How old is the earth and the sun?

joshua 1 9 said:

We have the 1,000 year reign of Christ and then there will be a new heavens and a new earth.

Click to expand...

When does this reign start?

Queller said:

I went back and read post #301 again. I don't see any description of the methodology you used in your experiments.

Click to expand...

Yes, that post does not have the method in it, it seems.

Why not?

Click to expand...

It cannot be done without a Fear of The Lord, because that it is a condtion of testing God. No one is allowed to do a foolish test. And, fool in the Bible is defined by one without a fear of The Lord. Thus, that is just one of the test conditions.

Why?

Click to expand...

I don't know why, but it is my observation. If the information is there, I have always had to look it up. If the information is not available anywhere, then it is sometimes allowed to ask God for it.

OK.

Click to expand...

Doesn't sound very scientific.

Click to expand...

Accidental work, accidental discoveries, may be the most scientifc work there is. For instance, x rays exposing film. It was and accident or a nuisance in that case, which led to that discovery.

Can you describe this experiment in more detail? What exactly was the hypothesis you were trying to prove or disprove with regards to "Honor thy father and thy mother"? What was your control group? What were your independent and dependent variables?

Click to expand...

This was very difficult. I will try and put myself into that situation again. "I cannot prove the Bible is wrong. That does not make it right. No one has ever proven it wrong. I failed to prove it wrong also. I will run controlled experiments. They must be simple. I want five things to test in The Bible, to see if they are correct, that I have no way of knowing if they are correct or not." Eventually every test, tested to see if God had said it or not, or wheter they were just words put there by others.

No, unfortunately it doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that you were the only person in your experimental group and there was no control group?

Click to expand...

My parents were in the test. The comparison was before and after results. Yes, I did try to handle variables, like the time displacement from the 35 years before hand.

The control group was my parents, both without and with using" Honor thy father and thy mother." Since I did that one anyway on my own, the only change was doing it because it was in the Bible.

Do you see the two sets of results now?

I understand controlled experiments. I both designed and performed controlled experiments in college as well as participated in them as a subject. They were mainly psychological and sociological in nature so that should give me a good base from which to understand the experiments you ran.

Click to expand...

Yes it sounds like you do have the background to understand. I though did most to all of mine in science, but Psychology is science. I hope there is not too much of a difference.

What kind of data did you end up with?

Click to expand...

Hmm. It was a level of satisfaction and peace compared to my same or similar actions, for the previous 35 years.

What kind of data point was erroneous and how did you determine it was in error?

Click to expand...

Any displeasure on their part, for my actions. There were plenty enough before. No, I did not inform them or anyone the test was being conducted.

Can you give a quick summary of the data points?

Click to expand...

All actions done, to honor them, honored them. There was actually ZERO VARIANCE, which you know is impossible normally. The zero variance item was not used, but it made interpreting the data easier.

Also, after the 18 months, when I had enough good bad results, I left that one running. I did not shut down that experiment.
Later, I noticed even though I am not their primary care taker as they aged, all questions about what to do with them in various circumstances came to me. That is a huge change.

No. I still don't understand what experiments you ran or what results you achieved.

Click to expand...

Indeed. In fact Jesus advises us against that very act in Luke 4:12

Click to expand...

Testing of spirits is demanded of us.
Gideon tested.
In James there is a little bit about when you can test, and how you are to handle the results.
There may be more in that book, but I have only worked with some of that, to understand my situation.

Can you describe the experimental results that led you to draw this conclusion?

Click to expand...

Hmmm. When I tested something that I did not understand if it was said by God or not, all of the test results, wihout fail, supported that God actually said those Words.

Have other scientists reviewed these experiments?

Click to expand...

You would think so wouldn't you. I would think so. I have tried and tried to get anyone to review that work. I have only seen it done in piecemeal, meaning one NT, type did the testing part, with the same results.

Do you mean false as in a lie or false as in simply incorrect?

Click to expand...

It is a lie with Satan, and possibly no more than incorrect with Job's two friends. His third friend spoke correctly about God.

I can give examples of incorrect statements in the Bible.

Click to expand...

I meant, lies by Satan and incorrect statements about God from two of Job's three friends.

Hi again,

I hope this helps. Ask away again if you like.

LOVE,
...Mary Kate., .... .

joshua 1 9 said:

One area we are told to test God is in our tithe: "Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it." We are not to test God the way Israel did when they lived in rebellion against Him. In other words do good and see if He does not reward you. Don't do evil to kindle His anger and have to deal with His wrath. Of course the same could be said of any father figure. We are children of God and there is punishments and rewards based on if we are doing good and following after Holiness and Sanctification.

Click to expand...

Nothing to do with his comment.

joshua 1 9 said:

Somewhere around 2036. It really depends on when Pentecost was and when the Holy Spirit was poured out and the church began. The Church age is 2,000 years. Then there is 7 years of tribulation. Then we begin the 1,000 year reign of Christ. If you follow dispensationalism.

Click to expand...

Cool.

I will put in on my calendar.

katerinah1947 said:

You both seem to have background. Are you not aware that consensus is not always correct.

From my life. Here are a few.

Native oxide, silicon dioxide that grows on a wafer of silicon at room temperature is 25 to 50 Ansgtroms thick. (Wrong. It is not. It is neither Silicon Dioxide and it is not that thickness, but it was so consensus driven that it was in my text books and literature of the time.)

Phlogiston, was consensus.

From my life I listed what everyone knew about another item, it was that once Passivated, a chip is not susceptable to mechanical damage. I was told every one knew that. It took me an hour and a half to have presentation quality proofs they were wrong.

SOMETIMES, consensus is wrong. Sometimes.

LOVE,

Click to expand...

First, I'm not sure the information you are giving us is correct.

The statement about silicon dioxide on a silicon wafer has some errors in it. http://scme-nm.org/files/Rainbow_Activity_PG.pdf The layer is silicon dioxide but 15 angstroms thick. Can you give us a citation from your textbook?

Phlogiston was the dominant theory, but it never reached scientific consensus. There was too many problems with the theory, such as the observation that burning metals increased the mass.

Can you please document the "consensus" that passivated chips were not susceptible to mechanical damage? All the information on the web would indicate that they are.

It appears that you are misunderstanding scientific consensus and the fact that it can change. Theories are constantly tested against data. Even such a solidly established theory as round earth is constantly tested by the courses of airplanes and ships. All those courses are plotted based on a round earth. That the planes and ships arrive where and when they are plotted to arrive are more supporting data for round earth.

If you want to challenge a scientific consensus, you cannot do so by saying "sometimes consensus is wrong". You must produce data to show it is wrong. You say you did produce such data about the mechanical damage of passivated chips.

So, if you have another scientific consensus you wish to challenge, then you need to stop the rhetoric and produce the data.

Queller said:

I know that Gideon tested God regarding the fleece and was convinced. I also know that Jesus told Satan not to test God. If you had read my earlier post instead of apparently simply dismissing it, you would have known that already.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Your displeasure in my actions is well founded. I am sorry. I think I was writing and trying to correct that, when you wrote this. I am even sorrier, as you should not have been hurt twice.

Yes it does say you shall not put your God to the test. Look at the context though. Mine context was not even close to that.

LOVE,
...Mary Katie., .... .

joshua 1 9 said:

Abraham was called to come out from among them. The Genesis account was purged of all myths and error. Abraham was called to separate truth from error.

Click to expand...

No Christian tradition has Abraham writing Genesis. The traditional author is Moses. So all this about Abraham is irrelevant.

In fact, scholarship has established that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, either. Genesis 1 was written about 500 BC, either at the end of or shortly after the Babylonian Exile.

katerinah1947 said:

Hi,

I was suspecting that there is too much infighting within the groups for any of them to believe even each other.

A person everyone could agree on believing, might also be unachievalbe. Also a small group even that everyone could believe in, might also be unachievable.

LOVE,

Click to expand...

We see this same effect in Christians. Same Bible, Same Jesus, but fight like cats and dogs. We find common truth and do not stray to far from that. Keeps people happy.

be blessed.

Mike.

Dr GS Hurd said:

My perspective (exaggerated) is that insurance companies are in the business of denying health care.

Click to expand...

In some cases yes, along with;

-Charging the highest premiums they can
-negotiating the lowest reimbursements they can
-creating technicalities, to delay or deny payments, to increase profits

Besides that, they do a great job.

AlexDTX said:

Yes, and there are fossils with organic material still in tact, which means they were fossilized recently. Likewise, in Glenn Rose, Texas there are human fossil footprints inside dinosaur fossil footprints.

Click to expand...

The "fossils with organic material still intact" is referring to 2 papers by Schwietzer and Horner in Science volume 316, published in 2007. They were looking at the marrow cavity of a T. rex fossil. I have PDFs of the papers. There was residual organic material, but it was not "intact". It was incompletely degraded. What is more, the authors accepted a 65 million age of the fossil. You shouldn't decide that a paper says something the authors do not say it says.

There were 2 theories:
1. Fossils are old.
2. Fossils do not have residual organic material. Everything is replaced by rock.

It is the second theory that is wrong, not the first.

The Glenn Rose tracks are not of humans. They are dino. Some of the dino tracks were forged in the Depression by the locals to make the area a tourist attraction, and therefore bring in desperately needed money. Answers in Genesis (a major creationist group) admits the human footprints are a fraud and lists this as one of the arguments creationists should not use.

joshua 1 9 said:

If you plan to go through the tribulation period I would recommend getting a vacation / weekend home off the grid somewhere. It will not really be safe to live in a populated area during those 7 years. Esp the last 3 1/2 years. I do not plan to be here during the tribulation. Sometimes I wonder why your even keeping me alive this long.

Click to expand...

I am keeping you alive?

lucaspa said:

First, I'm not sure the information you are giving us is correct.

The statement about silicon dioxide on a silicon wafer has some errors in it. http://scme-nm.org/files/Rainbow_Activity_PG.pdf The layer is silicon dioxide but 15 angstroms thick. Can you give us a citation from your textbook?

Phlogiston was the dominant theory, but it never reached scientific consensus. There was too many problems with the theory, such as the observation that burning metals increased the mass.

Can you please document the "consensus" that passivated chips were not susceptible to mechanical damage? All the information on the web would indicate that they are.

It appears that you are misunderstanding scientific consensus and the fact that it can change. Theories are constantly tested against data. Even such a solidly established theory as round earth is constantly tested by the courses of airplanes and ships. All those courses are plotted based on a round earth. That the planes and ships arrive where and when they are plotted to arrive are more supporting data for round earth.

If you want to challenge a scientific consensus, you cannot do so by saying "sometimes consensus is wrong". You must produce data to show it is wrong. You say you did produce such data about the mechanical damage of passivated chips.

So, if you have another scientific consensus you wish to challenge, then you need to stop the rhetoric and produce the data.

Click to expand...

Hi,

My main point is I should not have to use terms, like consesus that I am unfamiliar with. Graduating in 1969, has a different set of words and tools than exist now.

I don't have MatLab. I didn't have a computer. I didn't have a calculator. I had a slide rule. The generation then, I think did not use words like consensus, they may now.

One man was sure, before he found out, I was no researcher as he asked me what a bench test was, and I had no idea.

Where do things like bench test or consensus come in, to say anything now about what was typically done in the 70's 80's 90's etc.

Am I not what I say I am, because Jim Early, or Bruce Deal, of Bob Fairman or Ted Kamins, or Cliff Drowly, or Paul Zorabeian, or Jim Gibbons , or CC Yang, or Wei Pe Chou and others did not use those terms.

Ted Kamins teaches at Standford now, and because he did not use that set of words around me, nor Ariel Flatt, or Ara Gevondian and others, because they don't use those words, and neither do I, am I supposed to be wrong now by your estimation and others here?

Fine.

LOVE,

Also what is the date of your text on SiO2. I finished that work before 1990. It was well passed on after that, I would say.

Hi Again,

http://www.microtechweb.com/kb/sio_etch.htm

slow etching bath is preferred for opening mask windows for a silicon substrate. However, the etching process could be used just for removing the oxide film from the whole surface. In this case the etching speed is not critical, and a fast solution can be used, such as HF diluited 1:10 in water. The etching time can be easily evaluated by visually inspecting the surface. Once the oxide film is removed, the metal-grey color of the silicon surface appears.

Sometimes a very light etch is required, for removing just a few atomic layers. This is the case of surface cleaning and decontamination. HF diluited 1 : 50 in water can be used. The etching speed will be around 70 Å / min. For example, a typical 50 Å "native" oxide on silicon can be removed with a 45 - 50 sec light etch.

Note that both BHF and diluited HF must be handled and used only in polyethylene or Teflon containers. Any glass material would be etched as well. This, besides the potential danger for the operator, would be a pollution source for the etching.

LOVE,

ScottA said:

There is so much more to be contributed to truth. Why would you stop at physical evidence?

Click to expand...

Because dreams, and hallucinations are not reliable.

bhsmte said:

Or, classes in how to perform psychological gymnastics.

Click to expand...

Good point. One should define a steadfast belief in an unreality, as psychological gymnastics. Or brainwashing. Or deception. But then again...that wouldn't happen with what is already unseen. Ha! Imagine a magician working a blind audience!