One of many problems with Evolution

[BigBallinStalin]

UC, after seeing your repeated unwillingness to engage other reasonable posters' questions, then there's no point in addressing your post. Be satisfied with your echo chamber.

[AndyDufresne]

Ha ha ha, nice try.

Hey atheist, how do you determine how old dinosaurs are? By what soil layer they are in.
Hey atheist, how do you determine how old the soil is? By what dinosaur bones are in it.
Nice try.

--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

Challenge to all atheist and wolves like player, find one error in the Bible, either of:
Physics
Biology
Chemistry
History
Archeology
Geography
Cosmology

That is literally not possible to do. If we say, oh I don't know, that it's actually impossible to create a person by starting with another person's kidney, you will respond that the normal rules of biology don't apply because God intervened to make it so. We'll never find an 'error' as such because you'll claim that we just don't actually understand biology/physics/chemistry/etc. when God is involved.

[tzor]

Why is the Bible infallible?
1) it declares it to be so. Yes, but what good is that w/o evidence backing it up.
2) the brightest skeptics for 2,000 years still cannot find errors in the Bible.
3) things the Bible said would occur 100s to 1,000s prior to, occurred exactly as prophecied. Not once, not twice, but 1,000s of prophecies fulfilled.
4) The Bible said the earth was a sphere before man knew. Said the universe stretches out before man knew, said the atmosphere and universe are flat before man knew, said all things wear out (I.e. Entropy) before man knew, said the mountains rise before man knew, the list keeps going.

Oh good grief. It is the existence of people like you that cause many Atheists not to believe in God in the first place.

Let's take your points one point at a time.

1. Like "Sola Scriptura" - the "infallibility" of the Bible is not stated in the Bible. John Wesley, for example, apparently mistranslated Second Timothy which said "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching" into "all Scripture is infallibly true; and is profitable for doctrine."

   The Catholic Church speaks not about infallibility of Scripture but about its freedom from error, holding "the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture". The Second Vatican Council, citing earlier declarations, stated: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation". It added: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."

2. If you look for information that the Bible was never designed to be about (not related to the sake of salvation) you will find lots of technically inaccurate statements. Whole web pages are dedicated to this topic. It's about as silly as all the "errors" one can find in the Star Trek universe.
3. Prophecy is an interest and a complex subject. And a lot of it involves arm chair quarterbacking (in that it is only obvious after the fact).
4. That is a flat out falsehood, or rather an attempt to force modern scientific knowledge into passages where it doesn't belong. The "world" that the compilers of Genesis knew, much like was known at the time, was flat. The notion of a sphere didn't come to the Greeks until the 6th century BC

   In early Egyptian and Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean. A similar model is found in the Homeric account of the 8th century BC in which "Okeanos, the personified body of water surrounding the circular surface of the Earth, is the begetter of all life and possibly of all gods." The biblical earth is a flat disc floating on water.

[tzor]

That is literally not possible to do. If we say, oh I don't know, that it's actually impossible to create a person by starting with another person's kidney, you will respond that the normal rules of biology don't apply because God intervened to make it so. We'll never find an 'error' as such because you'll claim that we just don't actually understand biology/physics/chemistry/etc. when God is involved.

Minor nit pick. The account in Genesis talks about the "side" of the man. It's exceptionally generic and while I would never want to force modern science upon the knowledge of ancient people I'm sure one could find a stem cell in someone's side enough for cloning purposes after modification.

[AndyDufresne]

If you look for information that the Bible was never designed to be about (not related to the sake of salvation) you will find lots of technically inaccurate statements. Whole web pages are dedicated to this topic. It's about as silly as all the "errors" one can find in the Star Trek universe.

BLASPHEMY!


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

"]

Ha ha ha, nice try.

Hey atheist, how do you determine how old dinosaurs are? By what soil layer they are in.
Hey atheist, how do you determine how old the soil is? By what dinosaur bones are in it.
Nice try.

Except, that really is NOT how it works. Why do you persist in putting forth such lies... Perhaps because you cannot face or understand the truth?

[PLAYER57832]

Challenge to all atheist and wolves like player, find one error in the Bible, either of:
Physics
Biology
Chemistry
History
Archeology
Geography
Cosmology

That is literally not possible to do. If we say, oh I don't know, that it's actually impossible to create a person by starting with another person's kidney, you will respond that the normal rules of biology don't apply because God intervened to make it so. We'll never find an 'error' as such because you'll claim that we just don't actually understand biology/physics/chemistry/etc. when God is involved.

If you are going to claim I say something, at least stick to the truth. I do NOT dispute the Bible. I dispute YOUR claims about the Bible.

And... I proffured a few challenges to you on that regard, all of which you. Ignored.

Very little of your supposed evidence has anything to do with the Bible. You go well outsi the Bible and yet try to claim those outside words have the same authority as the Bible.

The Bible does not refute science. Only. Individuals who cannot see wider possibilities than their own narrow education

[PLAYER57832]

Challenge to all atheist and wolves like player, find one error in the Bible, either of:
Physics
Biology
Chemistry
History
Archeology
Geography
Cosmology

That is literally not possible to do. If we say, oh I don't know, that it's actually impossible to create a person by starting with another person's kidney, you will respond that the normal rules of biology don't apply because God intervened to make it so. We'll never find an 'error' as such because you'll claim that we just don't actually understand biology/physics/chemistry/etc. when God is involved.

The Bible says "side", not kidney. (and it's not actually clearly stated that the original Adam was male, either). But, you are correct that Christians and Jews are fine with saying "It is a miracle".
The only real issue is that some atheists believe that if they just find a scientific answer, that somehow disproves that God was present. That is a false idea.

[PLAYER57832]

But, that is different than what the Bible teaches regarding the global flood. The Bible records that upon the flood covering every mountain by 15 cubits, every mountain under the heavens by 15 cubits (22.5 ft), and all life died that was not in the ark. Genesis 7:19-23. Then Psalm 104:6-8" you covered it [earth] with the deep as with a garment, the waters were standing above the mountains.

Provide written evidence that the flood was global for the land of Egypt(I wont push you with China ). According to the ancient Egyptians they were making pyramids in the same time when the bible is mentioning Noah's flood. Whats interesting the evidence of their pyramids is visible, but the evidence for the global flood is nowhere to be seen. On top of everything ancient Egyptians at that time were uncomparably more educated then the people that wrote the bible.
I think the timing is within the period of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt

On this, I actually agree with universalchiro, at least in part. Noah's flood was supposed to be well before Egypt's pyramids were built. Joseph, etc was from the time of the Pharoahs, remember. There is no exact time in our reference given within the Bible for Noah's flood or earlier events.

There are lineages given, but that is not the full and consistent record many young earthers imply. there are some ambiguities.

The flood that happen in Noah's time is estimated to have happened around 2348 BC(but the exact time could be up to max of 2500 BC). Egyptians were building pyramids all the time in that time-frame. There are both written evidence for that and available structures for observing.

This is by no means a universally accepted time frame, even among young earthers

Conclusion: The flood from Noah's time was not global, and the evidence from the bible can be considered as nothing more then someones fictional story.

Any creationist willing to dispute the numbers I posted?[/quote]
Absolutely!
First. You are mistaking the belief that God created all with the idea that God created all life at once and that the Earth is relatively young.
Most. Christians, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and Roman Catholics (representing the largest and second largest churches in the US), not to mention United Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc..... all accept that there is no conflict, between the Bible and science. WE are ALL creationists, because we do believe that God made all, but we don't feel that the Bible was intended as a detailed scientific explanation. Exactly what's we think varies. some feel that much of the Bible is allegory, some that it is literal. Most. Would say that apparent conflicts are because of poor human understanding. Years ago many people thought the sun simply HAD to revolve around the sun, because anything else would mean we are inferior. Now, we understand this is not the case. This Idea of the Earth being young could be put into that same type of idea, except that there is a lot of support for encouraging people to belief science is xjustw wrong. a lot of money has gone into promoting these ideas in the guise of religion.

[universalchiro]

Challenge to all atheist and wolves like player, find one error in the Bible, either of:
Physics
Biology
Chemistry
History
Archeology
Geography
Cosmology

That is literally not possible to do... when God is involved.

The Bible says ...and it's not actually clearly stated that the original Adam was male, either).

LOL This is par from player, another statement she reveals lack of knowledge. I doubt you even read the Bible making such ridiculous claims.
Strong's Concordance #120 for man is the Hebrew word: ADAM: means a a human being, mankind, man, Adam, the name of the first man.

[universalchiro]

But, that is different than what the Bible teaches regarding the global flood. The Bible records that upon the flood covering every mountain by 15 cubits, every mountain under the heavens by 15 cubits (22.5 ft), and all life died that was not in the ark. Genesis 7:19-23. Then Psalm 104:6-8" you covered it [earth] with the deep as with a garment, the waters were standing above the mountains.

.

Conclusion: The flood from Noah's time was not global, and the evidence from the bible can be considered as nothing more then someones fictional story.

This is blasphemy. Calling the Word of God someones fictional story. There is more hope for an ice cold atheist than a luke warm "believer" as you.

Jesus said not one jot nor tittle will pass from the Law (Matt 5:18), and God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and 2 Peter 1:20-21 "know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" and 2 Timothy 3:16 "all scripture is inspired by God..."

This is self evident that the Bible is the Word of God and not someones fictional stories. Now here is why you are blasphemous:
Jesus is literally the Word of God in the flesh; John 1:1-14 "In the bBeginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being...v14 and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.".
You call the Word someone's fictional story is blasphemy for Jesus is the Word.

[Dukasaur]

I always thought that Grease is the Word.

[shickingbrits]

UC, what do you think of the other gospels?

[Metsfanmax]

UC, I challenge you to find one statement in the Quran that is incorrect.

[DoomYoshi]

This is blasphemy. Calling the Word of God someones fictional story.

Reality (as in, the universe) is the Word of God.

[PLAYER57832]

But, that is different than what the Bible teaches regarding the global flood. The Bible records that upon the flood covering every mountain by 15 cubits, every mountain under the heavens by 15 cubits (22.5 ft), and all life died that was not in the ark. Genesis 7:19-23. Then Psalm 104:6-8" you covered it [earth] with the deep as with a garment, the waters were standing above the mountains.

.

Conclusion: The flood from Noah's time was not global, and the evidence from the bible can be considered as nothing more then someones fictional story.

This is blasphemy. Calling the Word of God someones fictional story. There is more hope for an ice cold atheist than a luke warm "believer" as you.

Jesus said not one jot nor tittle will pass from the Law (Matt 5:18), and God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and 2 Peter 1:20-21 "know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" and 2 Timothy 3:16 "all scripture is inspired by God..."

This is self evident that the Bible is the Word of God and not someones fictional stories. Now here is why you are blasphemous:
Jesus is literally the Word of God in the flesh; John 1:1-14 "In the bBeginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being...v14 and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.".
You call the Word someone's fictional story is blasphemy for Jesus is the Word.

Goranz. Posted. This, not I

But it is numerous that you,who refer to your own words as if they were from the Bible, who insists that only his understanding can possibly correct, is throwing out the term "Blasphemy"

Christ did not die on the crossroclaiming "He who accepts that the world was created in 6 days is saved"

[universalchiro]

Why is the Bible infallible?
1) it declares it to be so. Yes, but what good is that w/o evidence backing it up.
2) the brightest skeptics for 2,000 years still cannot find errors in the Bible.
3) things the Bible said would occur 100s to 1,000s prior to, occurred exactly as prophecied. Not once, not twice, but 1,000s of prophecies fulfilled.
4) The Bible said the earth was a sphere before man knew. Said the universe stretches out before man knew, said the atmosphere and universe are flat before man knew, said all things wear out (I.e. Entropy) before man knew, said the mountains rise before man knew, the list keeps going.

Let's take your points one point at a time.

1. Like "Sola Scriptura" - the "infallibility" of the Bible is not stated in the Bible. John Wesley, for example, apparently mistranslated Second Timothy which said "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching" into "all Scripture is infallibly true; and is profitable for doctrine."

   The Catholic Church speaks not about infallibility of Scripture but about its freedom from error, holding "the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture". The Second Vatican Council, citing earlier declarations, stated: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation". It added: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."

   
   Where is the problem? The Catholic church accepts that the Pope speaks infallibly, so why Can't the Word of God, since they accept the Bible to be inspired by God, God breathed, written by men as the Holy Spirit moved on them and it's solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings...That is infallible. To add scripture to that : Titus 1:2 "God cannot lie", so there are no lies in scripture, Psalm 19:7- God testifies that His Word is clear, perfect, true, sure,right, pure, clean. That means the original manuscripts are infallible. Our version today is about 99% exact of original manuscripts.
   
2. If you look for information that the Bible was never designed to be about (not related to the sake of salvation) you will find lots of technically inaccurate statements. Whole web pages are dedicated to this topic. It's about as silly as all the "errors" one can find in the Star Trek universe. I'm sorry, I am missing your point, could you give me some examples, thanks.
3. Prophecy is an interest and a complex subject. And a lot of it involves arm chair quarterbacking (in that it is only obvious after the fact). Well, we agree there, it's obvious after the fact. Sure, if I lived during the time of Jesus, I would not have known about two comings of the Messiah, I would be expecting only one. But the fact remains that what the Bible said would occur 100s to 1,000s of years prior to, did occur exactly as foretold, that is supernatural.
4. That is a flat out falsehood, or rather an attempt to force modern scientific knowledge into passages where it doesn't belong. The "world" that the compilers of Genesis knew, much like was known at the time, was flat. The notion of a sphere didn't come to the Greeks until the 6th century BC

   In early Egyptian and Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean. A similar model is found in the Homeric account of the 8th century BC in which "Okeanos, the personified body of water surrounding the circular surface of the Earth, is the begetter of all life and possibly of all gods." The biblical earth is a flat disc floating on water.

Well, I agree that people believed the earth was flat, but Isaiah 40:22 wrote in 700BC that God sits above the circle of the earth. Just because truth is written in the Bible, doesn't mean mankind a)accepts it or b) understands it until science catches us. There are many instances of science in the Bible that mankind didn't understand. e.g. Isaiah wrote about the heavens stretches out. It is only recently that we learned the universe is expanding. Also, in Genesis it says God made a firmament/expanse, the Hebrew means to pound out like a blacksmith would pound out metal in flat sheets. It's only recently that cosmologist learned the universe is thin and not too long ago we didn't know the atmosphere was flat around earth like an apple peel.

Thoughts?

[Metsfanmax]

Isaiah 40:22 wrote in 700BC that God sits above the circle of the earth.

A circle is a two-dimensional ("flat") object.

[universalchiro]

But, that is different than what the Bible teaches regarding the global flood. The Bible records that upon the flood covering every mountain by 15 cubits, every mountain under the heavens by 15 cubits (22.5 ft), and all life died that was not in the ark. Genesis 7:19-23. Then Psalm 104:6-8" you covered it [earth] with the deep as with a garment, the waters were standing above the mountains.

.

Conclusion: The flood from Noah's time was not global, and the evidence from the bible can be considered as nothing more then someones fictional story.

[/quote]
This is blasphemy. Calling the Word of God someones fictional story. There is more hope for an ice cold atheist than a luke warm "believer" as you.

Jesus said not one jot nor tittle will pass from the Law (Matt 5:18), and God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and 2 Peter 1:20-21 "know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" and 2 Timothy 3:16 "all scripture is inspired by God..."

This is self evident that the Bible is the Word of God and not someones fictional stories. Now here is why you are blasphemous:
Jesus is literally the Word of God in the flesh; John 1:1-14 "In the bBeginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being...v14 and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.".
You call the Word someone's fictional story is blasphemy for Jesus is the Word.[/quote]Goranz. Posted. This, not I[/quote]
Accepted, I retract. I don't get up in arms when an atheist says things like above, it's to be expected. However, one who claims to love God and says the scriptures are fictional stories, then I get up in arms. For they should know and they don't because of a lack of reading the scriptures.

Christ did not die on the crossroclaiming "He who accepts that the world was created in 6 days is saved"[/quote] True, but Christ quoted Genesis 1:27, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning "made them male and female," Since you believe humans evolved from a single celled organism,and Jesus says from the beginning of creation He who created them made them male and female, and said for this reason a man (Hebrew: Adam) shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is not evolution, this is a man and woman, Adam and Eve, from the get go, the 6th day.
You have three options at this point:
Either Jesus didn't know about evolution, which means He couldn't be all knowing, nor Deity. Or Jesus did know about evolution but tried to cover it up, then He is a liar and the devil. Either way, we should throw away the Bible. Or Jesus spoke truth and which case, you should abandon your hopes of not looking foolish in the eyes of atheist and with fidelity accept the Word of God totally as the inerrant Word of God, which it is and it is in harmony with science and physics, not scientist nor physicist.

[Metsfanmax]

it is in harmony with science and physics, not scientist nor physicist.

It should bother you that you think you understand "science and physics" better than the people who devote their entire lives to studying those things.

[universalchiro]

Isaiah 40:22 wrote in 700BC that God sits above the circle of the earth.

A circle is a two-dimensional ("flat") object.

The Jews didn't have the word sphere during Isaiah's day.
The location of the noun in the verse is not on earth, but in Heaven. and it is God: "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
The Hebrew word for "circle" ,Khoog: circle, circuit, compass, also references vault. Combining this word with the vault of the Firmament in Genesis, i.e. creation of the atmosphere, has a visible archway in the sky, arches have a portion of a circle. So since Hebrew didn't have the word 'sphere' in it's lexicon, circle was used.
Isaiah didn't have the word Sphere, nor did the writer of Job have the word Dinosaur, yet dinosaurs are described in chapters 40 as Behemoth and 41 Leviathan. So your argument would be we don't use those words for dinosaurs, so it doesn't mean dinosaurs. But Leviathan was a fire breathing dragon.
Nor did most of the writers have the word millions, yet they wrote thousands upon thousands and tens of thousands to relay the point of a lot.

The noun in the verse is the viewer of earth from heaven, not Isaiah standing on earth, the view of the noun in the verse of Isaiah 40:22, no matter which direction the noun in the verse viewed earth from heaven, from every perspective it was a circle, could only be if it was a sphere. If the earth was flat, then most angles from the perspective of the noun in the verse (i.e. God in heaven), the earth would be oval, or straight line. Therefore, Isaiah 40:22 indicates a spherical earth.

[universalchiro]

it is in harmony with science and physics, not scientist nor physicist.

It should bother you that you think you understand "science and physics" better than the people who devote their entire lives to studying those things.

Why should it bother me, when an evolutionist is taught sciences from an evolutionist, there is no reason for a red flag there.

Why should it bother me, when all of evolution is based on the earth being billions of years old and the best method of discerning this is radioactive dating that has a seriously flawed component. And that is that all calculations to determine the age of an item is multiplied by a Constant Rate of Decay.

Why on earth would anyone believe the Rate of Decay has always been constant, when I can take mets in a lab tomorrow, and take a piece of wood, +clay, +moisture - air, sealed, +heat (150*C) + 8 months = 100% coal indistinguishable from 20 million year old coal.

Why on earth would anyone believe the Rate of Decay has always been constant, when I can take mets to biomass farms near chicken farms, and let him see that we can convert algae and chicken products (e.g. veins, tendons, adipose, etc) and add high heat, and in 30 minutes get petroleum. Which is suppose to take 50 million years.

Why on earth if we can mimic natural by burying vegetation and biomass near heat, like natures does near a thermal vent (e.g. volcano) and get products in 8 months that alledgedly take 20 million years and get oil in 30 minutes that allegedly takes 50 million years. That is not science to still believe in billions of years, that is blind faith and ignoring observable and testable science.

Why on earth would any believe in the uniformatarian hypothesis for slow deposition of sediment, when a flood is observable and testable that layers form quickly with soil mixed in water and settled according to density. Who wants to believe that for millions of years only sand was deposited in a region of the globe and no other sediment, no other vegetation, no biomass. A uniformatarian hypothesis won't segregate layers and exclude vegetation or biomass from a particular layer, but a flood would.

[Metsfanmax]

it is in harmony with science and physics, not scientist nor physicist.

It should bother you that you think you understand "science and physics" better than the people who devote their entire lives to studying those things.

Why should it bother me, when an evolutionist is taught sciences from an evolutionist, there is no reason for a red flag there.

Doesn't bother you that a creationist is taught science by creationists though?

Why should it bother me, when all of evolution is based on the earth being billions of years old

No, it's not.

Why on earth would anyone believe the Rate of Decay has always been constant, when I can take mets to biomass farms near chicken farms, and let him see that we can convert algae and chicken products (e.g. veins, tendons, adipose, etc) and add high heat, and in 30 minutes get petroleum. Which is suppose to take 50 million years.

It should bother you that you think chemical reactions have anything to do with radioactive decay. Just because they're both science-y doesn't mean that you get to make shit up.

[universalchiro]

it is in harmony with science and physics, not scientist nor physicist.

It should bother you that you think you understand "science and physics" better than the people who devote their entire lives to studying those things.

Why should it bother me, when an evolutionist is taught sciences from an evolutionist, there is no reason for a red flag there.

Doesn't bother you that a creationist is taught science by creationists though?
Science is good, needed and fun. We should always use it to learn. I hold the Bible as truth and have not seen any conflict with science and the Bible. I see conflicts with evolutionary scientist and their interpretations of observable evidence and the Bible.

Why should it bother me, when all of evolution is based on the earth being billions of years old

No, it's not.....Let me clarify, why should it bother me, when all of evolution is based on the foundation or requirement of billions of years and therefore evolutionist have no choice but to believe in billions of years for earth. It's not an option.

Why on earth would anyone believe the Rate of Decay has always been constant, when I can take mets to biomass farms near chicken farms, and let him see that we can convert algae and chicken products (e.g. veins, tendons, adipose, etc) and add high heat, and in 30 minutes get petroleum. Which is suppose to take 50 million years.

It should bother you that you think chemical reactions have anything to do with radioactive decay. Just because they're both science-y doesn't mean that you get to make shit up.

Would you prefer I listed halos in granite rock from Polonium that don't have a descendant ancestral halo, i.e. they are in a primordial state, bypassing the natural decay route and therefore bypassing massive amounts of years.
A proof text for evolution's massive amount of time are the fossil fuels, so showing scientific evidence that those processes can be accelerated from 50 million years to 30 minutes and 20 million years to 8 months respectively, flies right in the face of the natural uniformatarian slow decay process of a Constant Rate of Decay.