How old is the earth and the sun?

joshua 1 9 said:

God gave us science and God gave us the Bible, so they really can not contradict because God can not contradict Himself.

Click to expand...

You need to read the first quote in my signature. It's not "the Bible" that is contradicted by God's Creation, but rather human interpretations of the Bible.

We need Science to understand the Bible and Science needs the Bible to help them to verify their results.

Click to expand...

Neither one. I can understand the Parable of the Prodigal Son quite well without any science. Science doesn't help. Likewise, the original message of Genesis 1 has nothing to do with science. Yes, Genesis 1 is set in the best "science" of the day -- Babylonian -- but that science has nothing to do with understanding what the authors were trying to say.

OTOH, science is "verified" solely by experience of the physical universe. It does not need the Bible at all. I am writing a paper showing that the human adult stem cells I work with are not immunorejected even when placed in a rat. What part of the Bible is going to "verify" my results?

That is why before Darwin they studied both Science and the Bible. Of course they did not have as much to study. You could become a doctor with only two year of school.

Click to expand...

240 years before Darwin Francis Bacon wrote of people trying to construct science from the Bible. Please read it carefully:

"For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy [science]on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy [science] but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm

The result of what you are doing is not only bad science, but it is heretical religion.

Justatruthseeker said:

That's a logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Click to expand...

You have your logical fallacies confused. What I did was not an Argument ad Populum (appeal to popularity) but an Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority).

In this case, whether silicon is consumed via oxidation, it is not a logical fallacy because:

1. The group to which I am appealing has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
   
2. The claim being made by the group is within their area of expertise.
   
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the group regarding the subject in question.
4. The group in question is not significantly biased.
5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
6. The authority in question must be identified. (and they are, as noted experts in silicon consumption via oxidation)

Science once believed the Milky-Way was the entire universe. They didn't lie to anyone intentionally - they just believed they were right because the majority agreed with them.

Click to expand...

And in this post, you claimed that "Scientists once got Nobel prizes for discovering the milky-Way was the entire universe."

You have steadfastly refused to identify any scientist that received a Nobel prize for discovering that the Milky Way was the entire universe. I wonder why?

The majority thinks it takes millions of years for oil to form.

Click to expand...

The majority appear to be correct that in nature, it does take millions of years for oil to form.

Recent experimental data might say otherwise,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm

Click to expand...

No, that's how long it takes for oil to be formed under laboratory conditions. I'm not aware of any natural chemical reactors that take in a wet algae slurry and produce oil, water, and a byproduct stream of material containing phosphorus that can be recycled to grow more algae.

Do you know of any such natural chemical reactor?

And no - this is not an argument for a young earth - just that the majority is not always correct. In fact every few hundred years or so we have a complete paradigm shift in scientific belief - because the majority is always wrong and one man upsets the apple cart. We are overdue - but this round of scientists ignore all the observations unlike all the other eras in which they admitted to their mistakes. So the paradigm shift has been delayed.

Click to expand...

The majority is always wrong?

Should you really be making such unsupportable statements?

joshua 1 9 said:

Do you question Gerald Schroeder PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences from MIT?

Click to expand...

Very much so. Schroeder does some horrendous physics. BTW, he is not an earth scientist. He was never educated in geology.

Or Kurt Wise PhD in geology from Harvard University?

Click to expand...

Again, very much so. He insists on a young earth despite all the data to the contrary. And no, it is not just a "different interpretation" of the same data. Wise simply pretends, as you do, that data does not exist.

Do you question the degree of Geneticist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project?

Click to expand...

Dr. Collins is very careful to keep his faith and his science separate. He never tries to "prove" his faith by science. And he has never made misstatements about the genetic data or theories. Yes, he is a devout Christian. He states he has found nothing in science to contradict his Christian faith, and I agree with that. But he has also never tried, like Schroeder or Wise, to say Genesis 1-3 is an accurate history of the universe. Specifically, Dr. Collins has never stated that humans were specially created in their present form.

As I was saying said:

Have you ever been around professors of theology?

Click to expand...

Yes. And Priests, Monks, Preachers and ordained Ministers.

How many scientists do you visit regularly?

Here is a suggestion for Christian Clergy you should consult;

The Clergy Letter Project

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,

A reference with the native oxide thickness. It is at the bottom.
http://www.microtechweb.com/kb/sio_etch.htm

LOVE,

ScottA said:

He's not deceiving us, He is deceiving the tares among us. Are you going to believe in the deceptions meant for them?

All things are "created." So is the deceptive evidence. Don't believe it, lest ye be deceived.

Click to expand...

That response is a bit out of the context I intended in my response. I don't think God is a deceiver because I know the earth is not 6,000 years old. However, if it were only 6,000 years old, as creation science says, then he would be a deceiver.

True, Christian tradition has Moses writing the Pentateuch. In biblical studies, however, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch went out the window years and years ago. The Pentateuch is now seen as having at least four sources. In some cases the are major contradicti0ns, for example Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 on the chronology of creation. Different authors, different traditions. Different times.

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 "human+dino" tracks are frauds. See, "Carl Baugh's many frauds."

AlexDTX said:

Yes, and there are fossils with organic material still in tact, which means they were fossilized recently.

Click to expand...

The "organic matter" does not prove "they were fossilized recently."

Justatruthseeker said:

Science once believed the Milky-Way was the entire universe. They didn't lie to anyone intentionally - they just believed they were right because the majority agreed with them.

Click to expand...

That is not why they thought our galaxy was the entire universe. It was not because "the majority agreed with them".

The reason was that their telescopes were not powerful enough to discern that distant galaxies were galaxies. In the telescopes, they appeared to be stars.

The majority thinks it takes millions of years for oil to form.

Recent experimental data might say otherwise,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm

Click to expand...

You don't believe much in the 9th Commandment, do you?

Let's look at the title to that article:
"Algae to crude oil: Million-year natural process takes minutes in the lab"

So no, the article is not saying that oil formed in the earth forms more quickly. That still takes millions of years. Instead, the researchers are using algae in a lab, not organic remains buried in the earth.
And no - this is not an argument for a young earth - just that the majority is not always correct.

In fact every few hundred years or so we have a complete paradigm shift in scientific belief

Click to expand...

No we don't. For one thing, even Kuhn abandoned the term "paradigm shift" because it was wrong. But the major thing is that the changes are local. Kepler's laws of planetary motion are 400 years old and no change. Boyle's laws of gasses are still valid. Erasthones showed the earth was round a couple of hundred years BC, so it is has been 2,300 years without a "paradigm shift" there. The last shifts that truly revolutionized our fundamental view of the universe were Relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet you seem to have no problem with those "paradigm shifts". Of course, that was about 100 years ago. You say "few hundred years or so". So by your calendar, we have at least 100 years to go before there is another. So how can you say the next change has "been delayed" when it isn't even due for a 100 years?

but this round of scientists ignore all the observations unlike all the other eras in which they admitted to their mistakes. So the paradigm shift has been delayed.

Click to expand...

Instead, what you are really saying is that scientists are ignoring your interpretation of the Bible. Scientists are not ignoring data when they falsify your ideas. Instead, scientists are using the data. It is you who are ignoring observations.

Before they were interested in the truth - now they are simply interested in upholding their beliefs.

Click to expand...

And what "beliefs" do you think those are? As you noted Francis Collins is Christian. So is Kenneth Miller, and he is a very outspoken anti-creationist. At least 40% of scientists are theists. So what beliefs do you think they are "upholding".

Let me propose an alternative: you are engaging in psychological projection. You are attributing to scientists all the things you do. I have seen you mangle the Bible and mangle science to uphold your beliefs.

As I was saying said:

Sounds to me that atheists and evolutionists do exactly the same thing. I am quite sure that if God wanted me to know everything in detail without any deviance from the truth he would make sure that this would happen.

Click to expand...

Why do you put atheists and people who accept evolution in the same basket? Many people who accept evolution are Christians. What you are not recognizing is that science has nothing to do with any religion one way or the other. There is nothing in the mainstream scientific literature that says there is no God.

RickG said:

Why do you put atheists and people who accept evolution in the same basket? Many people who accept evolution are Christians. What you are not recognizing is that science has nothing to do with any religion one way or the other. There is nothing in the mainstream scientific literature that says there is no God.

Click to expand...

He can't accept, that the majority of Christians agree with evolution.

As I was saying said:

I did a search on google "does God exist" and the first site that came up set about proving that he did exist purely from a scientific perspective with no reference to religious thoughts or evidence, so there you go.

Click to expand...

Oh that's not true.

bhsmte said:

He can't accept, that the majority of Christians agree with evolution.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. The "there not true Christians" attitude.

katerinah1947 said:

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

Click to expand...

Thank you for acknowledging that. It is refreshing.

It cannot be done without a Fear of The Lord, because that it is a condtion of testing God.

Click to expand...

Says who? Do you have scriptural support for that claim? Because my understanding of the relevant Bible verses is that only those that have faith in God are allowed to test Him.

No one is allowed to do a foolish test. And, fool in the Bible is defined by one without a fear of The Lord.

Click to expand...

I don't think you're interpreting Proverbs 1:7 correctly.

Thus, that is just one of the test conditions.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately this condition is not imposed on the experiment for scientific reasons but simply because you believe it should be so.

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.

Click to expand...

Or maybe the information is there but you don't know how to find it?

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.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand me. I was not claiming that accidental work or discoveries are not scientific. I am claiming that never being able to question the results because you believe they come from God is not scientific. After all, Gideon questioned the results of the first fleece test, did he not?

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.

Click to expand...

OK. Can you answer my questions now?

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?

Your thought processes on how you came to decide to conduct these experiments, while illuminating, are not what I am looking for. I am interested only in the specific details of the experiment.

My parents were in the test. The comparison was before and after results.

Click to expand...

Before and after what?

Yes, I did try to handle variables, like the time displacement from the 35 years before hand.

Click to expand...

In a proper controlled experiment there are only two variables, the independent variable which is the only factor that is allowed to be adjusted, and the dependent variable which is the factor that the independent variable will affect.

The control group was my parents, both without and with using" Honor thy father and thy mother."

Click to expand...

By definition then, your parents were part of the experimental group because the independent variable was used on them.

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?

Click to expand...

No, because you have presented any results. You haven't even told me what your hypothesis was that you were trying to support or disprove.

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.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this paragraph.

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

Click to expand...

And how did you objectively determine your levels of satisfaction and peace at the time of the experiment vs the previous 35 years?

Any displeasure on their part, for my actions.

Click to expand...

Displeasure on their part regarding your actions was an error? How do you know that it was not simply them not liking something you did to honor them?

There were plenty enough before. No, I did not inform them or anyone the test was being conducted.

All actions done, to honor them, honored them. There was actually ZERO VARIANCE, which you know is impossible normally.

Click to expand...

Umm, no. Zero variance is in no way impossible. It simply that all results are identical and there is no standard deviation in the results.

The zero variance item was not used, but it made interpreting the data easier.

Click to expand...

If the only data indicated there was zero variance and you did not use that data (how can it be only one data point over an 19-month experiement) then you would be left with no data to interpret.

Also, after the 18 months, when I had enough good bad results,

Click to expand...

??? If your data had zero variance, how can you describe some results as good and some as bad?

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.

Click to expand...

Really? It has been my personal and professional experience that when one family member has been the primary caregiver for a substantial length of time, questions regarding care almost always go to that person first, as they are most likely to be the one with first hand knowledge of the patient's desires?

Testing of spirits is demanded of us.

Click to expand...

As I said to Joshua19, testing of spirits is not the same as testing God.

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.

Click to expand...

According to the Bible, the only time it is acceptable to test God is when you already have faith in Him.

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.

Click to expand...

Your conclusion does not follow from your results. The fact that you honored your parents (how?), they appreciated it (as determined by?), and you therefore felt good about yourself (if I am understanding your experiment correctly) does not mean that God is real. The Laws of Manu (Hindu) states that

"The trouble that a mother and father endure in giving birth to human beings cannot be redeemed even in a hundred years. He should constantly do what pleases the two of them" The Laws of Manu 2:227-228

You experiment therefore provides just as much evidence that Manu is real as it does that God is real.

You would think so wouldn't you. I would think so. I have tried and tried to get anyone to review that work.

Click to expand...

Did you provide them with with any documented results for review? Were they experienced in the type of psycho-social experimentation that you engaged in and have some expertise in interpreting and evaluating the results?

I have only seen it done in piecemeal, meaning one NT, type did the testing part, with the same results.

Click to expand...

I don't know what an NT is in this context. At first I though it meant a New Testament type, but that didn't make any sense.

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

Click to expand...

I did not address your comments about Job, his friends, and Satan.

My question regarding false as in lie or false as in incorrect came in response to this statement:

"Where are false words, in the Bible?.?????"

Thank you for answering some of my questions. Will you please continue?

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...

Irrelevant. You said:

"test the spirits to see whether they are from God. "

Testing spirits is not testing God.