The Bible and YEC...

[sub_zer0]

YEC is Biblical, I have stated in detail that Biblical chronology is 6,000 years from creation of the world until now, that is all that is allowed when using the Bible! So I am not being presumptious as telling God what methods He used, He told us, my views are based on Biblical teachings and by Christ, which is YEC.

ANYTHING evolution is NOT Biblical only creation in 6 days by God, variation within created kinds, or YEC is completely Biblical and following what Christ taught! There is no evidence of evolution that cannot be called YEC.

So when does Christ teach anything but a literal reading of Genesis?

When does the Bible say that God uses evolution, and needs it because everything can't be created in 6 days and just have variation within the created kind?

What, in the Bible leads you to believe that evolution is what God used to create?

[Alvin T. Grey]

http://www.knowth.com/new-grange.htm

- Please explain.

[sub_zer0]

http://www.knowth.com/new-grange.htm

- Please explain.

LOL, explain what?

[Alvin T. Grey]

LOL, explain what?
The site is 5,200 years old.
It predates the Pyrmids, Stonehenge, the invention of the wheel............And it takes place 8 generations and half a frickin' world away from the Garden of Eden according to your reckoning.

Even if Adam and Eve humped constantly for 800 years, the could not have sired enough children to get all the way over here, and build this thing.

Please, if you will, explain that.

[Strel]

YEC is a pile of crap. That's about as sensitively as I can put it.

It is decidedly, overwhelmingly, completely and absolutely disproven, and anyone that tells you different is selling something: ignorance.

[Alvin T. Grey]

And before the timeline is called into doubt.
5,200 years, is not long enough for anything to fossize. Organic material is still in existance. You would be amazed at exactly how indestructable that stuff is.......And hence it is ripe for Radio Carbon dating. - Heck, you could probably get DNA evidence from it.

[sub_zer0]

The site is 5,200 years old.
It predates the Pyrmids, Stonehenge, the invention of the wheel............And it takes place 8 generations and half a frickin' world away from the Garden of Eden according to your reckoning.

Even if Adam and Eve humped constantly for 800 years, the could not have sired enough children to get all the way over here, and build this thing.

Please, if you will, explain that.

OK, sure I will explain.

Considering that the earth is 6,000 years old and Adam and Eve were created about 6,000 years ago, it is 800 years till the time of that site.

Your basing your argument on Adam and Eve only having children, when their childrens children had children and so on. Plenty of time to make plenty of people to do this. Not only that, but before the flood the land was Pangea so it was easily traveable.

[Strel]

OK, sure I will explain.

Considering that the earth is 6,000 years old and Adam and Eve were created about 6,000 years ago, it is 800 years till the time of that site.

Your basing your argument on Adam and Eve only having children, when their childrens children had children and so on. Plenty of time to make plenty of people to do this. Not only that, but before the flood the land was Pangea so it was easily traveable.


Except that overwhelming, verifiable scientific evidence conclusively proves that 6000 years is about 4 billion too short.

You lose, even without the totally baseless assumptions above.

[Ethos]

Not only that, but before the flood the land was Pangea so it was easily traveable.

Full continental drift in less than 6,000 years? Your faith truly allows you to accept such an absurd position?

Ethos

[Alvin T. Grey]

OK, sure I will explain.

Considering that the earth is 6,000 years old and Adam and Eve were created about 6,000 years ago, it is 800 years till the time of that site.

Your basing your argument on Adam and Eve only having children, when their childrens children had children and so on. Plenty of time to make plenty of people to do this. Not only that, but before the flood the land was Pangea so it was easily traveable.
That is presupposing that they travled across Thousands of miles just to build this 'frickin monument - Boning like rabbits all the way, and traveling ever onward when they were not busy delivering babies, or making more.

If such a great endevour was tried.......Why the heck does it not show up in the bible?

[sub_zer0]

That is presupposing that they travled across Thousands of miles just to build this 'frickin monument - Boning like rabbits all the way, and traveling ever onward when they were not busy delivering babies, or making more.

If such a great endevour was tried.......Why the heck does it not show up in the bible?

Actually you are presupposing that they only traveled to build a monument, I say they travelled to subdue the earth ultimately as that is what God tells us to do.

Because it is just a dang monument, nothing special, it has nothing to do with the Biblical message that is why.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Actually you are presupposing that they only traveled to build a monument, I say they travelled to subdue the earth ultimately as that is what God tells us to do.

Because it is just a dang monument, nothing special, it has nothing to do with the Biblical message that is why.
Ever tried cutting thousands of tonnes of stone, transporting it miles, and miles, building this thing?
- It takes a while.
Considering that the wheel was a couple of years off yet, it was done the hard way. That means through brute force and ignorance. That requires people................Lots of people.
Now considering that it started from a man and a woman with stratigically placed fig leaves going at it like hammer and tongs. both they and their decendents would be too tired and shagged out to build a house of cards, never mind this thing.
And it would have taken most of the population of the planet at that time.
Kinda suspicious that it didn't show up in the Bible.......isn't it?

[W.J. Wilczek]

Lemmings

[steveksux]

YEC is a pile of crap. That's about as sensitively as I can put it.

It is decidedly, overwhelmingly, completely and absolutely disproven, and anyone that tells you different is selling something: ignorance.As a matter of fact, that falls well short of anything resembling "sensitivity".

You sir, owe crap an apology for comparing it to YEC. And I will be reporting this post if you do not apologize for giving crap a bad name in this manner.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

Full continental drift in less than 6,000 years? Your faith truly allows you to accept such an absurd position?

Ethos

Indeed it does. I asked him about it, no explanation was forthcoming. I worked out that the continents would have had to move at about 50m a year, though that was very roughly done.



Anyway, sub, what was the point of this thread? It's just a rehash of what has gone on here endlessly for months now.

[steveksux]

Indeed it does. I asked him about it, no explanation was forthcoming. I worked out that the continents would have had to move at about 50m a year, though that was very roughly done.Keep in mind that the continents didn't move 50m a year for the last 6000 years. You have to remember to factor in the fact that the continents stopped moving 50m a year at the moment we were able to measure continental drift and found the rate to be mere inches per year. ;) So they only had 5900 and some odd years to reach their present locations, not the full 6000. Part of Gods plan to change the laws of nature to make it appear the earth is much older than 6000 to trick us into denying Him and His Bible.

Randy

[Ethos]

Indeed it does. I asked him about it, no explanation was forthcoming. I worked out that the continents would have had to move at about 50m a year, though that was very roughly done.



Anyway, sub, what was the point of this thread? It's just a rehash of what has gone on here endlessly for months now.

It is unfortunate that some insist on destroying any reasonable spiritual discussions through literal reading of Biblical passages. True theological debate is a glorious and fulfilling activity. In the case of literalists there can be no debate. Saddeningly it has become harder to find the former over the internet as those truly interested in these discussions find only the latter to participate with.

Ethos

[heel31ok]

Except that overwhelming, verifiable scientific evidence conclusively proves that 6000 years is about 4 billion too short.

You lose, even without the totally baseless assumptions above.
The evidence points to 6,000 to 10,000 . Your timeline is 4 billion too long.The reason it is at 4 bil is because of the assumptions made to determine the "verifiable" evidence. The asumption is very scientific,"no way can the earth be only 6000 years old,dude!" Whenthat is the startying point ,of couseyou would get an older conclusion because the start point is well beyond where it should be.
I would think the proper scientific approach would be test the 6000 yr question ,but that would give a opening for it to be true so discount it without testing it and move on to a more reasonable. It is the rorshack (sp?) test to beat them all, peole see what they want to see.

[heel31ok]

Keep in mind that the continents didn't move 50m a year for the last 6000 years. You have to remember to factor in the fact that the continents stopped moving 50m a year at the moment we were able to measure continental drift and found the rate to be mere inches per year. ;) So they only had 5900 and some odd years to reach their present locations, not the full 6000. Part of Gods plan to change the laws of nature to make it appear the earth is much older than 6000 to trick us into denying Him and His Bible.

Randy
wow ,that would be more than enough time. Your assumptions are what hold you back and give you a false sense of superiority.

you assume the fallacy of uniformity and can not even consider much less understand anything else.But that is the "scientific" M.O.

another assumption is thinking God is trying to trick you. The laws of nature changed when the very core of the elements were shaken and cursed by sin and death. you will not hear this but I will say it anyway. The effects of sin are so profound to the point of changing the very nature of all it touches.
The whole world groans in anticipation of deliverance from this sin, this bondage to decay.

[steveksux]

wow ,that would be more than enough time. Your assumptions are what hold you back and give you a false sense of superiority.

you assume the fallacy of uniformity and can not even consider much less understand anything else.But that is the "scientific" M.O.

another assumption is thinking God is trying to trick you. The laws of nature changed when the very core of the elements were shaken and cursed by sin and death. you will not hear this but I will say it anyway. The effects of sin are so profound to the point of changing the very nature of all it touches.
The whole world groans in anticipation of deliverance from this sin, this bondage to decay.Well, then describe scientifically how sin affects the physical constants of nature. Otherwise stop pretending your made up nonsense has any resemblence to reality. :sorry: You can't just make sh** up and expect anyone to take you seriously.

Randy

[heel31ok]

Well, then describe scientifically how sin affects the physical constants of nature. Otherwise stop pretending your made up nonsense has any resemblence to reality. :sorry: You can't just make sh** up and expect anyone to take you seriously.

Randy
I could make up stuff but then you would be out of a job.
Rate of decay is one way.which is a biggie and goes well with the false dates produced based on decay.
So, "otherwise" does not come into play today.
if I was to make something up it would involve millions or even billions of years and would be a total fairy tale.

[steveksux]

I could make up stuff but then you would be out of a job.
Rate of decay is one way.which is a biggie and goes well with the false dates produced based on decay.
So, "otherwise" does not come into play today.
if I was to make something up it would involve millions or even billions of years and would be a total fairy tale.Sorry, I asked for how sin affects the constants. Not more made up STUFF.

Sin makes the sky red. That's "what". "How" describes the process by which sin makes the sky red. Making up a STUFF about the rate of decay changing is what changes. You now have to make up more STUFF about how sin does that. And by the way, since you're trying to use this made up STUFF to debunk science, it would be nice if you included some sort of scientific process instead of making up more STUFF out of thin air. :lol: :laughter:

<<Mod Edited - Circumventing the curse filter>>

Randy

[heel31ok]

Sorry, I asked for how sin affects the constants. Not more made up sh**.

Sin makes the sky red. That's "what". "How" describes the process by which sin makes the sky red. Making up a sh** about the rate of decay changing is what changes. You now have to make up more sh** about how sin does that. And by the way, since you're trying to use this made up sh** to debunk science, it would be nice if you included some sort of scientific process instead of making up more sh** out of thin air. :lol: :laughter:

Randy
no, sin does not make the sky red. We were not even taliking about that. Will you stay on topic.
The absence of science is squarely in your court. Just saying it is so is not science.Piggy backing the good name of science to try to legitimize a fairy tale is a shame. You ask for science from me because you got nothing . Diversion.
I appreciate one thing though, that you think I could make this up.It is beyond the limitations of the mind to come up with this on our own. Our mind would have included billions of years and evrthing exactly the same as it has been . except when explaining why life now is not the same as it was nor are the same things happening now that happened then. Sound familiar? My changes are *&@% while your changes , which are mathematically impossible, are "science".Whatever dude , you still got nuthin'. everthing you ain't got is what you require of others. I have figured that out just from observing your reactions . Boy you sure get excited over what you think is nothing.
you get out of something what you put into it.

[heel31ok]

quit it! you're making that up! you really really are! I'm right ,I'm right, I'm right.prove it, prove it,. it's not true, it's not true!

dude, what did steve do to you?

[sub_zer0]

Does anybody have any arguments that would refute YEC and it being the only Biblical way to go in science as it is Biblical?

Does anybody have any arguments that would refute me saying evolution isn't Biblical?

[Alvin T. Grey]

Ok, try stringing those sentences together differently, and dumbing it down a little for my benifit. = Translation: I have no bloody idea what you want from me.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Does anybody have any arguments that would refute YEC and it being the only Biblical way to go in science as it is Biblical?

Does anybody have any arguments that would refute me saying evolution isn't Biblical?
I think anyone who's been following this forum for a few months knows that they'll have more interesting & productive discussions with a fence post.

All the discussions about evolution so far revolve around you declaring that what everyone else calls evolution is actually creationism, and that all the evidence for evolution just proves that creationism is true. We've been down this road about a dozen times. And you still don't know why everyone laughs at you when you talk about evolution only occuring when new genetic codes arise.

I can irrefutable argue that "Black is white" as long as I get to define what "black" is, what "white" is, and what "is" is. This isn't an accomplishment - it's just ignorance.

If you want to showcase your faith on a stage of lies and misconceptions, well, I can't stop you. I just don't think your doing yourself or anyone else any favors.

[Strel]

The evidence points to 6,000 to 10,000 . Your timeline is 4 billion too long.The reason it is at 4 bil is because of the assumptions made to determine the "verifiable" evidence. The asumption is very scientific,"no way can the earth be only 6000 years old,dude!" Whenthat is the startying point ,of couseyou would get an older conclusion because the start point is well beyond where it should be.
I would think the proper scientific approach would be test the 6000 yr question ,but that would give a opening for it to be true so discount it without testing it and move on to a more reasonable. It is the rorshack (sp?) test to beat them all, peole see what they want to see.

You really should stop drinking the Kool-Aid. It is not a substitute for education.

[steveksux]

no, sin does not make the sky red. We were not even taliking about that. Will you stay on topic.
The absence of science is squarely in your court. Just saying it is so is not science.Piggy backing the good name of science to try to legitimize a fairy tale is a shame. You ask for science from me because you got nothing . Diversion.
I appreciate one thing though, that you think I could make this up.It is beyond the limitations of the mind to come up with this on our own. Our mind would have included billions of years and evrthing exactly the same as it has been . except when explaining why life now is not the same as it was nor are the same things happening now that happened then. Sound familiar? My changes are *&@% while your changes , which are mathematically impossible, are "science".Well then, show the class how your proposed changes to physical constants of nature are mathematically possible. Proof is in the pudding. Put up or shut up.. :laughter:


All these "constants" of nature, all these processes were sped up by thousands of times to get stuff done in 6000 years instead of millions and billions of years. And yet all those constants mysteriously slowed back down to values supporting a 4.5 billion year old earth the moment before we were able to measure them, and have remained constant ever since. :sorry: :lol: :laughter:

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

...
It is beyond the limitations of the mind to come up with this on our own. Our mind would have included billions of years and evrthing exactly the same as it has been . except when explaining why life now is not the same as it was nor are the same things happening now that happened then...

Beg pardon?

[steveksux]

Does anybody have any arguments that would refute YEC Yes. Everyone does. You've simply been ignoring scientists. and it being the only Biblical way to go in science as it is Biblical? Science is not constrained by what is "biblical" or not. Therefore this part of your question is as nonsensical as your arguments for YEC are.

Does anybody have any arguments that would refute me saying evolution isn't Biblical?The Pope doesn't have a problem with evolution. He's pretty big on the whole "biblical" thing. Neither do all the mainstream Christian denominations. Seems like only a few of you have a "Biblical" issue with evolution and an old earth.

Randy

[Alvin T. Grey]

So how long did the two nymphomaniacs spend in the garden of eden?
I'm trying to figure it out. If geneology is the preferred method of describing the passage of time, and the only serious whoopee started after those two left..........How long were they in the garden?

[Strel]

I find it absolutely flabbergasting that there are still people around that believe the Earth is 6000 years old. They might as well argue that the world is flat.

[Democritus]

The evidence points to 6,000 to 10,000 . Your timeline is 4 billion too long.The reason it is at 4 bil is because of the assumptions made to determine the "verifiable" evidence. The asumption is very scientific,"no way can the earth be only 6000 years old,dude!" Whenthat is the startying point ,of couseyou would get an older conclusion because the start point is well beyond where it should be.
I would think the proper scientific approach would be test the 6000 yr question ,but that would give a opening for it to be true so discount it without testing it and move on to a more reasonable. It is the rorshack (sp?) test to beat them all, peole see what they want to see.

Either you're completely ignorant of all things scientific or... nah you can't possibly just be that stupid.

Scientists don't need to assume a starting date to test for anything. Let's use fossil dating for an example. They start by testing fossils and other things of KNOWN ages. This gives them a baseline. They can use the different KNWON ages of different objects to deduce the rate of carbon decay. Then, once they know the rate of decay, they can test samples of unknown age and deduce the age by testing the amount of carbon. The ONLY assumption they have to make (and only if they're devoutly Christian) is that God isn't trying to trick them.

[neo of the mind]

Would do you guys get out of banging on sub_zer0 and heel31ok? I know I haven't been on this forum long, but it seems like the lack of respect for other people along with their opinions is the normal process of discussing any topic on this board.

[Strel]

Would do you guys get out of banging on sub_zer0 and heel31ok? I know I haven't been on this forum long, but it seems like the lack of respect for other people along with their opinions is the normal process of discussing any topic on this board.


I do not feel the need to be polite to liars, sorry.

[Democritus]

Would do you guys get out of banging on sub_zer0 and heel31ok? I know I haven't been on this forum long, but it seems like the lack of respect for other people along with their opinions is the normal process of discussing any topic on this board.

Eh... no.

Frankly we've all tried to have the reasonable discussions with them. And they ignore or distort every piece of evidence we put forward. They're not here for a reasonable discussion, they're here to proslytize. They're "True Believers". We can't argue with them because they aren't using any rational arguments.

[steveksux]

And they ignore or distort every piece of evidence we put forward. .As well as distort and misrepresent what others say to make it appear to support their position.
We can't argue with them because they aren't using any rational argumentsAnd I see no reason to pretend the arguments are rational.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

I do not feel the need to be polite to liars, sorry.

Then in that token, you should refrain from even posting responses to them.

[neo of the mind]

Eh... no.

Frankly we've all tried to have the reasonable discussions with them. And they ignore or distort every piece of evidence we put forward. They're not here for a reasonable discussion, they're here to proslytize. They're "True Believers". We can't argue with them because they aren't using any rational arguments.

ok, but as an outside observer it appears to be a pack trying to tear apart anything that get's near.

[Strel]

Then in that token, you should refrain from even posting responses to them.


Congratulations on your appointment as moderator.


Oh wait.... :rolleyes:

[Strel]

ok, but as an outside observer it appears to be a pack trying to tear apart anything that get's near.


Reality is merciless and tencacious. What can you do. :lol:

They spout crap, lies, willful ignorance and propaganda. They represent precisely what is wrong with some people in this country, and are the reason we are made fun of overseas.

They are an embarassment to the US and to their species, and I am going to point this out every time they post their lies.

[neo of the mind]

Reality is merciless and tencacious. What can you do. :lol:

They spout crap, lies, willful ignorance and propaganda. They represent precisely what is wrong with some people in this country, and are the reason we are made fun of overseas.

They are an embarassment to the US and to their species, and I am going to point this out every time they post their lies.

**********Wow!*********

[Strel]

**********Wow!*********


That's pretty much how I feel about these people. IMHO they are no better than the mullahs in Iran spouting their 7th century version of reality.

[Alvin T. Grey]

It is not an attack on any particular belief. It's more of an aversion to those who ask a biblical question, ask to have it compaired to scientific understanding, then dismiss the answers as 'Bunk' with out actualy explaining why.

To do so is to give the bird to 2,000 years of human endevour.

The way those who follow sientific advise and the bible feel this way;

http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46521&page=5&pp=15
-snip-
but it will never reach the exact moment of creation. We know what happened 'After' the big bang. Thousands of a millisecond after, but we can only guess what was 'before'.

In science That's where God lives.

I do not deny the existance or the possibility of God. I embrace it, as I meander my way through the evidence of his creation. Every discovery fills me with greater and greater wonder at the complexity of creation.
What they are doing is denying the fact that God May have been behiend Evolution all along
Science and Religion can co-exist. As long as there are unanswered questions, there is God.

[Democritus]

ok, but as an outside observer it appears to be a pack trying to tear apart anything that get's near.

Awww, you flatter us. We're not nearly organized enough to be called a "pack". We aren't even a posse. Maybe a herd, though that carries some connotations that I don't intend when I say it. Quite frankly I'd be more than willing to have an intelligent intellectual discussion on any of the topics they bring up if they were willing to do the same.

[Strel]

I could be wrong, I suppose. They could merely be stupid.

[sub_zer0]

All the discussions about evolution so far revolve around you declaring that what everyone else calls evolution is actually creationism, and that all the evidence for evolution just proves that creationism is true. We've been down this road about a dozen times. And you still don't know why everyone laughs at you when you talk about evolution only occuring when new genetic codes arise.

I am asking from a Biblical persepcitive how YEC isn't Biblical.


If you want to showcase your faith on a stage of lies and misconceptions, well, I can't stop you. I just don't think your doing yourself or anyone else any favors.

You claim a lie, yet you don't back it up.

Well then, show the class how your proposed changes to physical constants of nature are mathematically possible. Proof is in the pudding. Put up or shut up.. :laughter:


All these "constants" of nature, all these processes were sped up by thousands of times to get stuff done in 6000 years instead of millions and billions of years. And yet all those constants mysteriously slowed back down to values supporting a 4.5 billion year old earth the moment before we were able to measure them, and have remained constant ever since. :sorry: :lol: :laughter:

Randy

Name a constant of nature that has to have millions of years.

[Dangerrmouse]

I am asking from a Biblical persepcitive how YEC isn't Biblical.



You claim a lie, yet you don't back it up.



Name a constant of nature that has to have millions of years.


The breakup of Pangea. again.

[Strel]

Name a constant of nature that has to have millions of years.


The half-lives of any number of elements.


Next. :rolleyes:

[FlyingGuineapig]

I am asking from a Biblical persepcitive how YEC isn't Biblical.

Then why in post #1 do you say "There is no evidence of evolution that cannot be called YEC"? - this a rehash of the "evidence of evolution equals creationism" threads that you start every few weeks:
http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45963
http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45889
http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46411
http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44854 (actually started by PetriFB, but one where you go over usual song-and-dance about evolution evidence = creationism)


You claim a lie, yet you don't back it up.

Again, given the number of posts you make, it would be like including "the" in the index of a book. Heck, do a search on your name and "evolution" - 264 posts.


Name a constant of nature that has to have millions of years.
The speed of light is another one. Unless you want to claim the Hubble telescope and the rest of astronomy is an elaborate hoax.

[Izdaari]

I am asking from a Biblical persepcitive how YEC isn't Biblical.You can ask all you want, but I don't think anyone -- including me -- has any interest in that question.

First of all, I don't believe God ever intended all of the Bible to be taken literally. Some of it is literal, but some of it is poetry, stories, parables or visions from an altered state of consciousness. Some of it is universal, for all believers at all times and places, and some of it is detailed instructions for a particular people at a particular time and place. All of it is instructive and useful or it wouldn't be there, but if you take all of it literally, you'll be missing the point a lot.

Second, I'm willing to stipulate that YEC is Biblically correct in that it is the obvious literal interpretation. But if YEC is at variance with observed reality? Then all you're accomplishing is empirically refuting the Bible, which I should think would be last thing in the world you, or any Christian, would want to do.

You're putting Descartes before Deshorse. First establish that YEC is scientifically viable, and then I'll be interested in its Biblical correctness.

[Alvin T. Grey]

You're putting Descartes before Deshorse. .

:laughter: :laughter: :thumbsup: :crying: :bow
Nice one.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Name a constant of nature that has to have millions of years.
The Alps. The Rockys.

[FlyingGuineapig]

And one more thing:
So when does Christ teach anything but a literal reading of Genesis?

Where does Christ say "read Genesis literally"? Note that He must say that very exact phrase. No paraphrasing, we're being literal here - word for word, in the strictest sense.

Now, if we look at Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female", it would indicate that Jesus DOESN'T want use to read Genesis literally, since taken literally it would mean that God begins creation by creating male and female. Note that Jesus specially says "At the beginning of", not "during creation". We're being literal here - word for word.

So, it looks like when Christ mentions creation, He doesn't take it literally (of course, maybe He knows something the writer(s) of Genesis didn't :eek: )

[Ethos]

Would do you guys get out of banging on sub_zer0 and heel31ok? I know I haven't been on this forum long, but it seems like the lack of respect for other people along with their opinions is the normal process of discussing any topic on this board.

You should approach this observation from another perspective. Perhaps you might ask yourself the following question:

What is the purpose of requesting a scientific rebuttal for an article of religious faith when the individual making that request is neither accepting of the science involved or willing to alter their belief structure when confronted with a well-reasoned and valid response?

What you see as a "lack of respect" is a manifestation of members' frustration at the apparent futility of replying to the thread's premise as the author has no intention of fairly considering the information provided.

Ethos

[Dangerrmouse]

ok, but as an outside observer it appears to be a pack trying to tear apart anything that get's near.


Is this a poorly disguised attempt to distance yourself from your fellow travelers?

"Please dispute this so I can bust a scripture cap in you backside! LOL." Neo.

Even the "LOL" looks curiously Sub-like in this context.

[sub_zer0]

First of all, I don't believe God ever intended all of the Bible to be taken literally. Some of it is literal, but some of it is poetry, stories, parables or visions from an altered state of consciousness. Some of it is universal, for all believers at all times and places, and some of it is detailed instructions for a particular people at a particular time and place. All of it is instructive and useful or it wouldn't be there, but if you take all of it literally, you'll be missing the point a lot.

Taking the Bible literally means taking it by what it presents, i.e. poetry, parables, or just stating what is said as fact.

Second, I'm willing to stipulate that YEC is Biblically correct in that it is the obvious literal interpretation. But if YEC is at variance with observed reality? Then all you're accomplishing is empirically refuting the Bible, which I should think would be last thing in the world you, or any Christian, would want to do.

YEC is Biblical, the Bible is not contradicted by ANYTHING.

You're putting Descartes before Deshorse. First establish that YEC is scientifically viable, and then I'll be interested in its Biblical correctness.

Wrong. If you a Christian you should be looking at science that is Biblical, that is YEC then base that off of everything else.

And one more thing:

Where does Christ say "read Genesis literally"? Note that He must say that very exact phrase. No paraphrasing, we're being literal here - word for word, in the strictest sense.

Now, if we look at Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female", it would indicate that Jesus DOESN'T want use to read Genesis literally, since taken literally it would mean that God begins creation by creating male and female. Note that Jesus specially says "At the beginning of", not "during creation". We're being literal here - word for word.

Wrong. Jesus is saying from the "beginning of creation" is to symbolize that during the beginning, the first week of creation, male and female were made.

So, it looks like when Christ mentions creation, He doesn't take it literally (of course, maybe He knows something the writer(s) of Genesis didn't :eek: )

The point is He mentions creation, not evolution.

[neo of the mind]

You should approach this observation from another perspective. Perhaps you might ask yourself the following question:

What is the purpose of requesting a scientific rebuttal for an article of religious faith when the individual making that request is neither accepting of the science involved or willing to alter their belief structure when confronted with a well-reasoned and valid response?

What you see as a "lack of respect" is a manifestation of members' frustration at the apparent futility of replying to the thread's premise as the author has no intention of fairly considering the information provided.

Ethos

To be fair in this discussion, Sub's first post did not seem to include science in the discussion at all, but rather a discussion of what the Bible declares and using the Bible only to determine the questions he asked. I took his first post to say he wanted to limit the scope to the Bible and nothing outside of it.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Wrong. Jesus is saying from the "beginning of creation" is to symbolize that during the beginning, the first week of creation, male and female were made.

The point is He mentions creation, not evolution.

He mentions creation in a symbolic, metaphorical sense. :)
I'm sure if He was talking literally, he would have covered evolution.

[sub_zer0]

He mentions creation in a symbolic, metaphorical sense. :)
I'm sure if He was talking literally, he would have covered evolution.

So you have nothing.

Does anybody have any argument that refutes YEC as Biblically correct?

[FlyingGuineapig]

So you have nothing.

Err, actually, I think I do....

So when does Christ teach anything but a literal reading of Genesis?

As you yourself say, Jesus doesn't teach it as a literal reading, but a symbolic one.

[neo of the mind]

Is this a poorly disguised attempt to distance yourself from your fellow travelers?

"Please dispute this so I can bust a scripture cap in you backside! LOL." Neo.

Even the "LOL" looks curiously Sub-like in this context.


Distance myself? No. I have already stated my thought on the matter in other threads and that it not entirely in accordance with YEC. The old earth, gap theory is where I have hung my hat and nothing so far has given me reason to think other wise.

My bust a cap joke was just that, a joke. I was watching Jimmy Kimmel last night and he made a joke that Dr. Drea (sp) had come over and unbusted a cap out of is a** and that thought came to my mind when I wrote the post. Don't understand what your getting at with the "curiously Sub-like" remark.

[neo of the mind]

So you have nothing.

Does anybody have any argument that refutes YEC as Biblically correct?

I'll put some input on this within the Bible scope later today, leaving work.

[sub_zer0]

Distance myself? No. I have already stated my thought on the matter in other threads and that it not entirely in accordance with YEC. The old earth, gap theory is where I have hung my hat and nothing so far has given me reason to think other wise.

How can you have anything other than 6 days in Genesis?

[neo of the mind]

How can you have anything other than 6 days in Genesis?

I don't. The gap theory doesn't refute that.

[sub_zer0]

I don't. The gap theory doesn't refute that.

Then what is your stance, why do you claim gap theory instead of how Genesis states it?

[Dangerrmouse]

God exists in the ever shrinking gaps between the areas science has already explained?

[Dangerrmouse]

If God made light on day one, where did it come from?

[sub_zer0]

If God made light on day one, where did it come from?

I believe you are thinking of it wrong. There was light before something was attached to it like the sun, the moon. Creation is the essence of God, it displays Him, through the suns light and the moons light.

I will let Ezekial describe God and the radiance as if like the sun that surrounds Him:

Ezekial 1:28 "As the appearance of the rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the surrounding radiance Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD And when I saw it, I fell on my face and heard a voice speaking."

Err, actually, I think I do....

As you yourself say, Jesus doesn't teach it as a literal reading, but a symbolic one.

No He literally meant creation, not evolution. YEC stays Biblical in all ways, evolution is not.

[Dangerrmouse]

I believe you are thinking of it wrong. There was light before something was attached to it like the sun, the moon.

I am thinking of it differently to you, but not necessarily wrongly. The to-do list for Day One was Heavens, Earth, and Light, was it not?

[Alvin T. Grey]

Still haven't answered the question of how long were the two sex adicts were in the garden for?

[neo of the mind]

Still haven't answered the question of how long were the two sex adicts were in the garden for?

Who knows, the Bible doesn't give any indication of how long they were there. Can you not read the Bible and determine that yourself?


Did the "homosexual", Darwin write anything about it?

[Alvin T. Grey]

That's the whole point isn't it. There was no death, (or birth) in the Garden. Ergo you can't use the chronology of the descent of Jesus because you do not know how old adam actually was when he ate the fruit.
For a chronology to work, you must be able to use the same standard from the beginning to the present.
You can't.
Therefor the bible is inherrently flawed.

That's the problem with 'Faith based science'. You trust God to move mountains. I use dynamite.

Which one of us do you reckon succedes?

[sub_zer0]

I am thinking of it differently to you, but not necessarily wrongly. The to-do list for Day One was Heavens, Earth, and Light, was it not?

There was light before things were attached to it, that is my point.

[Dangerrmouse]

This "connecting things to it". How does the bible say it was done?

[neo of the mind]

This "connecting things to it". How does the bible say it was done?

The Bible's purpose is to focus us on Jesus and to reveal to us God's purpose and nature, not to explain the details of how God created things. That's the cart before the horse, understand what is important and maybe later, when we actually have the capacity, we will understand all the details if we even care then.

Your not going to get a satifactory answer for questions like this, because the Bible doesn't give these kind of details. The Bible gives details on things we need to understand. This not being one of them.

[Alvin T. Grey]

The Bible's purpose is to focus us on Jesus and to reveal to us God's purpose and nature, not to explain the details of how God created things. That's the cart before the horse, understand what is important and maybe later, when we actually have the capacity, we will understand all the details if we even care then.

Hence Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics et. all. - They are the methods by which we understand existance as it is, and as it has been. - The 'why', and the 'where are we going'. is a matter for religion.

And yes that includes evolution.

Your not going to get a satifactory answer for questions like this, because the Bible doesn't give these kind of details. The Bible gives details on things we need to understand. This not being one of them.
The bible gives us answers that people thousands of years ago could understand. Not us. we have growen past that. We know that there is no Santa Claus. there is no use clinging to the stories of childhood.

[neo of the mind]

Hence Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics et. all. - They are the methods by which we understand existance as it is, and as it has been. - The 'why', and the 'where are we going'. is a matter for religion.

And yes that includes evolution.

- and I never denied that Science was the method for that.


The bible gives us answers that people thousands of years ago could understand. Not us. we have growen past that. We know that there is no Santa Claus. there is no use clinging to the stories of childhood.

Here, you are unquestionably wrong. We can still understand these answers and the teaching of the Bible is still valid and relevant today. These are not childrens stories but factual information that has been given to us for us to know the "Why" and the "Where are we going", that you mention above. Did you forget about that so soon? Listen, it's not a mystery that you and others on this forum don't believe the Bible is truth, but stop the charade of objectivitiy.

[sub_zer0]

This "connecting things to it". How does the bible say it was done?

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5God called the light day, and the darkness He called night

So you now have light, which is seperated from darkneess then the creation of a day and night (light/dark) cycle. Then verses 7-15 talk about the heavens being created, then lights fixed to the heaves to create days and years and seasons.

There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

[Dangerrmouse]

The Bible's purpose is to focus us on Jesus and to reveal to us God's purpose and nature, not to explain the details of how God created things. That's the cart before the horse, understand what is important and maybe later, when we actually have the capacity, we will understand all the details if we even care then.

Your not going to get a satifactory answer for questions like this, because the Bible doesn't give these kind of details. The Bible gives details on things we need to understand. This not being one of them.

As good a summary of the limitations of the authors of the OT as I have seen. There are no details because they were rationalising the mysterious world around them as best they could. That some should blindly follow their conclusions, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary in this day and age, is frankly baffling.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Listen, it's not a mystery that you and others on this forum don't believe the Bible is truth, but stop the charade of objectivitiy.
I was once told (by someone much wiser then me, and after a sinfull amount of good food, and better wine) that one should never 'Assume that you are always right. Never dismiss the fact that your head maybe totally up your arse.'

It's something I live by.

[sub_zer0]

As good a summary of the limitations of the authors of the OT as I have seen. There are no details because they were rationalising the mysterious world around them as best they could. That some should blindly follow their conclusions, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary in this day and age, is frankly baffling.

You are assuming that the OT is supposed to detail the world around them, when it wasn't.

[Dangerrmouse]

So you now have light, which is seperated from darkneess then the creation of a day and night (light/dark) cycle. Then verses 7-15 talk about the heavens being created, then lights fixed to the heaves to create days and years and seasons.

I think you will find, although I tremble to question such a clearly defined biblical statement, that chronologically speaking, between an evening and a morning, there is usually a night, and not a day as asserted. A small thing in itself, but the implications are huge.....

[Alvin T. Grey]

I think you will find, although I tremble to question such a clearly defined biblical statement, that chronologically speaking, between an evening and a morning, there is usually a night, and not a day as asserted. A small thing in itself, but the implications are huge.....
Yerrrs. But you are neglecting the fact that 'Goddidit' Ergo, it must be right....YOU HEATHEN!

[neo of the mind]

As good a summary of the limitations of the authors of the OT as I have seen. There are no details because they were rationalising the mysterious world around them as best they could. That some should blindly follow their conclusions, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary in this day and age, is frankly baffling.

Then stay baffled and remain part of the 0.4% of the population in America that can't grasp the concept of God and it's implications.

[heel31ok]

I think you will find, although I tremble to question such a clearly defined biblical statement, that chronologically speaking, between an evening and a morning, there is usually a night, and not a day as asserted. A small thing in itself, but the implications are huge.....
I think this also speaks to your shakey grasp of the meaning of words.
Newsflash, it means night.evening and the morning = 1 day.
This explains alot about your problem with the Bible.

[heel31ok]

Yerrrs. But you are neglecting the fact that 'Goddidit' Ergo, it must be right....YOU HEATHEN!
more like neglecting what the words actually mean.

[sub_zer0]

I think you will find, although I tremble to question such a clearly defined biblical statement, that chronologically speaking, between an evening and a morning, there is usually a night, and not a day as asserted. A small thing in itself, but the implications are huge.....

Genesis 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

So God uses light/dark or as I said day/night cycle, with an evening (later day) and a morning (early day), to make one day.

[Dangerrmouse]

We'll break this down to stages. Firstly, we wake to a new Day. It is morning. the big yellow thing we call the Sun (source of light and heat, giving life to our planet) rises in the sky, then dips to the horizon, as evening commences. As the Sun goes down, the Moon rises, spreading reflected sunlight over the darkened side of the revolving planet. This is called Night, and invariably occurs between evening and morning, unlike Day, which happens between morning and evening. LITERALLY speaking.
God didn't reverse the revolution of the planet at some point, did he?

[brainpan]

Then stay baffled and remain part of the 0.4% of the population in America that can't grasp the concept of God and it's implications.Whoa! Hold yer' horses right there, partner! There is a whole tunza' difference between rejecting a particular religious dogma that is completely void of supporting evidence, and simply lacking the imagination to conceive of the God concept.

Furthermore, I would like to see the stats that indicate 99.6% of the population believe in a literally translated OT. Don't try a desperate retreat on this one either, because if your 99.6% figure doesn't represent people who believe in literal OT, then your response to Mr. Danger was meaningless.

[heel31ok]

Whoa! Hold yer' horses right there, partner! There is a whole tunza' difference between rejecting a particular religious dogma that is completely void of supporting evidence, and simply lacking the imagination to conceive of the God concept.

Furthermore, I would like to see the stats that indicate 99.6% of the population believe in a literally translated OT. Don't try a desperate retreat on this one either, because if your 99.6% figure doesn't represent people who believe in literal OT, then your response to Mr. Danger was meaningless.
whoa partner , like a good evolutionist you take what is, Neo's words , and add to it to make it what it is not then say that is how it is.try reading the post and responding to what is actually said. Neo does not need my help but I cannot help but comment on the fountain of misinformation that comes from total disregard for what is actually posted.
I can already imagine the response but at this point I do not care .

[heel31ok]

We'll break this down to stages. Firstly, we wake to a new Day. It is morning. the big yellow thing we call the Sun (source of light and heat, giving life to our planet) rises in the sky, then dips to the horizon, as evening commences. As the Sun goes down, the Moon rises, spreading reflected sunlight over the darkened side of the revolving planet. This is called Night, and invariably occurs between evening and morning, unlike Day, which happens between morning and evening. LITERALLY speaking.
God didn't reverse the revolution of the planet at some point, did he?
thanks for proving my point.You know nothing about the actual meaning of words.
A day in that culture is evening and morning in that order not how you look at it , though you are your own god your authority extends no further. It is similar to people calling Monday the first day of the week, which is also incorrect.
so just because that is all you know about day and night is not the answer.

[Dangerrmouse]

thanks for proving my point.You know nothing about the actual meaning of words.
A day in that culture is evening and morning in that order not how you look at it , though you are your own god your authority extends no further. It is similar to people calling Monday the first day of the week, which is also incorrect.
so just because that is all you know about day and night is not the answer.

Do you have any evidence for these ludicrous assertions apart from your barely intelligible diatribe?

[neo of the mind]

Whoa! Hold yer' horses right there, partner! There is a whole tunza' difference between rejecting a particular religious dogma that is completely void of supporting evidence, and simply lacking the imagination to conceive of the God concept.

Furthermore, I would like to see the stats that indicate 99.6% of the population believe in a literally translated OT. Don't try a desperate retreat on this one either, because if your 99.6% figure doesn't represent people who believe in literal OT, then your response to Mr. Danger was meaningless.


There was a study that somebody on this forum touted and it showed that atheists only make up 0.4% of the population. Go back and read it. I don't have time for this.

[neo of the mind]

Do you have any evidence for these ludicrous assertions apart from your barely intelligible diatribe?

Atheists only make up 0.4% of the population in America for a reason.

[heel31ok]

Do you have any evidence for these ludicrous assertions apart from your barely intelligible diatribe?
the evidence is every reply you have made where you have to have someone explain what the words mean. So my evidence is your posts themselves. Or another evidence may be to start with a dictionary, which is a book that gives definitions of words. That means it tells what words mean.It is a good way to find out things like that.Try it!

[Dangerrmouse]

In short you know nothing..... about "that culture's perceptions. "

Prove this claim you made in post 93.

"A day in that culture is evening and morning in that order not how you look at it"

[sub_zer0]

In short you know nothing..... about "that culture's perceptions. "

Prove this claim you made in post 93.

"A day in that culture is evening and morning in that order not how you look at it"

Perhaps this will help:
http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/Gendays.htm

[Dangerrmouse]

Perhaps this will help:
http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/Gendays.htm

I ploughed through the turgid dross. None of it applies to the case in point.

[heel31ok]

In short you know nothing..... about "that culture's perceptions. "

Prove this claim you made in post 93.

"A day in that culture is evening and morning in that order not how you look at it"
I am not the one begging to have everything spoonfed to me.in short you keep asking me so I may know nothing but you know even less because you needme to explain it to you.
I made no claim.Are you sure you know what that means ecause you confuse it with what I did. which is to intimate I have introduced something that is not commonly known and expect othersto believe it. On the contrary you are the one who cannot grasp a cultural establishment of a day. I see that you do not know what a day is because you are still in the dark. i think it is funny you have all the answers and tools yet cannot find what day in the hebrew culture consists of. Not only hebrew but the whole world started with the day
ordered this way. Day denotes a 24 hr period. I know it is hard but you can do it. A day is not to be confused with daytime or daylight. Just because all you know is day is when it is light does not mean the whole world and human history are bound by your limitations.
the all knowing bible haters have knowledge about the contradictions of the bible and every obscure nuance but does notknow what a day is. Goodnight! :rolleyes:

[Dangerrmouse]

I ask you to back up your claim with supporting evidence. That you continue to avoid the issue speaks volumes.

[steveksux]

I ask you to back up your claim with supporting evidence. That you continue to avoid the issue speaks volumes.I think you're right DM....

Generally if one has the ability to prove one of their assertions, they just do it rather than posting a lot of whining and namecalling interspersed with spittle flying. Much more productive AND persuasive.

Randy

[Alvin T. Grey]

Nobody has answered the question of exavtly how long Adam and Eve spent in the garden. - Seeing that they were to all intents and purposes immortal at that time....It could have been days, months, Years, Millenia, Eons.
The bible is curiously silent on that.

And that' sthe point. If you want to have a chronology, it must be consistant throughout it's period.
Otherwise, you are making it up as you go along.

[sub_zer0]

Nobody has answered the question of exavtly how long Adam and Eve spent in the garden. - Seeing that they were to all intents and purposes immortal at that time....It could have been days, months, Years, Millenia, Eons.
The bible is curiously silent on that.

Most likely not that long, probably no more than a year.

And that' sthe point. If you want to have a chronology, it must be consistant throughout it's period.
Otherwise, you are making it up as you go along.

No I am not.

[Dangerrmouse]

Most likely not that long, probably no more than a year...

A year does not seem very long in Paradise.

[sub_zer0]

A year does not seem very long in Paradise.

Oh well, they made the mistake of not following Gods' will.

[JoeR]

You defied me! You and your children are cursed for eternity!


Fair?

[sub_zer0]

You defied me! You and your children are cursed for eternity!

Fair?

No, and that is why God doesn't say that and you are not even attacking a Biblical position.

It is more like this...

You defied me, you either ask for forgiveness and have it granted through Christ, or you will get what you want and not have to be in my presence.

Fair? I think so.

[JoeR]

Why should their children be punished for their transgressions?

What is not being in god's precense? Is it non-existence or is it a fiery hell?

[sub_zer0]

Why should their children be punished for their transgressions?

Through sin entered death into the world. We are all cursed to begin with.

What is not being in god's precense? Is it non-existence or is it a fiery hell?

It means God will leave you to be in Hell, where Satan rules. Ultimately you can choose Christ and be in blissful Heaven or not and be in a fiery Hell.

Those are the choices and consequences, take it or leave it.

[JoeR]

Through sin entered death into the world. We are all cursed to begin with.

God didn't have to let their sins affect the rest of us.

Frankly the story of the fall only makes sense as an allegory for why humans are morally responsible for their actions in contrast with the rest of the animal kingdom - we know better.

[sub_zer0]

God didn't have to let their sins affect the rest of us.

Please don't use your qualifiers as how God should act. I am simply presenting the way it DID happen.

[JoeR]

Please don't use your qualifiers as how God should act. I am simply presenting the way it DID happen.

According to your literalist interpretation of scripture.

No all-good divine entity would act in such a way that is so clearly unfair at best.

[sub_zer0]

According to your literalist interpretation of scripture.

No all-good divine entity would act in such a way that is so clearly unfair at best.

It is unfair to give you a choice?

[JoeR]

The idea of punishing the son for the sins of the father is unfair, which if I remember correctly is also prescribed later in the Bible as well.

Of course then it gets back to the whole belief not being a choice thing.

[muffins]

YEC is Biblical, I have stated in detail that Biblical chronology is 6,000 years from creation of the world until now, that is all that is allowed when using the Bible! So I am not being presumptious as telling God what methods He used, He told us, my views are based on Biblical teachings and by Christ, which is YEC.

ANYTHING evolution is NOT Biblical only creation in 6 days by God, variation within created kinds, or YEC is completely Biblical and following what Christ taught! There is no evidence of evolution that cannot be called YEC.

So when does Christ teach anything but a literal reading of Genesis?

When does the Bible say that God uses evolution, and needs it because everything can't be created in 6 days and just have variation within the created kind?

What, in the Bible leads you to believe that evolution is what God used to create?
The Çatalhöyük settlement is 9,500 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atal_H%C3%BCy%C3%BCk

I'm going to challenge you to either accept ALL the findings of science (evolution, age of the universe, etc), since they have to be verifiable and backed up with actual evidence, or reject ALL science and go off to live in a cave without television, plastics, electrical heating or the internet (thank the non-existent gawd :rolleyes: )

[Alvin T. Grey]

Most likely not that long, probably no more than a year.
Exactly. You ask me to use reason, and research, yet you rely on faith. Can't you see the intrinsic flaw in this debate?



No I am not.
OK, you are extrapolating based upon the research of peers.

Translation 'Repeating things others made up'.

[neo of the mind]

Adam lived 930 years. You can trace the time back towards Adams creation date. At max, Adam would have lived in the garden 130 years before Seth was born and X amount of time after that. That X amount of time is not important for dating and the Bible doesn't tell us.

So, using simple logic.

Adam was removed from the garden that was east in Eden BEFORE Seth was born, so they could not have been in the garden for more than 129 years.

[neo of the mind]

The Çatalhöyük settlement is 9,500 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atal_H%C3%BCy%C3%BCk

I'm going to challenge you to either accept ALL the findings of science (evolution, age of the universe, etc), since they have to be verifiable and backed up with actual evidence, or reject ALL science and go off to live in a cave without television, plastics, electrical heating or the internet (thank the non-existent gawd :rolleyes: )


I will then have to ask you to abide by ALL the findings of science as well and keep yo yo'ing back and forth every day from what scientists say is fact, what they say is harmful to us one day and good for us the next.

Stop thanking God for your ignorance and ask for wisdom instead.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Adam lived 930 years. You can trace the time back towards Adams creation date. At max, Adam would have lived in the garden 130 years before Seth was born and X amount of time after that. That X amount of time is not important for dating and the Bible doesn't tell us.

So, using simple logic.

Adam was removed from the garden that was east in Eden BEFORE Seth was born, so they could not have been in the garden for more than 129 years.
Adam died at 930 years. Seeing as he couldn't age while in the garden, and nothing could change, then there is no method or indication of time spent from his creation, to the moment he took a hike. He began to die (was in effect born) the moment that that hussy got him turfed out.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Ok, that's weird.....

[muffins]

I will then have to ask you to abide by ALL the findings of science ...
I do, thank you very much. I'd rather worry about whether or not potatos are bad for me, rather than worrying about the water that drips through my cave roof :p

[neo of the mind]

I do, thank you very much. I'd rather worry about whether or not potatos are bad for me, rather than worrying about the water that drips through my cave roof :p

and I don't worry about either one. :p

[neo of the mind]

Adam died at 930 years. Seeing as he couldn't age while in the garden, and nothing could change, then there is no method or indication of time spent from his creation, to the moment he took a hike. He began to die (was in effect born) the moment that that hussy got him turfed out.

When he was formed he was 0 years old and had Seth when he was 130 years old. Who said Adam didn't age while in the garden? That's not Biblical.

[heel31ok]

When he was formed he was 0 years old and had Seth when he was 130 years old. Who said Adam didn't age while in the garden? That's not Biblical.
I would have to say that the question of age was non existent until the fall because adam was created to live forever.So in that sense i would say it is biblical he did not age until the fall.The question raised by this is at what stage was Adam created ? child,teenage ,young adult, full adult?which also brings into question the same thing about the earth and creation itself. some suggest if that is the case then God was using trickery but the question is what would be the most practical stage of development to make creation at the beginning?

[neo of the mind]

I would have to say that the question of age was non existent until the fall because adam was created to live forever.So in that sense i would say it is biblical he did not age until the fall.The question raised by this is at what stage was Adam created ? child,teenage ,young adult, full adult?which also brings into question the same thing about the earth and creation itself. some suggest if that is the case then God was using trickery but the question is what would be the most practical stage of development to make creation at the beginning?


regardless of what "stage" he was in, since he wasn't born of woman, the day he was formed would have him start off with an age of 0, would it not?

As far as him being created to live forever, that would be true, but time was in existence to him and though his body may not have aged physically, time would still keep going, hence by the time he was 130 years old, Seth was born.

[heel31ok]

regardless of what "stage" he was in, since he wasn't born of woman, the day he was formed would have him start off with an age of 0, would it not?

As far as him being created to live forever, that would be true, but time was in existence to him and though his body may not have aged physically, time would still keep going, hence by the time he was 130 years old, Seth was born.
I agree on the 0 start.My question was not a question of how to set an age but more of was he a man at 0, the chicken or the egg question as it were.
I do not see time as a factor in ther light of eternity until it started winding down.
Now if you mean by aging continued development that would make more sense to me.

[neo of the mind]

That an interesting question. I could see it being valid that he could have been created as a child, teenager or full grown adult. I think that will be a question we will have to wait to find out. If I had to guess, I would say he was a grown man.

[sub_zer0]

Adam died at 930 years. Seeing as he couldn't age while in the garden, and nothing could change, then there is no method or indication of time spent from his creation, to the moment he took a hike. He began to die (was in effect born) the moment that that hussy got him turfed out.

There was time in the Garden East of Eden.

That an interesting question. I could see it being valid that he could have been created as a child, teenager or full grown adult. I think that will be a question we will have to wait to find out. If I had to guess, I would say he was a grown man.

Samd here neo, if anything he was a grown man.

[towski]

I have a question regarding Genesis. Forgive and indulge me if this has been answered before.

And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Where did the land of Nod and it's residents come from?

[sub_zer0]

I have a question regarding Genesis. Forgive and indulge me if this has been answered before.

And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Where did the land of Nod and it's residents come from?

There were no residents, it was simply a stretch of land called Nod that Cain went to after the fall. Then a city was built by Enoch, Cain's son, after which inhabitants then dwelled in the land of Nod, specifically in the city of Enoch.

[towski]

There were no residents, it was simply a stretch of land called Nod that Cain went to after the fall. Then a city was built by Enoch, Cain's son, after which inhabitants then dwelled in the land of Nod, specifically in the city of Enoch.

Who did Cain marry?

[sub_zer0]

Who did Cain marry?

One of Adam and Eve's daughters most likely.

[Alvin T. Grey]

There was time in the Garden East of Eden.
That's gotta suck for them hasn't it? But it still dosn't answer the question.
Adam died at 930 years. That's 930 years Outside the Garden. How long was he inside it for?

[towski]

One of Adam and Eve's daughters most likely.

So, his sister?

[sub_zer0]

So, his sister?

Yep. Most likely, as they were to be "fruitful" and multiply on the face of the earth.

How else could he get a wife?

[neo of the mind]

That's gotta suck for them hasn't it? But it still dosn't answer the question.
Adam died at 930 years. That's 930 years Outside the Garden. How long was he inside it for?

Between 1 day and 130 years. That's the best answer you can obtain from scripture.

[towski]

Yep. Most likely, as they were to be "fruitful" and multiply on the face of the earth.

How else could he get a wife?

My question as well. I don't read anything in the passage about him marrying his sister, only that Cain "went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."

It sounds to me like Cain went out into the world, where he found a wife. :shrug:

[neo of the mind]

My question as well. I don't read anything in the passage about him marrying his sister, only that Cain "went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."

It sounds to me like Cain went out into the world, where he found a wife. :shrug:

Well, it just says that Cain dwelt in the land of Nod, had sexual relations with his wife, she bore a son named Enoch and then Cain built a city and named it after his son. When and where he "found" his wife is not stated but it would be between X amount of years after he was born and when he went to Nod. That is all that can be taken from scripture without assuming something.

[Alvin T. Grey]

sorry, my bad. dupe dupe dupe-itty-dupe

[Alvin T. Grey]

I have a question regarding Genesis. Forgive and indulge me if this has been answered before.



Where did the land of Nod and it's residents come from?
They were the ones who were all over the world buring those Dinosaur bones. - Oh, sorry 'Jesus lizards'. Think of them as 'Gods Umpa-Lumpas'. as such, they stayed in the background pretty much.
Oh, and they didn't sing annoying, pedantic, selfimportant songs.......or the weren't short......or orange skinned.......and chocolate hadn't been invented..


But other then that, it's a bloody good metaphor

[neo of the mind]

They were the ones who were all over the world buring those Dinosaur bones. - Oh, sorry 'Jesus lizards'. Think of them as 'Gods Umpa-Lumpas'. as such, they stayed in the background pretty much.
Oh, and they didn't sing annoying, pedantic, selfimportant songs.......or the weren't short......or orange skinned.......and chocolate hadn't been invented..


But other then that, it's a bloody good metaphor



So now it's back to this? Questions about the Bible are raised, legitimate answers are given and people that don't believe the Bible to be truth are left with making asinine remarks. If you don't accept the Bible as truth, then move along, you are doing nothing except breaking forum rules and looking like a fool.

[serenity]

Incest...that's gross, man.

[steveksux]

Incest...that's gross, man.
Say you're Cain.

If there are no other women at all in the world to compare your sister to... by definition she's gotta be looking hot, right?. :shrug: What's the alternative? Have sex with your brother Abel??? :eek: :shock:

Randy

[brainpan]

I think you're right DM....

Generally if one has the ability to prove one of their assertions, they just do it rather than posting a lot of whining and namecalling interspersed with spittle flying. Much more productive AND persuasive.

RandyMay as well make it three of us who agree on that point.

[neo of the mind]

May as well make it three of us who agree on that point.

as opposed to the type of post previous to yours (#142,#144,#145) , which compromises at least 40% of the Atheist pack's posts. LOL.

[brainpan]

There was a study that somebody on this forum touted and it showed that atheists only make up 0.4% of the population. Go back and read it. I don't have time for this.OK. So you had a random comment about a study that probably isn't valid even if it exists. But such a study wouldn't be relevant, atheism and belief in literal OT are not the only choices. Rejecting religious dogma that finds support from no testable evidence is not the same thing as lacking the capability to grasp the concept of it.

[neo of the mind]

In short you know nothing..... about "that culture's perceptions. "

Prove this claim you made in post 93.

"A day in that culture is evening and morning in that order not how you look at it"

Here is your Biblical answer which is also backed up by Jewish custom today. The day is from sunset to sunset.

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/day.html

[neo of the mind]

OK. So you had a random comment about a study that probably isn't valid even if it exists. But such a study wouldn't be relevant, atheism and belief in literal OT are not the only choices. Rejecting religious dogma that finds support from no testable evidence is not the same thing as lacking the capability to grasp the concept of it.


The study that doesn't exist was given by the FlyingGuineaPig in the "The Church is fading" thread, post#35. Look it up if you don't believe me.

"atheism and belief in literal OT" - That wasn't a limitation I introduced into an ongoing discussion, when I made the comment, it was you. It is moot that atheists believe the Bible is literal or figurative and that was my point.

[heel31ok]

That an interesting question. I could see it being valid that he could have been created as a child, teenager or full grown adult. I think that will be a question we will have to wait to find out. If I had to guess, I would say he was a grown man.
If that is reasonable then why would it not also be reasonable to look at the creation of the earth the same way?
I just see the fall as the x factor skewing alot of so called data about the age of the earth. Which began as a fully formed earth.

[steveksux]

If that is reasonable then why would it not also be reasonable to look at the creation of the earth the same way?
I just see the fall as the x factor skewing alot of so called data about the age of the earth. Which began as a fully formed earth.Which again you make up out of thin air with no explanation of how the fall of man would affect any of the physical constants of the universe science relies on for dating purposes which would make the earth look older than it is. You can't even find a biblical reference to back it up. It is totally made up.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

Which again you make up out of thin air with no explanation of how the fall of man would affect any of the physical constants of the universe science relies on for dating purposes which would make the earth look older than it is. You can't even find a biblical reference to back it up. It is totally made up.

Randy

Are you answering for me? I believe his question was directed at me.

[FlyingGuineapig]

OK. So you had a random comment about a study that probably isn't valid even if it exists. But such a study wouldn't be relevant, atheism and belief in literal OT are not the only choices. Rejecting religious dogma that finds support from no testable evidence is not the same thing as lacking the capability to grasp the concept of it.

Here's the link
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm#The%20Big%20Picture

There's actually probably a fair amount of confusion that can result from folks selectively quoting it.
- First, it's the US, not the world (kind of tough to do world polls).
- Second, it breaks things into categories and then subcategories. Not everyone will agree with how the classifications are done. For example, Catholics are Christians (in fact, the largest of all Christian sects). This might freak a few of the anti-Catholic Christians out (it might also freak them out that Mormons are Christians too).
- For "no religion", the vast majority of those (13.2% of the 14.1%), just gave "No Religion" as opposed to Agnostic or Atheist. It looks like they dumped anyone who put down Humanist or Secular into the "No religion" bucket as well.

I don't know how good of a survey it is. It does match (roughly) a lot of other statistics I've seen. Some things that are a pretty good bet:
- About 70-80% of the US are "Christians" of some sort, with Catholics being the largest sect.
- About 15% of the US are "non-religious", with explicit atheists rare (1% or less).

[neo of the mind]

Here's the link
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm#The%20Big%20Picture

There's actually probably a fair amount of confusion that can result from folks selectively quoting it.
- Really, what confusion did I introduce?

- First, it's the US, not the world (kind of tough to do world polls).
- Did I say or imply "world"...here are the quotes of what I actually said, Do you interpret anything I say as meaning world?

"Then stay baffled and remain part of the 0.4% of the population in America that can't grasp the concept of God and it's implications."
"Atheists only make up 0.4% of the population in America for a reason."

I can't see how, when I say in both, "AMERICA".


- Second, it breaks things into categories and then subcategories. Not everyone will agree with how the classifications are done. For example, Catholics are Christians (in fact, the largest of all Christian sects). This might freak a few of the anti-Catholic Christians out (it might also freak them out that Mormons are Christians too).
- For "no religion", the vast majority of those (13.2% of the 14.1%), just gave "No Religion" as opposed to Agnostic or Atheist. It looks like they dumped anyone who put down Humanist or Secular into the "No religion" bucket as well.

-and it specifcally points out people that stated they were atheists at 0.4% of the population.

I don't know how good of a survey it is. It does match (roughly) a lot of other statistics I've seen. Some things that are a pretty good bet:
- About 70-80% of the US are "Christians" of some sort, with Catholics being the largest sect.
- About 15% of the US are "non-religious", with explicit atheists rare (1% or less).

- so your not refuting my 0.4% atheist figure...so what confusion are you saying has occured?

[steveksux]

Are you answering for me? I believe his question was directed at me.Not at all, just pointing out that concept mentioned in his answer came up before and the question I raised at that point was never answered. So I was bringing it up again.

Randy

[heel31ok]

Which again you make up out of thin air with no explanation of how the fall of man would affect any of the physical constants of the universe science relies on for dating purposes which would make the earth look older than it is. You can't even find a biblical reference to back it up. It is totally made up.

Randy
so your point is what? A free thinking individual develops questions from a creative mind instead of only what is spoon fed them. Swallow what you want and be brainwashed with the poison you ingest.
It is called original thought. Try it sometime.
Well the fact that these dating methods show a live creature to be millions of years old casts a little doubt on the whole process.Yet you can swallow that slop without even holding your nose.
No the concepts are not out of context with the conversation I am having with neo.
But if you must know the concept of death is more than the expiration of a living thing.It also includes decay .This is not made up out of thin air, these concepts come from the word of God. Now if you do not get it then sorry.

[steveksux]

so your point is what? A free thinking individual develops questions from a creative mind instead of only what is spoon fed them. Swallow what you want and be brainwashed with the poison you ingest.
It is called original thought. Try it sometime. So you admit you made it up out of thin air with no basis in scripture nor science. Cool. That's all I wanted to hear.
Well the fact that these dating methods show a live creature to be millions of years old casts a little doubt on the whole process.Link please. Since you admit making things up I cannot take your word for such a ridiculous claim. No the concepts are not out of context with the conversation I am having with neo.I never said they were.
But if you must know the concept of death is more than the expiration of a living thing.It also includes decay .This is not made up out of thin air, these concepts come from the word of God. Now if you do not get it then sorry.What does this have to do with the apparent age of the earth being skewed? Are you talking radioactive decay rates used for dating things? How is radioactive decay affected by sin? Simple question. Provide biblical or scientific references to show sin affecting radioactive decay rates thereby throwing off dating methods.

Oh, right, you admitted making that up out of thin air... There are no biblical or scientific references to support that... carry on. :lol:

Randy

[heel31ok]

So you admit you made it up out of thin air with no basis in scripture nor science. Cool. That's all I wanted to hear.
Link please. Since you admit making things up I cannot take your word for such a ridiculous claim. I never said they were. What does this have to do with the apparent age of the earth being skewed? Are you talking radioactive decay rates used for dating things? How is radioactive decay affected by sin? Simple question. Provide biblical or scientific references to show sin affecting radioactive decay rates thereby throwing off dating methods.

Oh, right, you admitted making that up out of thin air... There are no biblical or scientific references to support that... carry on. :lol:

Randy
No the assumptions you make come from not reading the whole post before you reply.
Oh right you think I admitted making things up out of mid air in general then apply it across the board which is the way an evolutionist operates. False application of data. It fits you well.
The free thinking comes from the concepts and questions posed to neo in the context of the conversation. Then you misread and add the answer I give to any topic you want and then act you have some great revealtion which in fact is nothing more than a crude attempt to use deceptive argumentative tricks to make yourself feel better and try to apply a false notion / outright lie to my whole position. Good try but not happenin'.
as far as biblical references you would not know that now would you so how can you comment on it? Huh?Unless you do know that and are purposely distorting the truth.
I know the whole dating thing is lost on you but I am not the responsible party in charge of your education. I look for myself and suggest you do likewise.
if there was no basis then the creative juices of freethought wouldnot be primed in the first place. That is a fact which has to do with my creative process. no link needed it comes straight from the source.

[steveksux]

No the assumptions you make come from not reading the whole post before you reply.
Oh right you think I admitted making things up out of mid air in general then apply it across the board which is the way an evolutionist operates. False application of data. It fits you well.
The free thinking comes from the concepts and questions posed to neo in the context of the conversation. Then you misread and add the answer I give to any topic you want and then act you have some great revealtion which in fact is nothing more than a crude attempt to use deceptive argumentative tricks to make yourself feel better and try to apply a false notion / outright lie to my whole position. Good try but not happenin'.
as far as biblical references you would not know that now would you so how can you comment on it? Huh?Unless you do know that and are purposely distorting the truth.
I know the whole dating thing is lost on you but I am not the responsible party in charge of your education. I look for myself and suggest you do likewise.
if there was no basis then the creative juices of freethought wouldnot be primed in the first place. That is a fact which has to do with my creative process. no link needed it comes straight from the source.If you had a biblical reference to back it up, you'd simply post it. And we already know you are unfamiliar with basic science, so that's not an option. :sorry: Game over.

Randy

[heel31ok]

If you had a biblical reference to back it up, you'd simply post it. And we already know you are unfamiliar with basic science, so that's not an option. :sorry: Game over.

Randy
finally! Neo still want to discuss?

[sub_zer0]

So you admit you made it up out of thin air with no basis in scripture nor science. Cool. That's all I wanted to hear.
Link please. Since you admit making things up I cannot take your word for such a ridiculous claim. I never said they were. What does this have to do with the apparent age of the earth being skewed? Are you talking radioactive decay rates used for dating things? How is radioactive decay affected by sin? Simple question. Provide biblical or scientific references to show sin affecting radioactive decay rates thereby throwing off dating methods.

Oh, right, you admitted making that up out of thin air... There are no biblical or scientific references to support that... carry on. :lol:

Randy

Are you still asking for Biblical references to the age of the earth?

[FlyingGuineapig]

- so your not refuting my 0.4% atheist figure...so what confusion are you saying has occured?
Actually, Neo, this is one of the rare cases when I'm not picking on you. Seriously. :flowers: The confusion comments were just kind of rolling several various comments made in different threads by different folks (I don't recall you as having made any of the ones I regarded as confusions).

[neo of the mind]

finally! Neo still want to discuss?

Sure, but I am thinking it should be a new thread. A lot of the problems for a number of us on this forum is that the threads keep going into 50 different directions and there is not enough focus on the original topic.

Let me post a thread on this and see if it can stay focused.

[neo of the mind]

Actually, Neo, this is one of the rare cases when I'm not picking on you. Seriously. :flowers: The confusion comments were just kind of rolling several various comments made in different threads by different folks (I don't recall you as having made any of the ones I regarded as confusions).


oh, ok, that's nice to know that, though rare, there are quiet happy times that I won't be picked on. :) I must be doing something wrong.

[steveksux]

Are you still asking for Biblical references to the age of the earth?Nope. Biblical references or actual scientific theories that explain how sin and the "fall" changed constants of nature like radioactive decay to make the Earth appear older than the 6,000 to 10,000 years you guys are claiming.

Heel seems to have blown a gasket trying to avoid answering it. Care to try?

Randy

[heel31ok]

Nope. Biblical references or actual scientific theories that explain how sin and the "fall" changed constants of nature like radioactive decay to make the Earth appear older than the 6,000 to 10,000 years you guys are claiming.

Heel seems to have blown a gasket trying to avoid answering it. Care to try?

Randy
Extra innings, you go Casey!

[sub_zer0]

Nope. Biblical references or actual scientific theories that explain how sin and the "fall" changed constants of nature like radioactive decay to make the Earth appear older than the 6,000 to 10,000 years you guys are claiming.

Wait, you say "nope" but then ask for "biblical references or actual scientific theories"? I will stick with scientific theories that point to the worldview the Bible teaches.

Firs you have to understand that:
The main assumption of radiometric dating is that the radioactive decay rates are constant with time. If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any date based on radioactive decay is worthless.

A scientific research group called RATE ( Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth ) was formed by the Institute for Creation Research to study this issue from a creationist perspective. They have determined that the most likely times for accelerated decay were the first 2.5 days of the creation week, and during the flood and shortly there after.

And then realize that is a blind assumption:

If radioactive decay has been go for millions and Billions of years then there is insufficient argon diffusion, insufficient lead diffusion, insufficient Helium in the air, and too much Helium in Rocks.

Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE group indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay have taken place, but in one or more short periods 4000 - 8000 years ago. This would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth to only a few thousand years.

This was done by extracting hard, dense, microscopic crystals called zircons. Much of the uranium and thorium in the earth's continental crust is in zircons and it is often imbedded in flakes of biotite; a black mica. Helium is made as uranium decays to lead as it emits eight alpha particles per atom. These helium nuclei quickly gathers two electrons from the crystal becoming complete helium atoms.

Los Alamos measurements of uranium, thorium, and lead showed "1.5 billion" years worth of nuclear decay at today's rates. After calculating how much helium had been deposited by decay, they then measured how much helium was still in the zircons. It turned out that up to 58% of helium had not diffused out of the zircons and the percentages decreased with depth and temperature.

At the time that the RATE group began its work, the diffusion rates had not been measured for the Zircons and biotite. So based on the helium found in zircons, Dr. Russell Humphreys calculated the diffusion rates for both Creation and Uniformitarian models. He found that the rates for the two models differers by a factor of 100,000.

When the diffusion rate was measured they matched the Creation Model while they were found to be totally incompatible with the Uniformitarian Model These results along with the helium observed in zircons shows that diffusion has been occurring for 6000 ± 2000 years. These rates are about 250,000 times to high for the uniformitarian model, there by eliminating the 1.5 billion years. In order for zircons to retain the observed amount of helium for 1.5 billion years it would have to have been at the temperature of liquid nitrogen (-196ºC below zero) and is that incompatible with life.

http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Accelerated_decay

[FlyingGuineapig]

Taking the Institute for Creation Research's word on science would be like using Madalyn Murray O'Hair as sole judge of the Bible's accuracy. :rolleyes:

[steveksux]

The main assumption of radiometric dating is that the radioactive decay rates are constant with time. If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any date based on radioactive decay is worthless.Very true. However, it would be nice if they had any evidence of a change in radioactive decay, a reason besides the fact they need it to prevent their young earth theory from falling completely apart. What's worthless is speculation about "constants" of nature varying just so to fit theories that otherwise violate known laws of physics and constants of nature.

A scientific research group called RATE ( Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth ) was formed by the Institute for Creation Research to study this issue from a creationist perspective. A scientific group? Really? :lol: They have determined that the most likely times for accelerated decay were the first 2.5 days of the creation week, and during the flood and shortly there after. And how have they determined this? What is it about a flood that would alter radioactive decay rates? Rather preposterous. We have plenty of floods now, we could test this theory. But better not, as long as you don't prove the theory is nonsense, you can claim it might be true.

But I give you credit for at least attempting to address the issue. Its my fault, I forgot to ask for "biblical references or credible scientific theories" after all..

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Very true. However, it would be nice if they had any evidence of a change in radioactive decay, a reason besides the fact they need it to prevent their young earth theory from falling completely apart. What's worthless is speculation about "constants" of nature varying just so to fit theories that otherwise violate known laws of physics and constants of nature.

I guess you missed this part, let me quote the main points that address evidence of a change in radioactive decay:

RATE has concluded that 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay have taken place, but within shorter periods of time, 4000-8000 years ago. This would shrink the billion year radioisotope age of the earth to only a few thousand years.

This was accomplished by extracting hard, dense, microscopic crystals called zircons. Much of the uranium and thorium in the earth's continental crust is in zircons and it is often imbedded in flakes of biotite; a black mica. Helium is made as uranium decays to lead as it emits eight alpha particles per atom, these helium nuclei quickly gather two electrons from the crystal becoming complete helium atoms.

Los Alamos measurements of uranium, thorium, and lead showed "1.5 billion" years worth of nuclear decay at today's rates. After calculating how much helium had been deposited by decay, they then measured how much helium was still in the zircons. It turned out that up to 58% of helium had not diffused out of the zircons and