RATE research reveals remarkable results—a fatal blow to billions of years

Discussion in 'Science' started by Gup20, Nov 7, 2005.

  1. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    From here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp

    Go read the article -- here is a snippet:

     
  2. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Exciting" indeed. All that energy that Austin thinks popped out in a few thousand years, would have been enough to melt the planet.

    Since there's no sign at all of such a huge release of nuclear energy, we can safely discount that idea.

    Austin, as you might know, was the guy who was shocked to learn that fresh rock from Mt. St. Helens would give a very ancient age, if you were careful to include some unmelted ancient rock in the sample.

    He's also the guy who once claimed that his work on Mt. St. Helens made him a creationist, even though he was actually writing creationists tracts under a psuedonym years before that.
     
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Some of us have 'real lives' which occupy our time. Spending all of one's time in a virtual community is no substitute for the real thing.

    Besides, UTEOTW - you are a "scoffer who is willingly ignorant of the truth" according to 2Peter 3:

    2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
    4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
    5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
    6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
    7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

    Here, the Bible compares the reality of Armageddon with the reality of Noah's global flood. Do you believe that the world will be cleansed with fire as 2Peter and Revelation tell? Probably not - how could you? The Bible says the reality of that is equal to the reality of creation and the global flood. The RATE group's findings should give you cause for celebrating that more of the truth of God's Word has been confirmed by science - but here on this message board you are daily "kicking against the pricks" as did Saul of Tarsus. It must truly grieve the Holy Spirit within you that your views consistently come down opposite scripture in your ramblings here.

    What a fantastic God we serve whom gives grace to us despite our flaws, though, yes?
     
  5. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know, when I was in college I knew this irreverent guy who, when particularly stumped by his homework, would have his roommate bring out a flashlight and shine it on him as the "illuminating light of the Holy Spirit" and would "prophecy" the answers.

    Your post reminded me of this.
     
  6. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Three cheers for creation scientists who have theoretically proven that the radioisotope dating methods used by neo-Darwinist fossil lovers and geologists are totally unreliable and unbelievable.
     
  7. npc

    npc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet you still have time to post what you can find without regard to truth or credibility.
     
  8. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    UTEOTW and I used to go at it with 20 page threads frequently. I simply don't have that kind of time to waste on someone who is THAT convinced that "the Bible is a little off" or that "God doesn't think it is important to tell us the truth" as UTEOTW has advocated on several occasions.

    He accepts that the Bible does not - in any way - support evolution, (choosing to state that the Bible is silent regarding man's origins). He believes that Genesis is a fairy tale (his word was 'allegory') and that creation and Noah's flood are mythological stories meant to teach only a spiritual lesson. He dismisses the fact that Moses, all the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles all support the view of Genesis as literal. For example, in Mark 10:6, Jesus - giving the foundation for the institution of marriage - says:

    Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

    Matthew says it this way:

    Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,

    Have you not read? He then quotes Genesis 1:1,27

    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    Jesus viewed these verses as literal history. Moses also viewed it as literal history:

    Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


    "The Law" of Moses - God's covenant with the Hebrews - is founded in the literal history of Genesis. The REASON for Jesus coming to earth to die for us is because of Adam's sin - the Apostle Paul supports this literal history:

    Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
    13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
    14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
    15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

    Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

    1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

    The apostle Paul compares directly the reality of sin and death in the real person of Adam to the reality of life in Jesus Christ. It is logically inconsistent - if you believe the Bible - to think that Adam and Genesis are "allegorical" and then believe that Jesus Christ is not. If one dismisses Adam as non-literal, one is not far from dismissing Jesus under the same principles. It is a very slippery slope indeed.

    You see people like UTEOTW admit that the Bible - if allowed to stand without criticism of science - indicates a young earth and recent creation. But they cannot believe it because of millions of years. They believe the word of men rather than the Word of God. If SCIENCE said that the earth was 6,000 years old, they would believe it. Moreover, they would tout how the Bible supports this as well. But SCIENCE says otherwise, and they believe SCIENCE above the Bible. Science has, in effect, become an idol in their lives. The science of men - which changes from day to day - is more authoritative than the scriptures which is true now, and forever more. It doens't seem to bother people like UTEOTW a bit that the leaders of most 'scientific institutions' are atheists - or at the very least have an anti-theistic agenda.

    Here we have several lines of scientific study that show independent evidences of the idea that decay rates have not always been constant (up to billion fold acceleration having been seen in the laboratory) and STILL these folks are unwilling to trust the Word of God above the science of men. These evolutionists (the ones here claim to be christians and believe the Bible) would rather believe man's science and blatent assumptions (uniformitarianism) that the way things are now are exactly the same as they were in the unrecorded/unobserved past. They would rather discard the Word from the One witness who was there at creation - the One who does not lie - the One who performed it all - and believe in the fallible assumptions of fallen man instead. It's pretty sad.
     
  9. npc

    npc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    My point was that if you don't have enough time to defend every issue you raise, I believe it would be more honest to raise fewer issues than to simply post articles and then ignore the rebuttals.

    Mark and Matthew don't indicate that God couldn't have created humanity through evolution.

    Your assertion is that my faith in God is weakened by belief in evolution. Your word against my experience; which do you think I'll believe?

    More like an anti-fundamentalist agenda. What do you expect when so many fundamentalists have an anti-science agenda?
     
  10. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personal attacks by advocates of neo-Darwinism against Christians, Muslims and Jews based on their religious beliefs violate their civil rights and are legally intolerable.
     
  11. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "UTEOTW and I used to go at it with 20 page threads frequently."

    There was a time when Gup would engage in something resembling debate. Recently, however, he seems to prefer to simply come in every so often and spam us with stuff he has no intention of ever defending. Of course how could he? His position is indefensible.

    But even when he has entertained some debate, it has been low on the effectiveness scale. For example, here is the last time Gup was around. One of his favorite hobby horses is that there are no mechanisms by which evolution can generate new "information." Never mind that we never get a definition of "information" that can be used to actually measure whether a given change increases or decreases "information."

    So I started a thread just for Gup. In it, I listed different mechanisms for generating novel genetic material and examples of these mechanisms in action. I also pulled out details from the genome that shows that the whole genome was built up by such processes. When he finally responded, once, he brought up and tried to refute things that were not even mentioned on the thread instead of addressing what was there. You can read his only response here. Then you can read up and down from there.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104/2.html#000019

    Like I said, "information" is one of his favorite hobby horses. There was another thread in which I presented him with several examples of novel genetics and asked him to address them. I first had to narrow my list for him to three. He then fails to even bother addressing my actual examples, instead refuting other topics and hoping no one noticed. Well, I noticed that he failed to address my actual posts. THis one needs to be read from the beginning.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/21.html

    There was also a thread that he actually responded to involving the genetic evidence for human evolution. Of course, his response was to spam a somewhat related bit of material from AIG. And of course, it being AIG, when the references were checked. they had badly misrepresented what the scientists said. Here is his post. My response follows. The first couple pages of the thread are interesting, too, before jcrawford tried to hijack it. Going up the thread from there to see some of Gups other claims is also interesting.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/7.html#000093

    "I simply don't have that kind of time to waste on someone who is THAT convinced that "the Bible is a little off" or that "God doesn't think it is important to tell us the truth" as UTEOTW has advocated on several occasions. "

    Gup also has a problem with the truth. Here he badly misrepresents my statements. This is not unusual when A YEer quotes, but in this case he has been corrected several times. The post to which he is referring seems to have been lost from the server now, but I still have a copy. Here is exactly what I said.

    He has also accused other posters of using the same phrase.

    "They believe the word of men rather than the Word of God."

    False dilemma. I am being forced to choose between the interpretations of man in both cases. You do not speak for God.

    "It doens't seem to bother people like UTEOTW a bit that the leaders of most 'scientific institutions' are atheists - or at the very least have an anti-theistic agenda."

    Hmmm. About half of scientists identify themselves as creationists, mostly theistic evolution. Sorry to burst your bubble.

    "If one dismisses Adam as non-literal, one is not far from dismissing Jesus under the same principles. It is a very slippery slope indeed."

    You know, if you use the phrase "slippery slope" it is very likely that you are committing the fallacy of the slippery slope. Just a hint.

    You did. Please do not pretend that you can speak for me. I have been extremely clear on this matter in the past. YOu know how I feel and you are badly misrepresenting our discussions. Have you no shame?

    "Here we have several lines of scientific study that show independent evidences of the idea that decay rates have not always been constant (up to billion fold acceleration having been seen in the laboratory) and STILL these folks are unwilling to trust the Word of God above the science of men."

    It is the lie of ommission not to point out that the "billion fold" increase in rates was for a fully ionized atom! No electrons at all! Please, tell us all, where do you think such a scenario has relevence on the inside of a solid rock?

    And this has been pointed out to you each of the times you have used the same argument. Have you not heard the command to not bear false witness?
     
  12. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's still a good thing that the RATE project has refuted the radiometric dating system used by neo-Darwinist race theorists once and for all. Now the neo-Darwinist dates of all the fossils and geologic strata can be reasonably rejected as scientifically untrustworthy and discredited.
     
  13. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "It's still a good thing that the RATE project has refuted the radiometric dating system..."

    What?

    The RATE group has been shown to be wrong on all of their proclomations that I have ever looked into. Which, specifically, of their "studies" do you have high confidence in asserting that it has refuted all radiometric dating? Which one in particular and why?
     
  14. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    What?

    The neo-Darwinist group has been shown to be wrong on all of their proclamations that the RATE group has ever looked into.

    All of them.

    I'm not particular, since all of their studies and peer-reviewed articles refute yours.
     
  15. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I suppose they're "peer-reviewed," but not by quality scientists!
     
  16. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "The neo-Darwinist group has been shown to be wrong on all of their proclamations that the RATE group has ever looked into."

    Have you ever looked into any of them? THis sounds remarkably like when you have been asked to provide specific examples from your favorite book by Lub where you proclaim how great it is but are not ever able to make enough sense of it to actually present a case to us. I guess you like 'em all but none enough to put up here for us to see if it really stands up.

    We all know that it would not stand up, so this my be a good move on your part.

    "I'm not particular, since all of their studies and peer-reviewed articles refute yours."

    Yes, please tell us where they have been peer reviewed. Fat chance.

    Well some of them do have some peer reviewed papers. Strangely enough, their actual peer reviewed articles seem to happily accept an old earth. It is their none reviewed articles where they try and pass off their ideas that they would not be able to get past the reviewers. When you are playing fast and loose with the data, it is better to only ask for the opinion of those who would not know on what basis to disagree to begin with.
     
  17. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Fewer than 2 in the last 3 months or so? Actually, there is only one or two people I ignore - and I have clearly stated why.

    Actually, they do. If Jesus quotes Genesis as literal history then evolution is impossible. If Jesus claims that Man and Woman have been here "from the beginning of creation" -- and the earth/universe is billions of years old -- that either means that human beings have been here for billions of years - which doesn't fit with evolution, or that the world is only a few thousand years old - which also doesn't fit with evolution. Any way you look at it - Jesus' words in Matthew and Mark exclude without a doubt the possibility of evolution.

    I applaud your firm commitment to Jesus. However, you are violating the authority of scripture and in doing so drawing others away from that same committment to Jesus Christ that you profess. Why should someone who has not committed their life to Jesus think that Jesus is jsut as much a fairy tale as you proport Genesis to be?

    Jhn 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?

    There is no question. The Bible advocates that the earth is ~ 6000 years old, and that the time from the beginning of the Universe, to the creation of Planet earth, to the creation of our Sun, moon and stars, to the creation of man took 7 literal days. To advocate evolution is to disbelieve the direct authority of the Bible. If one can not believe God when he tells of how the things that CAN BE SEEN became, then how can we expect them to believe in Christ?

    You mean like Isaac Newton's anti-science agenda? You mean like Robert Boyle or Blaise Pascal's anti-science agenda? Perhaps you are referring to the anti-science agenda of Carolus Linneaus or James Joule? You see the vast, vast majority of the "founders of modern science" are all creationists. It wasn't until later that the idea that God had to be removed from science became popular. Currently you have hundreds... probably even thousands of creationists doing the work of science. For example, look at Russel Humphries. Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use.

    The last few years at Sandia had seen greater emphasis on theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help produce the world’s first lab-scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides gaining another U.S. patent, Dr Humphreys has been given two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.

    Tell me how this man is promoting an an anti-science agenda? Yet he is an adement creationist.

    You have succombed to believing a lie. The lie is that the Bible and science are mutually exclusive. They are not. Many of the founders of modern science believed that the Bible itself gave the mandate for science in Genesis 1:

    Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    Also, I think it misguided that you use the word "fundamentalist" as though it were a dirty word. This word has been derrogotized recently in light of Islamic belief - but it must be understood that a 'fundamentalist' is only wrong if the thing being fundamentally adhered to is wrong. Fundamentally adhereing to scripture is not wrong. God was not 'a little off' when He gave us His Word. He got it right the first time.

    2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
     
  18. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can certainly say that in your own interpretation of Jesus' words evolution is ruled out, but it is false to say "any way you look at it".

    Jesus was speaking, you see, of the beginning of creation of . . . Adam and Eve themselves.

    Viewing creation as not complete until their arrival, you see, even though from His infinite wisdom He knew (and also knew He couldn't share because men weren't ready) that the earth itself is a few billion years old.

    Whatever you might think of that reasoning . . .
    it certainly fits as a "way" of "looking at it"!
     
  19. npc

    npc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is my belief you shouldn't post material in a discussion forum that you don't intend to discuss. Quantity is irrelevant.

    Yes, it seems to me that you think perceived morality is necessary to raise a logically valid argument. Does that mean you didn't notice his rebuttal of several of your claims in this thread?

    You have not convinced me in your earlier post that this premise is true.

    You are forcing this supposed contradiction by defining "beginning of creation" to be the first week. I'll do you one up, and force a contradiction between Jesus and Genesis by defining "beginning" to only be the first day.

    In the sense that I do not consider it a scientific authority.

    So I'm supposed to ignore evidence because you speculate that there will be consequences to rational thought?
    Why should someone who has not comitted their life to Jesus listen to someone who denies old earth and evolution? John 3:12, indeed.

    A sincere question: did they ever advocate disregarding evidence because they thought it might contradicted the Bible? Galileo certainly didn't.

    It sounds to me like most of his work did indeed advance science. That doesn't mean all of it did.

    Restating the thesis, I suppose?

    I didn't. I said many fundamentalists oppose science.
     
  20. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
    :5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    Here, Jesus says “have you not read”. He refers to scripture. Then he quotes Genesis 1 and 2 as literal history:

    Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
    :24 therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    Keep in mind, Jesus says in Matthew 19 that God created them “from the beginning”. He is quoting Genesis 1:1 there. We can see that WAW is used in Genesis chapter 1 to logically include all days of creation into the statement of Genesis 1:1. Waw is the name of the Hebrew letter which is used as a conjunction (the word “and”). If you notice, Genesis 1:1 says:

    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    It continues in verse 2: “And the earth was without form and void…”
    It continues in verse 3: “And God said…”
    It continues in verse 4: “And God saw…”

    This continues all the way through the whole of the creation week. This WAW logically – and by the rules of Hebrew grammar – makes all of the days of creation inclusive in the statement of Genesis 1:1 of “in the beginning”. Moreover, we can see that Genesis 2 is an expansion of day 6 of creation. Therefore, logically, we can see that Jesus quotes Genesis 1:1, 1:27, & 2:23 all at once as though it were one contiguous idea. This excludes the possibility that Jesus was talking about the ‘beginning of Adam and Eve’ rather than the ‘beginning of all creation’. Jesus is quoting scripture, so we must look at the scripture that He is quoting to define the precise meaning of His statement. The meaning of Genesis 1:1 – 2:23 confirms the meaning of Jesus’ statements. Scripture interprets scripture. Moreover, it is logically inconsistent to think that Jesus could quote Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:27, and Genesis 2:23 as literal history as to convey support for evolution – an idea which stands in stark contrast to Genesis.

    This is a form of “generational discrimination” or bigotry. To assume that ancient men were somehow less intelligent that we are today. As a matter of fact, we can see that this was, indeed, not true. For example, you can see from The AiG article The Mystery of Ancient Man and common sense that ancient men were highly intelligent. Just look at the pyramids, Stone Henge, or Sacsahuamán. Sacsahuamán, for example, has a large stone block. The block is the size of a five-storey house and weighs an estimated 20,000 tons. The builders of Sacsahuamán could, and somehow did, move this block! The feat of moving such a staggering weight has never been attempted, let alone duplicated, with modern machinery. Even the largest crane in the world today is capable of lifting only about 3,000 tonnes.

    Moreover, we can tell pre-school children the story of evolution in a way they can understand. You are saying that God isn’t intelligent enough to tell us evolution in a way that even remotely resembles evolution? In fact, the story that God tells us in Genesis is so very different from evolution that Genesis and evolution are mutually exclusive. Not only are you slighting the high intellect of ancient men, but you are also disparaging the intelligence of God. God could have said “I created the universe, and caused life to become, then molded that life into a fish. I then took that fish and with it created a lizard. I then took the lizard and used it to create a bird. He could have gone on in this way, and it would jive with evolution and be understandable by even the simplest intellect. But He didn’t say this. He gave us Genesis which tells a MUCH different story. Genesis tells us that the universe and all life on earth was created in 6 literal days – not over billions of years. It tells us that man was formed from the dust, not from another existing created animal.

    As I have just shown you… your reasoning is flawed, and it doesn’t ‘fit’.
     

Share This Page

Loading...