Creation started with nothing?

[gluadys]

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 .

Right, and to find out what you mean, we need to find out what definition you are using.

It is pretty difficult to understand a text if we don't know what definition of a term it is using. It is just as difficult to understand what you are saying if we don't know what definition of a term you are using.

Your definition does not cloud the issue. It helps the reader understand you.

Just as finding out what definition the text is using helps the reader to understand the text.

That obvious being that the refered to supporting text was Gen. 2.

Well said, except for one thing. Your original statement did not mention any supporting text. That you added in a later post.

We can use any biblical reference that will support or explain what is being claimed by the text or the individual.

Right. And I hope you understand that this is very different from saying we can use any biblical reference to support what is being claimed. We can only use any biblical reference that will support or explain the claim.

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.

And that is exactly what the scientists in the field do on a daily basis. That is why we take their conclusions with seriousness and do not dismiss them as if they were imagination.

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?

Actually I am trying to look at Genesis. I don't find it scary at all. But I am trying to look at it with the four principles in mind that you stated earlier. So the questions I am asking are "what does it actually tell us?" "is it compatible with evolution? with science?" "does it provide the basis for a theory of creation?"

All the questions I ask you have those questions as a basis.

Now why do you find it so scary to actually look at scientific data? How can we answer the question of whether Genesis is compatible with science without looking at scientific data?

BTW, some time ago you said you were a professor, which is the truth?

No, I said I was a teacher. I have taught both elementary and secondary students. I have also taught adults in a popular education setting, but not in a college or university. I am not and have never been a professor. Most of my teaching has been in adult Christian education. But initially I taught language and literature.

what I call bias dear one is the insistance on what it not.

And in reference to dates derived from scientific methods, what are scientists insisting on that is not?

You did this with the articles I referenced you to.

You still haven't shown that I did, so this is still an unsupported claim even though you have had many opportunities to provide the evidence. In such cases, I tend to suspect the evidence cannot be presented because it does not exist.

like in the purposeful deception of claiming evolution to be fact and theory

That is not a purposeful deception. Evolution is a fact (an observed process of nature) and a theory (which explains how the process operates).

I didn't say they were unreliable

.

Oh? perhaps I imagined these statements?

it is scientific evidence that is suggestive that the aging methods are not as reliable as they are suggested to be. post 165

Actually we don't know how reliable our measuring methods are, post 168​

Thus math problems cannot tell us when we will experience a traffic jam, vehicle breakdown, accident, or other such things.

No, but you can make a mathematical prediction that these events will increase the time taken to complete the journey. Sometimes, you can even get a good estimate of how much time will be added.

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.

Not really. Though you may be confusing absolute measures with percentages. Margins of error are usually expressed as percentages. So if we are dealing with a margin of error of 5%, the actual amount of time that refers to will vary according to the magnitude of the total time covered. If we are dating something about 100 years old a 5% error will be 5 years either way. If we are dating something 10,000 years old a 5% error will be 500 years either way and if we are dating something 2 billion years old a 5% error will be 100,000 years either way.

So, yes, in absolute figures the margin of error increases, but in proportion it does not. We still know that something dated at a million years old is nowhere near as young as only 10,000 years old. A 5% margin of error would make it at minimum 950 thousand years old.

In the case of the age of the earth, the margin of error is massive

How massive? Massive in absolute terms or in percentage? With 4+billion years to play with even a margin of error in millions of years is not much proportionally. Remember a million is only 0.1% of a billion. That is analogous to one penny out of $10.

I don't understand the question.

You mentioned variables that the calculations cannot take into account. What variables cannot be taken into account?

When did I suggest we couldn't make this assumption? But assumptions are not truth, nor are they evidence for truth.

What assumptions are you referring to? The speed of light is not an assumption. The position of the star is not an assumption. The calculation of how long it takes the light to travel from the star to an observation point on earth is pure mathematics. No assumption.

This is not assumption. This is evidence. And it is evidence for truth. It tells you how old the light must be to have travelled that distance and therefore how long ago the star came into existence. No assumption in sight.

We can also therefore logically conclude that the universe which contains the star must also be at least as old as the star if not older. That too, is not an assumption. It is a conclusion demanded by the facts in evidence.

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.

The claim, if I have understood it correctly, is that we cannot measure long periods of historical time. I am showing that we have measuring tools that are adequate to the task of measuring enormous amounts of time.

Take that same 12 inch ruler and measure around the earth. What do you think the margin of error will be?

Exactly. You need to use the right tool for the task. You do not measure miles with a foot ruler and you do not measure micrometers with one either. The foot ruler is for measuring intermediate lengths like your children's height.

You cannot measure the age of the earth with carbon-dating. As a time-measurig instrument it is too short, just as the foot ruler is too short for measuring the circumference of the earth. So you use a longer ruler like uranium 238.

We take our modern, short span of understanding

We don't use our span of understanding to measure the age of the earth. We use the evidence of radioactive decay in elements with a long half-life such as uranium, argon, rubidium, etc. And for the age of stars we use the speed of light and the distance of the star.

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.

reference? You wouldn't be trying to pass off personal unsubstantiated opinion as fact, now, would you?

and so you admit to limitations and flaws in our methods but refuse to accept the implications of those limitations and flaws.

On the contrary, I accept both.
It is you who have difficulty with the implications, for when you accept the limitations and the flaws for what they are, and that the scientifically derived dates have taken these limitations and flaws into account, the implication is that these dates are the most accurate we have available. More accurate dates would only narrow the margin of error, not take us outside that margin altogether.

And that has implications for which possible reading of the biblical text in regard to the age of the earth is consistent with science. And hence for whether a scientific theory of creation can be derived from the biblical text.

That is your opinion but as an opinion you should be honest enough to present it as opinion and not fact.

No, that is fact. You can check out the studies on radioactive decay and the factors that can change the rate. It is a fact that decay rates can be changed in a minimal way in some rare circumstances, but that often the difference in time is too small to be measured.


I am sorry that I have to resort to two posts this time. but there is a lot to cover.

On the plus side, I think we have cleared away a lot of deadwood and distractions. I found we seem to be getting to the heart of the actual issues. I hope this continues.

 

[gluadys]

Part Two

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?

The one we get when we have replaced the faulty speedometer with one that works.

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?

I know you never suggested that an old earth was falsified. But you are putting forward the hypothesis that the earth is not old. Not as something you are affirming, but as an exploration of the possibilities. OK?

Everyone agrees that some things on earth look to be very old. But if the earth is young, they cannot actually be old. One suggestion is that they look old because they had to be created in a mature form (appearing older than they really are) so that the earth would be habitable, a fit place to live.

Can we identify some things which would have to be in place to support life? Yes. Is this evidence of a young earth? No.

It is not evidence of a young earth because these things could have been put in place in an old earth, long before life was formed. IOW even though these things would have to be in place to support life, they could still look old because they really are old. And if they really are old, then the earth is really old.

In order to support the hypothesis that the earth is young, we need an additional bit of evidence as well as the old appearance of old-looking things. We need to show that the old appearance is not due to actual aging. Only when we can show that the apparent age is not the actual age does it become consistent with a young earth.

(Just as showing that a piece of furniture was distressed shows that it is not a genuine antique.)

We cannot assume that the apparent age is not the actual age. That would be assuming our premise (that the earth is young) and so would be circular reasoning.

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.

Exactly. Either way it is a hypothetical and I said as much many posts ago. It was used only as an analogy to some actual evidence.

2. varves of which we discussed that there is no evidence indicating research as to whether or not they are vital to the environment.

There is certainly no evidence that they are. They are mechanically formed by spring run-off into lakes. There are some places with layers upon layers of varves going back tens of thousands of years. There are many places where the conditions to form varves do not occur. Both environments support life, so nothing indicates that varves have any significant role to play in supporting life. Life gets along fine without them.

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.

Light from the sun is certainly necessary to life on earth. That doesn't make light from a distant galaxy necessary. We can't even see it without telescopes so it's not light essential to plant growth.

So we still have various items which appear old but for which the necessity of supporting life is not a reason for them to be there. Why make them at all then? And why make them look old? If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, why make varves that suggest the passing of 40,000 years? Even if varves were necessary to support life (and there is no evidence this is so), why would we need an extra 30,000 of them?

First it is only theory that this is what happened.

Saying stuff like this just shows you have never checked it out. You don't know that it is only theory because you have never even looked at the evidence. I think the people who discovered the Chicxulub crater would be very surprised to learn it is only theory.

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.

On the contrary, that is exactly what it does mean. It means that creation did not occur until after the asteroid crashed into the earth forming the crater. But since creation hadn't happened yet, the asteroid hadn't been created yet and the earth hadn't been created yet.

So how does an asteroid that doesn't exist yet crash into an earth that doesn't exist yet and form a crater which does exist? A recent creation means the earth was created with the evidence of this impact already on it even though the impact never happened, couldn't happen, before creation. Why create earth with evidence of an event which never happened and has no relevance to supporting life on earth?

YOu like exact defintions, seems to me we need an exact definition for old earth and young earth.

OK. I propose the definition of old earth be 4.5 billion years. I invite you to propose a definition of young earth.

I never suggested that history didn't start until you or I was born, in fact, I stated that history began a conception.

I know what you said. I am asking how you came to this conclusion. And how you can show this conclusion is valid.

It sounds to me like you are simply proposing a definition. That is not evidence that the history of anything is real.

I just added "birth" to make the point that this cannot be shown to be real either. How do you know that any history before last Thursday is real?

That is nothing at all to do with a trickster. In fact, a trickster would have no reason for the appearance of age.

A trickster doesn't need a reason for the appearance of age. The point is that it is a trick and intended to trick.

A God who is not a trickster does need a reason. But we don't have a basis for assuming that such a reason exists. In the first place, we do not know that the earth is young, and a young earth is the only framework in which a false appearance of age is necessary. Given that we do not know the earth is young, we have no reason to assume any apparent age is not due to actual age. The only reason to doubt the facticity of any age is if we have reason to believe the earth is young.

So the first step really is to decide why we should accept the premise that the earth is young, when we have considerable evidence in nature that it is not.

who said anything about contridictory ideas? You must be confusing this thread with another you are on.

You did. You said : "the same evidence that supports old earth in this case supports young earth as well."

Evidence can't do that. Evidence that supports an old earth necessarily contradicts a young earth and vice versa. Evidence that supports that a classic car was manufactured in 1940 necessarily contradicts the thesis that it was manufactured in 1955 and vice versa.

The same evidence cannot support two contradictory ideas. The most you can say when you cannot decide which of two theories is true, is that the evidence is inconclusive and does not clearly support either one.

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.

I think we covered this earlier.

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.

The clues would be the evidence. Or the evidence would be the clues. But we are still no nearer to having any idea of what clues to look for. You say there are multitudes of ways and things to look at. Could you name just one or two? One or two things that would help us identify that something was made to look old instead of looking old because it really is old. (And I am not talking about antiqued furniture. I am talking about things God would have needed to create with the appearance of age.)

 

[razzelflabben]

Right, and to find out what you mean, we need to find out what definition you are using.

It is not my definition that makes a difference, but rather the definition used by the text.

It is pretty difficult to understand a text if we don't know what definition of a term it is using. It is just as difficult to understand what you are saying if we don't know what definition of a term you are using.

That is why you would read the text for comprehension because the text would define it when understanding context.

Your definition does not cloud the issue. It helps the reader understand you.

My definition does nothing to understand the definition of the text.

Just as finding out what definition the text is using helps the reader to understand the text.

which is what we are suppose to be doing, identifying what definition the text is using, but instead of exploring what the text is using, you have us bogged down with what my definition is. That is taking things off topic and I am trying to keep you focused and on task as best I can.

Well said, except for one thing. Your original statement did not mention any supporting text. That you added in a later post.

Throughout the thread, I spoke several times about using supporting text. It was consistantly used throughout the thread.

Right. And I hope you understand that this is very different from saying we can use any biblical reference to support what is being claimed. We can only use any biblical reference that will support or explain the claim.

And that is exactly what the scientists in the field do on a daily basis. That is why we take their conclusions with seriousness and do not dismiss them as if they were imagination.

again who are you talking to? I did not suggest they were imaginations, only that they were biased.

Actually I am trying to look at Genesis. I don't find it scary at all. But I am trying to look at it with the four principles in mind that you stated earlier. So the questions I am asking are "what does it actually tell us?" "is it compatible with evolution? with science?" "does it provide the basis for a theory of creation?"

All the questions I ask you have those questions as a basis.

Now why do you find it so scary to actually look at scientific data?

I have been begging you to use scientific data to support your claims and for this you accuse me of being scared of scientific data? How does that work?

How can we answer the question of whether Genesis is compatible with science without looking at scientific data?

I'll answer your question with a question. How can we answer the question of whether Gen. is compatible with science without looking at the Gen. text?

No, I said I was a teacher. I have taught both elementary and secondary students. I have also taught adults in a popular education setting, but not in a college or university. I am not and have never been a professor. Most of my teaching has been in adult Christian education. But initially I taught language and literature.

And in reference to dates derived from scientific methods, what are scientists insisting on that is not?

well for one, they are insisting on a more accurate data than what really exists but that is one of many.

You still haven't shown that I did, so this is still an unsupported claim even though you have had many opportunities to provide the evidence. In such cases, I tend to suspect the evidence cannot be presented because it does not exist.

whatever, I asked you to read the articles for comprehension and get back to me. You refused, that means that about all that is left to say is that there are none so blind as those who close their eyes.

That is not a purposeful deception. Evolution is a fact (an observed process of nature) and a theory (which explains how the process operates).

No, the purposeful deception is in not showing the hidden meaning behind the claim and/or ignoring and accusing others of being unlearned when they do show the hidden meaning. The entire comment is constructed to deceive. The statement itself is not deception, but the construct to try to confuse someone of reading or understanding something that is not there is deception.

.

Oh? perhaps I imagined these statements?

it is scientific evidence that is suggestive that the aging methods are not as reliable as they are suggested to be. post 165

Actually we don't know how reliable our measuring methods are, post 168

and neither of these says or suggests that there are better methods, that the methods should not be used, or that we can't glean some information from them. All things that you have suggested either directly or indirectly.

​

No, but you can make a mathematical prediction that these events will increase the time taken to complete the journey. Sometimes, you can even get a good estimate of how much time will be added.

and........you did not address the problems with these math problems, you know the problems I presented that show margin of error greater than is claimed to exist... address the issues presented instead of trying to change the topic.

Not really. Though you may be confusing absolute measures with percentages. Margins of error are usually expressed as percentages. So if we are dealing with a margin of error of 5%, the actual amount of time that refers to will vary according to the magnitude of the total time covered. If we are dating something about 100 years old a 5% error will be 5 years either way. If we are dating something 10,000 years old a 5% error will be 500 years either way and if we are dating something 2 billion years old a 5% error will be 100,000 years either way.

So, yes, in absolute figures the margin of error increases, but in proportion it does not. We still know that something dated at a million years old is nowhere near as young as only 10,000 years old. A 5% margin of error would make it at minimum 950 thousand years old.

and you are still missing the point completely because you want to miss it.

How massive? Massive in absolute terms or in percentage? With 4+billion years to play with even a margin of error in millions of years is not much proportionally. Remember a million is only 0.1% of a billion. That is analogous to one penny out of $10.

You mentioned variables that the calculations cannot take into account. What variables cannot be taken into account?

Not variables that cannot be calculated but variable that we don't know to calculate.

What assumptions are you referring to? The speed of light is not an assumption. The position of the star is not an assumption. The calculation of how long it takes the light to travel from the star to an observation point on earth is pure mathematics. No assumption.

This is not assumption. This is evidence. And it is evidence for truth. It tells you how old the light must be to have travelled that distance and therefore how long ago the star came into existence. No assumption in sight.

I have no idea what you are going on about, but let's stab in the dark. If according to the Gen. text light existed before the sun and moon and stars, what mathematical formula would we use to calculate how long that light took to reach the earth?

We can also therefore logically conclude that the universe which contains the star must also be at least as old as the star if not older. That too, is not an assumption. It is a conclusion demanded by the facts in evidence.

see above. If the light we are seeing did not originate with the stars but it rather an extention of the stars, what is our baseline for determining the age of the stars?

The claim, if I have understood it correctly, is that we cannot measure long periods of historical time. I am showing that we have measuring tools that are adequate to the task of measuring enormous amounts of time.

Then you would be missing the point terribly. We can measure anything we want, what we can't do is measure it with the kind of accuracy that would make your claims the only viable conclusions.

Exactly. You need to use the right tool for the task. You do not measure miles with a foot ruler and you do not measure micrometers with one either. The foot ruler is for measuring intermediate lengths like your children's height.

You cannot measure the age of the earth with carbon-dating. As a time-measurig instrument it is too short, just as the foot ruler is too short for measuring the circumference of the earth. So you use a longer ruler like uranium 238.

By this example, you cannot measure the age of the earth with rings, varves, carbon dating, math equasions or any other method we currently use because all are limited to small portions of our world and not the world itself. Interesting how your own arguments falsify your claims.

We don't use our span of understanding to measure the age of the earth. We use the evidence of radioactive decay in elements with a long half-life such as uranium, argon, rubidium, etc. And for the age of stars we use the speed of light and the distance of the star.

see above. Your argument discredits them for the same reasons. The baseline is tooooooooo smalllllllll

reference? You wouldn't be trying to pass off personal unsubstantiated opinion as fact, now, would you?

On the contrary, I accept both.
It is you who have difficulty with the implications, for when you accept the limitations and the flaws for what they are, and that the scientifically derived dates have taken these limitations and flaws into account, the implication is that these dates are the most accurate we have available. More accurate dates would only narrow the margin of error, not take us outside that margin altogether.

the most accurate available is not equal to accurate in any way shape or form. But that is the point.

And that has implications for which possible reading of the biblical text in regard to the age of the earth is consistent with science. And hence for whether a scientific theory of creation can be derived from the biblical text.

You keep insisting that we look at the things the text does not specify before we examine what it does. This is like saying let's eliminate all the variables before we create some absolutes. Let's see.... an analogy......The pen may have vanished off my desk, let's punish all the kids then figure out if it is missing and who took it. The problem with this approach is that nothing is accomplished. First we want to establish the absolutes from this we determine whether or not there is substance to look at the things that are variables. But dispite your ability or lack thereof to show evidence to support your assertions, you don't have an iron clad argument that you think you do. So you would be wisely adviced to save that argument for after the absolutes are dealt with.

No, that is fact. You can check out the studies on radioactive decay and the factors that can change the rate. It is a fact that decay rates can be changed in a minimal way in some rare circumstances, but that often the difference in time is too small to be measured.

I am sorry that I have to resort to two posts this time. but there is a lot to cover.

On the plus side, I think we have cleared away a lot of deadwood and distractions. I found we seem to be getting to the heart of the actual issues. I hope this continues.

I would like to know what you think the heart of the issue is because you seem to be talking to someone else other than me. I am still waiting for you to address the issues I raised. I guess I can only continue to wait.

 

[DeanM]

I wish I had a way to quote from the book "Lunch With God" here, other than type in the text. But the Author, Steve Hershey goes into some interesting detail of how God existed 'before' anything else. I put the word 'before' in quotes because it is a delineator of time, which is a confine that mankind experiences, but certainly not God, who Is the alpha and the omega; not Used to be the alpha, and someday Will become the omega.

I used to have a great deal of issues regarding how this
all works. Not anymore. Anyone else here who has read that book and still has unanswered questions?

Edit: Book is on Lulu.com ~sorry should have said where to get it before I referenced it

 

[razzelflabben]

Part Two

The one we get when we have replaced the faulty speedometer with one that works.

history is not such a thing that we can just change it to fit our agenda like we would a spedometer.

I know you never suggested that an old earth was falsified. But you are putting forward the hypothesis that the earth is not old. Not as something you are affirming, but as an exploration of the possibilities. OK?

Everyone agrees that some things on earth look to be very old. But if the earth is young, they cannot actually be old. One suggestion is that they look old because they had to be created in a mature form (appearing older than they really are) so that the earth would be habitable, a fit place to live.

Can we identify some things which would have to be in place to support life? Yes. Is this evidence of a young earth? No.

It is evidence that the theory might be a viable one. Without falsification, that is as good as it gets.

It is not evidence of a young earth because these things could have been put in place in an old earth, long before life was formed. IOW even though these things would have to be in place to support life, they could still look old because they really are old. And if they really are old, then the earth is really old.

But as it is not evidence for a young earth, it is also not evidence of an old earth. We need falsification in order to establish only one viable theory. To date, we have none.

In order to support the hypothesis that the earth is young, we need an additional bit of evidence as well as the old appearance of old-looking things. We need to show that the old appearance is not due to actual aging. Only when we can show that the apparent age is not the actual age does it become consistent with a young earth.

But your claim was that there are things which have no purpose for supporting life. This "evidence" would be used then to falsify the theory and we would not need to go further. Your claim is that it exists. Either show it or admit you don't have it. There is no need to go further with our exploration if there is falsifying evidence already in existance.

(Just as showing that a piece of furniture was distressed shows that it is not a genuine antique.)

We cannot assume that the apparent age is not the actual age. That would be assuming our premise (that the earth is young) and so would be circular reasoning.

the point is, I am not interested in whether or not it is supporting evidence, I am interested in the falsification evidence you claim and have been claiming exists. You keep talking about the evidence that would give us cause to further explore when all I am asking for is the falsification evidence you claim exists.

Exactly. Either way it is a hypothetical and I said as much many posts ago. It was used only as an analogy to some actual evidence.

There is certainly no evidence that they are. They are mechanically formed by spring run-off into lakes. There are some places with layers upon layers of varves going back tens of thousands of years. There are many places where the conditions to form varves do not occur. Both environments support life, so nothing indicates that varves have any significant role to play in supporting life. Life gets along fine without them.

What life are they supporting, does the life vary? Is it vital to one species and not another? How does it effect the life cycle? and a million other related questions that you are free to and encouraged to support

Light from the sun is certainly necessary to life on earth. That doesn't make light from a distant galaxy necessary. We can't even see it without telescopes so it's not light essential to plant growth.

Light is necessary. If this light comes from the sun or another source is irrelavent to the existance of life.

So we still have various items which appear old but for which the necessity of supporting life is not a reason for them to be there. Why make them at all then?

what things, I am still waiting for your list to explore. I presented all I could identify from your posts and showed you to be wrong on each. How much longer must we go on before you list them for us to explore?

And why make them look old?

already talked about that one.

If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, why make varves that suggest the passing of 40,000 years? Even if varves were necessary to support life (and there is no evidence this is so), why would we need an extra 30,000 of them?

maybe that is the number necessary to support the life we are trying to support with them

Saying stuff like this just shows you have never checked it out. You don't know that it is only theory because you have never even looked at the evidence. I think the people who discovered the Chicxulub crater would be very surprised to learn it is only theory.

You have no idea what I said do you? You really do need to read for comprehension and not just for justification of your arguments.

On the contrary, that is exactly what it does mean. It means that creation did not occur until after the asteroid crashed into the earth forming the crater. But since creation hadn't happened yet, the asteroid hadn't been created yet and the earth hadn't been created yet.

what the heck are you talking about? An astroid could have hit a new earth. Why would it have to be an old earth for an astroid to hit it.

So how does an asteroid that doesn't exist yet crash into an earth that doesn't exist yet and form a crater which does exist? A recent creation means the earth was created with the evidence of this impact already on it even though the impact never happened, couldn't happen, before creation. Why create earth with evidence of an event which never happened and has no relevance to supporting life on earth?

read for comprehension this isn't what was said at all.

OK. I propose the definition of old earth be 4.5 billion years. I invite you to propose a definition of young earth.

How old is the crater in question? Young earth can vary widely, let's look at the general assumptions and compromise on them

I know what you said. I am asking how you came to this conclusion. And how you can show this conclusion is valid.

It sounds to me like you are simply proposing a definition. That is not evidence that the history of anything is real.

I just added "birth" to make the point that this cannot be shown to be real either. How do you know that any history before last Thursday is real?

History is history, whether I know it exists or not.

A trickster doesn't need a reason for the appearance of age. The point is that it is a trick and intended to trick.

A God who is not a trickster does need a reason. But we don't have a basis for assuming that such a reason exists. In the first place, we do not know that the earth is young, and a young earth is the only framework in which a false appearance of age is necessary. Given that we do not know the earth is young, we have no reason to assume any apparent age is not due to actual age. The only reason to doubt the facticity of any age is if we have reason to believe the earth is young.

we don't know the earth is old, so why would be just assume it is? We are looking at viable conclusions.

So the first step really is to decide why we should accept the premise that the earth is young, when we have considerable evidence in nature that it is not.

YOu have shown no evidence that it is not.

You did. You said : "the same evidence that supports old earth in this case supports young earth as well."

Okay let's look at another way to say it because you don't understand plain speak. The same evidence that does not falsify an old earth, does not falsify a young earth.

Evidence can't do that. Evidence that supports an old earth necessarily contradicts a young earth and vice versa. Evidence that supports that a classic car was manufactured in 1940 necessarily contradicts the thesis that it was manufactured in 1955 and vice versa.

The same evidence cannot support two contradictory ideas. The most you can say when you cannot decide which of two theories is true, is that the evidence is inconclusive and does not clearly support either one.

I think we covered this earlier.

The clues would be the evidence. Or the evidence would be the clues. But we are still no nearer to having any idea of what clues to look for. You say there are multitudes of ways and things to look at. Could you name just one or two? One or two things that would help us identify that something was made to look old instead of looking old because it really is old. (And I am not talking about antiqued furniture. I am talking about things God would have needed to create with the appearance of age.)

First test would be does this stuff have a purpose for supporting life? But that only would falsify a purpose issue. We could also add if we see somthing that we would predict to be old but is really new. We could also look at things like.....it is time to eat...... and I have grown excedingly bored of trying to keep you on task so I take my leave to eat and rest and hope that tomorrow is more productive.

 

[razzelflabben]

I wish I had a way to quote from the book "Lunch With God" here, other than type in the text. But the Author, Steve Hershey goes into some interesting detail of how God existed 'before' anything else. I put the word 'before' in quotes because it is a delineator of time, which is a confine that mankind experiences, but certainly not God, who Is the alpha and the omega; not Used to be the alpha, and someday Will become the omega.

I used to have a great deal of issues regarding how this
all works. Not anymore. Anyone else here who has read that book and still has unanswered questions?

Edit: Book is on Lulu.com ~sorry should have said where to get it before I referenced it

never read the book, never heard of the book, never really had a problem with the concept. I will be anxious to see what others think.

 

[gluadys]

My definition does nothing to understand the definition of the text.

Never said it did. It does help us understand you. Are you happy being misunderstood all the time?

I did not suggest they were imaginations, only that they were biased.

And you have not provided evidence that your suggestion is appropriate.

I'll answer your question with a question. How can we answer the question of whether Gen. is compatible with science without looking at the Gen. text?

Right. The test of compatibility requires that we look at both.

well for one, they are insisting on a more accurate data than what really exists

Reference? Do you actually have evidence the data is not as accurate as represented? You wouldn't just be speaking from prejudice and an a priori rejection of the conclusions would you?

Could you provide an example of data that is not as accurate as claimed and has not been corrected by scientists themselves?

No, the purposeful deception is in not showing the hidden meaning behind the claim

What hidden meaning would that be? I am not aware of any hidden meaning in evolution.

and neither of these says or suggests that there are better methods,

But they do show that, contrary to your last statement, you did say they were unreliable.

you know the problems I presented that show margin of error greater than is claimed to exist...

You did not show any problem that shows the margin of error is greater than that claimed to exist. You showed that in different scenarios the margin of error would be more or less than in the average scenario. No scientist disputes that. Did you think scientists claimed the same margin of error for all instances? Not at all. The level of uncertainty varies from case to case and is one of the things discussed in a report on any sort of measurement e.g what was the quality of the sample? what was the probability of contamination? what evidence is there of a unique factor and by how much might that factor offset an estimate from the norm?

The measurement and its margin of error are only established when all these and other factors have been considered and accounted for. There is no one set margin of error that is applied willy-nilly in every situation.

and you are still missing the point completely because you want to miss it.

I believe I was speaking to the point of how large the margin of error is. What point am I missing?

Not variables that cannot be calculated but variable that we don't know to calculate.

Example?

If according to the Gen. text light existed before the sun and moon and stars, what mathematical formula would we use to calculate how long that light took to reach the earth?

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

If the light we are seeing did not originate with the stars but it rather an extention of the stars, what is our baseline for determining the age of the stars?

First, for what reason would we ever assume that a star's light did not originate with the star?

Second, what do you mean by "an extention of the stars". Stars would have to be at least as old as any of their extensions, whatever those extentions are, wouldn't they?

We can measure anything we want, what we can't do is measure it with the kind of accuracy that would make your claims the only viable conclusions.

That is your claim--that we cannot achieve this level of accuracy. But we have achieved this level of accuracy. The onus is on you to show that the level of accuracy claimed is not valid. You haven't done that.

By this example, you cannot measure the age of the earth with rings, varves, carbon dating,

Right. And we don't.

math equasions

Math equations are calculations. There has to be a source of data input for use in the calculations.

or any other method we currently use because all are limited to small portions of our world and not the world itself.

Light from distant stars and the half-lives of long-term radio-active elements are not limited to short portions of time. They are more than adequate to measure not only the full age of the earth, but the age of most of the universe. Here is a recent article on the use of six different radiometric techniques to determine the age of an ancient star, one almost as old as the universe itself.

http://www.labnews.co.uk/laboratory_article.php/2067/2/cosmic-clock-dates-ancient-star

No, the base lines of long-lived radioactive elements, and of the speed of light are not too small at all.

the most accurate available is not equal to accurate in any way shape or form.

No one has ever claimed they are absolutely accurate. Only that they are as accurate as claimed. But you are disputing that they are even as accurate as claimed. You have no basis to do that. You have provided no evidence that the accuracy claimed has not been achieved. In many cases you seem uninformed about the level of accuracy possible.

Your arguments are based on nothing but your personal incredulity based on lack of research into the techniques used and how the accuracy is determined.

But that is the point. You keep insisting that we look at the things the text does not specify before we examine what it does.

May I remind you that the text as currently understood is not definite about the age of the earth and could be read in at least three ways. This was your claim.

May I also remind you that one of the purposes of the inquiry is to elminate some of these possibilities. At least that is what I understood. If this is incorrect, I would appreciate the correction so I know what the purpose of the inquiry really is. But I did think it was to find out what the text really says.

May I also remind you that another purpose is to find out if the text is compatible with science? As noted above this requires looking both at the text and at science.

Looking at science, we see that some possible definitions in our still undefined text are not compatible with science.

This does not mean we eliminate these definitions as possibilities of what the text says.

But if we determine that the text suggests one of the definitions that is not compatible with science we have answered the third purpose in the negative.

If the text (when we have eliminated other possibilities) says X while science says Y, then the text is not compatible with science. If the text says young earth while science says old earth, it follows that the biblical text is not compatible with science.

We know what science says. We have not yet determined what the text says.

I would like to know what you think the heart of the issue is because you seem to be talking to someone else other than me.

I think the heart of the issue is what you have stated: What does the text say? Is it compatible with evolution? with science? Can we construct a theory of creation from the biblical accounts of creation?

I am still waiting for you to address the issues I raised. I guess I can only continue to wait.

I am sorry if I have missed an issue. Please spell out what issue I have neglected.

history is not such a thing that we can just change it to fit our agenda like we would a spedometer.

No, but we can improve our ways of measuring it, just as a working speedometer improves our ability to measure the velocity of your van.

It is evidence that the theory might be a viable one.

No it is not. Evidence is not supporting evidence until it supports only one conclusion. Appearance of age is consistent with contradictory theories. So it is not evidence of either one.

But as it is not evidence for a young earth, it is also not evidence of an old earth.

Yes, that is correct. Evidence may fail to support several theories. It may not be conclusive. It may not falsify any theory.

In the end it can only support one theory.

We need falsification in order to establish only one viable theory.

Again, that is exactly right. Through falsification we eliminate possibilities.

To date, we have none.

Correct, we have not falsified any reading of the text. The possibilities of old earth, young earth, and a compromise position such as measured time beginning on the fourth day are all still viable.

However, we have eliminated all but old earth from a scientific reading of creation.

This does not mean we need to follow suit with the text. The text may say something different from what science says.

But your claim was that there are things which have no purpose for supporting life.
This "evidence" would be used then to falsify the theory and we would not need to go further.

It would not necessarily falsify the theory. It would show that the necessity of having life support in place does not cover all instances of apparent age. Another explanation would be needed to cover what the life support explanation does not cover.

Your claim is that it exists. Either show it or admit you don't have it.

I already have. Starlight that is billions of years old and is totally inadequate to support life on earth. Igneous rocks that are billions of years old, remnants of volcanoes that erupted billions of years ago. Fossils of trilobites and dinosaurs and many other species that are millions of years old and not necessary to support the life around us today. Remnants of an asteroid collision with the earth that occurred 65 million years ago. A collision that was not necessary to support life on earth and did not even happen if the earth was created recently.

Again, none of this necessarily falsifies a young earth. But it does require an explanation other than being necessary to support life.

And all of these things (even the ones necessary to support life) require evidence that they were made to look old rather than acquiring their appearance of age by aging.

What life are they supporting, does the life vary? Is it vital to one species and not another? How does it effect the life cycle?

All sorts of life are found in and around the lakes where varves are found. The specific forms vary according to local ecology e.g. European forms are found in Europe, American forms in America, etc. As far as I know the varves do not affect the life cycle. The life cycle of some species affects the varves, as they identify seasonal changes in the formation of the varves and permit the identification of an annual cycle of varve formation.

Light is necessary. If this light comes from the sun or another source is irrelavent to the existance of life.

It is very relevant. Plants don't just need light. They need sufficient light. Try growing a plant in a dark closet with only a dim night light for illumination and see how well it thrives. Light from a star so distant we can only see it with a powerful telescope is not going to make your roses bloom. Nor will it heat the earth sufficiently to support life.

I presented all I could identify from your posts and showed you to be wrong on each.

No, you did not succeed in showing I was wrong. To recap: Adam's bellybutton is a hypothetical. No evidence whether he had one or not. Nothing has established that varves are necessary to support life. Light from a distant star does not support life on earth. Fossils of extinct species are not essential to supporting life on earth today and all the creation accounts mention only life on earth today. Ancient impacts of meteors and asteroids are not essential to supporting life on earth. How for example, do the craters on the moon support life on earth? Yet the moon rocks test out as being over 4 billion years old. Why make moon rocks look 4 billion years old when there is no necessary reason to do so?

maybe that is the number necessary to support the life we are trying to support with them

That is just wishful thinking. You need to do better than that to make a case.

what the heck are you talking about? An astroid could have hit a new earth. Why would it have to be an old earth for an astroid to hit it.

Because it happened a long time ago. 65 million years ago. So the earth has to be at least 65 million years old or there would be nothing for the asteroid to collide with. And the asteroid would also have to be at least 65 million years old or there would be no collision.

Young earth can vary widely, let's look at the general assumptions and compromise on them

Fine, what are the general assumptions and what are the arguments for each?

we don't know the earth is old, so why would be just assume it is?

We know the earth appears to be old. We know the most probable reason for anything to appear to be old is that it is old. In the absence of a compelling reason to believe the earth's appearance of age is not due to age, why would we ever assume it is not due to age?

Do we have any compelling reason to believe there is another cause for the earth's appearance of age? If so, what is it?

Do we have any viable means to test out whether the earth's appearance of age is due to age or to some other factor?

Okay let's look at another way to say it because you don't understand plain speak. The same evidence that does not falsify an old earth, does not falsify a young earth.

Yes, that is better.

First test would be does this stuff have a purpose for supporting life? But that only would falsify a purpose issue.

Right. I think we have covered that thoroughly.

We could also add if we see somthing that we would predict to be old but is really new.

How would we establish that it is really new?

 

[razzelflabben]

Never said it did. It does help us understand you. Are you happy being misunderstood all the time?

oiy, how difficult can you be? we are looking for the definition the text uses not the definition I use. Therefore, my definition use is irelavent to the discussion and would only cloud the issue. Now that is about the best explanation possible to give and I think it best if you accept that explanation as either acceptable or provide some reason why my definition is important to understanding the definition of a text that I didn't write.

And you have not provided evidence that your suggestion is appropriate.

your kidding right?!? Isn't very funny, more disturbing than funny really.

Right. The test of compatibility requires that we look at both.

and the problem is that when we begin to look at the text, you go off on all kinds of tangents like grammatical usage, what text is included in any supporting documents, what my definitions are etc. etc. etc. instead of actually looking at the text. It is as if looking at the text somehow questions your belief system and thus would send your world into turmoil. I don't really know what your problem is, I'm just saying this is what it seems like. Now I am sure you will turn around and say the same about me and science but let's look at the evidence. I asked you repeatedly to show scientific evidence to back your claims (you refuse). I look at an absolute in the text and ask what science evidences on the topic, support or falsification. I look at varves and did enough research to see that no study has been done to determine if they are necessary to support life or not. I examine all kinds of things you claim as evidence and show you how they are not. And to further evidence my willingness to deal with the science behind it all I show articles that say what I am saying, and present them to you. Insisting that you read them for comprehension not just for supporting information. Of which you refused to do. So if we look at the evidence we see that I am not only willing to look at both but willing to examine both and willing to accept both for what they are. So you might want to think carefully before making accusations that the evidence would declare to be false.

Reference? Do you actually have evidence the data is not as accurate as represented? You wouldn't just be speaking from prejudice and an a priori rejection of the conclusions would you?

I showed you the articles that supported my claims and further asked you to read them for comprehension not justification. When you do that we can discuss them according to the evidence presented and not just your justifications to suit your assumptions. Until then however, there is nothing more I can do because you are willfully blinding yourself.

Could you provide an example of data that is not as accurate as claimed and has not been corrected by scientists themselves?

see above.

What hidden meaning would that be? snip

evolutionists love to try to confuse people by interchanging the word evolution with the theory of evolution. It is an uncomforably common was of saying one thing while allowing an escape from someone knowledgable enough to call them on it. You yourself have pulled this fast slight of hand many times on me, and when I show you what cup you hid the pea under you change the subject to something irelavent like grammatical use or education, so that you can try to rehid the pea without notice. For someone not aware of this trick or slight of hand as it were, the implications are clear. evolution equals the theory of evolution. However for someone aware of this slight of hand, the difference is enormous with just as enormous consequences to the ideas and discussions and beliefs of those seeking truth.

But they do show that, contrary to your last statement, you did say they were unreliable.

unreliable doesn't equal offering nothing of substance or value. Consider this, I am terrible at directions, in fact, my family used to tease me that I could get lost going out the drive. However, I have given people directions that could be followed to such a degree that they could eventually find where they were going. My directions are unreliable yet they do have some value. In fact, my husband will use my landmarks over anyone elses because they are landmarks that make sense. Unreliable does not equal without substance or value.

snip
The measurement and its margin of error are only established when all these and other factors have been considered and accounted for. There is no one set margin of error that is applied willy-nilly in every situation.

exactly, and the further away we are from the origins the greater the margin of error. by jove I think we are starting to make some headway, time to show you don't get it again.

I believe I was speaking to the point of how large the margin of error is.

It's history man, there are an infinite number of things that could effect the numbers. And while we are talking about it, it is impossible for math to calculate all the possible variable that would exist for millions or billions of years much less science.

Such light would not reach the earth because there was no earth formed yet for it to reach. snip.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

The passage says that the earth was created before light. Therefore once again you would be wrong. Let's reread your statement Such light would not reach the earth because there was no earth formed yet for it to reach. The earth, as a formed planet, never existed without the sun and stars already there You see according to the passage, light existed before the sun moon and stars, so how long does it take for this light to reach the earth? And what properties might this light hold that would make it necessary for the sun, moon, and stars to exist? What was the source of this light?

First, for what reason would we ever assume that a star's light did not originate with the star?

Oh boy more comprehension problems. We are talking about light before the creation of sun, moon and stars.

Second, what do you mean by "an extention of the stars". Stars would have to be at least as old as any of their extensions, whatever those extentions are, wouldn't they?

What? This is where I get all confused, I say something, you read into it what is not there, making it sound like a totally different argument, as if you are talking to someone else altogether. I ask you what you mean in reference to what I actually said, you in turn insist that your interpretation is right even when I correct you and show you to be wrong. And round and round we go never talking about the topic at hand but only your intended interpretation that would allow your claims to be of substance. The problem is that if you look at the argument I present, your claims have not substance, maybe my husband is right, maybe you do this when you sense you have no real argument to offer.

That is your claim--that we cannot achieve this level of accuracy. .

I did that with two articles I asked you to read for comprehension then come back to discuss them. You refuse to do this. The willful blindness of people like you cannot be corrected because it is willful in nature. Oh well, at least we were entertained for a season.

Math equations are calculations. There has to be a source of data input for use in the calculations.

Yep and that is the problem with trying to reduce everything in this world to a calculation. Not everything has input data sufficient to create a calculation that is of sugnificant use.

No, the base lines of long-lived radioactive elements, and of the speed of light are not too small at all.

Consider this in the discussion of a young earth for the purpose of supporting life. Gen 1 tells us that light existed before the sun, moon and stars. Therefore we do not know where this light came from, how close or far it was, or anything other than it did not come from the sun, moon and stars. If this bit of information is true, how does that affect our calculations? Our predictions? Our understanding of age of the stars, sun and moon? How does that affect our understanding that God created the earth to appear older than it is? A careful examination would lead us down a very different path than you have been trying to take us down.

snip
Your arguments are based on nothing but your personal incredulity based on lack of research into the techniques used and how the accuracy is determined.

When you have read the articles provided for comprehension we can get back to this discussion until then there is nothing more to say because all you will do is accuse me of being uneducated and not showing evidence and I will keep telling you and showing you otherwise and for pages and days we will discuss nothing of importance all because you refuse to read the articles for comprehension before asserting to know what they say.

May I remind you that the text as currently understood is not definite about the age of the earth and could be read in at least three ways. This was your claim.

Which is why we need to look deeper, rather than simply asking for personal opinions and definitions.

Looking at science, we see that some possible definitions in our still undefined text are not compatible with science.

But we have not determined if that is true scientifically, it is your claim but you failed to demonstrate it as well we have not explored the text to the point of eliminating any of the choices from the possible. So on both accounts we are at zero and you want to continue discussing things like whether or not I showed you articles that discussed the limitations of aging our earth. Or whether or not the text which clearly says that light existed after the earth, is really what the text says. This is one of my problems with you. If you want to eliminate some things, do so don't just claim it done. There is a big difference between claiming and evidencing.

This does not mean we eliminate these definitions as possibilities of what the text says.

But if we determine that the text suggests one of the definitions that is not compatible with science we have answered the third purpose in the negative.

But you refuse to do this, you instead declare it not possible but show nothing of substance only hollow claims. Like for example appearances of age that have no purpose. You claim this, but have shown nothing of substance to support this claim. To be sure that I didn't miss something offered I summarized it and you made no corrections nor offered anything of substance, only continued to claim it so. This is neither biblical study nor scientific exploration.

snip

snip

However, we have eliminated all but old earth from a scientific reading of creation.

again, I insist if you are going to make this assertion you back it with evidence. To date you have not all you have to date is false assumptions based on what you want the argument to be and unrelated evidence that you claim supports your view.

snip

I already have. Starlight that is billions of years old and is totally inadequate to support life on earth.

First problem with claiming this as evidence is that it is light. Light according to Gen. came before the stars, thus we would need to know why, something that as of yet is beyond our science. Let's just stop there for the moment and contemplate the meaning thereof, let it marinate as it were before further discussion.

Igneous rocks that are billions of years old, remnants of volcanoes that erupted billions of years ago.

we have talked a lot about this kind of thing and you have not shown reason to eliminate from our understanding an young earth.

Fossils of trilobites and dinosaurs and many other species that are millions of years old and not necessary to support the life around us today. Remnants of an asteroid collision with the earth that occurred 65 million years ago. A collision that was not necessary to support life on earth and did not even happen if the earth was created recently.

Again we talk about the aging methods without your reading the articles for comprehension.

snip
made to look old rather than acquiring their appearance of age by aging.

don't jump the gun, start with falsifying the theory that there is a reason. Start by showing some of the evidence that would falsify the claim that the earth was not created to look old because it was necessary to support life

All sorts of life are found in and around the lakes where varves are found. snip

so what you are saying is that we don't know therefore cannot use it to falsify the theory. Yet you presented it as evidence that would falsify the theory.

It is very relevant. Plants don't just need light. They need sufficient light snip

exactly, so where did the light come from? where did it originate? What was it's source and what then was it's composition?

To recap: Adam's bellybutton is a hypothetical. No evidence whether he had one or not. Nothing has established that varves are necessary to support life.

where are you getting this idea from that light from a distant star supports life?

Fossils of extinct species are not essential to supporting life on earth today and all the creation accounts mention only life on earth today. Ancient impacts of meteors and asteroids are not essential to supporting life on earth. How for example, do the craters on the moon support life on earth? Yet the moon rocks test out as being over 4 billion years old. Why make moon rocks look 4 billion years old when there is no necessary reason to do so?

so many different topics here to address where do you want to start? hubby home time to go......

 

[gluadys]

your kidding right?!?

Not at all. You have claimed bias but you have not provided evidence of bias.

and the problem is that when we begin to look at the text, you go off on all kinds of tangents like grammatical usage, what text is included in any supporting documents, what my definitions are etc. etc. etc. instead of actually looking at the text.

These are exactly what one must do to actually look at the text. How can one actually look at the text without examining the grammar, vocabulary, syntax and definition of the terms? What other way is there to actually look at the text?

I don't really know what your problem is,

My problem seems to be that you don't like the way I actually look at the text, but I don't know of any other way to actually look at the text.

I asked you repeatedly to show scientific evidence to back your claims (you refuse). I look at an absolute in the text and ask what science evidences on the topic, support or falsification. I look at varves and did enough research to see that no study has been done to determine if they are necessary to support life or not. I examine all kinds of things you claim as evidence and show you how they are not. And to further evidence my willingness to deal with the science behind it all I show articles that say what I am saying, and present them to you.

Wow! That is a big list. Where did I refuse to show evidence? What claim was made that no evidence was shown for? I will look up the evidence if you identify the claim made.

What is "an absolute in the text"? This is terminology I do not understand and need to have defined.

What did you identify as "an absolute in the text"? How were you able to pick it out as an absolute in the text?


I know you claimed to have refuted evidence that I presented, but it was not a successful refutation. The evidence is still valid.

As for the articles, since you insist, I have gone through the first one again. See the next post. When we complete the discussion of this one, we can look at the other one. Feel free to show me where my comprehension is lacking.

I showed you the articles that supported my claims and further asked you to read them for comprehension not justification.

Well I still missed where the first article says the data is not as accurate as presented. Please read the next post and point out what I missed.

evolutionists love to try to confuse people by interchanging the word evolution with the theory of evolution.

So what you want from evolutionists is to say "theory of evolution" every time they mean "theory of evolution" rather than "fact of evolution" or "pathways of evolution".

Do I understand correctly that you are alleging that failure to always say "theory of evolution" when that is meant is a deliberate deception and not just a habitual shorthand of speech?

I see plenty of anti-evolutionists who also use the short-hand of "evolution" instead of "theory of evolution" much of the time. Are they trying to be deceptive too? Often what they really mean is "theory of common descent" as the only real quarrel they have is with the concept that humans are related to apes via a common ancestor.

I don't think there is any deliberate attempt to hide or deceive. But if you like conspiracy theories, run with it.

exactly, and the further away we are from the origins the greater the margin of error.

Not necessarily. There are many factors involved in accuracy. It may be more difficult to get an accurate reading on something that happened last week than to get an accurate reading on something that happened 10 million years ago. The margin of error does not necessarily increase with the age of the object or event being measured. A lot depends on the quality of the evidence available. The older event may have left better quality of evidence than a more recent event, and so yield a more accurate date. The inherent accuracy of the method of dating is another factor and it is not related to age either.

And while we are talking about it, it is impossible for math to calculate all the possible variable that would exist for millions or billions of years much less science.

we don't need to calculate all possible variables to get a reasonably accurate date. We need only to calculate some relevant variables and know what their limitations are as reliable indicators of age.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Yep. See the word formless in there? The earth had not yet been formed into a planet. It did not have shape, boundary or position yet. So there was no specific place in the universe where the earth was yet. The light did not need to go to any specific location.

By the time the earth was given form and shape and location, there were already plenty of stars and also the sun.

The passage says that the earth was created before light.

Created yes, but in a formless state, so it had no determined size, boundaries or position yet. That came later, much later----about 9 billion years later.

We are talking about light before the creation of sun, moon and stars.

Ok. I guess I was confused because you called the light an extention of the stars. How can the light be an extention of the stars before the creation of stars? And I still want to know what an extention of the stars is.

Not everything has input data sufficient to create a calculation that is of sugnificant use.

True. That is why we sometimes cannot come to a firm conclusion. But there are also many cases in which the data is sufficient to draw a conclusion too.

Therefore we do not know where this light came from, how close or far it was, or anything other than it did not come from the sun, moon and stars. If this bit of information is true, how does that affect our calculations?

It doesn't affect them at all because all our calculations are based on light from the sun and stars. Those calculations are not affected by whatever can or cannot be determined about another source of light. The calculations based on light from the sun and stars are still accurate in regard to those sources of light.

Our predictions?

Not affected. They are based on what we have calculated. An additional source of light prior to that of the sun and stars doesn't alter any predictions made on the lights we have studied.

Our understanding of age of the stars, sun and moon?

Unaffected. The existence of light before the stars does not affect the age of the stars themselves.

How does that affect our understanding that God created the earth to appear older than it is?

As far as I can see, it either has no relevance or it implies that the earth is much, much older than science claims it is, since it would be older than the stars. So, it would seem to contradict the idea that the earth was created with appearance of age. That would only be relevant if the earth is much younger than science claims it is and therefore much, much younger than the sun and stars.

Which is why we need to look deeper,

OK. So we are agreed that the text is not definite about the age of the earth, or at least appears not to be definite. If we look deeper, we may find that we can actually eliminate some possibilities.

But we have not determined if that is true scientifically,

Oh yes we have. You just haven't accepted yet that we have. You are still trying to claim that our dating methods are so inaccurate we cannot rely on the measured dates. But you have completely failed to support that claim.

as well we have not explored the text to the point of eliminating any of the choices from the possible.

Granted. We have only eliminated possibilities in science, not in the text.

You claim this, but have shown nothing of substance to support this claim.

Well, this is where you need to do some reading. I won't ask you to re-read what I have said. Because my word is not the evidence you are asking for. But tell me which age you want evidence for, and I will direct you to the evidence. Do you want the age of the universe, of stars, of the solar system (including moon and earth) of life on earth, of dinosaurs, of humanity. There is plenty of evidence for the ages of all of these. Just say where to start.

First problem with claiming this as evidence is that it is light. Light according to Gen. came before the stars,

Which is another reason the star does not need to appear billions of years old. If the light that came before the stars supported life, and the star itself is too far away to support life on earth, why does it need to look billions of years old? Why was it made with appearance of age?

we have talked a lot about this kind of thing and you have not shown reason to eliminate from our understanding an young earth.

The point at issue is the appearance of age on a young earth. One reason for appearance of age is that the earth needs to be in a state to support life. But that reason does not cover all the things that appear to be old. For what reason would we have very old appearing remnants of volcanoes on a young earth?

Again we talk about the aging methods without your reading the articles for comprehension.

See next post.

don't jump the gun, start with falsifying the theory that there is a reason. Start by showing some of the evidence that would falsify the claim that the earth was not created to look old because it was necessary to support life

Sorry, that is rather confusing. The claim is that the earth was not created to look old? I thought you were suggesting the opposite.

Also, I thought it was not about the age of the earth so much as about whether there is a reason to have things that are not old appear old. One reason being that they needed to appear old to sustain life. The reason for mentioning many of these things is that they appear to be old without their apparent age being needed for the purpose of supporting life.

So is there another reason that would explain the old-seeming age of these things? I don't know of one. I have no explanation of why any of these things (stars, varves, rocks, fossils, craters, etc.) need to have an appearance of age. Do you?

Where does it leave us if we have old-seeming things without a reason for them seeming old? Does it mean we have falsified a young earth? I don't know.

Does it mean anything as far as the text is concerned? Not as far as I know.

so what you are saying is that we don't know therefore cannot use it to falsify the theory.

No, what I am saying is that there is no correlation between the existence of varves and the existence of life forms that would indicate varves are necessary to support life. So, it seems they are not necessary to support life. Yet they appear to be much older than they could be if the creation of earth is recent. Again, why would this be the case?

Yet you presented it as evidence that would falsify the theory.

Not so much falsify the theory as show that it is incomplete. Life support may be a reason for some things looking older than they are, but it doesn't come close to explaining the apparent age of many things.

What can we conclude from the fact that many things appear to be old but without the reason of being needed for life support?


One possibility is that they don't just appear to be old; they really are old. Would you like to suggest other possibilities?

exactly, so where did the light come from? where did it originate? What was it's source and what then was it's composition?

I know it did not come from stars in a distant galaxy. That's for sure. So why do those stars look so old? They were not needed for the plants.

where are you getting this idea from that light from a distant star supports life?

Reading through a mirror again? That was your suggestion, not mine. I was showing you that light from a distant star cannot support life on earth. Which brings up the question---why does the star appear old? It's not for life support, so why the appearance of age?

so many different topics here to address where do you want to start? hubby home time to go......

Start anywhere you like. They are all really about the same question. Why do these things appear old if they are not old? Its not about life support, so what is it about?

 

[gluadys]

Review of first article that allegedly supports a claim that dates obtained via radiometric measures are not as accurate as stated by scientists.

October 26, 2004

Carbon Dating
Decay rates create debates​

This is evidently an entry on a blog called Interesting Thing of the Day. So it is all personal opinion from a layperson without credentials. Doesn't make him wrong. Just does not make him an authority.

It has become my custom here at Interesting Thing of the Day to choose topics that I think will be unfamiliar to most readers—a sort of implicit “I’ll-bet-you’ve-never-heard-of-this” test.​

He explains in general what sort of things he likes to talk about.

I think it’s fair to say that any educated person over the age of 10 or so has probably heard of carbon dating. But I realized the other day that even as an adult with a fair amount of scientific knowledge, I could not articulate exactly how or why carbon dating works.​

He explains why it occurred to him to choose this topic.

So I did a bit of research to fill in the gaps in my understanding, and not surprisingly I found the details to be quite interesting.​

What he did next.

What did surprise me was the huge number of Web sites and books vigorously attacking the legitimacy of what I had thought was a fairly straightforward, uncontroversial test. Apparently carbon dating is right up there with evolution in terms of the disdain it evokes from certain religious groups. As is often the case, the controversy over this topic is at least as interesting as the topic itself.​

Something that surprised him. He didn't know until he did the research that in some religious circles carbon dating is very controversial and vigourously attacked. I find it interesting that he noted the opposition comes from religious circles, not scientists.

Carbon Copies
Carbon dating begins, logically enough, with carbon. High in the atmosphere, cosmic rays strike nitrogen atoms, producing a radioactive carbon isotope known as carbon-14 (or 14C); this is why it’s technically known as radiocarbon dating or, sometimes, carbon-14 dating. Carbon-14, along with the more common, stable (nonradioactive) carbon isotopes carbon-12 and carbon-13, combine with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide. In the process of photosynthesis, plants “breathe” this carbon dioxide, convert the carbon into carbohydrates for fuel, and then release the oxygen into the atmosphere as a byproduct. So some of the residual carbon in plants is carbon-14. Animals, in turn, eat the plants (or eat other animals that have eaten the plants), and thus the carbon-14 atoms propagate throughout the food chain. The result is that everything that is alive, or once was, contains some number of carbon-14 atoms.​

Simple explanation of how carbon 14 is formed and how it gets into plant and animal bodies.

Although the number of carbon-14 atoms varies from one organism to another, the proportion of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms is basically constant—and roughly the same as the proportion found in the atmosphere.​

An important distinction between the amount of C14 and the proportion of C14 to C12. Carbon dating is based on the changing proportion of C14 to C12 over time. The actual amount is not especially relevant.

Carbon-14 decays (loses its radioactivity, converting back to nitrogen-14) at a known rate; its half-life, or the time it takes for half a given number of carbon-14 atoms to decay, is about 5,730 years. When an organism dies, it stops acquiring new carbon-14 atoms. Given that the ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms in a living thing is a constant, one can determine the number of each in a sample of organic matter (using sensitive equipment to detect the amount of radiation remaining), and then do a little bit of math to determine how long it’s been since the organism expired. For example, if a sample emits radiation indicating the presence of 10 carbon-14 atoms and we know from its mass that it originally must have contained 20, that means the plant or animal from which the sample was taken died about 5,730 years ago.​

Explanation of the math

Eventually, however, all the carbon-14 atoms will decay—or at least enough of them will that the amount of radiation they emit can no longer be distinguished from ordinary background radiation. So for all practical purposes, carbon dating is useful only for samples up to about 50,000 years old (though this depends somewhat on the mass of the sample—and some advanced techniques can reliably measure carbon-14 levels low enough to indicate an age of 100,000 years). Thus, carbon dating would not be useful in, for example, assessing dinosaur bones.​

Explanation why C14 can only be used for relatively recent dating.

Constants and Change
There are other limitations in carbon dating too. For example, with a few exceptions, the technique can only be applied to once-living items such as bone, leather, wood, and cloth—not, say, rocks or metal. More importantly, though, the accuracy of carbon dating rests on several crucial assumptions. For one thing, the rate of carbon-14 production in the atmosphere (and thus the level of cosmic ray activity) must have been pretty much constant for the past several dozen millennia. Likewise, the proportion of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the environment must have remained fairly constant. And in any given sample, one must be certain that contaminants from other time periods are not present—a sometimes-tricky issue.​

A few more limitations. Note that scientists are well aware of all these limitations and assess their impact when using C14 dating. A limitation does not make a date inaccurate when it is properly respected.

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

What scientists do to keep dates accurate in spite of limitations: they calibrate their findings to adjust for these known issues.

What does this mean? Well, it is like having an oven that does not heat to exactly the temperature on the setting, but instead gives a temperature 10 degrees higher than what it is set to. When you want a temperature of 325 degrees, knowing that the oven will heat to 10 degrees higher than the setting, you will adjust for this and set the dial at 315 degrees.

In the same way, scientists determine what adjustments to make in calculating dates with C14.

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.​

Here is the sentence I quoted. It is only his personal opinion of course, but he calls the various factors just discussed "seeming" sources of uncertainty. This implies he does not think they really affect the accuracy of the dating, but just seem to.

According to some people, a literal reading of the Bible (taking into account all the genealogies and so forth) yields a creation date of around 7,000 years ago. Thus, any scientific finding that seemingly assigns an older date to any object must be mistaken—and carbon dating, critics suggest, if it is to be believed at all, should be calibrated to the Bible.​

His description of the creationist view.

Creationist arguments against carbon dating (and every other scientific statement that suggests an older Earth) are extensive, passionate, and very impressive-sounding—though they are most often made by people without actual scientific credentials, and therefore dismissed (with varying degrees of refutation) by the scientific community.​

His evaluation of the expertise of creationist critics of radiocarbon dating. They are "people without actual scientific credentials".

As an outsider to this debate, I find it all rather amusing, in a sad sort of way. Discussions between creationists and mainstream scientists typically have an apples-and-oranges character, much like discussions between “pro-choice” and “pro-life” advocates or politically “liberal” and “conservative” partisans. Each side has unshakeable beliefs and therefore insists on bending any available evidence to support them, so very little real discussion takes place.​

His assessment of how the debates are conducted. Note that he accuses both camps of "bending the available evidence to support them".

Speaking as a layperson, rather than a professional in science or theology, I find the evidence supporting the reliability of carbon dating vastly more compelling than the evidence supporting a 7,000-year-old Earth. But then, I don’t have an axe to grind, and even I did, carbon dating couldn’t tell us how old it was. —Joe Kissell​

He identifies himself as a layperson in both science and theology and affirms that from his point of view the evidence supporting the reliability of carbon dating is "vastly more compelling" than evidence for a young earth.

Emphasis added.

Well, I still don't see where he backs up your claim that radiocarbon dates are not as accurate as represented by scientists.

Especially in light of his concluding sentence, could you please point out where he supports your claim?

 

[razzelflabben]

this is the third time consuming time I addressed this post, hopefully it goes through this time.

Not at all. You have claimed bias but you have not provided evidence of bias.

I have claimed that fellow evolutionists some of whom call themselves scientists have claimed bias and that though the information has been presented to others, it is not possible for me with my limited knowledge to retreive at this time. Your assertion that it doesn't exist doesn't change it's existance.

These are exactly what one must do to actually look at the text. How can one actually look at the text without examining the grammar, vocabulary, syntax and definition of the terms? What other way is there to actually look at the text?

There is an old saying, you can't see the trees for the forest. this concept is what you insist on doing.

My problem seems to be that you don't like the way I actually look at the text, but I don't know of any other way to actually look at the text.

all I am asking you to do is look at the absolutes and compare them to science. If the absolutes, the things that can only be one way, are consistant with science then the text is compatable. If the absolutes cannot be confirmed with science the text then is not compatable. So far the only absolutes we talk about at all are the chemical makeup of life including but not limited to man and the uniqueness of man. Both these topics you insisted on dismissing before finding out what science tells us about them. It is only after we evidence of falsify the absolutes that we can delve into the possiblities that aren't specified, like the age of the earth. Thus we find out if the text is compatable with science or not. One of the things we were looking for, remember?

Consider this, the text we are talking about is an ancient manuscript written by someone whose lang. and culture was very different from ours. Instead of trying to see what that author intended for us to know from the text, you try to analize how he said it, not through his own lang. and culture but through ours. This is where you are missing the mark. In order to understand the point of the text you need to start by 1. reading the text with lang. and culture in tact at least as much as possible and 2. for absolutes that do not change based on assumptions made by the church or individuals. More on this later.

I know you claimed to have refuted evidence that I presented, but it was not a successful refutation. The evidence is still valid.

Now in discussion someone presents evidence another shows how the evidence does not fit the claim and then there are two options, 1. refute the counter claims with further evidence or 2. ignore that the counter claims were made thus accusing the opponent of not making the counter claim and declaring your opinion to be fact. You are doing the latter and it is not becoming on you. In fact, your lack of engaging in the debate shows a lack of evidence of which I can only assume means it doesn't exist.

So what you want from evolutionists is to say "theory of evolution" every time they mean "theory of evolution" rather than "fact of evolution" or "pathways of evolution".

let me tell you a story about the first high school class I taught. I had the roughest kids in the inner city school. One of the kids was a large black "man" I call him a man because he was built like one.
Anyway, one day in class this kid stood up and punched a kid in the face. Upon questioning, the kid thought he was justified because the other student called him a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]. Some days later, in the middle of class, a student called this same large black "man" a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] and the kids laughed it off. I questioned him on it and he said it was okay because the kid was black. The double standard was so blantant and disturbing that the whole class got a lecture on appropriate behavior and words. Anyway, the point as it relates to the use of the word evolution and the theory of evolution is this, many times I have witnessed and been a part of this double standard from evolutionists. If you are an evolutionist, it is acceptable to interchange the two and if called on it, we will claim the context specifies which we mean. But if someone else uses the same words, it is not okay, and when the context is pointed out and specified, it doesn't matter because the use was wrong no matter what the use was. This double standard is deceiving, wrong, problematic for communication and right out harmful to the cause of evolution as well as the theory or evolution. In addition, it assures that truth will never be known. Lot's of problems for just a simple slight of hand huh?

Do I understand correctly that you are alleging that failure to always say "theory of evolution" when that is meant is a deliberate deception and not just a habitual shorthand of speech?

so as to be sure that you don't accuse me of not answering this, see above it is answered comprehensively.

Not necessarily. There are many factors involved in accuracy. It may be more difficult to get an accurate reading on something that happened last week than to get an accurate reading on something that happened 10 million years ago. The margin of error does not necessarily increase with the age of the object or event being measured. A lot depends on the quality of the evidence available. The older event may have left better quality of evidence than a more recent event, and so yield a more accurate date. The inherent accuracy of the method of dating is another factor and it is not related to age either.

you really don't understand margin of error do you. consider our 12 inch ruler. It can be the most accuate ruler known to man, but the greater the distance I am measuring with it, the greater the likelihood of mistake. Our dating methods are that 12 inch ruler. They are limited in size to what we currently know thus cannot be greater than 12 inches. But we are measuring an area so vast that the margin of error would be equivalent to trying to measure the earth with that little 12 inch ruler. How can it get any plainer than that?

Yep. See the word formless in there? The earth had not yet been formed into a planet. It did not have shape, boundary or position yet. So there was no specific place in the universe where the earth was yet. The light did not need to go to any specific location.

By the time the earth was given form and shape and location, there were already plenty of stars and also the sun.

first please note that there is nothing in the passage about the position of the earth so that it was not positioned right in Gen. 1:1 is a presumption based on church tradition or bias and not biblically understood. But let's look at the text. I won't cut and paste for space.
day 1. creation of heavens earth and light.
day 2. seperation of sky from water in the earth
day 3. dry land appears as does vegatation
day 4. sun, moon and stars.

Thus once again, the text shows you wrong. But think this thought throw to it's completion. If light appeared before the stars, who is to say that the light we are measuring is from the star and not just appears to be. What was the source of the first light? The absolute here is that light appeared after the heavens and earth but before the sun, moon and stars. Science cannot falsify this, all science can do is assume that the light they are measuring is coming from a distant star.

Created yes, but in a formless state, so it had no determined size, boundaries or position yet. That came later, much later----about 9 billion years later.

this premise is based on bias that you and evolution (theory of) are truth and not on the text which is what we are suppose to be looking at

It doesn't affect them at all because all our calculations are based on light from the sun and stars. Those calculations are not affected by whatever can or cannot be determined about another source of light. The calculations based on light from the sun and stars are still accurate in regard to those sources of light.

But that is to assume that the light we are measuring is from the sun and stars. What if the light we are measuring is from another source? go with the premise that the absolutes in the text in question is right, what does that say to us about the scientific results of our study. In fact, one of the best theories as to where this light came from is God Himself and would be consistant with how God is often portrayed in the bible. Therefore if God is the light source spoken of here, and God is eternal, how old would we expect to be able to figure the light we are measuring to be? If light came before our sun, moon and stars than the measure we have is not necessarily from our sun, moon and stars but could be from an alternate source.

OK. So we are agreed that the text is not definite about the age of the earth, or at least appears not to be definite. If we look deeper, we may find that we can actually eliminate some possibilities.

But our goal is to identify if the text is consistant with science not if our reading into the text is consistant. [/quote]

No, what I am saying is that there is no correlation between the existence of varves and the existence of life forms that would indicate varves are necessary to support life. So, it seems they are not necessary to support life. Yet they appear to be much older than they could be if the creation of earth is recent. Again, why would this be the case? [/quote] call it what it is, truth is so much more becoming than illusion. What you are saying is that you know of no study that has been done therefore you are going to declare that it is not so and call that evidence. The problem is that without evidence to say yes it does or no it doesn't, all we have is a question that science needs to explore.

What can we conclude from the fact that many things appear to be old but without the reason of being needed for life support?

before we can discuss this, we need to find at least one thing that supports the conclusion that some things appear old but have no purpose in supporting life.

 

[razzelflabben]

Review of first article that allegedly supports a claim that dates obtained via radiometric measures are not as accurate as stated by scientists.

October 26, 2004

Carbon Dating
Decay rates create debates​

This is evidently an entry on a blog called Interesting Thing of the Day. So it is all personal opinion from a layperson without credentials. Doesn't make him wrong. Just does not make him an authority.

It has become my custom here at Interesting Thing of the Day to choose topics that I think will be unfamiliar to most readers—a sort of implicit “I’ll-bet-you’ve-never-heard-of-this” test.​

He explains in general what sort of things he likes to talk about.

I think it’s fair to say that any educated person over the age of 10 or so has probably heard of carbon dating. But I realized the other day that even as an adult with a fair amount of scientific knowledge, I could not articulate exactly how or why carbon dating works.​

He explains why it occurred to him to choose this topic.

So I did a bit of research to fill in the gaps in my understanding, and not surprisingly I found the details to be quite interesting.​

What he did next.

What did surprise me was the huge number of Web sites and books vigorously attacking the legitimacy of what I had thought was a fairly straightforward, uncontroversial test. Apparently carbon dating is right up there with evolution in terms of the disdain it evokes from certain religious groups. As is often the case, the controversy over this topic is at least as interesting as the topic itself.​

Something that surprised him. He didn't know until he did the research that in some religious circles carbon dating is very controversial and vigourously attacked. I find it interesting that he noted the opposition comes from religious circles, not scientists.

Carbon Copies
Carbon dating begins, logically enough, with carbon. High in the atmosphere, cosmic rays strike nitrogen atoms, producing a radioactive carbon isotope known as carbon-14 (or 14C); this is why it’s technically known as radiocarbon dating or, sometimes, carbon-14 dating. Carbon-14, along with the more common, stable (nonradioactive) carbon isotopes carbon-12 and carbon-13, combine with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide. In the process of photosynthesis, plants “breathe” this carbon dioxide, convert the carbon into carbohydrates for fuel, and then release the oxygen into the atmosphere as a byproduct. So some of the residual carbon in plants is carbon-14. Animals, in turn, eat the plants (or eat other animals that have eaten the plants), and thus the carbon-14 atoms propagate throughout the food chain. The result is that everything that is alive, or once was, contains some number of carbon-14 atoms.​

Simple explanation of how carbon 14 is formed and how it gets into plant and animal bodies.

Although the number of carbon-14 atoms varies from one organism to another, the proportion of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms is basically constant—and roughly the same as the proportion found in the atmosphere.​

An important distinction between the amount of C14 and the proportion of C14 to C12. Carbon dating is based on the changing proportion of C14 to C12 over time. The actual amount is not especially relevant.

Carbon-14 decays (loses its radioactivity, converting back to nitrogen-14) at a known rate; its half-life, or the time it takes for half a given number of carbon-14 atoms to decay, is about 5,730 years. When an organism dies, it stops acquiring new carbon-14 atoms. Given that the ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms in a living thing is a constant, one can determine the number of each in a sample of organic matter (using sensitive equipment to detect the amount of radiation remaining), and then do a little bit of math to determine how long it’s been since the organism expired. For example, if a sample emits radiation indicating the presence of 10 carbon-14 atoms and we know from its mass that it originally must have contained 20, that means the plant or animal from which the sample was taken died about 5,730 years ago.​

Explanation of the math

Eventually, however, all the carbon-14 atoms will decay—or at least enough of them will that the amount of radiation they emit can no longer be distinguished from ordinary background radiation. So for all practical purposes, carbon dating is useful only for samples up to about 50,000 years old (though this depends somewhat on the mass of the sample—and some advanced techniques can reliably measure carbon-14 levels low enough to indicate an age of 100,000 years). Thus, carbon dating would not be useful in, for example, assessing dinosaur bones.​

since you already pointed out one side of the issue, I am going to just point out the alternate side here. Note limitations of age and equipment as well as mass. Hum, I mentioned limitations.......​

Explanation why C14 can only be used for relatively recent dating.

Constants and Change
There are other limitations in carbon dating too. For example, with a few exceptions, the technique can only be applied to once-living items such as bone, leather, wood, and cloth—not, say, rocks or metal. More importantly, though, the accuracy of carbon dating rests on several crucial assumptions. For one thing, the rate of carbon-14 production in the atmosphere (and thus the level of cosmic ray activity) must have been pretty much constant for the past several dozen millennia. Likewise, the proportion of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the environment must have remained fairly constant. And in any given sample, one must be certain that contaminants from other time periods are not present—a sometimes-tricky issue.​

A few more limitations. Note that scientists are well aware of all these limitations and assess their impact when using C14 dating. A limitation does not make a date inaccurate when it is properly respected.

stupid question. If the scientists didn't know about the limitations how would we? We who rely on science to tell us what they can and cannot do. Seems like a pretty lame reason to excuse the limitations that I said existed and you argued with and not note.

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

What scientists do to keep dates accurate in spite of limitations: they calibrate their findings to adjust for these known issues.

remember that margin or error we are talking about a 12 inch ruler doesn't do a good job of measuring the earth. That is what we are seeing here with the limitations I spoke to you about and you couldn't find in this article.

What does this mean? Well, it is like having an oven that does not heat to exactly the temperature on the setting, but instead gives a temperature 10 degrees higher than what it is set to. When you want a temperature of 325 degrees, knowing that the oven will heat to 10 degrees higher than the setting, you will adjust for this and set the dial at 315 degrees.

more like our oven, the temp. isn't so much the problem as the inconsistant heating within the box. That is a better more accurate comparison. So no matter what temp. the oven is set at, stuff will still be done unevenly.

In the same way, scientists determine what adjustments to make in calculating dates with C14.

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.​

Here is the sentence I quoted. It is only his personal opinion of course, but he calls the various factors just discussed "seeming" sources of uncertainty. This implies he does not think they really affect the accuracy of the dating, but just seem to.

I didn't make this argument, I said that the limitations create greater gaps in our understanding than is accepted by those who want then to be accurate. I never once claimed that it makes the calculations of no benefit and I corrected your claim to this several times but to no avail.

According to some people, a literal reading of the Bible (taking into account all the genealogies and so forth) yields a creation date of around 7,000 years ago. Thus, any scientific finding that seemingly assigns an older date to any object must be mistaken—and carbon dating, critics suggest, if it is to be believed at all, should be calibrated to the Bible.​

His description of the creationist view.

Many scholars of the bible also note that there are gaps in the genealogies that are of unknown lengths of time, thus a young earth could by biblical terms be older than this 7,000 years discussed here. this seems to be the youngest age possible not the oldest. I suggested we take a number in between.

Creationist arguments against carbon dating (and every other scientific statement that suggests an older Earth) are extensive, passionate, and very impressive-sounding—though they are most often made by people without actual scientific credentials, and therefore dismissed (with varying degrees of refutation) by the scientific community.​

His evaluation of the expertise of creationist critics of radiocarbon dating. They are "people without actual scientific credentials".

we aren't talking about the creationist arguments, or those making them, we are talking about the evidence and the evidence stated here is that there are indeed limitations that affect the margin of error which is exactly to the letter what I said to you. No where did I site a creationist argument or evidence or otherwise, only scientific limitations to the testing methods used. Any other assertions as you appear to be doing here, are based on lack of reading comprehension on your part or you are confusing my argument with someone else. My claim is that the limitations create a greater margin of error than is accepted by those whose bias is that the method is accurate. An idea supported here by this man. Just as you were told.

As an outsider to this debate, I find it all rather amusing, in a sad sort of way. Discussions between creationists and mainstream scientists typically have an apples-and-oranges character, much like discussions between “pro-choice” and “pro-life” advocates or politically “liberal” and “conservative” partisans. Each side has unshakeable beliefs and therefore insists on bending any available evidence to support them, so very little real discussion takes place.​

which is exactly why I play devils advocate so much, so that I can understand both sides of the issue much clearer than if I allow.....dare I say it.......the emotional arguments of belief to control the debate. Hummmm, didn't I say I would leave my personal beliefs out so that the argument was not one based on emotion. Like is once again stated here as I told you it was?!​

His assessment of how the debates are conducted. Note that he accuses both camps of "bending the available evidence to support them".

As I have done on numerous occasions.

Speaking as a layperson, rather than a professional in science or theology, I find the evidence supporting the reliability of carbon dating vastly more compelling than the evidence supporting a 7,000-year-old Earth. But then, I don’t have an axe to grind, and even I did, carbon dating couldn’t tell us how old it was. —Joe Kissell​

He identifies himself as a layperson in both science and theology and affirms that from his point of view the evidence supporting the reliability of carbon dating is "vastly more compelling" than evidence for a young earth.

Emphasis added.

Well, I still don't see where he backs up your claim that radiocarbon dates are not as accurate as represented by scientists.

Especially in light of his concluding sentence, could you please point out where he supports your claim?

His concluding sentence is all about opinion and not about fact, and he is at least honest enough to admit it, but none the less, I highlighted everything I claimed just like he did, I simply refrained from adding my opinions to the debate and choose to stick with the facts.

 

[gluadys]

this is the third time consuming time I addressed this post, hopefully it goes through this time.

Yeah. I just lost one too. I am learning to compose off-line so as not to lose a major post, but I still forget from time to time.

I have claimed that fellow evolutionists some of whom call themselves scientists have claimed bias and that though the information has been presented to others, it is not possible for me with my limited knowledge to retreive at this time.

Right, so you admit you have not presented any evidence of bias. Only an unsubtantiated report of somebody's opinion.

all I am asking you to do is look at the absolutes and compare them to science. If the absolutes, the things that can only be one way, are consistant with science then the text is compatable.

Ok. I guess I have missed this. The idea of absolutes in the text is not familiar to me and I am not sure what it means. Also I am not sure how you identify which ideas in the text are absolutes and which are not. For example, why is the composition of living bodies an absolute but the age of the earth is not?

So far the only absolutes we talk about at all are the chemical makeup of life including but not limited to man and the uniqueness of man. Both these topics you insisted on dismissing before finding out what science tells us about them.

Oh, we have got side-tracked a bit, but I have not dismissed either of these. In fact, I thought we had both agreed that what the text says about the composition of living bodies is compatible with what science says.

Now as to uniqueness, I guess that still needs some discussion. I don't know about you, but I need a clearer idea of what uniqueness means. For example, since the composition of the human body is similar to that of other living bodies and the composition of all living bodies is chemically similar to non-living dust, it seems obvious that in reference to the composition of the body, man is not unique at all. So if he is a unique creation, he must be unique in some other respect. Does that make sense to you?

In order to see if science supports human uniqueness we would need to identify the nature of the uniqueness so it can be scientifically tested. At least that is the way I see it.

Now in discussion someone presents evidence another shows how the evidence does not fit the claim and then there are two options, 1. refute the counter claims with further evidence or 2. ignore that the counter claims were made thus accusing the opponent of not making the counter claim and declaring your opinion to be fact.

There is a third option: show that the counter-claim was incorrect and/or irrelevant. That is what I have done.

The double standard was so blantant and disturbing that the whole class got a lecture on appropriate behavior and words. Anyway, the point as it relates to the use of the word evolution and the theory of evolution is this, many times I have witnessed and been a part of this double standard from evolutionists.

I think I see your point, but I still don't see any active deception here. Just a habitual verbal shorthand that is perhaps careless, but not malicious. In any case, I will attempt not to use such verbal shorthand, especially when I am referring to the theory of evolution.

you really don't understand margin of error do you. consider our 12 inch ruler. It can be the most accuate ruler known to man, but the greater the distance I am measuring with it, the greater the likelihood of mistake. Our dating methods are that 12 inch ruler.

Well, this is the source of your misunderstanding. If we only have a 12" ruler, measuring long distances can be a problem, but if we get a tool that is more appropriate for measuring long distances, then our accuracy increases.

Back over 100 years ago, we did not have very accurate ways to measure deep time. Geologists relied on such things as average rates of erosion and sedimentation, That was like using a 12 inch ruler.

Since then, however, we have discovered better tools for measuring deep time. One was finding an accurate measure of the speed of light. The other was finding radioactive decay, especially of long-lived isotopes. These give us the base line we need for accurately measuring billions of years.

They are limited in size to what we currently know thus cannot be greater than 12 inches. But we are measuring an area so vast that the margin of error would be equivalent to trying to measure the earth with that little 12 inch ruler. How can it get any plainer than that?

And what we currently know is that using the speed of light we are able to measure the distance to a star 13.2 billion light-years away--which in turn tells us the light we are seeing from that star is 13.2 billion years old. Similarly, if we have a rock sample containing uranium 235 in which half of the uranium has turned to lead, we know from the half-life of the isotope that the rock is 704 million years old. If 3/4 of the uranium has turned to lead, the rock is 1, 408 million years old (=1.4 billion years).

This is what we currently know, and it seems perfectly adequate for our needs in reference to measuring long ages.

first please note that there is nothing in the passage about the position of the earth so that it was not positioned right in Gen. 1:1 is a presumption based on church tradition

Actually, I did not get that from church tradition at all. I just began thinking of what it would mean for the earth to be formless. How do you find the position of something that is formless?

Thus once again, the text shows you wrong.

How so? I don't see anything on that list that says I am wrong. First, the text does not say the heavens and earth were created on day one. It says that God created the heavens and earth in the beginning. It also describes the earth in the beginning as "formless and empty".

After that it says God created light and dark, calling them Day and Night respectively, and that this was one day. Nothing is said about the earth on this day.

Next it says God made the firmament to divide the waters and called it Heaven. Still nothing about the earth.

Then on the third day, God sets a boundary for the sea and causes the dry land to appear. This is the first mention of the earth since the beginning when it was formless.
As far as I can see, this is when God gave form to the earth. I see no indication that the earth did not remain in its initial formless state through day one and two.

If light appeared before the stars, who is to say that the light we are measuring is from the star and not just appears to be.

We locate the star by its light. The light is coming from where the star is. We know that stars give light and we know the light is coming from the position of the star. We would need a very strong reason to say the light is coming from a different source of light.

But that is to assume that the light we are measuring is from the sun and stars.

You see what is happening here? You begin by questioning whether a star's light is coming from the star, and next thing you know you are questioning whether the sun's light comes from the sun. Where do we stop? Does the light from the lamp in your room come from the lamp or from somewhere else? Let's use some common sense here. When light is coming from where a source of light is, whether a lamp or flashlight, candle, sun or star, it makes sense to assume the light is coming from that source of light unless and until we have evidence that it is not.

What if the light we are measuring is from another source?

We can play around with a what if. But we cannot build any conclusions on it until we have tested it. How would we find out if the light is really coming from another source?

go with the premise that the absolutes in the text in question is right, what does that say to us about the scientific results of our study.

I have no problem with the absolute that light was created before the stars were. But the stars were also created to be sources of light. So until I have good reason to think the star is not shining, it seems a good idea to expect that the star is shining, since that is what it was created to do, and that the light I see is coming from the star. It would certainly explain why the light looks like it is coming from the star.

What you are saying is that you know of no study that has been done therefore you are going to declare that it is not so and call that evidence.

What I am saying is that the evidence we have indicates that varves do not affect the viability of any particular life form. They do not appear to be essential for life support.

before we can discuss this, we need to find at least one thing that supports the conclusion that some things appear old but have no purpose in supporting life.

Actually we already have more than one example now. Do you remember this list?

Nothing has established that varves are necessary to support life. Light from a distant star does not support life on earth. Fossils of extinct species are not essential to supporting life on earth today and all the creation accounts mention only life on earth today. Ancient impacts of meteors and asteroids are not essential to supporting life on earth. How for example, do the craters on the moon support life on earth? Yet the moon rocks test out as being over 4 billion years old. Why make moon rocks look 4 billion years old when there is no necessary reason to do so?

You have presented no information that shows any of these things are pertinent to supporting life. And all of them appear old--ranging from about 40,000 years old for varves, 65 million years for the Chicxulub crater, to 3-4 billion years for the oldest fossils and the earth and the moon, and over 13 billion years for distant stars.

So you have many things that appear old. None of them appear to support life. So let's discuss why we would suppose them to be any younger than they look? Or, to take it the other way around, why would they look any older than they are?

 

[gluadys]

Note limitations of age and equipment as well as mass. Hum, I mentioned limitations...... Seems like a pretty lame reason to excuse the limitations that I said existed and you argued with and not note. ....

But limitations were not the only thing you referred to.

Here are some of the allegations you made:

1. The dates and the methods of measuring dates are not reliable:

it is scientific evidence that is suggestive that the aging methods are not as reliable as they are suggested to be. post 165

Actually we don't know how reliable our measuring methods are, post 168

2. There are problems of accuracy:

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. post 170

3. There are limitations and also other concerns:

both articles show the limitations and same concerns I have. post 172

(in answer to the question: 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. post 172

(In answer to the question: 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. post 172

So the article does mention limitations, but where does it say that because of these limitations the dates are inaccurate and unreliable or at least not as reliable as suggested? Where does it mention flaws and bias or problems with the margin of error?

I said that the limitations create greater gaps in our understanding than is accepted by those who want then to be accurate.

Yes, here is your claim again. It is not just that there are limitations, but that as a consequence the dates given are inaccurate so we cannot rely on them.

But that is not supported by the article, nor by common sense. Knowledge of the limitations actually makes the results more reliable not less. Because we know the limitations we know when not to use the test at all. We know when and by how much to calibrate the results for greater accuracy. We know how to judge the appropriate margin of error.

This all makes the results more certain, not less certain.

My claim is that the limitations create a greater margin of error than is accepted by those whose bias is that the method is accurate.

Yes, and you cited this article as supporting that claim. But where does it support the claim that the limitations create a greater margin of error than is accepted by scientists? Where does it support the claim of bias?

All you have shown is that it mentions limitations, and no one has ever denied this. It is the rest of your claim that I am questioning: the claim of unreliability, flaws, inaccuracy, and bias. Show where these things are addressed in the article. Or withdraw the statement that the article supports not only limitations, but also your "other concerns".

 

[laptoppop]

In terms of dating methodologies and accuracies, I recommend you read the RATE report.

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

 

[razzelflabben]

Right, so you admit you have not presented any evidence of bias. Only an unsubtantiated report of somebody's opinion.

Read for comprehension gluadys, if I say that I can no longer access the files I am referring to, what does that mean? See, the problem is that when this part of the discussion began I admitted right up front that though it occured and though there were others here on the forum that I showed the references to, the references in question were no longer available by means of what I was capable of obtaining. But now, you say, "so you admit you have not presented any evidence of bias......" I admitted it when the topic first came up, I also admitted that the references refered to were no longer in my ability to retrieve. Why can't you comprehend that? Why must we all this time later act like none of this was said and that it is somehow a big deal?

Ok. I guess I have missed this. The idea of absolutes in the text is not familiar to me and I am not sure what it means

abosolutes are the things that only have one option, not many. For example that man is made from the dust of the earth has only one possible that I know of, that man is made from dust and thus can be tested. The age of the earth has more than one possiblity in scripture. something that I know you can grasp in that you have been trying to deal with all of them scientifically and haven't yet looked deeper into the text to see if we could eliminate any from the context of the text. ON this topic you have been too bent on evidencing the bible to be non scientific that you forgot to see what it actually says. There is only one interpretation of the light occuring before the sun, moon and stars, therefore this is identifable in the text as an absoluted. But, that the heavens and earth were created from nothing is questionable in the text therefore not an absolute.

The importance of this whole idea is in identfying if the text is scientificly compatable or only our ideas of what the text says. Consider this, if the intended meaning of the text required us to understand that the earth was of a certain age, it would have told us the age of the earth. But it isn't stated, and therefore, not important to the intended meaning. So by eliminating the abolsutues from the non absolutes, we have done two things, 1. cleared the path for understanding what the intended meaning of the text is, and 2. began the process for identifying whether or not the bible is inerrant at least from a scientific standpoint. Notice the words, cleared the path, and began the process. both indicate a job not yet completed. That is important to point out to that you don't twist it into something resembling a finished work. It would be so much easier if you could just read it for comprehension but we can work on that.

Oh, we have got side-tracked a bit, but I have not dismissed either of these. In fact, I thought we had both agreed that what the text says about the composition of living bodies is compatible with what science says.

if we both agree on this then we have an absolute in scripture and it is compatable with science. What would the next absolute be? How about light. Can we test this absolute?

Now as to uniqueness, I guess that still needs some discussion. I don't know about you, but I need a clearer idea of what uniqueness means. For example, since the composition of the human body is

I forgot we started this one, in fact, I didn't realize you were still having problems with it. Okay, uniqueness.

Actually the biblical reference here seems to be talking about characteristics not chemical makeup. Therefore we need to look at what every or most every discipline in our world has studied. What sets man apart from the other animals? In fact, very little discussion is provided for if man is seperated but rather what seperates man. Thus, it would seem that science once again agrees with the absolutes of the text.

In order to see if science supports human uniqueness we would need to identify the nature of the uniqueness so it can be scientifically tested. At least that is the way I see it.

Well when I was reviewing it, it was already established that man is unique, what that uniqueness is was still being studied. I think you are doing what is common practice for you, you are putting the horse before the cart. We do not need to know what uniquenesses we are looking for in order to know that man is indeed set apart, or unique in some way.

There is a third option: show that the counter-claim was incorrect and/or irrelevant. That is what I have done.

Okay review how you did this, because I am still waiting for this awesome evidence you keep claiming. You have made some bold statements, shown some easy to refute evidence and now claim that you have eliminated a possibility. I even took the time to review the evidence you presented and the rebuttal to that evidence and you didn't add or correct or anything, just went on talking non sense about whether or not I offered evidence that I said didn't exist, or what the text actually says. and on and on and on about grammer and everything but what we were suppose to be discussing.

I think I see your point, but I still don't see any active deception here.

The deception in not in the use or interchanging of the terms but rather in the insistance that they mean something that they don't for example, how many times does an evolutionist say that evolution is fact and theory. And someone says, wait a moment, evolution, the process is fact, it happens but evolution the theory about how it happens is theory. And to this, the evolutionist goes off on how the person doesn't understand anything about science but offers nothing in correction, only to later say the exact same thing, is an attempted deception that even you have entered into.

Since then, however, we have discovered better tools for measuring deep time. One was finding an accurate measure of the speed of light. The other was finding radioactive decay, especially of long-lived isotopes. These give us the base line we need for accurately measuring billions of years.

wow, you really don't get it? Your not just trying to be difficult on this matter?

All the tools we have to measure the age of the earth are based on a relatively new or young guide. For example, radioactive dating is based primarily on what we know today about our environment not on what the enviornment was billions or millions of years ago. Even the speed of light is based on the assumption that the light we are meausring is the light we see and not from another source. So what we really have is a small measure based on our evidences of modern times, and using that to try to meausure over millions or billions of years. So indeed what we have is a 12 inch ruler to measure the earth. Can't really be any other way being that we only recently (from a historic point of view) began to measure the age of the earth.

And what we currently know is that using the speed of light we are able to measure the distance to a star 13.2 billion light-years away--which in turn tells us the light we are seeing from that star is 13.2 billion years old.

and what if we use the premise that the bible is correct? What if we use the premise that light was created before sun, moon and stars. When we cannot know if the light we are seeing if from a distant star or from another source.

Similarly, if we have a rock sample containing uranium 235 in which half of the uranium has turned to lead, we know from the half-life of the isotope that the rock is 704 million years old. If 3/4 of the uranium has turned to lead, the rock is 1, 408 million years old (=1.4 billion years).

again, see the problem with different atmospheres on this testing and then consider all the possible differences we have.

Actually, I did not get that from church tradition at all. I just began thinking of what it would mean for the earth to be formless. How do you find the position of something that is formless?

At least you are thinking for yourself that's one good thing. But what of formless? Look at an slime, have you seen kids slime before? It is pretty much formless, but even it, can be placed in given locations. for example it can be in your hand, in a container, in the store, etc. Consider this, if eternity exists, then we can assume that space and time are both part of that eternity. The Heb. saw the idea of time as measurable and flowing, thus eternity is a flowing concept not a limiting concept. existance is the same, if God is eternal or flowing, He has to flow somewhere. thus, there would be some kind of space existance and it would be beyond our comprehension. So then we take this puny thing called earth, and it is formless, and dropped down someplace in this vastness. Formlessness does not then mean out of place. Just as I could drop slime down in the store or a house, it is formless, but still in place.

How so? I don't see anything on that list that says I am wrong. First, the text does not say the heavens and earth were created on day one. It says that God created the heavens and earth in the beginning. It also describes the earth in the beginning as "formless and empty".

Now no matter how you read the text, there are two absolutes that you claimed do not exist. 1, earth was formed before light. and 2. that this creation was the first day. Thus whether or not we attach the heavens and earth to the first day is irrelavent because light is absolutely attached to the first day and is absolutely created after the heavens and earth. Just accept you were wrong and move on. I won't even insist on you admitting it, or go on for pages about it, much less ignore it if you correct yourself. Just accept that what the text says is what it says and let's move on into what that means.

After that it says God created light and dark, calling them Day and Night respectively, and that this was one day. Nothing is said about the earth on this day.

right, because the earth was already created. Just as I corrected you previously. Light was created after earth, but before sun, moon and stars. exactly what I said to you and exactly what the text says.

Next it says God made the firmament to divide the waters and called it Heaven. Still nothing about the earth.

Your claim was that the light was created before the earth, Gen.1:1 says the earth was created before anything but the heavens. So what the heck is all this other stuff you are spouting? I corrected you and showed you your error. I guess I will just ignore the rest of this because once again, it supports my claims and not yours.

Then on the third day, God sets a boundary for the sea and causes the dry land to appear. This is the first mention of the earth since the beginning when it was formless.
As far as I can see, this is when God gave form to the earth. I see no indication that the earth did not remain in its initial formless state through day one and two.

what are you talking about? I never suggested that the earth was anything but formless until this time, what I did say was 1. that light was created after the earth and that 2. there is nothing mentioned about reposisioning the earth, only manipulating the formless earth. Both claims you are evidencing here, where you should be evidencing your claims that the light was not created before the earth and that the earth was relocated.

We locate the star by its light. The light is coming from where the star is. We know that stars give light and we know the light is coming from the position of the star. We would need a very strong reason to say the light is coming from a different source of light.

all we need in this discussion is an absolute that the text says light came before the sun, moon and stars. something we do have, so therefore, we have bases for a premise that light is not limited to the sun, moon and stars.

You see what is happening here? You begin by questioning whether a star's light is coming from the star, and next thing you know you are questioning whether the sun's light comes from the sun.

see what you are doing? You are removing the absolutes from the passage so that you can evidence your claims. You can't do that if you are looking to identify whether or not the text is compatable with science. If we are looking to see if the text is compatable and not our assumptions of the text, then we must look at the text with the premis that the text is accurate and correct. If it is, then what would we see in nature, in science. In the case of measureing light, we would see that the margin or error is too great to use it as conclusive in any terms.

I have no problem with the absolute that light was created before the stars were. But the stars were also created to be sources of light.

Actually, according to the text, the stars were not created to give light, though they were created to do so, the purpose of their creation was to provide us with measures for time. Now, don't misunderstand and twist this into something it is not. The bible tells us the moon and stars were to give us light, but it also says their created purpose was for measuring time. So if the premise is the absolutes in scripture are absolutes, then we could identify light as not originating from any given object, for example, the sun, moon, and stars, though giving light, were not created for this purpose specifically thus could hold secrets of light that we can't even fathom unraveling at this time.

For example, even though fire gives off light, fire is not light. they are seperate things, to lump them together limits our ability to explore and understand what this world has to reveal to us.

What I am saying is that the evidence we have indicates that varves do not affect the viability of any particular life form. They do not appear to be essential for life support.

actually what you said is that at this point we don't know of any because we haven't tested it to know.

Actually we already have more than one example now. Do you remember this list?

I summarized with rebuttals and you offered nothing in response, so what then do we conclude? That you cannot refute the rebuttals to the evidence you provided.

 

[razzelflabben]

But limitations were not the only thing you referred to.

Here are some of the allegations you made:

1. The dates and the methods of measuring dates are not reliable:

it is scientific evidence that is suggestive that the aging methods are not as reliable as they are suggested to be. post 165

Actually we don't know how reliable our measuring methods are, post 168

2. There are problems of accuracy:

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. post 170

3. There are limitations and also other concerns:

both articles show the limitations and same concerns I have. post 172

(in answer to the question: 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. post 172

(In answer to the question: 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. post 172

So the article does mention limitations, but where does it say that because of these limitations the dates are inaccurate and unreliable or at least not as reliable as suggested? Where does it mention flaws and bias or problems with the margin of error?

a lot of this I just covered, so all I will say here is that my claim is that the variables and limitations create a margin of error greater than the biased scientists are willing to accept. That is the nutshell of what I said if we put all the quotes into context and look at the arguement. The article in question, thus shows variables and limitations as being a problem for accuracy.

Yes, here is your claim again. It is not just that there are limitations, but that as a consequence the dates given are inaccurate so we cannot rely on them.

But that is not supported by the article, nor by common sense. Knowledge of the limitations actually makes the results more reliable not less. Because we know the limitations we know when not to use the test at all. We know when and by how much to calibrate the results for greater accuracy. We know how to judge the appropriate margin of error.

Look at it this way, if I am biased toward my children, then their errors will we downplayed rather than discussed or pointed out at length. That is the same principal here. We have people who want to see only that we can age the earth and so, they downplay the errors.

This all makes the results more certain, not less certain.

Yes, and you cited this article as supporting that claim. But where does it support the claim that the limitations create a greater margin of error than is accepted by scientists? Where does it support the claim of bias?

what it supports is the claim that we have a margin of error this margin or error when applied to the rest of the discussion about bias in sceince, results in the resonable conclusion that the margin of error is greater than we are leading others to believe.

All you have shown is that it mentions limitations, and no one has ever denied this. It is the rest of your claim that I am questioning: the claim of unreliability,

never said unreliable, you said that based on what you wanted me to be arguing. and I pointed this out to you before and you still attribute it to me.

flaws,

limitations and variabilites can equal flaws but again this is your word.

inaccuracy,

of which the article concurred.

and bias.

the article was never presented to show bias in fact, I stated several times that the evidence of bias that I spoke of was no longer accessable to me. But was shown previously to someone else like you who denied it. And you know what, that person couldn't deny it's existance after the evidence was provided. Unfortunately, that evidence no longer exists. any other evidence that is presented you will simply hand wave away without consideration.

Show where these things are addressed in the article. Or withdraw the statement that the article supports not only limitations, but also your "other concerns".

It supports my claim that there are limitations and variables that a biased scientist would not include in his/her calculations. Which is exactly the claim I said the article would support. Note when reading for comprehension, the claim does not include that science is biased but rather that a biased scientist. Note also when reading for comprehension that the claims deals with limitations and variables not inaccuracy and the whole string of other things you tried to twist and tack on.

 

[gluadys]

my claim is that the variables and limitations create a margin of error greater than the biased scientists are willing to accept.

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

The article in question, thus shows variables and limitations as being a problem for accuracy.

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

We have people who want to see only that we can age the earth and so, they downplay the errors. what it supports is the claim that we have a margin of error this margin or error when applied to the rest of the discussion about bias in sceince, results in the resonable conclusion that the margin of error is greater than we are leading others to believe.

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

never said unreliable

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

limitations and variabilites can equal flaws but again this is your word.

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

of which the article concurred.

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

the article was never presented to show bias in fact, I stated several times that the evidence of bias that I spoke of was no longer accessable to me.

OK. that still leaves flaws, unreliability, more inaccuracy than claimed, and a greater margin of error than claimed. Where does the article support any of these?

It supports my claim that there are limitations and variables that a biased scientist would not include in his/her calculations.

All the limitations and variables mentioned in the article are included in scientific calculations. Where does the article mention any limitation or variation that scientists ignore and do not include in their calculations?

Note also when reading for comprehension that the claims deals with limitations and variables not inaccuracy and the whole string of other things you tried to twist and tack on.

Go back and read your own posts. I have not mentioned anything that you did not claim. I have quoted your very own words.

If you want to revise what you previously said, that's fine. But don't deny that you said it. It is there in plain sight for all to see.

 

[gluadys]

if I say that I can no longer access the files I am referring to, what does that mean?

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

abosolutes are the things that only have one option, not many. For example that man is made from the dust of the earth has only one possible that I know of, that man is made from dust and thus can be tested. The age of the earth has more than one possiblity in scripture. something that I know you can grasp in that you have been trying to deal with all of them scientifically and haven't yet looked deeper into the text to see if we could eliminate any from the context of the text.

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

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

The importance of this whole idea is in identfying if the text is scientificly compatable or only our ideas of what the text says. Consider this, if the intended meaning of the text required us to understand that the earth was of a certain age, it would have told us the age of the earth. But it isn't stated, and therefore, not important to the intended meaning.

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

if we both agree on this then we have an absolute in scripture and it is compatable with science.

Right. One success.

I forgot we started this one, in fact, I didn't realize you were still having problems with it. Okay, uniqueness.

Actually the biblical reference here seems to be talking about characteristics not chemical makeup.

Agreed.

I think you are doing what is common practice for you, you are putting the horse before the cart. We do not need to know what uniquenesses we are looking for in order to know that man is indeed set apart, or unique in some way.

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

There is a third option: show that the counter-claim was incorrect and/or irrelevant. That is what I have done.

Okay review how you did this,

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

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

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

You first said "this depends on the age of the earth". That is not correct. Their real age depends on the age of the earth. But their apparent age does not. If they are not really old why do they appear old? That is the question that needs to be answered to meet criterion 2) above.

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

Note that all of these are limited in how much time they can measure. None of them come close to measuring the age of the earth as established by science. But they do measure longer periods of time than those allowed for in most young-earth scenarios. So they still meet criterion 1) above in that --given a recent creation--they appear old but cannot actually be old.

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

So why do these things show so many annual cycles if there were never more than 6,000 or 10,000 or whatever the case may be?

3. radioactive decay

We have spent a lot of time on this and you have not really shown that the dating does not suggest an old age. Instead you have disputed the accuracy and reliability of the dating. But this is moving away from the terms of the original question which was to explain why things appear old when they are not. See below for further details.

4. ancient super-novas

A super-nova occurs when a star of a certain size comes to the end of its main sequence and collapses, then explodes due to the internal pressure, and the star ends its existence. A star that has gone super-nova no longer exists.

If we see a super-nova occurring billions of light-years away, that tells us it took billions of years for the light from the super-nova to reach our telescopes. We are literally seeing an event that occurred billions of years ago, but the news of it is only reaching us today.

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

So why do we see evidence that it used to exist billions of years ago?

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

The moon is a very good example of this. We are all aware of the craters on the moon. Many of those craters are very old. Yet clearly the moon does not have to have old-appearing craters on it for life to exist on earth. So why do we see such appearance of age on the moon?

We also have many instances of ancient impacts on the earth such as the 65 million year old Chicxulub crater associated with the disappearance of the dinosaurs. Why do such things appear to be very old if they are actually young?

You also have a general argument about all dating:

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

This argument goes against the appearance of age argument. The appearance of age argument agrees that things really do look old IOW that the dating is accurate based on appearance. It then explains why, given a young earth, they needed to look old.

Questioning the dating, however, is not justifying why things need to look old. It is disputing that they look old at all. It is saying not only that these things are young. They also look young when you get the dates right.

So these arguments actually conflict with one another. One one hand you are arguing that young things look old because they need to. On the other hand you are arguing that young things look young when the dating is corrected. You cannot argue that something both looks old and looks young at the same time.

Finally, the claim itself is not correct. As I initially responded:

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.

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

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

Together Mo and Jo work out the most efficient way to get water into the container using the eye-dropper. They set up the equipment and start the drip. Mo notes the time they began and settles down to watch until the container is full. Meanwhile Jo wanders off after about five minutes.

After nearly four months, Mo goes to the king to tell him it takes 115 days and 18 hours to fill the 10 litre container one drop at a time. "What took you so long?" said the king. "Your brother Jo told me that barely five minutes after you began your experiment."

Mo measured the time it took by actually timing the whole process as he observed it in real time. Yet Jo got the correct answer after watching the process for only five minutes. When you understand how that is possible, you will understand why we do not need to watch the whole process of radioactive decay or the whole journey of light from point A to point B to know the dates we get from them are accurate.

The deception in not in the use or interchanging of the terms but rather in the insistance that they mean something that they don't for example, how many times does an evolutionist say that evolution is fact and theory. And someone says, wait a moment, evolution, the process is fact, it happens but evolution the theory about how it happens is theory. And to this, the evolutionist goes off on how the person doesn't understand anything about science but offers nothing in correction, only to later say the exact same thing, is an attempted deception that even you have entered into.

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

All the tools we have to measure the age of the earth are based on a relatively new or young guide. For example, radioactive dating is based primarily on what we know today about our environment not on what the enviornment was billions or millions of years ago.

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

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

Even the speed of light is based on the assumption that the light we are meausring is the light we see and not from another source.

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

What if we use the premise that light was created before sun, moon and stars. When we cannot know if the light we are seeing if from a distant star or from another source.

I am puzzled again. Let me ask just one question, so we can take this step by step. The text tells us of light that existed before the stars.

Does this mean that no light comes from the stars?

But what of formless? Look at an slime, have you seen kids slime before? It is pretty much formless,

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

Now no matter how you read the text, there are two absolutes that you claimed do not exist. 1, earth was formed before light. and 2. that this creation was the first day.

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

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

Your claim was that the light was created before the earth,

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

all we need in this discussion is an absolute that the text says light came before the sun, moon and stars.

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

If we are looking to see if the text is compatable and not our assumptions of the text, then we must look at the text with the premis that the text is accurate and correct. If it is, then what would we see in nature, in science.

The text will never tell us what science sees in nature. For that we have to look to science. Then we can compare what the text says to what science says and determine if what they say is compatible.

In the case of measureing light, we would see that the margin or error is too great to use it as conclusive in any terms.

Is this what the text says or what science says? or both?

Actually, according to the text, the stars were not created to give light, though they were created to do so, the purpose of their creation was to provide us with measures for time.

Is this relevant? Even if light is a side-effect, as it were, it is still light isn't it?

I summarized with rebuttals and you offered nothing in response, so what then do we conclude? That you cannot refute the rebuttals to the evidence you provided.

See above. I've gone over it all again. If I have missed something, tell me what it is. If you have an additional rebuttal, tell me what that is.

 

[razzelflabben]

In terms of dating methodologies and accuracies, I recommend you read the RATE report.

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

thanks for the link though I admit that the length of the paper has prevented me from reading the entire thing at this time, I would like to say two things. 1. it seems to be saying that the variables in our dating method make a young earth possible if testing of the variables that would be consistant with the bible (and what I have hinted at ) are evidenced. Interesting.! and 2. The "unbiased" evolutionists here on this forum and in the science field will dismiss the work done reported here on this paper because it is science done by creationists and not evolutionists. Which is the bias I spoke of before and admitted from the start that the evidence I was refering to was no longer available to me at this time. Interesting!

Thanks again, do you have any further comments? I take it you know the study or wouldn't have referenced it, am I missing something in the conclusion since time restraints will make it a while before I get through all 680+ pages.