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

As you can see… I am more than willing to discuss these topics with people. I have already stated why I ignore UTEOTW – he believes that the Bible is a little off, and that God didn’t’ feel it is important to tell us the truth (he has actually stated this in the past). The basis of my belief is the Bible, therefore he and I have no common ground upon which to stand and have a discussion.

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

It’s not a question of morality - it’s a question of the pre-suppositional bias each of us comes into the discussion with.

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

By dismissing the Bible’s truth, UTEOTW has essentially ‘stacked the deck’. Since scripture destroys the possibility of evolution he asks by inference that it not be used in the discussion. I, however, take the Bible to be the ultimate authority on EVERY subject it touches upon. It is absolute truth. I do not see scripture as the fallible work of fallible men, but I see it as The Word of God – which is what it claims to be:

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

Therefore, when scripture and Darwinian conjecture come into conflict, it is the Bible that has the ultimate authority for me. To subject God’s Word to man’s ideas which are contrary to scripture is to place man’s word in greater authority than God’s Word. This is called Humanism. According to Genesis, it was this very concept that lead to Adam’s fall, and the Curse of sin and Death in the earth. God said not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but Eve was tempted when the serpent said “hath God said?” – questioning the Word of God and the “surely God did not say” – contradicting the Word of God.

See my response to Paul of Eugene above. I think you will find it compelling.

Note specifically my response to PoE regarding the WAW form, and the fact that Jesus says “have you not read” indicating that He is quoting scripture. In one sentence, Jesus quotes 3 separate verses as though they are one contiguous statement:

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.
Gen 2:24 therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

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?
:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus’ logic is sound. He realizes that Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”… but that each waw makes each day of creation inclusive in that statement.

In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth and light and fish and birds and cattle man etc.

The waw (and) allows for each verse to describe separate detail while adjoining it to the statement of ‘in the beginning God created’. Furthermore, contained within these statements is the time frame for the entire event – six days and the last day God rested.

Also – note that Mark 10 gives us further indication of the intended meaning:

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

“The Beginning” cannot be defined as only the first day because of the rules of Hebrew grammar, and because Jesus’ own statements quote scripturally “The beginning” in Genesis 1:1 and the creation of man & woman in Genesis 1:26-27 to inclusive.

So where science contradicts scripture, you would take the word of science above the Word of God? How do you explain this to a young person who thinks that – scientifically – someone being raised from the dead is an impossibility? How would you reconcile that contradiction? How can you state that science overrules the Bible as to origins, but explain that the Bible overrules science when it comes to Christ? Moreover, upon examination that young person discovers that Jesus rising from the dead was God’s covenant with the Hebrew people to atone for the curse of sin and death that Adam brought into the world?

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:
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.

Rom 5:14 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.
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.

We see in scripture a direct correlation between Adam and Jesus. In fact, the scripture says that Jesus came to undo what had happened in Adam. As soon as you dismiss the literal truth of Genesis, you have begun down a logical progression to loosing your own salvation.

If Adam Genesis isn’t true, then Adam wasn’t a real person – and the fall never really happened. If death is not the result of a real person’s sin, then why would a real person have to die to save us from that sin? Did Jesus really have to die physically if Adam is just an allegorical story meant to present a spiritual lesion? If Jesus didn’t actually die and resurrect physically … … oops there you go, you’ve lost your salvation.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

If you don’t believe someone who is more intellectually honest than you (someone seeking truth) will go down that path take a look at Charles Templeton. You can read this article about it,, however his story was this:

On the contrary – you should wake up and realize that evolution is not some pure scientific endeavor devoid of biases and presuppositions. In fact, it is chalked FULL of it’s own set of presuppositions and axioms – the first and foremost of which is that the Bible isn’t true, and that everything on earth came about through natural causes. As I stated in the other thread – evolution is a priori committed to materialistic causes and conclusions. If you are a Christian, you would probably concede that there is more to life than the material realm – that there is also a spiritual realm. Evolution intentionally ignores the evidence which supports this realm and creation. If an evidence can be seen to give credence to any other possibility than a materialistic, natural, or “it happened without God’s interference, persuasion, or help” then it is investigated. If not, it is not only ignored, but it is rejected with prejudice.

That’s akin to a judge throwing out all other evidence in a trial except for the evidence that points to a specific suspect on the basis that it doesn’t point to that specific suspect. Then the judge proclaims “see I was right because an independent jury convicted that suspect”.

The Bible gives us clear descriptions of what really took place. Evolutionary science has chosen to ignore that. Just because a thing can be explained one way doesn’t mean it can’t be explained another way. For example, an evolutionist would see a few thousand layers of strata and assume that this was yearly strata. This might be justified based upon an observation of current rates of laying down strata. However, the observation of current rates does not provide an air-tight model for what has not been observed in the past. The scientists today make uniformitarian assumptions about the past based on what they observe in the present. However, in doing so, they also reject certain evidences based on their immaterial conclusions. Our geologist who sees thousands of layers and thinks thousands of years based on today’s observed rate is ignoring catastrophism. He isn’t taking into account that thousands of layers of strata can be laid down in just hours by things such as volcano eruptions (which has been observed). He has already rejected the idea of a global catastrophe capable of doing just that – Noah’s Flood.

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?

How can you believe the “spiritual things” of the Bible if you can’t believe what it says about the physical universe?

Thing is, you CAN believe what it says about the physical world, you just choose not to. And your faith need not be a blind faith. Creationism can provide sound, explanations to support Biblical truth (such as the findings of the RATE group, for example).

You mean like Darwin disregarded Biblical evidences when his daughter died and he decided that God must not exist? Of course it happens – it’s call compromise – and usually leads to humanism. Your point, however, was that a commitment to any idea besides evolution would be detrimental to science. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge regarding the difference between origins science and operational science. Evolution is not qualified as science because science is the realm of the repeatable and the observable. There is no known mechanism whereby life (and information) can arise without an intelligent source (or life containing) source. Life comes from life, information comes from information. Evolution – by it’s definition – was not observed because it was billions of years before the first man could have observed it and recorded that observation. Therefore evolution (like intelligent design) is a forensic science which can only approximate the likelihood of specific possibilities. However, as I already discussed, evolution intentionally ignores any evidence that has non-materialistic causes or conclusions. This makes evolution just as much faith as it is science. The Bible - however - is the authentic, authoritative word from the One witness who was there and actually performed it (and is the only observer of what really happened). It seems taking the word of a credible witness is a more scientific approach than having to make materialistic assumptions.

Hrm… so it’s possible to make advancements in science without any belief in evolution? That’s a remarkable admission – and one that should serve to demonstrate the difference between origin axioms and operational science.

As I demonstrated, a fundamentalist (Dr. Russell Humphries) is responsible for the advancement of science. Therefore it can be seen that science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, fundamentally adhering to creationism does not hurt science. Therefore, your definition to science must be incorrect.

See Who’s really pushing bad science

 

You are a brilliant debater, and I admonish your research abilities. However, like those whom you agree with, you choose to ignore Biblical truth. You trust in man, rather than God. You are a humanist who gives men higher authority than God. You would rather look wise in the eyes of men than honor and believe God.

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:

You walk after your own lusts UTE. You seek the praise and acceptence of man. You would do well to read 1 John:

1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

1Jo 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

You should also look at Phil:

Phl 2:16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.

It does you no good to come to this board and 'preach' against the Word of God.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
17 For [it is] better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

It is better that you trust God and His Word than worry about the criticism of ungodly men.

Pro 29:25 The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.

Pro 15:33 The fear of the LORD [is] the instruction of wisdom; and before honour [is] humility.

These verses all provide the answer for you, UTE. You should worry about what God says and what His Word says more than what man says, and their science which changes from day to day.

Your facts ignore the most important evidence with an a priori committment to materialism. You reject any evidence which gives immaterial causes or conclusions.

 

You fail to consider runaway subduction and other physics. Your energy outputs are based on constant outputs. Runaway subduction is much different, and does not produce a constant output of energy.

Consider: If you bend a piece of metal, energy is released at the bending point. Once the metal reaches a certain temperature (lower than the temperature to melt the metal) it bends much more easily. At that point, you only need to keep it moving and it moves easily with very little engery output -- just enough to keep it warm enough to bend easily. As you stop bending it, and it cools the metal hardens and it suddenly takes a higher exhertion of energy to bend it once again.

Actually - the quotes:
"The Bible is a little off"
"God didn't think it was important to tell us the truth in the Bible"

Those are quotes of statements you did actually say in past debates.

I agree -- the Bible does not come right out and say either of these directly. Neither does it oppose either of these ideas. Any interpretation regarding those two issues would be an eisegetical approach. However, an exegetical approach is entirely possible regarding the origin of the universe, the earth, and all life upon the earth. The Bible comes right out and says - specifically and in certain language that is easy to understand - exactly how and when the earth was created by God.

Which scriptures?
I am willing to let outside knowledge influence anything as long as that outside knowledge is not in contradiction to the plain reading of scripture. Remember - the Bible is the ultimate authority.

Unless you allow all the evidence to be considered, that is. For example, the Bible says:

1Cr 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]:
38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

Here - in the context of reproduction (seeds and sowing) the Bible clearly states that all flesh is not the same flesh. That rules out common ancestory. Moreover to think that we arose from monkeys is to disbelieve the plain meaning of Genesis 1 & 2.

Moreover, the establishment of the age of the universe is primarily based upon what the RATE group has now show are faulty assumptions. They have presented evidence that

A) it is possible to change the decay rates
B) billion fold acceleration of decay rates has been observed in the lab
C) several independent evidences show that the rate of decay has not been constant as uniformitarian thinking has always assumed

I don't see any mis-representation in my comments regarding these two comments.

 

If A=B and B=C then A=C. If you think that they wrote what they believed... and you think that what they believed was a little off, then you believe that what they wrote was a little off.

Is that wrong?

You believe that God did not think that "taking the time to tell us the truth" was important. Your inference is that God did not take the time to tell us the truth - therefore what God told us was not the truth. Again - A=B, B=C, & A=C. If you don't think God considered it important to "take the time to tell us the truth", your inference being that He DIDN'T take the time to tell us the truth, then why is wrong to infer the meaning that you don't think God felt it was important to tell us the truth?

You can reason yourself in circles all you want, but I think everyone here can see that my interpretation of what you said - while not verbatim - accurately portrays your meaning (whether you realize it or not).

You would have to define quantum chromodynamics as truth before that statement could be 'true'. I define the Bible as truth - the ultimate truth in fact. For you to say the Bible is a little off, or that God think it was important to tell us the truth differs in that truth is absolute, whereas quantum chromodynamics is not.

The RATE Team discovered:

1. Conventional radioisotope dating methods are inconsistent and therefore not reliable. In dating the same rock layer, radioisotope dating showed four different ages.
2. Substantial amounts of helium found in crystals within granite. If the earth evolved over billions of years, all the helium should have already escaped.
3. Radiohalos in rocks caused by the decay of uranium and polonium, which strongly suggests a rapid decay rate, not gradual decay over billions of years.
4. Diamonds thought to be millions/billions of years old by evolutionists contain significant levels of carbon-14. Since carbon-14 decays quickly, none should have been found in the diamonds if the evolutionary age is correct

This seriously challenges uniformitarian assumptions.

 

Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

The Apostle Paul knew that creation evangelism was a powerful tool for preaching to those who know nothing of Jesus or the Jewish traditions. Here, we see that all men are of "one blood" (Adam). Therefore, there are no races except for one - Adam's decendants. If you think about it logically, this must be the case. Otherwise, there would be cause for some ethnic groups to be excluded from salvation. Jesus came to save man from the curse. The curse is upon Adam's decendants. If you are not adam's decendant, then you cannot be saved by Jesus' sacrifice.

Jhn 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.

Jesus came to save all men, therefore all men must be decendants of one man, Adam.

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:

Death passed upon all men when Adam sinned.

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.

Racial and ethnic descrimination is an invention of man. Certainly darwinism has contributed greatly to that terrible idea (the Bronx Zoo, for example, putting pygmy named Ota Benga in a zoo display in 1904). However, when we understand the issue properly from the perspective of scripture, we see that all are the same race - all are in Adam, and we can be joined together in Christ.

Then we can see the anthropological role the event of the Tower of Babel had on people groups in the formation of ethnic groups due to isolated breeding.

 

Neanderthals are human beings decended from Adam:

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

There is only one kind of flesh of men. Man and beast do not share common ancestory, they are separate creations. To think that neanderthals were not human beings is no different than saying Pygmies are not human beings... or Asians are not human beings. It's like saying "all people with big earlobes are not human beings". It's a rediculous notion which stems from darwinian conjecture and worldview.

 

Oh. I am sorry. I wasn't aware that direct observation of Neanderthals had been done. Can you give me the case studies of - oh - say 100 neanderthals and how they scored on IQ tests?

Unless this is more unobserved assumptions based on forensic, unprovable religous evolutionary dogma. In which case I would remind you that science is the realm of observation. To have observational data, you must have a witness, or a written record from a first hand witness. Moreover, you have to verify that the witness was is reliable. The Bible is God's Word. It is authoritative and reliable. Adhering to it's historical record is more scientific than evolutionary presuppositions - which by definition - were unobserved and unrecorded. Moreover, it's forensic process is biased in that causes and conclusions must both be material in order to be admissable as evidence.

As we are both Christans, I think we would both agree that there is more to the universe than just the Material realm -- therefore the approach of evolution to exclude immaterial causes and conclusions is inadequate to explain the world around us.

Neanderthals were certainly human -- as the Bible (the only reliable written record of the period) describes only one race of man - those who are decendants of Adam.