Creation started with nothing?

[razzelflabben]

Actually, it was because you said from the outset that you couldn't retrieve this evidence that I wondered why you mentioned it at all. And wondered why you continued to refer to it several times. What was the point of presenting gossip?

Now, in the course of discussion, I spoke of others who had talked about this bias. I admitted that I couldn't reference them any longer but that is was not a claim without followers from unsuspected places. That could have ended it for me, but you brought it up several times, and get all excited about the evidence not being available. Now that didn't even bother me, I went with the flow. But then you come along and make it sound as it I claimed I could produce evidence that I clearly stated was no longer available to me. What I have been asking you and again ask you is what do you gain from this kind of deception? How do you think this deception will aid your argument?

1. the chemical composition of the human body is similar (though of course, not identical) to that of dust.

2. humanity is unique in some respect.

you had also brought up the chemical makeup of animals that we can add to this list.

Another absolute we can review is the source of light. As mentioned earlier, science used to say that we could not produce absolute darkness. If this is still the case, then the source of light would be questionable.

Now I think the addition of these two brings us up to speed for the absolutes we currently have.

The "iffiness" I have with this is not about human uniqueness, but about the phrase "unique creation".

the term unique creation uses the premise that the bible is accurate until falsified thus, man is created or a creation. Unique refers to the whole discussion of "God's discussion" about how man would be in His image and this is not true of any other creative act, thus set apart, or unique in nature.

Where do we go next?

start with the other two we began.

Well, we would have to look at each item case-by-case since the evidence of age differs from one to another.

cool, so what life lives there? How did the crater effect the life there? We know that the meteor is believed to have affected life, so it would seem that the crater would have implications of the existance of life as we know it. Thus it would seem that science would agree though I think the science weak, that the meteor was necessay for the existance of life as we know it. That including but not limited to extinction of dinos.

As far as I know, human fatigue generally slows a person down. How does that speed up the time?

removing the fatigue speeds up the process just as a funnel would and a siphon. I don't think you even know what the heck you are saying.

How does spilling speed up the time?

see this is the kind of thing that is creating this whole thing as our daily joke. I didn't say that spilling would speed up the process, I said that a funnel would speed it up and so would a siphon and you know what, I even made a detailed discussion of this so that you couldn't read it any other way. And yet here you are trying to read it other ways.

Sure you can use a funnel or a siphon. But either one would have to be small enough to fit into the very small opening. So either one would restrict the flow just as much as the small opening does. I am sure you know what happens if you pour something into a funnel faster than it can exit the bottom.

right, but the point is that the funnel would still allow a faster fill than the eye dropper. See, it is about the variables not the absolute. The absolute is the opening size of the hole. The variables are how we fill it, how much evaporation happens, if we have equipment failure, etc.etc. etc. etc. etc.

Doesn't change how much water can go through the opening at any one moment. You could have ten people on the job and it won't make the water go through any faster. If you have only one person on the job, it may go slower, but not faster.

you don't know what you are talking about. Let me give my kids a chuckle with your post then I'll get back to it. Our son's comment, that is redundant. He offers us another variable, pushing it under water, pump the water or fill you mouth with water and spray it into the jar. The point is, even our children know that variables change the outcome of the calculations and that is what you are missing. Our second grader understood it when we explained the term variable, his comment, you should to be smarter than a second grader.

See the problem with your analogy is that dispite all your efforts to remove variables, they still exist. The same is true of our aging methods. You can try to remove all the variables, but they still exist and the more people or in the case of aging, longer the span of time, the more variables that exist.[/quote]

No, I mentioned setting up the equipment when I first presented the analogy. [/quote] setting up the equipment isn't the problem, it is all the vaiables that come about that is the problem. You can set up the experiment and equipment any way you like but if you restart everytime a variable is introduced, you aren't being true to science.

Not necessarily. We only need to consider relevant variables.

all possible variables are relevant when making a calculation.[/quote]

[/quote] none of the variables that I presented were wildly improbable and imaginary. Now some that my son offered you were in this category and wouldn't need to be calculated to come to an accurate or fairly accurate calculation. However, if we want to be true to the data, even the wild ones would hold a certain degree of probability that would have to be calculated. This is the problem with the current system of aging the earth, it is impossible to calculate all the variables even just the plausible ones with any amount of accuracy because there are just too many of them.

consider this, many people have calculated the probability of life as we know if existing. Now I really don't care what reputable mathematician you look at, note the key here is reputable mathematician, but this was one of the first easy to read I came accross and mirrors what I have repeatedly seen so it is the one offered for consideration, feel free to change it as is relavent to the rules. Oh, one more rule, we are only looking at the probability here and not rebuttals of accuracy. Okay.........http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/6562/apologetics/problife.html
Now this probability number is basically looking at the variables and calculating the odds of things happening just the way we claim. This is not that different from what we see in the aging methods used. If we calculate all the possibles that could affect the outcome of the tests, we see that the odds of our being right would be.....remember we need to calculate all the possibles into the equasion not just the ones we like.

We do not have to calculate the possibility that fairies come by and sip the water from the dripping (eyedropper, funnel, siphon, whatever).

No we don't but then again fairies were not brought into the discussion until you just now trying to make a point. What you are failing to see is that this is nothing compared to the variables you are trying to calculate in aging the earth. and that is without fairies in the equation, just the basic or obvious things.

In setting up the experiment, we exclude as many variables as possible .

if they exist, they must be included if the calculation is to be accurate.

Of the variables that remain, we calculate them only if we have evidence that they are relevant.

It is history man, we don't know if it happened or not. What we know is it could have happened and thus must be figured into the equasion. You are really trying too hard to evade the obvious and it is making you look plain and simple silly.

The age of the earth doesn't do anything. It just is. And no, variables are not removed

this is only true if we know all the variables up front and if we did, we wouldn't see science still studying them, so apparently we don't.

But if the equipment failure does not occur, then the effect of equipment failure is not factored in. Why would it be? When we have every indication that a process of radioactive decay (not radiocarbon decay) is not affected by atmospheric change, we don't enter that variable into the calculation. Since it has no effect,why would we calculate it? That is like adding 0 to a column of numbers to see how it changes the answer. 1+2+3+4=10. Now let's see what difference it makes to add zero. 0+1+2+3+4= (big surprise!) 10.

see above. Plain and simply put, we can't know all the variables because it is history and we weren't there to take notes.

Basically, there is no variable that cannot be accounted for as necessary. If variables were such a problem for accuracy, no one could make money out of auto insurance.

well, we'll leave the train till you get an elementary understanding of the jar and water. As to ins. They don't make money by calculating the variables but by understanding the odds. Different discipline altogether and a different math problem equasion all together.

Heat dissipates at a measurable ratek. .

not if the "illusion" of the cool down was necessary to sustain life. Remember, the premis is that it appears old because that was necessary to sustain life.

There is that neat little switch again. You were the one who proposed a source of light other than the star, namely the light which existed before the stars were created. I start asking questions about this scenario. So I am asking the questions. You don't get to throw them back at me and claim you are asking the questions and I have to answer them. The questions are mine, not yours. If I had the answers, I wouldn't be asking the questions.

I suggested the science I knew on the topic, are you admitting that you know of none, no science on the topic? If you have no evidence to support your claim then it cannot be used as evidence of an old appearing earth and must be dismissed as in sufficient evidence. Case closed.

Now, we have one source of light: light created before the stars. One possibility. Is it the only possibility? Or is it also possible that there are other sources of light as well e.g. electric lamps, flashlights, candles, fires, and yes, stars. Are these possible additional sources of light?

yes, as others might be as well. Consider this, if absolute darkness is not possible, then light must come from some unknown source. What is that source?

Possible answers: 1. yes, they are. 2. no, the only source of all light is light created before the stars. 3. I really don't know so I can't answer the question. 4. (especially for you) I have a personal opinion, but I choose not to discuss it.

on this particular topic, I don't know what the source of light is and I would like to see more science on it. That is personal opinion, are you going to ignore it or try to belittle me for giving it?

Just because something is dealing with the original language doesn't mean it is not a "popular" (and biased) notion.

the best way to understand a lang. that is not familiar to us, is to look to those who it is familiar to. That is all I did here. I looked at those who study it and know it and asked for their expertise.

1. In Israel, Hebrew speaking children are taught Hebrew grammar

I don't even know what your point here is, but on the chance that you are claiming it is not taught in Heb. school, let me remind you that it is based on an ancient text, an ancient lang. and thus has different rules.

2. Many texts are published for non-Hebrew speaking people to learn Hebrew. .

again, I have no idea what your point here is, let me give it a guess. Please note that I have admitted in both to not know what the point is. 1. we are talking an ancient manuscript, and 2. the scholars who study it would know more than a heb. for dummies book.

3. Many Jews and Christians are particularly interested in Biblical Hebrew. .

again, I don't get your point, I thought you were unbiased, therefore it wouldn't matter who wrote the book. Ah well, this unbiased claim seems weak on evidence. My husband studied Heb. and Greek, if he gets a moment I will ask him to review the articles and let us know if they are accurate or not.

4. Ours is not the first generation to be interested in Biblical Hebrew.

I have read all your 4 points and am totally stumped as to the point you are trying to make. It's as if you don't like the conclusion so you are trying to change the evidence so that you don't have to deal with the conclusions.

Honestly gluady's I don't care one hoot what you believe, or why you believe it, what I am offering you is scholarly evidence that would suggest the paper you presented is wrong. Take it or leave it, no skin off my nose. I would believe an ancient Heb. scholar over a pop culture idealism anyday, but that is my belief, yours is what it is. Now if you want to present evidence go right ahead, but I already presented two scholars that agree and many that I didn't even present. Your only evidence was heresay and a pop culture discussion. I'll personally take the scholars, thank you. You choose which you like and we'll call it over.

As I said, I would consider an approved text from the Israeli Ministry of Education as minimal evidence that this rule is not a convenient invention. It would help if texts of the other categories were found as well.

Can you show the page of this education manual that shows that this rule does not exist and why scholars claim it does? That would be emensely helpful to your claim.

 

[gluadys]

[

But then you come along and make it sound as it I claimed I could produce evidence that I clearly stated was no longer available to me.

I never said you claimed you could produce evidence. I only stated that you had not.

you had also brought up the chemical makeup of animals that we can add to this list.

Another absolute we can review is the source of light.

ok. Get to that in a bit.

Unique refers to the whole discussion of "God's discussion" about how man would be in His image and this is not true of any other creative act, thus set apart, or unique in nature.

As long as it means unique in nature and not unique in some other way, I have no problem with it.

cool, so what life lives there?

It is located in the Yucutan peninsula in Mexico which I understand is a jungle-type ecoregion. So jungle-type life (American, not Asian or African).

How did the crater effect the life there?

Then or now?

removing the fatigue speeds up the process just as a funnel would and a siphon.

You didn't say anything about removing fatigue. I don't expect people are fatigued when they begin working. I expect them to become fatigued by working.

I know exactly what I am saying. The size of the opening limits how fast you can fill the container. That is what I am saying.

You want to experiment. Probably your grocery store, like mine, carries those little bottles of Tabaso sauce--about 5-6 inches tall, long slender neck and a mouth so narrow you cannot pour the sauce out, you have to shake it out drop by drop.

Get an empty one if you can. If you can't get one of your kids to empty it. Clean it. While you are at it you could time how long it takes to refill it with water by simply immersing it in the sink. Empty it again. Now take any sort of filling instrument that will fit into the top of the bottle. Could be a fine siphon, could be a funnel with a very narrow bottom opening, could be an eyedropper, could be something with a very, very fine spout. As long as you can stick it into the mouth of the bottle, doesn't matter. Time how long it takes to fill the bottle with these sorts of instruments. Compare with how long it took to fill the bottle by simple immersion.

Now empty it again and get another assortment of filling instruments. A cup, a garden hose, a tap, a teapot, a watering can --- anything that has a larger diameter than the mouth of the bottle. See if any of these fill the bottle any faster than the first group of instruments.

If you actually do this experiment, you and your kids can see with your own eyes that the size of the opening in the container sets the maximum speed at which the container can be filled. PERIOD. End of story.

all possible variables are relevant when making a calculation.

Not true. Equipment failure is a possible variable, but if it doesn't happen, it is not relevant. Human fatigue is a possible variable, but if automated equipment is used, it is not relevant. Evaporation is a possible variable, but if care is taken to minimize it, it is not particularly relevant. Since it is the size of the opening that limits the speed at which the container can be filled, the method of filling is not relevant.

However, if we want to be true to the data, even the wild ones would hold a certain degree of probability that would have to be calculated.

No, only the events which we know happened and for which we do have data need to be calculated or even can be calculated.

This is the problem with the current system of aging the earth, it is impossible to calculate all the variables even just the plausible ones with any amount of accuracy because there are just too many of them.

The number of variables is not a bar to calculating them, especially as we now have computers to do the number-crunching.

consider this, many people have calculated the probability of life as we know if existing.

Actually not many people have. Most are just copying the estimates by Hoyle and Wickramasingh (sp?). And those figures are based on incorrect premises.

.....http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/6562/apologetics/problife.html

Interesting site. Not the usual drivel. I would have to check out the original this is a response to and (if there is one) Friedman's rebuttal to this rebuttal.

Basically this is the fine-tuning or anthropological argument. Some people find it amazing that the universe seems to be fine-tuned to support life. Others say "Duh, a universe that supports life would have to have the characteristics to support life, so what's the big deal?"

btw, what do you think of his arguments in support of an old earth, especially
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/6562/youngearth/dayagedefense.html
and
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/6562/youngearth/speedlight.html

.remember we need to calculate all the possibles into the equasion not just the ones we like.

Oh, for sure we don't have to like variables. We must include them if they are relevant. But there is no requirement to include what is not relevant. The evidence decides what needs to be included, not our preferences.

if they exist, they must be included if the calculation is to be accurate.

Yes, that is the point. "If they exist". If nothing delays the train, a possible delay is not included. If no equipment fails, equipment failure is not included.

It is history man, we don't know if it happened or not.

Generally speaking with the age of the earth we know if something relevant happened. Or rather that nothing relevant happened. As the article linked above mentions, if the speed of light had been more rapid in the past, we would have evidence of significantly higher rates of energy and mass. We don't. Since we have no data indicating a relevant event, we do not allow for it, as allowing for an event that did not happen would give us an inaccurate result.

What we know is it could have happened and thus must be figured into the equasion.

But since we have evidence that it did not happen, it would not be sensible to pretend it did and calculate as if it did.

we can't know all the variables because it is history and we weren't there to take notes.

We didn't need to be. We know that events leave evidence (e.g. an asteroid colliding with the earth leaves a crater). If the evidence is there, we factor in the event. If the evidence says the alleged event did not happen, we do not factor in the event.

As to ins. They don't make money by calculating the variables but by understanding the odds.

Exactly. Just as science does. That's why science is full of probabilities.

not if the "illusion" of the cool down was necessary to sustain life.

Follow the logic.

The cool down is an illusion. Therefore the heat did not dissipate. Therefore the earth is still too hot to sustain life. Therefore no life exists on earth today.

So maybe the heat up was an illusion too? Ok. follow the logic.

The heat up was an illusion. There was no heat up. So the rapid radioactive decay must have been an illusion too for if it were real there would be a real heat up. No rapid radioactive decay means the standard dating is the real dating and the earth is old. No appearance of age necessary. Everything that appears old is as old as it appears.

yes, as others might be as well.

Thank you. I really appreciate direct, simple answers. So when we see light from a source, we have two possible explanations. The light is given off by the source (flashlight, candle, star) or the light originates in a different source: the light created on day 1.

Now we can get on to another question. The light from Day 1--is it light from a point source or a diffuse source? Can we identify it as being in a certain direction and location? Or does it seem to be everywhere at once?

Consider this, if absolute darkness is not possible, then light must come from some unknown source.

Hmmm. Is this another way of addressing the question I just asked?

the best way to understand a lang. that is not familiar to us, is to look to those who it is familiar to.

Exactly, but since we are not familiar with the language we can be easily deceived by those who teach it with bias. So we need to avoid sources which could be biased. The best way to do that is to ask if they are interested in how the text will be interpreted because of this so-called rule of grammar. If they are, they are likely biased. To avoid bias, we need to find a source that is not interested in the hermeneutical consequences.

I don't even know what your point here is,
I have no idea what your point here is,
again, I don't get your point, I thought you were unbiased,
I have read all your 4 points and am totally stumped as to the point you are trying to make.

I've noted this interesting pattern before. You seem to lose all powers of comprehension when you know you cannot refute the point being made.

It's simple. Find a text on Hebrew grammar (biblical Hebrew grammar) from a source that is not committed to a literal, young-earth interpretation of Genesis that mentions this so-called grammar rule.

If no such text can be found, that is prima facie evidence of bias and convenient invention of a pseudo-rule.

Can you show the page of this education manual that shows that this rule does not exist and why scholars claim it does? That would be emensely helpful to your claim.

Trying to shift the burden of proof again? I know, you can't find any unbiased text so you want me to do the work for you. No, you raised the issue of this so-called grammar rule. You prove that it doesn't come from a biased source.

I can give you the name of the texts I have, one on contemporary and one on biblical Hebrew. But that is as far as I go to do your work for you.

Honestly gluady's I don't care one hoot what you believe, or why you believe it, what I am offering you is scholarly evidence that would suggest the paper you presented is wrong.

Actually, the paper I presented does not dispute that "yom" refers to a natural solar day, so no, your evidence does not show it is wrong.

Your only evidence was heresay and a pop culture discussion.

What is your evidence that this is a "pop culture discussion"? Have you checked out the qualifications of the theologians who have derived this interpretation from the biblical text? This is a theory with serious scholarly thought behind it--including some serious conservative evangelical thinkers, and very far from pop culture which has barely heard of it.

 

[razzelflabben]

I never said you claimed you could produce evidence. I only stated that you had not.

why not just be honest enough to say you refuse to answer my question rather than to continue to make excuses? All I wanted to know was what you gained by making it sound other than it was, I didn't even ask you to apalogize for it.

It is located in the Yucutan peninsula in Mexico which I understand is a jungle-type ecoregion. So jungle-type life (American, not Asian or African).

we're talking specifics and you will have a hard row to hold with a true yec because of all the new species of life being discovered, it can simply be stated that we don't know. I won't do that to you though. What we want to look at is what life is supported by the crator that exists because of a meteor.

Then or now?

In context did is a past tense verb that would indicate then not now. But I would be greatly interested in both.

You didn't say anything about removing fatigue. I don't expect people are fatigued when they begin working. I expect them to become fatigued by working.

This is beyond the rediculous to the point you don't even know what you are saying, and so I will ignore any and all that shows only an intent to be difficult for the sake of making a point that has already been shown to be false. That ignoring starts here.

I know exactly what I am saying. The size of the opening limits how fast you can fill the container. That is what I am saying.

right, but there are indeed other factors and variables that can and do affect how fast the container fills. These are the variables we are talking about not the absolutes. The absolutes are easy to calculate the problem is it does provide an accurate measure til we include the variables. Your discussion is trying to remove of minimize the variables beyond what can be done. This is the claim made about science and the testing the age of the earth, that it is not possible to be as accurate as they claim to be. The reason for this is all the limitations and variables that exist. Just as you have here. But you excuse them away as well, so, do you do as the scientists or otherwise? Are the scientists even more removed that I gave them credit for being?

If you actually do this experiment, you and your kids can see with your own eyes that the size of the opening in the container sets the maximum speed at which the container can be filled. PERIOD. End of story.

No, it limits the maximum speed the container can be filled. Which is what you intended to say. All the variables set the maximum speed it can be filled.

No, only the events which we know happened and for which we do have data need to be calculated or even can be calculated.

so let's look at our jar again, we predict that it will take X hours to fill because we have removed the variables and called it accurate. Now the king says "I want to know truth, that is what I hired you to do, find truth, go show your numbers to be accurate." so Jo and Mo go and get started and since we have removed all the variables, they can only use the eyedropper. Now, we checked all the equipment but the rumor gets started that whoever sits and does nothing will be killed by the king. This rumor starts a fight between Jo and Mo over the eyedropper. In the end, the jar gets broken and so in fear, Jo and Mo go to get glue and glue the jar back together. Now Jo and Mo, fearful of the king, take turns filling the jar, the only problem is that they didn't allow the glue to dry and so, the jar begins to leak. But Jo and Mo can't go back to the king to tell him, that they didn't have the right answer or they will be fired, so what do they do? [/quote]
Actually not many people have. Most are just copying the estimates by Hoyle and Wickramasingh (sp?). And those figures are based on incorrect premises. [/quote] of course they are, that is what every good evolutionist is taught to say, but as you recall, I told you that you can use any mathemeticians numbers you want. So present the numbers, present the probability that we actually know what we claim to know. This would include but not be limited to age of the earth. Or are you claiming you can't show this lack of bias you claim exists?

btw, what do you think of his arguments in support of an old earth, especially
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/6562/youngearth/dayagedefense.html
and
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/6562/youngearth/speedlight.html

doesn't matter in this discussion. This discussion is about whether or not science is compatable with the young earth creation and so far, you have failed to evidence that it is, all the while claiming that it isn't. Please refrain from changing the subject and show the evidence that would falsify a young earth.

Generally speaking with the age of the earth we know if something relevant happened. Or rather that nothing relevant happened. As the article linked above mentions, if the speed of light had been more rapid in the past, we would have evidence of significantly higher rates of energy and mass. We don't. Since we have no data indicating a relevant event, we do not allow for it, as allowing for an event that did not happen would give us an inaccurate result.

No one suggested the speed of light changed, the argument was what is the source of light? YOu have not only ignored this question but the science I presented that deals with it as well.

The cool down is an illusion. Therefore the heat did not dissipate. Therefore the earth is still too hot to sustain life. Therefore no life exists on earth today.

so now you are supporting young earth, why the change?

On the assumption that you didn't intend to support young earth, let me remind you that the argument is not that all these things are an illusion but rather that the appearance of age is an illusion. Therefore, you don't remove the event from happening, in this case, the earth still cooled, but instead, you remove the time restrains placed on it, you add a variable or two.

The heat up was an illusion. There was no heat up. So the rapid radioactive decay must have been an illusion too for if it were real there would be a real heat up. No rapid radioactive decay means the standard dating is the real dating and the earth is old. No appearance of age necessary. Everything that appears old is as old as it appears.

you seem confused, read above and see if there is any clarity as to what we are actually discussing.

Now we can get on to another question. The light from Day 1--is it light from a point source or a diffuse source?

you tell me. I don't see anything in scripture that would specify that as an absolute. So unless you can show it in scripture as being one or the other, I think it remains a non absolute. Unfortunately, the non absolutes can be excused away and often are. That is why it is best to stick with the absolutes.

Can we identify it as being in a certain direction and location? Or does it seem to be everywhere at once?

again, I see nothing in the scriptures to specify. without absolutes from the scriptures, science can be of no help in identifying whether or not the text is compatable with science. Therefore, you need to either show in the text where it is this or that, or you need to use the text to falsify the claim of the supernovas. Which do you choose?

Hmmm. Is this another way of addressing the question I just asked?

This is the same thing I said when this part of the discussion began and is a variable you are not figuring into your equasion. How do we know that the light we are measuring is from this star? What is light? What is its source?

Exactly, but since we are not familiar with the language we can be easily deceived by those who teach it with bias. So we need to avoid sources which could be biased. The best way to do that is to ask if they are interested in how the text will be interpreted because of this so-called rule of grammar. If they are, they are likely biased. To avoid bias, we need to find a source that is not interested in the hermeneutical consequences.

I asked my husband, who is also good and seeing things from different angles by the way and who studied ancient Heb. in school. He says that it is indeed both, there is an absolute chronology there, but there is also a literary division. So there are three days of "structure" followed by three days of "filling", but within those three day structures, we have a definate chronology. (btw, you assertion to otherwise opens a door to creation you aren't ready to argue)

I've noted this interesting pattern before. You seem to lose all powers of comprehension when you know you cannot refute the point being made.

what pattern? you made four arguments as to the chronology or lack thereof of Gen. None of which were well thought out or comprehensive in nature. Thus I was unclear as to what point you wanted to make and said so, to this you make the claim above, that shows a total disrespect for communication.

It's simple. Find a text on Hebrew grammar (biblical Hebrew grammar) from a source that is not committed to a literal, young-earth interpretation of Genesis that mentions this so-called grammar rule.

If no such text can be found, that is prima facie evidence of bias and convenient invention of a pseudo-rule.

what about relying on the word of someone who actually studied the ancient Heb. and not just a Heb. for dummies book? Will that do?

Trying to shift the burden of proof again? I know, you can't find any unbiased text so you want me to do the work for you. No, you raised the issue of this so-called grammar rule. You prove that it doesn't come from a biased source.

Now gluady's, I know you want to be difficult, but I showed you three different scholars now which would dispute your claims and you have shown nothing but heresay. That puts the burden of proof on your shoulders not mine, mine has been met and though I don't know the personal beliefs of two of the sources, I do know the personal beliefs of the third and he would pass the criteira.

Actually, the paper I presented does not dispute that "yom" refers to a natural solar day, so no, your evidence does not show it is wrong.

read further, it talks about chronology.

What is your evidence that this is a "pop culture discussion"? Have you checked out the qualifications of the theologians who have derived this interpretation from the biblical text?

qualifications don't seem to matter to you because only evolutionists can be right so it would have to show evolutionist bias to be acceptable to you.

This is a theory with serious scholarly thought behind it--including some serious conservative evangelical thinkers, and very far from pop culture which has barely heard of it.

cool more non absolutes to cloud the absolutes. To bad we can't stick to the topic.

 

[gluadys]

All I wanted to know was what you gained by making it sound other than it was, I didn't even ask you to apalogize for it.

I don't think I did that, but I can see how you might have thought so. What I gain hopefully is no further reference to hearsay.

we're talking specifics and you will have a hard row to hold with a true yec because of all the new species of life being discovered, it can simply be stated that we don't know. I won't do that to you though. What we want to look at is what life is supported by the crator that exists because of a meteor.

I don't think you could say any new species discovered in Yucatan is there because of the crator. Nor any old species either. They would be there because of the congenial ecosystem whether or not it included a crater. Remember that the crater has long been filled in by erosion, so it is not an easily visible geologic feature like a big quarry. There is no significant difference between the ecosystem within the circle of the crator and than outside it.

In context did is a past tense verb that would indicate then not now. But I would be greatly interested in both.

At the time the meteor or asteroid struck the immediate effect on nearby life would be to kill it.

This is beyond the rediculous to the point you don't even know what you are saying, and so I will ignore any and all that shows only an intent to be difficult for the sake of making a point that has already been shown to be false. That ignoring starts here.

Well, I think it is pretty ridiculous to speak of speeding up a process by removing fatigue when you first have to create fatigue which necesarily slows the process down. And you can avoid both by not relying on manual labour.

Your discussion is trying to remove of minimize the variables beyond what can be done.

Beyond what can be done? Show me that it is beyond what can be done given the terms and conditions stated. We use the most efficient method, so we are at the maximum speed limit possible. We use automated equipment to avoid problems of fatigue. We have at least one person present so we know if the equipment breaks down and can include this if necessary. What else do we need to account for? What shows that we cannot account for it if necessary?

This is the claim made about science and the testing the age of the earth, that it is not possible to be as accurate as they claim to be. The reason for this is all the limitations and variables that exist. Just as you have here. But you excuse them away as well, so, do you do as the scientists or otherwise? Are the scientists even more removed that I gave them credit for being?

You haven't shown that limitations generate inaccuracy. You haven't shown that variables lead to inaccurate measurement. You don't seem to grasp that you can have limitations and variables and still have accurate measurement.

No, it limits the maximum speed the container can be filled.

Exactly what I just said: the size of the opening in the container sets the maximum speed at which the container can be filled.

I am glad we are finally agreed on this. Note that the original scenario also said Mo and Jo used the most efficient method of filling the container. IOW the rate given was the maximum rate possible.

Now, we checked all the equipment but the rumor gets started that whoever sits and does nothing will be killed by the king. This rumor starts a fight between Jo and Mo over the eyedropper. In the end, the jar gets broken and so in fear, Jo and Mo go to get glue and glue the jar back together. Now Jo and Mo, fearful of the king, take turns filling the jar, the only problem is that they didn't allow the glue to dry and so, the jar begins to leak. But Jo and Mo can't go back to the king to tell him, that they didn't have the right answer or they will be fired, so what do they do?

So you create a whole new scenario. The original estimates are useless. However, you have also created evidence that shows why the original estimates are useless. The broken jar, the pot of glue, the bruises on Mo and Jo, the spilled water from the leaky jar, etc.

This is the same scenario we have in science. We know when not to trust a measurement because nature contains the evidence that invalidates it. If something happened to disrupt the process, there is evidence that something happened. When nothing happened to disrupt the process, there is no evidence of a disruption.

So we account for unexpected variables when the evidence shows we should. And when the evidence shows that no unexpected variables cropped up, we account for them with zeroes as anything that did not happen has the same effect as adding 0 to the equation. . Either way, the dates are accurate.

present the probability that we actually know what we claim to know.

Ah, the epistemological question again. Really philosophy, not science. Do we know there is a world outside our thoughts? Or is everything we experience just a video our brain is running for us?

One of the few assumptions in science, which is really an assumption, is that there is a world outside of our thoughts and that our experiences are experiences of a real world. We cannot prove that this assumption is correct. But most of us (not just scientists), most of the time, act on the basis that it is.

Now, if we are right on that point, the rest follows. Any serious, thoughtful study of a real world, that is checked and double-checked against the evidence, and scrutinized to eliminate bias, will necessarily lead to increasingly accurate conclusions about the real world we believe exists out there.

doesn't matter in this discussion. This discussion is about whether or not science is compatable with the young earth creation and so far, you have failed to evidence that it is, all the while claiming that it isn't. Please refrain from changing the subject and show the evidence that would falsify a young earth.

What we know of rock formation (especially rocks like shale and clastic limestone), what we have discovered of ancient ecologies, such as forests stacked on top of forests, each in their own soil, what we know of how adaptations originating in genetic mutations are spread through populations via inheritance and the rates at which this occurs, and what we know of how long-lived isotopes of radioactive elements decay all lead to the inescapable conclusion that the earth is much older than a few thousand, or even hundreds of thousands of years. Each of these requires a fairly detailed study on its own. The evidence cannot be presented shortly or simply. That is why it is offered in university courses. But it cannot be waved away on the basis of sheer ignorance of what it is either. Nor on the basis of a philosophical rejection of the very possibility of learning anything via scientific methodology.

If you want more information, choose one and only one of the items above, and we can explore it more fully. Then go on to the others one at a time.

No one suggested the speed of light changed, the argument was what is the source of light?

It is a common creationists assertion, but I agree one you haven't made. See discussion on light below.

so now you are supporting young earth, why the change?

Spelling out the logic doesn't mean I agree with the premise. In fact, since the logic leads to an incorrect conclusion, it shows that the premise is false.

Therefore, you don't remove the event from happening, in this case, the earth still cooled,

You were the one who proposed that the cool down was an illusion. If the earth cooled, then the cool down was not an illusion. You can't have it both ways at once.

but instead, you remove the time restrains placed on it, you add a variable or two.

Indeed, you would have to add a variable or two. Some pretty big ones as a matter of fact. But you can't just invent them out of your head. You have to show that they are real variables, that there is evidence they did occur and that they can account for the difference in time frame.

I am assuming you have no such actual variables and their measurements to present.

you seem confused, read above and see if there is any clarity as to what we are actually discussing.

Oh yes, but it's not particularly important. We can leave it be if you can't follow it.

you tell me. I don't see anything in scripture that would specify that as an absolute. So unless you can show it in scripture as being one or the other, I think it remains a non absolute. ... again, I see nothing in the scriptures to specify. without absolutes from the scriptures, science can be of no help in identifying whether or not the text is compatable with science.

Ok, no absolutes in that respect. One more question along this line and then we will see if we can draw some conclusions. In regard to the light created on day one before the existence of the stars, do we always see it as visible light or can it also be invisible?

(I am keeping in mind what you said about the impossibility of absolute darkness.)

I asked my husband, who is also good and seeing things from different angles by the way and who studied ancient Heb. in school. He says that it is indeed both, there is an absolute chronology there, but there is also a literary division.

What is the logical basis for saying the chronology is absolute?

Does that also mean the chronology must be historical?

what pattern?

I've seen you dodge an argument you know you can't win by claiming you don't understand the point more than once before. If it happens again, I'll note it for you.

you made four arguments as to the chronology or lack thereof of Gen.

None of the arguments was about the chronology in Genesis. It was about a so-called rule of hebrew grammar that seems to show up only in material produced by and for people who use it to support a young-earth interpretation of Genesis. If this grammar rule cannot be found in any reputable material on Hebrew grammar by a disinterested party, it smells suspiciously tainted by bias.

what about relying on the word of someone who actually studied the ancient Heb.

I would love to see that, as long as that someone does not also support a literalist young-earth interpretation of Genesis 1. That qualification is necessary to show that their study of ancient Hebrew has not been coloured by their preferred interpretation of Genesis 1.

So go ahead. Produce someone who is not a young-earther and has actually studied the ancient Hebrew and has published a grammatical study of ancient Hebrew which references this so-called grammar rule.

I showed you three different scholars now which would dispute your claims and you have shown nothing but heresay.

The three sites you linke to were these.

http://www.answersincreation.org/The...stribution.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/6562/apologetics/problife.html

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

The second is on a different topic and makes no reference to Hebrew grammar at all. Pity, since he is an old-earther and if he had made a reference to this so-called grammar rule it would have refuted the allegation of bias.

The first and the third are both from sites that support a young-earth interpretation, so cannot be considered unbiased on this point.

So you have not yet shown that this so-called grammar rule exists in real Hebrew grammar and is not just an invention of young-earthers to support their claims.

read further, it talks about chronology.

Not in the sense of disputing the length of the days (24 hrs vs. long ages). Some people seem to think that all non-literal readings of Genesis see the days as symbols of long eras of time. And this so-called grammar rule about yom with a number really only deals with that claim. But that is not the case. Only day-age interpretation, and the mixed-time interpretation you mentioned earlier suggest all or some of the days were not ordinary solar days. So those are the only two non-literal intepretations affected by this grammar rule even if it is shown to be legitimate.

Other versions of non-literal intepretation (gap, framework, proclamation, literary) don't claim the days are anything but ordinary solar days. So they are not eliminated by this so-called rule of grammar anyway.

So even with the 'yom + number' argument, there are still several ways to hold to an old-earth interpretation of Genesis 1.

cool more non absolutes to cloud the absolutes.

We certainly can't say that "young earth" is an absolute given the above. btw several of the scholars who support framework theory are creationists who oppose the theory of evolution. So it is not a matter of evolutionary bias either.

In fact, as that last article notes, non-literal intepretations of Genesis go back at least as far as the Chuch Father, Origen, who wrote in the 2nd century. Augustine in the 4th century strongly supported a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. Yet he also held the earth was young. I don't think we have evolutionary bias there either.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't think I did that, but I can see how you might have thought so. What I gain hopefully is no further reference to hearsay.

discussions are full of hearsay, that doesn't make them worthless or fruitless. What it does is open discussion that can be explored in greater depth. Unfortunately for you, everywhere we turned on the topic, we found evidence to support the hearsay. Next time, don't ask me to admit what I admitted from the beginning, just accept that it was stated and say something to the effect of I don't wish to discuss it any further. This type of response would make it appear that you were being truthful rather than dishonest about the entire thing.

I don't think you could say any new species discovered in Yucatan is there because of the crator.

[/quote]Nor any old species either. [/quote]

They would be there because of the congenial ecosystem whether or not it included a crater.

but the meteor that created the crater would have affected the life that lives there. Which is all that the theory must show.

Remember that the crater has long been filled in by erosion, so it is not an easily visible geologic feature like a big quarry. There is no significant difference between the ecosystem within the circle of the crator and than outside it.

No significant difference, does that mean that there are differences?

At the time the meteor or asteroid struck the immediate effect on nearby life would be to kill it.

Now research shows that this theory is probably not as accurate as once thought, however, it would affect life and would indeed be necessary for the life that remained to exist in the manner in which they did.

Well, I think it is pretty ridiculous to speak of speeding up a process by removing fatigue when you first have to create fatigue which necesarily slows the process down. And you can avoid both by not relying on manual labour.

More misleading because of your bias and insistance on being right. I'll ignore it until you decide to be honest enough to at least represent the idea consistantly and accurately. It really is elementary understanding.

Beyond what can be done? Show me that it is beyond what can be done given the terms and conditions stated. We use the most efficient method, so we are at the maximum speed limit possible.

the eyedropper is by far not the most efficient method. So once again we see that you are just plain wrong.

We use automated equipment to avoid problems of fatigue.

that is a variable that you didn't start out with, so now, you yourself are adding variables that you said didn't exist.

We have at least one person present so we know if the equipment breaks down and can include this if necessary. What else do we need to account for? What shows that we cannot account for it if necessary?

you can account for everything, the problem is, that if we are trying to figure in the limitations and variables, we have so much to figure that only a very few people even come close to the skill to do the math. why do you think that the odds of life existing as they currently do have so few people doing the math? Because the math required is simply beyond what is possible for the vast majority of people, mathematicians and otherwise.

Exactly what I just said: the size of the opening in the container sets the maximum speed at which the container can be filled.

but not a minimum this is what you are missing.[/quote]

So you create a whole new scenario. The original estimates are useless. However, you have also created evidence that shows why the original estimates are useless. The broken jar, the pot of glue, the bruises on Mo and Jo, the spilled water from the leaky jar, etc.[/quote] finally, the limitations and variables create an atmosphere in which our estimates will always find something we didn't know before. That plain and simply is science.

So we account for unexpected variables when the evidence shows we should. And when the evidence shows that no unexpected variables cropped up, we account for them with zeroes as anything that did not happen has the same effect as adding 0 to the equation. . Either way, the dates are accurate.

so now, in order to proclaim yourself right in the face of falsifying evidence, you claim that we know all about our world? Man your belief system beats all I have seen.[/quote]

You were the one who proposed that the cool down was an illusion. If the earth cooled, then the cool down was not an illusion. You can't have it both ways at once. [/quote] No, I suggested that the "illusion" that the cool down took an excedingly long time was possible, not that a cool down was an "illusion". Consider this, there is evidence of an ice age. What if this "ice age" was for the purpose of cooling down the earth, like putting it in a huge deep freeze. Then the illusion of the earth cooling off slowly could have been provided by God for the purpose of supporting life. and if you insist on saying that I am calling the cool down an illusion I will ignore it like all the other misleading parts of this post.

Ok, no absolutes in that respect. One more question along this line and then we will see if we can draw some conclusions. In regard to the light created on day one before the existence of the stars, do we always see it as visible light or can it also be invisible?

The evidence I have seen doesn't say, we are still waiting for you to present any evidence at all.

What is the logical basis for saying the chronology is absolute?

the text, read the referenced sites.

Does that also mean the chronology must be historical?

so now we deviate to a different discussion again? If the bible is inerrant, then it would include history, science, phsycology, etc.

None of the arguments was about the chronology in Genesis. It was about a so-called rule of hebrew grammar that seems to show up only in material produced by and for people who use it to support a young-earth interpretation of Genesis. If this grammar rule cannot be found in any reputable material on Hebrew grammar by a disinterested party, it smells suspiciously tainted by bias.

1. every time evidence is supported that suggests that the theory of evolution is not the only viable conclusion, the evolutionists including but not limited to you, play the creationist argument and thus refuse to review the evidence. 2. My husband was taught ancient Heb. by professors of differing opinions on the topic of origins. 3. Three different evidences were presented and at least one of them but without doubt made by an unbiased person. 4. we are still waiting for your rebuttal with anything other than name calling.

I would love to see that, as long as that someone does not also support a literalist young-earth interpretation of Genesis 1. That qualification is necessary to show that their study of ancient Hebrew has not been coloured by their preferred interpretation of Genesis 1.

My husbands education included people from both sides of the equasion and both agree. So how then do we know who to dismiss? Both say the same thing, but we can only throw out the creationist argument. What will that gain us? How does doing so not demonstrate bias?

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm
The first and the third are both from sites that support a young-earth interpretation, so cannot be considered unbiased on this point.

and dismissing all creationist work is unbiased how?This is exactly the bias I referred to others here having said existed.[/quote]

So even with the 'yom + number' argument, there are still several ways to hold to an old-earth interpretation of Genesis 1. [/quote] So what? That doesn't affect the argument at all.

We certainly can't say that "young earth" is an absolute given the above. btw several of the scholars who support framework theory are creationists who oppose the theory of evolution. So it is not a matter of evolutionary bias either.

I didn't suggest it was evolutionary bias, I did however suggest that dismissing all creationist research is evolutionary bias. And btw, no one suggested that young earth was an absolute, in fact, the suggestion was that the age of the earth was not an absolute.

In fact, as that last article notes, non-literal intepretations of Genesis go back at least as far as the Chuch Father, Origen, who wrote in the 2nd century. Augustine in the 4th century strongly supported a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. Yet he also held the earth was young. I don't think we have evolutionary bias there either.

Again, dismissing one side of the argument because it comes from an opposing source is your argument not mine. In fact, I looked at and considered with care the argument that would support the evolutionist old earth claim here and found it wanting for actual supporting evidence. YOu support the claim with actual evidence and we will see if it changes anything. And before you claim it won't because of my belief system, try it and see first. It is always fair to give an oppertunity for someone to support their claims before accusing based on bias. That is why I point out my accusations with actual evidence. You should try it.

 

[gluadys]

discussions are full of hearsay, that doesn't make them worthless or fruitless.

Hearsay is worthless because we don't even have the original opinion or know who it is from, and we cannot question that person on what they said. There is no possibility for genuine discussion of hearsay.

just accept that it was stated

Why should I accept that it was stated? Because you said so? How do I know that you quoted the person correctly? I can't ask the person, because I don't know who it was. I can't check that what you claimed was stated was actually stated. So why should I accept that it was?

but the meteor that created the crater would have affected the life that lives there.

Yes, of course. It destroyed the life that lived there at the time. In fact, it eventually impacted many species all over the world and many became extinct as a result.

No significant difference, does that mean that there are differences?

It means that any differences are not meaningful because they don't produce a different result. Consider if a person wins an election by three votes and the loser demands a recount. The recount gives the loser five more votes. That is a meaningful difference, because it has an impact. The loser is now the winner. But if the original winner had had a lead of 20 votes, five extra votes for the loser would not change the result. So there is a difference (five extra votes) but it doesn't have any impact. So it is not significant.

Now research shows that this theory is probably not as accurate as once thought, however, it would affect life and would indeed be necessary for the life that remained to exist in the manner in which they did.

To exist "in the manner in which they did" is not the same thing as "necessary to support life". The impact certainly changed how many species existed, but it was not necessary for their existence in the first place, since those that survived extinction had already existed before the impact.

the eyedropper is by far not the most efficient method.

It is if you can't obtain a siphon or funnel small enough. It may be even if you can. One would have to experiment to see which is most efficient. The analogy assumes that Mo and Jo did determine which method was most efficient and used the most efficient method. Maybe I erred in assuming it was an eyedropper rather than a siphon. But one would have to actually try it out---maybe on that Tabasco sauce bottle as I suggested--to find out.

that is a variable that you didn't start out with, so now, you yourself are adding variables that you said didn't exist.

I said from the beginning that they set up equipment. I never envisaged them filling the container manually. Apparently I was not clear enough, but I haven't added anything.

the problem is, that if we are trying to figure in the limitations and variables, we have so much to figure

This is what you keep claiming, but with no evidence that all these complications exist. If there is no evidence that these complications exist, we do not have all that much to figure. We do not factor in imaginary complications. So if these limitations and variables are not imaginary, state what they are and what evidence we have that shows we need to include them.

why do you think that the odds of life existing as they currently do have so few people doing the math? Because the math required is simply beyond what is possible for the vast majority of people, mathematicians and otherwise.

It is not the math that is all that difficult. Most people just are not that interested enough in physics to know the data well. If you know the data, the math is not that complicated.

Also most people don't understand probability very well. The probability that something that has already happened can occur is 100%. So that is the probability that life can exist.

but not a minimum this is what you are missing.

The most efficient method is one that uses a maximum flow not a minimum flow.

finally, the limitations and variables create an atmosphere in which our estimates will always find something we didn't know before.

Along with evidence. When the evidence shows that there has been no disruption, no complication, our original estimates stand. By all means, show the evidence of "an atmosphere in which our estimates find something we didn't know before". Otherwise, stop calling the measured results into question when there is no basis in evidence to make them questionable. That is also plain and simply science.

so now, in order to proclaim yourself right in the face of falsifying evidence, you claim that we know all about our world? Man your belief system beats all I have seen.

Science doesn't claim to know all about our world. It only aims to follow the evidence. You want to show it is on the wrong track with dating methods, provide the evidence that it is.

No, I suggested that the "illusion" that the cool down took an excedingly long time was possible, not that a cool down was an "illusion".

The cool down is related to the heating that occurred before it. The origin of the heat is the alleged rapid radioactive decay that permits enough decay to occur in a young-earth time frame to make rocks appear old when they are not. Here is our original exchange in post 216.

Radioactive decay produces heat and the faster the rate of decay the more heat produced. So we can check if we have evidence of massive quantities of heat being produced at crucial points of time. In fact, we don't, and we are lucky we don't, for if radioactive decay was happening at the rate needed for a young earth, the earth would be much too hot to sustain life.

what about before the earth was inhabited. remember, the text does allow for an old earth to a point. Besides radioactive early on would not necessarily affect life.

So where is the illusion? If the rapidity of the radioactive decay is real and necessary, then the heat is a real consequence. If the heat is a real consequence, then the cooling has to be real. And the time for the cooling has to be real, not illusory. It takes real time to get real cooling. And real cooling takes more time than a young-earth scenario allows. Not even 999,999 years is enough time for real cooling of a body the size of the earth. So rapid radioactive decay leads us to an internal contradiction. A young-earth scenario requires the illusion of age. It requires that the dates obtained by radiometry not be real.

How can that be? If radioactive decay once occurred more rapidly than it does now, it could create an appearance of age. But the consequence of rapid decay is a significant increase in heat. That heat has to dissipate before life can exist on earth. And it has to really dissipate, not just be an illusion of cooling off.

And that takes time. Real time, not an appearance of time. If it was only an appearace of time, there would not be a real cooling off. And there has to be a real cooling off for life to be possible. It takes more time than is possible under an young-earth scenario. So this suggestion (rapid radioactive decay) for generating an appearance of age ends up requiring that the earth be old not young.

But the point was to show that the earth could be young.

Consider this, there is evidence of an ice age. What if this "ice age" was for the purpose of cooling down the earth, like putting it in a huge deep freeze.

Can't have an ice age when the earth is so hot. You need to get the earth cooled down before you can have an ice age. Hot things don't become instantaneously cold in the deep freeze. They still have to cool down. And where would the freezer be that you could put the earth in. Isn't space already cold? What would cool it any faster?

The evidence I have seen doesn't say, we are still waiting for you to present any evidence at all.

OK. There are several things we don't know about this light created on day one. We don't know that it is a point source. It could be a general all-round phenomenon. We don't know that it only comes from one direction. It could come from all directions at once. We don't know that it is always visible.

As it happens, much of this accords with a scientific understanding of light apart from what we see in stars. Light itself is, IIRC, an electromagnetic phenomenon. Sometimes it appears to come from a certain direction, other times to flow in waves. Visible light is a tiny part of the overall electromagnetic spectrum. There are lots of electromagnetic phenomena that are invisible: radio waves, cosmic rays, X-rays, microwaves and all of the infra-red and ultra-violet light that our eyes are not geared to see. We can detect these parts of the electromagnetic spectrum with instruments, and it is not different in nature from visible light. Just different wave frequencies. And these waves and rays are all around us all the time. We are just not aware of them because they fall outside the fairly narrow band of electromagnetic waves which are visible to our eyes.

So perhaps this whole electromagnetic spectrum which includes both visible and invisible "light" is what was created on day one. And then stars were created as sources of visible light in particular. What do you think? Sound plausible?

the text, read the referenced sites.

I have read the sites, but they don't specify what in the text specifies an absolute chronology. If anything, they go back to this disputed grammar rule. The grammar rule is not stated anywhere in the biblical text.

so now we deviate to a different discussion again? If the bible is inerrant, then it would include history, science, phsycology, etc.

Now you are introducing something new. We have not been discussing whether the bible is inerrant.

So the bible would include history, science, psychology, etc. Why would we conclude Genesis 1 is history rather than psychology or something else? Why would we conclude it is science rather than literature or something else?

1. every time evidence is supported that suggests that the theory of evolution is not the only viable conclusion, the evolutionists including but not limited to you, play the creationist argument and thus refuse to review the evidence.

In this case the proposed evidence for the young-earth view is an alleged rule of grammar in biblical Hebrew. Since that is the whole point of referring to this grammar rule, it is important that this be sound evidence and not something invented out of thin air. If it is sound evidence, it should be recognized in all works dealing with biblical Hebrew, not just in creationist works. But I have never seen it referenced anywhere except in creationist sources that use it for the purpose of supporting their case.

You would certainly object to any so-called evidence for evolution that only evolutionists can see. Why not object to evidence for a young-earth that only young-earthers can see?

2. My husband was taught ancient Heb. by professors of differing opinions on the topic of origins.

So. What school did he go to? What are the names of his professors? Which of them is a recognized authority on Hebrew grammar? What has s/he published on the topic?

3. Three different evidences were presented and at least one of them but without doubt made by an unbiased person.

And that one did not include any reference to this so-called evidence.

4. we are still waiting for your rebuttal with anything other than name calling.

I am still waiting for an indication that the alleged evidence actually exists.

and dismissing all creationist work is unbiased how?

I am not talking about all creationist work. I am talking about this one particular claim relative to 'yom' used with a number. Genuine evidence is obvious to everyone whether they agree it supports the conclusion or not. If this claim is an accurate description of Hebrew grammar in the bible, all students of biblical Hebrew would confirm it whether or not they agreed with the young-earth view. I noted that several old earth interpretations do not require that the Genesis days be long days. It would seem reasonable that a supporter of such an old-earth interpretation could confirm this grammar rule. Does such a person exist? Who is it and where have they supported this claim?

] So what? That doesn't affect the argument at all.

Yes, that's what I was getting at. I have disputed the 'yom' grammar rule as coming from biased sources. But even if I am proved wrong on that point, we still can't eliminate old-earth interpretations of Genesis 1, because several old earth interpretations are compatible with that grammar rule anyway. We can't eliminate non-literal interpretations for the same reason. Just because the days are ordinary solar days doesn't mean they are literal days or that the chronology is either sequential or historical.

I didn't suggest it was evolutionary bias,....

Just trying to cover all the bases.

no one suggested that young earth was an absolute, in fact, the suggestion was that the age of the earth was not an absolute.

Right, so since appearance of age relates to the age of the earth, can we put that aside for now? Let's get back to identifying those absolutes. I believe we were working mainly on light.

That is why I point out my accusations with actual evidence.

Oh, that's funny. I am trying to remember any occasion on which you provided actual evidence. Can't think of any.

 

[razzelflabben]

Hearsay is worthless because we don't even have the original opinion or know who it is from, and we cannot question that person on what they said. There is no possibility for genuine discussion of hearsay.

Well, it is obvious from this that your bias will cloud your opinions as to what the whole issue is and was about, so let's drop that part of all this nonsense and ask you another question. One just as hard for you to answer and I will be watching for the same evasive answers as you are giving here, but it is asked none the less.

You brought it up a few times, I told you I had already said I couldn't evidence it. Then you dropped it for a time. Next thing I know you are asking me if I am now ready to admit that I can't evidence that particular claim. It was admitted when the claim was first made, why it became an accusation of me not having admitted it was what I asked you to explain as to what you gained. Instead you go off and talk about the value of unsubstantiated claims rather than explaining what you gain from accusing me of not admitting what I stated clearly from the beginning. So, let's accept that you will not answer the question and ask you this one. Why did you wait so long to make it an issue if your so biased against the normal flows of discussion?[/quote]

Yes, of course. It destroyed the life that lived there at the time. In fact, it eventually impacted many species all over the world and many became extinct as a result. [/quote] as already stated, that theory is being debated by scientists and many believe it to be inconsistant with the scientific evidence, however, it does evidence the claim being made, that the appearance of an ancient meteor would indeed be necessary to support life as we know it. For example, if dinos had not become extinct, our world would not look as it does today. Nature is full of examples of things that affected the populations of given species, and that the species as a result gave way to other species or healthier populations. Today, there is a constant battle between man and natural environments, all these things shape life as we know it. Therefore, is necessary for supporting life as we know it. Natural events (this meaning God created or natural occuring) shape environments and populations, moving them, and redistributing them and affecting all kinds of things that are necessary for life to exist.

, five extra votes for the loser would not change the result. So there is a difference (five extra votes) but it doesn't have any impact. So it is not significant.

I have no idea what you point here is. How do votes show variables and how we figure them? How do recounts address variables that could have happened? How do votes relate to any of this discussion? If you want to use analogies at least make them relative so we can follow them.

To exist "in the manner in which they did" is not the same thing as "necessary to support life".

Right, but there is currently a scientific thought that the meteor did not cause extinction. That to claim so would be inconsistant with the scientific evidence that we have. In fact, extinction according to some scientists would be more consistant with volcanic eruption. So why then if a meteor would affect life in the area, would it not be consistant to say that it would create an environment that could sustain life? And btw, you also ignored my comments about your claim of significant differences. Any difference at all is significant.

But one would have to actually try it out---maybe on that Tabasco sauce bottle as I suggested--to find out.

Thank you once again for making my point so well. Science does not know all of the history of the world, in fact, if we did, we wouldn't be discussing this at all. And so, science though it claims to have the most efficient methods, though it claims to remove the variables, simply can't know for sure, just as you admit here not knowing for sure. You set up the analogy but have been shown that the analogy is not what you thought it was. Science is the same way, we set up the experiments, and we do them assuming it is the best way, assuming we have removed all the variables only to find something new that we hadn't discovered yet.

My husband often talks with distaste I might add, about all the people who assume science has all the answers, when really science is about all the questions. We can't assume we have removed all the variables, we can't assume we have discovered the best way. All we can do is look at it and say, this is our best guess at the moment. You yourself have proclaimed that there are no absolutes in science. Yet here you are trying to prove they exist. Why the double standard? Why the contridictions?

This is what you keep claiming, but with no evidence that all these complications exist.

I can't tell, is this difficulty just to be difficult or do you really lack this much of an elementary understanding? Think....contemplate.......think.....how can I explain it even more simply........think......think......................................................we are looking at history. Something that happened that we didn't witness. We have a method of aging that has limitations and variables built into it. Now when we put them together we are not talking about trigonometry, calculus, or even higher math, we are talking the kind of equasions that are still being formulated and experimented with. ...................................There is no formula for history, it is an event that cannot be measured only explored, there is no formula for all the variables that occured in history that we don't know about yet...............................................think.......first grade understanding........think........................make it simplier..........................what math formula tells us that three of my husbands and my grandfathers died leaving small children behind? What math formula tells us that my grandfather was a musician whose band was dismanteled because of the war? Which math formula tells us that our son left for michigan and returned with a truck? There are none, because the variables affected the outcome. Life is not a bunch of formulas, but rather a whole string of variables. So when we are looking at the history of life, we are not looking at a string of formulas, but rather a string of variables and how those variables affected what happened. (text in red was me talking to myself)

Also most people don't understand probability very well.

right, the probability that life did happen is 100%, the probability that it happened given all the things that could have happened is so massive that most people can't figure it.

There is an old saying, there are three kinds of lies, lies, $#% lies, and statistics. This can also apply to any numbers that can be manipulated to say what we want them to say. Let me see, an analogy..........Currently our household owns 4 vehicles, but if we are asked how many cars we have, the answer would be 1. Kids play this game when they ask how many fingers they have on their hand. If you answer 5 you would be wrong because you have 4 fingers and one thumb. Numbers can be manipulated to say what we want them to say.

Along with evidence. When the evidence shows that there has been no disruption, no complication, our original estimates stand.

I am assuming this is just your difficulty bias showing through again, but on the assumption you really don't know this stuff, here goes.....The report that laptoppop presented us with, shows scientists who are studying to see if there is actually evidence of this atmospheric change having occured. In additions, we can't know every bit of our world. Add to this things like the meteors, in which we know that the radiation would have altered the environment. All kinds of things exist that would suggest a different environment. Then we can look at the bible, remember for this discussion we are going with the premis that the bible is accurate. Thus, we know that from the biblical discription, the early environment was indeed different. Thus the assumption would be that there are variations that we haven't discovered as of yet.

Science doesn't claim to know all about our world. It only aims to follow the evidence. You want to show it is on the wrong track with dating methods, provide the evidence that it is.

I never assumed it was off track, these are your arguments based on your bias, my argument is that it isn't as accurate as it is assumed by people like you to be.

So where is the illusion.

this is the flaw of your assumption. If God can create from nothing, then cooling something quicker than we can is nothin but a thing.

And real cooling takes more time than a young-earth scenario allows. .

this is only true if we remove God from the equasion. If God is giving the "illusion" of age, then the "illusion" that it took all this time to cool would fit the evidence you are trying to come up with. But this evidence is easily refutted because the "illusion" is not in whether or not the earth cooled, but rather in the amount of time it took to cool. You need to sick with the argument of appearance of age. You know, what you falsely accused me of not doing. The appearance of age requires the earth to cool slowly. If the earth did not cool slowly but rather was made to appear so, then why does it appear so. For the purpose of supporting life.

So rapid radioactive decay leads us to an internal contradiction.

which is the first real evidence of appearance of age you have presented but one that is easily refutted in that a cool earth would be necessary to support life.

How can that be?

If God can create from nothing, could He not also cool things off quicker than we can?

And that takes time. Real time, not an appearance of time.

this in only true if we remove God from the equasion. If we remove God from the equasion we have changed to topic because the whole discussion is relying on the God of Gen. to be as He is discribed in Gen.

So perhaps this whole electromagnetic spectrum which includes both visible and invisible "light" is what was created on day one. And then stars were created as sources of visible light in particular. What do you think? Sound plausible?

Please keep going, you could put the whole discussion to rest just by connecting something you already stated with your argument. But instead you drone on about stuff science doesn't know as if that is evidence. The bible can provide falsifying evidence of arguments made. Think it through.

Now you are introducing something new. We have not been discussing whether the bible is inerrant.

Right, but as mentioned many moons ago, if the bible is found to be compatable with science, then it is evidence for an inerrancy in the word. Not conclusive evidence necessarily, but evidence none the less.

So the bible would include history, science, psychology, etc.

we would need to study the text to find out, and you refuse to do that because you believe you already have all the answers. Just like the OP, you assumed answers you didn't have. Second point to make here is that just because a work might be scientific or literary in nature doesn't make it historically or scientifically or psycholgoically inaccurate. So there are two things to look for all at the same time. 1.what the intention of the work is, and 2. is it compatable with all areas of discipline.

You would certainly object to any so-called evidence for evolution that only evolutionists can see. Why

If the evidence was presented by both sides as you have been shown it to have been, then it would be of no issue. If only evolutionists said it, it should be weighed carefully and examined carefully and contridictory evidence found if possible. You have done nothing here except dismiss it as creationist bias, no evaluation, no weighing it, no falsifying evidence presented, only hearsay evidence. You know the evidence you need to admit you can't produce.

So. What school did he go to? What are the names of his professors? Which of them is a recognized authority on Hebrew grammar? What has s/he published on the topic?

Well some of this he would have to answer, I sometimes get confused by which prof taught what. He went to Ashland theological seminary. Many of the professors there are published and at least one has been interviewed often for documentaries on the bible. The seminary is full of people from all different beliefs though the seminary originated as a Brethren school.

I am still waiting for an indication that the alleged evidence actually exists.

willful blindness dictates that you will wait until such time as you open your eyes and see it.

I am not talking about all creationist work.

Now this is the second time at least you have made this assertion, and that is total BS. It would be like saying that God is not eternal because not everyone who claims to know God thinks He is eternal.

I noted that several old earth interpretations do not require that the Genesis days be long days.

length of day is not part of the discussion, why present it as if it is? What do you gain from changing the topic? The argument is whether or not the days in the original Heb. text are chronological or general in nature. The discrepancy appears not to be from scholars of the ancient text but rather between yec and evolutionists. Scholars as best I can tell all agree that it is both. Evolutionists insist that it is general in nature only while yec often assert that it is only chronolgical. But you don't want to see that because that would make your point wrong. What confuses me is that you assert this claim to be accurate to make this point while it would question your other beliefs if it were true. But you don't like to think things through so, we move on. Show a biblical scholar that disagrees with the ancient Heb interpretations the biblical scholars proclaim. In fact, my husband said something interesting when I asked him about this issue. His first comment was that ancient Heb. is different from modern Heb. thus indicating that your assertion that the schools are teaching it as not the grammatical rule are missing the whole point of it being an ancient lang. But you don't want to hear that because it would mess up your argument.

 

[gluadys]

Sorry for the two-parter, but I really couldn't cut any more.

as already stated, that theory is being debated by scientists and many believe it to be inconsistant with the scientific evidence,

True. but only in terms of its long-term, global impact, not the immediate impact on the life in the area where it struck. It is probably true that there was more than one factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs and other species that disappeared around the same time. The meteor/asteroid, whichever it was, may have been only one contributing factor, not the sole cause.

however, it does evidence the claim being made, that the appearance of an ancient meteor would indeed be necessary to support life as we know it.

That wasn't the claim. The original question was:

what if the "illusion" of history was in some way necessary for the life to exist.

(post 141)

Nothing there about "life as we know it". Just about "life".

Since there was life before the impact that caused the Chicxulub crater,neither the creator nor what made it was necessary for the life to exist.

How do votes show variables and how we figure them?
And btw, you also ignored my comments about your claim of significant differences. Any difference at all is significant.

I didn't ignore it. You just did not see the relevance of analogy I used.

No, not all differences are significant.
Consider these two cases:
Case one: ----------------------------------------------[Case two:
A present = B present----------------------------------A present = B present
A absent = B absent------------------------------------A absent = B present

In both cases we have a difference in A, the variable. In case one this difference causes a difference in B. So it is a significant difference. We can conclude that A is a probable cause of B.

In case two we still have a difference in A, but this time there is no difference in B. So the difference is not significant and we can conclude that A is probably not a cause of B.

So why then if a meteor would affect life in the area, would it not be consistant to say that it would create an environment that could sustain life?

Because the known effect of a large meteor or asteroid crashing into an already living eco-system is to destroy it. The most probable cause of life returning to the area is migration from unaffected areas. That life also existed before the impact, so neither the meteor nor the crater were necessary to its existence.

However, there is another way in which the scenario you propose does fit into ancient history. Much more ancient history than dinosaurs, though.

It has been found that organic molecules exist in some meteorites. This is significant, because organic molecules are building blocks necessary for the original formation of life.
So while we cannot establish that the one meteor or asteroid that created the Chicxulub crater was necessary to support life, it may well be true that all life on earth owes its existence to many earlier meterorites that brought organic molecules to earth.

Science does not know all of the history of the world, in fact, if we did, we wouldn't be discussing this at all.

Science knows when history has left evidence. It can also predict evidence which certain alleged events must have created and then look to see if the evidence is there. A recent example of that was finding the fossil Tiktaalik. Given the alleged event of land vertebrates evolving from fish, scientists predicted that this event would leave evidence of a certain kind of fossil in a certain type of environment. Then they located that type of environment in Nunavut and looked for that type of fossil. And they found it.

We can take any similar alleged event, determine what evidence it had to leave, then check if the evidence exists. If it does, that supports the claim that the event happened. If it does not, that casts doubt on the claim that the event happened.

You set up the analogy but have been shown that the analogy is not what you thought it was.

No, I haven't been shown that Jo could not have calculated how long it would take to fill the container after 5 minutes of watching the water drip into it. All I have been shown is that unexpected things can happen. But this is no problem for two reasons. 1) If nothing unexpected happens, we don't have to account for what might have happened. 2) If something unexpected happens, we have evidence of the event and its impact and can revise our estimates to fit the evidence.

Now, to get back to radiometry---do we have evidence that anything unexpected has happened to require revision of the dates? If we do, present the evidence and show by how much the dates must be revised.

we do them assuming it is the best way, assuming we have removed all the variables only to find something new that we hadn't discovered yet.

And that is what we call a scientific discovery. That is how we add to the store of scientific knowledge.

Obviously we cannot take anything into account before we discover it. But we can determine, sometimes to a very fine degree, how much impact any unforeseen factor can modify the calculations. That is where we get into margin of error again.

If we have a margin of error of only 1%, we know that even if we haven't factored in everything, anything we have not allowed for will only change the result by a maximum of 1%. If we have a margin of error of 10%, then unknown factors could change the result by up to 10%. But even unknown factors can't change anything beyond the margin of error.

My husband often talks with distaste I might add, about all the people who assume science has all the answers, when really science is about all the questions.
All we can do is look at it and say, this is our best guess at the moment. You yourself have proclaimed that there are no absolutes in science.

Yes, that's right. All of our answers in science are provisional. Only good until evidence comes along to show they are wrong.

Yet here you are trying to prove they exist.

No, I'm not. The answers are good until the evidence comes along to show they are wrong. I am saying that if you have problems with the answers, provide the evidence needed to change them.

We have a method of aging that has limitations and variables built into it.

We have a method of aging called getting old. We have ways of detecting fairly reliably when something is getting old. People get gray hair, wrinkles in their faces, etc. Shoes wear out. Hills get worn down by erosion.

Now, we also know that not every appearance of age is a consequence of getting old. With a wig and makeup an actor can appear much older than his or her age.

But every time we have such an illusory appearance of age, we also have a method of creating the illusion. Like distressing furniture to make it look antique. And the method leaves evidence of being used that provides a way to distinguish real age from illusory age.

We also have several methods of measuring age. Every one of them has limits, but there is no indication that working within the limits causes inaccuracy. It is working outside the limits that causes inaccuracy. Working within the limits is a help to getting an accurate result, not a problem. Ages measured by observing the limitations are more, not less, reliable than those found by ignoring the limitations. IOW "Limits" =/= "inaccurate". If anything it makes the calculated ages more accurate.

Same with variables. We can account for variables. We can enter every known variable into our calculations. And if that makes the calculations too complex to do in our head, we give the task to a computer. That is one of the things they do well. Taking account of variables presents us with calculated ages that are very reliable, not ones we have to distrust on principle.

To some extent we can even account for unknown variables, for we can measure the degree of accuracy of our methods. We can determine the margin of error and set a limit to how much we might have to change our calculations should we discover a new variable.

Now when we put them together we are not talking about trigonometry, calculus, or even higher math, we are talking the kind of equasions that are still being formulated and experimented with.

Of course we are. Who ever said anything different? . But that doesn't mean we have to distrust the formulas we have as if they were useless.

There is no formula for history, it is an event that cannot be measured only explored

Yes, it can be measured. History leaves evidence and we can measure history by the evidence left.

, there is no formula for all the variables that occured in history that we don't know about yet.

There is no formula for any variable we don't know about. Not just those of the past, but those of the present as well. But we can still get some high-level accuracy with some types of measures. We know the difference between a 50%, a 10% a 1% and a 0.001% margin of error. We have a fairly good idea of how reliable most of our measurements are.

what math formula tells us that three of my husbands and my grandfathers died leaving small children behind? What math formula tells us that my grandfather was a musician whose band was dismanteled because of the war? Which math formula tells us that our son left for michigan and returned with a truck?

Single incidents are not measured with formulas. Formulas are used when we have an ongoing process and/or repetitious events. We have formulas for fertilizer because we use it over and over. We don't have or need a formula for the one occasion on which a circus elephant escaped and did his duty in my garden. The elephant poop in my garden doesn't change the formula of my fertilizer. I will still use the same formula another year. All it changes is this year's record of what fertilizer my garden received.

There is no need when using a formula to allow for every potential single incident that could possibly occur. Most of them have not and will not occur. We only need to account for incidents which actually occur. Even then we don't need to change the formula we are using, since the same incident is not likely to occur again.

 

[gluadys]

right, the probability that life did happen is 100%, the probability that it happened given all the things that could have happened is so massive that most people can't figure it.

The probability that it happened is still 100%. What the mathematicians are really measuring is the probability that the same circumstances would occur again by chance in another universe.

If universes are assigned their characteristics by lottery, we lucked out getting the one we did---but hey! somebody had to be lucky, why not us? And if universes are not assigned characteristics by lottery, but through the intent of their creator, it is even less surprising that we have a good one. Luck had nothing to do with it.

Numbers can be manipulated to say what we want them to say.

Scientists are alert to manipulation too. That is why only observations that can be replicated by others are considered reliable. That is why I ask for evidence that a certain alleged rule of biblical Hebrew grammar is not a manipulation by an interested party.

The report that laptoppop presented us with, shows scientists who are studying to see if there is actually evidence of this atmospheric change having occured.

Let's recap.

1. Atmospheric changes are only relevant to carbondating, not to all radiometric dating. They won't do a thing to shorten the very long ages measured by other radioactive elements.

2. There is actually evidence of such atmospheric change. Scientists are well aware of it, and have studied it. They have entered the relevant data into their calculations to develop a system of calibration that tells them what the most accurate date is.

By 1. these studies are irrelevant to the old ages measured by elements other than carbon. By 2. the carbon dates are still reliable for where they are relevant.

Thus, we know that from the biblical discription, the early environment was indeed different.

This is something we can explore in more detail. In what way does the biblical description say the early environment was different? (You are aware that science also says the early environment on earth was different, too?)

Can we determine in what way it was different? Can we show the difference would affect the rate of radioactive decay in isotopes with long half-lives?

I never assumed it was off track, these are your arguments based on your bias, my argument is that it isn't as accurate as it is assumed by people like you to be.

If it is not off track then it is as reliable as claimed. You can't have it both ways. Either the method is sound and the results are reliable, or the results are not reliable because the method is not sound. You cannot claim the system is working fine and still giving inaccurate results.

If God can create from nothing, then cooling something quicker than we can is nothin but a thing.

True but, it still needs to be a real cooling, not an appearance of cooling. However, if we need a miracle to accomplish something, that makes void one of your aims in studying the text. Anytime something can only be accomplished by a miracle, it is, by definition, not compatible with science and cannot be the basis for any theory of creation. Scientific theories cannot include miracles.

Please keep going,

Ok, but this is all very tentative. What we know of both visible light and invisible light (such as infra-red or ultra-violet light, and all the other ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum) is that it all travels at the same rate of speed. So whether the light is from the stars or created before the stars, it takes the same amount of time to travel the same distance. Then if, as I have surmised, most, or even all the light created before the stars is not visible light, then the source of visible light is the stars. (This is also consistent with science which agrees that light existed before the stars, but was not yet visible.).

Conclusion: we have a way of knowing whether the light from a star is the star's light or the light created before the star. Both kinds of light may be coming from the region of the star, but the visible portion is the star's own light.

Right, but as mentioned many moons ago, if the bible is found to be compatable with science, then it is evidence for an inerrancy in the word. Not conclusive evidence necessarily, but evidence none the less.

In that case it is a conclusion we haven't reached yet. A conclusion can be used as evidence after we have support for the conclusion, not before we have come to it.

Second point to make here is that just because a work might be scientific or literary in nature doesn't make it historically or scientifically or psycholgoically inaccurate.

Yes, it could be both. But we still need to establish that it is both.

If the evidence was presented by both sides as you have been shown it to have been,

No, I have not seen that the evidence was presented by both sides. That's the evidence I am waiting for. If I have inadvertently missed it, please point it out again.

You have done nothing here except dismiss it as creationist bias, no evaluation, no weighing it, no falsifying evidence presented

I have questioned it, not dismissed it. I have asked for evidence that would show indeed that it is not a creationist pipe dream, but accepted by reputable grammarians who are not young-earthers. In the meantime, I do not dismiss. I suspend judgment and proceed with caution as I do not know if the evidence is reliable.

Note, however, that in the event the reliability of the rule is confirmed, this still does not mean we have established a young age for the earth from the biblical text. There are still alternate old earth possibilities.

Well some of this he would have to answer

I expected as much. so we will await his answers.

length of day is not part of the discussion, why present it as if it is?

Certainly it is. That is what the 'yom' + a number argument is all about. Did you not know that when you offered that link? It is all about establishing that the Genesis days could not be long ages as Day-Age creationists claim. Some people think evolutionists make this claim too, but that is not necessarily the case. You offered the link, so you brought the length of day into the discussion.

The argument is whether or not the days in the original Heb. text are chronological or general in nature. The discrepancy appears not to be from scholars of the ancient text but rather between yec and evolutionists.

Then you have not properly identified the proponents of various interpretations. The proclamation interpretation goes way back to the Church Fathers who were certainly not evolutionists. In fact, most of them were young-earthers, yet they still did not accept that the Genesis days were literal. The framework interpretation has a number of conservative biblical scholars who support it, but also oppose evolution. I first heard the literary interpretation (which I favour) from C.S. Lewis, who seems to have been skeptical about evolution. So we have various non-chronological, non-historical interpretations which are supported by those who oppose or at least question evolution and may even support a young earth. Definitely not a yec vs evolution discussion.

His first comment was that ancient Heb. is different from modern Heb. thus indicating that your assertion that the schools are teaching it as not the grammatical rule are missing the whole point of it being an ancient lang.

Actually, if you go back to those four points, you will see that two of them dealt specifically with biblical Hebrew. So that has been covered.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry for the two-parter, but I really couldn't cut any more.

it's easy to cut it, just limit it to what we are currently discussing and leave the new discussions for later. You can also dispense with your arguments that are just for the sake of being difficult and have no real relavence to the topic. Let me show you how it is done.

True. but only in terms of its long-term, global impact, not the immediate impact on the life in the area where it struck. It is probably true that there was more than one factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs and other species that disappeared around the same time. The meteor/asteroid, whichever it was, may have been only one contributing factor, not the sole cause.

Consider these sites
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec98/912662044.Ev.r.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061130-dinosaur-asteroid.html
http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/06-47.htm
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1885.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061023192530.htm

Now what is my burden of proof. 1. that the evidence presented is inconlusive and therefore irrelavent to the discussion. DONE. With the constant contridictions of evidence as to what is and what is not, the evidence would be inconclusive and thus irrelavant to the discussion. But what if I couldn't do that, then my burden of proof would be evidence that the meteor did affect life in such a way as to make it necessary for sustaining life. DONE The very fact, that Life is affected by the meteor is evidence, but further evidence exists in that meoteors might have contained life ooze. As is that some life existed dispite the meteor. And while we're discussing the meteor, we still have studies being done on the age. HUMMMM that's three for three and one is all I need to cover.

Nothing there about "life as we know it". Just about "life".

right, it could be interpreted one of two ways, either way has been evidenced. Just like your previous comments on light, the comment could have been read one of two ways, but both were shown to be wrong, so it doesn't really matter how you read it.

Since there was life before the impact that caused the Chicxulub crater,neither the creator nor what made it was necessary for the life to exist.

If life was faltering, and the environment needed to change it certainly would.

Because the known effect of a large meteor or asteroid crashing into an already living eco-system is to destroy it. The most probable cause of life returning to the area is migration from unaffected areas. That life also existed before the impact, so neither the meteor nor the crater were necessary to its existence.

and yet, it doesn't destroy it. At least not all life and at least from the evidence presented by some scientists. see above.

It has been found that organic molecules exist in some meteorites. This is significant, because organic molecules are building blocks necessary for the original formation of life.
So while we cannot establish that the one meteor or asteroid that created the Chicxulub crater was necessary to support life, it may well be true that all life on earth owes its existence to many earlier meterorites that brought organic molecules to earth.

dealt with above.

Science knows when history has left evidence. It can also predict evidence which certain alleged events must have created and then look to see if the evidence is there. A recent example of that was finding the fossil Tiktaalik. Given the alleged event of land vertebrates evolving from fish, scientists predicted that this event would leave evidence of a certain kind of fossil in a certain type of environment. Then they located that type of environment in Nunavut and looked for that type of fossil. And they found it.

do you understand what history is, or have you forgotten that whole discussion? Do we need to review?

Let's talk about something else while we're on it. Your assumption that science can identify events and accomadate them, is falsified by the above sites in which there is no concenses as to what happened. Take for example greenhouse on one research team says greenhouse not only existed but aided the demise of the dinos. Another team of researchers is saying greenhouse never existed or caused problems. Therefore our conclusion must be that science cannot identify all the variables.

No, I haven't been shown that Jo could not have calculated how long it would take to fill the container after 5 minutes of watching the water drip into it. All I have been shown is that unexpected things can happen. But this is no problem for two reasons. 1) If nothing unexpected happens, we don't have to account for what might have happened. 2) If something unexpected happens, we have evidence of the event and its impact and can revise our estimates to fit the evidence.

Look at it this way, Jo is told by the king, if you are wrong in your calculations, you will be killed. So Jo makes his prediction based on the experiment and calculations, and turns the results into the King. The king then, sets up the experiment again, and tells the people to find the best way and see if the calculations are correct. And so the people do the experiment, but the variables that Jo didn't account for are possible, because we already did the calculations based on the information at hand. Does Jo loose his life? What are the odds that Jo will be right given that someone else is doing the experiment? Now we aren't going to loose our life if we are wrong, but we won't know truth either. This is the point.

Of course we are. Who ever said anything different? . But that doesn't mean we have to distrust the formulas we have as if they were useless.

No one is suggesting that we distrust the formulas, only that we acknowledge the limitations and variables in honesty not bias.

Yes, it can be measured. History leaves evidence and we can measure history by the evidence left.

YOu forget our history discussion appartently.

 

[razzelflabben]

The probability that it happened is still 100%. What the mathematicians are really measuring is the probability that the same circumstances would occur again by chance in another universe.

notice you used the word probability, thus indicating that you know exactly what is being said and discussed but instead of dealing with it, you are being difficult as if you don't understand because it isn't explained clearly. You identified yourself here as being difficult for the sake of being difficult and nothing else.

Scientists are alert to manipulation too. That is why only observations that can be replicated by others are considered reliable. That is why I ask for evidence that a certain alleged rule of biblical Hebrew grammar is not a manipulation by an interested party.

I gave you three. One is all you asked for. Thus this is the most unbiased look I have found so far. The conclusion clearly (though I don't expect you to comprehend it) that both are built into the general understanding though not conclusively. In other words, it could be either but is generally thought to be both. The same conclusion my husband drew. Hummm... When a text does not specify it is open to our best logical conclusion. You did this when you talked about the OP. Declaring with certainty that the heavens and earth were created from nothing when the text does not specify this to be true. You called any other view a lie because it was what you wanted to believe based on the inconclusive evidence. Now we come to a new debate, one in which the evidence is once again inconclusive in nature. But this time instead of following the mainstream conclusions that it is both, you annouce that it is once again false because it is not what you believe.

I showed you evidence from three sources that showed why they thought chronology was a part of the pattern. You dismissed it. Here is your fourth. It says that it is not an absolute but given all the clues we have still is a good conclusion as to the intent of the text. But you will refuse to accept it, first because it was supposedly from creationist and now because it doesn't say that it is definite, something that was never claimed in the first place. And still we wait for you to show us more than the scholars know about how this is all falsified by some magical grammartical missing evidence. And the best you can do to provide us with evidence is to deny the evidence I provide and assert that I must look for your evidence for you. Oh, I forgot, you also assert that because this topic has been discussed before it is evidence of an absolute.

How do I say it more clearly, it is not an absolute that it is chronolgical or otherwise, the common understanding among scholars is that it is both.

This is something we can explore in more detail. In what way does the biblical description say the early environment was different? (You are aware that science also says the early environment on earth was different, too?)

Let's start with absolutes, what about rain, did it exist in the beginning? No death, that means life went on forever, let's start with these two, exploring whether or not they are absolutes and how they could be tested or falsified scientifically if they are absolutes.

True but, it still needs to be a real cooling, not an appearance of cooling.

No problem. The claim you made is the appearance of age due to cooling time. My counter claim was that the time needed to cool the earth could be an "illusion"

However, if we need a miracle to accomplish something, that makes void one of your aims in studying the text. Anytime something can only be accomplished by a miracle, it is, by definition, not compatible with science and cannot be the basis for any theory of creation. Scientific theories cannot include miracles.

Then science cannot study anything because existance is a miracle, just look at the probabilities studies. Even your birth was a miracle. So science is nothing? Hum, this doesn't sound like the argument of a scientific minded individual or an evolutionist for that matter. You might want to rethink it and or reword it before you trap yourself again.

Conclusion: we have a way of knowing whether the light from a star is the star's light or the light created before the star. Both kinds of light may be coming from the region of the star, but the visible portion is the star's own light.

how do we know that? Consider a mirror, it reflects light, but the light is not it's own nor is the light source the mirror. Only deal with what science knows not what it assumes.

I expected as much. so we will await his answers.

when I can corner him long enough. In the meantime consider the above reference.

Certainly it is. That is what the 'yom' + a number argument is all about. Did you not know that when you offered that link? It is all about establishing that the Genesis days could not be long ages as Day-Age creationists claim. Some people think evolutionists make this claim too, but that is not necessarily the case. You offered the link, so you brought the length of day into the discussion.

the site was not brought in to discuss the length of days, but rather the issue of chronology which is also discussed. You need to stay focused.

Actually, if you go back to those four points, you will see that two of them dealt specifically with biblical Hebrew. So that has been covered.

which ones? that biblical Heb. has been discussed for centuries and that many people are interested? What evidence does that bring our discussion?

 

[gluadys]

Now what is my burden of proof. 1. that the evidence presented is inconlusive and therefore irrelavent to the discussion. DONE.

Not done. Not all of the evidence is inconclusive, and evidence that is currently inconclusive will not always remain inconclusive. The only discrepancy I can see is that one school of thought is that the Chicxulub meteorite was the only relevant impact while another thinks there were two, Chicxulub and a later one. What if 50 years from now they find the second impact crater? This evidence is then no longer inconclusive. And what about the evidence we have now that is conclusive e.g. that the Yucutan crater at Chicxulub was the result of a meteor/asteroid impact and that it probably played a role in the K-T mass extinction? How is that irrelevant?

Relevant to which question? You didn't specify. If we are speaking of what is necessary to support life, note that all the articles agree that the Chicxulub impact was a factor in extinction i.e. the destruction of life, not the support of life.

With the constant contridictions of evidence as to what is and what is not, the evidence would be inconclusive

Only two contradictions turned up: one vs. two meteorite impacts and predominantly warm (greenhouse) vs. changing climate in the Cretaceous period. That is hardly "constant contradictions", nor does it mean assertions without contradictions lose their validity. Furthermore, we can anticipate that these contradictions are temporary and that one or the other case will be shown to be incorrect.

What I find interesting in light of our discussions about radiometry and atmosphere is that climate 65 million years ago can be studied accurately. Look at what Ms. Keller said:

"Dinosaur fossils are few and far between," Keller said. "People love the dinosaurs but we can only really study what happened to them by looking at microfossils because these little critters are everywhere at all times. In just a pinch of sediment we can tell you the age, the prevailing climate, the environment in which it was deposited and what happened. It's remarkable."
http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/06-47.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061023192530.htm​

And look at the release on climate from McMaster University (my alma mater).

By using high-resolution stable-isotope analysis from 95-million-year-old fossilized wood collected from Nebraska, Gröcke and his team were able to precisely correlate the terrestrial carbon cycle with that from deep-sea records.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1885.html​

This is the sort of accuracy you have been claiming is impossible. Yet now you rely on it to make a point.

But what if I couldn't do that, then my burden of proof would be evidence that the meteor did affect life in such a way as to make it necessary for sustaining life. DONE

Not done at all. All the articles cited mentioned extinction, not sustaining life. One on mammalian evolution noted that mammals evolved before the Chicxulub impact (and so it was not necessary for sustaining their life) and that humans did not evolve until well after "the effects of the meteorite had dissipated some 60 million years earlier." So it was not necessary for sustaining human life either.

The very fact, that Life is affected by the meteor is evidence, but further evidence exists in that meoteors might have contained life ooze.

Yes, life is "affected". But the effect is extinction. Not a very good way to "support life".

As for the other meteors:

1. Not "life ooze". Organic molecules. organic molecules are not life, though they are necessary to life.

2. Not the same meteor impact. You can't assume that because 3 billion year-old impacts may have seeded the earth with organic molecules that the Chicxulub impact only 65 million years ago, was in any way necessary to support life. Once life got started, it did not need more meteorites to keep it going.

As is that some life existed dispite the meteor.

Yes, despite the meteor, not because of it.

HUMMMM that's three for three and one is all I need to cover.

I think that is now zero for three.

1. You have claimed a general level of inconclusiveness which omits reference to things that have been determined conclusively e.g that the Chicxulub impact was a factor in late Cretaceous extinction. You have claimed a degree of contradictions impossible to sort out, which does not exist. Some questions remain open as is always the case in science, but further study and new evidence will likely resolve them. One NOT DONE

2. Since you did not specify what you were relating the evidence to, it is not possible to determine whether you have made a case that it is not relevant to the discussion. I have taken a stab at guessing which question you were relating it to, but I don't know if I guessed correctly. Two NOT DONE

3. You picked up on my information about organic molecules in meteorites, but ignored that these were different meteorites from a different time period. They do not show that the Chicxulub impact was necessary for sustaining life. Three NOT DONE

You have not shown that the Chicxulub impact was necessary for life in general, nor that it was necessary for any life form in particular. All your references report its effect as one of extinction, not support for life.

right, it could be interpreted one of two ways, either way has been evidenced.

But it matters which way it is read, as the two interpretations amount to two different questions which are supported or falsified by different evidence, whether scientific or biblical. I make it a rule not to assume qualifications that have not been stated. If I present evidence that something is not necessary for the support of life, it is not falsified by adding the qualification that it may have affected life as we know it today. The original claim was still properly and decisively addressed.

Just like your previous comments on light, the comment could have been read one of two ways, but both were shown to be wrong, so it doesn't really matter how you read it.

I think you sometimes keep repeating false statements in the belief that if you say it often enough it will become true. Only one reading of the comment on light (the one I did not intend, but which you inferred anyway) was shown to be wrong. We are still discussing the other. So it does matter how you read it.

If life was faltering, and the environment needed to change it certainly would.

You can multiply "ifs" till kingdom come. But it is not until you can show it is not an "if" but a fact, that you can come to that conclusion. What is the evidence than life at the time was faltering? No evidence? So the "if" is just a mental game.

and yet, it doesn't destroy it. At least not all life

No one claimed it destroyed all life. But it (along with other factors) certainly destroyed a lot of life. From one of your links:

A final, much larger and still unidentified impact 65.5 million years ago appears to have been the last straw, exterminating two thirds of all species in one of the largest mass extinction events in the history of life.
http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/06-47.htm​

Your contention was that it was necessary to support life. The fact that one out of three species survived the mass extinction is hardly evidence it was necessary to support life.

 

[gluadys]

do you understand what history is

Do you understand how the example given shows that the consequences of history can be predicted? and that the evidence so found validates the historic cause of the consequences? The present is what it is because the past was what it was. Therefore, we can validly infer the past from the present. And sometimes provide evidential support for our inferences.

Your assumption that science can identify events and accomadate them, is falsified by the above sites in which there is no concenses as to what happened.

Quite to the contrary. It is confirmed by them. Read the Keller and McMaster citations again. Both show that it is very possible to determine accurately the events of the past.

Look at it this way, Jo is told by the king, if you are wrong in your calculations, you will be killed.

That's not part of the analogy. I never claimed the king said that. If he had, Jo simply needed to tell the king that his estimates were preliminary and would be confirmed or corrected later in a full report. He would then deliver the full report along with Mo when the experiment was complete.

No one is suggesting that we distrust the formulas, only that we acknowledge the limitations and variables in honesty not bias.

Well, you seem to assume a lot of bias without evidence of it. Yet when presented with a fairly solid case of potential bias in a young-earth scenario, (and in spite of the fact you acknowledged bias could exist on both sides) you bend head over heels to deny that is bias. You could give at least as much creedance to scientists as you do to creationists. The limitations and variables are acknowledged in honesty as every article you have cited shows. And therefore we can trust the formulas and have confidence that the resulting dates are accurate--at least as accurate as claimed, because no one claims they are spot on.

YOu forget our history discussion appartently.

I don't forget. I said your assumptions that we cannot find out what happened historically were incorrect then, and I say so again now.

notice you used the word probability, thus indicating that you know exactly what is being said and discussed but instead of dealing with it, you are being difficult as if you don't understand because it isn't explained clearly.

I do understand it clearly and I did deal with it. The math shows a very low probability of life arising by chance in the universe. This leaves us with two possible conclusions:

1. Like winners in a lottery, we lucked out. In spite of the low probability, life in the universe did arise by chance.
2. Life in the universe did not arise by chance.

I gave you three.
I showed you evidence from three sources

Apparently you have mixed up the questions and don't understand what evidence I have asked for. I am not asking for evidence about chronology. I am asking for evidence about the alleged rule of grammar that 'yom' used with a number always refers to a solar day.

In regard to the three sources, all are possibly biased though in different directions. Two mention the rule and both cite it in support of a young earth--a position they already hold. The bias this suggests is that they could be making a false claim about biblical grammar to support their case.

The other does not mention the rule, but it is clear that it supports an old earth. Its silence also suggests bias. In this case bias against a genuine rule of biblical grammar that contradicts an old earth position.

Since all three sites have an interest in publicizing or suppressing information about the 'yom'+a number rule, what they say or don't say about it tells us nothing useful about biblical grammar. It doesn't tell us whether this rule is legitimate or not. Maybe it's legitimate but the Day-Agers try to keep it secret, or maybe it was made up to support a young earth position.

The only way we can find out for sure is to go to an expert on biblical grammar who is neither a young-earther nor a day-ager, someone who doesn't care a fig whether the bible says the earth is old or young. Get that expert's opinion on the 'yom' + a number rule. That will tell us something about biblical Hebrew without any distortion pro or con from the presuppositions of either young-earthers or day-agers.

How do I say it more clearly, it is not an absolute that it is chronolgical or otherwise,

This is exactly the kind of clear answer I was waiting for. Now we can go back to when the earth attained its planetary form.

The text clearly speaks of a formed earth with dry land, oceans and vegetation on day three, while sun, moon and stars don't appear until day four.

If the question of chronology was an absolute, this would specify that the earth was formed before the stars were created.

Since it is not an absolute that it is chronolgical we cannot specify that the earth was formed before the stars were created. It is possible that the actual chronological and historical sequence differed from the textual sequence.

the common understanding among scholars is that it is both.

Yes, but that is just a common scholarly understanding. We are looking for what the text actually says, not kowtowing to common or traditional understandings, right?

what about rain, did it exist in the beginning?

The first creation story mentions a lot of water, but not rain. I would assume that with water totally covering the earth until just before dry land and plants appeared that rain was not necessary to support vegetation at the time.

The second creation story, on the other hand, implies that plants did need rain, for it says one reason for there being no plants is that it had not rained on the earth yet. No mention is made of the primeval waters. So it is not explained why the plants needed rain.

It would seem that up to the creation of man, there was no rain, but we are left with a different puzzle. Were plants able to exist without rain? Part of the text says they couldn't and that is one reason they were not growing before the creation of man. Part of the text implies that they could and did since they were made before man. Or maybe this part of the text takes for granted that plants need rain and got rain, and just doesn't mention the rain.

In view of this puzzle, I would say we cannot determine absolutely whether there was rain in the beginning.

No death, that means life went on forever,

Does this refer to human, animal or plant death? To all three? To two of the three? I am not convinced any life, including human life, was made without the possibility of death. If it were, why is there a Tree of Life in the garden? Why does God give plants to humans and animals for food? Can plants be food without dying?

I think it incontrovertible that plants died as they were used for food. I think it very probable that animals died. I find no reference anywhere in scripture to animal immortality. Obviously no humans died before the fall, but that is not sufficient to establish that they were created immortal. The case has been argued both ways.

Conclusion: no absolute here.

The claim you made is the appearance of age due to cooling time.

You have missed a couple of steps.

Step one: The appearance of age comes from radiometric dating of rocks. Given the pace of radioactive decay, the rocks must be old, so the earth must be old.

Step two: Maybe the rocks appear older than they really are because radioactive decay does not always occur at the same pace. Maybe there were times it moved at a faster pace.

Step three: If radioactive decay occurs at a faster pace, it also generates more heat. The heat would have to dissipate before the earth would be habitable. That takes a long time. The fact that the earth is now cool enough for life shows that the earth must be old.​

So the claim is not that appearance of age is due to cooling time, but to scientific dating. What we run into when we try to tamper with the dating to make it fit into a young earth framework is a heat problem that also requires an old earth.

My counter claim was that the time needed to cool the earth could be an "illusion"

Step four: Maybe the cooling time was also made to appear longer than it really was.

Step five: No go. It had to actually be long enough for the cooling to actually occur.​

If God can create from nothing, could He not also cool things off quicker than we can?

Step six: God made the heat go away quickly by using his power to perform miracles.​

Yes, now we have a genuine possibility. But that has another consequence of interest.

Two reasons for examining the biblical text and its variety of interpretations were: 2. see if it is compatable with science, and 4. and to identify whether or not an unbiased scientific communitee could indeed form a "creation" theory.

By definition a miracle is not compatible with science since it relies on something beyond natural means, and therefore it cannot be the basis of a "creation" theory.

Doesn't mean there was no miracle. Doesn't mean the earth is not young. Does mean no compatibility with science and no scientific theory of creation.

So you take your choice. Young earth without scientific compatibility or old earth with the possibility of scientific compatibility. That, as I see it, is a matter of personal taste because the text does not give us an absolute on the age of the earth.

Then science cannot study anything because existance is a miracle, just look at the probabilities studies.

is it? The probability studies don't say it was a miracle. Is it a miracle when someone wins a lottery? Feels like it to the winner I guess, but it is stretching the meaning of "miracle" to include a bit of luck.

Even your birth was a miracle.

Again, stretching the meaning of "miracle". In some sense every birth is a miracle, but it is not a miracle science cannot handle. Speeding up radioactive decay without generating huge amounts of heat is a miracle science can't handle. Or, generating a huge amount of heat and then dissipating it with a snap of the divine fingers is a miracle science cannot handle.

You don't refute arguments by equivocating with alternate meanings of a word. That is a well-known logical fallacy.

Consider a mirror, it reflects light, but the light is not it's own nor is the light source the mirror.

have you noticed that throughout this conversation I have only mentioned the sun and the stars, while the biblical text also mentions the moon? That is because we know that moonlight does not really come from the moon. It is light reflected from the sun.

Reflected light still has an original source, so I am only considering original sources.

Is some starlight actually reflected from another source? Could be, but it makes no difference to the age of the light. It takes just as long for reflected light to travel from the star to earth as light originating in the star. So we still have stars billions of years old.

which ones? that biblical Heb. has been discussed for centuries and that many people are interested? What evidence does that bring our discussion?

It notes possible sources of evidence which would be free from the suspicion of bias. See discussion on the 'yom' rule above.

 

[razzelflabben]

Not done. Not all of the evidence is inconclusive, and evidence that is currently inconclusive will not always remain inconclusive. The only discrepancy I can see is that one school of thought is that the Chicxulub meteorite was the only relevant impact while another thinks there were two, Chicxulub and a later one. What if 50 years from now they find the second impact crater? This evidence is then no longer inconclusive. And what about the evidence we have now that is conclusive e.g. that the Yucutan crater at Chicxulub was the result of a meteor/asteroid impact and that it probably played a role in the K-T mass extinction? How is that irrelevant?

In fifty years when the evidence is conclusive (if it ever is) you may resubmit it to our discussion. Until then inconclusive evidence is not relavent to the discussion since we are trying to narrow down the possibles. IOW's this gives us more possibles not less. Oh and one more thing, one site I referenced, this was just a very small sampling, suggests that the meteor has nothing to do with the demise of the dinos.

Relevant to which question? You didn't specify. If we are speaking of what is necessary to support life, note that all the articles agree that the Chicxulub impact was a factor in extinction i.e. the destruction of life, not the support of life.

1. see above reference to sites not presented that can't agree on any of your claims and 2. They also all agree that there was life that survived and microbes that weren't affected.

Now, we have been talking about one theory, that the earth appears old because it was necessary to support life. And any relavent information you presented is shown to fit that theory. Only irrelavent, inconclusive evidence is questioning the theory. Hum?

Only two contradictions turned up: one vs. two meteorite impacts and predominantly warm (greenhouse) vs. changing climate in the Cretaceous period. That is hardly "constant contradictions", nor does it mean assertions without contradictions lose their validity. Furthermore, we can anticipate that these contradictions are temporary and that one or the other case will be shown to be incorrect.

well as I stated twice now, this is a very small sampling that I found when researching, and for the sake of space and time I limited it. Anyone with any interest in knowing truth can find these and many many many more. But, what of your claim that one will be found to be incorrect with further research, that is exactly where vaiables come into the discussion. Because we don't have the answers to these and other questions, we must include all the possibles in our equasions. The number of vaiables in these alone is staggering when you must calculate all of these plus all the implications that would arise in each of the different scenerios.

What I find interesting in light of our discussions about radiometry and atmosphere is that climate 65 million years ago can be studied accurately. Look at what Ms. Keller said:

This is the sort of accuracy you have been claiming is impossible. Yet now you rely on it to make a point.

No, what I have been claiming is that the variables and limitations of our testing are of such great numbers that our conclusions cannot be accurate. Let me see, an analogy.......we were trying to measure the earth with a 12 inch ruler. Let's streatch that analogy to fit this explaination and see if you have any clarity. The analogy as provided still holds, but you are looking at it backwards, so I will try turning it backwards, the results will be the same though the analogy will be off track.

Instead of a twelve inch ruler, we will use a yard stick, but this yard stick unknown to us, is off by 1/4 inch. that is just the way it was made, a bit off. So we take our yard stick and we measure the earth, what will the end results be? Will our measure be accurate? What if we measure a yard of fabric with the yardstick, will it be an accurate measure? The point is this, the test for age is a constant, just as the yardstick measure is a constant, but it is the variables, the non absolutes, the limitations of the methods and history that cause the conclusions to be off. I fully believe that the test results are what is expected, just as I would expect that measuring a yard of fabric with a non accurate measure would be result in what we would expect to find, but it is the distance (so to speak) and the limitations and such that make the conclusions inaccurate, it is the combination of the inaccurate measure and the distance we are measuring that create a list of variables too great to make the conclusion of any practical use.

Not done at all. All the articles cited mentioned extinction, not sustaining life. One on mammalian evolution noted that mammals evolved before the Chicxulub impact (and so it was not necessary for sustaining their life) and that humans did not evolve until well after "the effects of the meteorite had dissipated some 60 million years earlier." So it was not necessary for sustaining human life either.

1. problem with your argument is that you are assuming things that have not yet been evidenced to their conclusion. 2. you are reading it backwards because that gives you the evidence you want. If the meteor created an atmosphere where life could exist, then it fits the criteria. But wait, the criteria is that is was necessary. What if life didn't exist when it was created, remember you can't assume things that are not evidenced conclusively. What if some of life was becoming extinct and a new environment was needed. In both these situations, we would see the need for the meteor to hit the earth. 3. the age of the crater is still being questioned for conclusiveness and therefore your argument is flawed on three levels.

Point is, we don't know all the ways the meteor changed things and why it brought change. All we know is that it happened at some time in the history of our world.

1. You have claimed a general level of inconclusiveness which omits reference to things that have been determined conclusively e.g that the Chicxulub impact was a factor in late Cretaceous extinction. You have claimed a degree of contradictions impossible to sort out, which does not exist. Some questions remain open as is always the case in science, but further study and new evidence will likely resolve them. One NOT DONE

until or unless they are resolved, one is done.

2. Since you did not specify what you were relating the evidence to, it is not possible to determine whether you have made a case that it is not relevant to the discussion. I have taken a stab at guessing which question you were relating it to, but I don't know if I guessed correctly. Two NOT DONE

should be clear from the above discussion. two done.

3. You picked up on my information about organic molecules in meteorites, but ignored that these were different meteorites from a different time period. They do not show that the Chicxulub impact was necessary for sustaining life. Three NOT DONE

didn't include this in the done list, but none the less, we don't know what if anything was in the chicxulub meteor because we don't have it, so three done.

But it matters which way it is read, as the two interpretations amount to two different questions which are supported or falsified by different evidence, whether scientific or biblical. I make it a rule not to assume qualifications that have not been stated. If I present evidence that something is not necessary for the support of life, it is not falsified by adding the qualification that it may have affected life as we know it today. The original claim was still properly and decisively addressed.

this is a lot of talk that simply ignores what I said. What I said is that either way it is read, the burden of proof was accomplished. To drone on and on and on about what is proper and what is not, ignores the claim that either is evidenced and thus, shows a total lack of respect for the discussion and me in general. Thus you are providing us with more evidence of claims I have made against your arguing style.

You can multiply "ifs" till kingdom come. But it is not until you can show it is not an "if" but a fact, that you can come to that conclusion. What is the evidence than life at the time was faltering? No evidence? So the "if" is just a mental game.

YOu assume a lot of if's just in making the claims you do, for example, that the earth was too hot to support life, is an assumed if. What of the time necessary for it to cool, another assumed if. You assume if's when you talk about light, the affect meteors had on the dinos, and you even assume if's when you talk about science being able to know the age of the earth and looking at things unbiased. These and oh so many more if's you assume. You assumed the bible to say that the heavens and earth were created from nothing. Problem is, none of these ifs are anything but. That makes all the premises that we have been discussing, if's as well. Bottom line to all the if's, we simply don't know what we want to think we know.

 

[razzelflabben]

Do you understand how the example given shows that the consequences of history can be predicted? and that the evidence so found validates the historic cause of the consequences? The present is what it is because the past was what it was. Therefore, we can validly infer the past from the present. And sometimes provide evidential support for our inferences.

so in asking these questions I take it that you have totally forgotten the discussion on this thread about what history is? If you remembered it, you would A. understand what I know and don't know about history and B. understand what we collectively know and don't know about history. Therefore would not be asking stupid, nonsense questions like these.

Shall we start from the beginning or just jump in somewhere along the way?

That's not part of the analogy. I never claimed the king said that. If he had, Jo simply needed to tell the king that his estimates were preliminary and would be confirmed or corrected later in a full report. He would then deliver the full report along with Mo when the experiment was complete.

But the king need not tell Mo and Jo all he plans before he deems it done. The point here is that truth or calling something truth or fact, is like killing Jo for being wrong. In truth, all Jo need to do was to say these are estimates of which there will be variations and unforseen variables that would affect the outcome. Things that I cannot factor in because I am not a fortuneteller. But that isn't what you did, nor is it what science says.

Well, you seem to assume a lot of bias without evidence of it.

did provide evidence some of which you site later in this paragraph. So what do you gain from claiming I didn't provide it only to show it at least of in part here?

Yet when presented with a fairly solid case of potential bias in a young-earth scenario, (and in spite of the fact you acknowledged bias could exist on both sides) you bend head over heels to deny that is bias.

I have no idea what the heck you are refering to, I have always accepted bias on both sides and have not attempted to show otherwise for either side. You have me totally stumped here, how about showing where I bent over backwards to deny any bias?

You could give at least as much creedance to scientists as you do to creationists. The limitations and variables are acknowledged in honesty as every article you have cited shows. And therefore we can trust the formulas and have confidence that the resulting dates are accurate--at least as accurate as claimed, because no one claims they are spot on.

see previous post and please, either show where I denied bias or retract your accusation, these false accusations without any supporting evidence is getting out of hand. At least when I accuse you of something I show you why I make the accusation, what it is based on and if I am wrong, you at least know where I get the conclusions.

Apparently you have mixed up the questions and don't understand what evidence I have asked for. I am not asking for evidence about chronology. I am asking for evidence about the alleged rule of grammar that 'yom' used with a number always refers to a solar day.

Huh? I never even suggested it always refers to a solar day so what are you asking me to show the evidence for something I didn't claim? What do you gain from asking me to evidence someone elses claims? I evidenced what I claimed, that the ancient hebrew lang. suggests that both are true, a chronological understanding in the midst of a general structure. I said nothing at all about solar day.

In regard to the three sources, all are possibly biased though in different directions. Two mention the rule and both cite it in support of a young earth--a position they already hold. The bias this suggests is that they could be making a false claim about biblical grammar to support their case.

The other does not mention the rule, but it is clear that it supports an old earth. Its silence also suggests bias. In this case bias against a genuine rule of biblical grammar that contradicts an old earth position.

Since all three sites have an interest in publicizing or suppressing information about the 'yom'+a number rule, what they say or don't say about it tells us nothing useful about biblical grammar. It doesn't tell us whether this rule is legitimate or not. Maybe it's legitimate but the Day-Agers try to keep it secret, or maybe it was made up to support a young earth position.

now I know you didn't read what I said, because my third reference wasn't a site at all but my husband. Now he plans on making a statement for me to cut and paste asap, however, until then, let me briefly point out that though I forget names, two of his Heb. professors were top scholars, who teach Rabbi's Heb. In addition, as mentioned before many of the professors he had had differing theological beliefs, the only absolute was that Jesus is the son of God, come in the flesh, crusified and rose again that we might have life. Therefore, you have two big problems with supporting your claims of bias from him 1. he was taught by outstanding scholars in the field and 2. the lack of bias from only one side is there. Now I will let him have you for a snack when he has time, just wanted to point out to you that your post shows evidence that you didn't hear anything I said.

The only way we can find out for sure is to go to an expert on biblical grammar who is neither a young-earther nor a day-ager, someone who doesn't care a fig whether the bible says the earth is old or young. Get that expert's opinion on the 'yom' + a number rule. That will tell us something about biblical Hebrew without any distortion pro or con from the presuppositions of either young-earthers or day-agers.

BTW, as I said, I will leave this to my husband, but he is not a young earther, and he says what I said, that it is both.

Yes, but that is just a common scholarly understanding. We are looking for what the text actually says, not kowtowing to common or traditional understandings, right?

right, and so we look at the case the scholars are making and see if the conclusions are strong enough to offer only one viable conclusion. It is an ancient text for heavens sake.

The second creation story, on the other hand, implies that plants did need rain, for it says one reason for there being no plants is that it had not rained on the earth yet. No mention is made of the primeval waters. So it is not explained why the plants needed rain.

what are you refering to when you say the second creation story? I can't follow your argument if I don't know what you are talking about.

It would seem that up to the creation of man, there was no rain, but we are left with a different puzzle. Were plants able to exist without rain? Part of the text says they couldn't and that is one reason they were not growing before the creation of man. Part of the text implies that they could and did since they were made before man. Or maybe this part of the text takes for granted that plants need rain and got rain, and just doesn't mention the rain.

Maybe some kind of a biblical reference would catch me up to what you are talking about. I dont know what you are refering to.

Does this refer to human, animal or plant death? To all three? To two of the three? I am not convinced any life, including human life, was made without the possibility of death. If it were, why is there a Tree of Life in the garden? Why does God give plants to humans and animals for food? Can plants be food without dying?

lets deal with this when we finish the discussion about rain, you love to take too big of bites, then the posts get long and boring, and confusing. I mentioned several things we could talk about, you chose rain first, let's go with that for now.

You have missed a couple of steps.

Step one: The appearance of age comes from radiometric dating of rocks. Given the pace of radioactive decay, the rocks must be old, so the earth must be old.​

inconclusive evidence that cannot be submitted until it is conclusive. Thus not missed at all.

Step two: Maybe the rocks appear older than they really are because radioactive decay does not always occur at the same pace. Maybe there were times it moved at a faster pace.

thus the suggestion that there are variables that we haven't taken into account. Things that occured that we don't know about and a list of sites that showed variables not yet removed from the list of possibles. Thus, not missed at all

Step three: If radioactive decay occurs at a faster pace, it also generates more heat. The heat would have to dissipate before the earth would be habitable. That takes a long time. The fact that the earth is now cool enough for life shows that the earth must be old.

Thus our discussion about God creating a cool earth, or that God cooled the earth quicker than it would have without intervention, which would be the only thing that would fit the discussion, that God either created the earth cool or that He cooled it quicker than we calculate. And as such, it fits the theory that the appearance of age was for the purpose of supporting life. Thus, not missed at all.​

So the claim is not that appearance of age is due to cooling time, but to scientific dating. What we run into when we try to tamper with the dating to make it fit into a young earth framework is a heat problem that also requires an old earth.

No problem if God is the one who cooled it. which is consistant with the argument.

Step four: Maybe the cooling time was also made to appear longer than it really was.​

longer, shorter, bigger, smaller, fatter, thiner, doesn't matter, the point I needed to evidence is that the appearance of age was for the purpose of supporting life. In this case, it is like doing it with my hands tied behind my back and my eyes closed. In fact, it is just simply stupid to suggest anything else.

Step five: No go. It had to actually be long enough for the cooling to actually occur.

If God can create the heavens and earth from nothing, you would be hard pressed to show that He couldn't cool the earth quicker than it could cool itself. But go ahead and try, it will make for some good laughs.​

Step six: God made the heat go away quickly by using his power to perform miracles.​

I don't know how He did any of it, do you? Do you know the inner workings of God? Does He tell you the secrets that He holds? Does He reveal to you the things that He holds for Himself? I don't know, and neither do you, the point is, that if He did, it would be for the purpose of supporting life and that is what the claim was. What really happened isn't ours to hold or we would know by now.​

By definition a miracle is not compatible with science since it relies on something beyond natural means, and therefore it cannot be the basis of a "creation" theory.

right, so there are then two problems 1. everything around you is in one way or another a miracle. Miracle can be interpreted two different ways as I was lectured by an evolutionist wanting to make a point, a point that will now work against the point you want to make. A. something unexplainable or B. something that is surprising. On either case, there is much that science cannot explain and at one time couldn't explain so the A definition removes life from science. and there is much that surprises science and so definition B also removes life from science. Thus, science can't happen by reason of your definitions.

Now as to the issue of creation theory, the "supernatural" phenomena don't have to be part of the theory, the theory would begin with the absolutes and then delve into the non absolutes, like age of the earth. So you still haven't removed either dispite your effort to do so.

So you take your choice. Young earth without scientific compatibility or old earth with the possibility of scientific compatibility. That, as I see it, is a matter of personal taste because the text does not give us an absolute on the age of the earth.

nor does science.

is it? The probability studies don't say it was a miracle. Is it a miracle when someone wins a lottery? Feels like it to the winner I guess, but it is stretching the meaning of "miracle" to include a bit of luck.

see above

Again, stretching the meaning of "miracle". In some sense every birth is a miracle, but it is not a miracle science cannot handle.

depends on the questions asked. How far back we go and how we ask the questions determines what we know and don't know.

Speeding up radioactive decay without generating huge amounts of heat is a miracle science can't handle. Or, generating a huge amount of heat and then dissipating it with a snap of the divine fingers is a miracle science cannot handle.

depends on how it was done. That is the point of science, exploration into what we don't know.

have you noticed that throughout this conversation I have only mentioned the sun and the stars, while the biblical text also mentions the moon? That is because we know that moonlight does not really come from the moon. It is light reflected from the sun.

is there a shoulder shrugging smilie?

Is some starlight actually reflected from another source? Could be, but it makes no difference to the age of the light. It takes just as long for reflected light to travel from the star to earth as light originating in the star. So we still have stars billions of years old.

If light comes from God which is a promenate theory, and God is eternal, then that light would have reached the earth when?

 

[gluadys]

In fifty years when the evidence is conclusive (if it ever is) you may resubmit it to our discussion. Until then inconclusive evidence is not relavent to the discussion since we are trying to narrow down the possibles. IOW's this gives us more possibles not less.

That doesn't mean we have not already narrowed down a number of possibles to one each. It is those that you are ignoring.

If your child brings home a math test marked 0/10 you would expect s/he had no answers correct, right? But you look at the paper and find that nine answers are correct. Should the mark not be 9/10 instead of 0/10? You ask the teacher what gives and s/he says: Oh I never pay attention to correct answers. As long as there is a wrong answer on the paper, I give it a 0/10

You are like that teacher. You think it is ok to ignore all the right answers because there are one or two answers we don't know yet.

Oh and one more thing, one site I referenced, this was just a very small sampling,

And please note that it was indeed a small sampling. One opinion as a matter of fact. We need to see if this one person can make a good case to other scientists before we rely on it.

1. see above reference to sites not presented that can't agree on any of your claims

I am not sure that you even know what my claims are.

Can you please list my specific claims and then reference specifically where each article disagrees with it.

Until then I will take your statement as unproven.

and 2. They also all agree that there was life that survived and microbes that weren't affected.

And as stated previously this is not at all the same thing as supporting life or being necessary to life.

Now, we have been talking about one theory, that the earth appears old because it was necessary to support life. And any relavent information you presented is shown to fit that theory.

No, it has not been. One example of appearance of age is the 65 million year old Chicxulub crater and you have not produced a single bit of evidence that it was necessary to support life. The best you have been able to do is show that some life survived the impact. That shows the opposite of your claim, as obviously that life already existed before the impact, so the crater was not necessary to support that life.

We have mentioned in passing dinosaurs. You have not shown that a single dinosaur fossil is necessary to support life.

We have mentioned far distant stars that must have existed millions to billions of years ago for light to come all the way from them to earth. You have not shown that these stars are necessary to support life. (They aren't even necessary for measuring time as most of them can only be seen through powerful telescopes and would be useless for telling times and seasons before the telescope was invented.)

There is plenty of relevant evidence that has been shown not to be necessary to support life. The appearance of age in these things is evident. But there is no reason why they should look old.

The number of vaiables in these alone is staggering when you must calculate all of these plus all the implications that would arise in each of the different scenerios.

So what? Scientists have been doing that for a long time quite successfully. They use the very sensible method of investigating one piece of the puzzle at a time. And carefully putting pieces together in different ways until they get a good fit.

What you want to do is throw out the parts of the puzzle that have already been solved because not all of it has been solved yet. That is like shaking up all the pieces of a 1,000 piece puzzled and beginning over again because you found one piece misplaced. It is like starting a 100 mile trip all over again because you missed a turn a half-mile back. Or like undoing a whole sweater because you dropped a stitch two rows back.

No, what I have been claiming is that the variables and limitations of our testing are of such great numbers that our conclusions cannot be accurate.

And that claim is without value. Our conclusions can be accurate for what we have already tested. And the conclusions we know are accurate set limits on how far off our estimates can be, so we can target the correct answer more and more closely. Just like kids playing "hot or cold". (I'm sure you know the game.) So even when we don't have the exact answer, we know we are in the ballpark. And often we can know what part of the ballpark.

we will use a yard stick, but this yard stick unknown to us, is off by 1/4 inch. that is just the way it was made, a bit off. ... it is the combination of the inaccurate measure and the distance we are measuring that create a list of variables too great to make the conclusion of any practical use.

So, it is a little bit off. Note that this puts a limitation on how wrong it can be. 1/4 inch is
1/144th of a yard or 0.7% of a yard. No matter what the distance, the answer will never be more that 0.7% from the true measurement. So even the ruler that is a little bit off provides us with useful information that narrows down the range of possibilities.

1. problem with your argument is that you are assuming things that have not yet been evidenced to their conclusion.

I think I have been providing good evidence. If I have missed something please name the specific assumption and I will see if I can deal with it.

2. you are reading it backwards because that gives you the evidence you want. If the meteor created an atmosphere where life could exist, then it fits the criteria.

No, you are trying to go backwards and this is a good example. We don't base a conclusion on an "if". Before we can list the meteor as fitting the criteria we would have to provide evidence that it did create an atmosphere (or whatever else you want to suggest). Without the evidence that it did create an atmosphere where life could exist---and further evidence that life came into existence because of this atmosphere--the case has not been made that the meteor was necessary to support life.

Without something to turn the "if" into fact, all you have is an unsupported supposition. That is not even a variable. So it doesn't need to be accounted for at all.

What if life didn't exist when it was created

But it did. The articles mentioned fossils that were deposited both before and after the impact. And you yourself referenced species which survived the impact. You can't survive a disaster if you weren't alive before the disaster happened.

What if some of life was becoming extinct and a new environment was needed.

Show the evidence that this was the case, and we can examine it. We don't deal with everything anyone can imagine. We deal only with those for which there is evidence that it is more than imagination. So provide the evidence.

3. the age of the crater is still being questioned for conclusiveness

No, the age of the crater is not in dispute.

Young-earth creationists question the very foundation of radiometric dating, but even they would agree that the date given is the date found through radiometric dating.

and therefore your argument is flawed on three levels.

You are going to have to do better at showing what the flaws are. You also need to discriminate better between different arguments. Attacking all radiometric dating is not the same thing as saying any particular date is not conclusive. Generally speaking, young-earth creationists don't dispute any date found by radiometric techniques. They agree that given the techniques, these are the dates determined. It is not the dates they dispute, but the whole process. According to them, all the dates are wrong because the whole process is skewed.

Point is, we don't know all the ways the meteor changed things and why it brought change.

Of course not. But that does not change what we do know. That is what you have to get through your head. What we do know does not support your claim that the meteor was necessary to support life.

Also, science does not deal with "whys", only with "hows". "Whys" it leaves to philosophy and religion.

one is done.

I hope so. One is done in the sense that you have failed to establish that the meteor and several other appearances of age (e.g. fossils, starlight) are necessary to support life.

should be clear from the above discussion. two done.

Well, it is not clear, so two is not done.

didn't include this in the done list, but none the less, we don't know what if anything was in the chicxulub meteor because we don't have it, so three done.

IOW done like one with a failure to establish that the Chicxulub meteor was necessary to support life.

What I said is that either way it is read, the burden of proof was accomplished.

And that is incorrect. As noted above you have failed to provide evidence that the Chicxulub crater was necessary to support life. The other we have not looked at.

YOu assume a lot of if's just in making the claims you do, for example, that the earth was too hot to support life, is an assumed if.

No, that is not an "if". Scientists have determined how much energy it takes for a radioactive isotope to decay into a stable isotope and how much heat that gives off. So for any particular rate of decay, the amount of heat given off can be calculated. And we also know the upper limit of heat most life can tolerate. So we can determine that in a given scenario of rapid radioactive decay the amount of heat produced would make the earth uninhabitable. No "ifs" there at all.

What of the time necessary for it to cool, another assumed if.

Not an "if" as long as we are looking at natural cooling.

You assumed the bible to say that the heavens and earth were created from nothing.

The bible makes it pretty clear that that must be the case. I agree that it is not clear from Gen. 1:1 taken in isolation from other biblical texts.

Problem is, none of these ifs are anything but. That makes all the premises that we have been discussing, if's as well. Bottom line to all the if's, we simply don't know what we want to think we know.

Problem is that you identify as "ifs" things that are not, yet want your own "ifs" to be taken seriously without evidence that they are anything more than a fertile imagination.

 

[gluadys]

Therefore would not be asking stupid, nonsense questions like these.

There is an actual fossil being studied in an actual university that shows the question is not nonsense. The process through which it was found demonstrates that we can predict the consequences of historical events and find evidence that the history happened (or did not happen).

In truth, all Jo need to do was to say these are estimates of which there will be variations and unforseen variables that would affect the outcome. Things that I cannot factor in because I am not a fortuneteller. But that isn't what you did, nor is it what science says.

But Jo's calculations were still correct, given his observations. Science always says "Given the information we have, this is what we have worked out." Science always leaves room for the possibility that new observations will provide another perspective. But that still lets us have confidence is what has been established so far.

You don't undo the whole sweater when you only need to go back two rows to pick up the dropped stitch. A hundred miles away from home, you don't go all the way back and begin the journey all over again, just because you made a wrong turn at the last light. And scientists don't throw out established conclusions until they discover some evidence is put in a new light because of new evidence. They don't waste time on "what ifs" for which there is no actual evidence.

I have always accepted bias on both sides

So you state. But your behaviour shows you are much more likely to assume bias in scientists than in creationists. You blather on about biased scientists without ever providing evidence of bias, yet resist a potential case of bias in creationists even when there is evidence. Not conclusive evidence yet, but still some evidence--which is more than you have provided in the case of biased scientists.

Huh? I never even suggested it always refers to a solar day so what are you asking me to show the evidence for something I didn't claim?

Wow. You really don't read the links you offer, do you? I never said it was your claim. But it is the claim made in the article on 'yom-with-a-number' you pointed me to. What I am asking for is evidence the people who use this argument did not invent the rule for the purpose of supporting their own case. After all, manufactured evidence is not what you want to base an argument on.

I evidenced what I claimed, that the ancient hebrew lang. suggests that both are true, a chronological understanding in the midst of a general structure. I said nothing at all about solar day.

Apparently because you did not read your own link and so did not realize it was about the length of day, not the chronology of the sequence.

now I know you didn't read what I said, because my third reference wasn't a site at all but my husband. Now he plans on making a statement for me to cut and paste asap,

Tell him to be sure to cite the person he is quoting and the publication in which the statement appears.

Why would you reference your husband? You said he studied Hebrew, but you didn't say he was an expert and recognized grammarian. I know a lot of people who studied Hebrew, but they wouldn't claim to be experts in the grammar of the bible.

right, and so we look at the case the scholars are making and see if the conclusions are strong enough to offer only one viable conclusion.

And since we have various scholars supporting a variety of positions, we see there is not only one viable conclusion.

what are you refering to when you say the second creation story?

The Adam and Eve story. It is different from the opening story and differs from it in several ways--including the topic of rain and the order in which things were created.

Maybe some kind of a biblical reference would catch me up to what you are talking about.

From first creation account:
Gen. 1: 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28 Water (sea) is mentioned many times, but not rain. Of course, this does not mean there was no rain. The text doesn't say it rained, but it doesn't say it did not rain either. The writer may have considered that an unimportant detail.

From second creation account:
Gen. 2:5, 6, 10-14.

Again the only water mentioned is the mist that rose from the ground and watered the earth (v. 6) and the rivers of Eden (vv. 10-14) But unlike the first story which does not mention rain at all, this one says specifically that it had not rained yet (v. 5) and that this is one of two reasons why plants had not been created yet. (The other being that "there was no man to till the earth.") To remedy the first problem, God has the mist ascend from the earth to water the ground. To remedy the second problem, God creates a man. Then he plants the garden with its rivers and sets the man in it "to till it and keep it" (v. 15)

The question of rain and plants is dealt with differently in the two stories and that is why I concluded that we cannot speak absolutely about rain in the beginning.

lets deal with this when we finish the discussion about rain,

OK.

(Re: Step one) inconclusive evidence that cannot be submitted until it is conclusive.

Not inconclusive evidence. If the radiometric dating did not definitely conclude that the rocks are old, young-earthers would not need step 2. They need step two because step one (the dates determined by radiometry) are conclusive. No one, not even a young-earther, claims you can get any other dates from the radiometric tests. So this is conclusive and is the basis for all the rest of the steps. Without step one, you don't even have a controversy.

[RE step two] Thus, not missed at all

Not missed in the general conversation, agreed. Just in the last post where you said the appearance of age was due to cooling down. It is actually due to radiometry and other measures of the age of the rocks.

Thus our discussion about God creating a cool earth,

That is jumping ahead to step 6. Here we are on step three. Don't worry. We get there. Just not yet. One step at a time.

No problem if God is the one who cooled it.

Again, jumping ahead to step 6 while we are actually on step four. Take time to consider each step as we get to it instead of jumping ahead.

the point I needed to evidence is that the appearance of age was for the purpose of supporting life.

Which, in the case of the rocks and the fossils they contain, you have not done. What difference does it make to supporting life if a rock is 4 billion, 4 million or 40 thousand years old? If the purpose is to support life, the rocks do not have to appear anywhere near as old as they do.

If God can create the heavens and earth from nothing, you would be hard pressed to show that He couldn't cool the earth quicker than it could cool itself.

Again, jumping ahead. The point to be made here is that if left to nature, the heat takes time to dissipate---lots of time, old earth time, not young earth time.

Now we are ready to introduce step six. Ta da!

Step six: God made the heat go away quickly by using his power to perform miracles.

I don't know how He did any of it, do you?

Of course not. That is the point of a miracle. It has no natural explanation.
And because it has no natural explanation, it is not science. You cannot build a scientific theory on what is not science.

Miracle can be interpreted two different ways

Exactly. That is what allows for equivocation of meaning. But ducking out of a conclusion by equivocating the meaning is really an admission that your opponent was right. You can only get around the conclusion by changing the meaning of a key term.

I know this is one of your favorite tactics, but you should be aware it just shows that you have conceded the point and don't want to admit it.

Now as to the issue of creation theory, the "supernatural" phenomena don't have to be part of the theory, the theory would begin with the absolutes

That would be a little difficult if one of the absolutes turns out to be a miracle.

nor does science.

Oh, yes, science does give us an absolute on the age of the earth: 4.5 billion years give or take a few hundred million.

If light comes from God which is a promenate theory, and God is eternal, then that light would have reached the earth when?

That would depend on where it entered the universe. Light that entered the universe near the current position of the sun would reach earth in about 8 minutes. Light that entered the universe near the current position of Alpha Centauris would reach earth in about 4 years. Light that entered the universe on the far side of the Milky Way galaxy would reach earth in not less than 100,000 years and light that entered the universe in a distant galaxy would take millions to billions of years to reach earth, depending on how far away the galaxy was.

 

[razzelflabben]

Gluady's​

I took four courses in Hebrew at Ashland Theological Seminary in Ashland, Ohio. Three of them were taught by Dr. Bill Arnold and the other was taught by Dr. David Baker. In addition I took a very interesting course on Genesis taught by Dr. Baker. We discussed Genesis 1-11 in great detail. We discussed the chiastic structure of Genesis 1. While it is true that many scholars acknowledge that the forming and subsequent filling of creation it does not diminish from it's impact as a chronology. In fact most scholars believe that Genesis 1 is both a highly structured polemic against other gods and a chronology of creation. As to the qualifications of Dr. Baker and Dr. Arnold see the links below. I also have a link to the ATS Catalog that has a description of OT 600. I highly recommend The Genesis Debateersistent Questions about Creation and the Flood Edited by Ronald Youngblood. It is a series of debates by scholars regarding questions from Genesis that are frequently debated. They are usually well balanced and both scholars present their views well. I myself am not a young earth creationist. Young earth creationists seriously misunderstand the purpose and form of the geneologies in Genesis in particular and the Bible as a whole. I am however a designist which is a position well backed by Genesis and modern science. In addition your use of a grammar for modern hebrew will not be of much use in serious study of Biblical Hebrew.​

Razzles Hubby​

CurriculumVitae for Dr. David W. Baker​

See link http://personal.ashland.edu/~dbaker/vita.htm​

​

link to ATS Catalog http://www.ashland.edu/seminary/catalog/ATSCatalog07.pdf​

page 77 of 91 contains the course description of OT 600 Genesis​

​

link to Information on Dr. Bill T. Arnold​

http://www.asburyseminary.edu/about/administration-and-faculty/faculty-a-f/bill-arnold​

​

 

[gluadys]

Gluady's​

I took four courses in Hebrew at Ashland Theological Seminary in Ashland, Ohio. Three of them were taught by Dr. Bill Arnold and the other was taught by Dr. David Baker.​

Hi, razzle's hubby

Dr. Baker's CV is very impressive and he looks to be the sort of expert I have been looking for. I would be particularly interested to know if he has discussed the 'yom used with a number' rule in the dictionaries he has contributed to such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary or the New International Dictionary on Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.

Let me explain my interest. I was introduced to literature defending young earth creationism in my early teens and have been reading it off and on for 40 years now. So I am quite familiar with trends in creationist thinking.

But I only began to see YEC defended with this particular grammar rule in the last 3 years. And so far, I have only found mention of it in material published by YEC supporters. Both the recent appearance of the argument, and its apparent restriction to a school of thought clearly benefitted by the exegesis are grounds for skepticism.

That is why I look for something on the 'yom used with a number' rule from a source I can trust to be more objective.

While it is true that many scholars acknowledge that the forming and subsequent filling of creation it does not diminish from it's impact as a chronology. In fact most scholars believe that Genesis 1 is both a highly structured polemic against other gods and a chronology of creation.

For me the question of chronology is not overly problematic. The larger question is one of historicity. From a literary perspective any narrative is going to have a chronology. That doesn't make the narrative a literal history.

Young earth creationists seriously misunderstand the purpose and form of the geneologies in Genesis in particular and the Bible as a whole.

I quite agree.

I am however a designist which is a position well backed by Genesis and modern science.

Well all theism, including theistic evolution, implies Designer and design. The question is not whether there is design, but where one sees it.

In addition your use of a grammar for modern hebrew will not be of much use in serious study of Biblical Hebrew.

I wouldn't expect it to. That's why I also have one on biblical Hebrew.


Thanks for the references.​

 

[razzelflabben]

That doesn't mean we have not already narrowed down a number of possibles to one each. It is those that you are ignoring.

If your child brings home a math test marked 0/10 you would expect s/he had no answers correct, right? But you look at the paper and find that nine answers are correct. Should the mark not be 9/10 instead of 0/10? You ask the teacher what gives and s/he says: Oh I never pay attention to correct answers. As long as there is a wrong answer on the paper, I give it a 0/10

You are like that teacher. You think it is ok to ignore all the right answers because there are one or two answers we don't know yet.

Make your analogy fit the arguement made. The analogy would work with the argument if it went more like this. My child comes home with a paper marked say 6/10 but I review the paper and it has 8 correct answers not 6. So I contact the teacher and the teacher says oh well, I missed a couple of answers that were correct, sorry and leaves the grade as it is. Now in this analogy that fits the argument, the biased scientist is the teacher who missgraded because he/she didn't take into account all the variables that were necessary to find the correct answer. But instead of accepting that the mistake was made and correcting it, they just said, oh well, the conclusions stand as is. See, my claim has never been that the tests were this or that, all arguments you tried to make it sound like I said, and I corrected you time and time again, my claim is that the variables that exist are too great to allow a biased scientist to conclude accurately the age of the earth. A teacher who doesn't want to admit that they graded wrong will not accept that the mistake is anything significant. Unfortunately I have known teachers like this as I have run into many evolutionists, some claiming to be scientists, like this as well. Heck I have even known Dr. like this, they are so afraid to be wrong that dispite the evidence, they proclaim themselves right.

I demonstrated for you that the variables you want to disappear do exist in the scientific community. I have demonstrated to you that accounting for these variables would result in a staggering number that would be known as the margin of error. And I demonstrated for you that most people accept that the scientific community is biased on this topic. (admittedly this was the weakest evidence of the lot, but it was there none the less). And still you pronounce yourself right like that teacher in the analogy, even when you are shown to be wrong. And what's worse, when you can't get out of it, you simply handwave the evidence or change the claim to something it wasn't so that you can continue to proclaim yourself right. This is sad that anyone is this biased, but so be it.

And please note that it was indeed a small sampling. One opinion as a matter of fact. We need to see if this one person can make a good case to other scientists before we rely on it.

this is funny, you proclaimed evidence that supported your opinion based on one person, but when that same one person is sited that falsifies your claim you find all kinds of excuses to dismiss it.

Until then I will take your statement as unproven.

in the case of the above sites, the number one claim of yours was that the meteor destroyed life. But many of the scientist question this argument and the papers testify to this. Now if an animal was standing under the meteor when it hit, you could claim destruction of life I guess, but the scientific papers disagree as to how much if any life was destroyed by the meteor, what they do agree on is that the meteor happened. You can read them for yourself, the point is the variables include 1. destruction of life. 2. no destruction of life 3.destruction of partial life so any equasion would have to include all three options and all the variables that each includes in order to be an accurate portrayal of what we know. This number would produce a staggering margin or error.

And as stated previously this is not at all the same thing as supporting life or being necessary to life.

and as stated before, it doesn't matter, the answer is the same in both cases.

No, it has not been. One example of appearance of age is the 65 million year old Chicxulub crater and you have not produced a single bit of evidence that it was necessary to support life. The best you have been able to do is show that some life survived the impact. That shows the opposite of your claim, as obviously that life already existed before the impact, so the crater was not necessary to support that life.

I have 1. shown that the age is inconclusive thus inadmissable as evidence of appearance of age. 2. that science does not all agree that the meteor destroyed life and 3. that the environment created by the meteor changed the environment in ways we don't know which might or might not produce an environment that would have posponed the extinction of certain species or not.

We have mentioned in passing dinosaurs. You have not shown that a single dinosaur fossil is necessary to support life.

but I have shown that the age of the fossils are inconclusive thus not admissible as evidence of appearance of age.

We have mentioned far distant stars that must have existed millions to billions of years ago for light to come all the way from them to earth. You have not shown that these stars are necessary to support life. (They aren't even necessary for measuring time as most of them can only be seen through powerful telescopes and would be useless for telling times and seasons before the telescope was invented.)

I have shown that we do not know the source of light and that it could be eternal as is God and therefore we would see this light as never ending.

There is plenty of relevant evidence that has been shown not to be necessary to support life. The appearance of age in these things is evident. But there is no reason why they should look old.

the appearance of age is only relavent to the things with adequate evidence to suggest they are appearing old. For example, the cooling of the earth. You presented 2 I believe 3 maybe, but at the moment I don't remember what they were, all however, were necessary for supporting life.

Now while we are talking about this, I want to bring up something else that I previously discarded as your dribble. From the beginning of this discussion I asserted that this was a devil's advocate argument. In fact, I had to say it several times before you even acknowledged it. Finally you did, only to come all these days later and accuse me of not seeing the evidence because my beliefs wouldn't allow it. If my argument is one of devil's advocate, it would follow that it is not my belief as to the age of the earth. Thus the only viable conclusion would be that you are once again incorrect in your assumptions and conclusions of the arguments being made, and only making these assumptions and conclusions because you have nothing of significance to argue.

So what? Scientists have been doing that for a long time quite successfully. They use the very sensible method of investigating one piece of the puzzle at a time. And carefully putting pieces together in different ways until they get a good fit.

What you want to do is throw out the parts of the puzzle that have already been solved because not all of it has been solved yet. That is like shaking up all the pieces of a 1,000 piece puzzled and beginning over again because you found one piece misplaced. It is like starting a 100 mile trip all over again because you missed a turn a half-mile back. Or like undoing a whole sweater because you dropped a stitch two rows back.

I was going to cut this because it is dribble and I may yet, but let's have a go at it. No one is suggesting that there aren't any answers, if that were the claim, then there would be no appearances of age for us to look at and as stated above you provided us with a couple. So once again, make your analogy fit the argument instead of trying to create the argument to fit your analogy. It is all the pieces that aren't placed in the puzzle yet that give your argument problems.

So, it is a little bit off. Note that this puts a limitation on how wrong it can be. 1/4 inch is
1/144th of a yard or 0.7% of a yard. No matter what the distance, the answer will never be more that 0.7% from the true measurement. So even the ruler that is a little bit off provides us with useful information that narrows down the range of possibilities.

it will only be off 1/4 inch if we are measuring 1 yard. If we are measureing 2 yards, it will be off 1/2 inch. ready to show you math skill, I'll make it an easy math question for you. If we use that yardstick that is off by 1/4 inch to measure something that is 1 billion yards long, how far off will we be?

No, you are trying to go backwards and this is a good example. We don't base a conclusion on an "if". Before we can list the meteor as fitting the criteria we would have to provide evidence that it did create an atmosphere (or whatever else you want to suggest). Without the evidence that it did create an atmosphere where life could exist---and further evidence that life came into existence because of this atmosphere--the case has not been made that the meteor was necessary to support life.

I love how you think it necessary to lecture me on things I call you on. For example I said to you that you are apply many if's of your own. Something that cannot happen when we look only at the evidence. So your intellectual reply is Razz, we don't base a conclusion of an if...........

Without something to turn the "if" into fact, all you have is an unsupported supposition. That is not even a variable. So it doesn't need to be accounted for at all.

see, there it is again.

But it did. The articles mentioned fossils that were deposited both before and after the impact. And you yourself referenced species which survived the impact. You can't survive a disaster if you weren't alive before the disaster happened.

right, so what if life was faltering, dieing off, and a change in the environment was needed in order for that life to survive. Thus instead of destroying life, it supported it. This is just one possible senerio of what could have happened that we don't have answers to.

Show the evidence that this was the case, and we can examine it. We don't deal with everything anyone can imagine. We deal only with those for which there is evidence that it is more than imagination. So provide the evidence.

so far we have no evidence, only what people can imagine. That was the point of showing all the conflicting articles.

Young-earth creationists question the very foundation of radiometric dating, but even they would agree that the date given is the date found through radiometric dating.

You are going to have to do better at showing what the flaws are. You also need to discriminate better between different arguments. Attacking all radiometric dating is not the same thing as saying any particular date is not conclusive. Generally speaking, young-earth creationists don't dispute any date found by radiometric techniques. They agree that given the techniques, these are the dates determined. It is not the dates they dispute, but the whole process. According to them, all the dates are wrong because the whole process is skewed.

Do you have any idea what I said or are you just talking to hear yourself talk? You seem to be arguing with someone else again. It is so confusing when you do this.

Of course not. But that does not change what we do know. That is what you have to get through your head. What we do know does not support your claim that the meteor was necessary to support life.

what we do know is that we don't know what, how, why, or exactly when it all happened. Just that it did. Thus all the sites showing scientific evidence that is contridictory of what we once thought we knew.

No, that is not an "if". Scientists have determined how much energy it takes for a radioactive isotope to decay into a stable isotope and how much heat that gives off. So for any particular rate of decay, the amount of heat given off can be calculated. And we also know the upper limit of heat most life can tolerate. So we can determine that in a given scenario of rapid radioactive decay the amount of heat produced would make the earth uninhabitable. No "ifs" there at all.

[/quote]

Not an "if" as long as we are looking at natural cooling. [/quote] but we are looking at the appearance of age, something that was created to look older than it really was, thus, natural cooling would not be part of the equasion, the equasion would only consist of the time necessary if this was the process used. In other words, one of the given variables in the discussion is God. Why would God make it appear older than it was? For the purpose of sustaining life.

Problem is that you identify as "ifs" things that are not, yet want your own "ifs" to be taken seriously without evidence that they are anything more than a fertile imagination.

see the discrepacies in the sites presented.