Creation started with nothing?

[razzelflabben]

I am commiting myself to cutting your posts down to resonable size so if I miss something important just ask again.

No, I don't think it does. Gen. 1 does not say that humans were created from the stuff of the universe. It only says that they were created, and it uses the term 'bara' which some people interpret as "created from nothing'.

any ancient text requires supporting documents to clarify meaning or intent, I am sure you know this. Now instead of pretending you don't just deal with it.

Gen. 1 does suggest use of already created matter for the creation of plants, sea creatures and land creatures other than humans. See Gen 1:11, 12, 20, 24. But there is no equivalent to "let the earth/waters bring forth..." in relation to the creation of humanity Gen. 1: 26,

If you want to pick and choose the supporting documents we look at, then let's look at Gen.1 only. It tells us that man is a unique creation,.Set apart from all the rest of creation. Many different diseplines and scientific studies have dealt with this question and the evidence always comes back that man is indeed a unique creation.

Since Gen. 1 does not say anything one way or another about the material of which the human body is created, no hypothesis can be constructed from it.

May I assume you really meant to refer to Gen. 2?

Yet all life is consistant with the account and so we have our first test and it evidences Gen. 1.

By the way, any time we wish to interpret a work, especially an ancient one but not limited to said (ancient one), we must rely on all sorts of supporting documents. Such is the case here. I am confident you have been taught this and are just being difficult to make a point, but I can play the game anyway you like.

Oh, it does matter. Science is not actually biased toward evolution. It is biased toward taking evidence seriously. And the evidence points to evolution. So science takes evolution seriously.

Now does that mean it points away from creation? That depends on how you define creation, so the definition does matter.

If you define creation to be consistent with evolution, then evidence that points to evolution also points to creation. If you define creation to be inconsistent with evolution, then the evidence that points to evolution points away from creation.

Either way, science will follow the evidence. It is you who choose what that means for creation by how you define creation.

On this very forum, at least two evolutionists who profess to be scientists, have admitted publically that science is absolutely biased on this topic. Now some time ago I made this point and was still able to access the evidence only to have the thread closed before the evidence was seen. Unfortunately today I have no ability to exidence it for you. None the less, it does not change the fact that people in all areas of belief on the topic know and some are even brave enough to admit that bias absolutely does exist. The problem is that true science attempts to remove bias. That removal is not happening and thus creates a lot of problems.

I don't know how you could come to this conclusion when I just showed you an example of such a hypothesis. So you can dispense with the irrelevant lecture.

This is what I mean about changing your proposal. Going back over this thread, I see that Jeff 992 first introduced the "appearance of age" argument, asking how I dealt with it, and I answered briefly. You picked up the concept again in post 141 with the question: "what if the "illusion" of history was in some way necessary for the life to exist."

Now what you need to understand is that you only need an "appearance of age" argument if you are proposing a recent creation.

What you consistantly miss is what the Gen. text allows in our understanding. On the issue of age of the earth, three possibles exist.
Listed for your benefit, please try to make use of it.
1. Old earth
2. Young earth
and 3. which you refuse to think through, that it is mixed. In otherwords, nothing in the text says without alternate possibilities, that the earth could be ancient until day 4. It is only on day 4 that the things necessary to measure time exist.

Now I would think from our previous discussion that someone who believes as you claim, that time is measure would have thought this concept through by now, but alas, you apparently haven't.

Now I agree with you that the bible doesn't state how young the earth really is. But some people (young earth creationists) do believe that creation was very recent, only a few thousand years ago. Because they believe creation was recent they need to explain the appearance of age. If they didn't believe in a recent creation, the question would not be raised at all as there would be no need to distinguish between an apparent age and an actual age.

You asked a question that depended on the premise of a recent creation. Now you want to change the premise to one that doesn't depend on the earth being young. But when you change the premise, the original question simply disappears. It no longer needs to be answered, because it no longer needs to be even asked.

The premise has never changed, the premise has always been what does Gen. allow for, or state. In this case, it is indeed unclear, however, you asked the question why would the earth appear old if it was young. I suggested this could be because it was necessary for it to sustain life. You bring Adams belly button into the picture. My response is that two things are possible.
1. only the things necessary to sustain life exist, therefore we would conclude that Adam wouldn't have a belly button,
2. there is a hidden reason why it would be necessary. Therefore, we would have to be absolutely sure no other reason for it's existance was needed before eliminating it from the reasons.

It really isn't rocket science to suggest that there is either a reason or that we don't know everything.

Well, this is no longer an argument about apparent age. This is saying that science can determine the date, but is getting the dates wrong because of some deficiency in method or information.

If that is the case, all that remains is to come up with a better method or the missing information. Scientists will be quite happy to work with a better method and to have their conclusions conform to new information.

It should also be pointed out that under current methods, the various different systems of dating concur on pointing to certain dates (or date ranges). Scientists consider such concurrence to be evidence that the dating is reliable. Why would such concurrence occur if the dating is not reliable?

I have heard and seen evidence that both our methods are reliable and that they aren't. All I am suggesting is that we scientifically make sure, unbiased mind you, before we make assumptions like the ones you are.

To put it simply, there is only one way to be right, there are a zillion ways to be wrong. If dating is so unreliable, why do all the dating methods point to the same wrong date when there are a zillion to choose from? Why do we not get a bunch of wrong dates that contradict one another?

Look at the idea of testing for something created. We make wood quilts, I have spoken of this before. Now off the top of my head, I can think of three different ways I have seen people make wood quilts. All three methods produce what is known as wood quilts, but only one method is consistant with identifying what is our wood quilts. Measures of time are similar, there are lots of ways to measure time, but only one is consistant with the truth, that is why this arguement of age of earth from a biblical standpoint, is wrong, because, the bible doesn't specify. Therefore if someone says, based on the biblical creation...... and you or someone else infers young earth on the arguement, you have totally and completely removed yourself from reasonable discussion because the bible doesn't specify only church traditions would specifiy and that isn't the discussion.

Sorry, but you fail at mind-reading. My premise is that apparent age is tied to recent creation. A person who subscribes to recent creation has to account for the appearance that creation is not recent. Those who do not subscribe to recent creation don't need to account for the appearance of age because they take it as a true description of reality.

Your problem is that you cannot decide which premise you are going with: recent creation or old creation or even both at once if that is possible.

That doesn't change the fact that they look old. It is the appearance of age that has to be accounted for in this "what if".

But you fail to question the what if it is both. In addition to this flaw in your logic, you faith to address the what if there are things that don't appear to be old, like Adam's belly button. Both must be considered in any what if equasion.

 

[razzelflabben]

This seems like a pretty deep thread. I'm just gonna post what I believe. What has been revealed to us is that only God is uncreated and therefore without beginning. Out of nothing, God spoke and it was so. The Son/Word of God was that which fashioned and perfects all of creation. The Spirit/Breath of God was that which sanctifies and gave Life to all of creation.

One could ask, how is it possible that something could come from nothing. Christ Himself says that with God all things are possible. It is possible for it to happen, though we never understand it, being a part of creation and not outside of it. Any thoughts?

If I am following you, we agree, my assertion is that from a biblical standpoint, not a traditional one, we don't know if the heavens and earth were created from nothing or not. That is not to say that something wasn't created from nothing, nor is it to say that the heavens and earth were not created from nothing, but rather to say that God doesn't specify for us if the heavens and earth were created from nothing or not. Am I reading your post right?

 

[razzelflabben]

part 2

Sure. I don't see any problem with the earth being 4.5 billion years old. The text doesn't specifiy any age as far as I can see. So why not the age specified by scientific discovery?

I don't see a shoulder shrugging smilie. Why not, I don't know, that isn't part of our current discussion.

If not, what non-scientific estimate would you use? And why would you use it? What would make the text more consistent with that estimate than with the scientific estimate?

If you like we can look at some scientific publications describing the results of experiments along this line.

The OP did not specifically introduce the concept of a recent creation, but your post 141 did so implicitly. If you want to go back to the context of OP, that's fine. We can discontinue conversation on the implications of a recent creation such as appearance of age and illusory history.

The OP laid out the premise of what the Bible actually says, not what the church has traditionally implied the text to say. You still are confusing the two and my premise has not changed from the OP to this. Our conflict is that you refuse to deal with the premise of the OP, instead insisting that we apply church tradition to the understanding and calling it truth.

No, you were the one who changed the original context with the detour into the appearance of age argument. Now you want to change back. No problem.

All irrelevant since you no longer wish to continue with the premise of a recent creation.

Because evolutionists know that evolution is fact-based. We don't have a problem knowing that evolution happens, so we don't have to assert it by faith. Creation, OTOH does need to be asserted by faith. That is true even if your definition of creation is compatible with evolution. An evolutionary creationist believes in creation as a matter of faith and accepts evolution as a matter of fact.

only fact based because of bias, that is the whole problem with proclaiming it to be truth. I can claim anything to be truth and invent evidence to support it, that doesn't make it truth.

Enough said, this is getting to close to my personal beliefs and will open the door for emotional responses which I do not wish to do. Suffice to say, that science when appoaching the topic unbiased as is the scientific method, simply doesn't know what the origins of life really are. They can speculate, they can suggest, they can theorize, they can guess, but the simple conclusion which by the way is the ONLY viable conclusion, is we simply don't know. Unfortunately, I don't forsee anything changing enough in the future to change the conclusion either.

I assume you mean the bias that the evidence in nature speaks of the reality of nature and is not an elaborate disguise. Can you give one reason why scientists should not be biased in favour of believing that what they study really exists? [/quote] No, the bias that science only accepts evidence that would support the theory of evolution and dismisses all other evidence that would either falsify the theory of evolution or support any theory based on creation.

Sure it takes faith to believe that the world we see is real. It also takes faith to believe it is not real. But which option is more reasonable? Why, without good reason, should we choose to disbelieve what we see? And what would be a good enough reason to disbelieve what we see?

and it takes faith to believe that science can answer this question for us, so any belief thereof is a faith based one, and I can't make it any simpler, it can get more complicated, the the intellectual minds on this forum and in our colleges, and in our science labs aren't honest enough to admit that all beliefs on our orgins of life are based on faith. How sad that the people we hold in high esteem can't even admit the basics because of thier own bias, and we wonder why there is bias in our scientific community? Wow!

Do you mean Christian Forums as a whole or this particular forum, Origins Theology. Have you never noticed that Christian Forums is divided into a section open to everyone and a section open only to Christians?

I said forum I mean forum.

This forum, Origins Theology, is in the section open only to Christians. There are no atheists in this forum. There are plenty elsewhere in Christian Forums, and plenty (as you are aware) in the Creo-Evo Forum in the Discussion and Debate area. But not here in Origins Theology.

Well, that is the assertion I would like you to substantiate. What are the identifying marks that would tell us whether or not history is illusory so that we could distinguish between apparent and actual history?

Sure. You've made it clear that you don't personally take a stand on a recent creation. But you asked a "what if" and I am just showing the consequences. History becomes illusory and we cannot know if any of our experience is more than a passing dream. We cannot know if our experience is of anything real outside of ourselves. IOW using this argument of an illusory appearance of age ends up questioning the reality of creation itself.

Unless, as you said above, there is a way to identify when history is illusion and when it is not. But you had better study some epistemology before you tackle that question. You would take the Nobel Prize in philosophy if you came up with an answer that eluded Descartes, Kant and a whole bunch of other people a lot smarter than me.

That all life is an illusion is only one possible consequence to this equasion. I thought you had thought this throw. what is the other possible consequence to a world that appears older than it is? How about perspective? Hum, perspective, we talked about that when we talked about history remember? Our perspective changes, so does the outcome or the percieved outcome to be more percise. So instead of the "illusion" being that all of life is an "illusion" or possible "illusion" we might also look at it and say, how does my perception affect the outcome or percieved outcome.
Think it through, don't just stop when you have a comfortable answer that justifies your bias.

I understand it very well. That is the point I have been making. I am glad to see it got through.

Yes, I get it. That's my definition #3, remember?

Doesn't that conclusion depend on defining "biblical creation" so that it disagrees with the theory of evolution. Why would you want to do that?

Oh boy, this discussion again. What we want to do is allow the text we are examining determine the definition for us.

I am not sure what you think my stand is. What is it you think I am adamantly proclaiming? I doubt it has much relationship to what I have actually said.

Common theories? I don't know that there is any such thing.

If you mean, can a person who accepts evolution believe in creation, the answer is "yes". Can a person who believes in creation be an evolutionist? The answer, again, is "yes". Is that what you mean by "common theories"?

I would only say then that you are misapplying the word "theory" to creation. Creation is not a theory supported by evidence. It is a doctrine accepted by faith. Evolution is not a doctrine accepted by faith. It is a theory based on evidence.

Are they compatible? Sure. You can accept the evidence for evolution and believe in creation by faith. No problem. But that doesn't turn your faith in creation into an evidence -based scientific theory like evolution.

Reminder again. We are dealing with a hypothesis. Do I have to bold the word "if" every time I use it?

Then we could hypothesis that if the belly buttons only function is before birth, then Adam would not have had a belly button because it's existance would not be necessary for sustaining life.

Yes that was your hypothesis back in post 141 (although as a 'devil's advocate). Now given that hypothesis, would there be any reason to include in the earth any appearance of age not necessary to sustain life? Would there be any reason for God to create Adam with a belly-button?

Would there be any reason to create fossils of extinct animals?

this one depends on the age of the earth and by reason of OP premise, we don't know. By reason of young earth discussion with OP premise we could have a mixed bag to work with.

Would there be any reason to create evidence of past seasons that never were?
Would there be any reason to create a star that super-novaed a billion years ago if history only goes back a few thousand years?

What do any of these things have to do with making the earth able to sustain life?

see above, at least this part of the post is on topic.

And what are they? Where can I learn about them?

Oh, so there are tests that don't actually work. So what's the point of alluding to them?

What we can know is what the evidence points to. Is that the correct answer? Depends. Did God make a real world? or an illusory world?

I think I addressed all this already, I hope I didn't miss one, let me know if I did.

 

[gluadys]

any ancient text requires supporting documents to clarify meaning or intent, I am sure you know this. Now instead of pretending you don't just deal with it.

Well, this is you changing your tune again. You said Gen. 1. You did not say "Gen. 1 & supporting documents." Don't expect me to read your mind over the internet.

[Gen. 1] tells us that man is a unique creation,.Set apart from all the rest of creation.

What do you understand by "unique". Would it be consistent to say humanity is unique and humanity evolved? Or would you see these concepts as contradictory to each other?

Yet all life is consistant with the account and so we have our first test and it evidences Gen. 1.

What first test is that? I didn't see any reference to a test that provides evidence for Gen. 1.

Gen. 2 agrees with Gen.1 in saying that humanity is God's creation. But the reference to humanity being made out of dirt occurs only in Gen. 2. There is nothing in Gen. 1 for it to agree with.

That an analysis of the human body shows it to be composed of elements commonly found in nature may be interpreted as being consistent with Gen. 2 (or vice versa, Gen. 2 can be interpreted as being consistent with the scientific analysis), but this is not evidence for Gen. 1 which only states that humanity was created by God.

I can play the game anyway you like.

I can play the game anyway you like as long as you tell me which game I am in. It is your constant changing from one game to another that is confusing. If the parameters are set by Genesis 1, that does not include Genesis 2 or any other external document. If you want to introduce material from outside Genesis 1, you haven't won your point. You have changed the game.

On this very forum, at least two evolutionists who profess to be scientists, have admitted publically that science is absolutely biased on this topic.

Science is indeed absolutely biased in favour of the evidence, and it happens the evidence favours evolution. That does not make science biased against creation unless you insist on defining creation to be incompatible with evolution.

What you consistantly miss is what the Gen. text allows in our understanding. On the issue of age of the earth, three possibles exist.
Listed for your benefit, please try to make use of it.
1. Old earth
2. Young earth
and 3. which you refuse to think through, that it is mixed. In otherwords, nothing in the text says without alternate possibilities, that the earth could be ancient until day 4. It is only on day 4 that the things necessary to measure time exist.

On the contrary I know all that. What I don't know from post to post is which possible understanding you are using. You flit from one to another without warning.

The premise has never changed, the premise has always been what does Gen. allow for, or state.

You have already set out what the text allows for above. I agree with your three possibilities.

Does that end the discussion? Or do you want to discuss whether one of those possibilities is more likely than another?

Or do you want to discuss whether one of those possibilities is more compatible with science than the others?

Here the answer is easy. Only the first option is compatible with the scientific understanding of the age of the earth. Because the first option is compatible with science, we can say that the biblical account, so understood, does not contradict science, nor is it contradicted by science.

What we cannot say is that science, like the bible, can support all three possibilities. Science is limited to supporting only the old age option.

My response is that two things are possible.
1. only the things necessary to sustain life exist, therefore we would conclude that Adam wouldn't have a belly button,
2. there is a hidden reason why it would be necessary. Therefore, we would have to be absolutely sure no other reason for it's existance was needed before eliminating it from the reasons.

See. You can make sense if you try. That is absolutely right. In a young earth scenario, either Adam did not have a belly-button (because he didn't need it) or he had one, but we don't know why. In fact, in addition to hidden reasons, it could be he had one for no reason at all.

Of course, "hidden reasons" or "no reason at all" are useless as science. You can believe in them if you want, but you can't build science on them until the reasons are no longer hidden.

I have heard and seen evidence that both our methods are reliable and that they aren't. All I am suggesting is that we scientifically make sure, unbiased mind you, before we make assumptions like the ones you are.

The scientists who use the tests are satisfied that we are scientifically sure about their reliability. I have never seen questions about their reliability except from sources who are biased against the implications of the results. Nor have I ever seen their doubts backed up by valid scientific research.

Look at the idea of testing for something created. We make wood quilts, I have spoken of this before. Now off the top of my head, I can think of three different ways I have seen people make wood quilts. All three methods produce what is known as wood quilts, but only one method is consistant with identifying what is our wood quilts.

So are you saying that if an expert in wood quilts had a sample of 3 dozen wood quilts from various sources, he could, by examining them, tell which were made by the method you use and which were made by one of the other two methods?

Could he do this based on one criterion only, or would he have to check several things about the wood quilt to be sure of which method was used to make it?

Measures of time are similar, there are lots of ways to measure time, but only one is consistant with the truth

We can measure time in many ways, and they are all valid if they all give the correct result. Just as we can measure length in many ways and they are all valid if they give the correct result. We can measure length with string, tape, yard sticks (or meter sticks) with odometers on vehicles, by the length of time it takes to travel the distance at a constant or average speed, etc. And if all the ways of measuring length agree on what the length is, we know that all the ways of arriving at the answer were valid, because they were all consistent in agreeing on what the length was.

The same with measuring time. We can use stop-watches, sand glasses, water clocks, sundials. tree rings, varves, the speed of light and rates of radiometric decay. All are good ways to measure time as long as the results are consistent with each other. If we have a clock saying noon while a sun-dial is saying 4 pm we know that one of them is not working properly. But as long as all the time-pieces give the same measurement, we assume they are all correctly measuring the time.

That is why scientists take the consistency of dating from different dating measurements to indicate that the measuring techniques are accurate and reliable. One that is not accurate should not be giving the same time result.

that is why this arguement of age of earth from a biblical standpoint, is wrong, because, the bible doesn't specify.

Yes, I agree with that. The bible doesn't specify. The only specification of the age of the earth that we have comes from science, not from the bible.

But you fail to question the what if it is both. In addition to this flaw in your logic, you faith to address the what if there are things that don't appear to be old, like Adam's belly button. Both must be considered in any what if equasion.

Sorry, I haven't gone into that. But I see just as many problems with it vis-a-vis science as a strictly young-earth scenario.

Let's begin with a simple matter. Under the scenario of "old before the 4th day-recent from 4th day on" can we specify when God created humanity? Are the possibilities different than under a young earth scenario?

Because the majority of young-earth scenarios place the creation of humanity in the range of 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. I have seen a very few that consider the creation of humanity to be as long ago as 15,000 years, and I think I once saw an estimate of 30,000 years ago.

But the scientific evidence is that our species Homo sapiens has existed on earth for 150,000 to 200,000 years. Is the scientific evidence consistent with the option you are proposing?

only fact based because of bias, that is the whole problem with proclaiming it to be truth.

Yes, scientists do have this pesky bias that evidence is evidence of something real. So evidence that evolution happens leads them to consider evolution a fact.

Do you have a better basis for deciding what is and isn't fact?

I can claim anything to be truth and invent evidence to support it, that doesn't make it truth.

Do you have a basis for insinuating that the evidence for evolution has been invented?

No, the bias that science only accepts evidence that would support the theory of evolution and dismisses all other evidence that would either falsify the theory of evolution or support any theory based on creation.

Over the last 150 years, scientists have entertained many possibilities that would falsify evolution and all of them have failed to do so.

Evolution does not dispute creation. For many people evolution is a theory of creation.

Now, if you are talking about some other concept of creation, one that is not compatible with evolution, as far as I know, no theory based on such a concept has been developed yet.

When it is, we can examine the evidence to see how well it supports that theory. And we can study the theory to see how well it accounts for the evidence.

I said forum I mean forum.

Well, since the site as a whole is called Christian Forums (plural), then I take it you meant this forum, Origins Theology. I hope you understand now about all of us here being Christian. No atheists in this forum.

That all life is an illusion is only one possible consequence to this equasion. I thought you had thought this throw. what is the other possible consequence to a world that appears older than it is? How about perspective? Hum, perspective, we talked about that when we talked about history remember? Our perspective changes, so does the outcome or the percieved outcome to be more percise. So instead of the "illusion" being that all of life is an "illusion" or possible "illusion" we might also look at it and say, how does my perception affect the outcome or percieved outcome.

It seems to me that there are three possible ways to see things then.

1. I can take the perspective that we can believe what we see to be real. In that case all the history we see is real history and every age is what it appears to be. There is no difference between apparent and actual age. The apparent age is the actual age.

2. I can take the perspective that we cannot believe what we see to be real. In that case no history can be trusted to be real history. No apparent age can be trusted to be the real age. No experience can be trusted to be a real experience. All is illusion.

3. I can take the perspective that sometimes we can believe what we see to be real, and sometimes we cannot trust what we see to be real. Sometimes the age something appears to be is real. The apparent age is the actual age. Sometimes the age something appears to be is not real. It is only apparent age. The difficulty with this perspective is that I need a way to decide when an age is actual and when it is an illusory appearance of age.

Do you have any ideas for people who choose this perspective on what would help us decide when to trust history to be history and when to reject it as just appearance?

Oh boy, this discussion again. What we want to do is allow the text we are examining determine the definition for us.

Earlier you said the biblical account allowed for three different possibilities on the age of the earth. Are you now saying this is not the case? How can the text determine the definition for us if it allows for several possibilities?

Then we could hypothesis that if the belly buttons only function is before birth, then Adam would not have had a belly button because it's existance would not be necessary for sustaining life.

Exactly. The hypothesis that Adam did have a belly-button even though he did not need one, and never experienced life as an embryo or fetus is called the Omphalos argument (from the Latin word for belly-button). IOW the proponents of this hypothesis say that God created Adam with the appearance of having once been in his mother's womb even though he never had been. And in just the same way, God created the earth and the stars with the appearance of a long history that they never experienced.

And the problem, seen by the church, is that if you take this hypothesis seriously, you can never determine if any history is real. That would include the history of Jesus and the resurrection.

So the majority of Christians reject the Omphalos argument as theologically dangerous. It puts the whole historical basis of Christianity in question. For Christians, it is important that history be real, because our faith is rooted in historical experience.

this one depends on the age of the earth and by reason of OP premise, we don't know.

That's what I have been saying. If you are not wedded to a recent creation (and in the OP that is not proposed) then these are questions that don't arise.

Did God make a real world? or an illusory world?

I think I addressed all this already, I hope I didn't miss one, let me know if I did.

Not really. You alluded to some tests, but didn't say what they were. But you implied they were not effective tests anyway. So I think we are still left hanging. Is there any way of knowing when history is real and when it is not? when apparent age is actual age and when it is an illusion of age?

If we don't have a means of determining which history is real and which is not, we are left with a choice between the Omphalos argument --with all its theological dangers for the faith--and the scientific view that all history is real and the apparent age of everything is its actual age.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, this is you changing your tune again. You said Gen. 1. You did not say "Gen. 1 & supporting documents." Don't expect me to read your mind over the internet.

Can you read Hebrew, ancient Hebrew? Oh no, you just used supporting documents. I dare say that either directly or indirectly you have used all kinds of supporting documents to come to a translation of the text that we can understand. So which supporting documents are acceptable and which aren't? Throughout this thread, I have assued you that supporting documents such as but not limited to other biblical referances were welcomed. But saying that isn't enough for you to comprehend that the basis is Gen.1 the book of Gen., Exodus, Lev, Duet.........are acceptable supporting documents, just as commentaries, concordances, and translated bibles are, in other words, you can use KJV, NIV, NNIV, TNIV..........if we indeed only leave it at Gen. 1 we have a serious dilema because the ancient Heb. text makes no chapter distinction and therefore would indeed include chapter 2, 3, 4,5...........But you have to know and understand this being a professor of lang. Why be so difficult just to make your point, why not support your point with evidence instead?

What do you understand by "unique". Would it be consistent to say humanity is unique and humanity evolved? Or would you see these concepts as contradictory to each other?

I will play this game with you, but first explain how that has anything to do with the discussion? How does IS IT CONTRIDICTORY WITH EVOLUTION (which btw, is not the same thing as theory of evolution and you have already been told and shown how evolution is consistant with Gen., therefore this is a stupid question to ask) discuss the biblical creation and whether or not it can be scientifically tested? Answer that question and I will answer yours.

What first test is that? I didn't see any reference to a test that provides evidence for Gen. 1.

We test the chemical makeup of life and find it consistant with the elements in nature as is consistant with what we would predict based on Gen. 1.

Gen. 2 agrees with Gen.1 in saying that humanity is God's creation. But the reference to humanity being made out of dirt occurs only in Gen. 2. There is nothing in Gen. 1 for it to agree with.

already conceded that point and agreed to play the game by your rules and so why bring it up again? What do you gain?

That an analysis of the human body shows it to be composed of elements commonly found in nature may be interpreted as being consistent with Gen. 2 (or vice versa, Gen. 2 can be interpreted as being consistent with the scientific analysis), but this is not evidence for Gen. 1 which only states that humanity was created by God.

Actually it also suggests that man is indeed a unique creation and I am possitive that was clear in my post. Point 2. we also included all life in our first test and it came back supporting the Gen. account.
Point 3 Doesn't matter if the evidence supports the claim or the claim supports the evidence because we are not creating a theory or even a hypothesis we are examining the text to see if it is consistant with what we know to date about our world. If it is found to be consistant then we can create a hypothesis based on Gen. and test it, but your claim is and has been that it can't be done, so we need to find the falsifying evidence in order to support you claim. See, I am doing what you should be doing, looking for ways to support or falsify your claims. All you are doing is picking appart posts for grammatical errors so you can say it isnt clear and change the topic.

snip
If the parameters are set by Genesis 1, that does not include Genesis 2 or any other external document.
snip

Gluady's think it through, are you fluent in ancient Heb? If not, then by default you use supporting texts and the question should not exist. However, if you still think it prudent to question, then by all means ask, just stop accusing me of changing things I haven't it is unbecoming to someone as learned as you. In fact, many times on this thread alone I have suggested using other biblical references to support claims, therefore there should be absolutely no question from someone who has been reading for comprehension. But alas if all that isn't enough to explain to you what we are doing, then nothing will and so we change the rules for you once again, because all you can understand is your own agenda.

Science is indeed absolutely biased in favour of the evidence, and it happens the evidence favours evolution.
snip

Okay, corrected for the last time, try to follow, the accusations were made by evolutionists who claim to be scientists as well, that science is biased NOT towards evidence but rather toward evolution and the theory of evolution. Unfortunately you have only two choices, ignore it like you have been, or deal with it. I can't do it for you, it has to come from you.

On the contrary I know all that. What I don't know from post to post is which possible understanding you are using. You flit from one to another without warning.

I am exploring the text to look for the definition the text uses, it is consistant with what I have suggested for how long now, remember some of our early encounters? Even they suggested we look at the text in question to identify which definition the text was intending. You couldn't understand it then and you can't understand it now, and I even used analogies. This is why I would rather not have my children be taught by you. You can't even understand that a given text uses definitions according to it's intent. Baffled by your lack of comprehension we move on.

snip
Does that end the discussion? Or do you want to discuss whether one of those possibilities is more likely than another?

That is the point, what does the text tell us about our world?

Or do you want to discuss whether one of those possibilities is more compatible with science than the others?

that is a totally fruitless discussion with you because you only justify your beliefs never really think them through or discuss them, the possitives or negatives, just assert that they are truth and expect us to all give in and bow to your intellectual superiority. No thanks, I would rather talk about what is and is not than how you justify your beliefs.

snip
What we cannot say is that science, like the bible, can support all three possibilities. Science is limited to supporting only the old age option.

I see no evidence provided that the third option is not compatable with science. It could be a mixed bag, that means that in order to eliminate the option as you claim we can do, you need to show the evidence that does so.

snip
Of course, "hidden reasons" or "no reason at all" are useless as science. You can believe in them if you want, but you can't build science on them until the reasons are no longer hidden.

wrong again, science always deals in the hidden. That is how it works. We don't know something, the information of how it works is hidden from us so we begin our process to find out what it is all about. See, science is all about the hidden reasons, but that doesn't fit your agenda so instead of dealing with the facts, you justify your beliefs by ignoring the facts.

The scientists who use the tests are satisfied that we are scientifically sure about their reliability. I have never seen questions about their reliability except from sources who are biased against the implications of the results. Nor have I ever seen their doubts backed up by valid scientific research.

Interesting thing, one of those people who I refered to that admitted bias in science, claimed that much of the bias was in what was published and what wasn't. That would invalidate your point. But let's invalidate it further, it is scientific evidence that is suggestive that the aging methods are not as reliable as they are suggested to be. Man likes to think they have the answers, and so, even when the answers are sketchy, they fill in the blanks and call it evidenced. That is the problem here, there are variations that could cause abundant problems, but we don't like that, so we fill in the blanks and call it good. That makes it acceptable and now we can evidence anything we want to and call it truth. Science, true science doesn't work that way.

So are you saying that if an expert in wood quilts had a sample of 3 dozen wood quilts from various sources, he could, by examining them, tell which were made by the method you use and which were made by one of the other two methods?

without doubt.

Could he do this based on one criterion only, or would he have to check several things about the wood quilt to be sure of which method was used to make it?

one criteria would tell him but he could use several to validate the results. And before you say ah ha, the age of the earth is a much more complexed thing and a better example for your line of reasoning would be a painting with a good forger, in fact, if we are exploring the earth as appearing to have age, then you would have a master forger on your hands and so the analagy would have to use a master forgery for it to work the way you want it to. You can make it work for you but you have to think it through and I don't think you have it in you to do so. Let us see. Make your point using a master forgery as your analogy.

snip for space

yep, problem is we don't know what the answer is to see if we measured correctly

snip for space

Let's begin with a simple matter. Under the scenario of "old before the 4th day-recent from 4th day on" can we specify when God created humanity? Are the possibilities different than under a young earth scenario?

The differences would be before the creation of man not after.

Because the majority of young-earth scenarios place the creation of humanity in the range of 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. I have seen a very few that consider the creation of humanity to be as long ago as 15,000 years, and I think I once saw an estimate of 30,000 years ago.

Now you are talking about geneologies of which big gaps occur. At least from a biblical text standpoint. I thought we were talking about the age of the earth not the age of various species within the earth. Are you now changing your arguement? Hum, which are you saying, I can't keep up with you constant changing arguments.

But the scientific evidence is that our species Homo sapiens has existed on earth for 150,000 to 200,000 years. Is the scientific evidence consistent with the option you are proposing?

My purposal was that the age of the earth could be old, I said nothing about species within the earth and truely that is a totally different discussion. So since you don't want to look at the text and decide what it says, how about if we play this game like you always do and you choose what we discuss, it is obvious that you will never discuss what I suggest even when it is based on the OP created by me.

 

[razzelflabben]

part 2 I snipped and snipped and snipped and still couldn't fit it into one post you are a real pain sometimes

Yes, scientists do have this pesky bias that evidence is evidence of something real. So evidence that evolution happens leads them to consider evolution a fact.

Saying this the rest of your life won't make it truth.

Do you have a better basis for deciding what is and isn't fact?

again, I'll play this game but first explain what this question has to do with the discussion at hand. I see no relavance. Just another change in the argument, you are good at that.

Do you have a basis for insinuating that the evidence for evolution has been invented?

I didn't suggest that it was, so the answer would have to be I didn't suggest that it was.

snip for space

Well, since the site as a whole is called Christian Forums (plural), then I take it you meant this forum, Origins Theology. I hope you understand now about all of us here being Christian. No atheists in this forum.

as I understand it, someone more computer savy can correct me if I am wrong, the forum is made up of a bunch of boards and the boards are made up of a bunch of threads, we are on the thread titled, Creation started with nothing? on the board titled origins theology which is on a board titled theology, which is on a board titled Christians only section, which is then on a forum titled Christian forums. Therefore you would intend to say if I am correct, that the board this is displayed on is only made up of christians and not that the forum is. Aren't you the one who can't deal with anything but percise meanings?

snip for space
1. I can take the perspective that we can believe what we see to be real.
snip
2. I can take the perspective that we cannot believe what we see to be real.

3. I can take the perspective that sometimes we can believe what we see to be real, and sometimes we cannot trust what we see to be real.

snip
Do you have any ideas for people who choose this perspective on what would help us decide when to trust history to be history and when to reject it as just appearance?

Historians will tell you that all history is real, history happens, but our understanding of what happens, how it happened and what caused it to happen, are all a matter of perspective. For example, Hitler has a different perspective and thus a different understanding of the holocaust than does a Jew living in a concentration camp. Or even the child of a holocaust survivor. My understanding of the holocaust, not knowing anyone whose life changed through direct contact with the whole event is different yet. It is all a matter of perspective. Do you honestly think that God's perspective of our created world is the same as yours? The same as the ancients who wrote about it? The same as Adams, who saw it with the first human eyes? Do you honestly think that we can fathom what that world was like given all the changes throughout history to our world? It is all about perspective. That the holocaust happened is a given (though today there are those who use their perspective to suggest it didn't) but how we read that history is all about our own perspectives.

Earlier you said the biblical account allowed for three different possibilities on the age of the earth. Are you now saying this is not the case? How can the text determine the definition for us if it allows for several possibilities?

we need to explore the text and find out.

snip for space

So the majority of Christians reject the Omphalos argument as theologically dangerous. It puts the whole historical basis of Christianity in question. For Christians, it is important that history be real, because our faith is rooted in historical experience.

problems with your argument 1. we don't know if adam had a belly button or not, that would be a matter of testing to know. 2. we are not discussing church fears, but rather biblical understandings. 3. there are many things the church has traditionally deemed theologically dangerous and thus dismissed that Jesus Himself said were not dangerous but Godly. Take for example the sabbath and Jesus teaching on it, it was totally contridictory to what the church of the day though was dangerous theology.

snip

Not really. You alluded to some tests, but didn't say what they were. But you implied they were not effective tests anyway. So I think we are still left hanging. Is there any way of knowing when history is real and when it is not? when apparent age is actual age and when it is an illusion of age?

all history is real and illusion is real. What you reall want to know is how do we know what is knowable. And for that one, the best we can do is theorize and test. The problem I am having with you is that you refuse to theorize about anything except what you think you already know. You refuse to venture into unchartered waters, apparently because you are afraid you might be wrong, but that is only a guess as to why you are afraid.

snip

 

[gluadys]

So which supporting documents are acceptable and which aren't?

It is not a question of which are acceptable or not. It is just a matter of being clear as to whether any supporting documents are being included for reference from the outset. Don't say "Genesis 1" and leave it at that if you really mean "Genesis 1 and other references". Say "Genesis 1 and other references".

I will play this game with you, but first explain how that has anything to do with the discussion? How does IS IT CONTRIDICTORY WITH EVOLUTION ... discuss the biblical creation and whether or not it can be scientifically tested? Answer that question and I will answer yours.

You say the biblical creation account portrays humanity as a unique creation. As you know many people believe humanity evolved from an early hominid which was also the ancestor of ape species such as chimpanzees and gorillas.

The question, then, is this: can both statements be true and part of creation as presented in the bible? Or does the biblical creation account that asserts humanity as a unique creation mean that human evolution is excluded as a possibility?

When we know the answer to that question we will have an idea of what we would be testing for.

We test the chemical makeup of life and find it consistant with the elements in nature as is consistant with what we would predict based on Gen. 1.

But we cannot predict that based on Gen. 1. We can only predict that based on Gen. 2.

already conceded that point and agreed to play the game by your rules and so why bring it up again?

See above, where you repeated the same error.

Actually it also suggests that man is indeed a unique creation and I am possitive that was clear in my post.

What is "it" in this sentence? Gen. 1, Gen. 2 or the chemical analysis of the human body?

Point 2. we also included all life in our first test and it came back supporting the Gen. account.

I am still not clear where we had a test. What supported the Gen. account and how?

Point 3 ...we are examining the text to see if it is consistant with what we know to date about our world.

Ah!! The light dawns. So then we have to have reliable ways to date our world. Do we have such reliable measures? How can we test the biblical dating if we have no reliable way to measure the age of the earth?

In fact, many times on this thread alone I have suggested using other biblical references to support claims,

But then you referenced only Gen. 1. How am I supposed to know when you are using a broad reference or a narrow reference unless you tell me?

Okay, corrected for the last time, try to follow, the accusations were made by evolutionists who claim to be scientists as well, that science is biased NOT towards evidence but rather toward evolution and the theory of evolution. Unfortunately you have only two choices, ignore it like you have been, or deal with it.

I was not part of the conversation and I have not been given a link to the conversation in order to read it for myself, so I will ignore it.

You can't even understand that a given text uses definitions according to it's intent.

I am not too concerned about what definition the text is using. What I want to know in any given post is what definition you are using. Then we can determine whether or not you and the text (or I and the text or you and I and the text) are using the same definition.

That is the point, what does the text tell us about our world?

So are you saying that although you have found three possible ways to read the text relative to the age of the earth, you believe the text intends only one of those possibilities? Is that what I am to understand you are saying?

And the point is to determine which of those possibilities is really intended by the text so we can eliminate the other two from consideration?

That makes sense to me, because I don't see how we can construct a hypothesis based on the text unless we narrow down the three possibilities to just one. But I want to clarify if that is what makes sense to you.

that is a totally fruitless discussion

Well I just wonder why you continue to refer to evolution if you are not interested in the scientific account and its relationship to the biblical account. If you are not interested in the science, why do you want to construct a testable hypothesis at all?

I see no evidence provided that the third option is not compatable with science.

See below re: date of the creation of humanity.

wrong again, science always deals in the hidden. That is how it works. We don't know something, the information of how it works is hidden from us so we begin our process to find out what it is all about.

Science deals with revealing the hidden. When science is successful the information is no longer hidden. And even to explore the hidden, science relies on evidence which is not hidden.

For example, before the planet Uranus was seen, its existence was inferred from the orbit of Saturn. Similarly the existence of dark matter was inferred from how the universe is affected by gravity. There is not enough visible matter to account for the gravitational effects observed. But note that the gravitational effects were observed; they were not hidden, but they gave clues to what was hidden.

Science always ventures into the hidden from what is not hidden.

Interesting thing, one of those people who I refered to that admitted bias in science, claimed that much of the bias was in what was published and what wasn't. That would invalidate your point.

Only if the claim is valid.

But let's invalidate it further, it is scientific evidence that is suggestive that the aging methods are not as reliable as they are suggested to be.

Reference?

without doubt. one criteria would tell him but he could use several to validate the results.

Good. No need to get into fantasies about forgeries. Just to note that science uses the same technique to validate the results of dates obtained through dating methods. Several criteria are used to confirm the results. A single measurement is always suspect. But as additional measurements give the same result, the reliability of the result is considered more probable.

yep, problem is we don't know what the answer is to see if we measured correctly

Not sure what this is in response to. But you are right. We don't know the answer before we take the measurement. Nature is not like a math text with the answers in the back of the book. So the only way we can validate a measurement is to use several different ways to get it and see if they agree with one another.

The differences would be before the creation of man not after.

Does this mean that with measured time beginning on day 4, before the creation of humanity, that the creation of humanity would take place in the same time-frame as in a young-earth scenario?

I thought we were talking about the age of the earth not the age of various species within the earth. Are you now changing your arguement?

No I am not changing my argument. Just looking at it from a different angle. I think you would agree that no species could live on the earth before there was an earth. So if we establish how long a species has existed, we also establish a minimum age for the earth. The actual age of the earth can be much more than that of course.

To take a simple analogy. If I have lived in a house for 30 years (as shown by tax records) it follows the house was built at least 30 years ago. The house could actually be older (if I did not buy it new) but it cannot possibly be any younger.

Just so, the earth can be older than any species that inhabits it, but it cannot possibly be any younger.

i also asked the question to see whether the change to measured time at day four made a difference in the timing of the creation of humanity from the young-earth scenario. The young earth scenario does not allow for humanity to be older than the few thousand years in which the earth itself is believed to have existed. The old earth scenario allows for humanity to exist for however long science has found evidence of human existence. What does the measured time beginning on day four allow for? Does it allow for a human existence of 150,000 to 200,000 years?

If not, it is not compatible with scientific findings.

There are other possible conflicts with science as well, but if there is a conflict on this point, that is sufficient to establish that science cannot support this view. If there is no conflict on this point, we can look at other potential problems.

Therefore you would intend to say if I am correct, that the board this is displayed on is only made up of christians

That's correct.

Historians will tell you that all history is real, history happens,

In that case, the age something appears to be is the age it actually is. And we can use perspective 1 as our basis of understanding the age of the earth.

What you reall want to know is how do we know what is knowable.

Yes, exactly. That is what philosophers call the epistemological problem. How do we know that we know?

And for that one, the best we can do is theorize and test.

And how do we know we are testing anything real?

 

[razzelflabben]

It is not a question of which are acceptable or not. snip .

you know what? I already excepted responsibility for that and deal with both supporting documents and Gen. 1 as interpreted but what I don't see here other than going on and on and on over nothing is an explaination of how we can't use supporting documents when 1. it is an ancient Heb. text that neither of us is fluent in and 2. you were told several times on this thread that any supporting biblical text was more than exceptable. With both of those previous issues deal with some time ago, I fail to see two things 1. how you could possibly be confused, leaving us to assume you weren't, just wanting to make a point and 2. why you still feel it necessary to drone on about it when I accepted responsibility for what should have been obvious from the entire thread standpoint. Since you want to go on and on about it, please explain how it is that you didn't understand it given the above and how me taking responsibility for something that shouldn't have even been an issue is not sufficient to let it rest as is..... I'm anxious for your explanations and look forward to them.

You say the biblical creation account portrays humanity as a unique creation. As you know many people believe humanity evolved from an early hominid which was also the ancestor of ape species such as chimpanzees and gorillas.

Yep and those same people accept that man is indeed unique. We already covered this and instead of addressing the idea of man's uniqueness you change the topic to man's supposed evolution from apes. The point is not is man somehow related to other creatures, creation (strict) could argue that all of creation is related in that they all share the same creator, but what we are really talking about here is whether or not man is unique, different, set apart in some way from the rest of the worlds life.

I am making it a goal to try and keep you on task, It should help the length of your posts..

The question, then, is this: can both statements be true and part of creation as presented in the bible? Or does the biblical creation account that asserts humanity as a unique creation mean that human evolution is excluded as a possibility?

that isn't the question at all, the question is what does the text tell us about our existance and can that text then be trusted and tested eventually forming a hypothesis.

When we know the answer to that question we will have an idea of what we would be testing for.

But we cannot predict that based on Gen. 1. We can only predict that based on Gen. 2.

.1. Based on Gen.1 with supporting evidence we can test for the chemical makeup of man. without the supporting evidence you wish to discard, we can test for man's uniqueness. The Gen.1 account shows man's creation as set apart by God. Thus unique, different, somehow unique in nature.
2. Based on Gen.1 with supporting evidence, we can test to see if all life plant and animal are composed of organic existing chemicals with only the supporting evidence you want to use, we can test the same.

See above, where you repeated the same error.

see your repeated errors?

What is "it" in this sentence? Gen. 1, Gen. 2 or the chemical analysis of the human body?

read for comprehension, the statement does not say human body but rather life in general. Here is the exact quote in question, see if you can find the words human body or any thing similar in it.

We test the chemical makeup of life and find it consistant with the elements in nature as is consistant with what we would predict based on Gen. 1.

Please note that the word life is not equal to human body, though there could be other words that could be equal to, they are not present, only the word life is present and it refers to in context, all life not just human life. Now without putting the quote into the context of the discussion, it would be more clear to say all life except for human life, but with the context this would be excessive words just for the sake of hearing myself talk and I simply am not into that.

I am still not clear where we had a test. What supported the Gen. account and how?

what is the chemical makeup of life. Life not referring to human beings and put into context would specify plant and animal life apart from man.
Test two, is man unique? The scientific response is an overwhelming yes. Though there is some disagreement as to what is that unique characteristic, that it exists is not debated.

Ah!! The light dawns. So then we have to have reliable ways to date our world. Do we have such reliable measures? How can we test the biblical dating if we have no reliable way to measure the age of the earth?

Actually we don't know how reliable our measuring methods are, we don't have a baseline to tell us, we can only guess. This is a problem for any theory that we currently have or might someday in the future devise. It is in part what makes us not know what the origins of life are. Please note before going off the deep end, that I said in part not in the whole. Big difference and we don't need your lecture that I am wrong when we are saying the exact say thing you want to lecture about, simply because your premise and thus conclusion varies from mine.

But then you referenced only Gen. 1. How am I supposed to know when you are using a broad reference or a narrow reference unless you tell me?

You have been told directly, indirectly, illuded to, suggested, explained to, and you still don't know. How many ways must you be told before you can comprehend what you are reading? Oh so much to teach you about reading comprehension and so very little time and unwillingness to learn. The part that really stumps me is how you can be told directly and still not get it. That is a total lack of all comprehension skill, something that is truly rare most people who lack the skill at least have enough skill to understand directly stated comments, you lack even that.

I was not part of the conversation and I have not been given a link to the conversation in order to read it for myself, so I will ignore it.

your right, just remember that doesn't make it false.

I am not too concerned about what definition the text is using. What I want to know in any given post is what definition you are using. Then we can determine whether or not you and the text (or I and the text or you and I and the text) are using the same definition.

Okay gluady's, you want to know what definition I am using but you don't know because I haven't specified it for you. Yet when I say that we want to know what the text uses as it's definition let's explore the text and see, you have absolutely no idea what I am suggesting to you. .................................

The text uses the idea of creation a certain way, we want to identify what that way is, it is totally unrelated to how you use the term or how I use the term. It is totally and completely based on how the bible uses the term. So how then do we find out how the bible uses the term? We ask the text certain questions and seek it for the answers. These questions would be clues to the meaning. It is the same process you use to identify my definition the only difference between the two is that I can explain this literary concept to you and the bible doesn't know you have this gap in understanding so to explain it to you.

So are you saying that although you have found three possible ways to read the text relative to the age of the earth, you believe the text intends only one of those possibilities? Is that what I am to understand you are saying?

if we actually explore the text, we might find out. But once again, I asked to explore the text and you side track us on all these nonsense arguments. How about staying on track long enough to find out what the text has to tell us?

And the point is to determine which of those possibilities is really intended by the text so we can eliminate the other two from consideration?

That makes sense to me, because I don't see how we can construct a hypothesis based on the text unless we narrow down the three possibilities to just one. But I want to clarify if that is what makes sense to you.

How long ago did you and I first encounter this question? That is how long I have been suggesting this to you. Is there hope that my attempts to get you to read with meaning are beginning to get through? It would be so much easier in a class dedicated to the instruction.

Well I just wonder why you continue to refer to evolution if you are not interested in the scientific account and its relationship to the biblical account. If you are not interested in the science, why do you want to construct a testable hypothesis at all?

What the heck are you talking about?

See below re: date of the creation of humanity.

Science deals with revealing the hidden. When science is successful the information is no longer hidden. And even to explore the hidden, science relies on evidence which is not hidden.

For example, before the planet Uranus was seen, its existence was inferred from the orbit of Saturn. Similarly the existence of dark matter was inferred from how the universe is affected by gravity. There is not enough visible matter to account for the gravitational effects observed. But note that the gravitational effects were observed; they were not hidden, but they gave clues to what was hidden.

Science always ventures into the hidden from what is not hidden.

right oooooo

Only if the claim is valid.

already told you that the information is not longer accesible to my abilities to retreive it but was offered and referenced to others.

Reference?

saw a documentary on dating a while ago, don't have access to scientific journals at this time. But so as not to be accused of not referencing look at this site http://itotd.com/articles/349/carbon-dating/
and this one http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

Good. No need to get into fantasies about forgeries. Just to note that science uses the same technique to validate the results of dates obtained through dating methods. Several criteria are used to confirm the results. A single measurement is always suspect. But as additional measurements give the same result, the reliability of the result is considered more probable.

yep, straight off of talkorigins, aren't you a good little evolutionist. Of course it strengthens our argument to see multiply lines of testing all agree, the problem is, they all have to be unbiased in order for the agreement to work. We have already seen that not all scientific evolutionists think there is no bias. Consider this, in high school I was in band, we had to challenge to move up in the seating. One day I challenged and the teacher was not in the room. Let's say the teacher is an unbiased approach to science. Well, during the challenge one of the students peeked behind the curtain and told everyone who they should vote for. When the vote came back it was unanimous Do all the lines of voting that agree equal a difinitive explaination as to who was the better flutist? Or do they attest to the bias of the information given? The problem with asserting that it is conclusive evidence is that we must first eliminate the bias and the premises that would draw us to that conclusion. When we throw those out, what do we have left? Now I know you will still assert that we know the earth to be old, but what your understanding fails to consider is that when we remove bias and when we remove margin or error, we are left with a massive guess that may or may not be right.

Not sure what this is in response to. But you are right. We don't know the answer before we take the measurement. Nature is not like a math text with the answers in the back of the book. So the only way we can validate a measurement is to use several different ways to get it and see if they agree with one another.

Does this mean that with measured time beginning on day 4, before the creation of humanity, that the creation of humanity would take place in the same time-frame as in a young-earth scenario?

That would seem logical to me, though we could explore it and should explore in in more depth before declaring it so. But yes, I would suggest that it would mean that.

No I am not changing my argument. Just looking at it from a different angle. I think you would agree that no species could live on the earth before there was an earth. snip

i also asked the question to see whether the change to measured time at day four made a difference in the timing of the creation of humanity from the young-earth scenario. The young earth scenario does not allow for humanity to be older than the few thousand years in which the earth itself is believed to have existed. The old earth scenario allows for humanity to exist for however long science has found evidence of human existence. What does the measured time beginning on day four allow for? Does it allow for a human existence of 150,000 to 200,000 years?

say what? First problem with your assertions, is that you assume to know the age of man. We don't know conclusively. But let's look at it as though we did, okay, how old is man? consider this article which first questions our dating conclusions and then further puts man's existance at least in NA at 50,000 years ago http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm
thus according to the article man is only maybe 80,000 years old. That is a relatively young earth.

If not, it is not compatible with scientific findings.

There are other possible conflicts with science as well, but if there is a conflict on this point, that is sufficient to establish that science cannot support this view. If there is no conflict on this point, we can look at other potential problems.

see above, no conflict.

That's correct.
In that case, the age something appears to be is the age it actually is. And we can use perspective 1 as our basis of understanding the age of the earth.
Yes, exactly. That is what philosophers call the epistemological problem. How do we know that we know?
And how do we know we are testing anything real?

And your point?

 

[gluadys]

but what I don't see here ... is an explaination of how we can't use supporting documents

And you won't. Because I never said they couldn't be used. I just want to know when they are being referenced and when they are not being referenced.

Yep and those same people accept that man is indeed unique.



that isn't the question at all,

It's my question and you haven't answered it yet. I want to understand what you mean by "unique creation".

Some people would understand "unique creation" as not being compatible with evolution, and some (as you noted) would understand "unique creation" as being compatible with evolution.

Since you introduced the term, I want to know what meaning is being assigned to "unique creation " when you use it in your posts. Do you agree or disagree that "unique creation" is compatible with human biological evolution?

the question is what does the text tell us about our existance and can that text then be trusted and tested eventually forming a hypothesis. .1. Based on Gen.1 with supporting evidence we can test for the chemical makeup of man. without the supporting evidence you wish to discard, we can test for man's uniqueness. The Gen.1 account shows man's creation as set apart by God. Thus unique, different, somehow unique in nature.
2. Based on Gen.1 with supporting evidence, we can test to see if all life plant and animal are composed of organic existing chemicals with only the supporting evidence you want to use, we can test the same.

So, Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 point to an organic composition of plant and animal bodies and at least Gen. 2 points to an organic composition of the human body. Chemical analysis of plant and animal bodies (including human) confirm this organic composition.

Is that the conclusion you wished to establish?

Here is the exact quote in question, see if you can find the words human body or any thing similar in it.

We test the chemical makeup of life and find it consistant with the elements in nature as is consistant with what we would predict based on Gen. 1.

That is not the statement I had a question about. It is the one below:

That an analysis of the human body shows it to be composed of elements commonly found in nature may be interpreted as being consistent with Gen. 2 (or vice versa, Gen. 2 can be interpreted as being consistent with the scientific analysis), but this is not evidence for Gen. 1 which only states that humanity was created by God.

Actually it also suggests that man is indeed a unique creation and I am possitive that was clear in my post.

To what does "it" refer in this sentence? To Gen. 1, Gen. 2 or the chemical analysis of the human body?

what is the chemical makeup of life. Life not referring to human beings and put into context would specify plant and animal life apart from man.

ok

Test two, is man unique? The scientific response is an overwhelming yes. Though there is some disagreement as to what is that unique characteristic, that it exists is not debated.

I agree, it is not debated. But why is this test relevant? Why test for uniqueness?

Actually we don't know how reliable our measuring methods are,

Reference?

We know our measuring methods are not perfect, but what makes you think we don't know approximately how good they are?

Also, suppose we determine that the biblical account suggests a date for the origin of the earth. Or the origin of humanity or whatever. Is it not the point of this exercise to test the scientific validity of the biblical creation account? How could we test any suggested date if we have no reliable way to do that?

Okay gluady's, you want to know what definition I am using but you don't know because I haven't specified it for you.

More than that. You seem to flit from one definition to another without warning. You posed a question which only makes sense if we assume a recent date for the creation of the earth. But when the implications of that were spelled out, you come back with a rejoinder that implies we don't have a specific age for the earth. So you changed horses in midstream as it were.

Yet when I say that we want to know what the text uses as it's definition let's explore the text and see, you have absolutely no idea what I am suggesting to you.

Oh I am interested in that too. But what perspective you are using and what perspective we can find in the text are different questions. Your definition and the textual definition are not necessarily the same.

if we actually explore the text, we might find out.

ok. I am a little puzzled now. Just what is the purpose of exploring the text in reference to the age of the earth? Are we looking for something that would help us pin down a single possibility or not?

Or do we just accept that the text allows for at least three possibilities and leave it at that?

How long ago did you and I first encounter this question? That is how long I have been suggesting this to you.

I don't sense a straight answer to my question here. Could I get a simple "yes" or "no" to this question:

And the point is to determine which of those possibilities is really intended by the text so we can eliminate the other two from consideration? ​

What the heck are you talking about?

You are always talking about exploring the text, determining what it is saying and seeing if we can construct a testable hypothesis on the basis of the text. Right?

Why do you want to test it? What is the purpose of testing it?

saw a documentary on dating a while ago, don't have access to scientific journals at this time. But so as not to be accused of not referencing look at this site http://itotd.com/articles/349/carbon-dating/
and this one http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

Ok. The statement I asked you to reference is this:

it is scientific evidence that is suggestive that the aging methods are not as reliable as they are suggested to be.​

But both the links suggest that they are as reliable as represented. The first notes that:

But these and other seeming sources of uncertainty have been seized upon by some very vocal groups of creationists as loopholes, allowing them to challenge the validity of carbon dating.
http://itotd.com/articles/349/carbon-dating/​

So this author is not questioning the reliability of carbon-14 dating, and says the "sources of uncertainty" referred to by creationists are "seeming" not real.

The second is even more affirmative of carbon-14 dating. Here are some excerpts:

Various tests of reliability have confirmed the value of carbon data, and many examples provide an interesting range of application.


Carbon dating of ancient bristlecone pine trees of ages around 6000 years have provided general corroboration of carbon dating and have provided some corrections to the data.

The tandem accelerator has been effective in removing the nitrogen-14 and CH2, and can be followed by a conventional mass spectrometer to separate the C-12 and C-13. A sensitivity of 10^-15 in the 14C/12C ratio has been achieved. These techniques can be applied with a sample as small as a milligram.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html​

(All emphases added)

Also, both links note that carbon-14 due to its short half-life, cannot be used to date the age of the earth. For that you need other measures.

Of course it strengthens our argument to see multiply lines of testing all agree, the problem is, they all have to be unbiased in order for the agreement to work. We have already seen that not all scientific evolutionists think there is no bias. Consider this, in high school I was in band, we had to challenge to move up in the seating. One day I challenged and the teacher was not in the room. Let's say the teacher is an unbiased approach to science. Well, during the challenge one of the students peeked behind the curtain and told everyone who they should vote for. When the vote came back it was unanimous Do all the lines of voting that agree equal a difinitive explaination as to who was the better flutist? Or do they attest to the bias of the information given?

Ok. Now suggest a way to tell tree rings to corroborate carbon-14 decay.

That would seem logical to me, though we could explore it and should explore in in more depth before declaring it so. But yes, I would suggest that it would mean that.

ok. So it seems logical to you that a person supporting a standard young-earth view and a person supporting the mixed view that our measurement of time was not in effect until day 4 would still agree on the recent creation of humanity. But you are not committing yourself to that conclusion without a deeper exploration of the text. Fair enough.

say what? First problem with your assertions, is that you assume to know the age of man. We don't know conclusively. But let's look at it as though we did, okay, how old is man? consider this article which first questions our dating conclusions and then further puts man's existance at least in NA at 50,000 years ago http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm
thus according to the article man is only maybe 80,000 years old. That is a relatively young earth.

It is very surprising that an editor of Science Daily would allow this statement in an article dated November 2004.

The dawn of modern homo sapiens occurred in Africa between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm​

Surprising, because in June of the previous year paleontologists made this discovery:

Arlington, Va, June 11, 2003 (National Science Foundation) - Scientists from the University of California at Berkeley along with researchers from Ethiopia and several other countries have uncovered fossils of the earliest modern human, Homo sapiens, estimated at 154,000 to 160,000 years old.

"We've lacked intermediate fossils between pre-humans and modern humans, between 100,000 and 300,000 years ago," says UC Berkeley paleoanthropologist, Tim D. White, one of the project leaders. "Now the fossil record meshes with the molecular evidence."

http://www.somalilandtimes.net/2003/73/7314.shtml​

Another discovery pushes the age of human existence back still further

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005
Scientists have determined that human fossils found in Ethiopia in 1967 are 65,000 years older than first thought - from about 195,000 years ago. [NOTE: these are not the same fossils as those mentioned above. These were discovered much earlier, but only reliably dated in 2005] The revised date, they said, makes the skulls and bones the earliest known remains of modern Homo sapiens.

McDougall, a geologist, and his colleagues reported that a re-examination of the sediments in which the fossils were found and the use of more reliable dating methods showed that the two individuals lived 195,000 years ago, give or take 5,000 years, "making them the earliest well-dated anatomically modern humans yet described."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/16/news/human.php​

Another feature of both these finds is that now fossil evidence and genetic evidence agree. As Tim White notes about the 2003 find: "Now the fossil record meshes with the molecular evidence." And the Herald Tribune says of the redated fossils: "The new date appears to be near the early boundary for modern human emergence, as suggested in recent genetic studies." And also:

Meanwhile, biomolecular research on the genetic diversity among human populations pointed to a common maternal ancestor in Africa, which inevitably became known as the African Eve. This genetic evidence put the origin of modern humans at 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Now the revised dates for the Omo fossils not only appear to push back modern human origins even further, John Fleagle of Stony Brook University on Long Island said in an interview, but also "bring the bones and genes into concordance."​

So the 60,000 to 80,000 year estimate of human origins is now out of date. The current evidence from both fossil and genetic sources places human origins between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago.

And your point?

Once you open the door to any appearance of age being illusion, you have no means to determine the boundaries of illusion.

 

[razzelflabben]

And you won't. Because I never said they couldn't be used. I just want to know when they are being referenced and when they are not being referenced.

What translation are you using? In using any english translation, you have used supporting documents. So it would seem to me that you already do use the supporting documents that you claim not to know when to use. In addition to this, you have been told directly many times on this thread that any biblical reference that supported your idea was acceptable. So now you come along and can't figure out what and when supporting documents are acceptable. Right.......

It's my question and you haven't answered it yet. I want to understand what you mean by "unique creation".

Depends on the discussion but in this case, something set apart from the rest of the creation.

Some people would understand "unique creation" as not being compatible with evolution, and some (as you noted) would understand "unique creation" as being compatible with evolution.

Since you introduced the term, I want to know what meaning is being assigned to "unique creation " when you use it in your posts. Do you agree or disagree that "unique creation" is compatible with human biological evolution?

Gluady's I understand that this is your pet peave and that everything you say is going to try to bring us to this conclusion, the problem is that from a biblical standpoint, we haven't come to a point where we can identify this or not and the discussion is about the biblical understanding not mine individually.

Just a quick sidenote, my daughter came in and was reading over my shoulder right now, she said that I should tell you you are raving and that it is annoying.

So, Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 point to an organic composition of plant and animal bodies and at least Gen. 2 points to an organic composition of the human body. Chemical analysis of plant and animal bodies (including human) confirm this organic composition.

Is that the conclusion you wished to establish?

It's a beginning understanding, now isn't it? It is also enough to dig deeper and see what else we can find to test.

That is not the statement I had a question about. It is the one below:

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Here we see that man is set appart from the rest of creation. Both by his makeup and by his possition. Unique....... thus we can test to see if man is unique of the rest of creation. If he is, then we can further test that uniqueness, but first we need to establish if man is indeed different, unique from all other life and that is from Gen. 1:26, not from Gen. 2 so you can't try to pull that card out again.

To what does "it" refer in this sentence? To Gen. 1, Gen. 2 or the chemical analysis of the human body?

Gen. 1, in context, you didn't like the inclusion of Gen. 2 and so it would automatically refer to Gen. 1, but asking is a very good way to learn how to read in context, so thanks that was helpful.

ok

I agree, it is not debated. But why is this test relevant? Why test for uniqueness?

Because if the text specifies this uniqueness then testing for it is necessary to our understanding of what the text is saying about our origins. Is there enough "scientific" evidence to create a hypothesis based on the Gen. account of creation. We can't know the answer to this question until or unless we identify absolutes in the text that we can test for and those test all come back with positive evidence. Thus, we look at the text, identify the absolutes and test them. Those things that are not absolutes like the age of the earth, we use to build a hypothesis, now that is not to say that the text won't identify age of the earth, but rather to say that at this time in our exploration we don't know what the meaning is. Time will tell if we actually finish the task began.

Reference?

We know our measuring methods are not perfect, but what makes you think we don't know approximately how good they are?

Also, suppose we determine that the biblical account suggests a date for the origin of the earth. Or the origin of humanity or whatever. Is it not the point of this exercise to test the scientific validity of the biblical creation account? How could we test any suggested date if we have no reliable way to do that?

covered reread it if necessary. What we want to establish is whether or not the Gen. account provides us with scientifically tested evidence about our origins.

More than that. You seem to flit from one definition to another without warning. You posed a question which only makes sense if we assume a recent date for the creation of the earth. But when the implications of that were spelled out, you come back with a rejoinder that implies we don't have a specific age for the earth. So you changed horses in midstream as it were.

to what are you refering, my assumptions have been consistant with what I suggested the discussion be about. In fact, consistancy is one of my pet peeves.

Oh I am interested in that too. But what perspective you are using and what perspective we can find in the text are different questions. Your definition and the textual definition are not necessarily the same.

ok. I am a little puzzled now. Just what is the purpose of exploring the text in reference to the age of the earth? Are we looking for something that would help us pin down a single possibility or not?

Or do we just accept that the text allows for at least three possibilities and leave it at that?

We accept three possibles unless or until the text eliminates one or more of the possiblies.

I don't sense a straight answer to my question here. Could I get a simple "yes" or "no" to this question:

And the point is to determine which of those possibilities is really intended by the text so we can eliminate the other two from consideration? ​

Well, as written it is not a yes or no question so what you are asking me to do is not grammatically possible. Maybe you should rephrase it if you want a yes or no answer. ​

You are always talking about exploring the text, determining what it is saying and seeing if we can construct a testable hypothesis on the basis of the text. Right?

Why do you want to test it? What is the purpose of testing it?

1. see if it is compatable with evolution 2. see if it is compatable with science 3. identify what it actually tells us not what is traditionally interpered. 4. and to identify whether or not an unbiased scientific communitee could indeed form a "creation" theory. All of these reasons and some more, but those would be the top 4. We could also add to this the ability to know truth, the ability to understand God, the ability to discuss what is and what is not without first having to identify what is and what is not (this reference takes us back to the OP where assumptions were made without basis or understanding of the actual text) ........

Ok. The statement I asked you to reference is this:

it is scientific evidence that is suggestive that the aging methods are not as reliable as they are suggested to be.​

But both the links suggest that they are as reliable as represented. The first notes that:

But these and other seeming sources of uncertainty have been seized upon by some very vocal groups of creationists as loopholes, allowing them to challenge the validity of carbon dating.​

http://itotd.com/articles/349/carbon-dating/​

So this author is not questioning the reliability of carbon-14 dating, and says the "sources of uncertainty" referred to by creationists are "seeming" not real.

The second is even more affirmative of carbon-14 dating. Here are some excerpts:

Various tests of reliability have confirmed the value of carbon data, and many examples provide an interesting range of application.​

Carbon dating of ancient bristlecone pine trees of ages around 6000 years have provided general corroboration of carbon dating and have provided some corrections to the data.

The tandem accelerator has been effective in removing the nitrogen-14 and CH2, and can be followed by a conventional mass spectrometer to separate the C-12 and C-13. A sensitivity of 10^-15 in the 14C/12C ratio has been achieved. These techniques can be applied with a sample as small as a milligram.​

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html​

(All emphases added)

Also, both links note that carbon-14 due to its short half-life, cannot be used to date the age of the earth. For that you need other measures.

Ok. Now suggest a way to tell tree rings to corroborate carbon-14 decay.

Gluady's if you read the whole article for comprehension and not for quotes taken out of context to prove your point, you will begin to see what I am saying to you. What creationists are saying, I don't really have a clue nor do I really care. What I am saying to you is that there are variables that could cause acuracy issues and without a baseline which btw is impossible, we can't be sure our age tests are accurate. This by no means suggests throwing out the tests, or not using the tests to measure, but rather a caution against claiming them to be absolutes when they are not. Much as the OP suggests that calling the creation of the heavens and earth creations from nothing, when in fact, the text does not speak definatively to such. It could be accurate but it might not. The point of the discussion is to identify what is and what is not. What is an absolute and what is not. That the heavens and earth were created from nothing is not an absolute, nor is our method of ageing the earth, to claim otherwise is false and misleading. That is the point and the articles I referenced attest to that.

ok. So it seems logical to you that a person supporting a standard young-earth view and a person supporting the mixed view that our measurement of time was not in effect until day 4 would still agree on the recent creation of humanity. But you are not committing yourself to that conclusion without a deeper exploration of the text. Fair enough.

It is very surprising that an editor of Science Daily would allow this statement in an article dated November 2004.

The dawn of modern homo sapiens occurred in Africa between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago.​

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm​

Surprising, because in June of the previous year paleontologists made this discovery:

Arlington, Va, June 11, 2003 (National Science Foundation) - Scientists from the University of California at Berkeley along with researchers from Ethiopia and several other countries have uncovered fossils of the earliest modern human, Homo sapiens, estimated at 154,000 to 160,000 years old.​

"We've lacked intermediate fossils between pre-humans and modern humans, between 100,000 and 300,000 years ago," says UC Berkeley paleoanthropologist, Tim D. White, one of the project leaders. "Now the fossil record meshes with the molecular evidence."​

http://www.somalilandtimes.net/2003/73/7314.shtml​

Another discovery pushes the age of human existence back still further

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005​

Scientists have determined that human fossils found in Ethiopia in 1967 are 65,000 years older than first thought - from about 195,000 years ago. [NOTE: these are not the same fossils as those mentioned above. These were discovered much earlier, but only reliably dated in 2005] The revised date, they said, makes the skulls and bones the earliest known remains of modern Homo sapiens.​

McDougall, a geologist, and his colleagues reported that a re-examination of the sediments in which the fossils were found and the use of more reliable dating methods showed that the two individuals lived 195,000 years ago, give or take 5,000 years, "making them the earliest well-dated anatomically modern humans yet described."​

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/16/news/human.php​

Another feature of both these finds is that now fossil evidence and genetic evidence agree. As Tim White notes about the 2003 find: "Now the fossil record meshes with the molecular evidence." And the Herald Tribune says of the redated fossils: "The new date appears to be near the early boundary for modern human emergence, as suggested in recent genetic studies." And also:

Meanwhile, biomolecular research on the genetic diversity among human populations pointed to a common maternal ancestor in Africa, which inevitably became known as the African Eve. This genetic evidence put the origin of modern humans at 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.​

Now the revised dates for the Omo fossils not only appear to push back modern human origins even further, John Fleagle of Stony Brook University on Long Island said in an interview, but also "bring the bones and genes into concordance."​

So the 60,000 to 80,000 year estimate of human origins is now out of date. The current evidence from both fossil and genetic sources places human origins between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago.

and so the scientific journals, dispute the age of man, and you have the nerve to suggest that our dating methods are accurate. I think you have just evidenced for us that they are not. Thanks

Once you open the door to any appearance of age being illusion, you have no means to determine the boundaries of illusion.

But you can test the "theory" and that is all science ever does.

 

[gluadys]

So it would seem to me that you already do use the supporting documents that you claim not to know when to use.

I never claimed that I don't use them. But I try to reference them properly. I don't reference Gen. 1 when the reference ought to be to Gen. 2.

Depends on the discussion but in this case, something set apart from the rest of the creation.

Good general answer to the general question. Let's see how you do with the more specific question.

Do you agree or disagree that "unique creation" is compatible with human biological evolution?

Gluady's I understand that this is your pet peave and that everything you say is going to try to bring us to this conclusion, the problem is that from a biblical standpoint, we haven't come to a point where we can identify this or not and the discussion is about the biblical understanding not mine individually.

Are you claiming that you have not personally taken a stand on the question yet? It would be easy enough to say so clearly.

As for the biblical standpoint, my "pet peave[sic]" is relevant in light of your later response about why you are seeking to test the biblical account at all. To that you responded (among other things) 1. see if it is compatable with evolution

So is it not relevant to see if "unique creation" is compatible with evolution?

Here we see that man is set appart from the rest of creation. Both by his makeup and by his possition.

Hold on there. Set apart from the rest of creation ... by his makeup? We just went through a "test" which showed that humans are made of the same stuff as the rest of nature, as the rest of the plant and animal world. How is that showing that humans are set apart from the rest of creation by their makeup? It seems to show the exact opposite i.e. that in terms of the chemical composition of the body (which is the only makeup we have discussed) humanity is not set apart from the rest of creation.

Because if the text specifies this uniqueness then testing for it is necessary to our understanding of what the text is saying about our origins.

And would not an initial step be to determine the sense in which humanity is said to be unique? We would need to know what signs of uniqueness to test for, right?

We can't know the answer to this question until or unless we identify absolutes in the text that we can test for and those test all come back with positive evidence.

Interesting. Have you given any thought as to what to conclude if an absolute in the text returns negative test results?

covered reread it if necessary.

Ah, a classic razzelflabben evasion. Claim the question has already been covered when it had not been.

So I repost the questions:

What makes you think we do not know how reliable our dating methods are?

[Note: this is not a claim to absolute accuracy. We know all measures are approximate. But we also know the degree to which they are approximate. We know when we measure a million years that the true measure is not a few thousands of years. It may be somwhere between 800 thousand and 1,200 thousand years, but it is not 10 thousand years.]

How would we test the accuracy of any date suggested by the biblical text if dating methods are nothing but guesswork?

We accept three possibles unless or until the text eliminates one or more of the possiblies.

Ok. Just to completely clarify. Is the purpose of studying the text to see if it does, in fact, eliminate one or more possibilities?

1. see if it is compatable with evolution
2. see if it is compatable with science
3. identify what it actually tells us not what is traditionally interpered.
4. and to identify whether or not an unbiased scientific communitee could indeed form a "creation" theory.
All of these reasons and some more, but those would be the top 4.

Thank you. This is very clear and succinct and I will keep it for future reference.

Gluady's if you read the whole article for comprehension and not for quotes taken out of context to prove your point, you will begin to see what I am saying to you.

I did indeed read both articles completely. I suggest you do the same and quote the specific sections you claim support your point. I was surprised that in asserting the unreliability of dating methods, you linked two articles that affirmed how reliable they are.

This by no means suggests throwing out the tests, or not using the tests to measure, but rather a caution against claiming them to be absolutes when they are not.

No scientist is claiming they are absolute. It is standard scientific technique to include the margin of error with the result. The margin of error does not always make it into news reports, but it is always in the original scientific report.

What creationists seem to be saying (and what you seem to be saying) is that we do not have any idea what the margin of error is.

and so the scientific journals, dispute the age of man,

First, Science Daily is not a scientific journal. It is a newspaper specializing in scientific news.

Second, an editor's carelessness in letting an outdated estimate of the span of human existence into the newspaper is not a scientific dispute. Scientists are not disputing that humanity originated about 200,000 years ago. In fact, as the other articles showed, they are delighted that the fossil finds corroborate the genetic evidence.

But you can test the "theory" and that is all science ever does.

How? That is what I keep asking, and what you have no answer for. What is the test that would tell us which history is real and which is not?

You can't test the theory without a way to test it.

 

[razzelflabben]

I never claimed that I don't use them. But I try to reference them properly. I don't reference Gen. 1 when the reference ought to be to Gen. 2.

Good general answer to the general question. Let's see how you do with the more specific question.

Are you claiming that you have not personally taken a stand on the question yet? It would be easy enough to say so clearly.

what I am saying and have been saying both directly and indirectly is that my personal opinions and beliefs are not relavant to the discussion.[/quote]

As for the biblical standpoint, my "pet peave[sic]" is relevant in light of your later response about why you are seeking to test the biblical account at all. To that you responded (among other things) 1. see if it is compatable with evolution

So is it not relevant to see if "unique creation" is compatible with evolution? [/quote] only as the biblical account would suggest, not as my personal beliefs might suggest. In other words, if we don't know and understand what the text says or doesn't say, we can't answer this question based on anything but our personal beliefs. Personal beliefs are not relevant to the discussion at hand. Therefore we need to identify what the biblical account say and what evolution says before we can compare and see if they are compatable. At present we haven't completed either of these tasks.

Hold on there. Set apart from the rest of creation ... by his makeup? We just went through a "test" which showed that humans are made of the same stuff as the rest of nature, as the rest of the plant and animal world. How is that showing that humans are set apart from the rest of creation by their makeup?

Not chemical makeup, but rather like, image, similar in nature to.

It seems to show the exact opposite i.e. that in terms of the chemical composition of the body (which is the only makeup we have discussed) humanity is not set apart from the rest of creation.

Nothing is limiting us to chemical makeup, except you, in fact, the text referenced here (at your insistance) limits us to image, not chemical make up. Two different tests. I thought that since we had been talking about the chemical makeup of life, we could explore man at that time as well. You didn't like that and so we looked at Gen.1 only in which we see nothing about the chemical makeup but an entire verse that deals with the image, or characteristics apart from the chemical compounds. We can look at both at the same time if you like, or separate them, depending on how long you wish to make this post. Both answers seem pretty cut and dry to the evidence of the Gen. account of man, but I know how you like to drag things out.

And would not an initial step be to determine the sense in which humanity is said to be unique? We would need to know what signs of uniqueness to test for, right?

Sure, eventually, but you haven't even agreed yet that science believes man to be unique, in fact, you are still trying to define what unique means. Once you are ready to move on we will, and delve into what we would expect the differences to be. At the moment you are still trying to figure out that unique, different, set apart, means unique, different, set apart. One step at a time. I am trying not to get too far ahead of you here.

Interesting. Have you given any thought as to what to conclude if an absolute in the text returns negative test results?

sure as most people have on some level or other. 1. Some would choose to disbelieve the entire bible, 2 some would choose to equate creation to evolution, 3 some would choose to simply explain it away or 4 ignore the evidence all together, 5 some would choose to read the text for the intended meaning and not the "scientifically" choosen meaning. I think that about covers all the options I have run accross, wait, you have to have lists, let me go back and number them for you.

Ah, a classic razzelflabben evasion. Claim the question has already been covered when it had not been.

So I repost the questions:

What makes you think we do not know how reliable our dating methods are?

1. there are known flaws in the system 2. there are known limitations to the system 3. we are working without a baseline to identify how right we are 4. we are working with history which is a matter of perspective, and last but not least we are working with a 5. biased system.

[Note: this is not a claim to absolute accuracy. We know all measures are approximate. But we also know the degree to which they are approximate. We know when we measure a million years that the true measure is not a few thousands of years. It may be somwhere between 800 thousand and 1,200 thousand years, but it is not 10 thousand years.]

How would we test the accuracy of any date suggested by the biblical text if dating methods are nothing but guesswork?

we can test the same way, we just have to keep in mind that the margin or error is not necessarily what is claimed.

Ok. Just to completely clarify. Is the purpose of studying the text to see if it does, in fact, eliminate one or more possibilities?

listed and specified

Thank you. This is very clear and succinct and I will keep it for future reference.

I did indeed read both articles completely. I suggest you do the same and quote the specific sections you claim support your point. I was surprised that in asserting the unreliability of dating methods, you linked two articles that affirmed how reliable they are.

both articles show the limitations and same concerns I have. Seems like a good way to evidence what I am saying, to show others who are considered learned and knowledgeable saying the same thing I have been saying. But you don't like that because you find quotes taken out of context that support your claims and that is good enough for you.

No scientist is claiming they are absolute. It is standard scientific technique to include the margin of error with the result. The margin of error does not always make it into news reports, but it is always in the original scientific report.

without a baseline, we don't know what the margin of error is.

What creationists seem to be saying (and what you seem to be saying) is that we do not have any idea what the margin of error is.

to a certain degree this is what I am saying but don't read into it more than is there. Consider this, I go to the hospital for a sugar test. I might know that my sugar is high or low, but I don't know if it is high or low for me until I have a baseline to determine what is normal for me. This concept though of a much greater margin of error applies here as well. We can have a general clue, but we have no real idea what the norm should be that would identify how close to reality we really are. Let's see another analogy. You could have my children sitting in your office and see that they are quite normal children. But until you started living with them, you wouldn't really know who they are. You could guess, especially knowing that I am their mother, but you really would be missing too much information to know anything important. Margin or error.

First, Science Daily is not a scientific journal. It is a newspaper specializing in scientific news.

Second, an editor's carelessness in letting an outdated estimate of the span of human existence into the newspaper is not a scientific dispute. Scientists are not disputing that humanity originated about 200,000 years ago. In fact, as the other articles showed, they are delighted that the fossil finds corroborate the genetic evidence.

How? That is what I keep asking, and what you have no answer for. What is the test that would tell us which history is real and which is not?

First things first, all history is real, we just don't always know what that history is or how it is speaking to us. I really wish you would wrap your brain around this. Even if the earth just appears to be old when it isn't really, the history or the earth including it's "surprising" age is real.

Now that I hope that is finally out of the way, let's deal with what you intended to be saying. We would systematically look at the reasons why the earth might appear old when it was young. For example, is organic matter necessary to sustain life? If yes, then we would look at the next thing, if no, we would ask are we absolutely sure? If yes, then we falsified the idea, if no then we would explore what else organic matter might hold that would be required for life to exist.

You can't test the theory without a way to test it.

Yep, and your point is........at this point, we are taking the things we can glean as absolutes and seeing how they line up with what we have already tested and discovered about our world. (we referring to science in general and not you and me.)

 

[gluadys]

what I am saying and have been saying both directly and indirectly is that my personal opinions and beliefs are not relavant to the discussion.

They are very relevant to the discussion since they are pertinent to how you define your terms and how you understand the text of scripture. Being coy about your personal beliefs is just a way of avoiding definition of the terms, so that you can play fast and loose with them, switching without warning from one definition to another and confusing the issues.

Not chemical makeup, but rather like, image, similar in nature to.

Good example of the confusing switch technique.

I took time to go over the whole conversation on this "test".

You raised it in post 155
Does man consist of the same elements that would suggest that man is made from dust?

To which I responded:

The human body is no different from the bodies of squirrels, ants or carrots in this respect. The most common elements in nature are the most common elements in living bodies.

And you replied:
Ah, so that first part of our test to determine whether or not we can make a hypothesis off Gen. 1 passes.

This is where the matter of what the human body is made of got entangled with the matter of correct referencing. For, of course, the reference man being made of dust does not occur in Gen. 1 but in Gen. 2.

But that doesn't change the fact that the original question was about whether man consists of the elements that would suggest being made of dust.

You did take the opportunity to note (post 161) that Gen. 1 tells us that man is a unique creation. However, no specification is made that relates "unique" to the elements which compose the human body.

Yet twice more you associated the original question relating to man being made of dust with Gen. 1 instead of Gen. 2 where the reference actually occurs. Here is the sequence

Post 161 (razzelflabben) Yet all life is consistant with the account and so we have our first test and it evidences Gen. 1.

Post 164 (gluadys) But the reference to humanity being made out of dirt occurs only in Gen. 2. There is nothing in Gen. 1 for it to agree with.

That an analysis of the human body shows it to be composed of elements commonly found in nature may be interpreted as being consistent with Gen. 2 (or vice versa, Gen. 2 can be interpreted as being consistent with the scientific analysis), but this is not evidence for Gen. 1 which only states that humanity was created by God.

Post 165 (razzelflabben) We test the chemical makeup of life and find it consistant with the elements in nature as is consistant with what we would predict based on Gen. 1.

Post 167 (gluadys) But we cannot predict that based on Gen. 1. We can only predict that based on Gen. 2.

In spite of the referencing mix-up, there was still no indication that we were talking about anything else than the chemical elements that make up the human body, as you confirmed in post 168

1. Based on Gen.1 with supporting evidence we can test for the chemical makeup of man. without the supporting evidence you wish to discard, we can test for man's uniqueness. The Gen.1 account shows man's creation as set apart by God. Thus unique, different, somehow unique in nature.
2. Based on Gen.1 with supporting evidence, we can test to see if all life plant and animal are composed of organic existing chemicals with only the supporting evidence you want to use, we can test the same.

In short from post 155 to post 168 the only question we have been dealing with that touches on the make-up of humanity is whether the elements that compose the human body suggest that man is made from dust.

Yet, now, all of a sudden the tune is changed:

Not chemical makeup, but rather like, image, similar in nature to.

Really, razzel. How am I---or anyone reading this thread--supposed to know that what has been a conversation about the chemical makeup of the human body now also refers to the image of God WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVER SAID SO BEFORE?

I am NOT a mind-reader. I don't know that you are changing the ground rules unless you tell me you are changing the ground rules.

Maybe you just enjoy pulling the rug out from under my feet, but it is not a fair discussion if I don't get fair warning of when you are introducing a new idea.

Nothing is limiting us to chemical makeup, except you, in fact, the text referenced here (at your insistance) limits us to image, not chemical make up.

The text referenced here is Gen. 1:26. If anything I have been insisting that the correct reference is Gen. 2:7. I have not asked that the discussion be limited to Gen. 1.

I thought that since we had been talking about the chemical makeup of life, we could explore man at that time as well. You didn't like that

I had no problem with the discussion. Only with it being improperly referenced to Gen.1 instead of Gen. 2.

What makes you think we do not know how reliable our dating methods are?

1. there are known flaws in the system

First, there is not just one system. There are several. So you would have to be specific about what flaws there are in which system. And actually, I don't know of flaws in any of the systems. I do know of factors that can produce a false date, such as contamination of a sample or use of an inappropriate system.

If this sort of thing is what you mean by a flaw, then knowing of these factors means they can be avoided and that makes the dating more reliable, not less.

2. there are known limitations to the system

And working within the limitations assures the dates are more reliable, not less.

3. we are working without a baseline to identify how right we are

I am not sure what you mean by baseline. With dendrochronology, varves and ice cores we have a base line that identifies a feature with an annual cycle. The base line is a year. And one counts the number of annual cycles. Occasionally one finds instances where that base line does not apply, but these are discernible and do not throw off the final reading.

With radiometric dating the base line is the measured rate of decay and the fact that the decay is very constant and not affected by any known earthly condition.

The two types of measurements reinforce each other by giving the same results (within known margins of error) where they can be used to date the same object or event.

4. we are working with history which is a matter of perspective,

Dating is not a matter of perspective, but of measurement.

and last but not least we are working with a 5. biased system.

Biased in what way? How do you bias tree rings to agree with ice cores? How do you bias ice cores to agree with radiometry?

we can test the same way, we just have to keep in mind that the margin or error is not necessarily what is claimed.

That is something you can test too. You would have to substantiate that the margin of error is not what is claimed.

listed and specified

This does not answer the question, so I repeat the question. I don't know why it is so difficult for you to give a simple, direct answer. Here is the question again.

Is the purpose of studying the text to see if it does, in fact, eliminate one or more possibilities? (re the age of the earth)

both articles show the limitations and same concerns I have.

Please show specifically where they do this.

without a baseline, we don't know what the margin of error is

You are just plan wrong. Scientists have established the margins of error. They have to in order to use the dating system. If you don't know the margin of error, you have no clue as to the reliability of the test results. The margins of error for any test are known and published as part of the results.

.to a certain degree this is what I am saying but don't read into it more than is there. Consider this, I go to the hospital for a sugar test. I might know that my sugar is high or low, but I don't know if it is high or low for me until I have a baseline to determine what is normal for me.

Since I am diabetic, I know a bit about this. I know, for example, that a reading of 7.0 or higher is high for everyone regardless of personal baseline. A reading of 5.0 to 6.0 is normal for everyone. One person's average may be 5.3 and another person's average may be 5.7 but both are in the normal range. But an average above 6.0 is a warning sign and any reading above 7.0 is too high.

You could have my children sitting in your office and see that they are quite normal children. But until you started living with them, you wouldn't really know who they are. You could guess, especially knowing that I am their mother, but you really would be missing too much information to know anything important. Margin or error.

Fortunately, dates are not as complicated as children.

First things first, all history is real, we just don't always know what that history is or how it is speaking to us. I really wish you would wrap your brain around this. Even if the earth just appears to be old when it isn't really, the history or the earth including it's "surprising" age is real.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it at the same time. But you cannot have it both ways. Anything that "just appears to be old when it isn't really" does not have a real history. So if all history is real, then all appearance of age points to a real age, not one that isn't really.

 

[razzelflabben]

They are very relevant to the discussion since they are pertinent to how you define your terms and how you understand the text of scripture. Being coy about your personal beliefs is just a way of avoiding definition of the terms, so that you can play fast and loose with them, switching without warning from one definition to another and confusing the issues.

removing personal opinions is a way to ensure emotions do not govern my side of the discussion. I can and have many times over used any given definition, in fact, allowing words to be defined by the context has caused problems with you and me more than once.

Good example of the confusing switch technique.

call it anything you wish, I am not hung up on name calling. You said that from Gen. 1 we could not test for the chemical makeup of man. I said, okay, but we can test for man's uniqueness from Gen. 1. Apparently you didn't read or meaning and just assumed what you thought I would be saying and went on from there.

I took time to go over the whole conversation on this "test".
You raised it in post 155
Does man consist of the same elements that would suggest that man is made from dust?

To which I responded:

The human body is no different from the bodies of squirrels, ants or carrots in this respect. The most common elements in nature are the most common elements in living bodies.

And you replied:
Ah, so that first part of our test to determine whether or not we can make a hypothesis off Gen. 1 passes.

This is where the matter of what the human body is made of got entangled with the matter of correct referencing. For, of course, the reference man being made of dust does not occur in Gen. 1 but in Gen. 2.

But that doesn't change the fact that the original question was about whether man consists of the elements that would suggest being made of dust.

You did take the opportunity to note (post 161) that Gen. 1 tells us that man is a unique creation. However, no specification is made that relates "unique" to the elements which compose the human body.

context clue number one (not first clue first in this monologue of yours.

Yet twice more you associated the original question relating to man being made of dust with Gen. 1 instead of Gen. 2 where the reference actually occurs. Here is the sequence

Post 161 (razzelflabben) Yet all life is consistant with the account and so we have our first test and it evidences Gen. 1.

context clue number two, we are talking about man and then life. Life in general, a concept you brought into the discussion and I followed suit by adding it to our test. You dismissed man and so we looked for other absolutes that we might glean from the text and found uniqueness.

Post 164 (gluadys) But the reference to humanity being made out of dirt occurs only in Gen. 2. There is nothing in Gen. 1 for it to agree with.

That an analysis of the human body shows it to be composed of elements commonly found in nature may be interpreted as being consistent with Gen. 2 (or vice versa, Gen. 2 can be interpreted as being consistent with the scientific analysis), but this is not evidence for Gen. 1 which only states that humanity was created by God.

Post 165 (razzelflabben) We test the chemical makeup of life and find it consistant with the elements in nature as is consistant with what we would predict based on Gen. 1.

context clue number three, we are talking about life. Consistant flow with your complaint, and refrained from further discussion of the chemical makeup of man as your complaint dictated we do. Consistant with the discussion and in context, understandable.

Post 167 (gluadys) But we cannot predict that based on Gen. 1. We can only predict that based on Gen. 2.

In spite of the referencing mix-up, there was still no indication that we were talking about anything else than the chemical elements that make up the human body, as you confirmed in post 168

actually, as shown above, the context leaves little room for confusion. The small amount of room left for confusion, could easily be cleared up with simple questions rather than funky accusations.

1. Based on Gen.1 with supporting evidence we can test for the chemical makeup of man. without the supporting evidence you wish to discard, we can test for man's uniqueness. The Gen.1 account shows man's creation as set apart by God. Thus unique, different, somehow unique in nature.
2. Based on Gen.1 with supporting evidence, we can test to see if all life plant and animal are composed of organic existing chemicals with only the supporting evidence you want to use, we can test the same.

In short from post 155 to post 168 the only question we have been dealing with that touches on the make-up of humanity is whether the elements that compose the human body suggest that man is made from dust.

Yet, now, all of a sudden the tune is changed:

Not chemical makeup, but rather like, image, similar in nature to.

Really, razzel. How am I---or anyone reading this thread--supposed to know that what has been a conversation about the chemical makeup of the human body now also refers to the image of God WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVER SAID SO BEFORE?

read the whole discussion and follow the contexts and acceptance of flawed assumptions on your part.

I am NOT a mind-reader. I don't know that you are changing the ground rules unless you tell me you are changing the ground rules.

Maybe you just enjoy pulling the rug out from under my feet, but it is not a fair discussion if I don't get fair warning of when you are introducing a new idea.

It is all clear if read with comprehension and anything that might be confusing is easily corrected with a simple question.

The text referenced here is Gen. 1:26. If anything I have been insisting that the correct reference is Gen. 2:7. I have not asked that the discussion be limited to Gen. 1.

you insisted many times over that even when I said any biblical text could be used to support your opinion that it didn't mean that you could use any biblical text to support your opinion. If you want to continue to assert this assumption after directly stating otherwise, then the only thing I can assume is that you will be refusing to use any other text. Directly stated comments leave little room for dispute unless your ownly goal is to be difficult for the purpose of proving your point.

I had no problem with the discussion. Only with it being improperly referenced to Gen.1 instead of Gen. 2.

First, there is not just one system. There are several. So you would have to be specific about what flaws there are in which system. And actually, I don't know of flaws in any of the systems. I do know of factors that can produce a false date, such as contamination of a sample or use of an inappropriate system.

If this sort of thing is what you mean by a flaw, then knowing of these factors means they can be avoided and that makes the dating more reliable, not less.

read the referenced sites for more info

And working within the limitations assures the dates are more reliable, not less.

I am not sure what you mean by baseline. With dendrochronology, varves and ice cores we have a base line that identifies a feature with an annual cycle. The base line is a year. And one counts the number of annual cycles. Occasionally one finds instances where that base line does not apply, but these are discernible and do not throw off the final reading.

With radiometric dating the base line is the measured rate of decay and the fact that the decay is very constant and not affected by any known earthly condition.

The two types of measurements reinforce each other by giving the same results (within known margins of error) where they can be used to date the same object or event.

The baseline needed is the results that assure us we are right. For example, the baseline of my blood pressure would not be one high reading we can assume to be correct. In fact, recently when I had a blood pressure reading the dr. insisted on several taken over time for the purpose of establishing a baseline or normal answer.

Dating is not a matter of perspective, but of measurement.

Biased in what way? How do you bias tree rings to agree with ice cores? How do you bias ice cores to agree with radiometry?

covered many times over. Left for previous answers for space control.

That is something you can test too. You would have to substantiate that the margin of error is not what is claimed.

This does not answer the question, so I repeat the question. I don't know why it is so difficult for you to give a simple, direct answer. Here is the question again.

Is the purpose of studying the text to see if it does, in fact, eliminate one or more possibilities? (re the age of the earth)

I not only answered the question but listed the reasons and numbered them. Seems to me that is indeed answered and comprehensively at that. Why claim it wasn't answered just because you don't care for the answer?

Please show specifically where they do this.

You are just plan wrong. Scientists have established the margins of error. They have to in order to use the dating system. If you don't know the margin of error, you have no clue as to the reliability of the test results. The margins of error for any test are known and published as part of the results.

We can't know the margin of error because that would require that we go back in history, something we can't do.

Since I am diabetic, I know a bit about this. I know, for example, that a reading of 7.0 or higher is high for everyone regardless of personal baseline. A reading of 5.0 to 6.0 is normal for everyone. One person's average may be 5.3 and another person's average may be 5.7 but both are in the normal range. But an average above 6.0 is a warning sign and any reading above 7.0 is too high.

already said this.

Fortunately, dates are not as complicated as children.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it at the same time. But you cannot have it both ways. Anything that "just appears to be old when it isn't really" does not have a real history. So if all history is real, then all appearance of age points to a real age, not one that isn't really.

The real history in that case would be why it was created to be with age. For example why would we distress a piece of furniture, the history of the piece would shed some light on that question. The history is real, the piece may appear older than it is, but it's history is very real indeed.

 

[gluadys]

removing personal opinions is a way to ensure emotions do not govern my side of the discussion.

I don't get it. Would letting us know your personal opinion lead to a nervous breakdwon on your part?

I can and have many times over used any given definition

As noted, that is exactly the problem.

You said that from Gen. 1 we could not test for the chemical makeup of man. I said, okay, but we can test for man's uniqueness from Gen. 1. Apparently you didn't read or meaning and just assumed what you thought I would be saying and went on from there. context clue number one (not first clue first in this monologue of yours. context clue number two, we are talking about man and then life. Life in general, a concept you brought into the discussion and I followed suit by adding it to our test. You dismissed man and so we looked for other absolutes that we might glean from the text and found uniqueness. context clue number three, we are talking about life. Consistant flow with your complaint, and refrained from further discussion of the chemical makeup of man as your complaint dictated we do. Consistant with the discussion and in context, understandable. actually, as shown above, the context leaves little room for confusion.

That is not how I see it. I see that your original question pertained to whether the elements found in the human body were consistent with what one would expect if made from dust. That is a clear reference to Gen. 2:7

On having the question answered in the affirmative, you then said this was evidence for Gen. 1. But the reference was to Gen. 2:7, not to anything in Gen. 1 This could have been cleared up with a simple statement like "Oh yes, I really meant to say Gen. 2"

But you are so freaked out about admitting the smallest error, you carry on for several pages restating the same error.

Furthermore you complicate matters by introducing a second concept: "unique creation".

Not a big problem in itself as long as you keep it separate from the composition of the body and define the term "unique creation".

In fact, at first, you did keep them separate for you suggested in post 168 that a second test would be needed; "Test two, is man unique?" This would be different from the first which was about the chemical composition of life (human and non-human).

But then in post 170, you throw the two together:

Here[Gen. 1:26] we see that man is set appart from the rest of creation. Both by his makeup and by his possition.

Problem one: this text does not refer to man's makeup in the terms we have been discussing, namely the elements of which the body is composed.

Problem two: The makeup of the human body which we have been discussing does not set humanity apart from the rest of creation. It shows the very opposite, that the chemical composition of the human body is the same as that of all life, and similar even to the non-living material world.

Your rejoinder when I pointed this out is that by "makeup" in this case, you were referring to "image".

Don't you think it would be at least courteous to let me know that you were no longer referring to what had been the subject of discussion ever since post 155?

The small amount of room left for confusion, could easily be cleared up with simple questions

Simple questions like:

How can you tell where illusionary history stops and real history begins? (post 142)
--never answered

May I assume you really meant to refer to Gen. 2? (post 159)
--consistently evaded

What do you understand by "unique". Would it be consistent to say humanity is unique and humanity evolved? (post 164)
--explicit refusal to answer (post 170)

How can we test the biblical dating if we have no reliable way to measure the age of the earth? (post 167)
--no clear answer

Is the purpose of studying the text to see if it does, in fact, eliminate one or more possibilities? (post 171)
--not answered yet.

How do you bias tree rings to agree with ice cores? How do you bias ice cores to agree with radiometry? (post 173)
---not answered

Please show specifically where they do this. (re articles in links showing "the limitations and same concerns I have.") (post 173)
--ignored

Now I agree you have answered a number of questions. In particular I appreciate the four-point answer about the purpose of studying the text to see if a "theory of creation" can be based on it.

But please don't talk about it being easy to clear up confusion with simple questions when you ignore, evade or point-blank refuse to answer so many questions.

The baseline needed is the results that assure us we are right. For example, the baseline of my blood pressure would not be one high reading we can assume to be correct. In fact, recently when I had a blood pressure reading the dr. insisted on several taken over time for the purpose of establishing a baseline or normal answer.

Yes, that's the idea. And that type of baseline has been established for the dating methods used in science. Where did you get the idea that these baselines were non-existent?

covered many times over. Left for previous answers for space control.

Translating from razzelspeak into English this apparently means:

"I haven't any answer so I'll pretend I answered it previously and hope gluadys doesn't take the time to check through the thread."

But gluadys has checked through the thread. Unh-unhh. Not covered many times over. Not covered even once.

I not only answered the question but listed the reasons and numbered them.

Your list was not an answer to the question. It was posted before the question was asked. In fact, the question was asked in response to the list.

So this still remains a question without an answer.

What was that about clearing up confusion by simply asking a question again?

Here is the question again in context, direct from post 171

We accept three possibles unless or until the text eliminates one or more of the possiblies.

Ok. Just to completely clarify. Is the purpose of studying the text to see if it does, in fact, eliminate one or more possibilities?

Could I please have a straight and simple answer to this simple question now?

We can't know the margin of error because that would require that we go back in history, something we can't do.

What do you mean it requires going back into history? We don't have to go back centuries to establish that trees generally add one growth ring annually. Five to ten years observation will establish that nicely. Ditto with varves and ice cores. Similar observation in real time is sufficient to establish radioactive decay rates. Nor do we need to go back into history to establish the speed of light in a vacuum. We can do that today.

All the baselines needed to establish the reliability of the dating methods are current realities, not just historical realities. In addition, for several of them, we also have corroborating historical documentation. But that's frosting on the cake.

For example why would we distress a piece of furniture, the history of the piece would shed some light on that question. The history is real, the piece may appear older than it is, but it's history is very real indeed.

We might distress a piece of furniture because we are seeking to scam an antique-loving public. Or because we prefer an antique look ourselves. But the real history would include the history that the furniture had been distressed. A non-expert might fall for the scam, but an expert could tell that the antiqued appearance was not genuine.

But what clues can an expert use to say whether the earth has been similarly distressed to make it look older than it is? A distressed piece of furniture does not really look like a genuine antique when you know what clues to look for. What would make an earth with an illusion of age look different from an earth that had really aged?

And at what point in its "history" does the real aging process begin?

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't get it. Would letting us know your personal opinion lead to a nervous breakdwon on your part?

since when is emotional arguing equal to a nervous breakdown? I prefer to argue non emotionally. Therefore a much greater chance of truth can come from the discussion. The few times I have offered my opinions, they have been ignored in exchange for yours and others emotional arguments, which in the end, results in offering personal opinions to be totally fruitless from the standpoint of discussion as well as common respect.

As noted, that is exactly the problem.

until properly defined, that is all we can do, be adaptive. How many times you yourself have changed definitions mid stream is unbelievable. I recall you boasting that science deals in absolute definitions only to change the definition, sometimes mid sentence, only to deny it later.

But this brings two issues into play, one the perciseness of definitions and two the defintion used by a text. If we are exploring a text and the text has not yet defined the word, then we aren't ready to declare the defintion used by the text. which is the case here.

That is not how I see it. I see that your original question pertained to whether the elements found in the human body were consistent with what one would expect if made from dust. That is a clear reference to Gen. 2:7

On having the question answered in the affirmative, you then said this was evidence for Gen. 1. But the reference was to Gen. 2:7, not to anything in Gen. 1 This could have been cleared up with a simple statement like "Oh yes, I really meant to say Gen. 2"

WEll, your interpretation of the discussion is your interpretation, humm, isn't the interpretation of Gen. what we are suppose to be discussing and here we see that interpretations can indeed be wrong. Oh well, that is off track, back on track we go. You objected to the Gen. 2 reference without contextual evidence to support your claim, but I am use to this from you and knew you would not let it go, so instead of insisting that we look at any supporting text, I went along with your assertions and deal only with Gen.1 it was consistant with the context clues you were given all along the way.

But you are so freaked out about admitting the smallest error, you carry on for several pages restating the same error.

actually, I showed you from several different angles how your interpretations of the issue was flawed, then accepted your assertions that were based on this flawed interpretation and moved on. You have kept it going for pages and pages simply to try to get me to say I am wrong. When I am wrong, I admit it. In this case I am wrong, but not for the reason you want me to say I am wrong about. It is a matter of me accepting what is mine and no more. I was wrong to specify to you Gen. 1 when I thought you had already grasp the concept that was specifically written several times that any supporting biblical reference was acceptable. I should have been better aware of your argument style and refrained from assuming that you understood what had been directly stated. This was my mistake. Admitted and I take responsibility for that. That it was not clear from the text, no, I told you my daughter was reading over my shoulder on several occasions, she is 10 and totally understood what was allowed within the confines of the context of the discussion.

snip

But then in post 170, you throw the two together:

Time to move on, I accepted what was mine. I knew you would change the topic sooner or later and here you have done it. My husbands claim is that you do so because you are backed into a corner with no other way out, but then he also has more faith in my debating than I do.

Problem one: this text does not refer to man's makeup in the terms we have been discussing, namely the elements of which the body is composed.

Problem two: The makeup of the human body which we have been discussing does not set humanity apart from the rest of creation. It shows the very opposite, that the chemical composition of the human body is the same as that of all life, and similar even to the non-living material world.

Your rejoinder when I pointed this out is that by "makeup" in this case, you were referring to "image".

Don't you think it would be at least courteous to let me know that you were no longer referring to what had been the subject of discussion ever since post 155?

We have two issues, 1. the chemical makeup of man, a discussion you dismissed because you didn't understand that when I say that we can use any scriptural reference to support our claims that it means that we can use any scriptural reference to support our claims. and then we have the alternative discussion to 1. above, 2. the uniqueness of man apart from chemical makeup. Thus the discussion is limited to only Gen.1 and the texts that support the interpretations we prefer (of which we didn't agree which we would be using, thus allowing for a host of supporting evidence). They are two different concepts discussion upon your leading of the discussion. Why let you lead the discussion? because you have no idea whatsoever how to follow a discussion. Of this we evidence in the above rant about supporting text.

Simple questions like:

How can you tell where illusionary history stops and real history begins? (post 142)
--never answered

Now I know you aren't reading. the answer given to you in it's simplist form. Test!

May I assume you really meant to refer to Gen. 2? (post 159)
--consistently evaded

discussed at length. simplist form of the answer, it is supporting text that offers us an absolute to text and so yes.

What do you understand by "unique". Would it be consistent to say humanity is unique and humanity evolved? (post 164)
--explicit refusal to answer (post 170)

Again, the simplist form of an open ended question like this would be summarized by this answer.....You keep bringing evolved, and evolution into the equasion, without biblical support (throughout the bible not just Gen.) for this assertion, it is totally irrelavent to the discussion and therefore will not be addressed because it is off topic.

How can we test the biblical dating if we have no reliable way to measure the age of the earth? (post 167)
--no clear answer

again, answered previously and the simplist answer summary is the same way we test now, always looking for what we don't know and always accepting the limitations of such testing.

Is the purpose of studying the text to see if it does, in fact, eliminate one or more possibilities? (post 171)
--not answered yet.

all these accusations of no answering and yet the answers have all been given. I think you don't understand your own literary structure. YOu present open ended questions, these are questions that prompt discussion but expect yes or no answers. The two are not compatable. But the simplist answer. Absolutely, in fact, I presented just under this question and you refered to the list and applauded the list of what we intended by such a discussion as this. What the purpose was in detail, listed form. You still assert that I didn't answer the question when in fact, I answered it in detail, you noted the answer, applauded the answer, and said you were going to reference it, only to come here and say it was never given. This is the kind of thing I get tired of and why sometimes I simply get laxy and don't check quote tags.

How do you bias tree rings to agree with ice cores? How do you bias ice cores to agree with radiometry? (post 173)
---not answered

The simplest form of answer. That isn't the biased part. [/quote]

Please show specifically where they do this. (re articles in links showing "the limitations and same concerns I have.") (post 173)
ignored[/quote] again, not ignored, but I provided you with the simplest answer, reread the articles referenced. They are saying the same things I am saying.

Now I agree you have answered a number of questions. In particular I appreciate the four-point answer about the purpose of studying the text to see if a "theory of creation" can be based on it.

which answers thIs question as well Is the purpose of studying the text to see if it does, in fact, eliminate one or more possibilities Thus shortening extremely long posts with the simplist answers that can be given.

But please don't talk about it being easy to clear up confusion with simple questions when you ignore, evade or point-blank refuse to answer so many questions.

if I did as you accuse, I wouldn't, but each answer was given and clearly stated.

Yes, that's the idea. And that type of baseline has been established for the dating methods used in science. Where did you get the idea that these baselines were non-existent?

Well you will have to show me this baseline that extends back for thousands and millions of years. Our only baseline is based on modern assumptions, not ancient ones and unfortunately, history does not allow us to go back and get the baseline needed for your assertions to be accurate, so I think you need to site a reference to how it was accomplished, where is this magical time machine I know a lot of people would be interested in it.

snip

Your list was not an answer to the question. It was posted before the question was asked. In fact, the question was asked in response to the list.

So this still remains a question without an answer.

What was that about clearing up confusion by simply asking a question again?

Here is the question again in context, direct from post 171

Could I please have a straight and simple answer to this simple question now?

What do you mean it requires going back into history? We don't have to go back centuries to establish that trees generally add one growth ring annually. Five to ten years observation will establish that nicely. Ditto with varves and ice cores. Similar observation in real time is sufficient to establish radioactive decay rates. Nor do we need to go back into history to establish the speed of light in a vacuum. We can do that today.

a baseline of age is necessary for us to know how close we are to being accurate. Let me see, how to make you understand something you are bent on not understanding......We can count tree rings, but we don't have million year old trees to determine if something in the environment affected the tree rings leaving us with a flawed baseline. Ah let's see another example for those who are willfully blind....................Our environment has changed greatly over time, both biblically understood and scientifically. without a baseline that streatches back millions of years, (heck, we don't even have a baseline from thousands of years) we can't know what effects the changes in this world would have had on our testing methods. Therefore it is necessary to have a baseline based on all the major earth environmental changed. When you go to the hospital with chest pain, and they determine it is not caused by you having a heart attack, they will suggest more testing, this can be anything from a stress test to sugar, why, they need to determine what is going on in different "environments" of your body. It is this determination, that gives them a baseline to go by. As a diabetic, I would suggest that you have probably had a glucose tolerance test, one that last for hours. These test require a baseline reading and then follow that baseline over the course of adding sugar to the system to determine how your body is regulating that sugar. Similarly, without a baseline to know how our world''s environment has affected the results of our testing, we simply can't know how accurate our tests really are. We can assume, guess, suggest, theorize, proclaim, but we can't know. That is the point.

All the baselines needed to establish the reliability of the dating methods are current realities, not just historical realities. In addition, for several of them, we also have corroborating historical documentation. But that's frosting on the cake.

We might distress a piece of furniture because we are seeking to scam an antique-loving public. Or because we prefer an antique look ourselves. But the real history would include the history that the furniture had been distressed. A non-expert might fall for the scam, but an expert could tell that the antiqued appearance was not genuine.

Yep, that was my point, no matter if you fall for the illusion or not, the history is still real. You are confusing history with illusion. History is never illusion, it is always real.

But what clues can an expert use to say whether the earth has been similarly distressed to make it look older than it is? A distressed piece of furniture does not really look like a genuine antique when you know what clues to look for. What would make an earth with an illusion of age look different from an earth that had really aged?

And at what point in its "history" does the real aging process begin?

Now I know you will just accuse me of not answering your questions but the first paragraphs questions I am going to lump altogether (first paragraph between these quote tags)
The clues are hidden somewhere within the history and systematically you uncover those clues. In the case of the earth, one could start where I suggested, is there are reason, or purpose. Would the creation of this or that (whatever we happen to be looking at at the time) be necessary to support life. As the Lion King movie puts it, we are all a part of the circle of life. As such, there would be certain things about our world that would be necessary to appear to have age in order to support life. Are these the things we are testing? That would take a systematic approach of which we don't have the time or resources on this thread to cover with any compentancy.

Now as the the second paragraph question here, that is infinately easy if you understand history, because the real age would begin at the moment of conception. The earths history if we believe the bible, began at the moment God concieved the idea of creating an earth, it was also at this time that the aging process began. Now philosophically that presents and interesting question about how old the earth really is, but let's stick to science, I don't think your ready for that kind of philosophical exploration.

 

[gluadys]

since when is emotional arguing equal to a nervous breakdown? I prefer to argue non emotionally.

So do I. But I can discuss my personal opinions non emotionally. I don't know why you think you cannot.

I recall you boasting that science deals in absolute definitions only to change the definition, sometimes mid sentence, only to deny it later.

You seem to recall a lot of things. I don't recall boasting of anything.

But this brings two issues into play, one the perciseness of definitions and two the defintion used by a text. If we are exploring a text and the text has not yet defined the word, then we aren't ready to declare the defintion used by the text. which is the case here.

And that is totally irrelevant to declaring the definition you are using. You don't even have to use your own personal belief. You can set out a definition and say "this is not what I myself believe, but let's use it as a starting point and see where it takes us."

That is a lot more helpful than trying to use an undefined term. In fact, it can help us explore what the text does mean.

You objected to the Gen. 2 reference without contextual evidence to support your claim

Sheesh! Sometimes I wonder if you hold up a mirror to the screen and try to read from the mirror. You so often get what I say backwards.

No, I did not object to the Gen. 2 reference. I objected to the Gen. 1 reference as irrelevant and pointed to the Gen. 2 reference as the correct context.

I went along with your assertions and deal only with Gen.1

I did not at any time assert that we deal only with Gen. 1

You have kept it going for pages and pages simply to try to get me to say I am wrong. When I am wrong, I admit it.

So are you ready to admit now that you made a referencing error and that it is Gen.2 not Gen. 1 that alludes to the affinity of the human body with dust?

I thought you had already grasp the concept that was specifically written several times that any supporting biblical reference was acceptable.

Sure any supporting biblical reference is acceptable, if it is, in fact, a supporting reference. I was the one who first asked you if this was an acceptable principle.

In this case, though Gen. 1 is not supportive. (Not contradictory either. It simply does not allude to the material from which the human body is made.)

We have two issues, 1. the chemical makeup of man, a discussion you dismissed because you didn't understand that when I say that we can use any scriptural reference to support our claims that it means that we can use any scriptural reference to support our claims.

Nice switch. Above you stated correctly that we can use any supporting biblical reference. Now you are saying we can use any scriptural reference to support.

These are not the same principle. The first is correct. The second is not.

Thus the discussion is limited to only Gen.1

I have never agreed to limit the discussion to Gen. 1. In fact, I have been insisting that to refer to the chemical composition of the human body you must reference Gen. 2 as Gen. 1 contains no relevant information. The reverse is true of the uniqueness of humanity. Gen. 2 contains no relevant information on that topic, but Gen. 1 does.

Both concepts also have support from elsewhere in scripture. For example, one could also cite Ecclesiastes 3:18 on the substance of the human body. Or one could cite Psalm 8:5 on the uniqueness of man.

So we can indeed use any supportive biblical reference, no matter where in the bible it is found. But it must be supportive to begin with. We cannot use any scriptural reference to support our claim. It must be a reference that is relevant to the issue.

Gen. 1 is not relevant to the material composition of the human body.
Gen. 2 is not relevant to the uniqueness of the human creation.

Test! discussed at length.

Yes, I know you have said "test". But you have not offered any suggestion on what to test for or how to test, so no, it has not been discussed at length.

discussed at length. simplist form of the answer, it is supporting text that offers us an absolute to text and so yes.

See, it's not that hard to admit you made a referencing error. Had you said this when I first asked the question it would not need to have been discussed at length.

Again, the simplist form of an open ended question

Actually, the second part is not an open-ended question. It calls for a yes/no answer.

You keep bringing evolved, and evolution into the equasion, without biblical support (throughout the bible not just Gen.) for this assertion, it is totally irrelavent to the discussion and therefore will not be addressed because it is off topic.

It is not irrelevant to the discussion since the first of the four reasons you gave for examining the text is to "1. see if it is compatable with evolution".

again, answered previously and the simplist answer summary is the same way we test now, always looking for what we don't know and always accepting the limitations of such testing.

And that means accepting that the way we test now, with the limitations of such testing, is reliable. In turn, that means accepting the results of the tests as reliable whether that result is 4,000, 4 million or 4 billion years.

all these accusations of no answering and yet the answers have all been given. I think you don't understand your own literary structure. YOu present open ended questions

Most of the previous questions were open-ended. This one is not. It calls for a yes/no answer. Since that is the simplest answer to give, I wonder why you have such difficulty with it. (The other question that was not open-ended was the one on the compatibility of uniqueness and evolution).

But the simplist answer. Absolutely,

Thank you. See how easy it is to answer a yes/no question.

The simplest form of answer. That isn't the biased part.

So what is?

Please show specifically where they do this. (re articles in links showing "the limitations and same concerns I have.") (post 173)
ignored

again, not ignored, but I provided you with the simplest answer, reread the articles referenced.[/quote]

The injuntion to re-read a text I have already read does not comply with the request to "show specifically" where it shows "the limitations and same concerns I have." If I keep missing the references every time I read it, I am not going to see them by reading it again. You need to specifically show me what you are referring to.

They are saying the same things I am saying.

Show me where in the articles they are saying the same things you are saying, especially in doubting the reliability of the test results.

Our only baseline is based on modern assumptions,

No, it is based on observed rates of change which allow us to calculate how long it took for certain changes to occur. e.g. from the speed of light we can calculate how long it takes light to travel from a star to the earth. 8 minutes in the case of the sun. 4 years in the case of Alpha Centauri. over a 100,000 years for a star on the far side of our galaxy. And billions of years from a distant galaxy.

Same principle for dendrochronology. Based on an observed rate of change (one year to form one tree ring) we can calculate how long it took for 4,000 tree rings to form. And for varves. One varve per year tells us it took 40,000 years to form 40,000 varves.

Same principle again for radiometric dating. The observed rate of change tells us how long it took for a particular change to take place.

It is really no different than those math questions which give you the speed of a vehicle, tell you how far it travelled and ask you to calculate how long the journey took.

a baseline of age is necessary for us to know how close we are to being accurate.

No, we need, and have, a baseline of the rate of change. From this we calculate the age. We can double check by using other available methods to see if we get the same answer. For example, you probably learned in elementary school to check whether you correctly added a long column of numbers by adding them again from bottom to top to see if you still came up with the same answer. Or to check a subtraction by adding your answer to the number being subtracted to see if you got the same number you began with.

Let me see, how to make you understand something you are bent on not understanding...... We can count tree rings, but we don't have million year old trees to determine if something in the environment affected the tree rings leaving us with a flawed baseline.

But tree rings don't just tell how long the tree lived. They also provide information on the environmental conditions in various years. So we can and do determine how the environment affected the tree rings. Hence we know there is no flawed baseline relative to the age of the tree. The effects of environmental changes have already been allowed for.

without a baseline that streatches back millions of years, (heck, we don't even have a baseline from thousands of years) we can't know what effects the changes in this world would have had on our testing methods.

Since the method is calculating age from the rate of change, what we need to know is how environmental changes affect the rate of change. This testing has been done and the effects of environmental changes are included in the end result of the calculated date. Carbon-14 dating, for example, takes into account the differing rates of carbon-14 production at various times to produce a correct calibration of the raw test score to actual time passed.

History is never illusion, it is always real.

In that case the tested age is not an illusion. An earth that tests out at 4 billion years of age is four billion years old. A human species that leaves 200,000 year old fossils in the earth is 200,000 years old.

The clues are hidden somewhere within the history and systematically you uncover those clues.

Just as the clues to the antiquing are there in the piece of distressed furniture. But the expert in antiques knows what clues to look for. What clues do we look for to discover that an apparent history of the earth is not a real history?

In the case of the earth, one could start where I suggested, is there are reason, or purpose. Would the creation of this or that (whatever we happen to be looking at at the time) be necessary to support life.

If there is no prior assumption of a recent creation, why would we ask that question? Just because something is necessary to support life does not mean life was created recently. The something necessary to support life just has to be there before life is whether life is 6,000 years old or 3 billion years old.

As the Lion King movie puts it, we are all a part of the circle of life. As such, there would be certain things about our world that would be necessary to appear to have age in order to support life.

Of course, if life is 3 billion years old, these things would appear to have age because they reallydo have age.

What you are doing is arguing from a consequence of the assumption (recent creation) to support the assumption. A recent creation requires an appearance of age that is not actual age. Appearance of age is then used to support a recent creation.

Several problems:

This sidesteps the whole question of whether the apparent age is due to actual age. It is assumed a priori that it cannot be actual age because creation is recent. But that is the point to be established.

The assumed purpose of the appearance of age does not account for many appearances of age that are not necessary to the purpose. e.g what makes 40,000 varves essential in order to support life?

Are these the things we are testing?

We can certainly test and have tested what things are necessary to support life. But all this shows is that they have to be in place before life can begin. It says nothing at all about when life began. We even have experiments that show that what is necessary for life could have emerged in the early history of the earth (see Urey-Miller experiments; also RNA world; thermal proteins and proto-cells).

Now as the the second paragraph question here, that is infinately easy if you understand history, because the real age would begin at the moment of conception.

How do you know? How do you know the moment of conception is not part of the illusory history? Something that took place in the apparent time before history began? For that matter, how do you know the birth actually took place in history? Maybe the birth is also an illusion. In fact, isn't that the point--that Adam only appeared to be born when he wasn't?

 

[razzelflabben]

So do I. But I can discuss my personal opinions non emotionally. I don't know why you think you cannot.

I can as well, that is provided that my personal opinions are being discussed and not what others want to believe my opinions to be. Take for example some of our previous discussions, this very one in fact, I tell you that my personal belief is that we can use any biblical text to support our views. Instead of accepting this as my personal opinion you go on for pages about how it wasn't said and so forth and so on. This defiant disrespect for my opinions does eventually lead to emotional arguments because the argument is not being discussed, only the nonsense of what you wanted my opinion to be so that you could show your superiority over my opinions. This happens all the time on the forum and is quite disturbing. You yourself have done it many times to me alone not to mention all the other people I have seen it done to. Now a certain amount of it is communicate difficulties but that only excuses a small amount of what is actually going on. For these reasons, I refrain from offering my opinion unless it is important to the discussion. In this case, we are looking for how the Gen. text defines words, not how I do, so my personal opinions here would not be important to the discussion. They would however be important to you because they would allow you the opertunity to manufacture what you want me to say so that we can get off track of our discussion as is set. That is one of your games I learned a long time ago and one in which I will kindly and with respect, refrain from entering.

You seem to recall a lot of things. I don't recall boasting of anything.

And that is totally irrelevant to declaring the definition you are using. You don't even have to use your own personal belief. You can set out a definition and say "this is not what I myself believe, but let's use it as a starting point and see where it takes us."

that's what dictionaries are for.

snip
So are you ready to admit now that you made a referencing error and that it is Gen.2 not Gen. 1 that alludes to the affinity of the human body with dust?

Of course the Gen. 2 passage is the one that says man is made from dust, but I never limited our discussion to Gen. 1 without supporting text, you made that limitation I have always suggested that we use supporting texts, which would allow Gen. 2 into the discussion and since I didn't post the verse referred to, I made no error though you insist I did. Now that is not to say that I couldn't have given a reference and if I had, that reference would have been Gen.2 but being that my post was consistant with the discussion as hand, it would have been an unnecessary, and wordy, way to say something so simple. Being that I try hard to keep your posts down to something managable and being that you have asked me several times for the short answer, it seemed best just to reference the obvious. Aparently that was a mis calculation on my part, but not a flaw in my communication. . End of discussion.[/quote]

snip
Nice switch. Above you stated correctly that we can use any supporting biblical reference. Now you are saying we can use any scriptural reference to support.

snip

Gen. 1 is not relevant to the material composition of the human body.
Gen. 2 is not relevant to the uniqueness of the human creation.

Yes, I know you have said "test". But you have not offered any suggestion on what to test for or how to test, so no, it has not been discussed at length.

See, it's not that hard to admit you made a referencing error. Had you said this when I first asked the question it would not need to have been discussed at length.

Actually, the second part is not an open-ended question. It calls for a yes/no answer.

snip
And that means accepting that the way we test now, with the limitations of such testing, is reliable. In turn, that means accepting the results of the tests as reliable whether that result is 4,000, 4 million or 4 billion years.

Nothing in the way we currently test is reliable by definition.
Definitions of Reliable on the Web:

• [SIZE=-1][/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
• Giving the same result on successive trials.
  www.nmlites.org/standards/language/glossary.html[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
• Research is reliable if it can be trusted and you can depend on it.
  snip[/SIZE]

Most of the previous questions were open-ended. This one is not. It calls for a yes/no answer. Since that is the simplest answer to give, I wonder why you have such difficulty with it. (The other question that was not open-ended was the one on the compatibility of uniqueness and evolution).

because it only deals with part of the issue. Like if I wanted to know what you do for a living and I asked you "do you work for a college or university?" your answer could lead me to assume you to be a janator, secretary, professor, security, cook or any number of other things you could do there. What it doesn't tell me is what you do for a living. The problem with this question is that similarly, it doesn't answer the question but also allows you room to manipulate the answer to make false assumptions and false statements that would take us off track of the discussion. For example there is much about the theory of evolution that would have to be discussed in light of Gen. before we could claim the two are compatable. Or did you mean evolution as in change, adaptability, a concept that I have already stated was consistant with Gen. and some time ago on another thread showed a reference to that very claim. See how easy it is to twist things when you don't view the entire issue, no matter what I say it can be twisted to mean something else because there are not consistantcies in your opinions and arguments.

Thank you. See how easy it is to answer a yes/no question.

So what is?

what was the question referencing again?

again, not ignored, but I provided you with the simplest answer, reread the articles referenced.

[/quote] looks like your quote tags are a bit screwy.

The injuntion to re-read a text I have already read does not comply with the request to "show specifically" where it shows "the limitations and same concerns I have." If I keep missing the references every time I read it, I am not going to see them by reading it again. You need to specifically show me what you are referring to.

to what end? You will continue to assert they aren't there, I will continue to show them to you and for days and days and days you will accuse me of not doing what I am doing and we will get no where. This is your MO. Just read the text until it actually makes sense from an unbiased approach to the topic. You know, both sides of the issue not just the side you want it to support. What is, not what will support your position. Then when you are ready, we can discuss what it says not what you want it to say. You always pick and choose what you read, this is not reading for comprehension. Comprehension is looking at what it says for the support as well as the lack of support it gives to an idea or opinion.

Show me where in the articles they are saying the same things you are saying, especially in doubting the reliability of the test results.

snip

It is really no different than those math questions which give you the speed of a vehicle, tell you how far it travelled and ask you to calculate how long the journey took.

how accurate are those math problems you refered to? When I take a trip, the time it takes to get to the destination rarely ever coincides with the predicted time for the trip. why? Because of the variables that the calculations cannot take into account. Margin or error.

No, we need, and have, a baseline of the rate of change. From this we calculate the age. snip
.

Not when we are talking about millions of years and vast changes in our enviornment. Consider this, what caused the dinos to become extinct? How did that cause effect the age tests we use today?

snip

In that case the tested age is not an illusion. An earth that tests out at 4 billion years of age is four billion years old. A human species that leaves 200,000 year old fossils in the earth is 200,000 years old.

and what I am saying to you is that without something that we know to be 200,000 years old, we don't know if the human fossils are 200,000 years old or 10,000 years old. We need a baseline, something to test our results against. That baseline doesn't more can it exist.

Just as the clues to the antiquing are there in the piece of distressed furniture. But the expert in antiques knows what clues to look for. What clues do we look for to discover that an apparent history of the earth is not a real history?

as I suggested before, we would systematically test, eliminating obvious things from our hypothesis. So for example, if our hypothesis stated that the earth was created with the appearance of age because it was necessary to support life, then we would systematically look at all the things that appeared old and study them to determine if it was indeed necessary for supporting life. Now I have answered this question serveral times now, accuse me of not answering it and lets get on with the discussion.

If there is no prior assumption of a recent creation, why would we ask that question? Just because something is necessary to support life does not mean life was created recently. The something necessary to support life just has to be there before life is whether life is 6,000 years old or 3 billion years old.

Isn't this part of our discussion about assuming the earth is young? Why would God create it to look old? How would such a creation effect our belief in God?

snip.

We can certainly test and have tested what things are necessary to support life. But all this shows is that they have to be in place before life can begin. It says nothing at all about when life began. We even have experiments that show that what is necessary for life could have emerged in the early history of the earth (see Urey-Miller experiments; also RNA world; thermal proteins and proto-cells).

which in turn does not falsify the young earth theories that are floating out there (not suggesting theory to only be scientific in nature so don't go off on that lecture, we have heard it enough) In other words, the same evidence that supports old earth in this case supports young earth as well. What we are looking for is evidence to falsify the young earth idea.

How do you know? How do you know the moment of conception is not part of the illusory history? Something that took place in the apparent time before history began? For that matter, how do you know the birth actually took place in history? Maybe the birth is also an illusion. In fact, isn't that the point--that Adam only appeared to be born when he wasn't?

who said that adam appeared to be born but you. My theory holds that adam would not have a belly button and I asked you repeatedly to show evidence that would falsify that assumption, you haven't yet. so suffice to say that we can leave Adam out of our discussion because you still haven't grasp the fact that we can theorize either direction.

But on to your other point. Whether or not the earth was created to appear old or is old, it's history began at conception. Take our distressed furniture. It is created to appear old, but when did it's history begin? It's history began at the conception of it's creation. When someone first conceived the idea of creating the piece, it began it's history. All along the way, it lived it's history. That history didn't change just because it was made to look older than it really was. The history is still the same and the history in part is why the piece is made to look old when it isn't old. The exploration of the pieces history could reveal to us why it was created to look old. History is always real, never illusionary.

 

[gluadys]

that's what dictionaries are for.

Typically a dictionary gives you a list of all the possible meanings of a word. It doesn't tell you which meaning a given text is using. Nor which meaning a given person is using on a specific occasion.

Of course the Gen. 2 passage is the one that says man is made from dust,

So why did you say the examination of the elements of the human body supported Gen. 1? I am willing to believe it was a simple mistake. I don't know why you have to beat around the bush trying to defend a simple mistake.

but I never limited our discussion to Gen. 1

Neither did I.

Nice switch. Above you stated correctly that we can use any supporting biblical reference. Now you are saying we can use any scriptural reference to support.

I notice you quoted this but didn't respond to it. I hope the difference is clear to you.

Nothing in the way we currently test is reliable by definition.

Yet you still want to use the same method to test the age suggested by the biblical creation accounts. To what purpose if they are not reliable?

because it only deals with part of the issue.

So what? It doesn't mean you cannot answer the question as asked and then, if you feel it necessary, elaborate on the answer.

Like if I wanted to know what you do for a living and I asked you "do you work for a college or university?"

And I could first answer the question as asked e.g. "I work at Glenville College." and then elaborate on the answer e.g. "I am an administrative assistant in the registrar's office."

See how easy it is to twist things when you don't view the entire issue, no matter what I say it can be twisted to mean something else because there are not consistantcies in your opinions and arguments.

Well, it's up to you to provide a straightforward answer that is not easy to twist, and if someone tries to twist it, to call them on it. The fact that someone may (innocently or deliberately) misunderstand your answer is not an excuse to ignore or evade the question.

what was the question referencing again?

What you call "bias" in scientific dating measurements.

looks like your quote tags are a bit screwy.

Ah, you're right. Mea culpa.

to what end?

To show that you are not just blowing wind and making false claims.

Just read the text until it actually makes sense from an unbiased approach to the topic.

The text does make sense to me and it does not support your contention that scientific dating methods are unreliable.

Since you claim it does support your point of view, the onus is on you to show that it does.

how accurate are those math problems you refered to? When I take a trip, the time it takes to get to the destination rarely ever coincides with the predicted time for the trip.

The math problems are very accurate. As accurate as 2+2=4. If we take your average speed and the distance you travelled we will get the actual time you took for the trip. If the predicted time was different, it is because your average speed was different from the one used to make the prediction and/or because you did not use the exact route assumed in the prediction, so your distance was a bit different. Nevertheless, unless there was a huge problem with traffic or a lengthy unexpected detour, your actual time was probably not very far off from the predicted time.

For example, when I was commuting, my actual time from work to home varied from day to day, but averaged around 90 minutes. But one day it took me over 3 hours because the expressway was closed and all the traffic diverted onto a route that could not handle the excess traffic nearly as efficiently.

So I could predict that under normal conditions, my commute would take 90 minutes and be confident that the actual time each day would be within a range of 75 to 105 minutes (i.e. 90 minutes give or take 15 minutes). I could also predict that in the case of a major highway shutdown, it would take much longer.

That is pretty much the same as using a dating method with a reasonable margin of error and also taking into account significant environmental impacts.

Because of the variables that the calculations cannot take into account.

What variables cannot be taken into account?

Not when we are talking about millions of years

Why not? When we know the speed of light and can place a star 10 million light years away from us, what prevents us from concluding that it takes 10 million years for the light to travel to us?

When we know that the half-life of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years and the half-life of uranium 235 is 704 million years, what problem does that pose for measuring millions of years?

That is like saying you can't measure inches with a foot-long ruler. Since the ruler is 12 inches long, it is easy to measure inches with it. With a "measuring rod" 704 million years long or 4500 million years long, it is easy to measure millions of years.

and vast changes in our enviornment.

Actually vast changes in our environment are probably easier to account for than subtle changes as they leave more obvious evidence of their occurrence.

Consider this, what caused the dinos to become extinct? How did that cause effect the age tests we use today?

One factor (not necessarily the only one) is believed to be the impact of the meteorite or asteroid which created the Chicxulub crater in Yucatan, Mexico. The dust raised into the atmosphere would block much of the sunlight and have a significant long-term cooling effect that would in turn affect the environment the dinosaurs depended on.

It did not affect the age tests, because there was not a significant enough change in the environment of radioactive nuclei to measurably change the rate of decay. It is possible to change decay rates, but it is extraordinarily difficult and the amount of change is, for all practical purposes, insignificant.

and what I am saying to you is that without something that we know to be 200,000 years old, we don't know if the human fossils are 200,000 years old or 10,000 years old.

And if you check out the scientific report on how the dating was done, it tells you what we have that we know is 200,000 years old.

We need a baseline, something to test our results against. That baseline doesn't more can it exist.

The baseline is the measured rate of radio active decay, or the speed of light or the annual cycle that produces ice cores, varves and tree rings. Those base lines do exist and can be used to calculate years (including millions of years) just as readily as your spedometer can be used to calculate the number of minutes or hours you travelled.

as I suggested before, we would systematically test, eliminating obvious things from our hypothesis. So for example, if our hypothesis stated that the earth was created with the appearance of age because it was necessary to support life, then we would systematically look at all the things that appeared old and study them to determine if it was indeed necessary for supporting life.

1. That something was necessary to support life does not mean it was created at a certain time before life. Life could have been created 100 years ago, but that which is necessary to support life could still have been created 100 million years ago. So it could still look old because it really is old.

2. This still does not account for things that appear to be old but are not necessary to support life. And examples of the latter have already been provided.

Isn't this part of our discussion about assuming the earth is young? Why would God create it to look old?

Exactly. Unless you assume the earth is young, the question does not even come up. And why would God make it look old, especially in unnecessary ways? Why would God make it look like an asteroid hit the earth 65 million years ago and accelerated the extinction of the dinosaurs? How is that event necesssary to support the life mentioned in the biblical creation accounts? And if it is not necessary to support life, why was the evidence of this event created? Why create evidence of an event that never happened?

I have never found a good answer to these questions, nor any good reason to assume the earth is young in the face of so much evidence that it is not.

How would such a creation effect our belief in God?

For me, it would mean the creator is a trickster god, like coyote or raven in the tales of American Native peoples or Anansi in the tales of West Africa. And that would be inconsistent with the character of God as portrayed biblically, so it would follow that the bible does not give us a true account of God's character.

In other words, the same evidence that supports old earth in this case supports young earth as well.

No, evidence cannot support two contradictory ideas. The best you can get is that it doesn't support either idea.

My theory holds that adam would not have a belly button

So, if there is to be no appearance of a history that never occurred, your theory should also hold that there is no Chicxulub crater because there was no asteroid impact that made it.

The history is still the same and the history in part is why the piece is made to look old when it isn't old. The exploration of the pieces history could reveal to us why it was created to look old. History is always real, never illusionary.

You still need to know what clues to look for that would show it was made to look old instead of actually aging.

 

[razzelflabben]

Typically a dictionary gives you a list of all the possible meanings of a word. It doesn't tell you which meaning a given text is using. Nor which meaning a given person is using on a specific occasion.

Bravo, and so in order to find out what definition a given text uses, we ask the text so to speak not an individual reading, studying, or discussing the text Thus you have just evidenced very nicely why it is not necessary for me to answer this personal question, because it is not my definition we are exploring. For me to add my definition would cloud the issue even further.

So why did you say the examination of the elements of the human body supported Gen. 1? I am willing to believe it was a simple mistake. I don't know why you have to beat around the bush trying to defend a simple mistake.

Please note that I will only answer the question directly asked because this nonsense has extended too long already. I suggested we study Gen. 1. The supporting text includes but is not limited to any translation of the bible and any of that bible which helps us to clarify or determine the absolutes of the account in question. You have complained many times about me being to wordy and I have complained many times about the length of your posts. To that end I chose to ignore the obvious. That obvious being that the refered to supporting text was Gen. 2. In addition you will note that I gave no actual referenced verse which is also consistant with my explaination and claim.

snip

I notice you quoted this but didn't respond to it. I hope the difference is clear to you.

The difference doesn't matter. We can use any biblical reference that will support or explain what is being claimed by the text or the individual.

Yet you still want to use the same method to test the age suggested by the biblical creation accounts. To what purpose if they are not reliable?

All I said is that instead of looking at the results with a bias we look at the results with understanding of the limitations and problems with the aging methods and the margin of error thus related to those limitations and problems. Nowhere did I say or suggest that the methods we horrid and should not be used. This kind of reading into posts and opinions what is not there is exactly why I insisted and it comes up again in this post, on posting not just an answer to your question but a comprehensive answer to your question.

So what? It doesn't mean you cannot answer the question as asked and then, if you feel it necessary, elaborate on the answer.snip

and here it is........the question was not only answered but clarified as you suggest and apparently it worked because you are not twisting the answer but rather falsely accusing me of not answering it. I tire of your changing topics, but am baffeled by why you find it so scary to actually look at Gen. Why are you so scared to look at the text that you insist on changing the topic every time we begin to study it?
Answered it very similarly. BTW, some time ago you said you were a professor, which is the truth?

Well, it's up to you to provide a straightforward answer that is not easy to twist, and if someone tries to twist it, to call them on it. snip.

did, and you didn't twist the answer, you instead attacked the way it was answered So see, you are right, straight forward answers are hard enough to twist that those who insist on doing so must resort to attacking and twisting how it was answered rather than the answer itself. I figured out you were just trying to be difficult, I just wasn't aware of what extent you would go to do so.

What you call "bias" in scientific dating measurements.

what I call bias dear one is the insistance on what it not. Let me tell you a story that happened about 10-12 years ago. My sister in law always looked at her kids as not being able to do anything wrong. One day, her son and mine were playing together. Repeated "fights" broke out between the two. I repremanded my son knowing that he could be a kid and get into spats. My sister in law however put all the blame on my son and even repramanded him herself. So my mother and I watch for a while and soon discovered that my nephew was instigating the fights. Not only did we speak of this to my sister in law but "made" her watch to see for herself. Even with all this evidence stacked against her son, she still insisted that my son was to blame and continued to repremand my son. This is what often happens in science when we are dealing with issues like age of the earth. We have in our heads we are right and no matter what we are shown, we can't accept that there are problems that need dealt with. You did this with the articles I referenced you to. We see this in the articles published by science journals (and this was one of the biases mentioned by an evolutionist on this forum calling himself a scientist) we see it all the time, like in the purposeful deception of claiming evolution to be fact and theory, without ever a clarifier issued and ignored when it is given by another. the bias is in claiming to know truth where we do not because it suits our opinions.

The text does make sense to me and it does not support your contention that scientific dating methods are unreliable.

I didn't say they were unreliable though I guess depending on the definition of the use of the word you could say that it fits my claim. What I said is that we need to understand and accept the limitations and flaws with our methods, accepting the margin of error to be what it is and not what we want it to be.

snip
The math problems are very accurate.
snip

History is not a math problem, it is life or the remenants of life as it were. Thus math problems cannot tell us when we will experience a traffic jam, vehicle breakdown, accident, or other such things. In addition to this problem with your analogy we have the issue with distance, the further we travel the more margin of error we must allow our math problem. In the case of the age of the earth, the margin of error is massive if for no other reason than the span of time we are talking about, young or old earth.

What variables cannot be taken into account?

I don't understand the question.

Why not? When we know the speed of light and can place a star 10 snip

When did I suggest we couldn't make this assumption? But assumptions are not truth, nor are they evidence for truth. More on this in a second.

When we know that the half-life of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years and the half-life of uranium 235 is 704 million years, what problem does that pose for measuring millions of years?

again I have no idea what you question really is in relation to what my claim is. The question is clear but how it relates to my claims and comments is beyond my understanding.

That is like saying you can't measure inches with a foot-long ruler. snip

Take that same 12 inch ruler and measure around the earth. What do you think the margin of error will be? That is the point. We take our modern, short span of understanding and try to use it to measure something so vast we can't even comprehend it and call it truth. What I am telling you is that if we want to know truth we must accept and understand that the margin of error we are dealing with is much greater than you are trying to let on.

snip

It is possible to change decay rates, but it is extraordinarily difficult and the amount of change is, for all practical purposes, insignificant.

and so you admit to limitations and flaws in our methods but refuse to accept the implications of those limitations and flaws. That is your opinion but as an opinion you should be honest enough to present it as opinion and not fact.

The baseline is the measured rate of radio active decay, or the speed of light or the annual cycle that produces ice cores, varves and tree rings. snip

Think through your analogy, our van doesn't have a working spedometer, well, actually it works when it wants to. So what then would be the margin or error in our math problem if we base our conclusions on what the spedometer reads?

1. That something was necessary to support life does not mean it was created at a certain time before life. snip

and.......your point is........I never suggested that an old earth was falsified so why is this point valid to the discussion? What significance does it hold to the exploration that the earth could be young but appear old only because it was necessary to support life? It is almost as if you post arguments without ever knowing what you are arguing.

2. This still does not account for things that appear to be old but are not necessary to support life. And examples of the latter have already been provided.

Let's summarize that list. 1. Adams belly button of which you have provided no evidence only theory that it exists. The same could also be true that the theory would leave us with the assumption that it doesn't exist. Therefore without evidence of whether or not it exists, you have no argument at all. 2. varves of which we discussed that there is no evidence indicating research as to whether or not they are vital to the environment. Without this data, we cannot make the claim that it is not important to sustaining life and so once again, your claims fail to show evidence. Let's see what else did you offer up as evidence. 3. oh yea something about light. The Gen. account says that light existed before the sources of light. Therefore, it would suggest that light is necessary for life to exist. You don't by that, try putting a plant in the ground and then covering it so that no light can reach it, what happens? Hum, light is essential to life, so therefore your argument to falsify the claim actually supports it. To my recollection, that is all you offered us in the way of evidence to falsify the claim, if I forgot one post it again and we will review the conclusions that were presented.

Exactly. Unless you assume the earth is young, the question does not even come up. And why would God make it look old, especially in unnecessary ways?

just so that I cannot be accused on not answering a question, let me be a simplistic as I can in answering this onslaught. You consistantly proclaim unnecessary ways but have failed to provide any for us to review. Without this evidence to support your claim, then there is only one thing to do, ignore the claim until such time as something is provided to either support or falsify the claim.

Why would God make it look like an asteroid hit the earth 65 million years ago and accelerated the extinction of the dinosaurs?

First it is only theory that this is what happened. Second, a young earth doesn't mean it didn't happen, it might or might not mean it didn't happen when we thought it did, but it certainly doesn't remove the event from history. and while we are on the topic. YOu like exact defintions, seems to me we need an exact definition for old earth and young earth.

How is that event necesssary to support the life mentioned in the biblical creation accounts?

Now from what I have seen, the event is not falsified from a young earth senerio, that being that given margin of error in time frame, the event could likely have happened in a young earth, so I think before we go on, you need to define in specific detail what is meant by old earth and young earth and we should then come to an agreement of what we will be using the terms to mean.[/quote]And if it is not necessary to support life, why was the evidence of this event created? [/quote] That would be to assume that the event didn't happen which is someone else's theory not mine. I never suggested that history didn't start until you or I was born, in fact, I stated that history began a conception. Which means that this event could very likely have happened. Please do try to argue my claims and not someone elses.

Why create evidence of an event that never happened?

see above.

I have never found a good answer to these questions, nor any good reason to assume the earth is young in the face of so much evidence that it is not.

you haven't presented any evidence. You have presented your opinion and I respect your opinion and your right to it, but to boast that it is your opinion based on evidence then deny the presentation of that evidence when asked for it is just plain wrong. It is rude, disrespectful and borders on lies. consider this, I base my faith in God on the evidence I have been shown and if asked I will gladly present that evidence, but at the same time, I am honest enough to declare that the evidence provided would not be convincing evidence to most people. To me it was and is. It's a matter of being honest about what is opinion and what is fact.

For me, it would mean the creator is a trickster god, like coyote or raven in the tales of American Native peoples or Anansi in the tales of West Africa. snip

That being said, a Creator God who created the world to sustain life without concern for what it would look like to man shows a Creator God who indeed loves His creation beyond reason. That is nothing at all to do with a trickster. In fact, a trickster would have no reason for the appearance of age. The theory we were exploring was one of reason. Thus the trickster God you speak of does not fit the theory we are currently working on and without evidence to falsify the theory, it is nothing more than your opinion based on your own bias.

No, evidence cannot support two contradictory ideas. The best you can get is that it doesn't support either idea.

who said anything about contridictory ideas? You must be confusing this thread with another you are on.

So, if there is to be no appearance of a history that never occurred, your theory should also hold that there is no Chicxulub crater because there was no asteroid impact that made it.

see above and get back to me, this makes no sense in relations to what I have been saying to you. It truely is as if you are talking to someone else altogether. I admit I might just simply be missing your point, but I really am lost when I consider what I have been saying and how this kind of argument fits the discussion.

You still need to know what clues to look for that would show it was made to look old instead of actually aging.

The clues would be whether or not the evidence supports the theory. Of that there are multitudes of ways and things to look at. To numerous for a thread like this.