For anyone that follows the new archeologist discoveries dating much further back than the Bible, how are you rationalizing everything with the timeline of the Bible?
World history discoveries
3,093 Views |
50 Replies |
Last: 2 mo ago by Aggrad08
It's analogous to the creation of Adam. If scientists were to examine his body and blood, they would have concluded he was a 30 year old man born of two parents with similar DNA. Even though by faith we believe he was created moments before from dust. (Heb. 11:3)
I've really only seen this issue be a problem for Young Earth Creationists, not Christians in general. There's lots of interesting history to learn about from the time before people created writing and started building large cities. In terms of human history as a whole, that's a pretty recent invention. But humans were making art and music and jewelry tens of thousands of years before that.
How would one validate without a shadow of a doubt that an artifact can be dated back greater than 10,000 years?
Martin Q. Blank said:
It's analogous to the creation of Adam. If scientists were to examine his body and blood, they would have concluded he was a 30 year old man born of two parents with similar DNA. Even though by faith we believe he was created moments before from dust. (Heb. 11:3)
Your only defense is a trickster god.
Depending on what this goalpost of evidence means, maybe nothing can be validated without a shadow of doubt. I think its more helpful to think of things in terms of probability.10andBOUNCE said:
How would one validate without a shadow of a doubt that an artifact can be dated back greater than 10,000 years?
For example, I think its most probable the Earth is more than 10,000 years old. But, the proposition that all powerful God created a universe with appearance of age is a proposition which is inherently impossible to demonstrate or prove. So, unless we can discard unfalsifiable claims of supernatural, I think 'without a shadow of a doubt' is simply an impossible goal. . . for everyone about literally any claim or proposition or statement of fact.
Appreciate the comment. I would agree that either side would not be able to prove anything fully.kurt vonnegut said:Depending on what this goalpost of evidence means, maybe nothing can be validated without a shadow of doubt. I think its more helpful to think of things in terms of probability.10andBOUNCE said:
How would one validate without a shadow of a doubt that an artifact can be dated back greater than 10,000 years?
For example, I think its most probable the Earth is more than 10,000 years old. But, the proposition that all powerful God created a universe with appearance of age is a proposition which is inherently impossible to demonstrate or prove. So, unless we can discard unfalsifiable claims of supernatural, I think 'without a shadow of a doubt' is simply an impossible goal. . . for everyone about literally any claim or proposition or statement of fact.
From the Christian perspective, there are many things that cannot be physically proven, but that it is why it involves faith.
lazySapper Redux said:Martin Q. Blank said:
It's analogous to the creation of Adam. If scientists were to examine his body and blood, they would have concluded he was a 30 year old man born of two parents with similar DNA. Even though by faith we believe he was created moments before from dust. (Heb. 11:3)
Your only defense is a trickster god.
Martin Q. Blank said:lazySapper Redux said:Martin Q. Blank said:
It's analogous to the creation of Adam. If scientists were to examine his body and blood, they would have concluded he was a 30 year old man born of two parents with similar DNA. Even though by faith we believe he was created moments before from dust. (Heb. 11:3)
Your only defense is a trickster god.
What's lazy is trying to claim a universe is created with constants that allow an accurate determination of age as well as fossils of animals no longer in existence is actually just 10,000 years old because it has to be. A God that did that is indistinguishable from a traditional trickster god.
Martin Q. Blank said:lazySapper Redux said:Martin Q. Blank said:
It's analogous to the creation of Adam. If scientists were to examine his body and blood, they would have concluded he was a 30 year old man born of two parents with similar DNA. Even though by faith we believe he was created moments before from dust. (Heb. 11:3)
Your only defense is a trickster god.
I find the defense lazy. There is no purpose no function in making rocks seem old. To show layers slowly laid in ways that simply cannot occur rapidly. To show radiometric decay isn't required for rocks to function as rocks.
It's like creating Adam with tooth decay, arteries starting to clog, scars, hair loss, and cartilage showing wear. Adam having an adult body that could imply growth from a babe is required. The other things aren't.
Corn Pop, you said "archeologist discoveries." Did you mean that, or did you mean age of the earth?Corn Pop said:
For anyone that follows the new archeologist discoveries dating much further back than the Bible, how are you rationalizing everything with the timeline of the Bible?
I ask because archaeologists typically study human cultures, structures, societies, and so forth, and avoid issues like the age of the earth if at all possible.
As a Christian, the questions surrounding creation, while fascinating, mostly fall under the hidden will of God bucket. Things we cannot know.
Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
KingofHazor
Joined:
Mar 4, 2021
Posts:
4,661
How long do you want to ignore this user?
yawn...aren't you a career atheist? You're using terminology of a just converted 16 year old.Sapper Redux said:Martin Q. Blank said:lazySapper Redux said:Martin Q. Blank said:
It's analogous to the creation of Adam. If scientists were to examine his body and blood, they would have concluded he was a 30 year old man born of two parents with similar DNA. Even though by faith we believe he was created moments before from dust. (Heb. 11:3)
Your only defense is a trickster god.
What's lazy is trying to claim a universe is created with constants that allow an accurate determination of age as well as fossils of animals no longer in existence is actually just 10,000 years old because it has to be. A God that did that is indistinguishable from a traditional trickster god.
His tooth decay, arteries, scars, hair loss, cartilage would be what you would expect of a 30 year old man of that time. Not a zygote.Aggrad08 said:Martin Q. Blank said:lazySapper Redux said:Martin Q. Blank said:
It's analogous to the creation of Adam. If scientists were to examine his body and blood, they would have concluded he was a 30 year old man born of two parents with similar DNA. Even though by faith we believe he was created moments before from dust. (Heb. 11:3)
Your only defense is a trickster god.
I find the defense lazy. There is no purpose no function in making rocks seem old. To show layers slowly laid in ways that simply cannot occur rapidly. To show radiometric decay isn't required for rocks to function as rocks.
It's like creating Adam with tooth decay, arteries starting to clog, scars, hair loss, and cartilage showing wear. Adam having an adult body that could imply growth from a babe is required. The other things aren't.
You're too smart to say something like that. You know that the products of radioactive decay are extremely useful.Quote:
To show radiometric decay isn't required for rocks to function as rocks.
Why?
If the methods that are used to determine age are so accurate, why do different methods used to measure the age of a single rock result in ages that are orders of magnitude different?Quote:
What's lazy is trying to claim a universe is created with constants that allow an accurate determination of age
Why do those same methods give an age of billions of years for rocks that we know were just created?
Why do those same methods demonstrate unreliability when we can verify them with alternative dating methods?
Kurt's got this one right. How exactly are you defining "without a shadow of a doubt"? Taken to the extreme you start arguing about whether anything at all can be proven. Perhaps I'm a brain in a jar and all of this is an elaborate hallucination. Maybe unlikely, but can absolutely prove that isn't the case?10andBOUNCE said:
How would one validate without a shadow of a doubt that an artifact can be dated back greater than 10,000 years?
That being said, there is an interesting conversation to be had about how we date things and what methods we use to verify their accuracy. The science behind it is both fascinating and well understood at this point. It's not just guessing, if that's what you're assuming.
KingofHazor said:You're too smart to say something like that. You know that the products of radioactive decay are extremely useful.Quote:
To show radiometric decay isn't required for rocks to function as rocks.
But we don't need the process. Just the product that's the point. The process never happened in this scenario
KingofHazor said:If the methods that are used to determine age are so accurate, why do different methods used to measure the age of a single rock result in ages that are orders of magnitude different?Quote:
What's lazy is trying to claim a universe is created with constants that allow an accurate determination of age
Why do those same methods give an age of billions of years for rocks that we know were just created?
Why do those same methods demonstrate unreliability when we can verify them with alternative dating methods?
I won't pretend to be an expert.
But, if it helps, here is an analogy -
Distance can be measured. Tools to measure distance can include a microscopes, rulers, trundle wheels, odometers, telescopes, etc. If you attempt to measure the width of a cell using your cars odometer, you are liable to be wildly incorrect. If you attempt to measure the distance between galaxies using a ruler, you are liable to be wildly incorrect. Similarly, different methods are implemented in geology depending on which method is appropriate for the situation.
Because he wasn't a zygote, he was a man.Aggrad08 said:
Why?
Quote:
Why do those same methods give an age of billions of years for rocks that we know were just created?
I'm curious to see what your source is for this claim.
Help me out here. I don't see how your response answers the questions I raised. For example, there are a bunch of different radioisotopes that can be used to date rocks. Depending on the radioisotope chosen, the age of the same single rock can be orders of magnitude different. In other words, using one radio isotope dating method to verify another radio isotope dating shows that they are not reliable dating mechanisms.
Martin Q. Blank said:His tooth decay, arteries, scars, hair loss, cartilage would be what you would expect of a 30 year old man of that time. Not a zygote.Aggrad08 said:Martin Q. Blank said:lazySapper Redux said:Martin Q. Blank said:
It's analogous to the creation of Adam. If scientists were to examine his body and blood, they would have concluded he was a 30 year old man born of two parents with similar DNA. Even though by faith we believe he was created moments before from dust. (Heb. 11:3)
Your only defense is a trickster god.
I find the defense lazy. There is no purpose no function in making rocks seem old. To show layers slowly laid in ways that simply cannot occur rapidly. To show radiometric decay isn't required for rocks to function as rocks.
It's like creating Adam with tooth decay, arteries starting to clog, scars, hair loss, and cartilage showing wear. Adam having an adult body that could imply growth from a babe is required. The other things aren't.
Would they? Why would they if we're discussing a deity popping a reality into existence? What's the point of weakening Adam from the beginning with apparent age?
KingofHazor said:
Help me out here. I don't see how your response answers the questions I raised. For example, there are a bunch of different radioisotopes that can be used to date rocks. Depending on the radioisotope chosen, the age of the same single rock can be orders of magnitude different. In other words, using one radio isotope dating method to verify another radio isotope dating shows that they are not reliable dating mechanisms.
Are you assuming all radio isotopes are the same and decay at the same rate in the same rocks?
This is actually pretty straight forward.KingofHazor said:
Help me out here. I don't see how your response answers the questions I raised. For example, there are a bunch of different radioisotopes that can be used to date rocks. Depending on the radioisotope chosen, the age of the same single rock can be orders of magnitude different. In other words, using one radio isotope dating method to verify another radio isotope dating shows that they are not reliable dating mechanisms.
Let's say you have a rock that is 100% material A and you know that it decays into material B with a half life of 1000 years. So after 1000 years you have 50% of material A left, then 25% after another 1000 years, then %12.5 then 6.25% then 3.125% and so on and so on. Eventually there's so little left that determining just how much becomes practically impossible. How far back in the past can you go before you reach a point where this material ceases to be a useful tool for dating purposes?
Likewise if something had a half life of 1 billion years it wouldn't be very useful in dating something that happened hundreds of years ago. There's a range in which each method is useful.
Because we have no conception of a man other than what we know.Sapper Redux said:Would they? Why would they if we're discussing a deity popping a reality into existence? What's the point of weakening Adam from the beginning with apparent age?Martin Q. Blank said:His tooth decay, arteries, scars, hair loss, cartilage would be what you would expect of a 30 year old man of that time. Not a zygote.Aggrad08 said:I find the defense lazy. There is no purpose no function in making rocks seem old. To show layers slowly laid in ways that simply cannot occur rapidly. To show radiometric decay isn't required for rocks to function as rocks.Martin Q. Blank said:lazySapper Redux said:Martin Q. Blank said:
It's analogous to the creation of Adam. If scientists were to examine his body and blood, they would have concluded he was a 30 year old man born of two parents with similar DNA. Even though by faith we believe he was created moments before from dust. (Heb. 11:3)
Your only defense is a trickster god.
It's like creating Adam with tooth decay, arteries starting to clog, scars, hair loss, and cartilage showing wear. Adam having an adult body that could imply growth from a babe is required. The other things aren't.
I had started a response, but I think Rocag's works. Different unstable isotopes decay at different rates.
Its also important to know that radiometric dating never provides you exact ages. The process works by understanding decay rates. And part of that understanding needs to include the knowledge that the isotopes used in these measurements do not decay at exact times / rates.
An isotope with a 1000 year half life does not decay at exactly 500 years. It may decay in 10 years . . . . or 2000 years. But, if you took enough samples, you could average those out to get to 1000 years or close to it.
So, in Rocag's example: Material A has a half life of a 1000 years. After 1000 years, you'll find different samples of material A with different percentages of material A remaining. Some might be at 50%, some at 48%, some at 51% - which only means that radiometric dating gives you the age of something with a margin for error. If that margin for error is narrow, it can be useful tool. If that margin for error is wide (orders of magnitude), then it is less useful. Different isotopes are accurate within different age ranges - which is why you should not use them interchangeably.
Its also important to know that radiometric dating never provides you exact ages. The process works by understanding decay rates. And part of that understanding needs to include the knowledge that the isotopes used in these measurements do not decay at exact times / rates.
An isotope with a 1000 year half life does not decay at exactly 500 years. It may decay in 10 years . . . . or 2000 years. But, if you took enough samples, you could average those out to get to 1000 years or close to it.
So, in Rocag's example: Material A has a half life of a 1000 years. After 1000 years, you'll find different samples of material A with different percentages of material A remaining. Some might be at 50%, some at 48%, some at 51% - which only means that radiometric dating gives you the age of something with a margin for error. If that margin for error is narrow, it can be useful tool. If that margin for error is wide (orders of magnitude), then it is less useful. Different isotopes are accurate within different age ranges - which is why you should not use them interchangeably.
This is good, I might have simplified a bit too much in my example.
Martin Q. Blank said:Because we have no conception of a man other than what we know.Sapper Redux said:Would they? Why would they if we're discussing a deity popping a reality into existence? What's the point of weakening Adam from the beginning with apparent age?Martin Q. Blank said:His tooth decay, arteries, scars, hair loss, cartilage would be what you would expect of a 30 year old man of that time. Not a zygote.Aggrad08 said:I find the defense lazy. There is no purpose no function in making rocks seem old. To show layers slowly laid in ways that simply cannot occur rapidly. To show radiometric decay isn't required for rocks to function as rocks.Martin Q. Blank said:lazySapper Redux said:Martin Q. Blank said:
It's analogous to the creation of Adam. If scientists were to examine his body and blood, they would have concluded he was a 30 year old man born of two parents with similar DNA. Even though by faith we believe he was created moments before from dust. (Heb. 11:3)
Your only defense is a trickster god.
It's like creating Adam with tooth decay, arteries starting to clog, scars, hair loss, and cartilage showing wear. Adam having an adult body that could imply growth from a babe is required. The other things aren't.
That's not an answer. That's you claiming ignorance is actually knowledge.
Maybe Genesis is Hebrew allegory and not merely a history textbook or a science book and should be understood as having elements of both?
The Book of Genesis has allegorical elements and is also rooted in historical truths. Genesis communicates foundational truths about creation, the nature of humanity, the relationship with God, and the origin of sin. While some passages may be understood allegorically or symbolically, they convey real events and theological truths. The objective should be the harmonious interpretation of both the literal (i.e. the author's intent) and deeper spiritual meanings.
The Book of Genesis has allegorical elements and is also rooted in historical truths. Genesis communicates foundational truths about creation, the nature of humanity, the relationship with God, and the origin of sin. While some passages may be understood allegorically or symbolically, they convey real events and theological truths. The objective should be the harmonious interpretation of both the literal (i.e. the author's intent) and deeper spiritual meanings.
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.Sapper Redux said:That's not an answer. That's you claiming ignorance is actually knowledge.Martin Q. Blank said:Because we have no conception of a man other than what we know.Sapper Redux said:Would they? Why would they if we're discussing a deity popping a reality into existence? What's the point of weakening Adam from the beginning with apparent age?Martin Q. Blank said:His tooth decay, arteries, scars, hair loss, cartilage would be what you would expect of a 30 year old man of that time. Not a zygote.Aggrad08 said:I find the defense lazy. There is no purpose no function in making rocks seem old. To show layers slowly laid in ways that simply cannot occur rapidly. To show radiometric decay isn't required for rocks to function as rocks.Martin Q. Blank said:lazySapper Redux said:Martin Q. Blank said:
It's analogous to the creation of Adam. If scientists were to examine his body and blood, they would have concluded he was a 30 year old man born of two parents with similar DNA. Even though by faith we believe he was created moments before from dust. (Heb. 11:3)
Your only defense is a trickster god.
It's like creating Adam with tooth decay, arteries starting to clog, scars, hair loss, and cartilage showing wear. Adam having an adult body that could imply growth from a babe is required. The other things aren't.
"the man" means something to us. We have no reason to believe he was something other than what we conceive.
Martin Q. Blank said:Because he wasn't a zygote, he was a man.Aggrad08 said:
Why?
Why must a man have scars?
I don't know if they "must", but they're fairly typical.Aggrad08 said:Why must a man have scars?Martin Q. Blank said:Because he wasn't a zygote, he was a man.Aggrad08 said:
Why?
Featured Stories
See All
34:53
18h ago
5.5k
4:27
19h ago
3.7k
25 Players in 25 Days: #10 Albert Regis
by Billy Liucci
Texas A&M ranked No. 19 in Associated Press preseason poll
by Richard Zane
4:57
21h ago
2.1k
A&M wideout commit Aaron Gregory racking up preseason honors
by Jason Howell
Texas A&M's 2025 roster features a dozen program holdovers
by Samuel Sidarous