Posted on 02/18/2005 7:19:50 AM PST by Pendragon_6
February 17, 2005
Carbon dating backs Bible on Edom
By RICHARD N. OSTLING Associated Press Writer
Evidence of biblical kingdom of Edom Some archaeologists are convinced that pottery remains and radiocarbon work in Jordan were from a site that was part of the Edomite state.
The Mideast's latest archaeological sensation is all about Edom.
The Bible says Edom's kings interacted with ancient Israel, but some scholars have confidently declared that no Edomite state could have existed that early.
The latest archaeological work indicates the Bible got it right, those experts got it wrong and some write-ups need rewriting. The findings also could buttress disputed biblical reports about kings David and Solomon.
Carbon dating used by experts, backs up Bible claim. The same carbon dating that, according to the Bible-believing creationsists, isn't accurate. Can't have it both ways.
I'm not surprised. After all, "It is written."
Nice One!
Already posted
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1345309/posts
There still using carbon dating.
Umm, OK, sure.
So whats that got to do with the vast majority of Christians who accept carbon dating for *both* cases?
The Bible *is* a reliable historical document in those texts clearly not alegorical or mythical, such as its historical records in Kings, Samuel, Chronicles, Joshua, Judges and Exodus.
It will be interesting to see secularistgs catch up to that without diverting the discussion to OldEarth Creationism as though that were typical of Christian views on Science and biology.
They certainly dont speak for the Roman Catholic Church.
Many thanks!
I certainly agree with you on the historical relevence of the Old Testament books after Genesis. I do not, however, believe in the literal Genesis creation.
Oh yeah?
Behold The Ten Laws of Creationism, for use when confronting those horrible eeee-voouuuu-luuuu-shunists:
1. The Law of Evidence: Everything is evidence of creationism; therefore nothing supports evolution.And here are some of The Laws of Itelligent Design:2. The Law of Conservation of Arguments: Discredited arguments never die, they just get recycled ad infinitum.
3. The Law of Reproducable Results: Anything found in the wild means nothing unless it is reproduced in the lab. Anything done in a lab means nothing about what happens in the wild.
4. The Law of Complexity: That which is complicated is impossible.
5. The Law of Improbability: That which is improbable is impossible.
6. The Law of Impossibility: Life (or consciousness, or free will, etc.) is so complicated (or improbable) that it is obviously impossible . Therefore the existence of life (or consciousness, or free will, etc.) is a miracle.
7. The Law of Completeness: Anything which has not yet been learned (or found, or produced in the lab) will never never be learned (or found, or produced in the lab).
8. The Law of Miracles: If something exists in nature that has not yet been explained or reproduced in the lab, it's a miracle.
9. The Law of Persistence of Miracles: Once something has been declared a miracle, no subsequent natural explanation is possible.
10. The Law of Supernatural Superiority: Whenever two explanations of a phenomenon are presented, one natural and one supernatural, the latter is the better.
The universe is made for life, therefore ID.
Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.
Anything produced in the lab is proof of Intelligent Design.
Anything not produced in the lab is proof of Intelligent Design.
If carbon dating is considered inaccurate by creationists, why don't they oppose findings based on it which support their theories?
Beat me upside the head with a twinkie, but I still think God created all through the process of adaptation.
PS. What do you call a person who believes both creation and parts of evolution?
Not sure how that rates the 'however'.
I dont believe in a literal Genesis creation either. I believe the account a myth that contains with in it primarily religious truths, but a few scientific gems as well.
Even if the author of Genesis knew exactly what happened in the creation of the universe, I cant imagine that he could communicate it well to the pastoral nation of his time, and so used alegory.
The important Truths about Creationism are that:
1) the Universe has a design and a purpose.
2) that Life has a design and a purpose, and
3) that mankind has a Designer and a purpose.
Beyond that, using Genesis for inspiration as it was in the formulation of the Big Bang theory and then letting science do its job seem to be the best way to approach the situation if one is genuinely looking for the Truth about the world around us.
Patrick, what in your opinion is the substantial difference between describing the Universe as 'designed' versus 'fine tuned'?
Ignoring the stylistic choices in the manner of expression, there is no substantial difference. Both expressions assume (but don't demonstrate) some kind of design.
So, given that various characteristics of the universe that make it 'life-friendly' but do not necesarily imply 'fine tuning', how much coincidence do you feel comfortable accepting before moving to a position that affirms the 'fine tuning' of the universe?
Also, is 'naturalism' inherently incompatible with the concept of design? Can we have a process that is apparently running without interferance, but is a process 'loaded' for a specific outcome?
For example, how many times would a crpas shooter have to roll 7's before you believe it is a certainty that his dice are loaded?
Also, is there a difference that you might agree to between a notion of a naturalistic universe 'fine tuned' for a particular result, and that yet does not require what most would call a 'miraculous' or 'supranatural' event?
The contrast in that last sentence, Patrick, was intended to be between the described naturalistic but still fine tuned universe and the classic 'created' universe.
If you have a point, make it. If it interests me, I may discuss it. I'm not here to be interrogated.
Nevermind, Patrick.
The last thing I would ever want to do is make you feel uncomnfortable.
'Interrogated'; how sad.
They used to call it 'an honest and frank exchange of ideas'.
But I guess it requires some willingness to understand another person, and this isnt something you seem willing to do.
Have a nice weekend, and thank you for not wasting my time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.