Noah vs. Homosexuality

My young friend, Noah Anthony Russell, wrote to me in part:

My sociology professor today talked about sexuality. She says that sociologists believe that sexuality is a social construct (basically that their is not right or wrong sexually because what's natural is only what humans consider natural nothing else) and that the proof for this is Greece and New Guinea's homosexual cultures of the past.

Honestly, anyone who thinks the 1% of the entire population of humans throughout history who accepted homosexuality creates a basis for that claim is mentally challenged. Just because a few societies in the past accepted and promoted homosexuality doesn't beat the fact that most of the world's population throughout history has been homophobic.

Just annoys me.. She taught this to over 200 students as a fact. [some editing by Tom Usher]

My reply (in part and with some minor edits for confidentiality and righteousness sake):

Ask her if Tourette's syndrome is just a social construct or pedophilia or necrophilia or bestiality or coprophilia or sadomasochism or ....

Well, don't get thrown out.

She doesn't understand that she's amoral. Therefore, if society said someone could kill her on the spot just because she looked at him, it would then be "normal" and "natural."

Well, of course it would be "normal," but it would also be objectively wrong; and the proof of it is that a group of non-indoctrinated children witnessing it would scream in horror. If there were lots of blood involved, most would throw up. If her guts were pouring out, some would pass out. They'd be traumatized. That's a fact.

Little kids being sexually molested become confused and psychologically disturbed. It doesn't matter if society says being molested at a young age is okay or not.

The same thing applies to the homosexual act. Non-indoctrinated, non-abused/traumatized children seeing the homosexual act (even those who have been taught how babies are naturally procreated) know instinctively that anal intercourse is an error and shameful.

Having a license to teach in a university is no proof of brains.

It's my intention yet tonight to see what news there is because they had a School District or Board Meeting on the subject last night.

I hope Viki Knox doesn't apologize. I really, really hope she doesn't apologize. She should ask for one, not give one. Most people cave in though. That's been a huge problem.

Maybe I'll work this teacher's [sociology prof.] comments into a blog post

I wonder if she'll expect you to answer test questions as if what she taught is fact or some people's opinion.

Peace to you!


Then there was this news concerning the Viki Knox persecution by the homosexual and pro-homosexuality fascists:

The news is still up in the air. There were protesters on both sides at the meeting. The Christians speaking calmly were quite good. I was impressed.

Notice the skullcap on the man with the megaphone. Only the Orthodox Jews remain anti-homosexuality as a "denomination."

Then I slept on it and wrote Noah the following (again, in part and with minor edits):

Hello Noah,

You are an adult. We have discussed whether or not I use your name on the RLCC site. You have made clear to me that you are comfortable with and/or brave enough to have your name associated with the RLCC in that way. I don't want to discourage you. I just want you to be constantly aware that persecutors are out there and are seeking to destroy Jesus Christ and everything associated with him.

Jesus said to be as wise as the serpent but as harmless as a dove. He also said that those who brave the evil in faith will be subjected by evil to great evil but that they will inherit great treasure in Heaven. You know these things, but I want things to be exceedingly clear between us.

If I write a blog post about your experience there, I can name you and the school and the course subject. I would say pretty much everything in that case but do not know your deepest inner convictions and thoughts concerning the degree to which you know what you are doing (what you may or may not be letting yourself in for).

Again, if you know what you might be in for and still want to take a very public and defiant stance regarding homosexuality, then that is not inconsistent with your religion of choice.

If you do anything to the homosexuals or pro-homosexuals (authorized by the evil spirit/dark side), you must also consider that a Christian may also be treated in that manner under the homosexual and pro-homosexual law. Do unto others.... Ultimately, we will be subjected to our own standards we apply to others. We must be as consistent as can be.

The US government and Constitution are secular. Freemasons designed most of it — certainly the core or fundamentals. They are very open to homosexuality as being a "liberty." They self-license themselves and others to it.

The First Amendment of the Constitution gives Christians the right to practice and speak (proselytize, etc.). It also is giving homosexuals the same "right." This has happened over time as what are considered norms by those secularists have changed, which is what your sociology teacher is promoting.

Some historical, but now changed, norms in the US were anti-Christ. Among other things, there was slavery and very harsh indentured servitude. The fact that Jesus taught slaves to be Christians toward their worldly masters does not establish that Jesus was for those masters keeping people under such coercive circumstances. His commandments applied to those masters as well. How could they not then free their slaves? Therefore, Christians were in the forefront of Abolitionism. If it were not for those Christians, slavery would likely not have been abolished in the US.

Jesus, as you know, accepted believers regardless of ethnicity. He went first to the tribes not in the then diaspora. That was his calling. The "authorities" of those mostly two tribes had to reject him. They did. He had others to whom to go, as he said. Peter wrote to the diaspora. We also know about Peter's experiences with the Gentiles. Of course, Paul went far and wide for the time.

We also know that Jesus healed non-Jews and even shocked the Jews of his hometown when he pointed out the prophets had done the same and not even healed the Israelites. They wanted to throw him off a cliff for it but he passed right through them.

Agree with your adversary quickly, he said. We have to take that in context. He did not agree with his adversary ever that we can see in the Gospels.

My current objective is to take away from the "Homosexual Movement" the extremes that are clearly fascistic on their part, as is very evident in the call for Viki Knox to be fired.

We want the truth to be taught to the children in the public schools that "penises do not belong in anuses," period.

When we get back to that point, when we have society at-large back to that, Noah, the homosexuals will be greatly shutdown in terms of their overall iniquitous agenda. We will not have coerced them. We will have simply obtained what they claim was their objective which was being allowed to be homosexual under the secular law. We expect to be able to be Christians and necessarily therefore anti-homosexual under that same secular law, as far as that "law" goes.

Of course, you and I know that, that law is not the real law and can never obtain the status of the real law because that secular law contains fatal flaws (hypocrisy) that the real law does not — the real law written on our hearts and in our minds that the evil ones cannot overcome if we maintain faith in God.

I'm confident, Noah, that if the Gospel is allowed to be preached without coercion, it will ultimately prevail. It is force on our parts that we do not want turned around against us.

We will be separated out and away from evil while evil will continue experiencing itself through no fault of ours, as repentant and forgiving and atoning souls following Jesus's most brilliant light of truth. I trust you will see this and comprehend, as you have been able to comprehend other such connections.

So, in keeping with our original understanding, I will publish a blog post naming you but edit — to be as wise as the serpent but as harmless as a dove.

If this does not meet with your approval, let me know and I will honor whatever decision you make on the subject.

I am a situationist even while being an absolutist.

Lastly, let me say that even while I have an expectation of privacy (under the stole) in our messages, I do not expect that the federal government and/or all employees of those handling the messages will necessarily abide by either the letter or spirit of the law or common decency and privacy for the sake of righteousness.

May God be with you,


Here is Noah's reaction/reply (in total and unedited):

Well the posters are really more like group fliers. They are printed by the LGBT society on campus, they aren't really official though. There is no real billboards for official fliers and posters to be placed on, so this flier is the same as a missing dog flier and so I doubt anything will happen, but, I do understand that the hyper-protection of homosexuals could reach me.

Their community here is trying to reach out and bridge the gap between LGBT and the straight community. I, by tearing down the fliers in my dorm, can hinder their propaganda. I believe it is a small thing, but something that is ultimately helpful.

I believe that I could only get in trouble if I tore down the fliers from an actually authorized area to place them, but if they put the poster above my dorm's elevator buttons I cannot get in any trouble for being annoyed and taking it down.

And thank you for your concern, but quite honestly, if I am doing nothing worthy of persecution for Jesus..then I am not doing enough. A Christian is persecuted, period. Because a Christian follows Christ. It is a path we will go down until death. And I hope I will be able to make more of an impact on my campus then just hindering their propaganda.

I will stay within the law when hindering them. I don't think it would be wise to tear down their official posters. It wouldn't get anywhere, but their unofficially distributed ones I can take down. Of course there is no rule about putting up fliers in unofficial spots and likewise no rules against taking them down, but taking them down could be seen as an act of discrimination and then I'd be subjected to double anti-discriminational laws of the university, so I will do it discretely, not because I don't want people to know my position, but because them knowing it was me would be of no help. to the ultimate reason behind my tearing them down in the first place. My goal is to stop their propaganda with this act because I believe it to be sinful. And that is what I'll do. It is also to take away from the Homosexual movement.

You can write a blog post about all of it if you like. I know that someone could read your blog, find me, and persecute me, but I am proud to be publicized as a Christian acting on my faith.

If a local church put of fliers that advertise their church and it's events on a pole with missing dog posters and garage sail directions then anyone can take it down and should not be punished in any legal sense because it was not an official board to post the posters. The only way I could get in trouble is by the unconstitutional hyper protections homosexuals have.

And God be with you!

PS: love what you wrote you can add as much to it as you like, I would tell you if I wanted anything changed! and I hope we can take away from their movement and encourage those who are on our side to be stronger!

My reply:

I'm very favorably impressed, Noah. You appear to have a handle on where and when to remove fliers, etc., and that the same can be done to Christian materials posted in the same ways and places.

You have an exceptionally mature outlook. You are truly blessed! Stay that way for everyone's sake.

Perhaps you could connect with fellow Christians who would rather than taking down the fliers of the anti-Christs, would simply post genuinely Christian fliers next to them. They'd have to be extremely well done to have a positive impact.

I would suggest that re-educating everyone there that little children in public school should not be misled (by omission) into the falsehood that penises belong in anuses would be very correctly intellectually confrontational (non-violent of course) and definitely help to slow and eventually reverse the Homosexual Movement.

Who knows, you could be the beginning of chapters springing up across the country in colleges and universities.

The so-called self-esteem of already confused children does not, and should not, ever trump freedom of religion, speech, press, etc., as enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. How can they defeat that? Even the ACLU would agree with you.

It is a major university, and you all there should have freedom of speech and of academic inquiry and such.

You would not be suppressing speech of the others but insisting upon equal treatment for Christians (and everyone).

You've nailed it that the homosexuals are being given more rights and say than non-homosexuals.

Have you read "Animal Farm"? Some animals are more equal than others.

Lastly, thank you so much for liking the CCP Page! It means a great deal to me.


How subtle-censorship works:

You see, this is how they bury it. A main Google search on the two terms "Noah Homosexuality" (without the quote marks) should produce the page. It does not show up in the first 1,000 results.

Now, if you take the exact same two terms but search in Blog Search, which you don't even know is there unless you click on "More" in the left column, you get my post as the top one even when searching only on relevance and not date/time sensitive.

If you search on the Google News search and then Blog, you don't get my post returned because Google favors corporate news "blogs" (really defeating the whole point of blogs).

Before Google made all of these changes, my site was very much on the radar. The homos did not like that!

The only way to get it back on the radar is for many sites to link to it that I don't link back to and where those links don't contain code that says "nofollow."

If Christian sites would link to my anti-homosexuality posts that way, the site would stop being so invisible. The trouble is that most "Christian" sites and others do not agree with other of my theological positions.

That doesn't stop me from linking to other people's sites. I just explain when I want that I don't subscribe to everything on a site or in a blog post or news article.

For reasons that escape me other than that the evil spirit is working overtime against me, other sites don't handle my site that way, if they even find it.

However, my post, for instance, had, per Google, "51 Pageviews, 49 Unique Views" over 5 days. That's not much, but a number of them were "Christians" no doubt searching Viki Knox coverage. Yet, where are the link-backs, tweets, Facebook shares, etc.?

People of like views on certain issues just don't know how to stick together on those issues while maintaining differences on others (if there are any).

Perhaps this level of detail doesn't interest you, but I thought I'd at least explain how subtle-censorship works.



I like that idea alot. I could advertise the Christian clubs and groups on and off campus. I should contact the leaders and ask them if they already have fliers that I could just go around putting up. I could just replace the bad fliers with good fliers. I love that idea.
And yes it's sad when people can't agree to disagree on certain subjects and agree on others. If one part is bad they must get rid of all of it. Even you and I probably wouldn't agree on certain topics, but we'd still work together to further what we agreed on and would still be brothers in Christ. Catholics are my brothers and sisters in Christ(those who are truly saved) even if we disagree on whether or not the bread and wine turn to flesh and blood literally or symbolically. Cause what really matters most is that we believe in Jesus. One can be saved and have everything misinterpreted. Though you would hope and expect them to someday find the real truth around Jesus as well.


Here's my take, Noah:

I believe it would be more powerful to leave their posters/fliers up rather than take them down. For one, if you see yours disappearing even while you leave theirs up, it would give you a reason to write an article for the University Student Newspaper about the censorship.

As for putting up existing fliers, anything would be better than nothing; but may I recommend that you seek the various groups to act in cooperation and coordination with each other to get everyone working from the same page of forcing the issue that the little children are being misled into homosexuality while they aren't being told that THE homosexual act (anal intercourse) itself is unhealthy, etc.

Once you win that, it will be the beginning of the reversal of their momentum.

The psychologists, etc., who are pro-homosexuality (not all are: see NARTH) are claiming that THE ACT (anal intercourse) is fine. However, they aren't teaching children the facts regarding it — the actual physical problems that arise from doing it.

In my view, that's there weakest link in terms of the general population (which includes all non-Christians as well).

You'll have to do your homework a bit before approaching the leadership of the various groups you have in mind. You'll need to be armed with some of the NARTH arguments, etc. You'll need some photocopies of pro-homo materials stating that anal sex if fine and then contrast those with hard-facts about what's wrong with anal sex.

This is like the issue of cigarette smoking. For a long time, the tobacco interests had people believing it was fine and even good for them. Once people started finding out the truth, cigarette smoking started going down, down, down; and that trend is still on-going. People are becoming more and more health conscious. If homosexual anal intercourse ends up being seen again as also a physical health problem. Well, you can see where I'm going with this....

If it becomes a purely truth vs. falsehood issue and you win openly, it will have a huge impact if the groups will then spread that far and wide as a rallying cry.

Cross-posting again. Thanks!


Mhmm I wouldn't be allowed to write for the student newspaper most likely, the newspaper here has been taken over by homosexuals and their supporters. .. And I so far haven't found any on campus christian group. I have researched two different University groups who meet off campus, but too far for walking, and too far from the public transportation. I'm limited.. I'll keep searching though. And Yeah defining terms to make it a truth vs falsehood is perfect. It's kinda like the Creationism vz evolution debate. evolution by definition is true an dbelieved by all christians since it only by definition defines natural selection and genetic shift, etc, but people take evolution to mean darwinism when it's not. Gotta define terms.


Wow!, Noah, ... no Christian groups on campus? Maybe you'll have to start one. This is in Utah?

Yes, if the homosexuals have taken over the Student Newspaper, you wouldn't be able to write "for" the paper; but that wouldn't stop you from being able to write a letter to the editor(s). If it were well-written and they refused to publish it, you could cause a formal inquiry as to why.

Creationism vs. evolution and/or Darwinism is an interesting subject area. The only thing I've ever seen concerning speciation that set me to thinking vis-a-vis Creationism (non-"scientific" but rather metaphysical) is the concept of ring species. Are you familiar? There's one example in Asia that's food for thought.

As you may remember, I'm not a "Fundamentalist," per se. I don't believe the 6 days of Creation were 6 24-hour periods in the current sense of 24 hours. I believe the Genesis story is a combination of the figurative and literal — very poetic and very beautiful— greatly under appreciated by society at-large. I don't throw people out of my house for believing in the "6 24-hour periods" idea though.

That shows how I agree with you about seeing many Roman Catholics as our brothers in Christ. We don't have to agree on every last thing before we should be allowed to enter into Heaven where we can be shown where we were each off the perfect mark, so to speak.

What I can say though is that so-called homosexual-Christians won't be there for that. That's a bridge too far. Some things just have to be, or it wouldn't be Heaven.

The subject matter is morphing, but here, it's the sign of an active mind.

Noah Anthony Russell:

Yeah, well their are some close to campus LDS groups, but that's well, the book of mormon and all. And I should check into the Univeristy paper and see how I could get an article published. That'd be nice to know in general as well.

And yes I know about ring species. Ring species are used as evidence for darwinism, but they work perfectly well into creationism under speciation via de-evolution.

And mhmm let me ask you why you believe it was not 6 24 hour days of creation? I find that catastrophism works better than gradualism. Especially considering the bible. lets discuss this! I want to know why you believe it. Everytime that day is used in the bible it is used to mean a 24 hour period and so some argue that it would be very contradictory for it to mean otherwise in genesis. Also if the universe was old the moon would have several feet of dust on it, but it only has a few inches as predicted by creationist. What about teh fact that if the moon was a couple million of years old it's core would have ran cold, but we still know for a fact that the moon has a live core because of earthquakes that still happen.

I want to hear your thoughts on all the young earth evidence. Speciation can happen through de-evolution of animals, thats how we get human races as well. But thats useless to say unless I know the reasons for why you believe in an old earth!

and hey were both christians regardless of what we believe around christ. SO lets discuss!


Yes, there's no proof yet that what Fundamentalists call Creationism didn't happen. In fact, there really can't be "proof" either way. Only those who have been alive and aware of it the whole time can say with even a modicum of certainty. It is a matter of faith. I think everything is, even absolutism and total objectivity.

God knows why God has faith in God. I don't have a problem with that.

However, if or when speciation occurs "naturally," I'll take that as evidence that it could (could, not necessarily did) have occurred before over much time.

Let me ask you why you believe that the term day in referring to those 6 days always meant 24 hours in the current sense-meaning ("Everytime that day is used in the bible it is used to mean a 24 hour period").

You don't believe in day-ages or days of a thousand years? I think you do, but you have something else in mind that you need to flesh out here, or we'll be talking passed each other, which I like to avoid, especially with you because you don't shut down just because everything hasn't all been worked out yet.

You don't believe in day-ages or days of a thousand years and/or that they can be what is meant for those 6 days? Upon what are you basing that. I'm open.

"Also if the universe was old the moon would have several feet of dust on it, but it only has a few inches as predicted by creationist. What about teh fact that if the moon was a couple million of years old it's core would have ran cold, but we still know for a fact that the moon has a live core because of earthquakes that still happen."

I don't put as much faith in "modern" science or the Creationist's abilities to always employ correctly what they do know about it. These things you've pointed out have been addressed by anti-"Scientific Creationists." Have you looked into that?

I don't use the term devolution as pertains to Darwin's theory the same way you're using it here. I don't see gene mutation that works under adaptation as de-evolving, per se. However, I can put that hat on, so to speak if it's necessary so we can be speaking the same language enough to have a fruitful discourse.


Just to remind you: [that's this post]
I want you to see this one: "Pro-Homosexual Fascist calls for execution of teenage boy for "bullying"; Mother Calls Homosexual Son's Beating Hate Crime"


What do you make of this, Noah? :

The only way this doesn't show an Earth older than the typical fundamentalist dating per the Bible is if Creation started with things set to certain ages as if there had been a great deal of "time" before the 6 24-hour days of Creation.

Is that possible? Sure. Creation could be set up with "old" things in place that would continue aging. Is that the real answer? I don't lean that way. I lean to the figurative/longer-than-24-hour explanation.

Would God keep a body out of Heaven either way if that's all the difference there is between the righteousness of the parties involved? I don't see God as being that unforgiving of human ignorance.

By the way, did you ever converse with your economic history professor about the United States Notes concept?


Well everytime the day is used in the bible it always meant exactly a day, no longer. And so, it would be very odd and/or unique if the word day used in genesis meant something other then what the entirety of the bible uses teh word as. Kinda inconsistent definition, it would be changing the term's definition which is just illogical in general. And well in the bible there are examples of weeks meaning seven years instead of seven days, but theire is no examples of day being used as anything ever more than exactly one day. It is weak evidence at best, but what do you think of it?(obviously this would not be enough evidence to convince anyone.)

And yes sorry for the different uses of terms, that is always annoying in a discussion cause it can get confusing or mistaken. I've always thought of de-evolution as the process of change that occurs genetically over time through the de-evolution of species. Basically how we change through natural selection to fit and adapt to our surroundings but in the meanwhile become less complicated. Humans used to live hundreds of years according to the bible, but God decided to not let us live that love and so we have been de-evolving since then. That would be an example of teh way I'd use it. I don't really believe in gene mutation when I say de-evolution, mutation nearly always always results negatively, so it would work for de-evolution unlike darwinisn evolution right? correct me if I'm wrong on anything!

Anyways the moon dust was not a creationist found piece of evidence, NASA predicted according to the current gradualism, old earth framework that their HAD to be several feet of dust on the moon, an dthat teh core would obviously be cold, but it turned out the moon has a hot core and only a few inches of dust. So that piece of evidence was not of creationist origins which gives it more credibility I believe. Though if you don't have much faith in "modern" science as you put it that might not matter. I actually don't have much faith in science as well, but because I have studied bias of communities and I know for a fact that the whole of the scientific community is biased. I could go into detail on that if you like, but you probably know it to be true already because humans just aren't perfect.

[I find that horrible that people are so hyper-supportive of homosexuality that they would mindlessly call for one to be executed for a mere assault. Regardless of whether or not is was out of pure hatred for homosexuals an assault like that does not deserve the chair. It may deserve jail-time, but not death. Murder is one of the only things in this world that deserve capital punishment, and even then people debate it. It is saddening to see people fall so low as to call for the chair at so little evidence of something that would hardly deserve much jail time.]

I don't think that God created things as if they were already old either. That sounds like some ill-thought out copeout. I have done a substantial amount of research on the topic of carbon C-14 dating and other methods, even attended private classes on the subject, and had lengthy discussions with my father about it. He is a top notch industrial hygienist and has some knowledge on the matter, nothing that compares to an actual radiologist, but he knows how it works since his job concerns the saftey of human beings. So he has learned how it affects life itself(how radiation affects the body and bio-mass in general).
Now of course as you said, God COULD have easily set everything up as starting out as if it had already been there. He could do whatever the heck he wants. But I don't believe that or that he had to do that to make the earth young. I believe something different.

I believe in catastrophism, whereas people who believe in an old earth generally believe in gradualism. People who believe in an old earth used to say that it takes an extremely long time for things to become fossilized, but as we have found out in the last hundred years is that things can be fossilized in seconds. That the grand canyon could have been carved in the massive flood of noah's day, and that things that old earth people believe to take thousands and thousands of years can happen within a relatively short time through extreme events like noah's flood. All data that is used for evidence of an old earth like stratification of sediments can easily be scientifically explained using catastrophism. We can take the same data people use to support an old earth and interpret it for a young earth. There are very few exceptions that people can claim, the most claimed one is as you presented above, C-14 carbon dating.

When data is interpreted such that is clearly goes against what has thought to be the clear interpretation of the bible, we should not reinterpret the bible by saying that that each day in the bible is a day-age, I know you of course would say that maybe that is the correct interpretation of the bible, but I of course am assuming otherwise so please bear with me). God is infallible and we are not so we must first assume our interpretation of data is false before we assume our interpretation of the bible as has been believed up till now is false. . Genesis 1 defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word "day" always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase "evening and morning" further defines the days as literal days from what I have studied).

I have a fairly, or rather in comparison to most people, a really good understanding of C14 and two other radiometric dating methods. You see C-14 dating depends on a ratio of 1 c-14 to 1 trillion c-12 in the atmosphere. The old earth framework needs this ratio to be constant, otherwise the dates are completely wrong and inaccurate(do you want me to teach you about C-14? I can if you need it but it will be a long post). This assumption that the 1 to 1 trillion ratio of c-14 to c-12 has always been is only an assumption that cannot be proven since we would need a time machine to do that! So I believe that this ratio has changed and is not what we see today, It really isn't that difficult because If the production rate of C-14 in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. So basically, the amount of c-14 being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state to get dates that are accurate. The man who invented this method was a Darwinism evolutionist who believed in gradualism and that the world was billions of years old so he automatically assumes that the rate has always been the same. This is important because even if the calculations based on that assumption are correct it still might give the wrong conclusion because the assumption was wrong to begin with.
So the creator of the c-14 dating method Dr libby, noted in his original work that their didn't seem to be a steady rate or equilibrium yet, and this is troubling since it takes by his estimates only 30,000 years for equilibrium to be reached. Dr. Libby chose to ignore this problem of nonequilibrium, and just brushed it aside as experimental error,(stupid) because we now know that the ratio of c -14 to c-12 is not constant. Which proves that C-14 is not proof of an old earth as you thought. The "Specific Production Rate" of c-14 is 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The" Specific Decay Rate" is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute. You can do the research to verify all you like, cause of course it makes sense to find out for ones self to be sure. But I have found that c-14 dating proves the earth to be younger then 30,0000 years and some would say even 20,000 years because it is possible for a state of equilibrium to be reached in that time.

I'm sorry for the long post but It would be another page or three if I went into the details of how c-14 works. Put this through word to try and get all the typos out but I might have missed a few so sorry. The point is data that is used to support an old earth supports a young earth, the current scientific community is biased as a whole to fit all their data through the billions of years framework. just like dr libby did ignoring exceptionally important information to make their methods work into the old earth framework. The same bias goes for creationist, everyone is biased. anyways i hope I enlightened you. I'm a massive science nerd so ask anything about the details I can explain in great depths about radiometric dating. This is my favorite one though.


The earths magnetic field would also affect the c-14 as well. And theoretically if there was water layers in the atmosphere as some believe the rate would have been significantly different. But that is all just an afterthought. The specific production and decay rates are not at equilibrium and so c-14 dating supports a young earth. I'm sorry again for such a long post. I know you'll study yourself and choose what you believe. I just hope I showed you that their is good evidence for a young earth that old earth people claim just for themselves. I should probably explain some scientific bias to further my point and how it works within the scientific community.


The literal/Fundamentalist way views Daniel's weeks as 7 years but then insists (I know you aren't but rather seeking) that day always means a 24-hour period strikes me as inconsistent. The only reason a week is 7 years is because the history as presented in the Bible works as superimposing weeks over actual 7-year periods. Otherwise, why not take them as literal? So, what works, per se, concerning the days of Genesis being either ages or 24-hour periods (even before there was a Sun; more on that below)? However, there is more. Here is one way days-as-years is explained:

(2Peter 3:8) "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Even there, it doesn't have to be only a thousand years but can be ten-thousand thousand years or whatever God wants. I'm not saying that for exactly prophetic interpretation of all scripture but rather as a statement of God's infinitude.

There are a number of other places where a day is "as" or "like" as a year, but I'm assuming you mean "is" and not "as" or "like." I realize you like conciseness. I do also.

As for the "de-evolution vs. complexity" concept, as I mentioned, I can put on that hat. However, the Darwinists believe that adaptation is a two-way street, and I take their point within their context. I don't believe evolution is necessarily greater complexity. A computer program can be extremely complex yet full of bugs. A good programmer can come along and simplify the program, clean up the bugs, and enhance the program to do more at the same time, which in my view is evolving the program, not devolving it. Although, he may have reversed aspects of it to arrive at his better product.

Yes, I recall having read the same thing concerning NASA and the Moon; however, as I mentioned, I don't believe the "scientists" knew enough to hold them to their own old predictions for purposes of "proving" Creationism or even casting doubt on the "scientific" so-called understanding. The scientific reason the Moon may have a hot core (an assumption at this point since they haven't yet drill down to it to my knowledge – a good assumption though based upon other "science") is not necessarily proof of anything but the lack of knowledge when the predictions were made. A hundred years out from now, if we haven't destroyed our technological base or been destroyed (partial end times, so to speak), the reason for less dust may be extremely well understood and explained and within the context of an old cosmos. I believe there are NASA scientists who think they are already there.

I also see that you anticipated much of my thinking, which is a good practice.

On the homosexual-beating video and the person calling for giving the boy the chair, the commentator wrote a reply comment stating he or she didn't mean it. I still came back with that it was a reckless statement.

As for the death penalty, you and I went through that on one of my Facebook Wall posts not too long ago. If you will recall, you came to agree with me that the "sword" was about truth and not a physical sword to use to kill others. I believe you still have work to do on that subject, as I'm certain I'm correct.

I won't say though that God doesn't "allow" for death. God doesn't coerce Satan, but Satan will be his own undoing. Ultimately, God doesn't need to coerce Satan. We just need to see the truth of what's really good vs. evil. God obviously does "allow" for death (Satan) or there wouldn't be any. I just don't lay death at God's doorstep but rather place it at Satan's, which I believe is completely consistent with Jesus's words and deeds. I believe Satan is death. I believe Jesus escaped Satan.

Back to the Old Earth debate: I think you are only assuming that the day-age interpretation is new. I don't take it as new at all, for reasons given in the linked info supplied above, for one (only one of many but granted, somewhat redundant).

I do understand that human understanding of all things C-14 is not necessarily chiseled in granite yet and for many of the same reasons that I'm saying the dust on the Moon is no proof. However, for the non-steady-state to accommodate the catastrophism-only concept you've embraced, the non-steady factor would have to be hugely different from even a moderate or slight variation. You realize you're talking about orders of magnitude to go from some 60,000 years of what most people assume to be fair accuracy down to 6,000 years, right? That's a factor of ten. That's quite a bit to account for. Do you have actual evidence for this position? I'm always open.

You see though that you've used the figures 30K and 20K years old and not 6K.

Lastly though, I didn't say C-14 is "proof" of an Old Earth, although I can see how you said it. I asked what you make of it, which you've shared and which is good and food for thought but not yet convincing. It just shows that in your view, Libby overstated or over-thought the likely accuracy of his method. He of course is not the last word on the most recent science on the subject, and people with much more detailed knowledge on it do not believe for a moment that C-14 shows a Young Earth (6K, give or take a few hundred years perhaps).

I'm glad you are interested and knowledgeable in this area and can perhaps even now give some long-time adults in the field a run for their money. I suggest you write to the world's "premier" C-14 mainstream thinker/teacher on this and put your views directly to him/her. I would be interested in seeing the reply. If you do that, by all means, turn it in for extra credit. You'll deserve some regardless of what comes back.

Just be sure to couch everything in a way that the receiver is sure that you want the truth no matter what. I think that that way, you should be given a thorough reply. Ask for permission to quote and republish, etc., too. Say that it will also be used for extra-credit but was not assigned but rather that you want to know as independent study.

Thanks for the, info, Noah. You addressed a number of things where I was not up to speed – not that I'm a C-14 expert now. Ha!

I'm glad I found one of your favorite areas where you could expound.

Let me say that figurative/spiritual language is for me as C-14 is for you. The difference though is huge, as figurative/spiritual language can't be put to the "scientific method," as one can't test God. Doing so precludes unless and until God decides to show forth. I know you get it.

Peace, my young friend. It's my privilege to know you.


P.S. I realize I didn't do justice to your catastrophism concept. There's a video about Noah's Flood I'm going to backtrack to and then supply here. The person who created it is a bit obnoxious (he admits it), but I'm sure you'll see beyond that and address his points. Maybe you'll want to "go after him" in his comments on YouTube. Who knows?

Your second post (your short follow-up) can be taken to mean that you feel there is good reason to believe the Earth could be down to 20K years. That doesn't fit though with Bishop Ussher's Biblical calculations or with the vast majority of Fundamentalist-calculating based upon Biblical timelines worked with the 6 days being 24-hour periods and all the ages of people being accurate.

Since you did a follow-up, let me ask you how there was a first 24-hour period when a day is the Earth spinning relative to the Sun, yet there was no Sun? That works perfectly well in my interpretation but not in yours, at least not much.

Has anyone ever posed that to you? It's original with me, not that it's never been pointed out anywhere before. I mentioned it myself once on my blog years ago when a Fundamentalist (not nearly as bright as you are) was sort of hammering at me rather than simply discussing for mutual edification, as you appear to be able to do and in fact like and enjoy (same here).

(Gen 1:1-5) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[That day right there is 24-hours? In the most literal sense, how can there be an "evening" and/or "morning" when the Sun had not yet been created?]


(Gen 1:16-19) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

So, that's the Sun being made the fourth "day" when your definition of "day" there and each "day" before, requires the Sun already existed.

What was a day then, God? God's answer: It was a 24-hour period that is based upon the Sun that I hadn't yet created?

It's possible but very strange that we are supposed to take it that way rather than that the cosmos is at least billions of years old and that it might cycle and there may be many things (multiple universes, so to speak) that would fit the "known" universe – expanding, seen bodies.

You see there above though the use of "day" in Genesis before the very thing upon which you gain the current usage (24-hours) even existed. How so is "day" not to be understood figuratively rather than literally in the sense proposed by Fundamentalists? What was passing as time? What was being used for a measurement? It wasn't the Sun if we are going to apply literalism, which your position requires.

My feeling is that Fundamentalist feel that any allowance for other than the literal crashes the whole thing. I don't agree with that at all. Jesus did miracles regardless of the Einsteinian-age of the Earth. Many things could be taken as figurative without Jesus becoming a myth or non-spiritual or incapable of the metaphysical or supernatural, as it were, etc.


I think this is something you should read, Noah: "Young Earth Argument: Moon Dust."


Here's this one. It's from a Creationist site from 1993: "Moon-Dust Argument No Longer Useful."


Okay, here's the video I mentioned: "Noah's Flood debunked - 1." He even mentions the website I just linked to:

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.