Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

Creation, Dinosaurs, & Science with Dr. Mortenson
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Creation, Dinosaurs, & Science with Dr. Mortenson Poimen
I'd like to open this thread, this dialog, by first thanking Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis for taking the time to engage with us, and to express how honored we are that they, he, would make themselves available to add to our discussion. We welcome you here in the hope of the eyes of all of our understanding being enlightened, and each becoming all the more grounded in the word of truth and what it teaches about creation.

We understand that your time and ability to participate is limited, that this is a new medium of communication for you, and that your purpose in visiting here is to offer some input to this specific topic and thread. We do not wish to inconvenience nor weary you, and are grateful for any help or perspective you can share. That being said, we welcome you and look forward to your insight and input.

Permit me to start by quoting from the original discussion among ourselves, resetting the question(s) as they developed then, and which led to contacting AIG and you in the first place. I will offer pertinent quotes below and await your response.

The other conversation began with Troy saying ...

Troy Hamby wrote:
In another thread, [Poimen] said that they believe in a literal 1 week creation period and God rested on the 7th day. So, as has been asked me in the past, I will ask the obvious question.

If God created EVERYTHING in a 1 week period about 6,000 years ago or so, how do you account for dinosaurs and carbon dating which proves the Earth is billions of years old?

I'm not taking either side, I'm just curious as to how you answer that question.


I replied:
Quote:
I think the Bible is actually very clear on the subject, and my beliefs are based on the Bible, not science. I'm not opposed to science, nor am I opposed to using science to better understand and/or affirm the Bible. But the bible is my bedrock, my premise -- not science. I choose to believe God's revelation over anything else, even my misunderstandings about it. After all His word is truth.

That said, carbon dating is riddled with error, as even atheistic and evolutionist scientists will admit. For better information on the subject academically I refer you to Answers in Genesis and to make a visit to the Creation Museum.

As for dinosaurs, well, like the Bible says all land dwelling creatures were created on the 6th day. Dinosaurs, of necessity, were among them. Man and Dinosaur co-existed. Any scientific claim to the contrary is ultimately simply wrong, a science falsely so called.

Now, were you looking for something else in the way of answer? Were you perhaps looking for an apologetic and/or explanation as if you were a non-believer and/or unsettled believer on the issue? I am willing to oblige so long as the conversation remains civil, if that is more what you were looking for.


Troy clarified:
Quote:
Poimen, I was looking more for an apologetic that can be used when speaking with an educated non-believer who has a scientific background.

I've had this conversation and I didn't come away feeling comfortable with the literal 7 day creation period and definitely didn't buy into the Earth being 6,000 years old. Even if you take carbon dating out of the equation, you can look at rock formations and see how certain parts of the rock only appear after a certain # of years. Scientists have watched it happen with their own eyes, so it's not speculation. So, if we can observe these things in nature now and it's pretty consistent, then why would God change the natural order of things 6,000 years ago? And we can also look to the stars to see how space is expanding and moving away from us and this happens at consistent intervals that allow us to measure time. Did this change all of a sudden 6,000 years ago?

I think I could support the idea that God created the universe in 7 of HIS days, but those days could have been thousands or millions of years long or had billions of years in between those days. This could reconcile all the seemingly contradictory things that oppose the 6,000 year old Earth view.


I answered:
Quote:
Then I would definitely refer them, and you, to Answers in Genesis. Their staff includes believing scientists, and they steadily offer both biblical and scientific information in support of a literal, young earth, creationist, biblical worldview.

I don't disown my fellow believers who grapple with a young earth view, or who hold or remain open to the possibility of some variation of the gap theory, a pre-adamite world, etc. I think they are wrong. I think we can know. I think relying on the authority of Scripture will eventually, ultimately, only conclude in supporting a YEC view.

I hope my fellow believers who feel differently will not disown me either.

That said, I cannot abide an allegorical interpretation of the creation week as biblically valid or consistent. I believe THAT to be a particularly damaging heresy.


Not being personally versed in the scientific side of these arguments, from there we contacted you, Dr. Terry Mortenson. Of course, there were more participants, and more viewpoints in that thread than is quoted above. Much of which may be repeated or brought up again here. However, I wanted to keep this as pointed as I could for your initial reading and response. We await your opening comments brother.



**NOTE to Regular ACTS Users**
With permission from Doyle (the board owner), I am asking you to refrain from replying to this thread until Dr. Mortenson has responded first, allowing his comments to lead the development and unfolding of the discussion from there. Thank you.

_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/8/13 8:07 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post Troy Hamby
waiting for the Dr.

Last edited by Troy Hamby on 8/8/13 12:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2460
8/8/13 8:55 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post The World is CLEARLY older than 6000 years old Aaron Scott
We know this from anchored dendrochronology alone proves this. So let's AT LEAST agree that the earth is 11,000 years old (which anchored dendrochronolgy--using tree rings and cross-matching proves).

I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that either God is WANTING to fool us...or, indeed, the earth is a LOT OLDER than young-earthers claim.


Last edited by Aaron Scott on 8/8/13 8:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
8/8/13 9:10 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Please hold comments till Dr. Mortenson can reply 1st Poimen
Apparently you guys missed this in the OP ...

Quote:
**NOTE to Regular ACTS Users**
With permission from Doyle (the board owner), I am asking you to refrain from replying to this thread until Dr. Mortenson has responded first, allowing his comments to lead the development and unfolding of the discussion from there. Thank you.


Please hold comments till Dr. Mortenson can reply 1st. Thank you.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/8/13 9:20 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post Re: Creation, Dinosaurs, & Science with Dr. Mortenson #18
Poimen wrote:
**NOTE to Regular ACTS Users**
With permission from Doyle (the board owner), I am asking you to refrain from replying to this thread until Dr. Mortenson has responded first, allowing his comments to lead the development and unfolding of the discussion from there. Thank you.


That's the smallest fine-print I've ever seen, outside a Visa application

Razz
Friendly Face
Posts: 146
8/8/13 3:05 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Genesis, dating methods, dinosaurs & the age of the crea Terry Mortenson
You all are raising some interesting points. I would encourage you all to get a copy of
The New Answers Book, Vol. 1. It answers the 27 most-asked questions on origins, many of which are related to your present discussion. It can be read free on-line here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab (sorry, I don’t know how to hyperlink in this response). Just click on the chapter title in the side bar on the right of the page to read the chapter you are interested in. Having said that let me make a few brief comments here.

There is one other book you should all have in your library. Coming to Grips with Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/coming-grips-genesis/) is an in-depth biblical and historical defense of young-earth creation produced by 14 theologians (mostly seminary professors). The chapters in the volume are listed on the web page above. Chapter 3 (based on my own PhD research) explains where the millions of years idea came from historically—and it wasn’t from the rocks and fossils but rather from anti-biblical philosophical and religious assumptions used to interpret the geological evidence. A shorter summary of that chapter is my DVD lecture: http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/millions-years-where-did-idea-come/.

The world is NOT clearly older than 6000 years, as one of you said. No scientific method can tell us the age of the earth or universe, because every scientific method involves assumptions about the unobserved past that cannot be proven. The only way we can know the age of the creation is if there was/is a completely reliable eyewitness who was there at the beginning and tells us. That person is God and He has told us in His inerrant Word.

For a good overview of the geological evidence for a young earth and global Flood see Dr. Andrew Snelling’s DVD http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/rock-strata-fossils-and-flood/.

Radiometric dating is not what led scientists to believe the rocks and fossils were millions of years old. The method was only invented about 100 years ago but geologists were locked into a belief in millions of years 100 years before that.

Carbon-14 is never used by evolutionists to date rock layers. We can only C-14 date something that has carbon in it and most rock layers don’t. Also, the farthest back you could date something with C-14 is 80,000 – 100,000 years, maximum. Creation scientists have used it to date diamonds and coal (which the evolutionists say are millions or billions of years old) and the C-14 dated them to be only thousands of years old. See
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible.

Other dating methods are used to supposedly prove that the rock on earth (or meteorites or other objects in outer space) are millions of years old. But they are completely unreliable in telling us the true age of the rocks, because they are based on unproven assumptions that the evolutionists use and creation scientists have strong scientific evidence to show that those dating methods are giving false dates every time. See this chapter: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove and also this DVD http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/radioactive-and-radiocarbon-dating/.

Dendrochronology is much more complicated and less straightforward than you think and once again key assumptions (which are not proven) are essential to arriving at a chronology that contradicts the biblical chronology. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/biblical-chronology-bristlecone-pine. And for evidence that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are tight (no missing names or years), thus giving us an age of creation of about 6000 years, see chapter 10 in Coming to Grips with Genesis. God’s Word is more trustworthy than any man-made dating method.

Reasoning from Scripture, we know that since dinosaurs were land animals, they were made on Day 6 with Adam and they went on the ark with Noah. If they are in fact extinct (there is some intriguing testimony that they just might not be), they went extinct recently See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs. That dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago is shown both the presence of soft tissue and blood cells and DNA in dinosaur bones and the Carbon-14 dating of dinosaur bones by young-earth creationists (see here: dinosaursofttissue.com) as well as the refusal of evolutionists to C-14 dinosaur bones (listen to this incredible phone conversation between a Christian radio talk show host and one of America’s leading evolutionist dinosaur experts: rsr.org/jack-horner).

Finally, how do you reach out to non-believers who are convinced that evolution and/or millions of years are proven scientific fact? Point them to our web site and the resources I mention here (but of course you can’t defend what you don’t believe yourself, so do your homework first). At the same time in your witness open your Bible to Genesis and read to them what it actually says. The Word of God is sharper than a 2-edged sword (Heb 4:12). As a result of lecturing on creation and evolution in 22 countries (including in many secular universities) I have found that many people who believe in evolution and/or millions of years are ignorant of but interested in what the Bible actually says, not what some arrogant non-Christian professors or other skeptics said that it says. And share the gospel with them as you refute lovingly there pseudo-scientific objections to the truth of the Bible.
_________________
Terry Mortenson, MDiv, PhD
speaker, writer, researcher
Answers in Genesis
Newbie
Posts: 2
8/15/13 7:25 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dr. Mortenson... Aaron Scott
First, let me welcome you. I consider it a privilege to discuss this matter with you. At the same time, may I gently take "Answers in Genesis" to task for statements such as this:

Quote:
In contrast, those who do not believe the plain reading of Genesis, such as many non-Christians and compromised Christians, believe the rock and fossil layers on earth represent millions of years of earth history and that man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time.


Over and over, I have noticed that AIG uses this backdoor ad hominem argument to make their point, which is, namely: "If you don't interpret that Bible the way we do, then you are compromised, etc."

I'm not compromised. Compromise is to not hold to the truth. If the truth is that things are indeed millions of years old, then we have compromised if we do NOT believe it.

Young Earth Creation, which resists the "non-observable" claims of carbon dating, etc., relies precisely on non-observable claims (such as the "explanations" of star light, etc.) to make their case.

Dendrochronology is only one of MANY dating methods, though it only can take us back so far. But because it crossed the magical 6000-year mark, Youth Earthers have to claim that it is mistaken. They do not base this on science, but on a religious interpretation.

(Please note that I deeply respect the literal view--and held it for many years--and still hold it on things that cannot be determined by science. For instance, science cannot make any claims about Who Jesus was, whether He rose from the dead, etc. But when the Bible makes a scientific ally-verifiable statement, then it's only fair to allow science to examine it.)

The link to dendrochronolgy did not seem to work. Perhaps you can post it again? Thank you, my brother.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
8/15/13 7:54 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post philunderwood
Quote:
Reasoning from Scripture, we know that since dinosaurs were land animals, they were made on Day 6 with Adam and they went on the ark with Noah. If they are in fact extinct (there is some intriguing testimony that they just might not be), they went extinct recently


Now, THAT got my attention. Who is testifying? Where do they live?

I see a business opportunity emerging... Jurassic Tours

But, on the off chance they left recently, becoming extinct, not as a species, but as an entire entity, everywhere, in every type of species, I wish someone had taken pictures.
_________________
Live an epiK life!

Discover More...
http://www.refocusing.org

A Mission in Formation
www.bluewaterinthekeys.com
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3954
8/15/13 7:55 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dr. Mortenson... Aaron Scott
I want to say that I know you've had to "hit the ground running" here, since we are going right at it. Just know that I very much APPRECIATE you coming on to discuss this with us.

I want you to know that I am OPEN to the young earth theory IF it can be shown to be valid. After all, I believed that way for most of my life. I am no longer willing, however, to hold things whose explanations seem contrived or desperate.

I noticed that one of the books you mentioned was written by theologians. I don't care what their pedigree is, for it seems to me that SCIENTISTS should be the ones that should be making the argument, right? That's what I'm looking for: SCIENCE that demonstrates the young earth theory.

If we are going to just go with theology, fine. But if we dare to make the claim that our theology makes scientific claims, then we must allow ourselves to be scrutinized by scientific means. Fair enough?

Again, I love you, my brother, and would not want to come across as jabbing or harsh, even if we strongly disagree.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
8/15/13 8:48 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Troy Hamby
Dr. Mortenson, welcome to Actscelerate! I think you'll find us to be a spirited group who have fun with each other but are all on a quest for the 'truth', whatever that may be.

I'll take a look at the links you provided but could you address this question when you get a chance? Is the Earth as old as the Universe on the whole? If so, are we saying that the entire Universe is 6,000 years old? How does that jive with the widely accepted observation that the Universe is billions of years old. As Wikipedia states:

The Lambda-CDM concordance model describes the evolution of the universe from a very uniform, hot, dense primordial state to its present state over a span of about 13.8 billion years[3] of cosmological time. This model is well understood theoretically and strongly supported by recent high-precision astronomical observations such as WMAP. In contrast, theories of the origin of the primordial state remain very speculative. If one extrapolates the Lambda-CDM model backward from the earliest well-understood state, it quickly (within a small fraction of a second) reaches a singularity called the "Big Bang singularity." This singularity is not understood as having a physical significance in the usual sense, but it is convenient to quote times measured "since the Big Bang" even though they do not correspond to a physically measurable time. For example, "10−6 seconds after the Big Bang" is a well-defined era in the universe's evolution. If one referred to the same era as "13.8 billion years minus 10−6 seconds ago," the precision of the meaning would be lost because the minuscule latter time interval is swamped by uncertainty in the former.
Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, the International Astronomical Union[4] presently use "age of the universe" to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion, or equivalently the elapsed time since the Big Bang in the current observable universe.
Golf Cart Mafia Soldier
Posts: 2460
8/15/13 9:08 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Re: Dr. Mortenson... Poimen
The Bard wrote:

AIG does itself and its credibility a great disservice by not recognizing the rock-solid, concrete fact that there is more than one legitimate interpretation of the creation events (which, admittedly, does not include the absurdity of evolution, but that does include other conclusions that lend themselves to an old-earth creationist view).


This is self evidently false. Truth cannot have more than one LEGITIMATE interpretation, else it is NOT truth.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/15/13 4:31 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post An incorrect interpretation IS an illegitimate one Poimen
Laughing

Love you anyhow brother. Wink
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/15/13 5:10 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post Re: An incorrect interpretation IS an illegitimate one Poimen
The Bard wrote:

And I love you, too, friend. Wink


Glad to hear it brother. "In all things, charity", aye?
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/15/13 5:23 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post mytimewillcome
This is why you shouldnt be rude and tell people to stop posting when you have no earthly clue when the "resources" you are bringing to the discussion will be available Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3661
8/15/13 9:23 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post philunderwood
I'm still waiting to hear where the dinosaurs might still be roaming.
_________________
Live an epiK life!

Discover More...
http://www.refocusing.org

A Mission in Formation
www.bluewaterinthekeys.com
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3954
8/15/13 10:49 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post mytimewillcome
philunderwood wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear where the dinosaurs might still be roaming.


Gosh! You're messing it up. You have to wait on the Doctor before posting questions.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3661
8/15/13 11:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Phillip Johnson
The fundamentals of radiocarbon dating and radiological half lives are very sound. It is not some hocus pocus used to try to disprove the bible. The understanding of nuclear science is pretty astounding and allows for very precise control of nuclear reactions. Those reactions are not observable, directly, but it is predictable based on the science. Nuclear power would be neither safe nor reliable energy without it. C-14 dating alone is reliable 60k to 80k years. Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4989
8/16/13 3:18 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Nature Boy Florida
Guys,
Don't let this thread degenerate - I really wanted to see more debate - and not nitpicking here.

Phillip raised a valid point.

Let's keep it to comments like his.

I am open to reasonable debate.

Creation and Revelation are the same. No one but God has been there. Often the wording God uses only makes sense once you see it yourself. Tough to be dogmatic about unobservable things.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16599
8/16/13 5:13 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post John Jett
Phillip Johnson wrote:
The fundamentals of radiocarbon dating and radiological half lives are very sound. It is not some hocus pocus used to try to disprove the bible. The understanding of nuclear science is pretty astounding and allows for very precise control of nuclear reactions. Those reactions are not observable, directly, but it is predictable based on the science. Nuclear power would be neither safe nor reliable energy without it. C-14 dating alone is reliable 60k to 80k years.


I'm not a scientist nor do I work in a nuclear facility and it has been a long time since I took a science course in college. But I do seem to recall that an assumption of C-14 dating is that the absorption rate of carbon in living things (the only things that can be dated that way) has been the same throughout time? Is it not possible that the C02 we breath today has much more C-14 than it did thousands of years ago? Wouldn't a factor or 1/2 or 1/3 the amount 6 thousand years ago create a very false reading using today's measured amounts? I don't know, I'm just asking. I'm not questioning half-lives of course, that is observable fact, just seems there are some assumptions involved with the dating method.
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4955
8/16/13 8:33 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post The Key Problem in the Debate... Aaron Scott
The key problem I have noted over and over when I see Evolution vs. Creation debates is that they almost never actually debate the SAME POINT. It becomes more about winning a DEBATE than finding the TRUTH. Almost like a lawyer who is more interested in winning than in justice.

What happens is that the Creationist is usually far better prepared to hit a few key trouble spots, use that to call into questions billions of hours of scientific research, and knows how to make statements that "preach to the choir."

I would like to see a debate where the Evolutionist and the Creationist are given, say, 10 questions...and the both come prepared to answer those questions precisely and to the point.

Also, both parties could--in advance--ask the OTHER party to answer several key questions.

All would come to the debate NOT to win debating points, but to actually find the truth.

Further, once both sides have answer the questions and rebutted this or that...there is a break (it might even be a break of several days or weeks) for them to gather additional evidence.

This, ideally, would be judged by objective people (yeah, right) that would admit when this or that side actually proved or disproved something.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
8/16/13 10:32 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 1 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.