The Religion Discussion

[bluefete]

their 8 armed goddess can bitchslap your sandal-wearing hippie to death


oh, and one more thing,
Lola, HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

MGMan: Somewhere in all your diatribe is a belief in God that you are desperately trying to deny.

[megadoc1]

When all this is at an end, and we come home to our Creator, we will finally and actually get to KNOW Him. Faith only exists here, for we do NOT KNOW Him - we only believe He is, thus we claim to have 'faith'. 'Hope' as well will cease to exist, for we will no longer yearn for something to come, it will actually BE. Only Love will exist.

Time is a function of this world, not the hereafter. We measure how long we exist, for we are finite, with a beginning and an end. Faith and hope are based on time. People believe based on what has been, and long for something to come. (Like the end of this blasted thread, for example )

Amen to that!

Lets see what has been achieved:
Number of people converted by megadoc1 and bluefete = 0
Number of people turned away from christianity after hearing bluefete and megadoc1= more than 5
Proof of what megadoc1 claims he can do = 0
Proof that the earth is 6000 years old = 0

Score?

hurray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lets see who will be part of this we that d spike taking about
He that believeth on him (Jesus)is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light(Jesus) is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

question is which "we" are you ?

[bluefete]

so then they are ubiquitous.
where did the demons get this power from?

they dont have much power[/quote]

it is more power than humans have; otherwise we would not need to worry about being misguided by them

they dont have "much " power? the "little" power they have, where did they get it from then?[/quote]

These demons are "fallen angels". Consequently, they are minions of the devil. Angels have power greater than we can understand. This includes fallen angels as well.

As humans, we can learn from Jesus' example when satan tried to tempt him after 40 days and nights of fasting. After turning down the temptations, Jesus rebuked and chased satan away.

The demon possession thing I am know not too much about. However, some people expose themselves to demon(s) (possession) by the things they do. For example Ouija Boards, watching demonic movies and so on.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

wtf?

dude here u are avoiding the question again.
You are a coward.

Evolution is not the topic here. U are deflecting ( another cowards escape)

I guess u cannot prove God exists.

You are asking for scientific methodologies. I am saying that the same methodology used to 'prove" evolution can be used to prove the existence / non-existence of God.

What is wrong with that?

Who is the coward here?

I am not avoiding the question. I have answered you directly.

Have you been finally backed into a corner of no escape?

LOL YOU telling someone they are backed into a corner?

your answer does not even make sense!
Scientists cannot prove the existence of God because there is no tangible evidence of it other than faith and hope.
There is however hard evidence that evolution exists. Some dinosaurs have evolved into birds and some primates into humans, despite the fact that people like you have faith and hope that it's a lie, it is the plain and glaring truth.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Lets see what has been achieved:
Number of people converted by megadoc1 and bluefete = 0
Number of people turned away from christianity after hearing bluefete and megadoc1= more than 5
Proof of what megadoc1 claims he can do = 0
Proof that the earth is 6000 years old = 0

Score?

hurray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you are glad that you have successfully turned people away from Christ?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

so then they are ubiquitous.
where did the demons get this power from?

it is more power than humans have; otherwise we would not need to worry about being misguided by them

they dont have "much " power? the "little" power they have, where did they get it from then?

These demons are "fallen angels". Consequently, they are minions of the devil. Angels have power greater than we can understand. This includes fallen angels as well.

As humans, we can learn from Jesus' example when satan tried to tempt him after 40 days and nights of fasting. After turning down the temptations, Jesus rebuked and chased satan away.

The demon possession thing I am know not too much about. However, some people expose themselves to demon(s) (possession) by the things they do. For example Ouija Boards, watching demonic movies and so on.

Do you believe that megadoc1 casts out demons from possessed people?

[megadoc1]

Lets see what has been achieved:
Number of people converted by megadoc1 and bluefete = 0
Number of people turned away from christianity after hearing bluefete and megadoc1= more than 5
Proof of what megadoc1 claims he can do = 0
Proof that the earth is 6000 years old = 0

Score?

hurray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you are glad that you have successfully turned people away from Christ?

hurray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lets see who will be part of this we that d spike taking about
He that believeth on him (Jesus)is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light(Jesus) is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

question is which "we" are you ?

[megadoc1]

Do you believe that megadoc1 casts out demons from possessed people?

I believe this

Scientists cannot prove the existence of God because there is no tangible evidence of it other than faith and hope.

glad to see some understanding finally taking place

[bluefete]

Amazing. You will NEVER do that with Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) or Hanuman. It just goes to prove that there really is something special about Jesus Christ for people to try so very hard to bring Him down in so many different ways.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

question is which "we" are you ?

I think the more pertinent question is which Creator will be faced.
Jesus? Allah? Vishnu? Zeus?

If I had to believe anything it would be that I doubt God cares about what we call him, how we pray to him, or what books we follow. I would believe that God is beyond looking to us for prayers and would be more interested in what we do to prolong our existence, prolong our planet and better the lives of our fellow men and the rest of the universe.

[megadoc1]

question is which "we" are you ?

I think the more pertinent question is which Creator will be faced.
Jesus? Allah? Vishnu? Zeus? there is only one true God but you can take chances and pick,
your free will

If I had to believe anything it would be that I doubt God cares about what we call him, how we pray to him, or what books we follow. I would believe that God is beyond looking to us for prayers and would be more interested in what we do to prolong our existence, prolong our planet and better the lives of our fellow men and the rest of the universe.so what/who makes you believe this? do you know you Just created your own god? you broke the 2nd commandment
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

[mamoo_pagal]

question is which "we" are you ?

I think the more pertinent question is which Creator will be faced.
Jesus? Allah? Vishnu? Zeus?

If I had to believe anything it would be that I doubt God cares about what we call him, how we pray to him, or what books we follow. I would believe that God is beyond looking to us for prayers and would be more interested in what we do to prolong our existence, prolong our planet and better the lives of our fellow men and the rest of the universe.

finally someone with sense............
to all the Christian brothers, take some time to study the history of your book before you take every sentence as gospel!!!
wasted enough time on this thread............guess it is time to move on with my "god less" life lol
n megadoc1 seriously..........if you do cast out demons. Well the world has alot of them. Probably time will be better spent travelling the world saving people rather than argue about ur beliefs on a forum. I doubt ur Jesus wants u to be on this forum for so long debating with people who you don't know, who you have never seen, who mite be possessed at this very moment............oh n one last question before I go. Do you have permission from the Vatican to perform these exorcisms?

[megadoc1]

question is which "we" are you ?

I think the more pertinent question is which Creator will be faced.
Jesus? Allah? Vishnu? Zeus?

If I had to believe anything it would be that I doubt God cares about what we call him, how we pray to him, or what books we follow. I would believe that God is beyond looking to us for prayers and would be more interested in what we do to prolong our existence, prolong our planet and better the lives of our fellow men and the rest of the universe.

finally someone with sense............ dont be fool eh that cya get you to heaven
to all the Christian brothers, take some time to study the history of your book before you take every sentence as gospel!!!you studied the history?
wasted enough time on this thread............guess it is time to move on with my "god less" life lol
n megadoc1 seriously..........if you do cast out demons. Well the world has alot of them. Probably time will be better spent travelling the world saving people rather than argue about ur beliefs on a forum.true but yuh eh see I trying to get duane to make ah donation orr? I doubt ur Jesus wants u to be on this forum for so long debating with people who you don't know,I am not interesting in the debating thing I am on sumn else who you have never seen, who mite be possessed at this very moment............fuh real oh n one last question before I go. Do you have permission from the Vatican to perform these exorcisms? What? the vatican have no control over me I dealing directly to the author of my faith..no middle man

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

there is only one true God but you can take chances and pick

You took the same chance. There is an equal chance that you are also wrong.

so what/who makes you believe this?

common sense and logic

do you know you Just created your own god? you broke the 2nd commandment
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.[/color]

Created my own God? I did nothing of the sort
Put less faith in books written by men, yes!

Where did I create a graven image?

[bluefete]

I repeat. The same methodology used to "prove' evolution can be used to prove the existence / non-existence of God. Evolution is certainly quantifiable by science, not so?

Except that there is tangible and empirical evidence of evolution in animals, bones, fossils etc but there is no tangible or empirical evidence of the existence of God.

While MOST people who accept evolution and the Big Bang also believe in a God, there is ABSOLUTELY NO proof in the literal meaning of any religious text.

Science has used the same methodology to prove that the earth is billions of years old and life has evolved from single cell organisms

i.e. The earth is NOT 6000 years old. There is no proof of it except what is written in religious texts

Duane, you have stated something very interesting. The universe is approx. 13.7 billion years old according to scientists. You wrote "that the earth is billions of years old". I would say approx. 4.5 billion years old according to the scientists.

But yet:

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Compiled by Rev. Jack Barr

Both creationists and evolutionists spend a great deal of time trying to find the exact age of the earth, and for a good reason. As extensive evidence continues to unfold that indicates the earth is less than 10,000 years old, the evolutionary theory falls apart. If the earth is truly less than 10,000 years old, it would be impossible for man to have evolved from a lower order in that amount of time.

Let's look for a moment, at how evolutionists date the age of the earth.

HOW THE RADIOCARBON DATING METHOD WORKS

The radiocarbon dating method was developed by Professor Willard Libby from California, for which he was awarded a Nobel prize. It is quite accurate in many applications for which the specimens are only a few thousand years old.

Here is how it works. The stratosphere above our earth is bombarded with cosmic rays from the sun, which converts the N14 in the stratosphere to radioactive carbon, or C14. This weak isotope is a part of our environment, and is absorbed by all living organisms (plants and animals) along with another version of carbon, C12, which is not radioactive. As long as the organism is alive, the ratio of C12 to C14 in the organism is theoretically the same as that of the environment; that is, the organism is in balance with the environment.

Once the organism dies, there is no longer a carbon intake. The amount of C12 in the organism remains constant, but the radioactive C14 decomposes with a half life of 5730 years into nitrogen. Nitrogen is a gas, which leaves the organism. This means after 5730 years, there will only be half as much C14 as when the organism died. Thus, by measuring the ratio of C12 to C14, one can (at least theoretically) determine when the organism died.

For practical reality, however, this doesn't always work. Researchers testing the shell of a live clam showed this live clam had been dead for 300 years. Dried up seal- carcasses only thirty years old have tested as old as 4600 years. Fresh carcasses often date as old as 1300 years.

Why is this so?

Radiocarbon dating makes several assumptions. If any of these is wrong, the results can be in error.

Assumption 1:
The Living Organism is in Balance with the Environment

This method assumes the C14 is absorbed by the organism at the same rate as the C12 from the environment. This is not always true. Some organisms have some type of internal metabolism that can reject the C14 more effectively than the C12. At death, then, these organisms have abnormally low C14 levels and appear much older than they really are.

In addition, while living the organism may eat and metabolize organic material that is old, thus loading their own system with the outdated organic material that returns the false reading.

Assumption 2:
The C12/C14 Level of the Atmosphere has remained constant.

Another assumption made in radiocarbon dating is that the ratio of C12 to the radioactive C14 has remained constant for thousands of years. Scientists today have a growing conviction that this ratio has not been constant. Immanuel Velikovsky and other scientists believe that cataclysmic events in the history of the earth could have radically altered the stratosphere, affecting the amount of C14 created.

Velikovsky, writing in WORLDS IN COLLISION, believed that the history of the earth was dramatically altered by the close approaches of Mars and Venus. The book described Venus as originally a planet which passed the earth as a comet only 3500 years ago and was captured by our solar system. Velikovsky believed the flood, the parting of the Red Sea as the Israelites escaped Egypt, the manna from heaven, and the day the sun stood still as the Israelites battled their enemies were all related to natural events.

For years several noted astronomers vigorously blocked the publishing of this book by Macmillan, as these concepts were contradictory to their own theories and the publishing would have affected their own income and status. With the landing of the astronauts on the moon, however, the dust levels that should have been several feet high for the Big Bang theory were found as only a few inches high, giving credence to Velikovsky's theories and giving him fresh recognition during the last years of his life.

Today more and more scientific evidence gives proof to Velikovsky's theories. The Bible describes the long life- times of early man, perhaps due to the increased cloud cover at that time. The lower levels of C14 at that time would make the current samples appear older than they actually are. Evidence exists that the earth's magnetic poles switch occasionally, as old samples often show magnetic patterns that do not match with he current magnetic alignment. Tropical plants have been found buried in Sweden that could not have there unless Sweden was, at one time, a lush tropical paradise.

Assumption 3:
The dating method assumes the sample is in a closed system.

Once the organism has died, the theory assumes the only continuing process is the decay of the C14. This, in fact, is seldom true. Ground water can leach C14 from a rock. Heat, changes in the magnetic field, and other factors can affect the ratio of C12 to C14.

Assumption 4:
There are no daughter elements in the sample originally.

There is no way to know how much radioactive daughter elements are actually in the sample at death. Other elements can affect the ratio.

OTHER DATING METHODS

Other dating methods are often used that have similarities to the radiocarbon method. One popular method is potassium-argon dating. Radioactive potassium is found in small quantities in some rocks. This decomposes into calcium and argon. Another alternative is uranium-lead dating. With uranium-lead dating, radioactive uranium decomposes into lead and other elements. The half-life is a long 4 1/2 billion years. All of these suffer from the same basic assumptions.

Tree-Ring Dating

Another method of dating that is popular with some scientists is tree-ring dating. When a tree is cut, you can study a cross-section of the trunk and determine its age. Each year of growth produces a single ring. Moreover, the width of the ring is related to environmental conditions at the time the ring was formed.

The Bristle cone Pine, found particularly in California, is a very old tree, with specimens supposably dating as old as 7000 years. Scientists have studied the rings on these trees in an attempt to date the tree and the origins of the earth.

Unfortunately, this dating method leaves much to be desired. Ring patterns vary considerably between trees of similar ages. To resolve the discrepancies, patterns are compared between several trees, with the attempt made to identify common years in several ring patterns. The key rings that are used to align different trees are the rings for drought years, or the narrowest rings. In some cases, however, a drought year ring may be missing altogether, falling on the ring for an adjacent year.

This leads to what is known as the ''missing ring'' problem. To solve this, the scientists fall back to radiocarbon dating to identify the rings more completely. This, in turn, leads to circular logic; if the radiocarbon dating is incorrect, the resulting ring dating will also be incorrect. In the final analysis, the BRISTLE CONE Pines still hide their secret.

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

There are many methods that can be used to find the actual age of the earth, as various effects can be measured over a period of time and used to establish the historical time line.

The Shrinking Sun

Since 1836, observations of the sun indicate it is shrinking about five feet an hour. Studies show this has been true for at least 400 years. At this rate, 100,000 years ago the sun would be twice as large as it is today. Twenty million years ago the sun would have touched the earth.

The Moon's Dust

Interplanetary dust and meteors is depositing dust on the moon at the rate of at least 14,300,000 tons per year. At this rate, if the moon were 4.5 billion years old there would be at least 440 feet of dust on the moon. The astronauts, however, found a layer only 1/8 to three inches thick. Three inches would take only 8000 years. Even evolutionists believe the moon is the same age as the earth, giving the earth's age as only 8000 years.

The Magnetic Field

The earth has a magnetic field that is constantly decreasing due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The half-life of the magnetic field is 1400 years. Only 2800 years ago the magnetic field would be four times as strong as it is now. Only 10,000 years ago the magnetic field would be as strong as a magnetic star and be a nuclear power source as the sun. For this reason the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old.

The Earth's Rotation

The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing down at about .00002 seconds a year. The lost energy is transferred to the moon. The moon, therefore, is slowly moving away from the earth at about 4 centimeters a year. This would put the moon in contact with the earth less than 2 billion years ago. Yet, if the moon were closer than about 11,500 miles, the moon would be broken into tiny pieces, much as the rings of Saturn.

The Missing Helium

Helium is generated as radioactive uranium decays. This is known as radiogenic helium, and is the primary source of helium in the earth's atmosphere. If the earth were really 4.5 billion years old as claimed by the evolutionists, the atmosphere would be saturated with this helium. But it isn't. Where did it go? It can't escape to space. The simple answer, of course, is that the earth isn't really that old.

The Comet Mystery

Comets, as they orbit the sun, are literally torn apart by gravitational forces, internal explosions, and solar winds. Short period comets can't exist for more than 10,000 years. Most astronomers believe that comets originated at the same time as the solar system. That limits the age of the solar system to about 10,000 years.

SUMMARY

Putting this all together, there is growing evidence that the solar system is certainly less than 10,000 years old. As mentioned at the beginning, the issue is particularly important, as if the solar system is less than 10,000 years old there is not enough time for man to have evolved from a lower form.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

[quote=megadoc1]I am not interesting in the debating thing I am on sumn else[/quote]really? what "sumn else" would this be?

[megadoc1]

there is only one true God but you can take chances and pick

You took the same chance. There is an equal chance that you are also wrong.
nope this God revealed himself to man

so what/who makes you believe this?

common sense and logic so no god?

do you know you Just created your own god? you broke the 2nd commandment
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.[/color]

Created my own God? I did nothing of the sort yes you did
Put less faith in books written by men, yes!

Where did I create a graven image?right about here...

If I had to believe anything it would be that I doubt God cares about what we call him, how we pray to him, or what books we follow. I would believe that God is beyond looking to us for prayers and would be more interested in what we do to prolong our existence, prolong our planet and better the lives of our fellow men and the rest of the universe.

you created a god to suit yourself in your mind

[bluefete]

How Jesus was Hated

By Rev. Jack Barr

I hear teachings of how Jesus was Loved, because He Loved everyone. These teachings would have you believe that those crowds which gathered around him was because the people Loved him. That teaching is Not the Truth. They would have you believe that Jesus was so Loving that he never offended anyone, that he never spoke harshly to them, never condemned them. How then did Jesus become so Hated by the people that they killed him??

Jesus was Hated and Despised by most of the people. The Crowds gathered around him, not out of Love, but for what they could get out of him. Jesus gave them wine, gave them food, gave them healing. What is it you keep on reading in the Gospels? Are not the people always coming to him for healing? They constantly say, Lord heal me. Lord keep my child, my servant, from dying, cast out these Demons.

Nowhere does the Gospels speak of the people gathering because they love him. Even to listen to him speak, it was not that they wanted to believe what he was saying, but rather it was because he was speaking of things that they had never heard before, and so it was entertaining, and they could go home and tell their family and friends of this weird person they heard today, who was speaking these wild things. Jesus, Oh yes, that is that weirdo down there preaching in the Temple, or wherever he happened to be that day. That was the entertainment of the day.

We all love to be at a service where people are healed, where the blind see, the deaf hear again, the crippled walk again, it is the best show in town. Lets follow him and see more of his tricks. They all wanted to be healed of whatever it was that they had. We see the same today. One who has an illness, which the doctors are having trouble finding a cure for, we see running after anything which even suggests that it might give them a cure. They will drink anything, take anything, eat anything, go anywhere if there is even a remote chance, or even a suggestion, that they could be healed with it. That is what formed the crowds around Jesus.

If they had to listen to a sermon before they could be healed, then they would listen.

Jesus only had a handful of men who followed Him for what he said, rather than what he did for them. Just as today there are only a handful of men (including women) who follow Jesus for what he said, and for what he is. Even most of those disciples around him walked away from him long before the end, leaving only a few. And even after his death, there were only 120 persons who believed in him, out of all those who ever heard him speak, or even all those who were healed by him never came back to believe in Him.

How much did they Love Jesus?? Let us look at what the Bible does say, and see if this is Love or is Hate?

Jesus knew from the very beginning that they would hate him and try to kill him because of that hate. Jesus spoke of it as he preached the Word of God to them.
Jn 8: 37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
Jn 8: 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

Jesus warned everyone who would ever follow him that they too would be hated by the people, just because they followed Jesus.
Jn 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
Jn 15: 18 ¶ If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

So let us see just how much they hated Jesus. Not Love, but Hate. They start out with trying to trick him into giving them something which they can use against him. Looking for something they believed they could hurt him with.
Mt 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mk.12:13 ¶ And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.
Lk 6: 7 And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.
Lk 11: 53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
Lk 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
Lk 20:20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.

They plotted on how they could kill him, to totally destroy him.
Mt 12: 14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
Mk.3: 6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.
Mk.11: 18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
Mk 14:1 After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.
Mk.14:10-11
10 And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.
11 And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.

Lk 19: 47 And he taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him,
Lk 22: 2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.
Lk 6:11 And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.
Jn 5: 16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
Jn 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Jn 7:1 ¶ After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

Jn 11: 49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Jn 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
Jn 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
Jn 11:53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
Jn 18: 14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

The teachers today keep telling us how Jesus spoke with such Love that everyone loved him, But if so they why were the people around Jesus Offended by what Jesus said?
Mt 13: 57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

It was not just the Priests and Pharisees who tried to kill Jesus, it was also the common man.
Lk 4: 28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
Lk 4:29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
Lk 13: 31 ¶ The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.
Jn 7: 43 So there was a division among the people because of him.
Jn 7:44 And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.
Jn 7: 30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
Jn 8: 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
Jn 10: 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jn 10: 39 ¶ Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

And they knew that Jesus spoke against what they were doing, and against what they were teaching, and that made them Mad, Angry.
Mt 21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
Mk.12: 12 And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.
Lk 20: 19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.

And they would have beat him up, to stone him and to kill him if they could, but didn't want to have any witnesses when they did it.
Mt 21:46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
Jn 11: 57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.

The constantly plotted against Jesus, how is that Love? To me that sounds like Hate. They could not even stand to have Jesus on the same earth with them.
Mt 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

And they finally got their chance, and how did they come after Jesus? Not a few Guards, but A Mob With clubs and swords to beat him into submission, such was their hate for Jesus.
Mt 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
Mk.14:43 And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

They had such hate for Jesus that they wanted him dead by any means they could arrange.
Mt 26:59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
Mk.14:55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.
Mt 26:66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

And it was not enough that they could finally get him put to death, they hated him so much that everyone in the trial room, estimated to be a hundred or so, 70 on the Sanhedrin, plus the false witnesses, and spectators, went up to beat on Jesus. Besides Smote (Slapping), To Buffet is to hit with the fist. And while this verse does not tell it, by prophecy, they also pulled out handfuls of his hair and beard. That is Hate.
Mt 26:67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
Mk.14: 65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
Lk 22: 63 ¶ And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
Lk 22:64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
Jn 18: 22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

Every place that they dragged Jesus, they spoke Lies against him. That is Hate.
Mt 27: 12 And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.
Mk.15: 3 And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing.
Lk 23:10 And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.
Jn 19: 6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.
Jn 19: 15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

_______________

My Friends, if you follow Jesus Christ, Truly Follow Jesus, then you too will be among the most hated people the world will ever see. That day is again upon us. You will be persecuted to death. You will suffer greatly for the Name of Jesus Christ. Even those who claim to be Christians will turn and gnash upon you with their teeth. For as Jesus said.
Jn 15: 18 ¶ If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

The World hated Jesus, and the World will hate you. The Love which is preached today is the Lie which will send many to the fires of hell, for the Love of Jesus is not the love that is being preached today. The Love of Jesus that is preached today in the Churches will NOT stand up to the Persecution that is already descending upon us all over the world.

Now you see what the Bible says. Will you now take this back to Jesus Christ for confirmation? Or will you reject it as most of you will. Will you still follow Jesus knowing how you are, and will be, hated because of following Jesus, by most of the people of the world.

The True followers of Jesus Christ has Always been hated, and persecuted, down through history, with most of them suffering even to death for Jesus Christ.

With the Love of Jesus Jack Barr

[bluefete]

wtf?

dude here u are avoiding the question again.
You are a coward.

Evolution is not the topic here. U are deflecting ( another cowards escape)

I guess u cannot prove God exists.

I repeat. Do you believe in gravity?

Can you see it, smell it, taste it, touch it, feel it?

Stop deflecting.

[megadoc1]

[quote=megadoc1] I am not interesting in the debating thing I am on sumn else

really? what "sumn else" would this be? [/quote]

[3stagevtec]

I repeat. The same methodology used to "prove' evolution can be used to prove the existence / non-existence of God. Evolution is certainly quantifiable by science, not so?

Except that there is tangible and empirical evidence of evolution in animals, bones, fossils etc but there is no tangible or empirical evidence of the existence of God.

While MOST people who accept evolution and the Big Bang also believe in a God, there is ABSOLUTELY NO proof in the literal meaning of any religious text.

Science has used the same methodology to prove that the earth is billions of years old and life has evolved from single cell organisms

i.e. The earth is NOT 6000 years old. There is no proof of it except what is written in religious texts

Duane, you have stated something very interesting. The universe is approx. 13.7 billion years old according to scientists. You wrote "that the earth is billions of years old". I would say approx. 4.5 billion years old according to the scientists.

But yet:

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

[b]Compiled by Rev. Jack Barr
[/b]

1st off, is Rev Jack a scientist or does he have any scientific background?

[DFC]

bluefete i am asking you about god. and a way to prove or disprove his existence.

you have not answered my question, but rather interjected with questions of evolution and gravity.

is this how u usuallly answer questions?

lol....

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

wtf?

dude here u are avoiding the question again.
You are a coward.

Evolution is not the topic here. U are deflecting ( another cowards escape)

I guess u cannot prove God exists.

I repeat. Do you believe in gravity?

Can you see it, smell it, taste it, touch it, feel it?

Stop deflecting.

Of course you feel gravity!!!!
ever hit an air pocket on a plane? You feel weightless for a second or two, that is lack of gravity

[bluefete]

wtf?

dude here u are avoiding the question again.
You are a coward.

Evolution is not the topic here. U are deflecting ( another cowards escape)

I guess u cannot prove God exists.

You are asking for scientific methodologies. I am saying that the same methodology used to 'prove" evolution can be used to prove the existence / non-existence of God.

What is wrong with that?

Who is the coward here?

I am not avoiding the question. I have answered you directly.

Have you been finally backed into a corner of no escape?

LOL YOU telling someone they are backed into a corner?

your answer does not even make sense!
Scientists cannot prove the existence of God because there is no tangible evidence of it other than faith and hope.
There is however hard evidence that evolution exists. Some dinosaurs have evolved into birds and some primates into humans, despite the fact that you have faith and hope that it's a lie, it is the plain and glaring truth.

I am still waiting on the "hard" evidence for that one. Again a human cannot come out of a monkey ancestor. They are 2 totally different species!!

How is it that we cannot understand 'monkeyese?" How come they never developed speech like we did? Was that due to random mutation of humans who just happened to evolve speech patterns while their cousins in the monkey tree missed a speech gene somewhere?

It is amazing to me that highly intelligent people as found on 2NR (generally) can watch at a simian of any kind and convince themselves (because the empirical evidence supposedly says so) that they are looking at great, great, granddaddy's ancestors 2,000 times removed.

[DFC]

megaducky you speak of creating an image of god.

are you saying that christianity is completely devoid of symbology or a worshipped icon of god or jesus?

[sparky]

Can science prove how WATER evolved in the earth. Please dont say it came from a comet of ice hitting the earth and according to your theory after the big bang the earth would be as dry as biscuit

[megadoc1]

The True followers of Jesus Christ has Always been hated, and persecuted, down through history, with most of them suffering even to death for Jesus Christ.

thas what I know, wey d spike ?

[bluefete]

wtf?

dude here u are avoiding the question again.
You are a coward.

Evolution is not the topic here. U are deflecting ( another cowards escape)

I guess u cannot prove God exists.

I repeat. Do you believe in gravity?

Can you see it, smell it, taste it, touch it, feel it?

Stop deflecting.

Of course you feel gravity!!!!
ever hit an air pocket on a plane? You feel weightless for a second or two, that is lack of gravity

We are not discussing lack of gravity, sir. The original question stands:

Can you feel gravity?

When Newton almost got a "buss" head with the apple, he theorized the theory of gravity. However, did he feel gravity? The answer is equivocally - NO

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

there is only one true God but you can take chances and pick

You took the same chance. There is an equal chance that you are also wrong.
nope this God revealed himself to man

so what/who makes you believe this?

common sense and logic so no god?

do you know you Just created your own god? you broke the 2nd commandment
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.[/color]

Created my own God? I did nothing of the sort yes you did
Put less faith in books written by men, yes!

Where did I create a graven image?right about here...

If I had to believe anything it would be that I doubt God cares about what we call him, how we pray to him, or what books we follow. I would believe that God is beyond looking to us for prayers and would be more interested in what we do to prolong our existence, prolong our planet and better the lives of our fellow men and the rest of the universe.

you created a god to suit yourself in your mind

DO you even know what graven means!!!
LOL
YOu busy touting around bible quotations and you don't even know what the words mean

Adj. b]graven[/b] - cut into a desired shape; "graven images"; "sculptured representations"

I suggested my feelings of what God would expect of me. No different from any other religious text that claims God is a vengeful or jealous god.

Each religion has claimed that their God has revealed himself to man. That is the basis of belief, that their God is real. You cannot prove yourself to be more right than someone of another religion.

if you can then PLEASE do it

[3stagevtec]

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Compiled by Rev. Jack Barr

Common Young-Earth "Dating Methods"
Young-Earthers have several methods which they claim to give "upper limits" to the age of the Earth, much lower than the age calculated above (usually in the thousands of years). Those which appear the most frequently in talk.origins are reproduced below:

Accumulation of helium in the atmosphere
Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon
Accumulation of metals into the oceans
Note that these aren't necessarily the "best" or most difficult to refute of young-Earth arguments. However, they are quite popular in modern creation-"science" literature (even though they should not be!) and they are historically the ones posted to talk.origins more than any others.

1. Accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere
The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.)

But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to obtain a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers handwave away mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:

"There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts." ( Morris 1974, p. 151 )

But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:

"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." ( Dalrymple 1984, p. 112 )

Dalrymple's references:

(12) Banks, P. M. & T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind" in Journal of Geophysical Research 74, pp. 6317-6332.
(112) Sheldon, W. R. & J. W. Kern. 1972. "Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals" in Journal of Geophysical Research 77, pp. 6194-6201.
This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, pp. 25-26)
Brown (1989, pp. 16 and 52)
Jansma (1985, p. 61)
Whitcomb and Morris (1961, pp. 384-385)
Wysong (1976, pp. 161-163)

2. Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).

Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.
Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.
That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

For information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 106-108) or Strahler (1987, pp. 150-155) .

This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)
Jackson (1989, pp. 37-38)
Jansma (1985, pp. 61-62)
Morris (1974, pp. 157-158)
Wysong (1976, pp. 160-161)

3. Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon
The most common form of this young-Earth argument is based on a single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth gave a value in the millions of tons per year. While this is negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust per acre per year), there are no such processes on the Moon. Young-Earthers claim that the Moon must receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps 25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity), and there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick) if the Moon is several billion years old.

Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:

"The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year1."
Morris (1974, p. 152) [italic emphasis added -CS]

Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He measured the amount of nickel collected, and published calculations based on the assumption that all nickel that he collected was meteoritic in origin. That assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate.

Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. In the very same paper, he indicated that he believed that value to be a "generous" over-estimate, and said that 5 million tons per year was a more likely figure.

Several measurements of higher precision were available from many sources by the time Morris wrote Scientific Creationism. These measurements give the value (for influx rate to the Earth) of about 20,000 to 40,000 tons per year. Multiple measurements (chemical signature of ocean sediments, satellite penetration detectors, microcratering rate of objects left exposed on the lunar surface) all agree on approximately the same value -- nearly three orders of magnitude lower than the value which Morris chose to use.

Morris chose to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the Moon is less than one foot.

For further information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 108-111) or Strahler (1987, pp. 143-144) .

Addendum: "loose dust" vs. "meteoritic material"
Some folks in talk.origins occasionally sow further confusion by discussing the thickness of the "lunar soil" as if it represented the entire quantity of meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The lunar soil is a very thin layer (usually an inch or less) of loose powder present on the surface of the Moon.

However, the lunar soil is not the only meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The "soil" is merely the portion of powdery material which is kept loose by micrometeorite impacts. Below it is the regolith, which is a mixture of rock fragments and packed powdery material. The regolith averages about five meters deep on the lunar maria and ten meters on the lunar highlands.

In addition, lunar rocks are broken down by various processes (such as micrometeorite impacts and radiation). Quite a bit of the powdered material (even the loose portion) is not meteoritic in origin.

Addendum: Creationists disown the "Moon dust" argument
There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the Moon is concordant with the mainstream age and history of the solar system. In the Abstract, Snelling and Rush (1993) conclude with:

"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."

Snelling and Rush's paper also refutes the oft-posted creationist "myth" about the expectation of a thick dust layer during to the Apollo mission. The Apollo mission had been preceded by several unmanned landings -- the Soviet Luna (six landers), American Ranger (five landers) and Surveyor (seven landers) series. The physical properties of the lunar surface were well-known years before man set foot on it.

Further, even prior to the unmanned landings mentioned above, Snelling and Rush document that there was no clear consensus in the astronomical community on the depth of dust to expect. So those making the argument do not even have the excuse that such an consensus existed prior to the unmanned landings.

Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and refutations from the mainstream community have been around for ten to twenty years longer than that), the "Moon dust" argument continues to be propagated in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on a regular basis:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)
Jackson (1989, pp. 40-41)
Jansma (1985, pp. 62-63)
Whitcomb and Morris (1961, pp. 379-380)
Wysong (1976, pp. 166-168)
See the talkorigins.org archived feedback for February and April 1997, for additional examples.

4. Accumulation of metals into the oceans
In 1965, Chemical Oceanography published a list of some metals' "residency times" in the ocean. This calculation was performed by dividing the amount of various metals in the oceans by the rate at which rivers bring the metals into the oceans.

Several creationists have reproduced this table of numbers, claiming that these numbers gave "upper limits" for the age of the oceans (therefore the Earth) because the numbers represented the amount of time that it would take for the oceans to "fill up" to their present level of these various metals from zero.

First, let us examine the results of this "dating method." Most creationist works do not produce all of the numbers, only the ones whose values are "convenient." The following list is more complete:


Al - 100 years Ni - 9,000 years Sb - 350,000 years
Fe - 140 years Co - 18,000 years Mo - 500,000 years
Ti - 160 years Hg - 42,000 years Au - 560,000 years
Cr - 350 years Bi - 45,000 years Ag - 2,100,000 years
Th - 350 years Cu - 50,000 years K - 11,000,000 years
Mn - 1,400 years Ba - 84,000 years Sr - 19,000,000 years
W - 1,000 years Sn - 100,000 years Li - 20,000,000 years
Pb - 2,000 years Zn - 180,000 years Mg - 45,000,000 years
Si - 8,000 years Rb - 270,000 years Na - 260,000,000 years
Now, let us critically examine this method as a method of finding an age for the Earth.

The method ignores known mechanisms which remove metals from the oceans:

Many of the listed metals are in fact known to be at or near equilibrium; that is, the rates for their entering and leaving the ocean are the same to within uncertainty of measurement. (Some of the chemistry of the ocean floor is not well-understood, which unfortunately leaves a fairly large uncertainty.) One cannot derive a date from a process where equilibrium is within the range of uncertainty -- it could go on forever without changing concentration of the ocean.

Even the metals which are not known to be at equilibrium are known to be relatively close to it. I have seen a similar calculation on uranium, failing to note that the uncertainty in the efflux estimate is larger than its distance from equilibrium. To calculate a true upper limit, we must calculate the maximum upper limit, using all values at the appropriate extreme of their measurement uncertainty. We must perform the calculations on the highest possible efflux rate, and the lowest possible influx rate. If equilibrium is within reach of those values, no upper limit on age can be derived.

In addition, even if we knew exactly the rates at which metals were removed from the oceans, and even if these rates did not match the influx rates, these numbers are still wrong. It would probably require solving a differential equation, and any reasonable approximation must "figure in" the efflux rate. Any creationist who presents these values as an "upper limit" has missed this factor entirely. These published values are only "upper limits" when the efflux rate is zero (which is known to be false for all the metals). Any efflux decreases the rate at which the metals build up, invalidating the alleged "limit."


The method simply does not work. Ignoring the three problems above, the results are scattered randomly (five are under 1,000 years; five are 1,000-9,999 years; five are 10,000-99,999 years; six are 100,000-999,999 years; and six are 1,000,000 years or above). Also, the only two results that agree are 350 years, and Aluminum gives 100 years. If this is a valid method, then the age of the Earth must be less than the lowest "upper limit" in the table. Nobody in the debate would agree on a 100-year-old Earth.

These "dating methods" do not actually date anything, which prevents independent confirmation. (Is a 19 million year "limit" [Sr] a "confirmation" of a 42,000 year "limit" [Hg]?) Independent confirmation is very important for dating methods -- scientists generally do not place much confidence in a date that is only computed from a single measurement.

These methods depend on uniformity of a process which is almost certainly not uniform. There is no reason to believe that influx rates have been constant throughout time. There is reason to expect that, due to a relatively large amount of exposed land, today's erosion (and therefore influx) rates are higher than typical past rates.

There is no "check" built into these methods. There is no way to tell if the calculated result is good or not. The best methods used by geologists to perform dating have a built-in check which identifies undatable samples. The only way a creationist can "tell" which of these methods produce bad values is to throw out the results that he doesn't like.
One might wonder why creationist authors have found it worthy of publishing. Yet, it is quite common. This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, p. 16)
Morris (1974, pp. 153-156)
Morris & Parker (1987, pp. 284-284 and 290-291)
Wysong (1976, pp. 162, 163)

Conclusion
Obviously, these are a pretty popular set of "dating" mechanisms; they appear frequently in creationist literature from the 1960s through the late 1980s (and can be found on many creationist web sites even today). They appear in talk.origins more often than any other young-Earth arguments. They are all built upon a distortion of the data.

A curious and unbiased observer could quite reasonably refuse to even listen to the creationists until they "clean house" and stop pushing these arguments. If I found "Piltdown Man" in a modern biology text as evidence for human evolution, I'd throw the book away. (If I applied the same standards to the fairly large collection of creationist materials that I own, none would remain.)

Common Creationist Criticisms of Mainstream Dating Methods
Most creationist criticisms of radiometric dating can be categorized into a few groups. These include:

Reference to a case where the given method did not work .
Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated :
Constancy of radioactive decay rates .
Contamination is likely to occur .

1. Reference to a case where the given method did not work
This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts:

First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are "undatable" objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches.
How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.

Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time (Dalrymple 1992, personal correspondence). The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently in line with mainstream science.

2. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated
Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases.

2.1 Constancy of radioactive decay rates.
Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.

A short digression on mechanisms for radioactive decay, taken from USEnet article <CK47LK.E2J@ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip (subsequently edited in response to Steve's request):

For the case of alpha decay, [...] the simple underlying mechanism is quantum mechanical tunneling through a potential barrier. You will find a simple explanation in any elementary quantum mechanics textbook; for example, Ohanion's Principles of Quantum Mechanics has a nice example of alpha decay on page 89. The fact that the process is probabilistic, and the exponential dependence on time, are straightforward consequences of quantum mechanics. (The time dependence is a case of "Fermi's golden rule" --- see, for example, page 292 of Ohanion.)

An exact computation of decay rates is, of course, much more complicated, since it requires a detailed understanding of the shape of the potential barrier. In principle, this is computable from quantum chromodynamics, but in practice the computation is much too complex to be done in the near future. There are, however, reliable approximations available, and in addition the shape of the potential can be measured experimentally.

For beta decay, the underlying fundamental theory is different; one begins with electroweak theory (for which Glashow, Weinberg and Salam won their Nobel prize) rather than quantum chromodynamics.

As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).

Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay (taken from <16381@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip):

So there has been a lot of creative work on how to look for evidence of such changes.

A nice (technical) summary is given by Sisterna and Vucetich (1991) . Among the phenomena they look at are:

searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);
searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;
ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;
data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;
observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;
the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);
experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);
absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);
laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle.
While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.

The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.

The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year.

To summarize: both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are somewhere between ten and twenty orders of magnitude below the changes which would be necessary to accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth timescale (by means of accelerated decay).

2.2 Contamination may have occurred.
This is addressed in the most detail in the Isochron Dating FAQ , for all of the methods discussed in the "age of the Earth" part of this FAQ are isochron (or equivalent) methods, which have a check built in that detect most forms of contamination.

It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do not have a built-in check for contamination, and if there has been contamination these methods will produce a meaningless age. For this reason, the results of such dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.

Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.

quoted from

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html