A great very short and revealing video of Dr. Schweitzer in an interview with Ron Reagan junior on MSNBC live.

She initially discovered the T-Rex femur that the soft tissue was discovered in during an excavation id Hells Creek formation in Montana.

Watch from 1:12-140

Monica Crowley <"Is that amazing to find soft tissue in a fossil this old"> Mary Higby Schwietzer <"It is very amazing it's uh utterly shocking actually because it flies in the face of everything we understand of how tissues and cells degrade. It is not something any of us could ever predict or hope for.">

Of course not if you believed it is 70 million years old.

4:20 Ronald Reagan junior <"One of the exiting things about this discovery, correct me if I'm wrong, is the fact that this stuff was fossilized as it was, 70 million years old you don't expect to find soft tissue do you"> MHS <"Not at all it was utterly shocking"> RRJ <"So you have to sorta rewrite the book as far as fossilization goes, uh uh I assume..."> MHS <"...Like I said a lot of our science doesn't allow for this, all of the chemistry and all the molecular break down experiments that we've done don't allow for this">

So what do you think they tossed the science or the old age beliefs. Of course the science lol.

One correction RRJ keeps calling it fossilized which if it were would not be much of a problem. It actually was original cells and soft tissue, not replaced with hard minerals etc... That is an incredible anomaly that falsifies the presupposition about it's age.

Dr. Schweitzer to her credit kept insisting that they had not yet confirmed that it was actually tissue and cells. Since that time they have worked diligently to demonstrate it was something other than the obvious, attempting to falsify their initial discovery (good science). So now it is no longer in question and the scientific community that had originally worked feverishly to discredit her find and work, has now capitulated and readily acknowledges it is indeed soft tissue. They have subsequently found other dinosaur bones with soft tissue.

Another striking example where long age evolutionary dogmatism has hindered science.

Ok so not as if the soft tissue itself isn't damming enough, there is a link with copious amounts of information as to the specifics of dinosaur bones tested, laboratory testing and C14 radiometric results. Letters from labs refusing to test specimens because of what they were etc..

Now the math...

Most labs using accelerated mass spectrometry require a bone sample size of 2-10 grams. For our purposes we will always stack the deck in their favor so we will use the maximum 10 grams sample size for our initial C14 atom calculations. Next of that 10 grams the greater proportion would be hydrogen and oxygen atoms or water, not carbon. Again to stack the deck we will assume complete dehydration and 100% carbon atoms and make our calculations from those assumptions.

Ten grams of bone would be yield how many carbon 14 atoms?

The definition of a mole is a disgusting facial growth with aberrant hairs protruding from the center. No wrong hat sorry. A <Mole is defined as the amount of a substance of a system that contains as many "elemental entities (e.g., atoms, molecules, ions, electrons) as there are in 12 g of carbon-12 (12C).> Great we are already dealing with carbon atoms so that simplifies our task. Alternately we have Avagadro's number definition which is 6.02 x 10(23) atoms.

Since my mind works well enough using ratios and percentages we will start with our 10 gram sample 5/6 = 83.3% of a mole rounding up and always stacking the deck at 84% of a mole. Now multiply 6.02 x .84 and round up to get 4.25 x 10(23)carbon atoms. Or 425,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 carbon atoms. Sometimes also technically called a whole bunch. Of those carbon atoms on 12 per trillion of the total carbon atoms will be the radio isotope C14. or .000,000,000,012%. We can slide the decimal to the right 12 places and multiply after removing 12 zero's from our total carbon atom count. This gives us 12 x 4.25 x 10(11) or 5,100,000,000,000 total C14 atoms in our initial 10 gram dinosaur bone sample. Those should last a long time for sure?

Well if you divide that number in half until you are left with less than 1 it goes 45 times. Now if we multiply 45 by the maximum 1/2 life given using the upper end of the sigma error bars we have a half life of 5770 years. 45 x 5770 and the last C14 atom would be gone at the absolute maximum 260,000 years. Yet dinosaurs bones have enough C14 to give ages in the tens of thousands of years or 3-4 half lives? Labs can't even detect C14 after what they equate to 100,000 years by their own admission and using the best technology consider all resultant ages over 55,000 years as unreliable.

You have two choices, throw out carbon dating as unreliable after giving results of decay equal to just 3-4 half lives from their initial condition assumptions or surviving for 12,131 half lives in spite of the absolute maximum possible of 45 after being as generous as humanly possible.

Let us instead consider another creature touted as extinct for 65 millions years based upon their absence in upper strata and yet shown to have evidence of existing very recently.

Consider the coelacanth fish. He is only found in the lower layers that are supposed to be 65 million years old. Not only does this guy have C14, and soft tissue he swims. Yet the same people that now tell you dinosaurs went extinct, said exactly the same thing about this funky looking ichthus. That is until they discovered fisherman catching remarkably well preserved specimens off the coast of Madagascar. Almost nothing that was written in the text books regarding them turned out to be true, all the product of men's imaginations.

They still aren't found in upper strata, and yet they swim. Lot less math for this one.

Ok the critics have become crickets, so I will give it a rest for now. Maybe I will visit and see how the grammar lessons are coming.

Sorry for the long posts and three pages of <PawnSacs> forum. I like to be thorough. Thanks for the invite and I appreciate greatly how you reason. Refreshing in this day.

"How often the critics like yourself openly scoffed at the Bible only to proven completely wrong? So your faith is not in the Word of God that has an excellent track record but instead you've put your lot with those men who have been found to be liars."

If you are reading me openly scoffing the Bible. Then it's not meant as such.

I'm sure any joke I've cracked will not bring down the Christian religion, it's surely built on a much stronger foundation than that.

Nor have I, as you put it, put my lot with those men who have been found to be liars. (here I assume the scientists and historians.)

I am wary of them as well. Their hypotheses contain too many 'perhaps', what if, 'most likely' and 'it is likely' for me to wholly trust them.

I personally think parts of the Bible are mistaken, they are bits which contradict each other and other bits from other religions. Some gospels have been ignored, the fact Jesus married has been totally scrubbed out.

It had gone though many translations before finally (in some cases at the pain of death) being allowed to appear in English. Mistakes were bound to creep in.

There are doubts about Jesus being a carpenter as the translated word could be anything from son of a stone mason to son of a Rabbi. Son of a Rabbi makes some sense when you recall Jesus having discussion in his father's house at the age of 12.

Then came the lost years till he was thirty. The Bible makes no mention of where he was during those years.

Something happened at those discussions. He became disillusioned with the way the church was going and sought wisdom elsewhere. (India, lower Egypt...I even seen Britain mentioned.)

I find it hard to accept that the actual Son of God who was born into this world amidst such great heraldry. Angels, three wise men...was on the Earth for 17-18 years and nobody is really sure where he was. The Bible is very silent on this matter.

As for the age of the earth and dinosaurs. They date the bones by being able to date the rocks the bones are found in and eventually form part of.

You are married. Yes. Does your wife wear a natural diamond ring. Where did it come from? The youngest natural diamond is 800+ million years old.

Jambow, your posts are always great.

So it was just about the dress-code?

I was thinking that maybe you were literally thrown out after screaming "anti-Christ" or some such thing during a Papal audience?

:D)

Also, regarding Dr. Mary Schweitzer, please see my forum page 42 Jan-11-16

Your young-earth creation argument is busted!

I might have a peak, but it looks far more like old age dogmatism doesn't stack up very well to empirically based evidence. My facts and logic are not hard to find are they?

<I personally think parts of the Bible are mistaken, they are bits which contradict each other and other bits from other religions. Some gospels have been ignored, the fact Jesus married has been totally scrubbed out.>

Jesus was never married, the Gospels that are in the Bible belong there. Dr. Peter Williams has an excellent video containing detailed statistical analysis. The four Gospels get the geography, rulers, botany and most striking the correct names for location and period. The other pseudo Gospels not even close. The church did a great job of keeping God's word from false teachings. I made similar arguments regarding Sir William Ramsey, those weren't addressed or acknowledged and yet we see them again as statements of fact without any evidence to substantiate them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Y... Very short video.

<As for the age of the earth and dinosaurs. They date the bones by being able to date the rocks the bones are found in and eventually form part of.>

There are several examples of volcanic rock of known recent origin that has given dates into the millions of years. Mount Vesuvius less than two thousand years old, lava dated in the millions of years. Other samples were sent in from the 1980 eruption of Mt St Helens. Geocron laboratories Potassium/Argon dating yielded ages ranging into the millions of years? 11 years old yet dated millions? There are hundreds of examples where different radiometric mineral tests yield contradictory dates from the exact the same mineral samples. Radiometric dating is based upon many unproven assumptions. More important when tested under known conditions it has frequent gross failures. Why would I blindly trust it or the assumptions? Not like it is off by a few % were are talking magnitudes of order into millions?

No matter even if that were not true and it is, you still have soft tissue intact? You also have Carbon 14 in every sample from every bone tested from various geographical regions from multiple taxon of dinosaurs. You can proceed as if that is inconsequential but they are a huge enigma for what you believe. Science doesn't silence and refuse to address problems or worse go on the offensive when contradictory evidence arises.

How does soft tissue survive for millions of years?

Why didn't the Carbon 14 decay away after 250,000 years at the absolute maximum?

Why do known recent events produce radiometric ages in the millions of years?

Where is the evidence for the countless civilizations that surely existed 10,000 years ago?

I gave the detailed math, correct me if I calculated incorrectly or made a procedural mistake. I'm not afraid to support my positions with evidence and calculations, you have yet to do it once.

Also maybe you missed it so I'll ask again what lab carbon dated the 190,000 year old human bones? <scientific fact> remember.

What about the specifics regarding the Jews, Israel and prophetic fulfillment?

I gave many logically supported lines of reasoning backed by solid empirical evidence, you usually ignore them instead proceed with new unsupported statements? I know you are intelligent enough to realize that myself and most others know how they date dinosaur bones. That is an avoidance of a huge dilemma not an answer. You can't allege that there are supposed biblical contradictions, make no effort to make a case, while ignoring absolutely staggering contradictions with the dates you espouse that have been supported!

So my questions persist while the answers remain elusive, I would appreciate if you support at least some of the countless statements you have made. It's clear that I have done so.

BTW I do apologize when and where I have lumped you with some others here <Sally Simpson> I will make efforts to correct that. I also thank you for doing a much better job of not using personal attacks or resorting to base insults and willingness to debate while others who initiated the discussion have ran for the hills.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...

<Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”>

No support for young-earth creationism there!

Well then, what about the soft tissue?

<The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.>

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-...

Looks like the young-earth creationists end up with egg on their faces once again!

<Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”>>

I never indicated or even suggested she is a young earth creationist. I am also aware of the issue of the Smithsonian you quoted her from and that exact quote actually. She gave no instances of her work being hijacked. I personally wrote a rebuttal to the Smithsonian they instead printed one that was on about an 8th grade level. Not surprised by that in the least. Notice how deliberate I was to quote her exactly and even gave a link to the video so you could watch it first hand. She is the one misrepresenting her find, her own statements make that clear. No her finds make 70 million years look pretty foolish. Again it isn't fossilized it is just soft tissue period.

I also read the bogus explanation before as well, and it is an untested hypothesis, and not a very good one. When they have the molecular breakdown experiments she stated clearly don't allow for this then get back with me.

You can do better than that her being put off because the facts contradict the theory is basically irrelevant. If I misquoted her feel free to show it, I know better and was deliberately careful not too even paraphrase. I even included uh. I couldn't have said it better than she did anyway.

The evolutionists were coming after her like she was the Frankenstein monster and calling her everything under the sun (that is what they do best). Creationists as far as I know only cited her work, and they are perfectly within the bounds of good science to draw different conclusions. Sorry if that upsets you it is what it is. Evolutionists spent years trying to discredit her work, the scientific journals are out there if you were looking. They had so many claims of what it really was it was ridiculous. Jack Horner did everything possible to falsify that it was really soft tissue, and that was the common argument of evolutionists then. Look at the slides you can see the red blood cells perfectly. BTW attempts to falsify it were good science, it is what is supposed to happen. If they applied that level of scrutiny to their other work, there wouldn't be much left.

I have not gone overboard on proving scientific facts as that would involve very very long threads or a link war were we get others involved into the debate.

The oldest human remains so far is 'Lucy' who has been accepted into the scientific world and found sound.

Her remains and her surroundings have been dated at well over 3 million years. (The Beatles are involved.) But one link to show I've not made it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

You will find scant existence of any powerful civilisation before 10,000 years because man had not yet come up with any viable means of recording details and any that remain were quickly eradicated by the following settlers/conquerors.

Plus we had the last Ice Age to contend with (or is that something else that never happened.).

There is no doubt something happened approx. 10,000 years that gave mankind a huge leg up. We suddenly got very smart.

Genesis makes a good attempt at explain this but credits God with far too much. (it cannot even agree what came first, the animals or man.) and the original tale has been hopelessly mis-translated. 'Adam' is Hebrew for man by the time it went through Latin/Greek and into English Adam was the man's name.

I only ask you that you ask yourself some questions.

I do. I cannot accept the theory of evolution because it does not make sense unless you get an outside, as yet unknown, influence involved.

The Gods the Bible and other religions gives us never stand up to any serious scrutiny. If God had appeared when everything was here 10,000 years ago and chose the human to rule the planet then good. We have a solid timeline, a beginning.

But to credit this super being with everything ever created (and here creationists must accept that EVERYTHING was created by God, they cannot pick and choose the good bits like in the song 'All thing Bright and Beautiful'. because this planet is awash with all things all ugly, wicked, cruel and evil.)

The Biblical God gave us command over the animals. Good. A command over bacteria and disease would have been better.

Smallpox, flu, malaria has killed more humans (remember each one a creation of God) than all the wars put together. (most of which were fought in his name by both sides.)

Science, finally given the chance after centuries of being held back by religion are making valiant attempts at stemming this tide but even so last year there were 438,000 malaria related deaths. (each life was created by God when with a flick of wrist on the day of creation he could have prevented it.)

I just cannot get it, I never have. He creates life at the same time creating various ways of ending it via bacteria or disease. Or is this the 'mysterious ways' we hear so much about to explain the unexplainable.

Ask yourself some questions. You might find answers that will actually strengthen your whole belief. And here I'd hope it does. I'm not in the market to destroy anybody's faith.

I'm also aware of the Laetoli foot prints. Lucy anatomically is not remotely human, the foot prints in Laetolie Africa do not belong to Australopithecus afarensis, and are unlike it distinctly human. The volcanic ash not the remains were dated to 3.2ma if memory serves correct. I gave the straight forward math as to why "LUCY" would not be carbon dated since believed to be 3.2ma. I'm sure it has C14 but I already covered that more than sufficiently and you don't seem to have comprehended any of it?

C14 dating is not used on organic remains believed to be older than 100ka, the other forms of radiometric dating are used on mineral specimens not organic remains. Very simple but important stuff.

The depth of discussion needed to examine the remains critically would probably require ten pages just to get the empirical evidence and facts surrounding them on the table. If I thought it would be useful, I would engage. You still appear not to understand radiometric dating at a very basic level.

You stated it was a scientific fact that modern human remains were C14 dated to 190,000 years. I gave ample opportunity for you to retract or correct your statement. I don't think you have a very accurate or comprehensive understanding of those things you espouse. What use is it to engage in a debate if you don't make the effort to get a rudimentary understanding of your own position? I made it as simple as I know how, doing the work myself when the onus was always on you.

More importantly you don't understand Genesis any better. Your entire post contains numerous observations that actually agree with Genesis and confirm the Bible. You say you don't get anything from the Bible won't read it and here completely misrepresent it.

You show us the curse is very real, agreeing completely with scripture. Man had but gave up his dominion. You state the Bible can't be trusted? No <SS> you can't be trusted to even attempt to understand anything on either side of this debate and choose to demonstrate willful ignorance.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

We can see the evidence that confirms the Bible is evident everywhere, for what you believe we have illogical reasons as to why the evidence is completely missing from the annals of recorded HIStory. Which is superior explanations of why the evidence isn't there or having evidence?

First the cultural reference to LSD. That was pure coincidence. Julian came home from nursery with a drawing saying it was 'Lucy...in the sky with diamonds." John took over from there.

"You stated it was a scientific fact that modern human remains were C14 dated to 190,000 years. I gave ample opportunity for you to retract or correct your statement."

Here is the article I was reading.

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/Featu...

I trust the source and have always been in interested in and to a certain amount studied. (attend lectures at University...asked questions.) this bit.

"...great time gap between the appearance of the modern skeleton and 'modern behaviour."

When are you going to answer the natural diamond question I asked. The youngest natural diamond is 800 million years old. (Exodus 28:18 mentions diamonds.)

The Bible (I'm using the King James version) is littered with errors, contradictions and bits borrowed from other religions.

God created the whole universe in 6 days. (forgetting of course to mention planets.) We are told God's timescale.

Psalm 90:4

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

One day = 1,000 years. (other Biblical sources say it's 7,000 years, one of many contradictions.)

Plants were created on the 3rd day, the sun on the 4th...think about it and photosynthesis. (One thousand years is a long time for a plant to survive without sunlight.)

GEN 1:25 and 26
God makes the beasts first then man. (in 'our' image...who are the 'our')

GEN 2:18 and 19
God makes man first and then the beasts.

GEN 32:30
For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

This is interesting, what did God look like?

John 1:18
"No man hath seen God at any time."

OOPS!

I'm still not sure if we should study or read the Bible.

PRO 4:7
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

OK got it, get wisdom.

ECC 1:18
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

OOPS!

I could go and on and on all I've done is pick ones from famous episodes in the Bible

How did Judas die. Two different accounts. (Mathew and Acts).

(personally I think it was suicide. When they searched his body they found a betting slip. He had put 5,000 shekels on Goliath....always room for a joke.)

How about the last words of Jesus. Pretty important don't you think.

Mathew, Luke and John all give different versions of what Jesus's last words were.

Mathew and Mark differ on what drink was actually given to Jesus.

Speaking of the last drink, ever read a book called the 'Passover Plot'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_P...

That fell into my lap when I young. It is interesting. More so the fact if it had been written 300 years earlier he would have burned alive. As were the first people to attempt the translate the Bible,The church did not want people asking awkward questions. They wanted full control of people's minds and how they thought.

And tampering to fit their own agenda is rife in the Bible.

Jesus was married. It would have been against Jewish custom not to do so, not forgetting:

Genesis 1:28 ("Be fruitful and multiply.)

Of course the church, as they did with every gospel re-shaped this fact or simply left out the gospels that did not fall into this way of thinking.

Do you how many gospels are not included in the Bible. (52)

http://www1.cbn.com/biblestudy/the-...

Mary Magdalene, who the church labelled as prostitute is the wife.

In Luke's story about Jesus, Martha and Mary. Martha asks Jesus to tell Mary to work. In them day men had sole power over their wives, You had to ask the husband first. (Jesus replied Mary is bound for a higher role than mere domestic work.)

Then of course Mary (Magdalene) being allowed to visit the tomb. That honour was only reserved for family members only.

The source isn't the problem, they clearly didn't date the bones as you stated, they dated minerals not the tissue, your facts were the problem. I only had to read the first paragraph from the link to ascertain this?

I have been remarkably clear I do not share your faith in radiometric dating. Notice how frequently I gave numerous examples demonstrating how unreliable it is. I supported my statements logically and was hoping you would do the same. I think using radiometric dating as you are it would be advisable for you to get a better understanding of how it works, and it's limitations from the sources accept. I never asked you to trust me, instead I linked you to the web sites of radiometric dating laboratories that state it clearly.

If radiometric dating works I ask again how is it possible dinosaur bones always have C14 left in them?

If it doesn't work when we can prove it, why then would I or anyone else blindly accept it when it can't be tested? That is fairly rational I think.

<For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

One day = 1,000 years. (other Biblical sources say it's 7,000 years, one of many contradictions.>

Please provide the verse from the Bible that says a day is equal to 7,000 years. The Bible states twice 1,000 years as a day, once in Psalms and also again in Peter's epistle. Not 7,000 years anywhere I'm aware of? Another one of those facts.

The days in Genesis are 24 hour days and any plant would be ok without light for three days, but that is irrelevant the Bible says light, which is what they really need, was created on the first day. So your contradiction is very much incorrect.

Diamonds aren't 800 million years old. You believe it only because that is what you are told, or in other words by faith. Matter of fact Diamonds have C14 in them as well. Since you have avoided addressing soft tissue allegedly surviving for 70 million years, and again C14 in Dinosaur bones surviving 70 million years, maybe you can tell us why Diamonds would have C14 in them after 800 million years? Bigger problem than plants surviving without light for three days, even though that is not what it said.

I have no clue about much of what you are talking about, most of the things you are stating are NOT from the Bible at all. You could find sources stating anything and it appears you have? How could I figure out where you are getting your so called facts from, and honestly when you give the source they don't say what you claim?

I gave you a link to Dr. Peter Williams where he uses archeological information form the time of Christ confirming the reliability of the Gospels, based upon historic statistical information. It is not a very long video and actually very interesting and would be very beneficial I think. You can clearly see, I spend a great deal of time looking at the sources from your side do I not?

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that <there shall come in the last days scoffers,> walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. warning the godly, for the long patience of God, to hasten their repentance <8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.> 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but <is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.>

7,000 years
Sorry that bit is not clear. Did creation take 6,000 years or 7,000 years. God rested on the 7th. (do we count that one.)

"The days in Genesis are 24 hour days."

Twice the Bible says a 'day' is a thousand years.

And in Genesis 1:11

"Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"

If it is a 24 hour day you have trees being planted, growing and producing fruit within 24 hours.

Light was given on the first day but the objects which create light 'the sun, moon and stars' were not created till day 4. One day (a thousand years )after the flowers. (there are billions of stars in the sky, or is to be denied as well, which we cannot see with a naked eye. Why did God create those. We cannot see them, they give no light to earth.)

"Diamonds aren't 800 million years old. You believe it only because that is what you are told."

You cannot disprove it so it's not true because I've been told diamonds are 800 million years old....

I did work in the trade at Mappin & Webb for 3 years. And it does not matter what I believe. The youngest natural diamond on earth is 800 million years old.

http://www.photius.com/diamonds/dia...

"I have no clue about much of what you are talking about, most of the things you are stating are NOT from the Bible at all."

You have put the blinkers. That's OK. Seen it before in these debates. I was getting too close to the bone.

I quoted chapter verse contradictions from the Bible if you choose to ignore them then fine.

What Bible do you have. I'm using King James. Not an original of course. In 1611 there was no letter 'J' in English and there has never been one in Hebrew. So we have even been calling him by his wrong name all this time.

I'm not scoffing at God's word. God's word has been used to frighten and misguide people for power and money. As far as religions go Christianity is good and very easy to market.

You get ever lasting life (preying on the fear of death) and if you have sinned then a simple confession will cleanse your soul thus freeing you to sin again. (here of course the harm is the person has no fear of a guilty conscience to prevent from sinning. Religion has it's dangers.)

If it is a 24 hour day you have trees being planted, growing and producing fruit within 24 hours.>

Wow where to begin with this mess. I think reading comprehension might be the problem.

You stated just a post above the Bible says a day is equal to 7,000 years. I ask for a specific verse that says so and you come back with did creation take 6,000 or 7,000 years I don't know?

What color is your car, yes it is stick shift, not sure if it is 5 or 6 speeds. Thank you for that answer, that certainly clears it up.

The Bible says creation took 6 DAYS, you are taking the verse the verse a Day with the Lord is a thousand years completely out of context. While there are specifics involved application might be important too. Do you think they marched around Jericho for 7 thousand years?

<and in Genesis 1:11

"Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth" >

Right so God created plants and those plants produce plants after their kind from seeds and you get they started out as seeds from that?

<Sally Simpson> Most of the issues you have originate from your own mind or where ever you get this from. The Bible does NOT anywhere state what you just claimed it does.

This settles the chicken or the egg conundrum, chickens first and then eggs, really that simple.

You can say diamonds, are 800 million years old, you can keep repeating long ages without logical reasons, you can continue to blatantly ignore the science that contradicts what you state as fact, but I see willful ignorance not sound reasoning or empirical data.

You have misrepresented or misinterpreted both sides consistently. Your facts, quotes and deductions don't add up. Just repeating statements isn't a form of deductive reasoning or honest debate.

I must conclude you are not interested nor ever where interested in looking at anything objectively, have no interest in looking at evidence that contradicts your world view even when it is the same type of evidence you make your claims based upon, and choose to just waltz around it.

It is not my inention to shake you faith in the Bible but even you yourself must notice the contradictions.

I had a change of mind, a typo with the 6,000 - 7,000 years and you have leapt on it and are chewing on it like a bone completely ignoring to address any of the other issues.

(some Christians believe God had a 7,000 years plan based on the seven days it took creation, I was wondering do we count the day of rest and could it not be 6,000 years. I then pondered you might not be of that persuasion and wrote around it.)

If a God day is a thousand years (as the Bible says) then the creation theory has some credibility. I am willing to accept that due to all the translations the order of creation may have got mixed up.

If any of the translators had doubts when translating then they kept it to themselves. I've no need to remind you how Christianiy dealt with doubters and anyone who questioned their authority.

But it's not a very good start for a piece of work meant to be the word of God. It's is clearly the work of man either misinterpreting God's words or shaping them to suit their own needs.

Maybe one question at a time is the way to go.

Are we to be curious and seek wisdom or not:

PRO 4:7
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Just that one for now.

Hi Ohio,

If the process of creating a natural diamond is not done as science says it does then how do you do it? If you solve that one and can create natural diamonds by a quicker easier method then you will become very rich indeed.

The only other explanation is God created diamonds inside rocks for us to find and cherish.

Gold and Onyx get a creation mention (do you realise how old Gold is?)

You want to continue providing objections without ever addressing my objections. I support my claims you just continue to make new ones, usually totally unsupported or with erroneous facts?

It is better that we eliminate all the things you have incorrectly claimed the Bible says before examining those things it actually does say. If you are failing on the former there is little hope of resolving the latter.

Reading comprehension seems to be a stumbling block for you, which might explain why you are misrepresenting the facts on both sides?

I gave very good reasons that clearly show the Bible is the Word of God not man, you waltzed past them and continue too.

I gave logical empirical examples that falsify what you believe to be true, even doing the research and calculations step by step, along with the sources. You counter that by repeating statements that have been demonstrated to be false already. Never addressing the fundamental contradictions I gave, or acknowledging the empirical data.

The creation account says 6 days, of which I initially went down the road you are stuck on now or 6,000 years. After in-depth study I no longer think the long ages have any credibility, and also recognize the Bible means literal a 24 hour day, or Hebrew word Yom. This fits the world we see far better and the critics have to change their stories constantly. They attack people because they know on some level they fail miserably. C14 for example not sure I mentioned that?

Your side has no credibility left, the Bible stood and the teachings of men look rather foolish to me. I believe In The Beginning God, not soup.

Now if you ever give an honest answer and critically examine what I have presented as I did for you, then I would be happy to look at the alleged contradictions, after we sort out misquotes of course. If you can't answer then neither should you expect one from me as I have already went above and beyond.

While you have been making vain attempts to discredit the Bible what has been exposed is your own heart. You reject the Bible for reasons that aren't even true, and uncritically accept things that fail examination.

Simpler if you just assume I'm a fool, and believe what you have chosen to believe. In the last days will come scoffers, I think that verse is true.

I'm sorry I made mistake with my 6,000 and 7,000 years and assuming you believed in God's 7,000 plan.

http://www.biblebaptistpublications...

"I gave very good reasons that clearly show the Bible is the Word of God."

You are quoting from a book which I am showing contradicts itself.

The book has mistakes, actual errors.

Deuteronomy clearly states hares chew the cud (the don't) and the camel does not 'divide the hoof'. (The camel does.)

And I do not think you are fool, far from it.

Which reminds me of another contradiction.

Proverbs 26:4

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

Proverbs 26:5

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Which one is it. Do we or do we not answer fools.

I do not think you are wrong.

But I think you are mistaken to put all your faith a heavily translated book that was put together when they were basically inventing a new religion. (or re-hashing an older one.)

I think they give God too much credit.

It is possible to accept both the scientific findings of how the earth begun and to a certain extent how life evolved and at the same time believe in a God that did something to enhance our capabilities sometime in the recent past.

It may be as recent as 20,000 years even less. 'When was it?' has always been the big question.

I'm happy with a God appearing and for the want of a better word 'creating' intelligent man. But not for everything all around us.

I'm sorry I made mistake with my 6,000 and 7,000 years and assuming you believed in God's 7,000 plan.>

I do believe we are 6,000 into a 7,000 year plan. Yes this starts to get into "A day is as a thousand years" theology. The 6 days of creation do foreshadow world HIStory. However as someone who rejects and doesn't trust the Bible you can't understand it. Creation days are 24 hours, this is what I think is intended just as the Hebrew word Yom is normally understood to mean, unless specifically qualified.

No contradictions in the book just misunderstanding by men who are ignorant and don't trust God. Was Jesus from Bethlehem, Egypt, Nazareth or Capernaum? Huge contradiction right? There were even those who casually dismissed Jesus as the messiah even knowing that it was the correct time for the awaited savior to appear. They said no no not him he was born in Bethlehem and we all know that he is supposed to come out of Egypt, while others no he is a Nazarene etc... Yet four different locations for the Christ and he fulfilled every one of them perfectly. No contradiction just ignorance. Those that chose to see did see, those that chose to remain blind and ignorant did so as well. The wise men found him because they trusted God's word and sought him.

No contradiction in Proverbs 26. Those two verses regarding fools follow immediately on the heals of one another. Did the scribes miss it for thousands of years until you or the internet came along? Maybe the answer is there is a time to answer a fool and there is a time not to? I avoid violence as much as possible, yet if someone would harm my family it would get very violent very quickly. Contradiction no, simply when to and when not to.

I think you are mistaken for putting your faith in scoffers, who have been wrong over and over, every generation has them and they always turn out to be wrong. You don't seem to be weighing this out but rather looking for people who give answers you like, and not very good ones. You seem to put your faith in the conclusions of others and are not willing to invest a moment to examine them critically?

I gave you Sir William Ramsey because he rejected the Bible including the New Testament based upon all the "scholarly" work of the higher critics. They wrote the same type scoffing rubbish 150 years ago you readily accept today. Ramsey though unlike you made an honest attempt to disprove Dr Luke, because Luke in particular had so much detailed political and geographical information that could be tested. This man traveled to and lived at length in the regions described in the "Book of Acts". He examined the historical and archeological evidence very critically. God opened his eyes because his search was indeed sincere, while the scoffers never left Germany for the most part, and instead produced the same kind of rubbish as Bart Ehrman and other modern scoffers you seem to like so much. Ramsey finally realized that the scoffers were liars that pontificated at great lengths about what they only imagined never even have traveled to the region and that the Bible was absolutely to be trusted. Sir William Ramsey became a great apologist and Born again believer in Jesus Christ of the Bible not a Jesus of men's imaginations.

I'm not sure they are scoffers, (on here and other forums it may just be bravado.) A lot of intelligent people are questioning their faith.

They just want answers.

"...or we will answer to a Holy Eternal and Just God."

He's pretty brutal, especially in the first testament. I'd be more relaxed with Jesus deciding things.

Justice is brutal, it is an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. This why Jesus came to bear the judgment for us and he did. If we reject his grace and mercy then we will get justice and infinity on our side can only be in time as we ourselves are finite.

This is why Jesus has to be infinite and eternal and not only a man, but also truly a man.

You have maimed his name the New Testament clearly shows who he is, and said so repeatedly. Anyone who comes to him in humility and lowliness of heart will indeed be shown. The scoffers religious or otherwise couldn't understand at all.

I adjure you to read the Gospel of John as a little child, see who Jesus tells us he is. You already stated you have a Bible start there. He is good and not willing that any should perish.

This one is a good candidate for my favorite games collection.

Larry Evans vs Arthur Bisguier
51st US Open (1950), Detroit, MI USA, rd 11, Jul-21 Queen's Gambit Accepted: Classical Defense. Alekhine System (D28) · 0-1