Go Back   The Landover Baptist Church Forum > Church Forums > Creation Science
Reload this Page Dating in conflict
Creation Science The origins of life and the earth from a creationist (Biblical) perspective.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
(#1)
Old
Brimstone
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dating in conflict - 06-23-2007, 04:34 PM

In 1984, I was on a geological excursion in Mägenwil (Switzerland). I collected some sandstone samples with fossilized mussels in it. This rock is classified as belonging to the Upper Tertiary geological system. Evolutionary belief therefore maintains that this rock is around 20 million years old.

In the same rock, right alongside the fossil mussels, are fragments of coalified wood.

Some time after I took my samples, I discovered the same sandstone, appropriately described as coming from Mägenwil, exhibited in the ‘Geologisch-Mineralogische Austellung der ETH’ in Zürich—naturally, also labelled ‘20 million years old’.

That means the wood must also be at least that old. Mainstream geologists would never think of trying to get a radiocarbon (14C) date for the coalified wood in this Mägenwil sandstone, because anything that old should not be datable by this method.

This is because radiocarbon decays very rapidly compared to other radioactive elements such as uranium. So after, say, a theoretical 100,000 years at the most the amount of radiocarbon left in the wood would not be detectable anymore.

So anything which really was millions of years old would have no detectable radiocarbon left, and would register as giving an ‘infinite radiocarbon age’. Carbon dating, as it is often called, is thus never used to date ‘old’ fossils (which usually have no organic carbon left anyway).

However, I felt this wood probably would give a radiocarbon ‘date’, because I was convinced that this sandstone was the result of residual post-Flood catastrophism, just a few thousand years ago.

Such dating wouldn’t show the wood’s true age, since creationists have long shown that the huge imbalance of carbon in the world due to the global Flood catastrophe would give artificially old radiocarbon dates, especially those from the early post-Flood era.1

However, if it registered any age at all on the radiocarbon test (and all sources of potential contamination had been eliminated), it would mean that it could not possibly be millions of years old.

So I arranged for this coalified wood to be radiocarbon ‘dated’ by the Physikalisches Institute of the University of Bern, Switzerland.2 I assumed that such a prestigious laboratory would take all necessary precautions to eliminate contamination, and allow for all other sources of error.3

The result: 36,440 years BP ± 330 years. This discovery, that the 14C in the wood has not yet had time to disintegrate totally, is in line with what one would expect, based on the true history of the world given in the Bible by the One who made all, and Who alone is infinite in knowledge, wisdom and power. The real age is probably less than four thousand years.

It seems that long-age believers are left with only three options:

1.

Accept the radiocarbon date. This would mean that the age of the Upper Tertiary shrinks from 20 million to 36,000 years, a factor of around 500 times. The whole geologic dating system would be thrown into disrepute.
2.

Arbitrarily reject the radiocarbon date. To be consistent, therefore, they would have to conclude that radiometric dates are not the absolute age indicators we are persistently told, which destroys the main plank in the old-age dogma to begin with.
3.

Ignore the result, and hope not too many get to know about it.

There are many today, even within evangelical churches, who deny the Bible’s record of a recent creation. Because of this belief, they therefore insist that the fossils are not related to a global Flood (which they also deny), but are millions of years old. Since fossils show death, suffering, bloodshed and disease, that means that in their view, all these ‘bad things’ must have been there long before Adam’s bringing sin into the world (Romans 5:12), with the resultant Curse on creation (Romans 8:20–22). Sadly, such deadly compromise is often the result of a completely misplaced faith in the ‘absolute’ ages given by radiometric methods.
References and notes

1. See video by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., Radiocarbon, Creation, and the Genesis Flood. An ‘infinite’ radiocarbon age, though consistent with an age of millions of years, would not be proof of it, of course; it could merely indicate that there was a very low initial ratio of 14C to 12C (radiocarbon to ‘normal’ carbon) in the pre-Flood atmosphere, for which there are several readily postulated mechanisms.
2. Copy of official report on file with Creation magazine.
3. Note from the editor: Although it is never possible to be absolutely certain that contamination and sources of error have been eliminated, a laboratory’s reputation depends on delivering ‘good’ results. At the time this test was done (1985), the head of this laboratory was on the Board of Editors of the international journal Radiocarbon. Also, the author of the article rang the laboratory in October 1996. The laboratory confirmed that the determination (done in the traditional way, not by the newer AMS method) had included everything possible to eliminate contamination, which included doing what is known as a d13CPDB correction. This is a critical test in regard to the possibility that the wood may have been contaminated by more recent microbes while in the ground or later.

Hansruedi Stutz, is a retired Electronics Engineer. During his professional career he developed industrial electronics for textile machinery. He now works as a freelance creationist writer and speaker. Return to text.
Received Infraction
Reply With Quote
(#2)
Old
Shallow-izer's Avatar
Shallow-izer (On Moderation) Shallow-izer is offline
Foul Sinner on Moderation
 
Posts: 213
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Shallow-izer is under investigation -- suspected to be Unsaved Trash.
Default Re: Dating in conflict - 06-23-2007, 05:30 PM

Radio Carbon dating doesn't work for anything over 60,000 years. Therefore, we use other dating techniques.

This includes Radio Phospherous dating.

For the oldest of samples, we use Uranium-Lead Radiometric dating, with a routine age range of about 1 million years to over 4.5 billion years, and with routine precisions in the 0.1- 1 percent range..

To find out more about UL Dating, click here.
Reply With Quote
(#3)
Old
Brimstone
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default An update on the amazing T. rex bone discovery announced a year a - 06-23-2007, 05:33 PM

Last year at about this time, it was disclosed that scientists had made an amazing discovery of a Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone that still retained well-preserved soft tissue (which included blood vessels and cells). For evolutionists who argue that dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago, it was a startling discovery. AiG–USA’s Dr. David Menton (who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University) wrote at the time that it “certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.”1
At the annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, late last month (and which was attended by Dr. Menton), the North Carolina State University paleontologist who had announced the find last year, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, elaborated on the discovery that continues to shock the paleontological community. Evolutionists like her have been scrambling for 12 months to explain away this powerful evidence that dinosaurs have been around in relatively recent times. (For additional evidence of dinosaurs living in the past several centuries, go to Are dinosaurs alive today?) National Geographic, regarding these findings and reporting on Dr. Schweitzer’s comments at the AAAS meeting, reported how scientists are trying “to make sense of the surprising discovery, [and that] scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works. … Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.”2
Schweitzer also said at the AAAS conference that “we propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought.”3 So steadfast is she in her long-age belief, Dr. Schweitzer will not even consider a re-think of her view that dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago. So she continues a search for an explanation of how soft tissue could have survived so well preserved for a long time.
What did the researchers find?

A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a “68-million-year-old” T. rex uncovered in Montana.
As summarized by Dr. Menton last year4:
The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of “estuarine” origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationists—see “Genesis and catastrophe”).
Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery).
In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.
When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside. …
The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution.
To see the startling photos of the dinosaur tissue and to read more about this find, go to Still soft and stretchy.
Schweitzer, reports National Geographic, said that she will be continuing to study possible ways to explain this phenomenon, which was previously thought to be impossible. To illustrate the challenge being faced (although she claims to be on one possible track5), she showed two photographs and stated: “One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?”
Her inferred answer was no.
Will evolutionists now be convinced to think about rewriting dinosaur history?
As AiG wrote in a news release 12 months ago about this find (in a release which was distributed nationwide to the secular media):
The tissue/blood vessels are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most. (I.e., by the global Flood of Noah’s time, about 4,300 years ago.)
The deeply entrenched idea of long ages is so dominant in most of the scientific establishments that facts will not undermine the evolution belief system. … Philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have pointed out what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm: the paradigm is not discarded but modified.
Years ago when a startled Dr. Schweitzer found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. rex bone, she said, “it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” Her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm.
Almost certainly this astonishing discovery will become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years … and “stretching” beyond belief the idea that the evolutionary timetable concerning dinosaurs can be true.
Regardless of how the evolutionist community finally decides what to do with this fossil conundrum, the creationists now possess immensely powerful evidence against the well-publicized belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and instead have tremendous support for the biblical timeline of a recent creation.
Reply With Quote
(#4)
Old
Brimstone
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Dating in conflict - 06-23-2007, 05:36 PM

D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shallow-izer View Post
Radio Carbon dating doesn't work for anything over 60,000 years. Therefore, we use other dating techniques.

This includes Radio Phospherous dating.

For the oldest of samples, we use Uranium-Lead Radiometric dating, with a routine age range of about 1 million years to over 4.5 billion years, and with routine precisions in the 0.1- 1 percent range..

To find out more about UL Dating, click here.
Do you really believe that you came from an ape? I know I didn't. I am made in God's image, like all white men!
Reply With Quote
(#5)
Old
Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S.'s Avatar
Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. is offline
Scientific Advisor
True Christian™

1st Year Bible College 2nd Year Bible College 3rd Year Bible College 4th Year Bible College Publisher's Choice True Christian™ Saved 1 Year Silver Tither True Heterosexual™ Ex-Gay True Scientist™ Heaven Bound Protected by JESUS Ex-Masturbator Super Soaker Baptism Award Ready for the Rapture True Christian Caucasian Friend of Jesus Tell her once True Republican Batman Shooting Survivor Loves a GODLY Chic-Fil-A Flat Earth Guns, Guts and GLORY! Prayer Warrior Trump of GOD True Christian Provider™ award Babysitter Stamp of Approval Alternative Facts Pastor Ezekiel Christian Love True Scientist™ Saved 10 Years

 
Posts: 2,369
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Landover Baptist University for the Saved, Corridor 17C
Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!
Default Re: Dating in conflict - 06-23-2007, 06:51 PM

As a scientist I know for a fact that all "dating" is wrong, whether it be radio-dating or sexual dating. It is a well-known fact that all dating is arbitrary, based on lies. Sure, I can look at a rock and say "hmm, I think this is 5 bajillion years old", but does that make it true? NO! I have observed scientists sitting around with a 30 year old bottle of scotch throwing numbers around and settling on one that seemed "nice" to them. It is based on nothing more than pure conjecture. If you want to truly "date" some object, I suggest you refer to the Lord God's Word.


Trump 2020: "For Real This Time"
Reply With Quote
(#6)
Old
Shallow-izer's Avatar
Shallow-izer (On Moderation) Shallow-izer is offline
Foul Sinner on Moderation
 
Posts: 213
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Shallow-izer is under investigation -- suspected to be Unsaved Trash.
Default Re: Dating in conflict - 06-23-2007, 06:54 PM

The soft tissue was found when they were forced to break the thigh bone in order to fit in into a transport helicopter. The then found the soft tissue WITHIN the bone.

What does this mean?

That the inside of the bone was a vacume, and helped to preserve it.

Buy, wait, what did they find out about the tissue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Science Buzz
"She used antibodies to a type of collagen extracted from chickens. The fact that the antibodies stuck suggested that T. rex collagen is similar to that of birds. And when she compared the preserved soft tissue to that of modern animals, the closest match was an emu—a flightless bird."

"Researchers have concluded that the collagen protein extracted from the bones of a 68-million year old Tyrannosaurus rex is very similar to that found in a present day chicken. The analysis supports the theory that birds are the closest living descendents of the ferocious prehistoric predators. Two years ago paleontologist Mary Schweitzer and colleagues at North Carolina State University announced they had discovered soft tissue inside the femur of a Tyrannosaurus that had to be broken in pieces for transport. The vessels and cells discovered inside the bone were so elastic they could still be stretched like rubber bands. Initial studies of the material revealed it to be surprisingly similar to that found in an ostrich. Read Gene’s posting of the story here, and you can examine some of the photos that Bryan posted here.
But now more detailed spectroscopic analysis of the collagen’s amino acids show that they match sequences found in the genomes of modern species. John M. Asara, of the Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center in Boston did the spectroscopic analysis using amino acid sequences from seven short fragments of collagen. One sequence matched that of a frog, one matched a newt, but three of the sequences matched those of a chicken. Until now skeletal similarities had been mainly used to link to the two species.
“This allows you to get the chance to say, ‘Wait, they really are related because their sequences are related,’” Asara said. “We didn’t get enough sequences to definitely say that, but what sequences we did get support that idea.”
The new results appear this week in the journal Science."

Source
The scientists have yet MORE proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

As per if I believe if I evolved from an ape, I do.

To me, it's more comforting to know that I'm not made of dust and some "God" decided to blow life into me.

As for the white people thing. Do some research.

Ask an anthropologist where white people come from. They'll tell you that people from africa migrated north to europe, and over thousands of years adapted to the conditions there. Particularly, the lower amount of sunlight.

This lower sunlight eventually caused the groups of people to lose the pigment in their hair and skin. Causing what is termed caucasion skin that we see today, and blonde hair.

Blue and green eyes can also be atributed to this.
Reply With Quote
(#7)
Old
Andrew Shaw's Avatar
Andrew Shaw Andrew Shaw is offline
Forum Member
Forum Member
 
Posts: 226
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UHM earth.
Andrew Shaw is under investigation -- suspected to be Unsaved Trash.
Default Re: Dating in conflict - 06-23-2007, 06:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S. View Post
As a scientist I know for a fact that all "dating" is wrong, whether it be radio-dating or sexual dating. It is a well-known fact that all dating is arbitrary, based on lies. Sure, I can look at a rock and say "hmm, I think this is 5 bajillion years old", but does that make it true? NO! I have observed scientists sitting around with a 30 year old bottle of scotch throwing numbers around and settling on one that seemed "nice" to them. It is based on nothing more than pure conjecture. If you want to truly "date" some object, I suggest you refer to the Lord God's Word.

As a scientist you should know that isent how its done. its a tested and mathematically and scientifically proven thing..thats we know how old ancient civilizations are...


Is adult entertainment killing our kids, Or are adults killing our kids for entertainment?
Reply With Quote
(#8)
Old
Brimstone
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Eyes Have It - Creation Is Reality - 06-23-2007, 08:57 PM

Charles Darwin expressed confidence that natural selection could explain the development of the eye; but how does this confidence stand up in the light of reason? Today, we are in curious intellectual situation of allowing only naturalistic explanations into public schools. This is done in spite of the fact that the alternative (creation or intelligent design) more adequately explains the observation. It would take a miraculous number of design changes to transform a light sensitive patch into an eyeball. Furthermore, each change would have to be coded onto the DNA of the "new" creature in order for the change to pass to the next generation. It has never been explained how this could have happened. Each new feature would need to be independently useful or natural selection would not have allowed the new creature to live.

  • An eyeball with no retina would be a tumor, not an improvement to be passed on to the next generation.
  • An eyeball without a focusing lens would be worthless except as a light detector.
  • An eyeball without a functioning optic nerve to carry the signal to the brain would be worthless.
  • An eyeball without the perfect balance of fluid pressure would explode or implode.
  • An eyeball without a brain designed to interpret the signals would be sightless.
It is beyond credibility that chance mutations could produce any of these changes, let alone all of them at once. In Darwin's time the complex design of the eyeball was forceful evidence in favor of creation. Our more advanced knowledge of the intricate design of the eyes provide even stronger evidence for creation.
For instance, as we travel down the "evolutionary ladder" to examine those creatures which were supposedly among the earliest life forms on the planet, would it not be logical to expect their eyes to be less complex? Contrary to this expectation, among the lowest rock layers are found multi-cellular creatures called trilobites which have an extremely sophisticated optical system. Some trilobites had a compound eye placed in such a way as to allow 360o vision.
Compound eyes are ideally suited for detecting minute motions and some trilobites eyes were specially designed to correct for spherical aberration allowing a clear image from each facet. Even more impressive, each lens allowed for undistorted underwater imaging depth perception. Thus, one of the "earliest" in vertebrate creatures had clear underwater vision through eyes which could detect both depth and imperceptibility small motions in all directions simultaneously. Yet this creature was not at the end of the supposed evolutionary line but near the beginning! Yet no direct ancestor to this incredible complex creature (or its eye) has been found.
The complexity of eyes still argue for the reality of instantaneous formation by an incredibly intelligent designer. There is neither a fossil record showing that the eye evolved nor any testable observations explain how it could possible happen. With these facts in mind, why do we allow textbook selection which leaves out both the problems with evolution and the evidence for intelligent design? This is indoctrination, not education.
Reply With Quote
(#9)
Old
Shallow-izer's Avatar
Shallow-izer (On Moderation) Shallow-izer is offline
Foul Sinner on Moderation
 
Posts: 213
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Shallow-izer is under investigation -- suspected to be Unsaved Trash.
Default Re: The Eyes Have It - Creation Is Reality - 06-23-2007, 09:05 PM

I shall now h4x your arguement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone View Post
Charles Darwin expressed confidence that natural selection could explain the development of the eye; but how does this confidence stand up in the light of reason? Today, we are in curious intellectual situation of allowing only naturalistic explanations into public schools. This is done in spite of the fact that the alternative (creation or intelligent design) more adequately explains the observation. It would take a miraculous number of design changes to transform a light sensitive patch into an eyeball. Furthermore, each change would have to be coded onto the DNA of the "new" creature in order for the change to pass to the next generation. It has never been explained how this could have happened. Each new feature would need to be independently useful or natural selection would not have allowed the new creature to live.
  • An eyeball with no retina would be a tumor, not an improvement to be passed on to the next generation.
  • An eyeball without a focusing lens would be worthless except as a light detector.
  • An eyeball without a functioning optic nerve to carry the signal to the brain would be worthless.
  • An eyeball without the perfect balance of fluid pressure would explode or implode.
  • An eyeball without a brain designed to interpret the signals would be sightless.
It is beyond credibility that chance mutations could produce any of these changes, let alone all of them at once. In Darwin's time the complex design of the eyeball was forceful evidence in favor of creation. Our more advanced knowledge of the intricate design of the eyes provide even stronger evidence for creation.
For instance, as we travel down the "evolutionary ladder" to examine those creatures which were supposedly among the earliest life forms on the planet, would it not be logical to expect their eyes to be less complex? Contrary to this expectation, among the lowest rock layers are found multi-cellular creatures called trilobites which have an extremely sophisticated optical system. Some trilobites had a compound eye placed in such a way as to allow 360o vision.
Compound eyes are ideally suited for detecting minute motions and some trilobites eyes were specially designed to correct for spherical aberration allowing a clear image from each facet. Even more impressive, each lens allowed for undistorted underwater imaging depth perception. Thus, one of the "earliest" in vertebrate creatures had clear underwater vision through eyes which could detect both depth and imperceptibility small motions in all directions simultaneously. Yet this creature was not at the end of the supposed evolutionary line but near the beginning! Yet no direct ancestor to this incredible complex creature (or its eye) has been found.
The complexity of eyes still argue for the reality of instantaneous formation by an incredibly intelligent designer. There is neither a fossil record showing that the eye evolved nor any testable observations explain how it could possible happen. With these facts in mind, why do we allow textbook selection which leaves out both the problems with evolution and the evidence for intelligent design? This is indoctrination, not education.

My Rebuttle?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PBS: Library: Evolution of the eye
When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Source
Also, a some handy little diagrams.




And here's a site you can read in order to help get over your delusion.

Click here.
Reply With Quote
(#10)
Old
Brimstone
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Physics Show That Six Day Creation is Possible - 06-23-2007, 09:35 PM

Exodus 20:11 makes one of the most unbelievable statements of the Bible: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." It is hard to imagine a clearer statement defining how long God took in creating the entire universe. However, this simple statement has presented a seemingly impossible dilemma for Christians. On one hand, modern cosmology teaches that the universe has taken billions of years to form. On the other hand, if this clear and straightforward statement of the Bible can not be trusted to mean what it says, how can we know that any statement of the Bible can be trusted to mean what it says?

This was the dilemma which Dr. Russell Humphreys (physicist at Sandia National Laboratory) set out to solve as he studied what the Bible had to say about the formation of our universe. Most people have been taught that the universe is the result of a gigantic explosion called the "Big Bang". During this explosive expansion, all the matter of the universe supposedly expanded outward from a tiny pinpoint. All modern cosmological models start with the assumption that the universe has neither a center nor an edge. When these assumptions are plugged into Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the result is an expanding universe which is billions of years old at every location.
Rather than start with these arbitrary assumptions (a universe having no center and no edge), Dr. Humphreys decided to take the most apparent meaning of the Biblical text and see what model of the universe developed. He reasoned that if the Bible was inspired by God, as it claims to be, it should not have to be twisted to be understood. It should have the same straight forward meaning for a "man on the street", a brilliant physicist, or a theologian.
The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe. First, the earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the earth may also be located near the center-perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction. Second, the universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out". Third, the universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center. If these three assumptions are plugged into the currently accepted formulas of physics, and the mathematical crank is turned, we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location.
Furthermore, the time dilation effect would be magnified tremendously as the universe was originally expanding. As the universe expanded, there was a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer edge and essentially stopped near the center. At this point in the expansion of the universe, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones. Albert Einstein rejected the idea that the Bible could be literally true. He wrote that, "Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the convictions that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true." How ironic that the most ridiculed Biblical story (about a recent, literal, six day creation of the universe) is exactly the story which Albert Einstein’s work has shown to be entirely possible. A comprehensive explanation of Dr. Humphreys work, can be found in his book.
Reply With Quote
(#11)
Old
Shallow-izer's Avatar
Shallow-izer (On Moderation) Shallow-izer is offline
Foul Sinner on Moderation
 
Posts: 213
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Shallow-izer is under investigation -- suspected to be Unsaved Trash.
Default Re: Physics Show That Six Day Creation is Possible - 06-23-2007, 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone View Post
Exodus 20:11 makes one of the most unbelievable statements of the Bible: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." It is hard to imagine a clearer statement defining how long God took in creating the entire universe. However, this simple statement has presented a seemingly impossible dilemma for Christians. On one hand, modern cosmology teaches that the universe has taken billions of years to form. On the other hand, if this clear and straightforward statement of the Bible can not be trusted to mean what it says, how can we know that any statement of the Bible can be trusted to mean what it says?

Simple answer to a simple question, it's wrong, and most of the Bible is wrong. The Bible is meant to be taken as a metaphor. It's supposed to teach people how to treat each other with respect. Not to judge. And to treat others how you wish to be treated.

This was the dilemma which Dr. Russell Humphreys (physicist at Sandia National Laboratory) set out to solve as he studied what the Bible had to say about the formation of our universe. Most people have been taught that the universe is the result of a gigantic explosion called the "Big Bang". During this explosive expansion, all the matter of the universe supposedly expanded outward from a tiny pinpoint. All modern cosmological models start with the assumption that the universe has neither a center nor an edge. When these assumptions are plugged into Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the result is an expanding universe which is billions of years old at every location.
Rather than start with these arbitrary assumptions (a universe having no center and no edge), Dr. Humphreys decided to take the most apparent meaning of the Biblical text and see what model of the universe developed. He reasoned that if the Bible was inspired by God, as it claims to be, it should not have to be twisted to be understood. It should have the same straight forward meaning for a "man on the street", a brilliant physicist, or a theologian.
The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe. First, the earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the earth may also be located near the center-perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction. Second, the universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out". Third, the universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center. If these three assumptions are plugged into the currently accepted formulas of physics, and the mathematical crank is turned, we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location.
Furthermore, the time dilation effect would be magnified tremendously as the universe was originally expanding. As the universe expanded, there was a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer edge and essentially stopped near the center. At this point in the expansion of the universe, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones. Albert Einstein rejected the idea that the Bible could be literally true. He wrote that, "Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the convictions that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true." How ironic that the most ridiculed Biblical story (about a recent, literal, six day creation of the universe) is exactly the story which Albert Einstein’s work has shown to be entirely possible. A comprehensive explanation of Dr. Humphreys work, can be found in his book.
Age of the Universe, as calculated in 3 different processes.

God created the Heavens AND the Earth, on the same day.

Therefore, the age of the Earth must match the age of the Sun.

Creationists believe that the Earth is a max of 10,000 years old.

The Sun, on the other hand is thought to be about 4.57 billion years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle)

Therefore, the model that the Heavens match the Earth in age, is flawled.

Conclusion?

The heavens predate the Earth.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Find Additional Forums Here



Powered by Jesus - vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Content Landover Baptist Forums © 1620, 2022 all rights reserved