Creation started with nothing?

[razzelflabben]

Yes, we know what your claim is. You also linked to this article saying that it supported this claim. But the article does not support this claim. At least you have not shown that it does.

it supports the claim that the limitations and variables in our dating methods leave a greater margin of error than a biased scientist would suggest or accept. consider this in the entire discussion as it unfolded. I told you that the evidence I had for a biased science was not longer available to me. So why then would you even think for a second that I would present this article as evidence for bias? That is absurd! If the evidence I am referring to is no longer accessable, then it is no longer accessable. Period. Move on. So we move on and see the claim that the limitations and variables of our dating methods are such that someone who wants to believe them to be accurate at least to a point would do so. Thus, in context, we are building on the previous idea to show that there are many margins of error and the more vaiables and the more limitations the greater our chance for error. The articles presented a nutshell version of these variables and limitations. thus the articles supported my claims that the limitations and variables leave us with a greater margin of error than we can accurately calculate through math problems.

The article mentions variations and limitations. Where does it say these are a problem for accuracy, at least for the degree of accuracy claimed by scientists? Scientists already acknowledge that the measurments are not absolutely accurate.

the more limitations and variables that exist the more margin or error. Thus the analogy of the 12 inch ruler. This method is the 12 inch ruler and math calculations simply cannot by their very nature tell us how accurately our measurements will be. Thus scientists can calculate how closely they thing they can age the earth but their calculations will always reveal their bias, whether evolution or creation because very simply stated, math calculations cannot evaluate every limitation and variable possible in our aging methods. Now it has already been stated and supported by evolutionist scientists on this forum (though I cannot access the evidence at this time) that science in this case in biased toward evolution, therefore, the calculations would include the lowest number of variables and limitations that would pass a board of peers. Thus the actual margin of error would be greater. (Now let me take a moment to say that the other is true as well, a creationist would calculate more variables into the equasion, to make their point. But I am taking the devils advocate argument here and arguing for young earth, therefore I do not need to point this out in debate, that is what you should be doing, pointing out that the bias works both ways. )

Where does the article suggest that the errors are being downplayed? Where does the article conclude that the margin of error is greater that we are being led to believe?

The articles shows that the limitations and variables exist. At one point in this discussion, you claimed the methods had no limitations and so I showed you an article that showed that limitation. Thus my claim was satisfied. You, instead of accepting the correction turned it into claims that you wanted me to make because you have been taught how to defeat those claims. This whole argument between evolution and creation reminds me of the liberal vs. conservative mumbo jumbo on the radio where one famous conservative says, I will teach you how to defeat a liberal.....all the while doing so requires canned answers by the liberal. It the answer is different, the person taught what to say or answer must do one of two things, 1. twist the answer to be similar enough to the canned response to pass as something that sounds intelligent, or 2. pretend it wasn't said and move on in hopes of finding an answer that is close enough to the canned to play the card that was taught. You and most of the evolutionists on this forum, (I have only discussed with a couple of creationists here so I don't know if they fit this category or not) do this, you either twist arguments to fit your canned response or you ignore it til you come to a place that you can put your argument into the discussion to show how intelligent you are. Problem is, you never deal with the issue presented because you are too busy trying to use your education to defeat what you are hoping someone else argues and btw, that is the classic response of people who have been indoctrinated rather than taught. someone who has been taught, will come up with new thoughts, opinions, discussions, suggestions, ideas, arguments, etc. The indoctrinated must force everything into the box they have been taught to believe in.

You did. Twice. And I have shown you twice where you said "unreliable". You introduced the term. You made the claim.

Remember our 12 inch ruler? If we use it to measure the earth, our final answer will be unreliable because the variables and limitations of the measure will be uncalculatable to any reliable degree. Thus, we must rely on our bias to calculate the variables and not on what is actually happening. Thus the tests are unreliable, but not in terms of making a prediction, but rather in terms of how accurately we can predict the conclusions. I know when put into context, that is clear.

"Flaws" is your word as per post 172. Limitations and variables are only flaws when they are ignored. Where does the article claim they are being ignored?

You know what, you are twisting things so bad you don't even know what you are saying anymore. The articles was not introduced to support everything I have said throughout this thread, rather that the limitations and variables exist to such a degree that calculating them accurately would not be possible. The article showed many of these variables and limitations and that is all I needed to do at that point in the discussion. Show the magnitude of the limitations and variables.

One of the evolutionists ploys is to dismiss any science that is creation in nature. But if you present evidence to support a claim that is evolutionist in nature, then one of two things happens 1. as you are doing here, you are told that the opinions of the author are not shared by your argument therefore you have evidenced nothing. or 2. you ignore the evidence in exchange for the conclusion presented. Thus there is created a no win situation. This by the way is evidence of bias but we'll ignore that for the moment. Much of the evidence that exists supports creation both old earth and young earth. In fact, if it didn't you couldn't be a theistic evolutionist. So my advice to you is put away your indoctrination and start thinking for yourself. It's just like the debate over evolution the process. Gen. supports this idea that life changes (shorthand version of evolution the process) and so any evidence that supports evolution the process will support Gen. where the disagreement comes in is within (note the word within, not indicating this is the disagreement but rather that that disagreement lies somewhere in the boundries of said) ((said refering to what the disagreement is within, which at this point has not been stated)) the theory of evolution.

Again, no one disputes inaccuracies in general. All measurements are approximate to some degree. But if I understand your claim, it is that the measurements are more inaccurate than scientists acknowledge. Where does the article concur in that?

The articles lays forth limitations and variables that cannot be accurately measured by any methods available today. That being the case, we must revert back to our basic understanding of calculations. Our discussion on that was relatively lengthy remember? So the evidence of the article is not the opinion of one man, but rather the limitations and variables that exist in the method of measure. We then take this evidence to the next level of discussion. Calculations. But first I have to evidence the limitations and variables that exist and to what magnitude they might exist. The article does this. After you accept this part of the argument we need to move on, but like usual, you get hung up on the obvious, because you are too afraid that you will go down a path you don't know how to argue.

 

[razzelflabben]

It means you have not presented the evidence and cannot present the evidence. Therefore the evidence has not been presented.

so if you understand what was said, what do you gain from insisting that it be said again, and insisting it again in such a way that would lead others to assume that it wasn't said it the first place. This type of arguing is deceptive word plays that are common with the evolutionists and has been discussed when we talked about the interchanging of the word evolution with the theory of evolution.

OK. gotcha. Now concerning the last part "we haven't yet looked deeper into the text to see if we could eliminate any from the context of the text."

I take this to mean that when we don't have an obvious absolute, it does not mean the absolute is not there. But we need to study the text more deeply to determine if some of the possibilities can be eliminated. The one remaining (if we can get down to just one) is then an absolute. Is that right?

An absolute of the text, we would still need to determine if it was an absolute in science.

OK. I am a wee bit confused again. Are you saying that in this case we can't even look for an absolute? What about if the text is not absolute but science is?

You are more than a wee bit confused. If we want to know if the bible Gen. in particular and science are compatable, we need to start by looking at the absolutes in scripture or the text. So where do we start? We start with the absolutes. Is man made from dust? Can light exist without fire or apparent source for that matter. Some time ago, years and years so don't ask for the article, I read a scientific paper that said that absolute darkness was not possible. Now it was long enough ago that it might be now, I don't know, but the suggestion to us is that light exists outside the things we know to produce light. This concept is an absolute in the Gen. account and thus without falsifying evidence would indeed be scientific evidence to support Gen. so what is the new evidence on this topic? Is absolute darkness possible? If so, does it exist in our natural world or only in a manufactured world? Explore the absolutes, not the variable. The variables come only after the absolutes and we see this in the testing for age you have been going on about. We deal with what we know before we even start calculating what we don't know. Do the same here, deal with what we know before we even begin to calculate what we don't know.

What? The horse is supposed to be before the cart. But this, to me, is putting the cart before the horse. How can we conclude humanity is unique if we do not identify at least one characteristic unique to humanity? What is it that sets humanity apart as unique? What does the text say?

Well, I made a typo, hush my mouth..... Anyway, that man is unique has been accepted for who knows how long, but what sets man apart has been studied by all different diciplines. Some say, our degree of cognitive thinking sets us apart, some say a soul, (I think these are the two prominate theories at the moment) not everyone agrees about what is unique about man but what all agree is that something sets us apart.

If we establish that man is unique, then we can look at the text that predicts this and ask it how is man unique. We can then test what it suggests sets man apart to see if it is once again consistant with science. In fact, I am so baffeled by your shuffleing of your feet here that I am all but speechless. I don't think I have ever read, heard, talked with anyone before who questioned the conclusion that man is somehow unique. Are you afraid that admitting man to be unique would somehow question your beliefs? Your conclusions? your point in this discussion?

Tall order, but I will try. The general topic here is 1) whether things exist that appear old even though they are not and 2) whether this old-seeming appearance is required to support life.

These are the items we have considered. They all meet criterion 1) above. They all speak of age either in themselves or in the things they measure. None of them appear to meet criterion 2). None of them seem to need to look old to support life.

1. extinct fossil species (e.g. trilobites, ammonites, etc.)

Actually, the point of age is that old or young is a relative term. What is old to one argument might be young to another so two things must be addressed before this argument can be made. One the variables in our aging process, and two what constitutes young or old. At one point you showed the young earth at about 7,000 years, I suggested at your request of what I think the young earth age to be, that many biblical scholars would question this because of gaps in the geneology. The general reference to a young earth differs from an old earth in the termonolgy of thousands of years vs. millions of years, so then, you must show fossils to be millions of years old with accurate measure before this argument has any weight. You have failed to so, if I missed it, feel free to review.

2. seasonal changes (varves, tree rings, ice cores)

Actually, to my recollection there is no set creationist time for young earth. Thus young earth is measured in thousands of years not millions, thus thing like varves, tree rings, and ice cores don't present the argument you want them to. In addition to this flaw in your argument, we don't have tests that conclusively tell us if the vaves, tree rings or ice cores have a purpose for supporting life. The tests simply haven't been done. So your two for two, let's see if your average gets any better. I would hate to have no better arguments than this to present, glad it's your arguments and not mine.

In terms of criterion 2) their appearance of age is not related to supporting life. Life could survive just as well with only 6,000 varves in the Green River Formation as with 40,000. Life could survive just as well with tree rings that go back only 1,000 years instead of 10,000 years. Life does not require that ice cores show more than 6,000 seasons of winter and summer though in fact they show into the hundreds of thousands of annual cycles.

This has not yet been established by your own admission, those tests have not yet been done. Without the tests, your conclusions are nothing more than opinion.

Now I was going to leave it at this, but your argument is so flawed, that I must go on, the young earth senerio is as suggested we go somewhere between the two extremes of definition still well within the defintion of thousands of years not millions of each of these aging methods. The greatest here is 40,000 which isn't even the half way mark yet to what is allowed in the actual definition of young earth creation. So three for three, I am not impressed.

3. radioactive decay

Actually radioactive dating requires that we only allow the premise that the bible cannot be accurate. Consider the paper reference by laptoppop, our dating radioactive dating methods require the atmosphere of the earth to be relatively consistant, but you yourself presented the posibility (in the extinction of the dinos) that our atmosphere could quite possibly have at various times been so different at to create accuracy problems for radioactive dating. Thus the test is by your admission not accurate.

4. ancient super-novas

we are still discussing this one, because if our premise is that light exists apart form sun, moon and stars, we don't know for sure what we are seeing or how long ago it happened. This so far is your best argument but is far from conclusive in that you haven't even yet addressed the issue of light not being equal to fire, that they can exist apart from each other.

If the universe is only a few thousand years old, there was no star there a billion years ago to go supernova. Therefore no super-nova occurred. Therefore we should not see any such supernova. Clearly the star was not essential to supporting life on earth. Especially since it no longer exists.

actually according to Gen. the purpose of the stars is to measure time. Therefore a much stronger argument to support your claim would be that a supernovas job would be to measure time, but you can't use that argument because I had to spoon feed it to you. You have to come up with your own arguments for this discussion to have value, otherwise it is just a monolog and so far, I have given you two arguments to support your claims, that is enough.

5. ancient meteor and/or asteroid impacts on the earth and moon

Actually, we have two issues, one is general dating, an issue you still haven't addressed, and two how old the crators are.

This argument goes against the appearance of age argument. The appearance of age argument agrees that things really do look old

Let's see if I can explain this with one of your favorite techniques: a story-analogy. You are familiar, no doubt, with the stories in which someone is given an impossible, or very difficult task---like the girl who was commanded to spin straw into gold. So here's a story of one such task: Not impossible, but very difficult.

There are twin brothers: Mo and Jo and the king gives them this task. He has a ten-litre container that he wants to fill with water. The problem is that the only opening in the container is an extremely small one, so that the only way to get water into it is with a very small eye-dropper. He does not want the container damaged or the opening enlarged in any way. What is the minimum time it will take to fill the container?

and what happens to the results when jo comes back with a funnel that fits the oppening and then Mo comes along with a hose a starts siphoning the water in It's all about margin of error when we are talking about calculations.

I am still puzzled as to what you are talking about. So someone says "evolution, the process, is fact, but evolution, the theory of how it happens is theory". Nothing wrong with that, unless the person is using an incorrect definition of "theory". So maybe that is where the problem in communication lies.

same definitions used by everyone in the discussion. The problem is in the illusion that something is being said that isnt really being said. You and almost every evolutionist I have talked with on this forum have participated in this illusion at one time or another and denying it won't change the fact. So how about we get back to the topic at hand.?

But we do know what the environment was millions and billions of years ago. There are all kinds of clues in the geological record that tell us about the changes in the environment over time. We also know what environmental factors can alter the rate of radioactive decay and how to identify when and where those factors occur, so that they can be taken into account when necessary.

I think you are just seriously under-informed about what science already knows.

actually, you are right, I was under informed which is why I took the time to do a brief websearch and found that the information presented as well as a host more all show an increasing study for accuracy and questioning the previously held conclusions. Which is what I have been suggesting all along, that the conclusions are not as accurate as we would like to think they are.

The speed of light is measured by measuring the speed of the light we see. It does not depend on any assumption about the source of the light.

right which is why the measure of light to identify a supernova does not evidence a supernova, because, it is measureing the light not the source.

Does this mean that no light comes from the stars?

answer a question with a question. Is fire necessary for light to exist? or is light necessary for fire to exist? They are not one and the same and as such cannot be identified as one and the same.

No, it isn't formless. It has an irregular form in that it cannot be described as a circle or a cube or even a "complicated spaghetti-like" form. And because it is liquidy, it can adapt its form to its environment. It can change its form. So you can describe the form of slime as complex, irregular and changeable. But you are still describing a form, not formlessness.

form·less play_w("F0266200") (fôrm

l

s)adj.1. Having no definite form; shapeless. See Synonyms at shapeless.
2. Lacking order.
3. Having no material existence.

which definition does the bible use? Give evidence as to how we know what definition the bible uses.

I did not claim point 1 was incorrect. I only said the text tells us that when the earth was created it was formless. I understand that to mean it had not yet taken any shape and could not be identified with anything we would now call a planet. The planetary form of the earth did not exist when earth was created.

see above.

I do dispute point 2. The text does not say that the day on which light and dark were created is the same time as "in the beginning" when the heavens and earth were created. This is the creation of the first day and occurs after the heavens and earth were created.

No, I am only suggesting that light was created before the earth was given form, not before the earth was created.

cool so you changed your claim that light was created before the earth. Now we can get somewhere. Thanks for changing your claim to fit the evidence.

That's fine. We've got that. Now, does that mean the stars are never the source of light?

see above

 

[gluadys]

it [the article] supports the claim that the limitations and variables in our dating methods leave a greater margin of error than a biased scientist would suggest or accept.

thus the articles supported my claims that the limitations and variables leave us with a greater margin of error than we can accurately calculate through math problems.

Thus the actual margin of error would be greater.

The articles was not introduced to support everything I have said throughout this thread, rather that the limitations and variables exist to such a degree that calculating them accurately would not be possible.

The articles lays forth limitations and variables that cannot be accurately measured by any methods available today.

I have highlighted the part of your statements for which you claim support in the article, but for which I can find no support in the article.

If that support exists in the article, please show specifically where it is said that 1) the margin of error is greater than claimed or can be accurately calculated. Please show specifically where the article says 2) the limitatons and variables cannot be accurately measured or calculated

the more limitations and variables that exist the more margin or error.

Even if true (and I am not sure it is) that doesn't mean the margin of error is greater than represented or cannot be accurately measured.

The articles shows that the limitations and variables exist.

Yes, and that is all that it showed. It did not show the additional claims you have said it did.

The article showed many of these variables and limitations and that is all I needed to do at that point in the discussion. Show the magnitude of the limitations and variables.

No, to support your claims you not only need to show the magnitude of the limitations and variables. You need to show that the article says they are greater than claimed and cannot be accurately measured.

But first I have to evidence the limitations and variables that exist and to what magnitude they might exist.

Specifically you have to show the article says they are greater than claimed and cannot be accurately measured

The article does this.

I am still waiting to be shown where it does so.

 

[gluadys]

so if you understand what was said, what do you gain from insisting that it be said again, and insisting it again in such a way that would lead others to assume that it wasn't said it the first place.

It means we have only hearsay testimony that it was said, and, as you know, hearsay testimony is not permitted as evidence.

An absolute of the text, we would still need to determine if it was an absolute in science.

Technically, science does not produce support for its theories that is absolute. But it can absolutely falsify a claim. So the only absolute we might get from science is that the absolute in the text is scientifically false. We could also get a provisional indication that the absolute in the text is not scientifically false.

You are more than a wee bit confused.

Sorry, this paragraph doesn't really address my concerns. Let me separate the questions and take them one at a time.

1. In reference to the age of the earth (for which we have three possibilities in the text) are you saying this is a case where we cannot look for an absolute? Is there no hope of eliminating one or two of these possibilities and getting to an absolute in the text?

2. Supposing that we cannot get to an absolute in the text, but do get to an absolute in science, what then? e.g the text permits both old and young earth interpretations, but science permits only an old earth interpretation. Does this affect the interpretation of the text?

Well, I made a typo, hush my mouth....

No sweat. We all make errors from time to time. Not so bad admitting it once in a while, is it?

. Anyway, that man is unique has been accepted for who knows how long, but what sets man apart has been studied by all different diciplines. Some say, our degree of cognitive thinking sets us apart, some say a soul, (I think these are the two prominate theories at the moment) not everyone agrees about what is unique about man but what all agree is that something sets us apart.

Yes, that is the sort of thing I was looking for. We don't just state out of the blue that humanity is unique. We say (in various disciplines) "humanity is unique because of characteristic x or y or z, etc."

I don't think I have ever read, heard, talked with anyone before who questioned the conclusion that man is somehow unique.

Oh, I never questioned the conclusion. I just questioned the idea that we could get to the conclusion without any idea of what "unique" means.

Actually, the point of age is that old or young is a relative term. What is old to one argument might be young to another so two things must be addressed before this argument can be made. One the variables in our aging process, and two what constitutes young or old. At one point you showed the young earth at about 7,000 years,

Personally I am not making any claim as to how young a young earth would be. I am just relying on figures I have heard from those who support the concept of a young earth.

The general reference to a young earth differs from an old earth in the termonolgy of thousands of years vs. millions of years

the young earth senerio is as suggested we go somewhere between the two extremes of definition still well within the defintion of thousands of years not millions of each of these aging methods. [varves, tree rings, ice cores]

Thus young earth is measured in thousands of years not millions

So without specifying a particular number (such as 6 or 7 or 10 or 50) the maximum age for a young earth would be less than a million years?

Would a young earth scenario permit hundreds of thousands of years or only tens of thousands of years?

1. extinct fossil species (e.g. trilobites, ammonites, etc.)


Actually, the point of age is that old or young is a relative term. What is old to one argument might be young to another so two things must be addressed before this argument can be made. One the variables in our aging process, and two what constitutes young or old. At one point you showed the young earth at about 7,000 years, I suggested at your request of what I think the young earth age to be, that many biblical scholars would question this because of gaps in the geneology. The general reference to a young earth differs from an old earth in the termonolgy of thousands of years vs. millions of years, so then, you must show fossils to be millions of years old with accurate measure before this argument has any weight. You have failed to so, if I missed it, feel free to review.

OK, rebutting the rebuttal.

You have to decide whether you are favoring an appearance of age argument or an inaccurate dating argument. You cannot do both at the same time. The appearance of age argument is based on the assumption that the dating is correct and these things do really look old.

Now, the question is, why do they look old if the earth is young?

Instead of answering this question, you switch from an appearance of age argument to an inaccurate dating argument. But this argument assumes that there is no appearance of age. You have ducked out of the logic of the appearance of age argument by changing the premise.

2. seasonal changes (varves, tree rings, ice cores)

So three for three, I am not impressed.

You are miscounting. I don't admit we have no evidence that these are unnecessary to support life. But otherwise I will give this to you, as most of the dates determined by them do fall within a range some supporters of a young earth find acceptable.

3. radioactive decay

Actually radioactive dating requires that we only allow the premise that the bible cannot be accurate.

Radiometric dating does not require any premise about the bible at all.

Consider the paper reference by laptoppop, our dating radioactive dating methods require the atmosphere of the earth to be relatively consistant,

Only carbondating is affected by changes in the atmosphere. Other methods of radiometric dating are not affected by atmospheric changes.

but you yourself presented the posibility (in the extinction of the dinos) that our atmosphere could quite possibly have at various times been so different at to create accuracy problems for radioactive dating

And carbondating is not used for millions of years, nor can it be used to date fossilized material. (Fossilized "bones" are not made of bone any more, but of minerals and carbon dating cannot be used on minerals.) So the sensitivity of carbondating to atmospheric changes is irrelevant to dating dinosaur fossils. Those are dated by other measures that are not affected by atmospheric changes.

. Thus the test is by your admission not accurate.

On the contrary, you have only demonstrated that you don't know much about radiometric dating, especially the tests that do not depend on radiocarbon decay.

Still only 1 out of 3 successfully (if partially) rebutted.

4. ancient super-novas

we are still discussing this one, because if our premise is that light exists apart form sun, moon and stars, we don't know for sure what we are seeing or how long ago it happened. This so far is your best argument but is far from conclusive in that you haven't even yet addressed the issue of light not being equal to fire, that they can exist apart from each other.

As far as I know, a super-nova only occurs in stars. Can the light which existed before the stars go super-nova? Before you answer you would do well to research how a super-nova happens.

4. ancient super-novas (continued)

actually according to Gen. the purpose of the stars is to measure time. Therefore a much stronger argument to support your claim would be that a supernovas job would be to measure time,

That is the argument I have used. The light of a very distant super-nova travels at light-speed and takes billions of years to arrive at earth. Hence it is light that is billions of years old. The star which was extinguished in the super-nova, did measure time.

5. ancient meteor and/or asteroid impacts on the earth and moon

and what happens to the results when jo comes back with a funnel that fits the oppening and then Mo comes along with a hose a starts siphoning the water in

Makes no difference. The king said the opening in the container was not to be enlarged. It doesn't matter if you set the container under Niagara Falls. The size of the opening sets the limit of how much water you can squeeze into it in any time frame.

The point of the story was to show you don't actually have to sit and watch the container fill to know how long it takes to fill it. Similarly, you don't have to actually watch radiometric decay through millions of years of real time to know how long it takes.

Do you understand how Jo could get the right answer by only watching the process for 5 minutes?

Besides appearance of age assumes that the dating is correct and that these craters really do look old.

So that is five examples of unexplained appearance of age, and only 1 (kind of) successful rebuttal. Still four not answered.

actually, you are right, I was under informed which is why I took the time to do a brief websearch and found that the information presented as well as a host more all show an increasing study for accuracy and questioning the previously held conclusions.

You will need more than a brief web-search to bring you up to speed on such items as super-novas and radiometric tests other than carbondating.

You also need to decide if you are arguing for an old appearance (which assumes the scientific dating is correct) or a young appearance (which asssumes the scientific dating is not correct).

Switching from one to the other in mid-stream evades the consequences of each.

Which is what I have been suggesting all along, that the conclusions are not as accurate as we would like to think they are. right which is why the measure of light to identify a supernova does not evidence a supernova, because, it is measureing the light not the source.

A super-nova is very distinctive in that it not only indicates a light source, but also an event that occurred to that light source. In fact, the original light source is extinguished by the event. The star that super-novaed is blown to bits and scattered as dust across the galaxy.

Would that be possible for the light which existed before the stars? Would it ever be extinguished in a super-nova?

answer a question with a question. Is fire necessary for light to exist? or is light necessary for fire to exist?

Light can exist without fire (unless you extend the meaning of fire to include such things as electricity and bioluminescence). I am not sure you can have fire without light. It would seem that creating fire necessarily creates light, but I am not sure if that is always the case.

Now back to my question. Does fire give off light? Does a star give off light? Yes or no?

They are not one and the same and as such cannot be identified as one and the same. form·less play_w("F0266200") (fôrm

l

s)adj.1. Having no definite form; shapeless. See Synonyms at shapeless.
2. Lacking order.
3. Having no material existence.

which definition does the bible use?

I would say that is a matter of interpretation. I have given you an interpretation that would fit 3 especially and to some extent 2.

Can you show that the biblical definition does not allow for this?

. cool so you changed your claim that light was created before the earth.

Oh, I love it when you do that. You are the lawyer who would ask "And when did you stop beating your wife?" of a person who never did beat his wife.

No, I can't change a claim I never made. But it seems you now understand the claim correctly and are no longer accusing me of making a claim I never made.

 

[razzelflabben]

I have highlighted the part of your statements for which you claim support in the article, but for which I can find no support in the article.

Let's look at it shall we...... Originally Posted by razzelflabben
it [the article] supports the claim that the limitations and variables in our dating methods leave a greater margin of error than a biased scientist would suggest or accept. [/quote] supports of the claim and greater are the words you highlighted for us. However, if we look at the entire sentence in context it specifies that this is true of a biased scientist. Note that the claim says nothing about an unbiased scientist or about evidencing bias in scientists, only that the limitations and variables are so great that a biased scientist would not allow as great a margin or error. Remember you analogy of mo and jo filling a jar. You left out variable in order to calculate an equation, but you left out certain variables because you were biased to what you thought the analogy should show. Same idea here.

thus the articles supported my claims that the limitations and variables leave us with a greater margin of error than we can accurately calculate through math problems.

see above in context, we see that the margin of error is not actually calculatable. The claim is not that scientists ignore the margin of error but rather that the margin of error is not calculatable.

Thus the actual margin of error would be greater.

shortened version of the first one and already looked at in context.

The articles was not introduced to support everything I have said throughout this thread, rather that the limitations and variables exist to such a degree that calculating them accurately would not be possible.

another version of the second one and already talked about in context.

The articles lays forth limitations and variables that cannot be accurately measured by any methods available today.

another way of saying the second one above and already discussed.

If that support exists in the article, please show specifically where it is said that 1) the margin of error is greater than claimed or can be accurately calculated.

The margin of error is limited to 1. what can be tested accurately and 2. based on variables beyond what we can imagine. For example, the variables include all the possibles throughout a history presumably millions and billions of years ago. That is a huge amount of variables that would leave our calculations virtually worthless. so what does the article say? It says that the limitations of radioactive dating limits us in what we can test with this method. (thus part on is evidenced) and that the variables are numerous, (thus part two is evidenced) Oh, you like quotes, let's look at the quotes. doesn't matter if it is taken out of context, you don't read context anyway.

So for all practical purposes, carbon dating is useful only for samples up to about 50,000 years old

Limitation one that is a greater limitation that a biased scientist would accept.
For example, with a few exceptions, the technique can only be applied to once-living items such as bone, leather, wood, and cloth—not, say, rocks or metal. More importantly, though, the accuracy of carbon dating rests on several crucial assumptions. note that assumptions are guesses that must be figured into an equasion that are not variables that are absolutes. Thus wide, huge, margin of error. For one thing, the rate of carbon-14 production in the atmosphere (and thus the level of cosmic ray activity) must have been pretty much constant for the past several dozen millennia. Likewise, the proportion of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the environment must have remained fairly constant. And in any given sample, one must be certain that contaminants from other time periods are not present—a sometimes-tricky issue. wow, once again, something that would be extremely difficult to do with any accuracy. Sounds hauntingly like what I said.

As a matter of fact, increased hydrocarbon emissions over the past century have greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 in the atmosphere, while nuclear detonations during the past 50 years or so have increased the amount of carbon-14. And at other points in history, climatic changes and other large-scale global events have altered the picture in other ways. So scientists performing carbon dating routinely calibrate their findings to adjust for these known issues, using other dating techniques (such as counting the rings on old trees) to corroborate their findings and help them fine-tune the scale. more variables that we try to calculate but too many to calculate accurately. Interesting, it is exactly what I claimed.

and finally this little gem Each side has unshakeable beliefs and therefore insists on bending any available evidence to support them, so very little real discussion takes place.thus though I did not present the article to support bias, here it is in plain, large, red letters. Bias in science. Bias that says that the limitations and variables are not dealt with accurately but rather with bias. Hum, so it really does support my claims. Who could have guessed that when I said it supports my claims, it really would support my claims!?! Come on, read for comprehension.[/quote]

Please show specifically where the article says 2) the limitatons and variables cannot be accurately measured or calculated[/quote] see above.

Even if true (and I am not sure it is) that doesn't mean the margin of error is greater than represented or cannot be accurately measured.

see highlighted above.

Yes, and that is all that it showed. It did not show the additional claims you have said it did.

see highlighted above.

No, to support your claims you not only need to show the magnitude of the limitations and variables. You need to show that the article says they are greater than claimed and cannot be accurately measured.

see highlighted above.

Specifically you have to show the article says they are greater than claimed and cannot be accurately measured

see highlighted above.

I am still waiting to be shown where it does so.

All I did to show this this time is go back to post #192 and repost the highlighted quotes, taking them out of context instead of leaving them in context as was originally done. So before you start on your usually I didn't show it, think again and carefully make your choice of claims.

 

[razzelflabben]

It means we have only hearsay testimony that it was said, and, as you know, hearsay testimony is not permitted as evidence.

discussions with you can be very boring mostly because you evade the questions so redily then claim you don't. so if you understand what was said, what do you gain from insisting that it be said again, and insisting it again in such a way that would lead others to assume that it wasn't said it the first place.
The question was not how is it important, I admitted when the comment was made that it would not be able to be evidenced. The question as highlighted for you to refer to, is what do you gain from pretending it to be something it isn't? What do you gain from making an issue out of what was stated before it even had time to become an issue? What do you think you are gaining from beating a dead horse? What do you think you are gaining by making it appear to be something it is not? You tried to make it sound like I claimed there to be evidence. I never made that claim, in fact, I claimed just the opposite. So what do you gain by trying to pretend that I claimed the evidence was presentable? That is the question, stated as many different ways as I can think of right now, so as to insist that you answer the actual question and not try to evade the question with a slight of hand that evidence is important.

Technically, science does not produce support for its theories that is absolute.

boring grammatical evaluation to shift focus from points being made. I wanted a yawning smilie but I guess this guy will have to do.

1. In reference to the age of the earth (for which we have three possibilities in the text) are you saying this is a case where we cannot look for an absolute?

we certainly can look for an absolute but it is infinately easier to falsify a "theory" by looking at absolutes in the text first and picking apart the text later. Let's see, the analogies you are so fond of. I've been doing a lot of sewing lately. My children are not allowed to get into what I am working on. So I leave the piece I am sewing on and all the tools I need on my work table and run to the store. When I return, my scissors are gone and the piece I am working on is on the floor. Now I could look around my house and see that our eldest son is on his way to Michigan and question all the kids as to whether or not he returned home, walked in the door and took my scissors, dumping the piece on the floor in the process, or I could look around and see that of my five children only 4 were likely to have the ability to do the deed. Our eldest son being on his way to Mich. is like the possiblilities in scripture. It is like the age of the earth, we might or might not find truth or absolutes if we seek long enough. The absolutes of scripture however are like the four children who were in the house at the time the "crime" was committed. They are easier to weed through. So we start with the obvious, the absolutes, the four children in the house had access to the crime scene, can they be ruled out? Then when there are no more possibles and they all have been cleared, then we can look at the things not so obvious.

snip for space already covered
2. Supposing that we cannot get to an absolute in the text,

first, you would have to evidence that only one possible is viable, to date you haven't even come close to this burden of evidence. What you have done so far is make the case of the possible stronger.

No sweat. We all make errors from time to time.
Not so bad admitting it once in a while, is it?

I admit mistakes all the time, the problem is, I only admit to the ones I make not to the ones that others make, you know like your comprehension problems.

Yes, that is the sort of thing I was looking for. We don't just state out of the blue that humanity is unique. We say (in various disciplines) "humanity is unique because of characteristic x or y or z, etc."

I stated that way early on in this topic. More comprehension issues or just trying to be difficult?[/quote]

Oh, I never questioned the conclusion. I just questioned the idea that we could get to the conclusion without any idea of what "unique" means. [/quote] I believe it to be the second post I made on the topic, the first post simply presented the idea, the second post dealt with all the disciplines accepting that man is unique and exploring what that uniqueness is. Of these differing disciplines, there are a variety of believed uniquenesses, but the constant is that man is unique. Now comes gluady's announcing to the world that if I had said We say (in various disciplines) "humanity is unique because of characteristic x or y or z, etc."

Again, I must ask, what do you gain from trying to create an argument that does not exist? What do you gain from trying to create the illusion that what was said was not really said?

Personally I am not making any claim as to how young a young earth would be

actually, of all the sites I referenced to come to an understanding of what is believed, the prominate definition by far is thousands not millions. So I am not sure who you are talking to, because the numbers you want us to use are somewhat rare.

So without specifying a particular number (such as 6 or 7 or 10 or 50) the maximum age for a young earth would be less than a million years?

from all the definitions I came accross, yes.

Would a young earth scenario permit hundreds of thousands of years or only tens of thousands of years?

seems to me that would depend on the individual belief, but from the common definition, yes, it would include hundreds of thousands, anything less than a million.

You have to decide whether you are favoring an appearance of age argument or an inaccurate dating argument.

I have not changed the argument, only evidence that suggests the old appearance of the earth is acceptable for discussion. A biased age is not evidence for anything but bias. If you want to look at the old looking earth, you need to present evidence of an old looking earth. Do so and we will look into it as we have a couple of the things you presented. Just saying, I looked at the guy and he looked old doesn't present evidence that he looked old.

Now, the question is, why do they look old if the earth is young?

the things you presented that were evidence of apparent age were addressed accordingly. Just because I show you that your argument does not fit the claims of evidence doesn't mean that my argument has changed.

Instead of answering this question, you switch from an appearance of age argument to an inaccurate dating argument.

see above, if I were to take this claim seriously, I would have to then assert that you have ducked out of the argument by not providing evidence of an apparent old earth, but I am too nice for that and instead of accusing you of ducking, I show you that your argument is not valid because.

You are miscounting. I don't admit we have no evidence that these are unnecessary to support life.

That's one

Radiometric dating does not require any premise about the bible at all.

right, nor does it requite any premise that the bible is wrong. So if we are to interpret the evidence, and not just look at the evidence, we need a beginning premise. Steps of logic, remember? So if we want to know if the bible is compatable with science then our premise would logically be that the bible is correct. Thus it stands as our premis until falsified. It's how science works.

Only carbondating is affected by changes in the atmosphere. O.

Yeah.......often you say things that don't seem to fit anywhere in the discussion.

And carbondating is not used for millions of years, nor can it be used to date fossilized material. .

yep, again, dating methods that are greatly questionable. Remember our 12 inch ruler, your only rebuttal was that the 12 inch ruler was longer. Okay let's look at it for a moment as it you are right. the 12 inch ruler is not 18 inches, heck we can even give you a yardstick if you like. Now how accurately can you measure the earth? Testing the fossils is much like this, we have a small amount of data to use to measure millions and billions of history. So we are trying to measure something that cannot be measured (history) with something too small to measure accurately. Now my husband said to me when I explained it to him, great analogy I see your point. But you can't understand it at all. We don't have a very long history to test to see if our conclusions are accurate.

On the contrary, you have only demonstrated that you don't know much about radiometric dating, especially the tests that do not depend on radiocarbon decay.

Still only 1 out of 3 successfully (if partially) rebutted.

see above and actually deal with the rebuttal not just claim that I don't understand it.

As far as I know, a super-nova only occurs in stars.

We don't know where the light comes from so how would we know. Instead of trying to belittle me by claiming I don't understand things, deal with the rebuttal. What of light? What do we know of light? What is it's source? Is absolute darkness possible? What is the source of light? Deal with these issues then we can look at the light that appears to come from a supernova. And btw, we already talked about the need for light to support life.

Now, there is a very simple response to this rebuttal that would use the premis that the bible is accurate, and put the whole claim to rest, but instead of using canned answers you are going to have to think a moment. Looking at both sides of an issue can present evidence that we never saw before, we just have to think it through. Work on it a bit, think through the evidences and deal with the rebuttal.[/quote]

That is the argument I have used. [/quote] Your getting closer, you said it, but didn't even realize you said it. I do so love playing the devils advocate sometimes. We do not know the source of light only the appearance of what the source is, so that can't answer the question. Your answer is in your statment somwhere though, look for it.[/quote]

Makes no difference. The king said the opening in the container was not to be enlarged. [/quote] The method of filling effects the calculations.

The point of the story was to show you don't actually have to sit and watch the container fill to know how long it takes to fill it.

I know the point, my point is you aren't dealing with the variables. your analogy is consistant with the claim that bias removes some of the variables[/quote]

Would that be possible for the light which existed before the stars? Would it ever be extinguished in a super-nova? [/quote]If we identify the source of light, then we can answer these questions. But first we need to identify the questions. BTW, do you believe the bible? The bible says light existed before the stars.

Now back to my question. Does fire give off light? Does a star give off light? Yes or no?

I don't have science to say, what I have is my opinions and those I am refraining to include in this discussion. What we need here is more science on light. Why not explore the science we do have and well as the absolutes in the text. That is a hint. The rebuttal has an answer that can be addressed with the premise that the bible is correct. You just have to think outside the box to find it.

Can you show that the biblical definition does not allow for this?

I didn't say I knew the biblical definition, instead what I did was provide the definition and ask which was intended by the text. I provided you with an analogy that allowed for the definitions as to what formless means. You questioned the analogy not on merit but on use of definition so I provided the definition which shows the analogy to be within the perimiters of that definition. As to the definition used by the text, that would need to be explored and we are still dealing with other issues you can't yet grasp so I don't see that we are ready to add this one to the long list.

Oh, I love it when you do that. You are the lawyer who would ask "And when did you stop beating your wife?" of a person who never did beat his wife.

you started out claiming that light was created before the earth, then you change your claim to light was created after the earth but before the earth took form. This is truely a change in opinion and I for one am glad to see you actually allowing your opinions to be shaped by the evidence and not just by your traditions and indoctrination.

No, I can't change a claim I never made.

Dispite my better judgement, post 187 Such light would not reach the earth because there was no earth formed yet for it to reach. The earth, as a formed planet, never existed without the sun and stars already there.

Note the second part of this quote where you say, to clarify I might add, the earth as a formed planet, never existed without the sun and stars already there. Now, this could be read one of two ways let me falsify both with passage reference.

First way, the earth was formed after the sun, moon and stars,
refer to vs. 6 day 2 sky formed, vs.9-11 land and water formation with veg. no sun, moon and stars yet. day 3 vs.14-19 sun, moon and stars, day 4. Hum, the earth is given shape before the sun, moon and stars are created. So the first possible interpretation was falsified.

Second possible interpretation, the earth was not created (also often refered to as formed) before light. so let's look at the references again. Gen. 1:1 the heavens and earth are created. Remember that entire beginning discussion as to whether or not this creation was from nothing. After this we have the creation of light, vs.3-5 creation of light.

So both possible interpretations are falsified in scripture. So adjust and manipulate your statement anyway you like if you are actually accepting the biblical evidence and changing your claim, we have made progress and I will take it, no matter what your original intention was, any move on your part to actually accept the text for what it says is good by me.

 

[gluadys]

Let's look at it shall we

it [the article] supports the claim that the limitations and variables in our dating methods leave a greater margin of error than a biased scientist would suggest or accept.

supports of the claim and greater are the words you highlighted for us.

Yes, it is important to note that the key claim here is that the article supports the other claim*. You keep reviewing what you are claiming. But does the article make the same or similar claims?

So let's focus on what the article says.

However, if we look at the entire sentence in context it specifies that this is true of a biased scientist. Note that the claim says nothing about an unbiased scientist or about evidencing bias in scientists, only that the limitations and variables are so great that a biased scientist would not allow as great a margin or error.

He makes only a very general reference to "bending the evidence" which he applies just as strongly to young-earth as to old-earth advocates. Such bias as exists is not all on one side. And even given some bias he still concludes: "I find the evidence supporting the reliability of carbon dating vastly more compelling than the evidence supporting a 7,000-year-old Earth."

Second, he never mentions a margin of error at all. Nor does he say anything about the magnitude of the limitations and variables being a problem.

Remember you analogy of mo and jo filling a jar. You left out variable in order to calculate an equation, but you left out certain variables because you were biased to what you thought the analogy should show.

I did not leave out any variable. I showed you that the variable you suggested would not affect the result. Whether the water is delivered by eye dropper, hose, siphon or any other means does not mean the container could be filled any faster.

we see that the margin of error is not actually calculatable. The claim is not that scientists ignore the margin of error but rather that the margin of error is not calculatable.

The article does not refer at any time to a margin of error. It certainly does not say that a margin of error cannot be calculated.

The margin of error is limited to 1. what can be tested accurately and 2. based on variables beyond what we can imagine. For example, the variables include all the possibles throughout a history presumably millions and billions of years ago.

No, it doesn't since radiocarbon dating is limited practically to about 50,000 years, with an outside maximum of 100,000 years using highly sensitive equipment. The article discusses only carbondating, not all radiometric dating.

It says that the limitations of radioactive dating limits us in what we can test with this method. (thus part on is evidenced) and that the variables are numerous, (thus part two is evidenced)

It does not say that those limitations interfere with the accuracy of the dates determined. Nor does it say the variables are "beyond imagining" It says the variables are "known issues" and results are calibrated to take them into account.

So for all practical purposes, carbon dating is useful only for samples up to about 50,000 years old

Limitation one that is a greater limitation that a biased scientist would accept.

What???? What scientist (whether young earth or old earth) does not accept this limitation? Any scientist who did not respect this limitation would be scorned and ignored by all other scientists from both camps.

For example, with a few exceptions, the technique can only be applied to once-living items such as bone, leather, wood, and cloth—not, say, rocks or metal.

Ditto.

More importantly, though, the accuracy of carbon dating rests on several crucial assumptions.

note that assumptions are guesses that must be figured into an equasion that are not variables that are absolutes.

No, assumptions are not guesses. They are tools for further work. The basic assumption is that the process is stable unless we have evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, this assumption is constantly tested and retested. This is how variables become known and how their effect is measured.

Scientists don't take assumptions for granted. They expect assumptions to be challenged and for exceptions to be found. As has been the case with radiocarbon dating.

Thus wide, huge, margin of error.

This is your conclusion. You haven't shown that the article supports it.

wow, once again, something that would be extremely difficult to do with any accuracy.

Yes, extremely difficult. But it has been done anyway. The other article mentioned the extent of accuracy that has been achieved. it is quite remarkable.

A "sometimes tricky issue" is not an unsolvable issue.

more variables that we try to calculate but too many to calculate accurately. Interesting, it is exactly what I claimed.

It is not at all what you claimed. The author mentions a number of known variables, and how scentists deal with them. Where does he say there are too many variables to calculate accurately?

That is your claim, not his.

thus though I did not present the article to support bias, here it is in plain, large, red letters. Bias in science.

Actually, bias on both sides. Interesting that the one thing he does allude to is not one of the things you claimed support for.

Bias that says that the limitations and variables are not dealt with accurately but rather with bias.

Again, that is your conclusion. The article does not say that.

Hum, so it really does support my claims.

Not really.

Nowhere does it say that limitations and variables cannot be accurately measured or calculated. Nor does it say that there are too many variables to calculate accurately. It does not mention margin of error at all or say it cannot be calculated or is greater than a scientist (biased or not) would accept.

In short, not one of the specific claims you made has even been mentioned in the article, much less supported.

The most you have is the one thing you did not claim was in the article--a tendency to "bend the evidence" to support one's case, which could be seen as alluding to bias. And this is said of both mainstream science and young-earth proponents.

And his conclusion is still that the case for the reliability of radiocarbon dating is vastly more compelling than the case for a young earth.

Your original claim was that this article supported the assertion that radiometric dating is unreliable. You since articulated what that meant in specific claims about margin of error not possible to calculate, variables too numerous to measure or calculate, etc.

Neither the original claim (unreliable) nor any of these specifics shows up in the article.



*Whether the claim is right or wrong is a separate question. If the author did support your claim, that would only mean you agreed. It would not make either of you right or wrong. It would only mean you are both right or both wrong. But the challenge here is to show that the author supports your claim. Not whether the claim is right or wrong.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes, it is important to note that the key claim here is that the article supports the other claim*. You keep reviewing what you are claiming. But does the article make the same or similar claims?

So let's focus on what the article says.

He makes only a very general reference to "bending the evidence" which he applies just as strongly to young-earth as to old-earth advocates.

never suggested it didn't apply to both in fact, if you have ever actually listened when I spoke of my personal beliefs, you would have heard me say point blank that it applies to both.

Such bias as exists is not all on one side. And even given some bias he still concludes: "I find the evidence supporting the reliability of carbon dating vastly more compelling than the evidence supporting a 7,000-year-old Earth."

His opinion is not evidence, however his article is and says exactly what I said, doesn't matter how strongly it was stated, if it included both sides or not, the claim was made and supported and now you come and try to excuse it away because you have nothing more of importance to say. You were shown to be wrong and now instead of admitting you were wrong you will try to excuse the evidence provided. This is why I enjoyed so much seeing you adjust your beliefs to fit the evidence on when light was created, because it actually showed an interest in the evidence. Ah well, my excitement and encouragement was short lived.

Second, he never mentions a margin of error at all. Nor does he say anything about the magnitude of the limitations and variables being a problem.

He talks about limitations and variables and scientists who fudge the numbers. apples to apples.

I did not leave out any variable. I showed you that the variable you suggested would not affect the result. Whether the water is delivered by eye dropper, hose, siphon or any other means does not mean the container could be filled any faster.

sure it does, consider an eyedropper, the amount of time it takes to move my hand to the water, squeeze the water into the dropper and move my hand back to the jar and squeeze again, is absolutely longer than pouring the water into a funnel and using a siphon is much quicker than pouring into a funnel. And none of the methods require any alterations to the jar. If you don't believe me, do the experiment yourself for real in real life.

The article does not refer at any time to a margin of error. It certainly does not say that a margin of error cannot be calculated.

As we have talked many times, the term margin of error does not need to be present for the meaning to be clear. (so that you don't go off on that tangent, our discussions have not been about the term margin of error per sae but about any given term)

No, it doesn't since radiocarbon dating is limited practically to about 50,000 years, with an outside maximum of 100,000 years using highly sensitive equipment. The article discusses only carbondating, not all radiometric dating.

and any of that data would fit into the definition of young earth, in addition, another article was presented that you haven't even begun to discuss yet .

It does not say that those limitations interfere with the accuracy of the dates determined. Nor does it say the variables are "beyond imagining" It says the variables are "known issues" and results are calibrated to take them into account.

It also says that the variables are bent into the favor of whoever is using them. Which is consistant with my point.

What???? What scientist (whether young earth or old earth) does not accept this limitation? Any scientist who did not respect this limitation would be scorned and ignored by all other scientists from both camps.

a pretense is all that is necessary to avoid scorn by like minded individuals.

Furthermore, this assumption is constantly tested and retested. This is how variables become known and how their effect is measured.

Scientists don't take assumptions for granted. They expect assumptions to be challenged and for exceptions to be found. As has been the case with radiocarbon dating.

[SIZE=-1]premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
a hypothesis that is taken for granted; "any society is built upon certain assumptions"
the act of taking possession of or power over something; "his assumption of office coincided with the trouble in Cuba"; "the Nazi assumption of power in 1934"; "he acquired all the company's assets for ten million dollars and the assumption of the company's debts"
celebration in the Roman Catholic Church of the Virgin Mary's being taken up into heaven when her earthly life ended; corresponds to the Dormition in the Eastern Orthodox church
presumption: audacious (even arrogant) behavior that you have no right to; "he despised them for their presumptuousness"
(Christianity) the taking up of the body and soul of the Virgin Mary when her earthly life had ended
the act of assuming or taking for granted; "your assumption that I would agree was unwarranted"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[/SIZE]
A "sometimes tricky issue" is not an unsolvable issue.

the claim was not unsolvable but rather that the twisting and manipulating of the evidence shows a bias towards. Just as the quote suggests. If we don't know for sure, we can pretend it is the one that favors our view.

Actually, bias on both sides. Interesting that the one thing he does allude to is not one of the things you claimed support for.

I have claimed this many times, and in fact, it was the premise of a thread I began that you spent a lot of time on but never once took the time to listen to what I was claiming.

Nowhere does it say that limitations and variables cannot be accurately measured or calculated.

I said they weren't accurately calculated and that the magnitude of those here are beyond calculation because of the distance and nature of history. That it isnt possible is a different claim that would be substanciated through our discussion of history since it relys on an understanding of history to make it's point.

In short, not one of the specific claims you made has even been mentioned in the article, much less supported.

they were quoted from the article for heavens sake, your really streatching now.

And his conclusion is still that the case for the reliability of radiocarbon dating is vastly more compelling than the case for a young earth.

it is not his conclusion that provides evidence but rather the evidence as recorded in his article. Opinion is never evidence of anything but opinion.

*Whether the claim is right or wrong is a separate question. If the author did support your claim, that would only mean you agreed. It would not make either of you right or wrong. It would only mean you are both right or both wrong. But the challenge here is to show that the author supports your claim. Not whether the claim is right or wrong.

The evidence supports that the author agrees with my claim based on his understanding of the evidence science has presented on the topic. That is about as good as it gets.

 

[gluadys]

so if you understand what was said, what do you gain from insisting that it be said again, and insisting it again in such a way that would lead others to assume that it wasn't said it the first place.

Never claimed it wasn't said. But now a question for you. If you understood from the beginning that it was not evidence, why did you raise it so frequently? Why did you raise it even once?

we certainly can look for an absolute but it is infinately easier to falsify a "theory" by looking at absolutes in the text first and picking apart the text later.

Sorry, I am not following. Can you explain this more clearly?

Our eldest son being on his way to Mich. is like the possiblilities in scripture. It is like the age of the earth, we might or might not find truth or absolutes if we seek long enough. The absolutes of scripture however are like the four children who were in the house at the time the "crime" was committed. They are easier to weed through.

This analogy is not helping. What I want to know is whether it is worth the effort to try and cut down the three possible ways to date the age of the earth from scripture to one. Or are we stuck with three scenarios that cannot be narrowed down?

I don't want to spend time analyzing the text if there is nothing further to be gained from it. But if you think there is a possibility that we could narrow down the meaning of the text, I'm game to give it a try.

first, you would have to evidence that only one possible is viable, to date you haven't even come close to this burden of evidence.

Oh, I know that. This is a hypothetical to be considered if the answer to the first question is "No, we cannot narrow the possibilities in the text down to one absolute."
But I don't know yet if that is the case.

However, supposing the case that there remain three possibles in the text, and we cannot narrow them down to one. But (still supposing) when we look at science, we do have it narrowed down to one. Does that decide for us how to read the text? Or is it irrelevant to the meaning of the text?

I stated that way early on in this topic. More comprehension issues or just trying to be difficult?.... I believe it to be the second post I made on the topic, the first post simply presented the idea, the second post dealt with all the disciplines accepting that man is unique and exploring what that uniqueness is. Of these differing disciplines, there are a variety of believed uniquenesses, but the constant is that man is unique. Now comes gluady's announcing to the world that if I had said We say (in various disciplines) "humanity is unique because of characteristic x or y or z, etc." Again, I must ask, what do you gain from trying to create an argument that does not exist?

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. What threw me for a loop was this statement in post 196:

We do not need to know what uniquenesses we are looking for in order to know that man is indeed set apart, or unique in some way.

That didn't make sense to me and I was seeking clarification.

yes, it would include hundreds of thousands, anything less than a million.

OK. I've never seen a proponent of a young earth suggest that say 900,000 years fit the definition of "young". But I have no objection to that.

I have not changed the argument, only evidence that suggests the old appearance of the earth is acceptable for discussion.

In that case you have changed the argument. This line of conversation was begun when you suggested the appearance of age argument. In the appearance of age argument, it is already agreed that the earth appears old. So that does not have to be established.

What needs to be established is why it looks old not whether it looks old.

Now if you are going to say we have to establish that it looks old, that is a different argument.

Just saying, I looked at the guy and he looked old doesn't present evidence that he looked old.

Direct observation is usually considered very reliable evidence. If he looks old, he looks old. But he can't look old and not look old at the same time. He can look old and not be old. If he is not really old, we can find clues that his appearance is not a reliable indicator of his age. But his appearance is not the question. We can say "He looks old, but he isn't really" and that makes sense. We cannot say "He looks old but he doesn't look old." That's nonsense.

So if we want to know if the bible is compatable with science then our premise would logically be that the bible is correct.

That would be logical when we are studying the biblical text, yes. Then we compare what the text says with what science says to see if they agree. Right?

Only carbondating is affected by changes in the atmosphere.

O. Yeah.......often you say things that don't seem to fit anywhere in the discussion.

You were speaking as if we needed to take atmospheric changes into consideration for all types of radiometric dating. We don't. Only for carbon dating. There are over 40 different tests using radiometry. The limitations that apply to one, don't apply to the others.

Remember our 12 inch ruler, your only rebuttal was that the 12 inch ruler was longer. Okay let's look at it for a moment as it you are right. the 12 inch ruler is not 18 inches, heck we can even give you a yardstick if you like. Now how accurately can you measure the earth?

Do you think we do not have an accurate measure of the earth? How do you think it was measured? Do you know that the first near accurate measure of the size of the earth was made more than a century before Christ was born and used no equipment more complicated than you find in a child's math set? You underestimate the capacity of a 12-inch ruler and ignore the fact that we have other ways to measure as well.

Testing the fossils is much like this, we have a small amount of data to use to measure millions and billions of history.

Just as Jo had only five minutes of data, but got the same answer Mo did without observing 115 days and 18 hours of history.

So we are trying to measure something that cannot be measured (history) with something too small to measure accurately.

What makes a ruler 4.5 billion years long too small to measure 4.5 billion years? (half-life of uranium 238)

see above and actually deal with the rebuttal not just claim that I don't understand it. We don't know where the light comes from so how would we know.

I will when you show some understanding. You haven't even looked up "nova" or "super-nova" have you? When you have, when you understand the process, tell me if the light which existed before the stars can super-nova.

Makes no difference. The king said the opening in the container was not to be enlarged.

The method of filling effects the calculations.

No, it doesn't. No matter what instrument you use to fill the container, the water has to go through that small opening and the size of the opening limits how much you can put in at once. Use a bucket or a hose or whatever, and all that will happen is that you get a lot of water on the floor instead of in the container. Sure, you will still get a drop or two in the container, but no more than if you had used the eye-dropper, and no faster either.

The bible says light existed before the stars.

Yes, I am not disagreeing with that. I am just asking some questions. Let's agree that light existed before stars. So when we see light, one possible source is this light created before stars. Are you with me this far?

Now what about stars? Can they also give light? You said their purpose was to measure time. Could we measure time by the stars if we could not see their light?

I didn't say I knew the biblical definition

So why did you ask me which definition the bible uses? I don't know either.

you started out claiming that light was created before the earth, then you change your claim to light was created after the earth but before the earth took form.

No, I never made the first claim, so I never changed it. I only made the second claim.

Note the second part of this quote where you say, to clarify I might add, the earth as a formed planet, never existed without the sun and stars already there. Now, this could be read one of two ways let me falsify both with passage reference.

Second possible interpretation, the earth was not created (also often refered to as formed) before light.

Ah, I see. I deliberately used the word "formed" as a contrast to "created" to avoid the second interpretation, but you interpreted it as a synonym of "created" and so saw a claim I did not intend to make. The only claim I intended was the first one.

First way, the earth was formed after the sun, moon and stars,
refer to vs. 6 day 2 sky formed, vs.9-11 land and water formation with veg. no sun, moon and stars yet. day 3 vs.14-19 sun, moon and stars, day 4. Hum, the earth is given shape before the sun, moon and stars are created. So the first possible interpretation was falsified.

Depends. You are assuming that the meaning you are assigning to the text is correct. But does the text intend for the numbered days to refer to a chronological sequence of days? Does it mean for the days to be seen like days on a calendar. Check out the Framework interpretation of Genesis 1. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/fw.htm

 

[gluadys]

never suggested it didn't apply to both in fact, if you have ever actually listened when I spoke of my personal beliefs, you would have heard me say point blank that it applies to both.

Yet you never claim that dates suggested by young-earth supporters are not reliable.

His opinion is not evidence,

The issue is not whether he is right about science or dating. The issue is whether he supports your claim. His opinion is evidence of whether he supports your claim. In fact, it is the only relevant evidence.

however his article is and says exactly what I said,

Your claim was that dating methods are unreliable. His conclusion is that radiocarbon dating is reliable. Whether he is right or wrong, that is his conclusion and it is clearly the opposite of your claim.

sure it does, consider an eyedropper, the amount of time it takes to move my hand to the water, squeeze the water into the dropper and move my hand back to the jar and squeeze again, is absolutely longer than pouring the water into a funnel and using a siphon is much quicker than pouring into a funnel. And none of the methods require any alterations to the jar. If you don't believe me, do the experiment yourself for real in real life.

Dealt with that in the other post.

premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
a hypothesis that is taken for granted; "any society is built upon certain assumptions"
the act of assuming or taking for granted; "your assumption that I would agree was unwarranted"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Leaving aside the irrelevant meanings this is a good definition. The problem is that you treat scientific assumptions as if they are unwarranted, and also as if they are never re-examined in the light of new evidence. A good assumption is warranted in principle. That is why it takes evidence to change it. And scientific assumptions are constantly being checked against evidence to see if a change is warranted. They should not be treated as bogey-men.

the claim was not unsolvable but rather that the twisting and manipulating of the evidence shows a bias towards.

The terms you actually used were:

not actually calculatable, not calculatable, calculating them accurately would not be possible, cannot be accurately measured by any methods available today, would leave our calculations virtually worthless, extremely difficult to do with any accuracy, too many to calculate accurately.

The article does not support the claim that scientists are not able to calculate or measure their data accurately.

I said they weren't accurately calculated and that the magnitude of those here are beyond calculation because of the distance and nature of history.

However, the question at hand is not what you said, but whether the article supports what you said. This business of inaccurate calculation and being beyond calculation is not anywhere in the article.

it is not his conclusion that provides evidence but rather the evidence as recorded in his article. Opinion is never evidence of anything but opinion.

His conclusion provides evidence of which opinion he is supporting. He supports the opinion that radiocarbon dating is reliable. You cannot twist that into support for a claim that dating methods are unreliable, cannot be accurately measured, or not actually calculable. Those claims are nowhere stated in the article, and nowhere supported in the article.

 

[razzelflabben]

Never claimed it wasn't said. But now a question for you. If you understood from the beginning that it was not evidence, why did you raise it so frequently? Why did you raise it even once?

you still haven't answered what you gain from presenting it as if the claim that it wasn't possible to evidence was never made. Since this is the third time I have answered this post and lost it to a computer jam and I am running out of time, we'll leave it at that until you answer my question. When you answer my question, I'll deal with yours again.

Sorry, I am not following. Can you explain this more clearly?

you always try to insist that I answer open ended questions with a yes or no answer, what don't you understand about certainly?[/quote]

This analogy is not helping. What I want to know is whether it is worth the effort to try and cut down the three possible ways to date the age of the earth from scripture to one. Or are we stuck with three scenarios that cannot be narrowed down? [/quote] it is only worth the time if the absolutes in the text all show compatability with science.

I don't want to spend time analyzing the text if there is nothing further to be gained from it. But if you think there is a possibility that we could narrow down the meaning of the text, I'm game to give it a try.

first we must identify if the absolutes are compatable with science. If the answer is yes, then we can narrow down the possibles to such a degree as is possible.

However, supposing the case that there remain three possibles in the text, and we cannot narrow them down to one. But (still supposing) when we look at science, we do have it narrowed down to one. Does that decide for us how to read the text? Or is it irrelevant to the meaning of the text?

seems in the case you are presenting we have several possibles available to us. Deciding which is truth requires work something that few are willing to do. 1. the text is not the inerrant word of God 2. the science is not accurately presented 3. the interpretations of the ancient text could be wrong 4. the conclusions of the evidence could be wrong, or the one that seems to be most common and the most disturbing at the same time. 5 justification of personal beliefs without reguards to the evidence.

OK. I've never seen a proponent of a young earth suggest that say 900,000 years fit the definition of "young". But I have no objection to that.

I suggested that we look somewhere between the two extremes, truth usually seems to be somewhere between to extremes, so it seems a good choice. The two extremes as best as I can tell are 7,000 years to 999,999 years old for a young earth.

In that case you have changed the argument. This line of conversation was begun when you suggested the appearance of age argument. In the appearance of age argument, it is already agreed that the earth appears old. So that does not have to be established.

the argument has not changed, the argument insists that you provide only for discussion the things that appear old with sufficient evidence to support the claim. The issues you are having problems with are where I assert the evidence is not conclusive enough to show the appearance of age. All the instances in which the evidence is significant to show age, have been dealt with as to function to support life, consistant with the claim made.

Direct observation is usually considered very reliable evidence. If he looks old, he looks old. But he can't look old and not look old at the same time. He can look old and not be old. If he is not really old, we can find clues that his appearance is not a reliable indicator of his age. But his appearance is not the question. We can say "He looks old, but he isn't really" and that makes sense. We cannot say "He looks old but he doesn't look old." That's nonsense.

But without reasons for the appearance of age, it is nothing more than opinion. For example person one may say, he looks old, but without reasons or criteria to determine that appearance, person two may declare, no he does not look old at all. Both could be right because it is not based on evidence but on opinion. However, if person one says his greying hair and hunched back make him look old, it would be very difficult for person two to not agree because the evidence of age is not only provided but presented. Same applies to your discussion.

Do you think we do not have an accurate measure of the earth? How do you think it was measured? Do you know that the first near accurate measure of the size of the earth was made more than a century before Christ was born and used no equipment more complicated than you find in a child's math set? You underestimate the capacity of a 12-inch ruler and ignore the fact that we have other ways to measure as well.

tell you what, you get a 12 inch ruler and go measure off a mile then tell us how accurate you were. We have recent measures and trying to measure long distances of revisionary history. By the very nature of this, we cannot possibly be accurate in our calculations, now our calculations could be spot on, but that would not be a prediction based on what we know but rather a fluke as it were.

Just as Jo had only five minutes of data, but got the same answer Mo did without observing 115 days and 18 hours of history.

Now think this through, the claim was that scientists bent the data in favor of their opinions of truth. Here we have Jo and Mo who can alter the time by removing human fatigue, human time, spilling, etc. To remove these elements would alter the end result. The problem is we don't know which if any or all the possible alternatives will be used and what the end results will be. So how do you then calculate the results. You would need a different calculation for each of the possibles as well as each combination of possibles and you still have to figure into it the natural speed of each person working. That's a daunting task and we don't even come as close to possibles as we do with our dating methods.

What makes a ruler 4.5 billion years long too small to measure 4.5 billion years? (half-life of uranium 238)

Well when you show me age tests that were done 4.5 billion years ago to compare with accuracy of the same tests preformed today, we can talk otherwise you don't have a baseline to make this claim on and since I don't believe any life (apart from God) existed 4.5 billion year ago that was capable of preforming these tests, you are stuck for evidence.

I will when you show some understanding. You haven't even looked up "nova" or "super-nova" have you? When you have, when you understand the process, tell me if the light which existed before the stars can super-nova.

Now everyone who disagrees with you or shows you wrong lacks understanding or education. Get over it.

Sure, you will still get a drop or two in the container, but no more than if you had used the eye-dropper, and no faster either.

you need to experiment if you don't think there are faster ways than an eye dropper. even our children when they were very young knew enough science to know better than your claim here.[/quote]

Yes, I am not disagreeing with that. I am just asking some questions. Let's agree that light existed before stars. So when we see light, one possible source is this light created before stars. Are you with me this far?

Now what about stars? Can they also give light? You said their purpose was to measure time. Could we measure time by the stars if we could not see their light?

your on the right track, keep going. You can't defeat the claim with science because science doesn't know where light comes from, however, you can defeat the claim with the biblical text, so keep with it, you almost have it.

Ah, I see. I deliberately used the word "formed" as a contrast to "created" to avoid the second interpretation, but you interpreted it as a synonym of "created" and so saw a claim I did not intend to make. The only claim I intended was the first one.

I used both possible interpretations and showed you wrong. The purpose of using both possibles was to prevent you from jumping back and forth. It was convenient that both claims were wrong. Now I could insist that you admit you were wrong but honestly that means nothing to me. What I care about is that now your claims actually fit the evidence.

Depends. You are assuming that the meaning you are assigning to the text is correct. But does the text intend for the numbered days to refer to a chronological sequence of days? Does it mean for the days to be seen like days on a calendar. Check out the Framework interpretation of Genesis 1. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/fw.htm

Interesting that you would present this information, isn't like you at all. Now I have been trying to access a site that would help us understand the Heb. here but having problems, I'll give it a go one more time and see what happens. Honestly, the site your reference us to sounds like a lot of double talk, but anyway, it is interesting, compare it to this site.
http://www.answersincreation.org/Th...with a Number in Genesis 1 - distribution.pdf

 

[razzelflabben]

Yet you never claim that dates suggested by young-earth supporters are not reliable.

say what? I have many many times over, just not in the devils advocate argument for yec. Just as I am not giving you the supernova answer, I am letting you do that on your own. it's your argument, support it.

The issue is not whether he is right about science or dating. The issue is whether he supports your claim. His opinion is evidence of whether he supports your claim. In fact, it is the only relevant evidence.

actually his opinion is that both sides bend the evidence which is consistant with my claim that a biased scientist will bent the evidence to support his opinions. [/quote]

Your claim was that dating methods are unreliable. His conclusion is that radiocarbon dating is reliable. Whether he is right or wrong, that is his conclusion and it is clearly the opposite of your claim. [/quote] the claim I made that this article was supporting is that the limitations and variables are so great that a biased scientist would not accept the inaccuracy of the results. This opinion is mirrored in the article whether you like it or not.

Leaving aside the irrelevant meanings this is a good definition. The problem is that you treat scientific assumptions as if they are unwarranted, and also as if they are never re-examined in the light of new evidence. A good assumption is warranted in principle. That is why it takes evidence to change it. And scientific assumptions are constantly being checked against evidence to see if a change is warranted. They should not be treated as bogey-men.

this is your assumption of what I do and not based on any evidence but your own bias. In fact, I have on many occasions talked about the value of assumptions as long as it is understood that they are assumptions and not fact, or known truth. so in what capasity do you have the right to make this assumption and declare it to be truth? It goes against the evidence of what I assert. Is your idea, if you can't win the argument change the argument?

His conclusion provides evidence of which opinion he is supporting. He supports the opinion that radiocarbon dating is reliable. You cannot twist that into support for a claim that dating methods are unreliable, cannot be accurately measured, or not actually calculable. Those claims are nowhere stated in the article, and nowhere supported in the article.

you really need to stop trying to twist the argument I make into something that it is not. Your methods of "i can't win so I'll change the argument so I can are not just annoying but disrespectful and deceptful.

 

[gluadys]

the claim I made that this article was supporting is that the limitations and variables are so great that a biased scientist would not accept the inaccuracy of the results.

Actually, the article says nothing about limitations and variables being "so great that ..... (anything you want to put in the blank)". In fact it calls young-earth claims about them "seeming uncertainties" suggesting that they are not as uncertain as claimed.

This is consistent with his conclusion that the dating method is reliable.

Before you can claim that biased scientists (whether old-earth or young-earth) are not accepting the inaccuracy of the results, you need to show that the results are inaccurate.

If the dating method is reliable (as affirmed in this article), if the so-called uncertainties are only "seeming uncertainties" then the results are probably accurate.

Both old-earth and young-earth scientists may still claim the results favor their case and not the reverse, but the bias does not lie in the dates or the dating methods, or in inaccurate dating, but in how one views the results.

Furthermore, since all radiocarbon dates come within a generous young-earth scenario (though not the more strict "only 6,000 years" version) there is really no argument between old-earth and young-earthers here.

The dates a young-earther really needs to challenge are not radiocarbon dates, but uranium-lead dates or argon-argon dates, or potassium-argon dates or rubidium-strontium dates, all the dates based on all the radioactive elements with long half-lives. Those are the ones that give ages in millons and billions of years. Also, unlke radiocarbon dates, they are not affected by atmospheric changes nor are they limited to organic material. They are regularly used on minerals such as volcanic ash and ancient lava flows.

 

[razzelflabben]

Actually, the article says nothing about limitations and variables being "so great that ..... (anything you want to put in the blank)". In fact it calls young-earth claims about them "seeming uncertainties" suggesting that they are not as uncertain as claimed.

This is consistent with his conclusion that the dating method is reliable.

Before you can claim that biased scientists (whether old-earth or young-earth) are not accepting the inaccuracy of the results, you need to show that the results are inaccurate.

If the dating method is reliable (as affirmed in this article), if the so-called uncertainties are only "seeming uncertainties" then the results are probably accurate.

Both old-earth and young-earth scientists may still claim the results favor their case and not the reverse, but the bias does not lie in the dates or the dating methods, or in inaccurate dating, but in how one views the results.

Furthermore, since all radiocarbon dates come within a generous young-earth scenario (though not the more strict "only 6,000 years" version) there is really no argument between old-earth and young-earthers here.

The dates a young-earther really needs to challenge are not radiocarbon dates, but uranium-lead dates or argon-argon dates, or potassium-argon dates or rubidium-strontium dates, all the dates based on all the radioactive elements with long half-lives. Those are the ones that give ages in millons and billions of years. Also, unlke radiocarbon dates, they are not affected by atmospheric changes nor are they limited to organic material. They are regularly used on minerals such as volcanic ash and ancient lava flows.

I showed the claim and the evidence and quoted it so as to not make a typo and you still refuse it. so be it, as stated many times already, there are none so blind as those who willfully close their eyes

But now, I get to ask a question. If radioactive dating is so irrelavent to the discussion then why didn't you dismiss the article when it was first presented instead of trying to make it into an issue? Remember that yet unanswered question I asked you about what you gain from trying to make it sound like I claimed I could provide evidence I admitted from the beginning I couldnt. You did that kind of nonsence two different times, now you are claiming that this article has nothing to do with the discussion though you insisted on making a long drawn out discussion about the article. What do you gain from this kind of deception? What is it's purpose?

 

[gluadys]

you still haven't answered what you gain from presenting it as if the claim that it wasn't possible to evidence was never made.

I didn't present it that way. I never claimed you didn't talk to those people or that they never said what you claimed they said. But I prefer to keep conversations uncluttered by vague, unsubstantiated references to what "somebody said". One might just as well present gossip for all it is worth.

it is only worth the time if the absolutes in the text all show compatability with science. first we must identify if the absolutes are compatable with science. If the answer is yes, then we can narrow down the possibles to such a degree as is possible.

Ok. I think I am beginning to see how you are approaching this now. You have identified some absolutes in the text. The age of the earth is not one of these absolutes. For that we have three possibilities.

So, if I understand you rightly, we don't even worry about narrowing down those possibilities until we have dealt with the absolutes.

Only if all the absolutes we have identified are compatible with science do we tackle the question of what the text may be saying about the age of the earth.

Is that the process you are envisaging? Or do I still have some things backward?

seems in the case you are presenting we have several possibles available to us. Deciding which is truth requires work something that few are willing to do. 1. the text is not the inerrant word of God 2. the science is not accurately presented 3. the interpretations of the ancient text could be wrong 4. the conclusions of the evidence could be wrong, or the one that seems to be most common and the most disturbing at the same time. 5 justification of personal beliefs without reguards to the evidence.

If the process above is right, we can leave this until later.

the argument has not changed, the argument insists that you provide only for discussion the things that appear old with sufficient evidence to support the claim.

Well, to me the argument:

"X appears old, even though it is young, because.....(fill in the blank e.g necessary to support life)".....

is very different from

"Although it is claimed X looks old, it really doesn't because.....(fill in the blank)"

By using both at the same time you seem to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

All the instances in which the evidence is significant to show age, have been dealt with as to function to support life, consistant with the claim made.

You wish! Not at all. We have a lot of discussion yet on both measures of dating into the millions of years--radiometry and speed of light.

However, if person one says his greying hair and hunched back make him look old, it would be very difficult for person two to not agree because the evidence of age is not only provided but presented.

Exactly. And if we know the rate at which a person travelled, and where they travelled from, we know how long it took them to make the journey. Ditto with starlight. The evidence of age has been presented.

Here we have Jo and Mo who can alter the time by removing human fatigue, human time, spilling, etc. To remove these elements would alter the end result.

you need to experiment if you don't think there are faster ways than an eye dropper. even our children when they were very young knew enough science to know better than your claim here

Note that they would all alter the result by delay. It would take even more time, not less. There are faster ways to fill some containers, provided the opening in the container is large enough to accept more water at once. If you are filling a gas tank, a hose is faster than an eyedropper, but a bucket is not faster than a hose, because the opening in the gas tank is geared to accepting a hose. Using a bucket would only result in spilled gas without putting any more in the tank at one time than a hose does. You could fill a rain barrel with either a hose or a bucket because its opening is larger than both.

Mo and Jo investigated the most efficient way to fill the container and set up the equipement together. Presumably they used an eyedropper or some such instrument because it was just as efficient and less wasteful than other methods. I did not suggest they stayed there and filled the container manually. They set up equipment, so fatigue does not apply. Since Mo presumably checked the equipment daily as he kept track of how much water entered it, we can eliminate equipment failure. In short, all the elements of delay were eliminated or at least reduced.

Suppose Mo had come in and found an equipment malfunction. He would set up the equipment again, and when he got the end result, he would see from his notes that he needed to subtract the time when the equipment was not working as it ought to. So he would still get the same answer as if the equipment had not failed in the first place.

You can raise all the various scenarios you like. They do not change the reliability of the calculation because all of the variables can also be noted and included in the calculations. You seem to think that because unexpected things can happen, we cannot have accuracy. But we can. We just need to alter our calculations to take the unexpected things into account.

The problem is we don't know which if any or all the possible alternatives will be used and what the end results will be. So how do you then calculate the results. You would need a different calculation for each of the possibles as well as each combination of possibles and you still have to figure into it the natural speed of each person working.

Actually what you do is reduce the number of possibilities up front e.g. by using a machine with a constant rate of speed. You don't have to calculate for possibles that you eliminate up front. So you eliminate as many as you can.

Well when you show me age tests that were done 4.5 billion years ago to compare with accuracy of the same tests preformed today, we can talk otherwise you don't have a baseline to make this claim on and since I don't believe any life (apart from God) existed 4.5 billion year ago that was capable of preforming these tests, you are stuck for evidence. Now everyone who disagrees with you or shows you wrong lacks understanding or education. Get over it.

Not really necessary. Let's go back to the analogy of a by train. We know the average rate of speed. We know the distance travelled. We calculate how much time it took. Very simple arithmetic.

Now, there are two things that can throw off the calculations. One is that something happens to delay the train for some time, throwing off the average rate of speed. The journey takes longer than expected. In the case of how old a star is, this would mean something happened to delay the light on its way from the star to earth. What could happen to prevent light travelling through empty space?

I don't think we will take too much time on this as any delay would mean the star (or the earth or the universe--whatever we are measuring) is older than scientists think it is. And as far as I know the only creationists who say the scientific dates are too short are Hindu creationists. Most creationists say the earth/universe/ etc. is much younger than science says.

So what could make the dates younger? On our train journey, we could get a shorter time by increasing the speed for part of the trip. If the train slowed down again before reaching the destination, how would we know it had speeded up? Would we have no way to determine this variable?

Actually we can determine this variable. Because increased speed has consequences. It takes more fuel to run at a higher speed. So we can check how much fuel the train used and see if it is consistent with a faster or slower speed. Do we have equivalent checks for radiometry? Yes we do. 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.

Another type of check is isochron dating. I will let you look that up.

Now what about stars? Can they also give light? You said their purpose was to measure time. Could we measure time by the stars if we could not see their light?

your on the right track, keep going.

I will keep going as soon as I know the answer. Do stars give light of their own? Do we have one kind of light in the world or two (or more)? We have the original light created before the stars. That's one. But what about light from stars, from the sun, from fires, candles, flashlight, fireflies, electric lights, etc. Is this all the same light as existed before the stars or do each of these things produce their own light as well?

It was convenient that both claims were wrong.

The first one (the one I intended) has not been proven wrong yet. Get back to me when you have finished with the link I gave you.

compare it to this site.
http://www.answersincreation.org/The...stribution.pdf

Sorry, I've been having a lot of trouble downloading links lately, especially .pdf files for some reason. They used to open like a charm, but now that many have these Active X controls on them (not that I know what those are) my computer claims it can't find them. I think I will need to get an upgrade soon.

However, I note the title is "The Hebrew Word Yom Used with a Number in Genesis 1" I am familiar with the argument and it is a non-starter. it depends on a so-called rule of grammar that was made up for the purpose of supporting a literal interpretation. This rule is not found in any standard work of Hebrew grammar--only in sources already committed to a literal interpretation. So it is circular reasoning at best.

 

[razzelflabben]

I didn't present it that way. I never claimed you didn't talk to those people or that they never said what you claimed they said. But I prefer to keep conversations uncluttered by vague, unsubstantiated references to what "somebody said". One might just as well present gossip for all it is worth.

actually you presented it as if I never admitted that the evidence was no longer available to me. That is what I am asking you, what does it gain you to pretend that it wasn't admitted when it was directly stated in the beginning. And this was one of two times on this thread you did this, plus another time of similar techniques. All I am asking is what you gain or think you gain from this type of deception.

Is that the process you are envisaging? Or do I still have some things backward?

yes finally, a scientific approach to a question of scientific nature.

"X appears old, even though it is young, because.....(fill in the blank e.g necessary to support life)".....

no, the fill in the blank is the evidence that makes it appear old, the reason it appears old is to support life. First you need to identify why or how it looks old. I am still waiting for you to do this.

Exactly. And if we know the rate at which a person travelled, and where they travelled from, we know how long it took them to make the journey. Ditto with starlight. The evidence of age has been presented.

no, you presented the age the light reached the earth, not the star unless you can scientifically evidence the source of light. But as best I can tell that is an assumption and thus is not admisable as evidence but rather part of the conclusion process.

Note that they would all alter the result by delay. It would take even more time, not less.

not at all, in fact, both would speed up the time, you really should do an experiment for yourself. Then you could speak of the topic as if you had at least an elementary understanding.

There are faster ways to fill some containers, provided the opening in the container is large enough to accept more water at once. If you are filling a gas tank, a hose is faster than an eyedropper, but a bucket is not faster than a hose, because the opening in the gas tank is geared to accepting a hose. Using a bucket would only result in spilled gas without putting any more in the tank at one time than a hose does. You could fill a rain barrel with either a hose or a bucket because its opening is larger than both.

In the analogy you presented, we are talking about the opening of a jar. Without altering the opening we can use a small funnel. This funnel would allow us to reduce the amount of time we move our arm to the bucket of water and back by allowing us to pour straight from the bucket. Again allowing the same size opening, a hose of this size would further remove time by allowing us to siphon the water directly at it's own speed, that is the maximum speed the water can enter the opening. Further if we have more than one person using an eyedropper, the time is further adjusted because as in the placement of the railroad lines, when the hammer comes down, the other hammer is up, when the up hammer comes down, the down hammer goes up, thus two stricks for every one strick time. It all is very simple math really. I thought you understood how it works wasn't that you claim?

Mo and Jo investigated the most efficient way to fill the container and set up the equipement together. [

This is a new addition, is it being added because you can't refute the evidence presented any other way but to change the argument? Let's see how it works for you.

Presumably they used an eyedropper or some such instrument because it was just as efficient and less wasteful than other methods. I did not suggest they stayed there and filled the container manually. They set up equipment, so fatigue does not apply.

fatigue applies within the total time of an accurate time measure. Whether or not the fatigue existed, it is a variable that must be calculated in an accurate measure.

Since Mo presumably checked the equipment daily as he kept track of how much water entered it, we can eliminate equipment failure.

I didn't even present that variable thanks for offering it. And btw, just as fatigue would be a factor affecting the final outcome, so would equipment failure. Now if the analogy is dealing with the accuracy of the final answer, this variable must also be taken into the equasion. Thus we begin to see a clearer picture as to why the limitations and variables are so great that the biased scientist would indeed not be able to accurately calculate the age of the earth. But onward with your analogy. Since it is yours we need to give you a far chance at defending it.

In short, all the elements of delay were eliminated or at least reduced.

First that is only possible if the experiment was carried out to it's completion. Second each of these variables must be considered in calculations. And in fact, it was these variables being accounted for by the scientists that started this whole discussion

Suppose Mo had come in and found an equipment malfunction. He would set up the equipment again, and when he got the end result, he would see from his notes that he needed to subtract the time when the equipment was not working as it ought to. So he would still get the same answer as if the equipment had not failed in the first place.

So what you are saying is that the age of the earth removes all variables by going back in time and refiguring every time a variable occurs. So where is this time machine. This analogy is becoming the joke of the day, you need to either accept that you or wrong or accept that your analogy isn't working. And btw, my husband just added a variable that I wasn't even thinking of, evaporation. The more we talk the more variables we need to add and the only suggestion you offer for dealing with them is to restart the experiement to remove the variable. This can't be done when we are talking about identifying the age of the earth.[/quote]

You can raise all the various scenarios you like. They do not change the reliability of the calculation because all of the variables can also be noted and included in the calculations. You seem to think that because unexpected things can happen, we cannot have accuracy. But we can. We just need to alter our calculations to take the unexpected things into account. [/quote] With the number of variables we are talking about here, the task of adjusting is daunting, when we are talking the things that could affect the age of the earth, is unrealistic.

Actually what you do is reduce the number of possibilities up front e.g. by using a machine with a constant rate of speed. You don't have to calculate for possibles that you eliminate up front. So you eliminate as many as you can.

so now you are suggesting that we alter history to fit our calculations, how does that lead us to truth?

Now, there are two things that can throw off the calculations. One is that something happens to delay the train for some time, throwing off the average rate of speed. The journey takes longer than expected. In the case of how old a star is, this would mean something happened to delay the light on its way from the star to earth. What could happen to prevent light travelling through empty space?

that is provided the light in question is from the star and not another source. For that you would have to show scientific evidence that the light is indeed originating from the star. I have asked you several times for this evidence and all you give me is more of the same old nonsense.

So what could make the dates younger? On our train journey, we could get a shorter time by increasing the speed for part of the trip. If the train slowed down again before reaching the destination, how would we know it had speeded up? Would we have no way to determine this variable?

what about other variables, hills, curves, surges in the speed, to name just a few variables you are not adding in your calculations.

Actually we can determine this variable. Because increased speed has consequences. It takes more fuel to run at a higher speed.

not if you are going down hill

So we can check how much fuel the train used and see if it is consistent with a faster or slower speed. Do we have equivalent checks for radiometry?

Well since going down a grade, and the degree of grade will skew the results you want to get, then I am not sure what answer you want, because you aren't looking at it logically, you are arguing it emotionally, remember me insisting that I refrain from personal opinions this is why.

Yes we do. 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. Thus our train could have been going down hill and you still haven't proven what you want to prove so badly simply because you are wrong.

I will keep going as soon as I know the answer. Do stars give light of their own? Do we have one kind of light in the world or two (or more)? We have the original light created before the stars. That's one. But what about light from stars, from the sun, from fires, candles, flashlight, fireflies, electric lights, etc. Is this all the same light as existed before the stars or do each of these things produce their own light as well?

you were asked this question and asked to evidence your claims because they are important to your claim. They really don't affect my claim to the same degree. And in fact, they are not necessary to falsify my claim. But you need to think outside the box. You hinted at the answer once but failed to follow through.

The first one (the one I intended) has not been proven wrong yet.

sure was, read the text.

Get back to me when you have finished with the link I gave you.

finished it and found two things amazing well lets make it three. 1. doesn't fit other claims you have made, 2. sounds like a bunch of double talk and 3. lacks evidence to support the claim, which is why I offered a link that deals with the Heb. translations and their affects on the topic of days. You want to deal with evidence, do so, I provided counter evidence to your site which had none.

However, I note the title is "The Hebrew Word Yom Used with a Number in Genesis 1" I am familiar with the argument and it is a non-starter. it depends on a so-called rule of grammar that was made up for the purpose of supporting a literal interpretation. This rule is not found in any standard work of Hebrew grammar--only in sources already committed to a literal interpretation. So it is circular reasoning at best.

Well you will need to support that since it is dealing with the original text in question and not just a popular notion as yours is doing. None the less, when I have time I will look for more evidence from scholars, for the moment my husband wants to use the computer to upload a Heinz commercial we made for their contest.

 

[gluadys]

I showed the claim and the evidence and quoted it so as to not make a typo and you still refuse it. so be it, as stated many times already, there are none so blind as those who willfully close their eyes.

You never quoted anything that supported your claim (because there was nothing you could quote) and you ignored what contradicted it. All you did was use your imagination to extrapolate meanings that were not there from the article.

For example: the article mentioned two limitations in using radiocarbon dating. It never said that these limitations were controversial, denied by either old earth or young earth proponents, not accepted by any scientist whatever their bias. And it never said they posed any problem whatsoever for accuracy.

You imagined that limitations pose such problems. You imposed these imaginary problems on the article. So you saw meaning in the article not intended by the author.

If radioactive dating is so irrelavent to the discussion then why didn't you dismiss the article when it was first presented instead of trying to make it into an issue?

Many types of radioactive dating are relevant. I named a few for you: uranium-lead, argon-argon, potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium. There are many others, but those are the few I can recall off the top of my head.

Radiocarbon dating is relevant for fairly recent dates, but not to anything much more than 50,000 years--maybe a bit more with ultrasensitive equipment.

It seems that it is much easier to find information on radiocarbon dating than on other radiometric processes. Apparently that leads some people to think it is the only test to be considered. Nope, there are lots more.

 

[razzelflabben]

You never quoted anything that supported your claim (because there was nothing you could quote) and you ignored what contradicted it. All you did was use your imagination to extrapolate meanings that were not there from the article.

Now from the start of the quoting on my part I said that you had already presented one side so I would only quote the supporting evidence for the other side, that is issue one so unless you are ready to tell us what you gain by pretending otherwise, you need to be honest and let it be what it is.

Secondly, here is my claim that the article was supporting. The limitations and variables are such that a biased scientist would not accept the total extent of margin of error.

Now, let's look at it one at a time. Did the article show limitations? Yep. Did it show variables? Yep Did it speak of scientists bending the information to suit their own opinions? Yep. So what we have is an article that supports the claims I made and said it would support. And still you argue it didn't. Okay then, show me where it doesn't say there are limitations, where it doesn't say there are variables, where it doesn't say that both sides bend the information to suit their opinions. It is all right there in the article and it was quoted for you and if you still want to deny it, that is your right, but, it is not your right to insist that it wasn't there, only your right to deny your acceptance of it. Call it what it is, you don't want to believe it so you refuse to accept it.

For example: the article mentioned two limitations in using radiocarbon dating. It never said that these limitations were controversial, denied by either old earth or young earth proponents, not accepted by any scientist whatever their bias. And it never said they posed any problem whatsoever for accuracy.

well two corrections here. One, I didn't make these claims either, I said that there were limitations, nothing about those limitations numbers, or ignoring, only that the limitations existed and could along with the variables be bent, skewed, twisted..... by biased scientists to suit their beliefs.

Second correction. The article does not state how many limitations there are but rather how these limitations affect what we can test. Now it does talk about some of the limitations, but the list is in no way intended to be comprehensive and we know this from the grammatical structure of the article.

You imagined that limitations pose such problems. You imposed these imaginary problems on the article. So you saw meaning in the article not intended by the author.

Now the only way you could say this with evidence to support your claim is if you could read my mind or I told you it was what I was thinking at the time. Neither is true, so you are assuming what my intent was based on your own interpretation of the issue. Now think back to the OP. The OP is asking us to stop thinking about our own interpretations based on our own bias and instead looking at the interpretation as it is provided and intended. See the problem is, you have a bias, and you make no pretense of hiding that bias, we all know what you believe. And you put these bias colored glasses on and look at the world calling it truth. You have done that here with me. In no way, shape or form did I suggest the limitations created any huge problem in fact, the context of the thread shows that my problem is more with the variables than with the limitations (that is evidence to the truth). I impossed nothing on the article. I accepted the article for what it was, a discussion of the method used and the limitations thereof. It was a bonus that it talked about both sides bending the evidence, that was just icing on the cake. And btw, opinion is evidence for nothing but opinion and so the other side of the issue, that of his personal opinion is not necessary at all in understanding the rest of the article and would only be presented if his opinion was supporting your own bias or we were looking for what his opinion was. So what really is happening is that you read into my claim what you wanted to be there (so you could defeat it) without ever reading or understanding the claim. Then you read the article trying to fit it into your own little image of what I had said and when you couldn't do that you made your case stronger by claiming his opinion to be evidence. Now do I base this analysis on suppositions? Nope, on evidence. Evidence 1. after repeatedly telling you and showing you my claim you still refuse to accept that this is my claim and insist on reading into it what was never there. 2. All the evidence provided to support my claim was quoted from the article thus showing support not conclusions. 3. You insist that his opinion is evidence. 4. you insist that his opinion is evidence that would falsify my claim. That is enough evidence though if I try I am sure I could think up some more. That case is made using evidence and that is that.

It seems that it is much easier to find information on radiocarbon dating than on other radiometric processes. Apparently that leads some people to think it is the only test to be considered. Nope, there are lots more.

I never suggested otherwise, what I did ask you was if this method is irrelavent in your opinion to the discussion at hand why did you continue to discuss it as if it were relavant? What did you hope to gain. When you presented "evidence" of an old appearing earth, that didn't meet sufficient criteria for evidence, I explained to you why that wasnt valid and that you needed to provide something that was. That way, you had the oppertunity to make a case for the validity of it or present something else we could both accept as valid. It is how debate works. Instead, you insisted that the dating method was accurate and made no suggestion of it's limitations in identifying an earth that appears old. What do you hope to gain from this type of debate?

 

[razzelflabben]

Now what about chronological days.

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

Let me point out this sentence part way down.

The lack of the definite article has been interpreted to mean that all creation "days" (except "the sixth day," which has the article) will allow "for the possibility of random or literary order as well as a rigidly chronological order."112 This is a rather shaky interpretation. It cannot be supported from semantic-syntactical points of view.

Now that is two articles that evaluate the Hebrew text and both agree that there is a chronological order to the text. So what then is your article basing it's assumption on that the text is speaking generally? Scholars seem to agree with the chronolgy of days.

 

[gluadys]

actually you presented it as if I never admitted that the evidence was no longer available to me. That is what I am asking you, what does it gain you to pretend that it wasn't admitted when it was directly stated in the beginning. And this was one of two times on this thread you did this, plus another time of similar techniques. All I am asking is what you gain or think you gain from this type of deception.

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?

yes finally, a scientific approach to a question of scientific nature.

Good. Finally I have understood something. It is not easy figuring out a strange new vocabulary. It's a pleasure to finally understand what you mean by absolutes and how they figure into the process.

So let's see if I can take another step. If I have understood things so far, we have established two absolutes (although one to my mind is still a bit iffy.)

1. the chemical composition of the human body is similar (though of course, not identical) to that of dust. So when the biblical text says humans were formed out of dust, this is consistent with science which agrees on the similarity of the elements present in both the body and in dust.

2. humanity is unique in some respect. You used the term "unique creation" which is not in the biblical text. But I take it you are using the phrase as a synonym for humanity being created "in the image of God." Obviously, science does not confirm that humanity is created "in the image of God", but it does confirm that humanity has characteristics unique to the species. (As all species do.)

The "iffiness" I have with this is not about human uniqueness, but about the phrase "unique creation". I am wondering if this has implications beyond characteristics unique to the species. However, that is another exploration we can leave for later.

So, now the process is to identify other absolutes, right?

Then examine them for compatibility with science, right?

Where do we go next?

First you need to identify why or how it looks old.

Well, we would have to look at each item case-by-case since the evidence of age differs from one to another. One thing that makes the Chicxulub crater look old is that it has been filled in by erosion. It takes time for erosion to happen.

no, you presented the age the light reached the earth, not the star unless you can scientifically evidence the source of light.

See below. I am trying to consolidate all the conversation on light in one place.

not at all, in fact, both would speed up the time, you really should do an experiment for yourself.

Here we have Jo and Mo who can alter the time by removing human fatigue, human time, spilling, etc. To remove these elements would alter the end result.

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

Without altering the opening we can use a small funnel. This funnel would allow us to reduce the amount of time we move our arm to the bucket of water and back by allowing us to pour straight from the bucket. Again allowing the same size opening, a hose of this size would further remove time by allowing us to siphon the water directly at it's own speed, that is the maximum speed the water can enter the opening.

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.

Further if we have more than one person using an eyedropper,

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.

This is a new addition,

No, I mentioned setting up the equipment when I first presented the analogy.

First that is only possible if the experiment was carried out to it's completion.

It was. Remember Mo watched it to its completion.

Second each of these variables must be considered in calculations.

Not necessarily. We only need to consider relevant variables.

You seem to have the weird idea that all possible variables, including wildly improbable imaginary ones, must be calculated. This is not the case.

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

In setting up the experiment, we exclude as many variables as possible (such as the effect of human fatigue) so that we do not have to calculate them.

Of the variables that remain, we calculate them only if we have evidence that they are relevant. If no equipment failure happens, we do not calculate how equipment failure affected the results. Why calculate for a non-event?

Only if it does happen, do we enter that variable in the calculation.

So what you are saying is that the age of the earth removes all variables by going back in time and refiguring every time a variable occurs.

The age of the earth doesn't do anything. It just is. And no, variables are not removed. Whenever the evidence indicates a variable that could affect the dating method, the variable is accounted for. Just as equipment failure is accounted for IF it occurs. Just as radiocarbon dates are adjusted when we find out that the atmosphere was more or less rich in carbon at certain times.

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.

And btw, my husband just added a variable that I wasn't even thinking of, evaporation.

My bad. But of course, this is still a variable that can be accounted for, and even controlled to some extent. The container itself protects its contents from wind. It can be placed in shaded location to reduce the effect of heat. (And in addition to evaporation one would also have to account for the reverse process--condensation--which restores the water vapour to liquid water, so evaporation doesn't mean the loss of water from the container.) This is another variable that can be minimized up front. And if necessary, it can still be included in the calculations. This is the point you seem not to get. All relevant variables can be included in the calculations. Non-relevant variables do not have to be included.

what about other variables, hills, curves, surges in the speed, to name just a few variables you are not adding in your calculations.

OK, let's get back to the train. We have distance (d) and speed (s) and we want to find out time (t) to travel the distance at that speed. Simple equation d/s=t. e.g 100 miles /50 mph=2hours.

Oh wait, you say. The train does not travel at a constant speed. It slows down going uphill and speeds up going downhill. We can add that it speeds up with more fuel and slows down when the brake is applied. It may even stop at an intermediate station to let people on and off. No the train does not travel at a constant speed. Does that mean we cannot make an accurate calculation?

Not at all. We simply substitute an average speed for a constant speed. So we get an average time per trip.

Now, with delays, we do not calculate for delays unless they occur. But since this is a train, delays do occur. However, by observing and cataloguing each delay by cause, frequency of occurrence, length of each delay, we soon have a database from which we can calcluate the average frequency of delays, the most likely causes of delay and the average time lost to delay per month. So we still have an accurate accounting of time taken for the journey in varying circumstances. We can, for example, get an accurate average speed per trip over a 30-day period. This average would include the occasions on which the train was delayed for some reason.

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. Think of all the "incalculable" variables that go into any auto accident: the experience of the driver, the degree of fatigue or worry or distraction at the moment, the actions of other drivers, the volume of traffic, the road conditions, the weather conditions, hundreds of variables. Yet in spite of all these unpredictable imponderables, a savvy insurance company can tell you within a very small margin of error, how many claims they will have to deal with in the next year and how much they will have to pay out. If they couldn't they would soon be out of business. Scientific calculations are just as accurate as those of insurance companies--often more so, as they more frequently deal with constants not affected by circumstances.

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.

Heat dissipates at a measurable rate. We know how long it takes a massive body like the earth to cool down enough to support life (about a billion years). Even a generous young-earth time line does not allow for the heat from rapid radioactive decay to dissipate quickly enough for life to appear in the present, much less thousands of years ago. 999,999 years is too short a time to get rid of enough heat to make the earth habitable. You need about 1,000 times longer than that.

you were asked this question and asked to evidence your claims because they are important to your claim.

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.

As for evidence, be patient. I am trying to gather the information I need to determine what the evidence is.

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?

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.

Take your pick.

finished it and found two things amazing well lets make it three. 1. doesn't fit other claims you have made,

I am curious as to where you found a discrepancy.

2. sounds like a bunch of double talk

subjective reaction, irrelevant

and 3. lacks evidence to support the claim

the textual evidence is cited in the article. If you need help finding it, I can point it out to you.

Well you will need to support that since it is dealing with the original text in question and not just a popular notion as yours is doing.

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

Why do I think it is biased?

1. In Israel, Hebrew speaking children are taught Hebrew grammar in school, just as we teach our children English grammar and the French teach their children French grammar and the Chinese teach... oh, you get the picture. Does any text on Hebrew grammar approved by the Israeli Ministry of Education for Hebrew speaking children mention this grammar rule? I, for one, would consider that a bare minimum of evidence that this so-called grammar rule is legitimate.

2. Many texts are published for non-Hebrew speaking people to learn Hebrew. Does any non-religous text on Hebrew for those learning the language include this so-called grammar rule? I happen to have such a text and it doesn't. Perhaps you can find me one that does.

3. Many Jews and Christians are particularly interested in Biblical Hebrew. Is this grammar rule mentioned in any text for learning Biblical Hebrew other than those published specifically by and for young earth creationists? I have one of these texts too, and it does not mention this rule.

4. Ours is not the first generation to be interested in Biblical Hebrew. Ever since non-Jews were admitted into the church, some Christians have learned Hebrew in order to read the Old Testament in the original language. Most of these Christians assumed a young earth. Does any medieval text on Hebrew written for those who spoke Latin mention this rule? Does any text in any European language written before 1850 mention this rule, even when written by and for young earth creationists?

If the answer to all four above is "No" (and I believe it is), then we have this situation. This so-called rule of biblical Hebrew is known only to young-earth creationists of recent times and is used only to support a literal young earth intepretation of the text to which they have a prior commitment.

Did the grammar of Genesis change since it was first written? No!

So if this so-called rule of grammar is known to only those who have a prior commitment to the interpretation it is used to support, I smell Bias with a capital B.

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.