Dark Virtue said:
Are wrong answers better than no answers at all?
No wrong answers will lead you down the road with a dead end.
Dark Virtue said:
Are lies better than the truth?
The enemy would have you to believe that the lies are the truth. Thereby we have all these lovely "theories" floating around and skewing peoples worldview.
Dark Virtue said:
Before we get too far, it seems to me that you believe that science CAN explain, validate and prove the existence of God. Am I correct here? If you don't believe that, why bother with these topics?
Yes I do believe that you can see God's hand in creation and can see it in science and mathemtics. Science can NEVER explain God, because it is man's science and therefore it is man trying to explain God thru mans creation. Can you validate God with science? Well if we could recreate the creation, or recreate the formation of a star, or if we could recreate the formation of a living cell, then I guess you could call that validating God. But since Man cant do any of those things, well then you cant validate God or His methods used in creation. Can God's existence be proved through science? How about can God's existence be disproved through science? Can you show me proof that evolution in any form created the human eye? Why do we not see other forms of sentient life on this planet other than man? If it has to do with brain size, then why are there animals with much larger brains than ours, yet they still roam the plains and eat grass? There are some some things that science just cant explain away as a mere creation of chaos. The fact that science cant explain all things, leaves the God factor.
Dark Virtue said:
I don't think you're being very scientific with your theory. First, you are assuming that God's voice, or the act of speaking was what caused things to pop into existence. You could just as easily say that God spoke a command and it was the Holy Spirit that caused the actual creation and his voice had nothing to do with it. By going down that road, I'm afraid you would soon paint yourself into a corner because you would have to sign on as a biblical literalist.
It took you this long to figure that out? Well let me step back and say that there are things that meant to be taken allegorically in the bible, and when they are meant to be taken that way in the bible, then they are framed as such in the surrounding text, i.e...
Rev 8:8 And the second angel sounded,
and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;
Do i believe that a big burning mountain is gonna fall out of the sky and turn the sea to blood? NO, but I believe that John saw what to him he could only described as what looked like a big buring mountain, perhaps a comet? But regardless when it plumets through our atmostphere it will LOOK like a big burning mountain.
Dark Virtue said:
Secondly, the fact that material has a resonance doesn't do anything to attribute sound as a means of creation. Resonance is simply a quality of sound. That's like saying since we all have a smell, that God must have sneezed us into existence. Or that since everything around us reflects light, that God must have somehow created us with his brilliance. See what I mean?
If you re-read my statement , I said that to US speaking is a means of vibrating air. I didnt say that God spoke creation into air and it was all sound, I said:
But if there is no air to vibrate, then when he spoke creation into existence, he created all the molecules and there respective vibrations with His voice. God spoke light into existence because He spoke into existence the frequency of light.
Its all about the wavelength man! Its all about the mathematics man! Chaos is a result of sin. That is why you will not find any THING becoming more complex over time, everything is breaking down. The human body is a great example. Look at what we are subjected to today. Cancer, deformities, virus, infections, arthritis, osteoperosis, the list is long. Has it all been around since the begining, well we dont have medical records from 6000 years ago, but Im gonna guess that NO, cancer was not as prevalent then as it is today. Has anybody ever actually documented the creation of a new star? Not to my knowledge, they have only witnessed the death of stars, but never one actually be created. You gotta think downward spiral here, the longer it goes the tighter the spiral gets.
Dark Virtue said:
You also seem to be under the impression that carbon dating is the only technique available. There are many kinds, some more useful than others depending on the material to be dated.
Example:
Potassium-Argon
Useful for dating old, archaeological items
The Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating method is the measurement of the accumulation of argon in a mineral. In contrast to a dating method such as C14 dating which measures the disappearance of a substance, K-Ar dating measure the accumulation of argon in a substance from the decomposition of potassium.
This is relatively easy because argon, being an inert gas, usually does not leech out of a mineral and is easy to measure in small samples. The actual date is comprised of the time it has been formed from molten/heated minerals. This method, therefore, is not very useful when dating the time a human bone has been in the ground, but it does help in giving the time of many of the artifacts that are often times found alongside burials.
If you were to take a piece of everyday rock, the K-Ar method would give you the date that piece of rock was "reset" by the changing of it's chemical structure. Many things can and do change the structure of rocks. Heating, weathering and many kinds of alterations will reset this time. Therefore, archaeologists can determine relatively accurately how long ago a heat treated projectile point was made, or a piece of pottery was last used to cook food. Source:
Link
So that is pointless for dating anything other than pottery, even then it could be altered by say a forest fire.
Obsidian Hydration
Useful as a time marker
Developed in 1960, Obsidian Hydration Analysis (OHA) is an inexpensive technique archaeologists and geoarchaeologists use to find the age of a site they have excavated. This method is most often used as a means of relative dating , but an absolute date may also be estimated in some circumstances.Source:
Link
Really only useful if the area being excavated is near a volcano.
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Useful for measuring geologic time
Therefore, an archaeomagnetic date depends not only on the collected sample and curve summary, but also on the set of independently dated pole positions that go into making the curve.
Magnetic information is also recorded in ferromagnetic elements in baked clay which have kept their position on cooling from the last firing of the clay. This means that baked clay, used for thousands of years in the construction of hearths, ovens and kilns, contains a weak but permanent magnetization which can be measured to determine the magnetic intensity and declination at the time of its last cooling. The thermoremnent magnetism (TRM) of baked clay is gained from the magnetic properties of magnetite and hematite, iron-oxides that make up on the average of 6-8% of the earth's crust. In raw clay magnetic particles of these minerals are aligned to form magnetic domains, or crystals. Source:
Link
Another dating method only really realiable on burnt stuff. Not useful for dating fossils that are claimed to be millions of years old.
Thermoluminescence dating
Useful for dating rock minerals and sediments
Thermoluminescence dating is in its developmental stages. Except for doing simple authenticity tests of art objects, thermoluminescence dating is not generally accurate enough for archaeological standards. Source:
Link
That very first sentance alone makes this type of dating irrelevant.
So I guess there really is not 100% accurate way to date anything. You can get into dating fossils by the strata in which they lie, but then you would also date the strata by which fossils are in it. And you end up in one big circle. Most artifacts that are found and can be biblically related, i.e. temples and fortresses can be pretty accurately dated because of the records that were kept. Plus there are almost always more than one source that can verify its existence.
While Ron Wyatt may have gone about his finds in the wrong way, that does not contradict that fact that these things are out there in the desert to be seen. Getting the okay from the local governments is the hard part, mainly because they are all muslim and dont want to allow any proof of jewish roots to be found on thier watch.
