How can you say this when you don't even know if the information in the Bible you own matches the information in the original scriptures?
I have a copy of the Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldee Interlinear Bible. It is a great study tool.
??? so?
The Bible is the most scrutinized book in history. It also has more copies of old manuscripts supporting it than all other ancient documents in history combined. Only a few of these copies have differences, and those are so small and insignificant, that it is clear the they all came from a single original source.
Which might have been the document provided by those unscrupulous Levite priests that changed the originals and then destroyed those originals. There are no originals in Moses' handwriting for us to look at...so you don't know that what you have is what he wrote.
Besides the academic scrutiny that these manuscripts have been subjected to for centuries, another witness to the accuracy of their preservation is numerology.
This is a huge subject that is one of the most neglected yet most power studies as to the authenticity of the Bible and the connectedness of the internal books, i.e., they were all inspired by the same Person:
The numerology is consistent throughout the Bible.
Maybe Satan inspired those unscrupulous Levites and provided the numerology. He is pretty clever you know...what with inspiring the thousands of other religions and all.
Arguments about the reliability of scripture are dead, except, of course, to those who attempt believe they can avoid the horrific suffering of eternal hell by entertaining denial.
I'm not saying the Bible isn't true or reliable. I'm saying that if you put the same restrictions on determination of the truth of the Bible that you do on the determination of radioactive decay curves, then you must conclude that you don't know that any of the Bible is true, beyond what you can verify with your own two eyes.
In contract to fearmongers, courageous men and woman stand up and are willing to face that fact that God exists, and that the evidence is solid and credible, and so we are subject to Him.
¨ Fact One:.....facts that support the validity of the Bible...and some pretty quotes from famous folks about their conclusions regarding the Bible
Nice bunch of facts and pretty convincing to me. However, since you can't show that the Bible wasn't changed before the earliest manuscripts that have been unearthed, you are required by your own strictures regarding truth to admit that you don't know that the Bible is true.
You say, without evidence or a potential cause, that radioactive decay rates may have changed in the past, therefore, you declare the truth of the decay curves for long-lived isotopes to be unknown.
I say, without evidence but with a potential cause (Levites wanting power), that the Bible may have been changed in the past, therefore, you should follow your own methodology and declare the truth of the Bible to be unknown to you.
The above conclusions are based on my understanding of your methodology for declaring truth....ie, no assumptions.
Assumption for long lived isotopes: Decay rates did not change
Russ declares the decay curves invalid.
Assumption for the Bible: No manuscript changes before the earliest known copies. Russ should declare the Bible invalid.
From my point of view the facts that you provided concerning the Bible are enough for me to accept the truths that are contained in it. However, you have a narrower view of when you declare truth.
Common sense says that the sun goes around the Earth until it is investigated further using the structured techniques of science.
Only while we have a lack of information, which makes my point perfectly.
See Bible stuff above...you lack information about the original manuscripts.
Extrapolations have been wrong in the past, these decay curves rely on huge assumptive extrapolations that are borrowed from observations.
No. As I explained in an earlier post the exponential shape of the curve is determined by the physical mechanism that radioactive decay is. IOW, the amount of atoms decaying at any one time is dependent upon the amount of atoms present at that time. The extrapolation is based on the assumption that the decay rates haven't changed. An assumption that you discard out of hand.
Why should any intelligent person not be skeptical?
Yet you expect that same intelligent person to not be skeptical of a Bible that you assume, but cannot prove, has never been changed. Seems a bit contradictory, to me.
Again I remind you that I was taught that the world is 300 million years old just 20+ years ago. Now, it's being taught to be 6 billion years old.
Why the discrepancy?
You haven't shown any evidence that you were actually taught the 300 million years nor that anyone teaches 6 billion years today. So there is no discrepancy outside of your own mind.
Different ages of the Earth are actually based on different methods of determining that age. Try googling about it sometime.
Common sense says:
Don't assume.
But you do assume! You assume that the Bible has never been changed. Your common sense just caused you to determine that the truth of the Bible is unknown to you.
Examples please! Preferably scientific papers showing the details of the sampling and dating procedure.
Before I provide these for you, please tell me:
Are you actually unaware of these findings, which are actually not so new? (Seems you should have heard about them by now.)
I have heard of declarations of problems with the dating methods and other supposed evidence for a young Earth, but I cannot know what you have in mind unless you provide it. I don't read minds.
Surprisingly, not one geologist without fundamentalist religious affiliation agrees with this statement.
Can you point to any quote by a geologist/physicist, either creationist or not, saying that the exponential shape of the radioactive decay curve is an assumption or is invalid?
Additionally, when is comes to dating methods, I have heard testimony from archeologists who are aware of how dating often takes place.
They boldly stated that the "desired" date is sent to the lab with the sample. The technicians then adjust the equipment so that it results in the "desired" date. This is then taken as the radio-dating result.
Although this may be hard for some not in the field to believe, this type of corruption is rampant and I have heard first-hand stories from people in a multitude of disciplines tell stores of this type of data manipulation.
Let's start with the obvious...
you didn't answer the question. Based on the response you did provide, I then believe that your answer is "No, I can't point to any quote by a geologist/physicist, either creationist or not, saying that the exponential shape of the radioactive decay curve is an assumption or is invalid."
Now onto your response.
Let me provide an analogy. Suppose I want you to measure the length of a bed that I am repairing. What would you choose to measure it...a micrometer, a yardstick, a 25 ft tape measure, or the odometer of your car? Why?
Would it have been dishonest of me to give you any clues as to the possible length of the thing I wanted measured? Should I have, instead, asked you to measure something without telling you what it was, so that you could choose, at random, what measuring device you were going to use?
What you call a "desired" date is actually a communication of the range of approximate ages by the collector of the sample so that the lab can choose the proper tool for measuring the age.
Why is that dishonest?
Maybe I am not understanding your point. Do you have any examples of what exactly is communicated from the geologist/paleontologist to the lab? Maybe a filled out sample analysis request?
And as I've said all along, this type of information control and distortion is committed to attempt to give credibility to the evolution faith so as to discredit the Bible.
You have never shown evidence that the purpose of those scientists who believe in evolution is to discredit the Bible.
And why would anyone want to discredit the Bible?
Because the Bible tells so much about how the world will be deceived in the "last days" that it would subvert the ability for the newly-forming world government to exist.
You can't claim this to be accurate information because you have assumed that the Bible has not been changed since its original writing.
If I get the time, I may provide you with video from archeologists exposing how the "dating" process really works.
I look forward to it.
To believe that all of these scientists have perfect integrity is a fantastically naive belief.
To believe that politics plays no role in the exercise of modern science is also fantastically naive.
Certainly you are not saying that I claim all scientists to be of perfect integrity or immune to political influence, because I have not.
