... OK, I think we can arrange that ...
This is YA crazy web site extolling the wonders of Young Earth creationism. Nothing new.
Which is why it is interesting. How can the following possibly still be part of the YEC rhetoric?
There are dating methods like Carbon 14 dating convincing many people that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Carbon 14 dating assumes that the rate of change and decay has been relatively constant through time. This assumes the present is the key to the past. Creationists believe that Noah's flood was a literal, cataclysmic world-wide event. The scale of this event would significantly change the level of carbon deposit, skewing carbon 14 dating results.
Carbon 14 has never, ever been used to date the earth. Carbon 14 dating assumes a constant rate of decay, which is the same physics that our Red White and Blue All American God Fearing Military Defense system uses when it makes those nuklar submarines and bombs and stuff. So saying that C 14 does not decay at a constant rate is unpatriotic. But, it does turn out that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere does indeed change over time. And this fact is considered when calculations related to radiocarbon dating are made.
Which, again, has nothing to do with the age of the earth. Those are OTHER dating techniques that are used to estimate the age of the earth. So, you you are a young earth creationist who happened to accidentally end up reading this blog post, I just want you to know that leaving out the other methods is lying by omission, so the whole C14 thing is a lie. And a lie is a sin. I'm afraid that Mr. Justin Bleuer is, in fact, a sinner.
Oh, and also, The holy scriptures
- Log in to post comments
Shame that Bible thumpers adhere so strongly to some parts of the Bible, and completely ignore other bits. If you're a "literalist", I hope you avoid women who have their period:
Leviticus 15:20 (NIV) "Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean", which prohibits a man from lying on a bed or sitting on any chair that has been sat upon by a menstruating woman.
After her period, the woman must present a sacrifice so she can be forgiven for having a monthly cycle that God gave her in the first place:
Leviticus 15:28-30 (NIV) "When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge."
Whenever I hear the contrary, I point to the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. That's not a "different point of view" issue between the gospels, is it? Somehow, the conversation usually ends soon afterward.
Scholarly fellow. He even cites Ken Ham.
Carbon 14 dating is useful up to what (~50K years)?
A reasonable rule-of-thumb for radiometric dating is that after 10 half-lives have passed, there is so little of the parent isotope left (about 0.098%) that the date you get is untrustworthy. C-14 has a half-life of 5760, so it is useful out to about 57,600 years.
Give or take. So C14 dating can't be used to estimate the age of the earth, but it defubuteky can be used to show that the earth must at least be older than 10,000 years. But then again, so can counting tree rings. Or counting varves. Or any number of other methods that don't depend on radioactive decay rates being constant. Which of course in turn can be used to determine that, yes, as far as we can tell, decay rates *are* constant.
defubuteky -> definitely. Stupid keyboard.
Perhaps Justin Bleuer is not a liar, but just woefully, abysmally ignorant and too debased to do anything about his ignorance.
While you can't defubuteky rely on this, using the accelerator method, 14C can be used on some samples up to perhaps 100K. But, if you have a sample where you have to be defubuteky certain of the date, I'd defubuteky be careful with that.
I like the new word. It defubuteky grows on you.
This fellow appears to be more sophisticated than your average YEC.
Nope, that's a smart keyboard. Henceforth, "defubuteky" is our shibboleth on this blog.
That would be "sguvviketg" (looks vaguely like an Icelandic swear word).
This is why the learned folks like to say that they take it on faith that the original manuscripts are inerrent (cf. Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrency, specifically Article 10). You're just not up on your Biblical scholarship. Perhaps you New Atheist types should leave arguing theology to the Ken Millers and Ken Hams of the world ;).
I'm disappointed they didn't mention the one time that seals that died 30 years previous were Carbon-14 dated to be 4,600 years old, therefore any radiometric dating of the earth is inaccurate and the Bible is right. That's what we learned in Bible apologetics at Youth Group.
Greg & friends...this is me (Justin), responding to your blog about me! I am a real guy who doesn't mind an honest discussion. I try to respect others and avoid biting sarcasm. So here is my honest attempt to begin an actual discussion about these issues....
What is it about my belief in Creation that makes you feel so threatened? Most of the world believes as you do. So why get all upset when a guy like me chooses to take the Bible literally?
I am not advocating for violence or judgment or anything dangerous. I simply choose to believe that the Bible's record of human origins is correct. Thus my life began on purpose and I'm accountable to my Creator...instead of chalking up my existence to random chance.
If I am wrong, then when I leave this life I have lost very little. But if you are wrong, when you enter the next life there is much lost. I say this only to plead with you - think through this issue of chance vs. design. Grab a telescope or microscope and look at the world around you. From the rings on Saturn to the intricate factory of a simple cell...the more you look, the more design and order you'll find. If I am walking the beach and find a rusty watch - I don't chalk up it's existence to the power of waves to transform sand into a time-keeping object. Instead I see that the watch was made by a designer. Chance is simply not that smart!
I would love to hear any feedback from you on this. I realize you view me as a fool for my beliefs. I don't deny that based on current scientific theory and evolutionary thought, I am a fool! This widely-held theory is over 100 years old...so why should I reject it?
I simply choose to believe that the 4,000+ year old-view that this universe was shaped by a Creator is true. Old isn't always outdated. Science books are revised almost annually. The Bible only needs translation into modern language...it does not need revision!
I choose to believe the Bible's record over man's theory. I'm still not sure why this makes you feel so threatened...but perhaps we need to continue the discussion until we've honestly plumbed the depths of this issue. I'm willing to do it in a spirit of respect...
...concerning Carbon 14 dating - I purposely said dating methods "like" Carbon 14 dating. Obviously this dating method is limited to 50,000-60,000 years - but if true this alone would negate the Bible's record.
Radiometric dating is what scientists use to peg ages at millions and billions of years. Would you check out this article link and send me your thoughts? They go into much more detail and explanation than I'm qualified to give!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating
Thanks!
"I'm afraid that Mr. Justin Bleuer is, in fact, a sinner."
Greg - you are RIGHT! I am a sinner, and a terrible one at that. I deserve to be hated by God. I deserve to go to hell. That is why twenty-four years ago I was amazed to hear that God not only loved me, but was willing to forgive me...completely and totally!
I accepted His forgiveness that day, and have never been the same. I remain a sinner, but I've been forgiven. I have a new love towards God and people. Yes, I even care about you Greg...no matter how much you may dislike me. Even your friends who believe in evolution and were quite harsh to me...they are not my enemies.
I don't want to preach to you...so forgive me if that's what I've already done! I just want to agree with your statement that I'm a sinner - and give a huge THANKS to God for forgiving me. It is incredibly freeing to find out that God can forgive anyone, even me!
Pascal's Wager? Believing AiG is candid or trustworthy? Have fun with this one, Greg.
From the link:
"The best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universeâthe Bible. "
Unless, you know, you'd like to know the value of Pi. Or unless you want to know how Exodus could occur while leaving no archaeological evidence. Or unless you're a doctor trying to figure out why people get sick, where you might want the Germ Theory of Disease instead of the Demonic Possession Theory of Disease. etc. /sigh
Justin, as to your link. Can you not tell that they're mostly dissembling, throwing in sciency mumbo-jumbo without actually trying to use it to support their conclusions? They start with the conclusion that I quoted above. They don't say it until the end, but that is what they want to show. They point out that in a couple case studies, there is variance in dating using different isotopes. They provide possible explanations as to why. I don't see any methodical issues there. But why do they even bother giving this information if they are going to end with the above quote? They don't even believe that actual physical evidence is of any use -- the only useful source (if there is ever any conflict) is the Bible. Let me ask you: what would it take to convince you that perhaps the Bible explanation of an event is inaccurate? I have no interest in trying to convert you or discuss why you believe what you believe, I just wonder if you can answer that question. What would it take for you to doubt the infallibility of the Bible?
"What would it take for you to doubt the infallibility of the Bible?"
Paul, I appreciate your honest thoughts. Your question is fair, so I'll do my best to answer. These are a few of the circumstances that could cause me to doubt the Bible's accuracy:
1. If it was empirically proven that the historical Jesus did not exist, die on a crucifix, or rise from the dead.
2. If there was a human who was naturally good and never had any desire to lie, cheat, lust, or steal (Jeremiah 17:9-10; 1 John 1:8-10).
3. If I asked for God's forgiveness and He didn't give it to me. (James 5:16)
I'm sure I could think of more...but until my God is proven to be a lair, I take Him at his Word and put my absolute trust in His ancient and historically best-selling Book! He is clear that many people will not be able to accept the difficult truths contained within its pages. (1 Corinthians 2:14 and Matthew 7:13-14)
I admit that I have a LONG way to go...and am constantly learning, reading, and discussing! Following Jesus is not easy, but I have found my Christian journey to be rewarding and transforming!
Amen to that Justin!
Guys Im not that big into science and I know im not that smart, However I know the change that happened in my life when I took Jesus Christ as my savior. Since then I have learned how extremely awesome my God is! Ephesians 3:20 says that He has power that I cant even imagine! Do you get it? We look at life and how its falling apart and say "I don't understand why a good God would let this happen so I don't believe" I'm sorry but i'm pretty sure if you where honest you would say you don't have ALL the answers, so do u really want to have a God YOU understand? If the creator of the universe had the same intellect of any of us, we would all be in trouble.
Justin is just a man standing up for whats right, he doesn't have all the answers but he knows someone who does and His name is Jesus! who took every thing we ever did wrong and forgave us and offered us the gift of eternal life! Please consider what Justin has said and accept the free gift while you still can!
Justin, thanks for the candid response.
Are you aware of the issues inherent with trying to prove a negative? What proof do you require to affirm that "historical Jesus" did exist, die on a crucifix, or rise from the dead? Why is the Bible considered sufficient evidence when the events do not show up in any (non-doctored) alternate sources?
In the event that YHWH did not exist (or was malicious, I suppose, I didn't specify an atheist world, only one where the bible was fallible), why would you expect a human to be "naturally good" as you describe? This criterion doesn't really make sense at all, as evidence of either God's nonexistence or the fallibility of the Bible.
Even now, how do you verify that God gives you His forgiveness? What form would not receiving His forgiveness take?
What form would proof need to take? Are you with AiG in believing that, as I previously quoted, the Bible is the best source for ascertaining history? Because if that is the case, you're deriving your reasons from your conclusions (it's circular reasoning, basically). If not, how do you feel about this article? Or this study on OT historicity?
"Or unless you want to know how Exodus could occur while leaving no archaeological evidence."
Paul, not trying to start an argument but you do know that the "exodus" in which the book portrays was real and in which they have archaeological evidence for right? Even according to Egyptian finds the plagues DID happen, the Jews DID leave Egypt and they even have evidence of them living in the desert and even a "Sinai". Sure maybe the red sea didn't part as they say or god provide "mana" to the Jews but the event DID happen. And there is evidence of it.
For people who feel they are "too smart" to believe in god some of you really can't grasp or comprehend what Justin is saying. He is simply stating his belief and faith and why he feels this way, much like you would state a scientific theory. All theory's are faith that equations and formula's point to a specific out come.
I don't believe the bible is 100% literal as Justin does. But calling him ignorant to the world of science could be said for most of you in the world faith and religion.
I saw some posts about where people picked apart certain bible versus to show contradiction. Anyone can show contradiction in anything, even in a constant in science. "C" or the speed of light can in fact increase with lower vacuum energy known as the Scharnhorst effect, so how can a scientific constant change? Also according to Einsteins e=mc^2 it says that for anything to travel the speed of light it will need infinite energy or infinite time to accelerate to. However there are theory's or faith in the scientific world of elemental particles which ALWAYS travel faster then light known as Tachyons. So how can it nothing with mass travel faster then the speed of light but this is supposed to? Not only that it works in the negative of e=mc^2?
[citation needed]
[citation very much needed...and no, "Jews celebrating Passover" doesn't count]
It's rude to put words in people's mouths. I never said I was too smart to believe in god. Plenty of smart people believe in god. Perhaps I lack a brain defect that makes it possible -- I don't wholly discount the possibility. After all, I never did experience that religious feeling that's been documented, even when I was sincerely doing all that churchy stuff. Or perhaps there's no such defect. I don't know, and I don't mind saying so. That doesn't make the self-contradictory entity described in the Christian Bible any more possible, though.
Is this even a sentence?
Let's try a thought experiment. Imagine someone who has never seen a Christian Bible. Never spoken to a Christian. Is there any collection of information that could lead him to posit the existence of YHWH? Or to believe Earth was created and populated in 6 days? That it's not kosher to eat pork or to commit homosexual acts?
Because that is how scientific theories are reached. A body of data is collected, and eventually a theory forms to explain the data in a consistent manner. If you want to equivocate between theism and scientific theory you really need to demonstrate how raw data could lead to that conclusion, in the absence of pre-existing religious dogma.
As for your ignorant science rant, that's not demonstrating "contradiction in science". That's demonstrating how simplified models are just that, models. They don't paint the whole story. It's not a contradiction to say pi = 3.14 and to later use a power function to give a much more accurate value. The former is only a simplification. It's not a contradiction to say everything is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, then to later point out that they in turn have their own component parts. That's simply an elaboration.
Besides, if new scientific theories contradict old ones, the new ones simply become the current working theory. Science doesn't claim unchanging infallible dogma like some religions. Contradiction isn't an issue, it's expected when you're working from a position of imperfect knowledge. And we're fine with that. We don't claim to have all the answers. That doesn't mean we can't point out contradiction issues with those that claim to have a fount of unassailable knowledge.
What I don't understand is why Justin, and the others who choose to believe the biblical account of creation, are so eager for the imprimatur of science. For them, knowledge is something chosen becase it makes them feel good. Once they've chosen to believe, why would they want to hear any arguments?
It would be more honest for Justin to say "I believe the biblical account of creation because it makes me happy. I'm not interested in believing anything that doesn't make me happy. I'm entitled to choose what I want to believe, and I'm not obligated to follow the rules of science when choosing. I have no use for evidence, or logic. It can only introduce doubt. Get thee behind me, Scientist!"
What is it about my belief in Creation that makes you feel so threatened? Most of the world believes as you do. So why get all upset when a guy like me chooses to take the Bible literally?
I don't feel threatened by your belief in creation. I am threatened by attempts (by those who believe as you do) to distort science. People who point out the problems of using C14 to date the earth without acknowledging that C14 isn't used to date the earth are often trying to confuse and mislead others into believing that science is useless or that scientists are part of some evil conspiracy. Given that I value the outcomes of honest science (sanitation, modern technology, modern medicine), it worries me when I see groups of creationists trying to confuse schoolchildren about what science is and what scientists have learned.
I also feel threatened when I see people who believe that the Bible is the literal word of their divinity trying to take political power and position themselves to pass laws that require me to live by the laws of that Bible. It worries me that between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims, there are at least two groups in the world who think that if I'm raped, it's probably because I showed some ankle or some elbow (or neck). It worries me that they think they should be trying to control who I can sleep with, because after all a nation that allows fornication and adultery and homosexual acts is a nation that will be punished by Teh Lord!
Maybe you're a nice, sweet, honest guy who would never try to take away my freedoms, and maybe you're completely open to allowing honest and open scientific discourse and the teaching of real science in schools. But if you are, your fellow young-earthers will begin to point out what they consider the error of your ways....