< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 11 ·
|May-14-16|| ||optimal play: <Jambow: ... I got thrown out of the Vatican ...>|
What caused that?
It sounds like an interesting story!
|May-14-16|| ||PawnSac: Indeed! I;d like to hear that one too|
|May-14-16|| ||PawnSac: Jambow: I didn't realize it till after reading your post, it seems we're tag teaming it (I'm trying to avoid the term "rope a dope", as that could be interpreted as an insult with a little stretch).|
And by the way, are you double posting? both here and Ultimate blitz? that way any significant posts are preserved in one area. as well as anywhere protractors post
|May-14-16|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Pawnsac,
"Name the rulers and kingdoms around the world from ten thousand years ago."
They have found human remains, the exact same as us, carbon dated back to 190,000 years ago. This is a scientific fact.
As for rulers of the kingdoms. There were no kingdoms as early man led a nomadic life. What we do know is:
The earliest settlement outside of a cave consisting of huts and houses is dated at 23,000 BC. (Czechoslovakia).
Evidence exists in various places that sheep were domesticated by 12,000 BC. Pigs even earlier and dogs even earlier than that.
Regarding Kings and rulers (and religion) these appeared later as the population grew then leaders emerged, boundary lines drawn, Gods in all forms and numbers appeared.
The passage of time, failure to have a written language to keep a history (the earliest record we have today of anything written is 3,000 BC) and conquerors, who often eradicated everything they could of a previous culture, have erased the names of the very earliest leaders though some may have lived on in legends in myths by word of mouth tales.
By sheer coincidence today the lad who found the Titanic has discovered evidence of the great flood. He dates it to 5,600 BC.
I do not want to get involved in link war. You posting your proof and me mine. but it is a coincidence and was pointed out to me by wife because "you are interested in that type of thing."
So please forgive my one link. And it is interesting. There is no doubt the flood (or floods) happened. It could have been the melting of ice at the end of the last ice age. Water levels would have risen up considerably then.
Not too sure I'm in key with the Bible having all the facts and dismissing every other theory or piece of evidence about the flood.
It does read like the Bible flood never covered the entire planet. It was possibly a severe local flood. All cultures all over the planet have a great flood in their history yet many cultures survived to pass on the tale.
In the Bible. The Olive branch.
The Olive tree grows quite slowly. Noah was on the Ark for a year. the water must have given way to land 3 months before Noah realised it for the plant to produce a leaf. Unless of course the Olive tree lived under water for all that time. Just a thought.
I was watching a documentary not so long ago about how some ancient civilisation near India that were susceptible to local flash flooding (the monsoon) built large rafts on their land that they anchored to the ground. When the flood came they herded their cattle and themselves on the raft for a few days till the water subsided.
It easy to see that event getting told to others by travellers and as the story gets passed on so does the size of the raft, the flood and the number of animals. These rafts were round.
|May-14-16|| ||PawnSac: Here are two relevant quotes:
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint— and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it— the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
"… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."
< Michael Ruse >
(who was professor of philosophy and zoology at the
University of Guelph, Canada)
|May-14-16|| ||Jambow: < optimal play: <Jambow: ... I got thrown out of the Vatican ...>
What caused that?
It sounds like an interesting story!>
It was discovered that I had full knowledge of the Da Vinci code and it's hidden sources so I was deemed a threat and removed from my base of operation in the depths of the catacombs of Rome and banned for life from the Vatican.
Oops no wait that wasn't me. My ship (not personally)the USS Missouri ported in Naples. A friend and I took a train to Rome and of course desired to see the Vatican along with other historical sites. Well there is a strict dress code in the Vatican city and you can't wear shorts there. Since the Papal police informed me that it wasn't considered descent to wear shorts I thought it would only get worse if I removed them and decided to removed my person instead. Had a glass of Vino overlooking the Vatican and some genuine Italian style Ravioli too. Chef Boyardee hasn't a clue.
So that is why I had to leave the Vatican. I am not on the Jesuits top 10 most wanted list, or specifically a persona non grata of the Pope as far as I know. Rather boring but there it is.
|May-15-16|| ||Jambow: <They have found human remains, the exact same as us, carbon dated back to 190,000 years ago. This is a scientific fact.>|
<Scientific fact> Even with advances in mass spectrometry Carbon 14 dating is not used or considered reliable beyond 100,000 years, usually much less. Labs can't give reliable dates they believe are older than 50ka BP. <Sally Simpson>. Beyond 100ka the Carbon 14 is gone and no matter how accurate the equipment (read the PDF) you can't quantify what doesn't exist.
I'll ask you directly not expecting a response of course. What lab Carbon dated human bones to 190,000 years old?
From AMS labs.
I have perused other radiometric labs websites in the past and they will not give the dates you stated were a "<scientific fact>". Many labs won't even go beyond 30-40ka.
Now that we are both on the subject of radiometric dating, I will broach the topic again. Why do they find C14 in dinosaur bones believed to be 70 million years old? If the 1/2 life is approximately 5750 years it should be virtually undetectable at 100,000 years and absent completely by around 200,000 years. Yet when dinosaur bones are sent to the lab they yield dates well under 100ka? See you claim to have faith in this as being scientifically indisputable and yet it falsifies your world view.
I will again bring up the intact soft tissue which is not only present in T-Rex femurs, but has subsequently been discovered in many other dinosaur bones now that they are looking for it. Like the C14 that is an impossibility, the soft tissue is as well if they were really millions of years old. 70 million year old soft tissue right.
Now who were those rulers of all the global empires before 5,000 years ago? What was their languages, where are their writings etc... I'm looking for the type of empirical archeological evidence that attests to the reliability of the Bible you lambast. The reason you won't find the evidence is because they didn't exist. Are you aware of how many civilizations have been unearthed from the biblical account. 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.
|May-15-16|| ||Jambow: <PawnSac> No I'm not double posting. I have tried to keep the discussion here since you opened the floor. Are not others welcome to join in to defend their ideology? <Sally Simpson> is the only brave soul to step up, but that is not surprising to me. |
I glanced on the blitz tournament page for a moment to find <Clemens Scheitz> correcting some ones grammar because he wants to now stay on topic after all, you know the one he took everyone completely off to topic begin with.
You invited them here and the cricket choir is chirping away <SS> aside. I tend not to mess with peoples English skills as mine are lacking and besides when you mess with Grammar Grandper can get a down rite hostile.
If I'm broaching the etiquette of your forum it is unintentional. I have a difficult time standing by while the faith is attacked and mocked.
|May-15-16|| ||Jambow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9A...
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.
Monica Crowly with a sarcastic smirk <"70 million years old huh">
|May-15-16|| ||Jambow: http://newgeology.us/presentation48...
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.
I know of not a single dinosaur bone that has been laboratory tested and not shown to be of recent origin.
|May-15-16|| ||Jambow: All right one last example and it is an oldie but a goodie. The reasoning is that they interpret the fossil record as if long epics exist between strata and things on the lower strata as existing millions of years before upper strata. That many fossils transverse many layers purported to be separated in time by hundreds of thousands of years won't be addressed here by me. That initial position such as marine fossils would naturally be lower during cataclysmic deluge is worthy of consideration. That certain creatures are more or less mobile and vary in buoyancy are not topics I will address now. |
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.
Jesus Christ is Lord Amen.
|May-15-16|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Jambow,
"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.
You can say they fell from the sky. Indeed some diamonds are no doubt from asteroids. But they are still 800+ million years old.
|May-15-16|| ||Big Pawn: <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.">|
Jambow, your posts are always great.
|May-15-16|| ||optimal play: <Jambow: ... So that is why I had to leave the Vatican. I am not on the Jesuits top 10 most wanted list, or specifically a persona non grata of the Pope as far as I know. Rather boring but there it is.>|
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?
Also, regarding Dr. Mary Schweitzer, please see my forum page 42 Jan-11-16
Your young-earth creation argument is busted!
Give it up already!
|May-16-16|| ||Jambow: <optimal play> Forgive me for misleading, however I was literally escorted out by the Vatican police or what ever they are called. Just always thought it was funny, you have a man running around with red sneakers, a white dress and Grand Dragon hat and I'm the problem? |
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.
My faith is in Jesus Christ not man, I find the Bible trustworthy and man miserably untrustworthy. When I place the Bible against the doctrines of men the Bible stands firm and their foolish ideologies that look so good on the surface fall to the ground when pressed at all.
|May-16-16|| ||optimal play: Regarding Dr. Mary Schweitzer...
<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.>
Looks like the young-earth creationists end up with egg on their faces once again!
|May-17-16|| ||Jambow: < optimal play: Regarding Dr. Mary Schweitzer... |
<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.
Sorry she's upset it is what it is.
|May-17-16|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Jambow,
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.
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 enjoying the debate, who knows, I pride myself in being very open-minded (except when it comes to chess openings) I may come away with a different point of view or a new angle to hunt down in my quest for answers.
|May-17-16|| ||Jambow: <Sally Simpson> I'm aware of the discovery of Australopithecus afarensis. including the Beatles connection which is why it is called Lucy from "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and likewise the cultural reference to LSD too which Johanson was a self proclaimed user of. I'm sure if I was too his conclusions would make more sense to me. |
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.
This indeed I do whole heartedly believe. I trust that Jesus Christ took this curse upon himself for me and all who will come.
|May-17-16|| ||Jambow: As far as the civilizations are concerned, the ones we do find are the ones from the Bible, or in the time frames from the Bible. If man were really around for 200,000 years as you stated, then we would expect civilization to have appeared multiple times during that period. So 195,000 years no civilizations, then suddenly in the span of 5,000 years various civilizations with unique languages appear all over the globe, starting in Middle East of course with Sumerian and Acadian being at the forefront. China the North Central and South America's and all over the globe? Of Course using Malthusian population calculations this fits the Bible too, not even close to 200ka. |
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?
My friend the Bible can be trusted, you have a heart issue not an intellectual one. Go to Jesus as a child in humility and you will see. We are all sinners who need to start from there. Pride abounds in the wise of this world, but honestly it doesn't add up.
|May-18-16|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi jambow,
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.
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.
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.
For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
This is interesting, what did God look like?
"No man hath seen God at any time."
I'm still not sure if we should study or read the Bible.
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
OK got it, get wisdom.
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
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'.
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)
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.
Time and space....have to do some work.
|May-18-16|| ||Jambow: <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.>|
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.>
Interesting that you referenced this verse, that actually foretells of these times and men scoffing at his Word? Here we are and Peter wrote this two thousand years ago, or in God's eyes just two days ago. Some might call this prophetic.
|May-18-16|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Pawn sac,
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.
"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.)
The earth is billions of years old but something happened in our recent past. Something wonderful. From cave dwellers to pyramid builders. That was the giant leap for mankind and neither evolution or religion have the answer. I trust that one day we will find out what it was. I have faith in mankind. Till then...God is scoffing at us.
|May-18-16|| ||OhioChessFan: <Sally: The youngest natural diamond on earth is 800 million years old.>|
How do they know that? The diamond was found in an 800 million year old rock formation. How do they know the rock formation is 800 million years old? By George, it has an 800 million year old diamond in it.
|May-19-16|| ||Jambow: <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.>
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.
You don't shake my faith in the Bible, you confirm the prideful stubborn state of man.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 11 ·