as the rocks in Earth's neighbors, such as the moon and visiting meteorites, scientists have calculated that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years. Source...

There is problems with radiometric dating...They don't know the amount of the original parent isotope.

 

[Frank Robert]

There is problems with radiometric dating...They don't know the amount of the original parent isotope.

Despite known limitations, when applied carefully and corroborated with other methods radiometric dating provides a consistent and reliable means of estimating the Earth's age, currently accepted to be around 4.54 billion years.

The point is that science uses an enormous array of techniques and methods that support one another in providing sound evidence that the earth is billions of years old, rather than a mere 6,000 years. Young earth advocates such as AIG and DI fail to use accepted science because their only arguments are to use scientifically-inaccurate claims to try to disprove scientific methods.

 

[CrowCross]

Despite known limitations, when applied carefully and corroborated with other methods radiometric dating provides a consistent and reliable means of estimating the Earth's age, currently accepted to be around 4.54 billion years.

Of course it's currently accepted....they want to do away with God.

The point is that science uses an enormous array of techniques and methods that support one another in providing sound evidence that the earth is billions of years old, rather than a mere 6,000 years. Young earth advocates such as AIG and DI fail to use accepted science because their only arguments are to use scientifically-inaccurate claims to try to disprove scientific methods.

Once again they don't know the amount of parent isotope. They use the SWAG method.

It's like walking ito a room and seeing a candle burning...the candle is now 2" tall....and you guessed it was 12" at the beginning.
Using the erronious info you use the SWAG method to tell all of us how long the candle was burning.

 

[Frank Robert]

Of course it's currently accepted....they want to do away with God.

So you conclude that since some scientists are atheists then all science or most scientists want do do away with God.

Once again they don't know the amount of parent isotope. They use the SWAG method.

Why start with a "wild ass guess" when when we have precise science with an array of time tested techniques. Using relative and radiometric dating methods, geologists are easily able to answer the question: how old is this fossil?

It's like walking into a room and seeing a candle burning...the candle is now 2" tall....and you guessed it was 12" at the beginning.
Using the ceremonious info you use the SWAG method to tell all of us how long the candle was burning.

The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one. First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young. If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far. Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years? Glaringly absent, it seems.

 

[CrowCross]

So you conclude that since some scientists are atheists then all science or most scientists want do do away with God.

It's kinda hard to sum all of it up in one sentence. Many 'do away with God" by default. They don't even know they're doing it. That is the present scenario's that disagree with the truth of what God has done. Not knowing the truth of what God has done they don't have the ability to balance their hypothesis against what God really has done.

Why start with a "wild ass guess" when when we have precise science with an array of time tested techniques. Using relative and radiometric dating methods, geologists are easily able to answer the question: how old is this fossil?

You left out circular reasoning.....the rocks date the fossils then the fossils date the rocks. For example this rock has been dated incorrectly by a flawed radio isotope dating method...which means the fossils found with it are incorrectly dated....which means when we find similar fossils we know the age of the fossils (wink, wink)...so the rocks in the area must be from the same age.

The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one. First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young. If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far. Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years? Glaringly absent, it seems.

There has been many examples of the flawed radiometric dating techniques. For example biomaterial has been found in dinosaur "fossils" falsely dated to have been 65+ MY's old. The presence of the biomaterial alone in the fossils completely destroy the old earth ages where the fossils are found. But you have said...there is no evidence that supports a young earth.

 

[Frank Robert]

It's kinda hard to sum all of it up in one sentence. Many 'do away with God" by default. They don't even know they're doing it. That is the present scenario's that disagree with the truth of what God has done. Not knowing the truth of what God has done they don't have the ability to balance their hypothesis against what God really has done.

There are literally thousands of Christian denominations with an abundance of varying beliefs. There are also numerous religious scientists who put work to learn and teach about God's creation.

You left out circular reasoning.....the rocks date the fossils then the fossils date the rocks. For example this rock has been dated incorrectly by a flawed radio isotope dating method...which means the fossils found with it are incorrectly dated....which means when we find similar fossils we know the age of the fossils (wink, wink)...so the rocks in the area must be from the same age.

If you listen to only the critics with vested interest you will never arrive at a full understanding. Yes there are flaws but the problem is they aren’t extreme ‘inaccuracies’ in radiometric dating methods when they are used for, and here’s the catch: their intended purposes and interpreted with regard to their known limitations

Again, radiometric dating is generally considered a very reliable method, however there are situations where it can be flawed due to factors like contamination, improper sample collection, or the inherent limitations of the dating technique depending on the material being analyzed; however, the claims (from vested interest, like AIG and DI) that there are "many examples" of flawed radiometric dating is often exaggerated and used to discredit the method without considering the robust scientific consensus supporting its validity when used correctly.

The main problem with AIG's journal, AJR is that the journal's reviewers are selected from a pool of people who only support the stances of the journal and therefor rejection members of the scientific community are excluded from the review process.

For example biomaterial has been found in dinosaur "fossils" falsely dated to have been 65+ MY's old. The presence of the biomaterial alone in the fossils completely destroy the old earth ages where the fossils are found. But you have said...there is no evidence that supports a young earth.

It does not support a young earth but it is exciting in another way. We thought the science was settled yet we now see science correcting itself? We though that fossilization process leaves the overall shape of a dinosaur’s bones intact, but all the microscopic structures inside them — the blood cells, connective fibers, and other sorts of soft tissue — inevitably decay over time. But that view has changed — and it’s possible that many ancient fossils may preserve more detail than meets the eye. The sort of biological tissue now being found in some fossils could tell us about dinosaur anatomy, behavior, and evolution in ways that weren’t possible just a few years ago.

 

[CrowCross]

There are literally thousands of Christian denominations with an abundance of varying beliefs. There are also numerous religious scientists who put work to learn and teach about God's creation.

First off...is there? Sounds like you cut and pasted that from somewhere.
Sure, there may be some disagreement on eschatology as that is very difficult to understand...or a disagreement what year Jesus was born...but I really think 1,000's of denominations is a bit far fetched.
Almost every denomination believes in the Trinity, divinity of Jesus, virgin birth of Christ, atoning sacrifice and resurrection.
When it comes to the creation account at the core almost every denomination believes in the six day creation.
Currently our public schools have indoctrinated...force fed...every student the false concept of evolutionism to the point they no longer can think critically on that subject.

If you listen to only the critics with vested interest you will never arrive at a full understanding. Yes there are flaws but the problem is they aren’t extreme ‘inaccuracies’ in radiometric dating methods when they are used for, and here’s the catch: their intended purposes and interpreted with regard to their known limitations

Many scientist interpret the data according to what they know and the belief filter instilled in them.

Again, radiometric dating is generally considered a very reliable method, however there are situations where it can be flawed due to factors like contamination, improper sample collection, or the inherent limitations of the dating technique depending on the material being analyzed; however, the claims (from vested interest, like AIG and DI) that there are "many examples" of flawed radiometric dating is often exaggerated and used to discredit the method without considering the robust scientific consensus supporting its validity when used correctly.

You can tell yourself that...but it is flawed....when the flaws are presented you balk. You balk because you trust what you have been indoctrinated in. It's kinda like only getting your news from CNN and the narrative they are told to push.

The main problem with AIG's journal, AJR is that the journal's reviewers are selected from a pool of people who only support the stances of the journal and therefor rejection members of the scientific community are excluded from the review process.

The same can be said for you...you only get your interpretation of science...stance...from the one side that has indoctrinated you.

It does not support a young earth but it is exciting in another way. We thought the science was settled yet we now see science correcting itself? We though that fossilization process leaves the overall shape of a dinosaur’s bones intact, but all the microscopic structures inside them — the blood cells, connective fibers, and other sorts of soft tissue — inevitably decay over time. But that view has changed — and it’s possible that many ancient fossils may preserve more detail than meets the eye. The sort of biological tissue now being found in some fossils could tell us about dinosaur anatomy, behavior, and evolution in ways that weren’t possible just a few years ago.

The biomaterial can't exist for 65+ MY's. Just as a snowball can't exist on a hot sidewalk. But you would say...look at that!!! Somehow it did. You would say we "know" the biomaterial is 65+MY's old...because we found it in dinosaur bones and we know dinosaurs are old because the rock we found them in was dated by radiometric methods.....and the scientist agree the dates are "settled".

Once again biomaterial does an enormous amount of damage to the old earth ages of the dinosaurs. As we know, it supports young earth and a catastrophic flood we read about in Gods Word.

 

[Frank Robert]

First off...is there? Sounds like you cut and pasted that from somewhere.

Do you own research. There are estimates of over 30,000 Christian denominations. Check it out here:

A recent compilation lists 33,089 Christian denominations world-wide, including the massive Roman Catholic Church (with a billion adherents), 25 principal forms of Eastern Orthodoxy, numerous varieties of Protestantism, and tiny store-front churches with fewer than 100 members.

Currently our public schools have indoctrinated...force fed...every student the false concept of evolutionism to the point they no longer can think critically on that subject.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am simply pointing out most Christians accept evolution:

As of 2006, most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation narrative. The United States is an exception where belief in religious fundamentalism is much more likely to affect attitudes towards evolution than it is for believers elsewhere. Political partisanship affecting religious belief may be a factor because political partisanship in the US is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking, unlike in Europe. Source >>>>​

​

Many scientist interpret the data according to what they know and the belief filter instilled in them.

Scientists use the scientific method to arrive at their conclusions.

You can tell yourself that...but it is flawed....when the flaws are presented you balk. You balk because you trust what you have been indoctrinated in. It's kinda like only getting your news from CNN and the narrative they are told to push.

I don't expect you to believe what I or anyone else writes, but it is not difficult to check things out for yourself before denying them outright.

The same can be said for you...you only get your interpretation of science...stance...from the one side that has indoctrinated you.

Science is not believed as gospel and is open to correction when when additional evidence becomes available through the scientific method.

The biomaterial can't exist for 65+ MY's. Just as a snowball can't exist on a hot sidewalk. But you would say...look at that!!! Somehow it did. You would say we "know" the biomaterial is 65+MY's old...because we found it in dinosaur bones and we know dinosaurs are old because the rock we found them in was dated by radiometric methods.....and the scientist agree the dates are "settled".

You are missing the a major function of science. Science is not static. THINK! How did science learn that biomaterial can exist for millions of years? The simple answer is that they learned through studying fossils using the scientific method.

Once again biomaterial does an enormous amount of damage to the old earth ages of the dinosaurs. As we know, it supports young earth and a catastrophic flood we read about in Gods Word.

It doesn't change anything about the age the earth it only but does give add to our scientific knowledge that biomaterial, under the right conditions can last for millions of years. It certainly does not support a global flood.

 

[CrowCross]

Do you own research. There are estimates of over 30,000 Christian denominations. Check it out here:

A recent compilation lists 33,089 Christian denominations world-wide, including the massive Roman Catholic Church (with a billion adherents), 25 principal forms of Eastern Orthodoxy, numerous varieties of Protestantism, and tiny store-front churches with fewer than 100 members.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am simply pointing out most Christians accept evolution:

As of 2006, most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation narrative. The United States is an exception where belief in religious fundamentalism is much more likely to affect attitudes towards evolution than it is for believers elsewhere. Political partisanship affecting religious belief may be a factor because political partisanship in the US is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking, unlike in Europe. Source >>>>​

​

​

Scientists use the scientific method to arrive at their conclusions.

I don't expect you to believe what I or anyone else writes, but it is not difficult to check things out for yourself before denying them outright.

Science is not believed as gospel and is open to correction when when additional evidence becomes available through the scientific method.

You are missing the a major function of science. Science is not static. THINK! How did science learn that biomaterial can exist for millions of years? The simple answer is that they learned through studying fossils using the scientific method.

It doesn't change anything about the age the earth it only but does give add to our scientific knowledge that biomaterial, under the right conditions can last for millions of years. It certainly does not support a global flood.

You didn't really address biomaterial and how it could possibly exist. I suppose you have no answer.

Should we move on to intelligent design?

 

[Mr GLee]

You didn't really address biomaterial and how it could possibly exist. I suppose you have no answer.

Should we move on to intelligent design?

I would offer..

Sounds like the wrong kind of science.. Empirica, the temporal. . . what the eyes see the foundation of Paganism "out of sight out of mind" the fools.

Beleive the lie rather than the design of the living hope His faith ? ?.

The science of the Faithful Creator prophesying his thoughts . . ."Let there be" and "biomaterial rudiments of this world appeared" breathing in spirit of life it was God alone golden good .

Cant discover Christ under a microscope or by a telescope. He works in us magnifying his love.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
.

 

[makesends]

You left out circular reasoning.....the rocks date the fossils then the fossils date the rocks. For example this rock has been dated incorrectly by a flawed radio isotope dating method...which means the fossils found with it are incorrectly dated....which means when we find similar fossils we know the age of the fossils (wink, wink)...so the rocks in the area must be from the same age.

Wondering if that is why they call them, "time-tested methods".

 

[Mr GLee]

Wondering if that is why they call them, "time-tested methods".

His test goes beyond what the eyes see as far as rudiments of this dying creation .

The religious foundation of Paganism ."Out of sight out of mind" . . . . . . . fools

Carbon dating needs to be calibrated and compared with a know date .

 

[makesends]

His test goes beyond what the eyes see as far as rudiments of this dying creation .

The religious foundation of Paganism ."Out of sight out of mind" . . . . . . . fools

Carbon dating needs to be calibrated and compared with a know date .

I've been told that they no longer rely on radiocarbon dating, but some other decomposition material(s). But what do I know.

 

[Frank Robert]

You didn't really address biomaterial and how it could possibly exist. I suppose you have no answer.

Should we move on to intelligent design?

What's your point? I am not a scientist, but if you have a explanation of why or why not bio material can exist, you should present it so we can all learn something we didn't about. Just claiming we don't have a scientific explanation does not make something impossible to exist.

 

[CrowCross]

What's your point? I am not a scientist, but if you have a explanation of why or why not bio material can exist, you should present it so we can all learn something we didn't about. Just claiming we don't have a scientific explanation does not make something impossible to exist.

I thought it should have been rather obvious....65+ MY's is a pretty long time for biomaterial not to rot away or fossilize.

 

[Frank Robert]

I thought it should have been rather obvious....65+ MY's is a pretty long time for biomaterial not to rot away or fossilize.

Yes, 65 million years is a long time, but the misunderstandings that creationists have over biomaterail doesn't make it a closed case for science.
What creationists consider supernatural, scientists working in paleontological research consider biomaterial, aka body fossils, fascinating. It’s a growing field of study, with as you point out, many questions that remain unresolved. Its discovery opened up new avenues for research into how soft tissues might be preserved over very long time periods. The presence of biomaterial doesn’t contradict the fossil’s great age but rather provides valuable insights into dinosaur biology.

The beliefs creationists have over biomaterail doesn't make it a closed case for science. For example, see: Biomaterial Research - an overview

Biomaterials research and science is rapidly evolving with the aim of providing solutions to vexing medical problems. Emerging technologies including nanotechnology, stem cell research, and tissue engineering...​

 

[Mr GLee]

I've been told that they no longer rely on radiocarbon dating, but some other decomposition material(s). But what do I know.

I know they use known time periods to calibrate and once a living Mollusks was dated thousands of year .

A person cannot look for invisible God through the temporal dying rudiments of this word . . things seen the pagan foundation "Out of sight out of mind .Why believe in a God not seen ? fools

We simply do not cannot know Christ after the dying rudiment of this world . Not under a microscope or veiled through a telescope .

Open your new born agin heart believe the things not seen the eternal