Doctrine of Miraculous Creation

[Musicmaster]

Like YEC, Old Earth Creationists hold that various aspects of living things were created by special supernatural intervention. Unlike Young Earth Creationists, however, Old Earth Creationists accept the scientific evidence for the age of the earth and the universe.

Scientific evidence? Hmm. Never did see any of that in my experience. Being in the field of nuclear science, I've been acutely aware of the fact that there is serious question against the claims for radiometric dating. That junk science continues to be accepted to this very day by quite a few.

MM

 

[Major]

Scientific evidence? Hmm. Never did see any of that in my experience. Being in the field of nuclear science, I've been acutely aware of the fact that there is serious question against the claims for radiometric dating. That junk science continues to be accepted to this very day by quite a few.

MM

I am not a scientist and have never worked in that field so I will yield to your experience. What I have learned over the years in investigating this is that Radiometric dating is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples. Creationists also often misunderstand it, claiming that the process is inaccurate.

I have read and IMHO affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. It is certainly incorrect, and it is certainly based on wrong assumptions, but it does not seem to be inaccurate.

If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific, archeological evidence to confirm that idea; yet their has not been any produced of it so far. Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years?

There has to be more to the YEC than just saying......"Radiometric dating is not accurate".

 

[Musicmaster]

I am not a scientist and have never worked in that field so I will yield to your experience. What I have learned over the years in investigating this is that Radiometric dating is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples. Creationists also often misunderstand it, claiming that the process is inaccurate.

I have read and IMHO affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. It is certainly incorrect, and it is certainly based on wrong assumptions, but it does not seem to be inaccurate.

If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific, archeological evidence to confirm that idea; yet their has not been any produced of it so far. Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years?

There has to be more to the YEC than just saying......"Radiometric dating is not accurate".

Those are good questions, Major. You have indeed corrected me in how I stated my experience with radiometric dating. You are correct in stating that the measurement of the isotopic carbon is accurate. I misstated my analysis when addressing the accuracy of the measurements. Instruments do indeed measure what they are set to detect, and they are calibrated to make the determined accuracies.

The problem is in the massive quantities of assumptions about where those isotopes come from, and the rate of infusion into the materials being measured. They have absolutely no controlled experimentation upon which to base their assumptions because it would take those millions of years of experimentation in a controlled lab environment to verify what they think they know about it.

In other words, this method of dating is just as riddled with erroneous, pre-biased assumptions as anything else they apply to long ages of earth history. I have seen with my own eyes verified human footprints in the same rock layers as dinosaurs. Anyone here can go and see them down in Glenn Rose (sp), Texas. There are other sites where the same phenomenon has been observed, much to the dismay and hatred of evolutionists.

There are many Creation Science experts who have published many books and articles on the evidences for young earth science.

Besides that, we also have the Bible. One must assume into the Hebrew texts what simply isn't there to get long ages, and I have already covered the horrid reality of the problem long age theories among Christians creates when reading Genesis. To date, nobody in here has addressed what I have pointed out in this regard in places such as POST #28 in this thread. Long ages of earth history is an utter contradiction to Genesis and many other areas of the Bible.

Thanks for your discussion on this topic, Major. I very much appreciate correction and level-headed discussion on this topic.

Love you all.

MM

 

[Major]

Scientific evidence? Hmm. Never did see any of that in my experience. Being in the field of nuclear science, I've been acutely aware of the fact that there is serious question against the claims for radiometric dating. That junk science continues to be accepted to this very day by quite a few.

MM

Double post-ignore.

 

[Major]

Those are good questions, Major. You have indeed corrected me in how I stated my experience with radiometric dating. You are correct in stating that the measurement of the isotopic carbon is accurate. I misstated my analysis when addressing the accuracy of the measurements. Instruments do indeed measure what they are set to detect, and they are calibrated to make the determined accuracies.

The problem is in the massive quantities of assumptions about where those isotopes come from, and the rate of infusion into the materials being measured. They have absolutely no controlled experimentation upon which to base their assumptions because it would take those millions of years of experimentation in a controlled lab environment to verify what they think they know about it.

In other words, this method of dating is just as riddled with erroneous, pre-biased assumptions as anything else they apply to long ages of earth history. I have seen with my own eyes verified human footprints in the same rock layers as dinosaurs. Anyone here can go and see them down in Glenn Rose (sp), Texas. There are other sites where the same phenomenon has been observed, much to the dismay and hatred of evolutionists.

There are many Creation Science experts who have published many books and articles on the evidences for young earth science.

Besides that, we also have the Bible. One must assume into the Hebrew texts what simply isn't there to get long ages, and I have already covered the horrid reality of the problem long age theories among Christians creates when reading Genesis. To date, nobody in here has addressed what I have pointed out in this regard in places such as POST #28 in this thread. Long ages of earth history is an utter contradiction to Genesis and many other areas of the Bible.

Thanks for your discussion on this topic, Major. I very much appreciate correction and level-headed discussion on this topic.

Love you all.

MM

Brother........please understand that I in no way was trying to correct you because I DO NOT KNOW!

I just did a little reading on it and was trying to add to the discussion.

 

[Musicmaster]

Brother........please understand that I in no way was trying to correct you because I DO NOT KNOW!

I just did a little reading on it and was trying to add to the discussion.

Well, you may not have intended to correct me, but you did make a point that forced me to re-read what I had written, and that's when I discovered my error. So, you did good, whether you intended to or not.

MM

 

[Major]

Well, you may not have intended to correct me, but you did make a point that forced me to re-read what I had written, and that's when I discovered my error. So, you did good, whether you intended to or not.

MM

That may very well be the case.......but I did not want you to think I was in any way being corrective.