ba2, I feel I should tell you one more thing, most importantly, although I expect further ridicule. Since it is about the issue of your salvation, you would be wise to seriously consider it and not just allegorize it away with disdain, as you have other truths.
A 'saving' relationship with Christ is not about rules or works (Christ did all that!), so it is not about believing a verse like John 3:16 and then believing or doing more things to qualify for salvation. It is about becoming a new, living creation in Christ, by grace through faith. There is a quality and depth to the relationship, however, and it is not merely shallow, intellectual assent, e.g. "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble" (James 2:19).
“Salvation” doesn’t at all mean what is commonly thought or taught today! According to the Bible, salvation is much more than the result of a shallow or superficial profession of faith as an isolated experience, but has a special, sincere, and deeper quality to it. Genuine salvation accompanies those who by faith believe in the genuine Christ, humble themselves before their Creator and repent from the heart. God does not want to add Himself on to our self-centered, corrupt human nature, but wants our old nature to die so He can replace it with a new, pure and eternal one. When people are regenerated by the Holy Spirit who lives in them, they produce spiritual fruit such as God’s unselfish love, wisdom, and more, and these people overcome to the very end. The only way one can be made acceptable to God is by depending solely on the finished work of Christ, but this kind of faith produces results.
People such as Lot’s wife, Balaam, Saul, Judas and Demas knew the real God, but there was a serious problem. As multitudes of Israelites who left Egypt under Moses but turned back and were destroyed, and many like them who are counted as Christians today, many want to be ‘saved’ simply to be on the winning side and avoid the horrors of hell, but have no true love for God or desire to follow Him. They look and sound like the elect, talking about love, but their love is really of this present world, experienced as the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (I John 2:16). At heart, they want to experience the temporal pleasures of sin but yet receive eternal joy from God.
However, Christ said one cannot love both God and mammon, and that if we will love one we must hate the other (Matt. 6:24, Luke 16:13), so if we think we can love both we are damnably deceived. If Christ Jesus is the one we truly love, we naturally want to please Him by keeping His commandments (John 14:15), and this is the evidence we truly love Him (John 14:21). Anyone who loves the world does not have the love of God in him (I John 2:15), and those who say they know Him but do not obey His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him (I John 2:4).
In ‘The Parable of the Sower’, those who hear the word of the kingdom and do not understand it do not show any sign of life, the enemy having seized the good seed. Others receive the word joyfully and the plants live and grow. However, some of these are not "good ground", in that some men turn away as a result of persecution, or because the love of this world is stronger in them. One may have a shallow experience with God, but love their lives in this world more than Him and be lost. Although all the seed was good seed (the sower is the Son of Man), only the seed that bore fruit did not die (Matt. 13:3-23).
The nature of a tree may be known by it's spiritual fruit. However, many who call Jesus Lord, do what appear to be good works, preach using Jesus' name, and even claim to cast out demons using His name have never known Him, and will be rejected by Him as evildoers. Intellectual assent and even faith, which does not produce genuine godly results, is dead (I John 2:3-11, 3:6-11, Titus 1:16, Matt. 7:13-27, James 2:14-26, I Cor. 3:6-8, Rev. 22:12, 14-15).
Don't kid yourself. Those who humbly love God will reign with Him in glory, but those who love this present evil world will share in its doom, and you can’t have it both ways. If we think we are ‘saved’ but at the deepest level, love this present world, we are deluded, on our way to an eternal Hell, and must turn to God from the heart while we still can.
I say this only to lovingly warn you for your own good, and with no joy, but from your comments, I honestly wouldn't be banking on salvation in my present state.
Announcement Announcement Module
No announcement yet.
Christianity is a joke Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Since you added that last page, I will further explain.
Everyone is here at factnet for a reason. I came to learn more about the psyche of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalism has directly affected me personally, which is why my frustration sometimes is exhibited in my posts. They have taken the love of my life and turned her into a mean spirited judgmental religious freak. Although it affects me directly, her overly judgmental attitude is not towards me, thank goodness, but she has alienated everyone else. Her children, my children, relatives and friends. Slowly, I am getting her back to reality, but it won’t happen in my lifetime.
I have always been interested in the religious beliefs of others, and in almost every case, I am able to discuss differences with them. No one has ever caused me to seriously question my faith, not Catholics, Jews, mainline Protestants or even atheists. The exception is the fundamentalist, who won’t listen to any other possible viewpoint. If you don’t see it their way, you simply haven’t read enough scripture or are not saved. So I have studied much more and now see the inconsistency and the paradox. In my house, I see anger in my wife when the history channel comes on, we can’t even look at geological evidence or alternative explanations about scripture.
Put a tough challenging question to most people, and they generally acknowledge that those are interesting thoughts that need further study. Not so with a fundamentalist, they either change the subject, answer by repeating scripture, question your salvation, or maybe just ignore you altogether. I constantly see it at my fundamental Baptist church, and I see it here at factnet. This is my experience, and I have been around more than a few years.
I do apologize for jumping to conclusions in regard to some of the things I inferred. But my experience is that the fundamental Baptists are probably the most judgmental people I have ever met. And in actuality, they have the most work based faith of all. Their works are the rules they create but they generally don’t help the needy or the disenfranchised. When they occasionally help the needy, it has to either be for a fellow church member or help with strings attached. They will send a group out to help the hurricane victims but, there has to be proselytizing with the handout. I went to a mission to help feed the homeless. They were not allowed to take the food unless they first listened to a sermon. This is sad.
It actually took a Rabbi to explain to me that my salvation was not dependent on my beliefs regarding the age of the earth and the flood. What was important was the concept that God created the universe and the life within it. If the detail concerning how or when he did it was critical, much more than a few sentences would have been said.
ba2, apology accepted. I am not in the camp you thought, and never try to impose ritualistic legalism upon anyone. As I said before, God hates 'religion'. It is a living, love relationship based on being a new creation in Christ, and if we don't have that we don't have anything.
According to the Bible, there are no multiple types of Christians of different classifications, e.g. fundamentalists or otherwise. The Bible strongly dissuades genuine believers to be divided into sects, and states this as the result of the flesh, not the Spirit. Genuine Christians should be content to simply be called ‘Christians’. This reveals the danger of lableing and marginalizing Christians and grouping them in camps. However, if 'fundamentalist' were only to mean belief in precise word for word truth of the Scriptures in the original languages, then Christ Jesus, our Lord, would be included, along with all Apostles and Prophets.
Issues such as the age of the earth and extent of the Flood are not so important in themselves, but the integrity of the Bible is extremely important. The latter is my primary concern, because if the Scriptures are not dependable in one area (e.g. the Flood) they are not dependable in any, because of the tightly interwoven structure of the Bible and personal testimonies of Christ, Prophets and Apostles. I fully realize you can choose to ignore it, but will you not see the logic in what I'm saying?
By the way, ICR staff are also 'real' scientists of the highest caliber, so your characterization of them as untrained and silly is invalid. They have taught at leading universities and been key research scientists at major institutions:
As just one example, D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project, is extensively published in mainstream journals, and he examined the Bible text in uncompromising detail. I’m sure he (as well as I) would like to know if you find any actual errors in his extensive text or formulas in his intriguing book Starlight and Time:
After almost ten years of spurious attacks from evolutionists, there have been no errors found yet in his science, although of course evolutionists object to his theology.
The Genesis account, especially if one understands nuances of the Hebrew, is perfectly consistent with the latest science. Christians can have full confidence in the Scriptures from beginning to end. Unfortunately because of evolutionary bias they have been taught, most people such as yourself dismiss it without understanding.Last edited by searchlight86; 08-07-2008, 02:33 AM.
ba2, since reconciliation of Bible vs. Egyptian chronology like seems like a major stumblingblock to you, and despite the fact you indicated I avoid issues like all 'fundamentalists', please see the following link:
Skeptics often criticize the Bible because its chronology disagrees with the standard chronology of ancient Egypt. However, this argument assumes that Egyptian, rather than Hebrew chronology, is correct. One might just as easily argue that Egyptian chronology is wrong, because it disagrees with the Hebrew.
In fact, there is no original "Egyptian chronology." Egyptian historical accounts record lengths of the reigns of kings and dynasties, but do not tell when these kings and dynasties ruled in relation to each other. The Standard Egyptian Chronology was developed in the early 20th century, based on the assumption that no two Egyptian dynasties ruled simultaneously, (which is demonstrably false), and a series of inferences and calculations based on the so-called Sothic cycle, (an assumption without any substantive evidence to support it).
In contrast to this questionable Egyptian chronology invented in the 20th century and based on false assumptions and hypothetical calendars, the Biblical chronology records not only the birth and death of many of the patriarchs, but also reports their lives in relation to each other, and, in some cases, gives the month, day, and year when important events occurred.
It depends who you think is more credible. Considering all aspects of the Bible text, that archeology has confirmed the accuracy of over and over with names, places, and people (the best kind of historical confirmation), I will continue to place my confidence in its implied chronology rather than the shifting sands of human opinion on this topic.
Originally posted by ba2If two of every species was on the ark, what did all these animals eat? Food kept on the arc for all animals for an entire year. Ok, assume it was possible, what about when they left the arc? The lions and tigers and bears, etc would have destroyed the entire population in a few weeks. Then they would have all starved. The flood story makes no logical sense at all.
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...22/i2/lion.asp, for a modern-day example of a lion that won't eat meat! The scenario of people and animals able to repopulate the Earth is not impossible at all, and could happen in a relatively short amount of time.
Guilt ridden critics confess.
What do you know. It never ceases to amaze me how foolish people remain foolish.
When embarking on a path of revenge (vengeance) toward GOD, one must did 2 graves.
Much of what is being said in this forum, are from people who are emotionally traumatised by passed events. Why not blame anyone else except GOD for the distresses in your life.
Seeing that critics are much wiser than GOD himself, why not reinvent the earth.
It's amazing how no one can positively respond to Jeff Franklin.
It's because the truth hurts.
I will start out by stating that you are very well prepared to provide evidence for those who have already made up their mind and won’t consider other viewpoints, or the very gullible, or maybe those who won’t follow-up and check out the facts. I started reading with great interest, but …
Lets start with your friend, D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. His training and experience is in nuclear physics and fusion energy. After retiring, he became a staff scientist at the Institute for Creation Research. He should have stayed in his field of expertise. You suggested that none of his peers have refuted his work. You said he might want to know about any mistake he has made. Actually, I couldn’t find a mainstream scientist that took his current work seriously. In fact, he received the NMSR's 1999 "STASIS" Award for being the worst scientist of the year. They pointed out the flaws in his research. This is from his peers in his home state of New Mexico.
searchlight part 2
Lets talk about a lion that doesn’t eat meat. This was really a story written for children. Yes, it happened, but the authors don’t tell the whole story.
The lion was rescued from a stressed out lioness, who was caught in the wild in the early 1900’s and put into a zoo, where she develops a maddening habit of killing her own young out of insanity and stress due to her confinement in a cage. The claim is true, but what isn’t said is that this traumatized lion was born with a rare severe case of meat and blood allergen deficiency. The lion suffered so many health problems that she died after living less than one-third of what would be expected. For personal gain these people used the story as a case for vegetarianism and support for the young earth story. Talk about animal cruelty and exploitation! In the wild, the lion would never have lived more than a few weeks. Lions and other carnivores have sharp teeth, claws, and other offensive and defensive features on them. They are perfectly designed to hunt and eat meat. Their digestive system is designed primarily for meat, but they can take in some vegetable mixed in with the meat, but not forever. The point is, this animal was sick with a rare disease with a meat allergy. A normal lion might live for a while on vegetables, but once they are released, they will quickly revert to hunting, or they will starve. So the question is still relevant, how did predators survive after being removed from the arc? How could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? Even many of the fish would have failed to survived. Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, and some need very salty water. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.
searchlight part 3
Lets talk about Egyptian chronology. No, it is not a major stumbling block for me. As I see it, your belief in the flood story or a young earth it is an unimportant issue. I don’t see how it has anything whatsoever to do with my salvation so I can view it openly and objectively. If you wish to believe those stories as literally true, fine, I just don’t want the biblical stories taught in public school as science.
Mainline scientists do not even remotely agree with the science presented suggesting that biblical chronology is more accurate than the prevailing view about the Egyptian timeframe.
Egyptian chronology may not be perfect, but as scientists continuously find more information, they add to the knowledge. Usually, new evidence fits neatly into the theory, sometimes they have to adjust the theory. This is how science, real science, works. The website you provided dismisses traditional thinking because it doesn’t fit their biblical interpretation. It is created by an international team of missionaries. Any theory that doesn’t fit their biblical view is dismissed. Their website is dedicated proving the bible as literally accurate. They admit on their website that they are NOT neutral and articles must support the creationist’s viewpoint. This is not science. Other mainstream scientists, although they come in with personal biases, don’t go out to prove the bible wrong. They go out to see where testing the data places the artifacts in a timeline, and they let the chips fall where they may.
Chinese ancient script goes back beyond the flood era too, but that isn’t as clearly defined as the Egyptian written history.
Just one of many points of evidence against the flood story:
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. reference: Becker, B. & Kromer, B., 1993. The continental tree-ring record - absolute chronology, C-14 calibration and climatic-change at 11 KA. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 103 (1-2): 67-71.
ba2, your trust in popular opinion among 'mainline' scientists above Jesus Christ who you claim as the omniscient God, today mostly evolutionary atheists in framework and perspective, is woefully misplaced and self-contradictory. Remember what I mentioned to you Jesus Christ said about popular opinion? If popular scientific opinion were always correct, the world would be flat.
Any scientist who stands for creation today isn't going to be popular with the majority of his peers, as you mentioned with Russ Humphreys, but this has no bearing on the merit of his excellent work. Many scientists who believe in Creation have lost their jobs and reputation due to the intolerant religion of evolution, as clearly exposed in the recent documentary "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed" (see www.expelledthemovie.com). This is shameful, especially in a country that supposedly allows free speech and ideas.
But since you have taken it upon yourself to slander Dr. Humphreys as a poor scientist, let's take an even closer look, shall we?
God wanted his message to be understood by people of all ages, so He did not bury His message in an avalanche of advanced science. But He also arranged for things to be stated in such a way to be technically correct, and to be understood in more depth by those with more knowledge/insight, just as He did for spiritual truths.
There are alternative theories to the Big Bang, and more scientifically valid. The Bible's account of creation is consistent with the latest scientific research. Conventional big-bang cosmology assumes our universe is unbounded, although this assumption can neither be proven nor disproven. However, the Bible indicates our physical universe is bounded. If one incorporates the Biblical claim in exactly the same mathematical formulas used for the Big Bang, a very different cosmology is produced due to gravitational time dilation in a bounded system with center of mass. In short, billions of years of physical time would have elapsed in areas of the galaxy until the event horizon equalized during the creation of the universe, while the Biblical account would naturally relate 'Earth' days since it is intended for men. The initial statement in Genesis 1:1 that “In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth.” can also be perfectly translated “At the very beginning of time, God created space and matter” and what better simple way to describe a ‘black hole’ than the next verse “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep …” from which the Creator used to make the rest of the universe? This almost surely reflects what is intended.
The resulting cosmology is amazingly consistent with the Biblical record of Creation, and this black/white hole cosmology also provides a uniquely viable explanation for red shifts. If there was an intelligent Creator, He was certainly well aware of the physical laws He put in place and how to most effectively utilize their processes.
The basics of this cosmology have been endorsed and refined by a prestigious scientific journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) (see Smoller, J. and Temple, B, Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(20):11216–11218, 30 September 2003).
There is no logical basis for dismissing this cosmology as a possibility, since the only difference from conventional Big-Bang cosmology is a single assumption of boundedness, which is already present as a variable in existing equations. If anyone is truly interested in examining all scientific possibilities (i.e. in the true spirit of science instead of atheistic evolutionary dogma), I suggest reading Starlight and Time. Your approach of dismissing this as nonsense and everyone who believes in Creation as foolish is typical of atheistic evolutionary myopia, and I sincerely doubt you are in a position to successfully challenge Dr. Humphreys' work. No one else has, although they may claim to.
You don't want Bible 'stories' taught in public school as science? Well, I don't want evolutionary 'from goo to you' atheistic fantasies without a shred of genuine scientific evidence taught in the public school system either. Better yet, teach them both, give all the information to people on both sides, show respect to students and let them decide instead of brainwashing them. But evolutionists don't want that kind of fair treatment and respect of people, do they?
Today, evolutionists largely have a stranglehold on the educational system, teaching macroevolution as established fact (what a laugh) and they fight desperately to hold onto it, because if the evidence for creation gets out, many more people will figure out the creation account is accurate, and the last bastion of evolutionary arrogance will crumble.
Ancient Chinese history fits extremely well with the Biblical timeline, see:
Kang/Nelson - The Discovery of Genesis (in the Chinese Language)
Nelson/Broadberry - Genesis and the Mystery Confucius Couldn’t Solve
Broadberry/Chock/Nelson - God’s Promise to the Chinese
Of course you will probably dismiss these also since, God forbid, they line up perfectly with the Bible's implied chronology. Anything but that. In your current state, you will apparently dismiss anything that substantiates the accuracy of the Bible, just like a militant atheist in sheep's clothing. Hmmm.
Tree ring dating also substantiates Bible chronology, since it has placed the age of our oldest living trees between 3,800 to 4,400 years old. These dates sound remarkably close to the time creationists believe a worldwide flood took place.
More than ten of the nations of Europe trace their genealogies back to Noah through Japheth (they all specifically name both names), and this can be found in the public library if you know where to look (I must advise that some of the material is very dry, however). You can also see After the Flood by historian Bill Cooper at http://ldolphin.org/cooper/. Although most of these nations were as barbaric as you can get with no connection to monotheism or the Bible (they would be hostile witnesses, which is even more convincing), they regarded their ancestry as sacred, guarded it carefully, and there was no collusion among these many different cultures. Noah and his family were real people, not mythology, and the Genesis account is accurate.
You're eventually going to find out Jesus Christ, and his prophets and apostles, are absolutely correct, and will have no excuse for why you spurned His very specific words. If you're wise, you will figure it out in this life, instead of having Him force this upon you face to face (although face down is more likely). You may claim to be a Christian, but your mindset and approach is cookie-cutter typical of evolutionary atheists, with whom you are working hand in hand.
Only God knows for sure, but it was Him who said a tree may be known by its fruit, not me. If you are truly a Christian at all, your default assumption should be that the Bible account is precisely true, based on the words of Christ, and see if you can find evidence to support it, instead of assuming it is false, based on the testimony of fallible, largely atheistic men, and giving your all to find evidence against it.Last edited by searchlight86; 08-08-2008, 01:53 AM.
I took time to read the information you presented.
I believe Humphrey is a brilliant man who moved outside his area of expertise. You brought him up, and I didn’t slander him as a poor scientist. You suggested that you would like to hear about anyone who could refute his work. Well I found a whole scientific society that did just that and now you are angry with me? It was his peers who questioned his work, not me. But I will look over the preponderance of evidence and come to my own conclusions.
It looks to me that you dismiss anyone who doesn’t agree with your interpretation of scripture. I find various viewpoints fascinating and at least consider them all. I don’t always agree with the writings of Paul (he did often admit he was sometimes speaking his own mind), but he was right on with one thing, “Prove all things”.
You said, “Many scientists who believe in Creation have lost their jobs and reputation due to the intolerant religion of evolution, as clearly exposed in the recent documentary "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed"” This was not a documentary, this was a movie created for entertainment, and especially for profit. They mixed in a few truths and greatly exaggerated the story to sell tickets. It is silly to take anything out of Hollywood as serious.
Of course a young earth Creationist will lose their job for teaching contrary to an approved curriculum. What would you expect? If I had a history job which required me to teach about the holocaust and I decided on my own to teach that it never happened, shouldn’t I expect to get fired?
BTW, I don’t know of any public K-12 school in the USA that teaches that we evolved directly from the primal goo. Evolution on a micro scale, some do, most stay out of it. Age of earth being billions, not thousands of years old, yes, probably many schools do. You can have your children go to a private school for your religious beliefs. I do not want the public school teaching religion.
During the reign of the Roman Church, it was a well established biblical fact that the world was flat and the stars were hovering just above the sky, Men were killed for saying otherwise. If you lived in those times, you probably would have volunteered to be the executioner.
Last point: One should not try to defend their faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous. It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6,000 years old.
Ba2, thank you for being willing to look at the material. I am not angry at all if you are making honest inquiries with an open mind, and if so your questions should be answered, not ignored. Anyone who takes a stand for Creation these days is not going to be popular with peers, and I personally know of ‘Pharisaical’ academic intolerance of any other view than evolution. Anyone who dares challenge the status quo in this area risks losing their job or funding.
Regarding Humphreys, I have looked into his work and counterpoints in some depth, and most objections are ad hominem attacks such as him being out of his field of expertise etc., not about the work itself. If one looks at the source material objectively and not only at those opposed to it for reasons other than scientific merit, it is easy to see there is no logical basis for opposing it, since it leverages so much of already accepted assumptions in this area. The fact that his work has aroused so much hostility when based on already accepted tenets exposes severe bias against creation. I really hope you look at the work itself, because you will see it is relatively easy to understand and there is no rational basis for rejecting it or vilifying it whatsoever.
Sometimes I am amazed anew at the stubborn pride of the human race, in the face of overwhelming evidence for a Creator and the complete absence of evidence for the 'from goo to you' fable. Evolution is truly a cult among cults, and its motivation is resolute atheism, not objective science.
As a world leader in evolutionary biology, atheist, and self-proclaimed Marxist, Richard Lewontin admitted:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
There are hundreds of ‘clocks’ available to guess at the age of the earth, but the only ones popularized today are those that generate the longest ages, to support general evolution. I have much evidence at hand that shows shorter timeframes, but I’ll include just one in the next post for now. Short ages of the earth aren’t ridiculous at all, but we’ve been misled to believe so by those who selectively force fit evidence into an evolutionary and largely atheist perspective.
I am beginning to wonder if we are going around in circles because there is a more basic problem. Since you believe Paul was right about “prove all things”, how did you prove your own beliefs to yourself if not by the Bible? You don’t believe in the plain meaning of much of the Bible, including the OT, and you’re not sure about Paul or his writings either, which eliminates most of the NT. You emphasize Christ’s words, but allegorize them as well if expedient to fit your own beliefs.
How do you know your beliefs about God and Christ are true? If not for the Bible text, how can you prove your own beliefs?Last edited by searchlight86; 08-09-2008, 09:02 AM.
Accelerated radioactive decay has been confirmed
There is now powerful independent confirmatory evidence of drastically accelerated decay at some point in Earth’s history, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons. The results of his work can be summarized as follows:
* When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock.
* Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.
* By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed (consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found).
* There is a significant amount of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating.
* The samples were sent to a world-class expert to measure the rates at which helium leaks out of zircons. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years.
There seems to be little hope for long-agers to escape these powerful implications, unless they can show that the techniques used to obtain the results were seriously flawed, (even though they were performed by a world-class non-creationist expert!).
From the position you hold I must ask if you believe in a literal 24 hour 6 day creation?
If so, why?
- Jun 2005
The website of Creation Ministries International has a piece on the R.A.T.E. paper by Carl Wieland, with the same quotes about uranium decay and Robert Gentry that you posted.
Several Christian forums talk about Humpreys and the R.A.T.E. paper; but I couldn’t find any reputable scientific organization or individual that is not part of the creationist agenda that takes it seriously.
You pasted info from a creationist website that said “The samples were sent to a world-class expert to measure the rates at which helium leaks out of zircons.” Do you know where these samples were sent? To a creationist “research” facility called R.A.T.E. (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth), funded by the Institute for Creation Research. Its purpose is to discredit radiometric dating methods in their propaganda campaign.
Here you will find refutation of the claims made by R.A.T.E. by W.T. Bridgman, Ph.D (physics, astronomy), member of the American Astronomical Society:
Do you know what journal R.A.T.E. used for “peer review?” Why, it was the Creation Research Society Quarterly, whose members must sign a statement of belief as biblical creationists.
Searchlight86, you are involved in a creationist propaganda campaign using the same old tired references that all you guys get from your favorite creationist websites and passing it on as if it were credible.