Creation started with nothing?

[razzelflabben]

There is an actual fossil being studied in an actual university that shows the question is not nonsense. The process through which it was found demonstrates that we can predict the consequences of historical events and find evidence that the history happened (or did not happen).

You need to review our discussion on history.

But Jo's calculations were still correct, given his observations. Science always says "Given the information we have, this is what we have worked out." Science always leaves room for the possibility that new observations will provide another perspective. But that still lets us have confidence is what has been established so far.

What Jo didn't factor in was what he didn't know. that is the point, he calculated based on if's not absolutes.

So you state. But your behaviour shows you are much more likely to assume bias in scientists than in creationists. You blather on about biased scientists without ever providing evidence of bias, yet resist a potential case of bias in creationists even when there is evidence. Not conclusive evidence yet, but still some evidence--which is more than you have provided in the case of biased scientists.

let's look at the evidence, shall we. Some time ago I started a thread that accused both sides of bias and irrasional arguing. Today I am discussing a topic in which I stated clearly several times that this is a devils advocate argument. So the evidence then would support the conclusion that I believe there to be bias on both sides, but can argue either side when presented with the oppertunity. So what counter evidence do you wish to provide? You need to back your claims with actual evidence conclusive or not.

Wow. You really don't read the links you offer, do you? I never said it was your claim. But it is the claim made in the article on 'yom-with-a-number' you pointed me to. What I am asking for is evidence the people who use this argument did not invent the rule for the purpose of supporting their own case. After all, manufactured evidence is not what you want to base an argument on.

I am fully aware that the article talked about the length of day, however, that is not what we were discussing and thus is not part of the evidence presented. For example, if I want to evidence that shakespears work says, "to be or not to be" I don't need to just cut and paste the quote, the entire work qualifies as evidence and we take from it the part in question.

Apparently because you did not read your own link and so did not realize it was about the length of day, not the chronology of the sequence.

see above

Tell him to be sure to cite the person he is quoting and the publication in which the statement appears.

to what purpose? No matter what is said, you bias will remove it from discussion without evidence sufficient to do so.

Why would you reference your husband? You said he studied Hebrew, but you didn't say he was an expert and recognized grammarian. I know a lot of people who studied Hebrew, but they wouldn't claim to be experts in the grammar of the bible.

you insisted on a non yecists view, I knew him to be one who studied ancient hebrew with some of the best scholars in the nation. I asked him to varify or falsify the sites presented. He varified that both are true as discussed by his professors that are neither yecists, nor causual scholars of ancient hebrew.

The Adam and Eve story. It is different from the opening story and differs from it in several ways--including the topic of rain and the order in which things were created.

every time you seem to be talking to someone else I am going to use this smilie.

From first creation account:
Gen. 1: 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28 Water (sea) is mentioned many times, but not rain. Of course, this does not mean there was no rain. The text doesn't say it rained, but it doesn't say it did not rain either. The writer may have considered that an unimportant detail.

From second creation account:
Gen. 2:5, 6, 10-14.

Again the only water mentioned is the mist that rose from the ground and watered the earth (v. 6) and the rivers of Eden (vv. 10-14) But unlike the first story which does not mention rain at all, this one says specifically that it had not rained yet (v. 5) and that this is one of two reasons why plants had not been created yet. (The other being that "there was no man to till the earth.") To remedy the first problem, God has the mist ascend from the earth to water the ground. To remedy the second problem, God creates a man. Then he plants the garden with its rivers and sets the man in it "to till it and keep it" (v. 15)

The question of rain and plants is dealt with differently in the two stories and that is why I concluded that we cannot speak absolutely about rain in the beginning.

[/quote]

Not inconclusive evidence. If the radiometric dating did not definitely conclude that the rocks are old, young-earthers would not need step 2. They need step two because step one (the dates determined by radiometry) are conclusive. No one, not even a young-earther, claims you can get any other dates from the radiometric tests. So this is conclusive and is the basis for all the rest of the steps. Without step one, you don't even have a controversy. [/quote]

Not missed in the general conversation, agreed. Just in the last post where you said the appearance of age was due to cooling down. It is actually due to radiometry and other measures of the age of the rocks.

[/quote]

That is jumping ahead to step 6. Here we are on step three. Don't worry. We get there. Just not yet. One step at a time. [/quote][/quote]

Again, jumping ahead to step 6 while we are actually on step four. Take time to consider each step as we get to it instead of jumping ahead. [/quote] I'm out of smilie use, consider another smilie of confusion as to who you are addressing here.

Which, in the case of the rocks and the fossils they contain, you have not done. What difference does it make to supporting life if a rock is 4 billion, 4 million or 40 thousand years old? If the purpose is to support life, the rocks do not have to appear anywhere near as old as they do.

the difference is that if the rock is 40 thousand years old it fits within the young earth definition and thus is no problem at all.

Again, jumping ahead. The point to be made here is that if left to nature, the heat takes time to dissipate---lots of time, old earth time, not young earth time.

Now we are ready to introduce step six. Ta da!

I still have absolutely no idea what your point is in relation to my point. It really is as if you are talking to someone else. Before you jump ahead in points, why not go back and deal with the argument I made, this isn't a lecture hall where you can pick and choose the topics and arguments, but rather a discussion board in which you need to follow the arguments and thoughts put forth.

Of course not. That is the point of a miracle. It has no natural explanation.
And because it has no natural explanation, it is not science. You cannot build a scientific theory on what is not science.

confused smilie again, go back and reread my post and see if it is any clearer to you. Or stop pretending that I am saying something I am not and deal with the point being made, your choice.

Exactly. That is what allows for equivocation of meaning. But ducking out of a conclusion by equivocating the meaning is really an admission that your opponent was right. You can only get around the conclusion by changing the meaning of a key term.

didn't change anything but did delete a lot of your post because it didn't deal with the argument that was actually made. You might have misinterpreted that, but since I directly stated I would be doing so, seems like another of your false accusations.

Oh, yes, science does give us an absolute on the age of the earth: 4.5 billion years give or take a few hundred million.

we have been dealing with this some time now and the only evidence you provided to support your claim is that it is stated as such. Contrast that with the evidence I presented, an article that talks about it, a discussion showing that varibles need to be addressed and sited references that the variables to exist. And math problems that show the absurdaty of assuming that the data is anywhere close to accurate. Oh, let's be fair, you did provide an analogy that fell apart before your eyes.

That would depend on where it entered the universe. Light that entered the universe near the current position of the sun would reach earth in about 8 minutes. Light that entered the universe near the current position of Alpha Centauris would reach earth in about 4 years. Light that entered the universe on the far side of the Milky Way galaxy would reach earth in not less than 100,000 years and light that entered the universe in a distant galaxy would take millions to billions of years to reach earth, depending on how far away the galaxy was.

another confused smilie should go here. If God is the light source, and God is eternal, then we would see light for eternity. What does any of the above evidence or falsify in that claim? How does it even relate to the claim being made?

 

[razzelflabben]

Hi, razzle's hubby

Dr. Baker's CV is very impressive and he looks to be the sort of expert I have been looking for. I would be particularly interested to know if he has discussed the 'yom used with a number' rule in the dictionaries he has contributed to such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary or the New International Dictionary on Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.

Let me explain my interest. I was introduced to literature defending young earth creationism in my early teens and have been reading it off and on for 40 years now. So I am quite familiar with trends in creationist thinking.

But I only began to see YEC defended with this particular grammar rule in the last 3 years. And so far, I have only found mention of it in material published by YEC supporters. Both the recent appearance of the argument, and its apparent restriction to a school of thought clearly benefitted by the exegesis are grounds for skepticism.

That is why I look for something on the 'yom used with a number' rule from a source I can trust to be more objective.




For me the question of chronology is not overly problematic. The larger question is one of historicity. From a literary perspective any narrative is going to have a chronology. That doesn't make the narrative a literal history.



I quite agree.



Well all theism, including theistic evolution, implies Designer and design. The question is not whether there is design, but where one sees it.



I wouldn't expect it to. That's why I also have one on biblical Hebrew.


Thanks for the references.

As to the grammar I do not have the time now to do a careful analysis for you. As for whether the form used in Genesis 1 we must be careful to dismiss the literal nature of the text to focus on the literary form. It seems that the author (possibly Moses) intends this passage to be both literal and literary. That being said I am not sure I would characterize this as a literal "history". It can be characterized more accurately as didactic rather than historical. I hope this explains a little better where some of the scholarly study on this passage seems to be going.

razzle's hubby

 

[laptoppop]

It can be characterized more accurately as didactic rather than historical. I hope this explains a little better where some of the scholarly study on this passage seems to be going.

razzle's hubby

I do want to point out that there are two main schools of study on this passage. For lack of a better term, liberal and conservative schools. In the "liberal" school, higher criticism, multiple authors, Genesis as mythology limited to the author's understanding. In the "conservative school" refutation of higher criticism, primarily mosaic authorship, Genesis as historical account with inspiration/knowledge beyond the author's knowledge and worldview. Both schools of thought have many scholars in their camp -- both are developing -- we should be aware of both and seek the Truth of God.

 

[gluadys]

As to the grammar I do not have the time now to do a careful analysis for you. As for whether the form used in Genesis 1 we must be careful to dismiss the literal nature of the text to focus on the literary form. It seems that the author (possibly Moses) intends this passage to be both literal and literary. That being said I am not sure I would characterize this as a literal "history". It can be characterized more accurately as didactic rather than historical. I hope this explains a little better where some of the scholarly study on this passage seems to be going.

razzle's hubby

I don't need an analysis. I am already familiar with that. What I really want to know is if Dr. Baker has discussed it in any of his published work.

Yes, I do understand what you are saying about the passage being didactic rather than historical. That is the way I view it too.

Thanks again.

 

[gluadys]

I am going to try and cover some themes rather than take items as they come up. Hopefully it will cut down on repetition and confusion.

First some short items.

From the beginning of this discussion I asserted that this was a devil's advocate argument.

Today I am discussing a topic in which I stated clearly several times that this is a devils advocate argument.

Yes, I know you are not really a YEC. Sorry if you thought I had forgotten. But a good devil's advocate for an young-earth position (appearance of age) still defends it as if they believed it, and the opponent's arguments are the same whether the devil's advocate really believes it or not.

Who knows? Maybe I will convince you that a young earth position is not worth defending even as a devil's advocate. At least, I'm giving you good ammunition for the day you choose to take a devil's advocate old-earth position in a conversation with a YEC.

You need to review our discussion on history.

Our discussions on history Don't you mean your assertions on history? I am disagreeing with your assertions that history is unknowable. We do not need to directly observe history to figure out what happened in history. The Tiktaalik fossil is evidence of that.

For example, if I want to evidence that shakespears work says, "to be or not to be" I don't need to just cut and paste the quote, the entire work qualifies as evidence and we take from it the part in question.

You would put up all of Hamlet to provide "evidence" of half a line? There is such a thing as providing too much context you know.

In fact, in another play (Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 1) he speaks of a character who talks a lot without saying much. Discovering his reasons, he says,
" are as two
grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff: you
shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you
have them, they are not worth the search."

In this case, however, I have seen too little not too much. I told you I could not open the document. All I have seen is the title. So if there is another topic covered in the article that you wanted me to see, you will have to cut and paste that part for me to see it and respond to it.

Just that part, though, please, not the whole article. I don't like playing guessing games about what to look for.

you insisted on a non yecists view

Not just any non-yecist view. One who is also an expert in biblical Hebrew grammar.

Your husband pointed to one of his professors, Dr. Baker, and he seems to qualify quite nicely. So all I need now is a reference to this rule in one of Dr. Baker's publications.

every time you seem to be talking to someone else I am going to use this smilie.

How is it seeming to talk to someone else? It is a direct answer to your question.
You asked about rain in the beginning.
In discussing rain in the beginning, I referred to "the second creation story".
You asked what story was I referring to by "second creation story".
I answered "The Adam and Eve story"

Had you forgotten that you asked the question?

another confused smilie should go here. If God is the light source, and God is eternal, then we would see light for eternity. What does any of the above evidence or falsify in that claim? How does it even relate to the claim being made?

Oh, indeed we will see God's eternal light for eternity, when we are in eternity. Look at the description of the heavenly Jerusalem from Revelation 21:23

And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God is its light and its lamp is the Lamb."

That heavenly city has no need of sun or moon.

But here and now we do need sun and moon. We do not see God's eternal light here and now. Not as we will see it.

The light we see may have its source in eternity, but it has come into a universe of time. (Maybe stars are the places where God's eternal light enters time???) And in time, that light travels at light speed, not instantaneously.

So when it will get to earth depends on where it entered the time-bound universe and how long it will take to travel to earth from there.

Or stop pretending that I am saying something I am not and deal with the point being made, your choice.

It would help when you feel I have not addressed a point that you restate the point that needs to be addressed. Sometimes I have forgotten or not understood the point that is important to you. Restating the point will help get me back on track.






Now onto some major items.
First, two definitional questions: 1. age vs. appearance of age and 2. error vs. margin of error.
We can then apply both of these to the age of the earth.

Finally, what seems to be the most important difference between us: the question of variables and their impact on accuracy, whether for a biased scientist or anyone else.



age vs. appearance of age

I have 1. shown that the age is inconclusive thus inadmissable as evidence of appearance of age.

This is backwards about. In any discussion of appearance of age we have two and only two possibilities.

Possibility 1. X looks old because it is old.
Possibility 2. X is not really old, but looks old because ........(fill in reason).

Both agree that X looks old. Where they disagree is on why X looks old.

Case one:
You see a man on the street who is walking slowly, with a cane, has white hair and a wrinkled face. You estimate he must be about 80 years old. He looks about 80 years old.

Possibility 1: He looks about 80 years old because he really is about 80 years old.
Possibility 2. He is not really 80 years old. He looks like it because he is an actor made up to look old. (This is not the only possible reason. He could also have aged prematurely due to illness or a severe trauma.)

Note that both possibilities agree that he appears to be about 80 years old. They don't disagree about the appearance of age. They disagree on the actual age. The second tries to explain why he appears old when he is not really old.

Case two:
We see light from stars in a galaxy we know is a billion light-years away from earth. We know that it takes light a billion years to travel that distance. It looks like the light and the galaxy it comes from are a billion years old.

Possibility 1: The light and galaxy appear to be a billion years old because they are a billion years old.
Possibility 2: They are not really a billion years old. They look like it because we are assuming the light is coming from the galaxy when it is really coming from a different source. (Again this is not the only possible reason. Another common suggestion is that light once travelled faster than it does now.)

Again, both possibilities agree that using current data, the light appears to be a billion years old. There is no disagreement about the appearance of age. The disagreement is about the real age. The second possibility tries to explain why the light is not a billion years old even though it appears as if it is.

Case three: we have an impact crater or a lava flow or a dinosaur fossil and geological and radiometric dating methods say they are 65 to 65 1/2 million years old. According to our most accurate dating methods they appear to be old.

Possibility 1. They appear to be 65 million years old because they are 65 million years old.
Possibility 2. They are not really 65 million years old. They seem to be because our dating methods are not really as accurate as we think. (Again there could be other explanations, such as that radioactive decay used to occur more rapidly.)

Again, the disagreement is about the real age, not the appearance of age. Showing that the real age is not conclusively established leads toward accepting possibility 2 instead of possibility 1. But even possibility 2 agrees with the appearance of age. Questioning the real age does not take away the appearance of age. It offers a different explanation for the appearance of age.

The dating is legitmate evidence of the appearance of age. The dating is the reason why YECs try to come up with alternate ways to interpret this evidence. They suggest the dating may not be conclusive as to the real age, because there is controversy about the dating methods. But they do not question that the methods as currently used do give the appearance of age.

error vs. margin of error

I have demonstrated to you that accounting for these variables would result in a staggering number that would be known as the margin of error.

This number would produce a staggering margin or error.

it will only be off 1/4 inch if we are measuring 1 yard. If we are measureing 2 yards, it will be off 1/2 inch. ready to show you math skill, I'll make it an easy math question for you. If we use that yardstick that is off by 1/4 inch to measure something that is 1 billion yards long, how far off will we be?

To answer the last question first, it would be 7 million yards. (I am not the math genius. My Excel program is. So you can check all my figures on your own spreadsheet or give them to someone who knows math to confirm them.)

But I see where the confusion is coming. You are equating "margin of error" with the actual size of the error. So in the yardstick example you are thinking that when we measure 1 yard with our short yardstick the margin of error is 1/4 inch, when we measure 2 yards the margin of error is 1/2 inch and when we measure 1 billion yards, the margin of error is 7 million yards.

This is incorrect. A margin of error is not a particular number that grows and grows and grows the longer the distance. A margin of error is a ratio. In this case, the margin of error is not 1/4 inch. It is 1/4 inch per yard. And this ratio does not change however large the distance.

From this constant margin of error we can easily calculate how far off the true measure any figure will be that we get with the short yardstick. And that number (the error) will grow and grow and grow. But the ratio (the margin of error) is still the same size all the way through. 1/2 inch in 2 yards is still 1/4 inch per yard. One inch in 4 yards is still 1/4 inch per yard. One yard in 144 yards is still 1/4 inch per yard. And 7 million yards in one billion yards is still 1/4 inch per yard.

The error has become huge, but the margin of error is still small. And it is not incalculable. Nor is it inaccurate.


We can learn a lot from a margin of error. See next post.

 

[gluadys]

Using a margin of error.
One use of a margin of error is to tell us what the limit is on any actual error.

Take our short yardstick again. We know that it is 1/4 inch too short. This gives us a margin of error of 1/4 inch per yard. We can also express this as a percentage. 1/4 inch per yard = 0.7%.

To get the actual error we multiply the number of "yards" (I will use quotation marks to indicate the short yards of the short yardstick as opposed to the 36" of a real yard) by the margin of error. So the error on 2 yards = 2*1/4 inch = 1/2 inch. On 4 yards it is 4*1/4 inch = 1 inch. On 144 yards it is 144*1/4 inch= 36 inches = 1 yard.

If we wish to get the true measure, we subtract the error from the number of "yards" measured. 1 "yard" = 36 inches-1/4 inch = 35 3/4 inches. 2 "yards" = 72 inches - 1/2 inch = 71 1/2 inches. 4 "yards" = 144 inches - 1inch = 143 inches.

What is the real distance we get when we have measured a billion "yards"? 1 billion - 7 million = 993 million yards.

So the margin of error is not a problem for accuracy. It tells us how accurate we are.

Margin of error and time
Can we use the same technique with time? Yes. Let's take a yard as representing a year. So instead of 36 inches it represents 365 days (actually 365 1/4 days). We can call this a "yearstick". But our "yearstick" like our yardstick is short by "1/4 inch". Only since it measures days instead of inches we need to know how many days it is missing.

No problem. When we turn our margin of error into a %, we can use it with days and years as well as inches and yards. 365 1/4 days* 0.7% = 2 1/2 days. So every time we measure a "year" with our yearstick, we are falling short by 2 1/2 days. And we can work out for any number of "years" how many days we are short, subtract them from our measured "years" and get the true measure of the time. If we measured a billion "years" we would be short by 7 million years and the true age of what we measured would be 993 million years.

Margin of error and age of the earth
If we know the measured age (or length) and the "true" age (or length) we can figure out an unknown margin of error. Let's try that with length first. We find an old yardstick with an end broken off. The numbers are so worn we can't determine how much was broken off. Can we find out? Yes, and here is how.

Measure "yards" with the broken yardstick. Say we get 12 "yards".
Measure the same distance with a good yardstick. Say we get 10 yards.
Now we have a margin of error for the broken stick of 2 "yards" per 12 "yards" or 1/6.
Apply this to a real yard and we can see that the short stick is 6 inches too short, or only 30 inches.
Confirm by seeing if you get the same measure when you multiply 12 * 30 as when you multiply 10 * 36

You can also see that the shorter the measuring stick the more "yards" we get for the same distance.

Now lets try the age of the earth. Science has a measured age for the earth of 4.5 billion years. A young earth would be less than a million years. If the earth is young, the scientific measuring stick must be too short. How much too short? Is it like 1/4 inch per yard (2.5 days per year)? Like 6 inches per yard (61 days per year)? Or even more?

We already know that 2.5 days per year is a margin of error of 0.7%. Multiply this by 4.5 billion "years" and we find an excess of 31.5 million years. That's a lot of extra time we've measured. So what is the true age of the earth if this is the margin of error. 4.5 billion - 31.5 million = 4.47 billion. Even with an error in the millions of years, the earth is still over 4 billion years old. Our margin of error has to be bigger. And that means our "yearstick" has to be shorter. A lot shorter. In fact if we have a "yearstick" only 20% of a true year's length (about 73 days) we get a true age for the earth of 900 million years. That is equivalent to having a "yardstick" that is really only 7 inches long. But we still have an earth 900 times too old for a YEC.

Let's up the margin of error drastically to 99.3%. This means that instead missing 2.5 days per "year" we are actually measuring only 2.5 days and calling it a "year". Instead of 1/4 inch missing from our "yardstick", 1/4 inch is all we have left. We have now cut the true age of the earth down from 4.5 billion to a measly 31.5 million years. And that is still old earth!!!

To get under a million years we need a "yearstick" that doesn't even measure a full day. In fact, it can measure no more than one hour and 45 minutes! And call that a "year". That is equivalent to "yardstick" that is only 1/128th of an inch long. That's too small to see without a good magnifying glass. You may as well say that the margin of error is 1 year (or yard) per year (or yard). It is so close to 100% that you can't really measure anything at all with it. (99.98%)

No one claims radiometric or any kind of scientific dating is perfect, but it is certainly a lot better than useless. And anything better than useless makes the earth at least millions of years old. Anything better than 20% accuracy makes it billions of years old.

The actual margin of error for the age of the earth is about 1%.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#constant

Do unknown variables cause a problem for accuracy?

I'll try to answer this generally first, then look at the special case of a biased scientist.

See, my claim has never been that the tests were this or that, all arguments you tried to make it sound like I said, and I corrected you time and time again, my claim is that the variables that exist are too great to allow a biased scientist to conclude accurately the age of the earth.

I demonstrated for you that the variables you want to disappear do exist in the scientific community.

It is all the pieces that aren't placed in the puzzle yet that give your argument problems.

What Jo didn't factor in was what he didn't know. that is the point, he calculated based on if's not absolutes.

I have never said I want the variables to disappear. I said they do not pose such a problem that we cannot have confidence in the accuracy of our results. I don't say the results are perfectly accurate, but that they are at least as accurate as claimed by the community of scientists. IOW, if the claim is that we have pegged the age of the earth within 1% accuracy, then the earth is very close to 4.5 billion years old.

Do we have that kind of accuracy for its impact (if any) on the extinction of the dinosaurs? No we don't. But I raised the crater as an example of appearance of age. And the appearance of age is still accurate even if the impact on dinosaur extinction is controversial.

If I understand your position correctly, the unknown variables, like puzzle pieces we haven't placed yet, pose problems to my argument---that we can have accuracy even with the variables.

As you say:

my claim is that the variables that exist are too great to allow a biased scientist to conclude accurately the age of the earth.

Let's examine this argument, starting with the math test analogy. Here we have a math test on which the teacher marked 6 correct answers, but we found there were actually 8 correct answers. That means we have two questions on which an error was made and we don't know what the correct answer is yet.

These are our two variables.

Tell me, when we have figured out the correct answers to these two questions, will we have to change any of the answers to the 8 questions that already have correct answers?

Absolutely not! Why would we change answers that are already correct?

The unknown variables in this analogy do not affect the already correct answers.

Take the puzzle analogy. We have some parts of the puzzle completed. We have other parts (maybe most) not done yet. As we work on these unknown variables, figuring out where they go, will we be constantly undoing the part we have already completed?

Again, no we won't. We have a lot to learn yet about dinosaur extinction and whether or not the Chicxulub meteor played a role. But none of what we learn there will have any effect on the age of the crater. Those unknown variables, whatever they turn out to be, do not affect the accuracy of the dating.

Let's go to Mo and Jo. You said:

What Jo didn't factor in was what he didn't know. that is the point, he calculated based on if's not absolutes.

It is true Jo did not factor in what he didn't know. But that means he did the opposite of what you stated. He excluded all the "ifs" and included only absolutes in his calculations: the size of the container, the size of its opening and the maximum rate of flow or drip into the container. All those are knowns. Everything else was an "if". Jo used only the absolutes known.

Do the "ifs" pose a problem to his calculations? No. First, if they never happened, (and most wouldn't) they have no effect. Second, suppose we had an equipment failure and missed 10 days while repairs were made. Well, the calendar date on which the container was filled would be postponed, but Jo's calculations would still be right. The actual time the drip was running would still be 115 days and 18 hours. If the equipment failure happened after 100 days, we would simply stop the timer until the repairs were made, and when it was turned on again, we would still get another 15 days and 18 hours.

I am sure you get the same sort of thing at work. Suppose someone wants you to make one of your wood quilts. Now I have no idea how long they take to make, so I am just pulling numbers out of a hat, and you may laugh because they are so ridiculous. That's ok. Just substitute reasonable numbers.

You say, it will take you 10 hours. It is 8 am when you say this. The customer comes back at 6 pm the same day expecting it to be finished. Well, it's not and you know why.

You have other orders you need to fill first, and you won't start on his until you have finished them. He thinks the time is finished, but you haven't even started the clock yet. And when you do begin his order, you don't work flat out for 10 hours straight. You have to take breaks to answer the phone, chauffeur the kids, make meals and hopefully get a good night's sleep. So it may actually be four or five days before his order is ready. But were you wrong about it taking 10 hours to do? Not at all. You just didn't have all the 10 hours in one block of time.

So the container filling project may run into several occasions when the project is suspended, yet Jo's calculations will still be correct.

In general we can say that unknown variables do not ever make an answer less accurate than it is now. When we learn more, we may be able to get a more accurate estimate than we can now, but that doesn't make the current answer less accurate than it is.

But what about the case where bias enters the picture?
Let's go back to the math test analogy.

What showed the teacher's bias? Was it marking the two wrong answers wrong? No.

It was refusing to mark two right answers right. The bias is not in how the variables were treated, but in how the absolutes were treated. When the grade was not corrected in spite of showing the teacher that two more answers were correct, the bias was shown in rejecting good answers, not in rejecting wrong answers.

Same with a puzzle. In the section not completed, there are lots of possibilities and lots of opinions on what will turn up. But that is not bias. Bias is when someone refuses to accept what has already been completed. When, for example, they try to put a piece of sky in a section of green grass. because they refuse to acknowledge the green grass pieces that are already there.

So this claim

my claim is that the variables that exist are too great to allow a biased scientist to conclude accurately the age of the earth.

is wrong. The biased scientist has enough information already to conclude accurately the age of the earth. If he gets the wrong answer, it is not because of unknown variables, but because he does not take into account what is known. That's what bias is.


A couple of loose ends:

the point is the variables include 1. destruction of life. 2. no destruction of life 3.destruction of partial life so any equasion would have to include all three options and all the variables that each includes in order to be an accurate portrayal of what we know.

Since #3 is "destruction of partial life" I assume #1 means "destruction of all life". In this case we know #1 did not happen. We also know #2 did not happen, since as you pointed out, at least the life directly under the meteor must have been destroyed when it hit. So we have only #3 left and do not need to include all three options, Only #3.

Also, although #3 presents many varied possibilities concerning the destruction of life, it does not affect the dating which gives the appearance of age.

I have shown... 3. that the environment created by the meteor changed the environment in ways we don't know which might or might not produce an environment that would have posponed the extinction of certain species or not.

No, you haven't. We know that the meteor had an effect on climate, and that it may have contributed to the extinction of many species as a result. But we have nothing that suggests it postponed the extinction of certain species.

so what if life was faltering, dieing off, and a change in the environment was needed in order for that life to survive. Thus instead of destroying life, it supported it. This is just one possible senerio of what could have happened that we don't have answers to. so far we have no evidence, only what people can imagine.

Exactly, everything you are proposing is "only what people can imagine". We cannot and do not account for imaginary "ifs" like "what if life was faltering?" Produce evidence that life really was faltering, then we can examine this "if" not before.

the difference is that if the rock is 40 thousand years old it fits within the young earth definition and thus is no problem at all.

Indeed it is not. The problem is why does it look so much older than 40,000 years when that is not necessary? As I said:

If the purpose is to support life, the rocks do not have to appear anywhere near as old as they do.

If 40,000 year old rocks can do the job of supporting life, why do they look 65 million years old.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes, I know you are not really a YEC.

Not necessarily. There are two directions a devil's advocate can go. 1. argue it as it he/she were of the same belief, or 2. argue it as if it were possible. I am arguing not as a yec but as if it were possible. But either way, for someone to play the devil's advocate only to be accused of not seeing the evidence because of person belief is a false accusation of which you should either 1. explain what you gain by making the false accusation, or 2. retract the accusation

Who knows? Maybe I will convince you that a young earth position is not worth defending even as a devil's advocate. At least, I'm giving you good ammunition for the day you choose to take a devil's advocate old-earth position in a conversation with a YEC.

actually, my old earth argument would be stronger than yours. See, here is the thing, if you learn to be objective enough to argue both sides, then you understand the arguments better and can argue around them based on the intent of the argument rather than the canned argument you need to make your case.

The perfect example here is the cooling down of the earth. If God created it cool, or cooled it down quickly, isn't really an issue, that God could make it appear to have taken a long time is an issue. Instead of understanding that argument, you twisted it to say that the cool down was an illusion and somehow we are all living on a hot earth. That argument of yours is so full of problems it doesn't even warrant a reply, especially when we are talking about the premis of yec ists. If you were able to look objectively at both sides, this type of mistake wouldn't happen making your actual arguments much stronger and appropriate to the discussion. Remember the light issue, I can dismiss that argument from the bible, in one clear swoop and though you have said it, you have never connected it because you think you can defeat it otherwise, of which you haven't even come close. Understanding both sides, makes the arguments more relevant and appropriate to the argument being made.

Our discussions on history Don't you mean your assertions on history?

see here is another example of forcing the argument to fit your pretaught answers. I never said we couldn't know what happened in history. Instead I said that history because of it's nature is revisionary and this is in large part due to the perspective nature of history. This is vastly different from saying it is unknowable. But you haven't been taught how to argue this argument about history have you? Think it through........think about it for it's own merit and the merit of those who study history for a living. Make your arguments relevant to the argument made, not invent new arguments and ask me to defend them.

You would put up all of Hamlet to provide "evidence" of half a line? There is such a thing as providing too much context you know.

If I didn't include the source, the text would be of no importance, thus enough of the post would have to include at the least context of the questioned quote. In the case we have been talking about, the referenced site was small enough to post the entire link. In fact, if I had not done this, you would only have come back now and complained about that so that you could again change the argument to one of length of day and not one of chronology. IOW's changing the topic or the argument, though favorite things for you to do, is unfair arguing and should be corrected. Only problem is, that to correct you every time you do one of these two things, makes this thread go on forever and never get anywhere because you refuse to own what is yours.

In this case, however, I have seen too little not too much. I told you I could not open the document. All I have seen is the title. So if there is another topic covered in the article that you wanted me to see, you will have to cut and paste that part for me to see it and respond to it.

you said that the article talked about the length of days in Gen. and therefore was assuming that I was intending to include that in my argument when I posted the reference to talk about chronology which is also discussed. So here is another correction that needs to be made, it was you would tried to change the topic and you said nothing about not being able to open the link and falsified any claim that you couldn't by telling us that the article included a discussion of length of day. so the long and short of it is that you caught yourself in your own lies. What other false accusations do you wish to make so that it appears that you have not convicted yourself?

Just that part, though, please, not the whole article. I don't like playing guessing games about what to look for.

gluady's it isn't even worthy of what you ask. We are discussing the idea of chronology of the text. When you read the article, focus your attention on the issue of chronology of the Gen. text instead of making things up as you go.

Your husband pointed to one of his professors, Dr. Baker, and he seems to qualify quite nicely

Myll I ne husband will simply not have time to do all that work for you, he is extremely busy and you were fortunate that he took the time with you that he did. I will tell you this, and you will probably go on for days about why this isn't sufficient, but I really don't care. What he told you in his post is pretty much straight forward what Dr. Baker taught him in class. He and I have talked about it at length and though I had forgotten the professors name, I did not forget the discussion and we had and what my hubby told me of the lessons of the man.

Now, let me ask you a question. When I told you (in anticipation of my husbands reply) the type of people that taught my husband, did you excuse it by saying, just what I thought, only to come here later after his response that supported my comments and change your tune? What do you gain from making false assumptions before evidence can be presented to support it. False assumptions are quite different from speculations or skeptasism, and this one puts out the idea that I would lie to you, when in fact, I am known to be honest, in fact, once, I was reputationed for being too honest. Yet you have repeatedly made posts that presented an image of someone that was not believable, what do you gain from this kind of deception?

How is it seeming to talk to someone else? It is a direct answer to your question.
You asked about rain in the beginning.
In discussing rain in the beginning, I referred to "the second creation story".
You asked what story was I referring to by "second creation story".
I answered "The Adam and Eve story"

sorry, I didn't find your answer very clear. Now, please explain to me how the story of Adam and Eve is a creation story. Much less the second creation story. The story of Adam and Eve is more a story of destruction that creation. I need to understand what your premis is before I can discuss this topic fairly.

Had you forgotten that you asked the question?

no, nor did I forget that I asked you what other creation story, or why you gain from making false claims. I just assumed this was another of those gluady's won't answer questions because she can't win. If that isn't the case, I appologize, please, go on....

But here and now we do need sun and moon. We do not see God's eternal light here and now. Not as we will see it.

Now I agree, we will not see it as we will see it, but how do we know we don't see it at all? Throughout the bible, people saw the "light" of God. and if we don't know the origin of the light we are seeing, then how can we declare it isn't from God Himself? (you really are making this harder than it really is)

The light we see may have its source in eternity, but it has come into a universe of time. (Maybe stars are the places where God's eternal light enters time???) And in time, that light travels at light speed, not instantaneously.

YOu come right to the edge then go backwards on this issue.

If the source of light is eternal, then it would be reasonable to assume that we could calculate it's existance at billions of years. What we need to identify is what the source of the light we are measuring really is.

So when it will get to earth depends on where it entered the time-bound universe and how long it will take to travel to earth from there.

exactly, and as I hope you know by now, things are not always what they appear to be. Therefore, the assumption of it's source is not conclusive evidence.

First, two definitional questions: 1. age vs. appearance of age and 2. error vs. margin of error.
We can then apply both of these to the age of the earth.

what?

Finally, what seems to be the most important difference between us: the question of variables and their impact on accuracy, whether for a biased scientist or anyone else.

age vs. appearance of age

Possibility 1. X looks old because it is old.
Possibility 2. X is not really old, but looks old because ........(fill in reason).

Both agree that X looks old. Where they disagree is on why X looks old.

They can also disagree about why it looks old. Take my husbands grandmother, the last time we saw her, I said to my husband, she is starting to really look old. I based this on several things, weight loss, bending over, wrinkles, etc. My husband on the other hand said, she looks really good. Now two things prompted this disagreement, one is the perspective. My husbands perspective was one of comparison to her actual age. In other words, she looks really good for her age. Whereas my perspective did not allow this qualifier. The second difference was that he was looking at different qualifiers, like she still drives, walks without cane or walker, etc. So both would be accurate given the right criteria. Now apply this to this discussion, the earth looks old. That doesn't mean that I have to accept all the things you see that make it look old, I can look for my own criteria. In this discussion, I choose to only look at the things that have sufficient evidence to classify them as appearing old. Nothing more nothing less. You choose to include anything that can make your point. Two different perspectives, but then again, we discussed this in the whole idea of history.

Case one

Case two:

both of these have been addressed above. If we are trying to shorten things, I will let you apply the above to your arguments here.

Again, the disagreement is about the real age, not the appearance of age. Showing that the real age is not conclusively established leads toward accepting possibility 2 instead of possibility 1. But even possibility 2 agrees with the appearance of age. Questioning the real age does not take away the appearance of age. It offers a different explanation for the appearance of age.

So again you miss the point and twist the argument. Remember when I said to you, if something doesn't fit the argument or discussion, you should show how it doesn't rather than discuss it and days and weeks later dismiss it. All I am saying to you in this situation, is that the evidence is inconclusive enough to remove it from discussion of the age of the earth. I am not discussing it's appearance of age because doing so would be like discussing if my husbands clothes made her look old. Clothing is not what makes a person appear old, wrinkles and posture and color and such makes a person appear old.

The dating is legitmate evidence of the appearance of age. The dating is the reason why YECs try to come up with alternate ways to interpret this evidence. They suggest the dating may not be conclusive as to the real age, because there is controversy about the dating methods. But they do not question that the methods as currently used do give the appearance of age.

I am not saying the methods are not as accurate as we have available to us. where are you getting this idea? What I am saying is that the limitations and variables are of such great number as to make the conclusions less accurate than they are proclaimed to be. This idea is evidenced not only by the numbers, but also by the bias in science. Both of which you have been shown at length. Now even if you don't agree, you have not shown reason to dismiss the arguments and therefore, you cannot use this as actual evidence for appearance of age. The only way you could do so is 1. if we both agreed that the age was valid (which we don't) or 2. if you could falsify my claims as to why it isn't valid (which you can't) Thus it remains outside our discussion based on the lack of conclusive evidence.

error vs. margin of error

This is incorrect.

exactly what I said, but thanks for the lecture.

From this constant margin of error we can easily calculate how far off the true measure any figure will be that we get with the short yardstick. And that number (the error) will grow and grow and grow. But the ratio (the margin of error) is still the same size all the way through. 1/2 inch in 2 yards is still 1/4 inch per yard. One inch in 4 yards is still 1/4 inch per yard. One yard in 144 yards is still 1/4 inch per yard. And 7 million yards in one billion yards is still 1/4 inch per yard.

that analogy only works if we know what that ratio is, but in the case of aging the earth, we don't know. That is the point of the analogy I gave you. (and remember I changed it just so you could get your lecture in and stated so at the time) In the case of aging the earth, we have two margins of error to evaluate, 1. the problems or limitations as it were of the methods used. the ratio. 2. the other is the variables. The things we assume or don't know and are still searching answers on. Both have been shown to you and discussed in detail so again you have two options in this discussion. 1. dismiss them as evidence of age due to the lack of conclusive evidence or 2. show how the margin of errors are being calculated of which you have not nor can you do.

 

[razzelflabben]

Using a margin of error.

So the margin of error is not a problem for accuracy. It tells us how accurate we are.

apparently it is a problem for you to understand what is being discussed.

Margin of error and age of the earth
If we know the measured age (or length) and the "true" age (or length) we can figure out an unknown margin of error. Let's try that with length first. We find an old yardstick with an end broken off. The numbers are so worn we can't determine how much was broken off. Can we find out? Yes, and here is how.

and you have just evidenced why I said that I was twisting the analogy in hopes that you could begin to understand some of what was being said, because, here you are totally missing the point and lecureing me on what I have been telling you. Not hearing the problems, only twisting the arguments so that you can argue it according to what you have been taught.

No one claims radiometric or any kind of scientific dating is perfect, but it is certainly a lot better than useless. And anything better than useless makes the earth at least millions of years old. Anything better than 20% accuracy makes it billions of years old.

I didn't say it was useless, in fact, I directly said the opposite. And if you remember I did not limit the errors to limitations of the tests, but included variables. What you did, was lecture for two posts about how the limitations are dealt with but ignored the combination of limitations and variables. In fact, you insist that there are no variables of which I showed scientific papers that showed there were. It is the combination of the limitations and variables that create the problem, an idea that is consistant with my claims all the way through this thread. But get your lecture out of your system then we will tackle the real issues.

The actual margin of error for the age of the earth is about 1%.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#constant

can I dismiss this as evidence because it has an evolutionist agenda? That is what you do with evidence for creation? NA, I'll take the high road and allow all evidence then look at the evidence for conclusiveness not individual beliefs as conclusiveness. Thanks for showing us what bias in science is all about however.

Do unknown variables cause a problem for accuracy?

If I understand your position correctly, the unknown variables, like puzzle pieces we haven't placed yet, pose problems to my argument---that we can have accuracy even with the variables.

let's look at it like a puzzle, we have a billion piece puzzle, we want to put it together, so we fit two pieces of the puzzle together. that leaves us with 999,999,998 pieces that we have to choose from to find the next piece. If we dropped a couple, we might only have 999 million to choose from. Until we narrow these down to what we know, such as the color or general shape, the number is still daunting. But what if the color and shape, reduce us to only 998 million possibles. Is the number of choices still daunting? yes. This is the analogy part of variables. You only want to look at the limitations, you have to look at both.

Tell me, when we have figured out the correct answers to these two questions, will we have to change any of the answers to the 8 questions that already have correct answers?

If the biased teacher refuses to accept the answers are correct, it doesn't matter. That is the point.

Absolutely not! Why would we change answers that are already correct?

Take the puzzle analogy. We have some parts of the puzzle completed. We have other parts (maybe most) not done yet. As we work on these unknown variables, figuring out where they go, will we be constantly undoing the part we have already completed?

if it was wrong.

It is true Jo did not factor in what he didn't know. But that means he did the opposite of what you stated. He excluded all the "ifs" and included only absolutes in his calculations: the size of the container, the size of its opening and the maximum rate of flow or drip into the container. All those are knowns. Everything else was an "if". Jo used only the absolutes known.

the if's make his calculations less than accurate which is what I have been saying. His calculations are only accurate if no variables are introduced. In life, variables happen.

Do the "ifs" pose a problem to his calculations? No. First, if they never happened, (and most wouldn't) they have no effect. Second, suppose we had an equipment failure and missed 10 days while repairs were made. Well, the calendar date on which the container was filled would be postponed, but Jo's calculations would still be right. The actual time the drip was running would still be 115 days and 18 hours. If the equipment failure happened after 100 days, we would simply stop the timer until the repairs were made, and when it was turned on again, we would still get another 15 days and 18 hours.

can't do that with a calculation. You can only stop the clock on the actual measure. But you can't understand simple variables, I guess my kids are math geniuses. I know they aren't but I also know you to be smarter than this, and so I am left with one of two possibles 1. you are just trying to be difficult to make a point or 2. you really don't understand the elementary parts of variables and how they affect the outcomes.

You have other orders you need to fill first, and you won't start on his until you have finished them. He thinks the time is finished, but you haven't even started the clock yet. And when you do begin his order, you don't work flat out for 10 hours straight. You have to take breaks to answer the phone, chauffeur the kids, make meals and hopefully get a good night's sleep. So it may actually be four or five days before his order is ready. But were you wrong about it taking 10 hours to do? Not at all. You just didn't have all the 10 hours in one block of time.

nor do I tell him it will be ready in 10 hours. This is how your analogy translates into my argument. The biased scientists say it will take 10 hours. The unbiased scientist says, it will be ready in a week.

It was refusing to mark two right answers right. The bias is not in how the variables were treated, but in how the absolutes were treated. When the grade was not corrected in spite of showing the teacher that two more answers were correct, the bias was shown in rejecting good answers, not in rejecting wrong answers.

But that bias will not be known, because the grade is what is viewed and does not change to account for the false assumptions.

Same with a puzzle. In the section not completed, there are lots of possibilities and lots of opinions on what will turn up. But that is not bias. Bias is when someone refuses to accept what has already been completed. When, for example, they try to put a piece of sky in a section of green grass. because they refuse to acknowledge the green grass pieces that are already there.

bias is also not accepting that a section is not yet complete. The wood quilts we make are very much like a puzzle. What happens if I pretend all the pieces are in place when they are not. That insistance that it is a finished work when it isn't is also bias. To claim that we are accurate when we are not is as much bias as trying to put a green grass piece where the sky goes. Take our wood quilts, there are three things that will make a piece flawed and need to be sold as a second or destroyed. 1. finishes, if the finishes are too mared for some reason. 2. a piece out of place, or 3. a missing piece. Now the first is usually easy to fix and is no big deal, just finish it. The second may not even be noticed, we had one piece that was flawed like this and asked everyone at a show to find the flaw, I would knock off 75% of anyone who could find it. Only one person found the flaw. The third is more obvious but still creates a problem. So what we see in the analogy of the puzzle is that bias can occur through a couple of different avenues and not all are easily detectable to the untrained eye, but exist none the less.

is wrong. The biased scientist has enough information already to conclude accurately the age of the earth. If he gets the wrong answer, it is not because of unknown variables, but because he does not take into account what is known. That's what bias is.

if he knows that we don't know but claims we do know, he is still refusing to deal with the unknown variables, because, what we don't know is known to him.

Since #3 is "destruction of partial life" I assume #1 means "destruction of all life". In this case we know #1 did not happen. We also know #2 did not happen, since as you pointed out, at least the life directly under the meteor must have been destroyed when it hit. So we have only #3 left and do not need to include all three options, Only #3.

okay try this, 1. destruction of 2/3's of all species 2. destruction of species in the immediate vacinity or 3. did not lead to the destruction of any species.

Exactly, everything you are proposing is "only what people can imagine". We cannot and do not account for imaginary "ifs" like "what if life was faltering?" Produce evidence that life really was faltering, then we can examine this "if" not before.

you don't know how science works do you? Science is about imaginary if's until or unless they are evidenced to be accurate or falsified. Questions are all based on if's.

Indeed it is not. The problem is why does it look so much older than 40,000 years when that is not necessary? As I said:

If 40,000 year old rocks can do the job of supporting life, why do they look 65 million years old.

You included a 40,000 year old rock in your analogy and I was simply pointing out to you that that 40,000 year old rock was no problem for the definition of yec. Seems you still don't have your head wrapped around the concept that yec doesn't limit us to 7,000 years. You might want to start there in trying to unravel some of the mysteries of our world.

 

[gluadys]

I am arguing not as a yec but as if it were possible.

That's fine. Then my arguments are designed to show that it is not possible.

But either way, for someone to play the devil's advocate only to be accused of not seeing the evidence because of person belief is a false accusation of which you should either 1. explain what you gain by making the false accusation, or 2. retract the accusation

Generally I try to speak directly to an argument and not make personal accusations. Can you show me where you believe I made such an accusation?

The perfect example here is the cooling down of the earth. If God created it cool, or cooled it down quickly, isn't really an issue, that God could make it appear to have taken a long time is an issue.

Then the question becomes, did he allow it to cool naturally or did he take steps outside of scientific possibility to make it cool down quickly?

Instead of understanding that argument, you twisted it to say that the cool down was an illusion and somehow we are all living on a hot earth.

I think you did not understand what I was saying. Of course we are not living on a hot earth. But if God 1) allowed radio-active decay to occur rapidly and thus heat up the earth and 2) then allowed the heat to dissipate naturally, then the earth has to be old enough to allow the earth to cool down. It could not be a young earth.

If God 1) allowed radio-active decay to occur rapidly and thus heat up the earth and 2) then made it cool down quickly in some way not scientifically possible, we could have a young earth.

But if it still looked like the cooling down took a long time even though it didn't, of course, that would be an illusion. It doesn't look like what really happened. Isn't that what an illusion is? Or do you understand the word "illusion" differently?

Instead I said that history because of it's nature is revisionary and this is in large part due to the perspective nature of history.

You will have to explain in more detail what you mean then. The only time I have heard of "revisionary history" is in relation to people who deny the Second World War Holocaust ever happened. So to me "revisionary" means closing your eyes to what really happened and pretending that it didn't.

I assume that is not what you mean.

This is vastly different from saying it is unknowable.

I am glad to hear that.

When you explain more about what you mean by "revisionary" as applied to history, I can understand better why my responses were irrelevant and what would be relevant.

If I didn't include the source, the text would be of no importance, thus enough of the post would have to include at the least context of the questioned quote.

Of course, but the whole play is not necessary. Not even the whole soliloquy. A few lines and the Act, Scene and Line Number is enough.

you said that the article talked about the length of days in Gen. and therefore was assuming that I was intending to include that in my argument when I posted the reference to talk about chronology which is also discussed.

I knew it was about length of day from the title (which was in the link). I didn't see the reference to chronology because I was not able to download the article and read it all. I have only seen the title.

When you read the article, focus your attention on the issue of chronology of the Gen. text

I can't read the article. My computer refuses to open it. (I have tried several times.) So can you cut and paste the relevant section for me?

Myll I ne husband will simply not have time to do all that work for you, he is extremely busy and you were fortunate that he took the time with you that he did.

It would only take about 20 minutes if he has the references handy. They are both dictionaries and would only require looking up 'yom' (day) in each. Of course, if he doesn't have the references handy, that would be a problem. I just thought he might have the books in his study. If he doesn't I can make a trip to the university and check them out myself at the library. I wouldn't expect him to do that for me.

When I told you (in anticipation of my husbands reply) the type of people that taught my husband, did you excuse it by saying, just what I thought, only to come here later after his response that supported my comments and change your tune?

No, the problem goes back to my not being able to open that article you linked to. He understood from you that the question was about chronology while my question was really about an argument on the length of day being supported by biblical grammar. So he didn't really touch on my question at all. But he did give me a good reference in Dr. Baker who appears to have the expertise in biblical grammar I was looking for.

sorry, I didn't find your answer very clear. Now, please explain to me how the story of Adam and Eve is a creation story. Much less the second creation story. The story of Adam and Eve is more a story of destruction that creation.

Yes, it is a creation story. It begins in Gen. 2:4b-5a with the words "In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up.....

It continues with the creation of man in v. 7 "then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living soul.

Then we have the creation of plants in v. 8 "and the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east..."

Then animals in v. 19 "so out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air"

and finally woman v. 22 "and the rib the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman..."

In chapter 3 we get the story of the fall and it is a continuation of this same story, but as you see it begins with creation.

It is ironic calling it the "second creation story". It is actually an older story than the account in Gen. 1. and was originally written down earlier. But when the Torah was eventually pieced together from various earlier sources, the editor placed it after the other account, so it is generally referred to as the "second" creation account.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html

Now I agree, we will not see it as we will see it, but how do we know we don't see it at all?

We don't. I did suggest earlier that except where it is made visible in stars we "see" it as the electromagnetic spectrum that includes infra-red and ultraviolet light, radio waves, microwaves, cosmic rays, etc. All of these are invisible to our eyes though we can detect them by other means. That is only speculation of course.

Do you have another suggestion as to how we might see it and be able to differentiate it from starlight?

Throughout the bible, people saw the "light" of God. and if we don't know the origin of the light we are seeing, then how can we declare it isn't from God Himself?

Yes, they did see it episodically. Not continuously. But surely the Light of God is as continuous as God Himself. So the reason we do not ordinarily see it has to do with our created nature, no?

I don't think I ever said we could declare that the light we see is not from God. In fact, I am even saying starlight comes from God ultimately. What I am saying is that in the time-bound universe, even God's Light travels through space at light speed.

If the source of light is eternal, then it would be reasonable to assume that we could calculate it's existance at billions of years.

Isn't that what I said? Yes, we can and do calculate the existence of light at billions of years. So the light has been billions of years in our universe. So our universe is billions of years old.

What we need to identify is what the source of the light we are measuring really is. exactly, and as I hope you know by now, things are not always what they appear to be. Therefore, the assumption of it's source is not conclusive evidence.

I am not sure why identifying the source is all that important. Perhaps the light we see is a blend of starlight and eternal light. In either case, since it measures out as billions of years old, the universe must be billions of years old.

I'm sure you have another perspective, but I'm stumped as to how you can come to a different conclusion.

They can also disagree about why it looks old.

Isn't that what I just said?

Where they disagree is on why X looks old.

So both would be accurate given the right criteria.

But both of you agreed on her age and neither of you thought she looked young. Your husband was saying she looked good "for her age" and that was an old age right?

Now apply this to this discussion, the earth looks old. That doesn't mean that I have to accept all the things you see that make it look old, I can look for my own criteria. In this discussion, I choose to only look at the things that have sufficient evidence to classify them as appearing old. Nothing more nothing less.

I am not understanding your criteria then. For example, you mentioned "her actual age" when referring to your husband's grandmother. How is her actual age determined? Is it not by comparing her birth date to today's date? What would you think of someone who said, "But you can't trust the dating on a calendar or birth certificate to tell you how old she really is. The dates are not conclusive evidence of how old she is."

When the crater is dated at 65 million years old, that is evidence that it at least appears old. Now, if you want to defend a young earth (as a possibility) you can say "It's not really that old. We can explain it appearing to be 65 million years old in some other way." But that is an argument about actual age, not appearance of age. it is an argument about the reliability of the dating method, not about the fact the dating method says it is 65 million years old.

So again you miss the point and twist the argument. Remember when I said to you, if something doesn't fit the argument or discussion, you should show how it doesn't rather than discuss it and days and weeks later dismiss it. All I am saying to you in this situation, is that the evidence is inconclusive enough to remove it from discussion of the age of the earth. I am not discussing it's appearance of age

Indeed, that is what I thought the point ought to be. So was it a typo when you said:

I have 1. shown that the age is inconclusive thus inadmissable as evidence of appearance of age

I will certainly agree that from a YEC perspective, the age is inconclusive. .

I am not saying the methods are not as accurate as we have available to us. where are you getting this idea? What I am saying is that the limitations and variables are of such great number as to make the conclusions less accurate than they are proclaimed to be.

Conclusions and methods go together. Conclusions cannot be more accurate than the methods allow (not that we know anyway), but they won't be less accurate either. So when you say the conclusions are less accurate than they are proclaimed to be, that also means the methods are less accurate than they are proclaimed to be.

And that is something that can be investigated empirically. In fact, with both carbondating and other radiometric dating, the accuracy of the methods has been checked on numerous occasions.

This idea is evidenced not only by the numbers, but also by the bias in science. Both of which you have been shown at length.

No, I have not been shown the bias in science. Wait a minute, do you mean you have shown me that there are controversies in science? Is that what you mean by bias?

Would you please check out the meanings of "controversy" and "bias". I think you will find they are not the same thing.

Now even if you don't agree, you have not shown reason to dismiss the arguments and therefore, you cannot use this as actual evidence for appearance of age.

But you just said:

I am not discussing it's appearance of age

So do you mean "age" here again or do you mean "appearance of age".
I can agree that from a YEC perspective it is not evidence for its actual age. But how is it not evidence for appearance of age? On the other hand if you are not discussing appearance of age....????? I am getting very confused.

The only way you could do so is 1. if we both agreed that the age was valid (which we don't)

No we don't agree, and we don't have to agree that the age is valid. That is the point in dispute. All we have to agree on is that scientists have dated it at a certain age (which they have). IOW, we agree that according to science, it appears old. We do not agree that it is old. Then we each have our own explanations of why science gets the age it does. I say, "Science gets the age it does because that is the age it is and science has measured the age accurately." You say (defending young earth as a possibility), "Science gets the age it does because its measurements are not accurate, and its measurements are not accurate because.......(you can fill in the rest)."

Then we can examine the reasons given on both sides.

 

[gluadys]

exactly what I said, but thanks for the lecture.

No, you said we would be getting a huge margin of error. I have shown you that a huge error is not the same as a huge margin of error.

that analogy only works if we know what that ratio is, but in the case of aging the earth, we don't know.

Yes, we do. It's 1%. I gave you the reference. (Oh, btw, do you mean "age" or "aging"?)

In the case of aging the earth, we have two margins of error to evaluate, 1. the problems or limitations as it were of the methods used. the ratio. 2. the other is the variables.

First, by "aging" do you mean "age" or "dating" or something else?

You have actually mentioned three things.
1. limitations: as long as they are respected, they provide for greater not less accuracy.
2. ratio: this is a measure of how accurate the methods used are. It tells us how much confidence we can put in a given conclusion.
3. the variables: I still haven't seen why they would be a problem. They are already accounted for by #2. The variables do not reduce the accuracy of the methods used. When we have resolved the variables we may get an even more accurate measurement, but that doesn't make the one we have now less accurate than it is.

If you can give me an example of how a variable reduces the accuracy of what we have now, I would appreciate seeing it.

you have two options in this discussion. 1. dismiss them as evidence of age due to the lack of conclusive evidence or 2. show how the margin of errors are being calculated of which you have not nor can you do.

Concerning option 1
I see that you are again using "age" not "appearance of age". I agree this is the correct terminology. What is at issue is the actual age. To show that the age given is not conclusive, it needs to be shown that the method of obtaining the age is incorrect or inaccurate. And to show that, one needs to show why the method is incorrect or inaccurate.

Now I am not the one claiming the age is incorrect or inaccurate. You are. (At least that it is possible). So I need to know your reasons for saying so. I need more than a vague reference to limits and/or variables. I need to know what limits, which variables. What is it that scientists (biased scientists in particular) are not taking into account that makes their date wrong.

Concerning option 2
As I said, I am not a math genius. My Excel program does the calculating. And I do not personally have the data that goes into figuring out specific margins of error. I do know that the accuracy of every scientific measure is rigourously tested, not just once, but many times over. I would suggest contacting a mathematician or professional scientist to learn more about the techniques of determining the accuracy (aka margin of error) for any type of test.

apparently it is a problem for you to understand what is being discussed.

Yes, with you that is always a problem for me.

here you are totally missing the point and lecureing me on what I have been telling you.

Am I? Did you know, before I showed you how, that it was possible to find out the margin of error when it was unknown?

I didn't say it was useless, in fact, I directly said the opposite.

That's true. You did not say that. But do you grasp the meaning of it not being useless?

Since it is not useless, the earth must be millions of years old. In order to get a young earth, the measure must be useless. The margin of error has to be practically 100%. And that is the same as useless.

And if you remember I did not limit the errors to limitations of the tests, but included variables.

But even with variables that could make the measurement as much as 99% out of whack, the earth is still millions of years old. Whereas, scientists have ascertained that the measured age of the earth is not more than 1% off base.

What you did, was lecture for two posts about how the limitations are dealt with but ignored the combination of limitations and variables.

Unless the combination makes the measurements useless, the earth is at least millions of years old. If the combination allows for anything less than an 80% margin of error, the earth is at least a billion years old.

So you need to show some sort of variable or combination of limit and variable that would create such a large margin of error.

In fact, you insist that there are no variables of which I showed scientific papers that showed there were.

You showed me controversies that had nothing to do with the age of the earth. I believe they were about how much the Chicxulub meteor had to do with the K-T extinction (which included the extinction of dinosaurs).

It is the combination of the limitations and variables that create the problem, an idea that is consistant with my claims all the way through this thread.

I know that is your claim, but you simply have not shown that this effect is created by any combination of limits and variables.

can I dismiss this as evidence because it has an evolutionist agenda?

No you can't because it has nothing to do with evolution. This is about the behaviour of sub-atomic particles (electrons, protons, etc) which are involved in radioactive decay. This is physics, not biology.

let's look at it like a puzzle, we have a billion piece puzzle, we want to put it together, so we fit two pieces of the puzzle together. that leaves us with 999,999,998 pieces that we have to choose from to find the next piece. If we dropped a couple, we might only have 999 million to choose from. Until we narrow these down to what we know, such as the color or general shape, the number is still daunting. But what if the color and shape, reduce us to only 998 million possibles. Is the number of choices still daunting? yes. This is the analogy part of variables. You only want to look at the limitations, you have to look at both.

I still don't get it. What do daunting numbers have to do with accurate numbers? Daunting numbers can still be accurate.

And what do the daunting number of possibles have to do with the accuracy of the two pieces already fitted together?

If the biased teacher refuses to accept the answers are correct, it doesn't matter.

That was not the question. The question was, "Do we have to change any of the 8 right answers after we find the correct answers for the two questions we missed?"

if it was wrong.

Generally speaking, when doing a puzzle, we never have all the pieces wrong. Most of the pieces can't be fitted together in the first place, so we never try those possibilities. Occasionally two pieces are so much alike in shape, size, colour and pattern, that we may place one where the other ought to be. But correcting that error doesn't usually require undoing the whole puzzle.

the if's make his calculations less than accurate which is what I have been saying.

But they don't. At least you haven't shown how they do. Especially if none of them happen.

Look, Jo could draw up a table for every possible rate of flow, from one that would fill the container in a nanosecond to one that allows only one drop per century. But that wouldn't tell us which row in the table is the one that fits the real experiment. For that we need to know which rate of flow we are actually using, and Jo's calculations are based on that.

What "ifs" affect that?

can't do that with a calculation. You can only stop the clock on the actual measure.

The point is that the calculation would still be right. It might take 140 days to fill the container due to stoppages, but the actual time of filling will still be the 115 days and 18 hours that Jo correctly calculated.

The biased scientists say it will take 10 hours. The unbiased scientist says, it will be ready in a week.

And they are both right. It takes 10 hours work and it takes a week to find 10 hours time to do the work. So where is the bias?

But that bias will not be known, because the grade is what is viewed and does not change to account for the false assumptions.

And that is where the analogy breaks down. A university may only see a student's grade and not the actual tests on which the grade is based, so they don't see the misgraded test. But science papers always include a section on method--how they got their results--so the method as well as the conclusion can be examined and challenged for bias.

bias is also not accepting that a section is not yet complete.

Yes, that would be bias. However, science by nature accepts that its information is not complete. So it would be a most unusual bias in a scientist.

if he knows that we don't know but claims we do know, he is still refusing to deal with the unknown variables, because, what we don't know is known to him.

In the case of the age of the earth what we know is that the unknown variables, whatever they are, account for a maximum error of 1% from the measured age.

okay try this, 1. destruction of 2/3's of all species 2. destruction of species in the immediate vacinity or 3. did not lead to the destruction of any species

We know that #2 occurred and we know that #3 did not occur. So the only possible variable is #1. Actually we also know that #1 did not occur either. The level of destruction was higher. 85% not 66.7% (=2/3)

http://park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/cretmass.html

you don't know how science works do you? Science is about imaginary if's until or unless they are evidenced to be accurate or falsified.

No, you don't know how science works. You forget that science actively tests its speculations by creating hypotheses. And then, through observation and/or experiment, finding out which "ifs" are probable and which impossible. Scientists don't sit around with a bunch of "ifs" saying "How are we ever going to be able to calculate all these?" They take one "if" at a time and ask "What are the consequences of this if?"

And that is the most important step. Figure out the consequences, then test for the consequences. If the consequences don't show up (or even worse are contradicted) that "if" is put aside and not included in calculations. Only "ifs" whose consequences are shown to be real are kept as live options.

You included a 40,000 year old rock in your analogy and I was simply pointing out to you that that 40,000 year old rock was no problem for the definition of yec. Seems you still don't have your head wrapped around the concept that yec doesn't limit us to 7,000 years. You might want to start there in trying to unravel some of the mysteries of our world.

No, I am using the agreed criterion of 1 million years. And I said I agreed that the 40,000 year old rock would be no problem for that definition of yec. What is a problem is why a 40,000 year old rock looks to be 65 million years old.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's fine. Then my arguments are designed to show that it is not possible.

your argument dismisses two things. 1. you haven't shown it to be impossible yet and 2. you still haven't explained what you gain from accusing me of not being able to see the evidence because of my belief when all I am doing is playing the devil's advocate.

Look at it this way, if we are to take anything you say as valid, you need to own the fact, that a devil's advocate argument is not held because of belief but rather because of what value it does hold. A devil's advocate, can see some value in the other side of the coin. But you aren't even honest enough with yourself to accept that you misstated and misrepresented me when you said that I refused to see the evidence because of my beliefs. When in fact, there are ways to bring valid questions to the yec ist argument just as there are ways to bring valid questions to the evolutionist argument, and the old earth creationist argument. All have valid points as well as points of dispute, this is not the refusal of evidence because of belief, but rather the acceptance of the limitations that exist. You could at least be honest enough to own that you are wrong on this issue. But it ain't gonna happen because you don't know how to be wrong. Only assert that you are right.

Then the question becomes, did he allow it to cool naturally or did he take steps outside of scientific possibility to make it cool down quickly?

Not an issue discussed in Gen. to my knowledge, and something that science couldn't address conclusively because of the very nature of the issue. Therefore, it is an explaination that does support the idea of young earth for the purpose of supporting life. Note there could be other reasons for the earth to look old, but the only one we are working with here is for supporting life. Bam, done.

I think you did not understand what I was saying. Of course we are not living on a hot earth. But if God.

the argument is that it appears to be old when it isn't. Thus a supernatural occurance by God could create it cooler that we would be able to test, or cool it faster than we could understand. Any other interpretation of the event, such as the one you gave that the earth is still hot, removes the appearance of age. Thus God cooled it faster than natural means would dictate is consistant with what we are discussing.

If God 1) allowed radio-active decay to occur rapidly and thus heat up the earth and 2) then made it cool down quickly in some way not scientifically possible, we could have a young earth.

But if it still looked like the cooling down took a long time even though it didn't, of course, that would be an illusion.

It is the illusion of time you wanted to discuss. Why does it appear old if it is really young. The argument was for the purpose of sustaining life. The temp. of the earth would fit this argument to a tee. You can't change the argument part way through, you can question the argument dismiss it due to lack of evidence, but you can't change it. You tried to change the argument from appearance of age to factual age.

You will have to explain in more detail what you mean then. The only time I have heard of "revisionary history" is in relation to people who deny the Second World War Holocaust ever happened.

Now by trade, my husband is a historian, and so is my military trained brother in law, they get into some pretty good discussions about history. But what is there to discuss about history, it is fact, right? Wrong! That something happened is an absolute, something always happens, but since history is in the past, we must rely on a variety of evidences to know what really happened. In recent histories we might have eye witness accounts, written accounts, verbal histories, and physical evidences. But the historians must take all these evidences and recreate what happened all from differing perspectives. Thus history is not an exact science, but rather a revisionary perspective of the events that happened. Consider this, every person in my family has a different version of events that happened when I was growing up. We all went through the same history, but we saw it differently. When I speak of things that happened, I speak from my version, my perspective of being the oldest daughter of 4 children. When my children relate those stories to their children, they will place what they gleaned from it into the story. Eventually, the exact happenings, are not clear, they can become clearer by talking to more witnesses, but they still will remain somewhat subjective in nature because history is not an exact science but rather a revisionary perspective of events that took place.

Of course, but the whole play is not necessary]

I didn't suggest otherwise, your inferances get you in trouble sometimes. In the article in question, it was a rather short article and would offer no more than a scene to show what I needed to evidence for you. You can claim otherwise all you want but it won't make it so. You intentionally tried to change the topic by looking for anything you would twist to say what wasn't said, that way, you didn't have to argue the points being made.

I can't read the article. My computer refuses to open it. (I have tried several times.) So can you cut and paste the relevant section for me?

says the same as the others, show me which one you can't open and I will get to it, there were two you were given.

It would only take about 20 minutes if he has the references handy.

I don't know if he had the books or not, but I do know that much of his library got wet and damaged and what is left is in storage at the moment. Therefore what you are asking him to do is outside his time frame at the moment.

No, the problem goes back to my not being able to open that article you linked to. He understood from you that the question was about chronology while my question was really about an argument on the length of day being supported by biblical grammar. So he didn't really touch on my question at all. But he did give me a good reference in Dr. Baker who appears to have the expertise in biblical grammar I was looking for.

You brought up chronology, I talked about chronology, I showed you referenced sites that talked about chronology from scholars of ancient hebrew. You couldn't say anything other than they were yec ists, and apparently, one of them you didn't even read but felt justified to make this claim anyway. Then, since you had no other argument, you changed the topic to length of day and expected me to discuss what we had already discussed, that from a biblical standpoint three options exist for the length of day in Gen. It is this constant changing of topics when you have no valid argument that makes your arguments a joke. They have no substance because you don't allow them to. Your too busy trying to change the argument to fit what you have been taught to say to actually offer anything of substance to the argument. You are intelligent enough to think these things out for yourself, if you would only apply yourself to do so instead of relying on others to think for you. Don't change the discussion, follow through on the discussion at hand.

Yes, it is a creation story. It begins in Gen. 2:4b-5a with the words ".

I forget what point you were trying to make, please go back and remind me

Then we have the creation of plants in v. 8 "and the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east..."

I hope you realize that planting and creating are not the same thing.

Do you have another suggestion as to how we might see it and be able to differentiate it from starlight?

You don't even have to refute the claim by asserting that science knows what it doesn't. The rebuttal is right in the biblical text, though you don't remove what you have been taught long enough to see it.

Yes, they did see it episodically. Not continuously. But surely the Light of God is as continuous as God Himself. So the reason we do not ordinarily see it has to do with our created nature, no?

I don't think I ever said we could declare that the light we see is not from God.

look at it this way, we have a river that flows from the mountain, we take a fish and plop it down in the middle of the river, thus we can conclude that the fish originated in the mountain source of that river. Would our conclusion be accurate? Why or why not? If we don't know the source of light, and let's assume for the moment that that light is eternal (which btw, the text gives us reason to doubt this theory), then ploping the earth down in that light, will not affect the age of the earth, it only affects the age of the light. Thus, using this as an example of the earth appearing to be old is false, it is the appearance that the light we are measureing is old and would be predicted if we are seeing the light of God.

But both of you agreed on her age and neither of you thought she looked young.

The point her is not actual age, but appearance of age, one of us has her much older looking than the other one, because the criteria we are viewing to determine age is different.

btw, this also shows us how important perspective is to history.

I am not understanding your criteria then. "

In this analogy we are not looking at what is, only what appears, remember the earth appearing to be old discussion? And as to acutal age, my grandmother needed her birth certificate once, but no such cerificate existed, so she was adviced to acquire records from the county of birth. Those records were destroyed in a fire. The next step was to get affidavids from eye witnesses to her birth. All the eye witnesses were dead. So what then do we know of her actual age. And for the record, she always looked younger than she proclaimed to be. What then is the truth of her age? How old was she when she died?

When the crater is dated at 65 million years old, that is evidence that it at least appears old. Now, if you want to defend a young earth (as a possibility) you can say "It's not really that old. We can explain it appearing to be 65 million years old in some other way." But that is an argument about actual age, not appearance of age. it is an argument about the reliability of the dating method, not about the fact the dating method says it is 65 million years old.

In this discussion, I dealt with three things in depth, siting references to all. 1. the age of the crator is in question. 2. there is disagreement as to what it's affect was. 3. what it could have added to the existance of life given the right cercumstances. Thus on three levels, the crator was discussed allowing for the possiblity of yec ist views. But instead of dealing with them, you get yourself stuck on only one and deny the others were presented. Now this is not to say that you didn't discuss them, you did, but that has never stopped you from proclaiming they weren't presented later.

I will certainly agree that from a YEC perspective, the age is inconclusive. .

good, let's move on then, perspective is neither right or wrong, it is simply looking at something from a different view.

Conclusions and methods go together. .

how to remove the blindness from your eyes is a constant issue. Let me think..........I am sure as shootin that the conclusions of the tests are accurate. What is not accurate is the lack of evidence taken into the calculations. For example, I can test my children to see if they are learning what they need to be, but if I don't take into the calculations the age or grade level of the children, the test is not valid. It might very well be accurate, that is administered fairly, graded fairly, but it lacks the essential detail necessary for accurate conclusions about my children's knowledge. The age tests are like this, I am sure that the tests are administered "fairly" and "graded" accurately, but they leave out vital evidence to make the tests of value to the discussion. or our understanding of the age of the earth.

No, I have not been shown the bias in science.

we talked about people you hold in high esteem accepting the bias. We looked at a site that concluded the same thing as you about aging that talked about the bias in science. We have seen you show that bias without reservation. and we have seen information discarded because of the source. What more do you want in the way of evidence of bias? We can also talk about human nature being one of bias, but you will have to show us what more evidence you could possibly need to accept the fact that this bias exists. We already covered a multiple lines of evidence.

So do you mean "age" here again or do you mean "appearance of age".
.

If vital information is left out of the equasion, it isn't even evidence for appearance of age only bias.

No we don't agree, and we don't have to agree that the age is valid. "

see above

Then we can examine the reasons given on both sides.

that would be a novel approach from you.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, you said we would be getting a huge margin of error. I have shown you that a huge error is not the same as a huge margin of error.

what ever, I tried it about a million different ways and you still refuse to even try. this type of blindness is common to indoctrination, though I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt all this time, it appears I was wrong.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...of+error&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

http://www.robertniles.com/stats/margin.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

and there you have it folks, the explainations of margin of error that have been removed by science because gluady's says they have.

You have actually mentioned three things.

study up on margin of error, you can start with the sites referenced, then come back to this discussion. Otherwise it is simply your willful blindness taking up a lot of time and space. And no, it isn't a matter of your agreeing, it is a matter of your showing some hint of comprehension.

If you can give me an example of how a variable reduces the accuracy of what we have now, I would appreciate seeing it.

been there, done that, got the tee shirt, and it's worn out already. That is what the magority of this thread has come down to. It has been shown to you through references, examples, analogies, etc. and you still insist it hasn't been shown.

Concerning option 1
I see that you are again using "age" not "appearance of age". I agree this is the correct terminology. What is at issue is the actual age. To show that the age given is not conclusive, it needs to be shown that the method of obtaining the age is incorrect or inaccurate. And to show that, one needs to show why the method is incorrect or inaccurate.

Now I am not the one claiming the age is incorrect or inaccurate. You are. (At least that it is possible). So I need to know your reasons for saying so. I need more than a vague reference to limits and/or variables. I need to know what limits, which variables. What is it that scientists (biased scientists in particular) are not taking into account that makes their date wrong.

done several times over

Concerning option 2
As I said, I am not a math genius. My Excel program does the calculating. And I do not personally have the data that goes into figuring out specific margins of error. I do know that the accuracy of every scientific measure is rigourously tested, not just once, but many times over. I would suggest contacting a mathematician or professional scientist to learn more about the techniques of determining the accuracy (aka margin of error) for any type of test.

You showed me controversies that had nothing to do with the age of the earth. I believe they were about how much the Chicxulub meteor had to do with the K-T extinction (which included the extinction of dinosaurs).

I showed you evidence that science has not nor can they at this time, remove the variables that you have been claiming they can and do.

I still don't get it. What do daunting numbers have to do with accurate numbers? Daunting numbers can still be accurate.

It is the inexactness of the numbers that is daunting. The probabliities.

And what do the daunting number of possibles have to do with the accuracy of the two pieces already fitted together?

what two pieces are you refering to?

That was not the question. The question was, "Do we have to change any of the 8 right answers after we find the correct answers for the two questions we missed?"

this question doesn't make sense. And that is putting it mildly. I think we have our joke of the day. The bias is not in whether or not the answers are correct, but in whether or not the teacher accepts the correct answers as correct. Thanks for the laugh though, it helps alleviate some stress. It would have been more helpful however if you had dealt with the analogy as it was given.

Generally speaking, when doing a puzzle, we never have all the pieces wrong. Most of the pieces can't be fitted together in the first place, so we never try those possibilities. Occasionally two pieces are so much alike in shape, size, colour and pattern, that we may place one where the other ought to be. But correcting that error doesn't usually require undoing the whole puzzle.

Look, Jo could draw up a table for every possible rate of flow, from one that would fill the container in a nanosecond to one that allows only one drop per century. But that wouldn't tell us which row in the table is the one that fits the real experiment. For that we need to know which rate of flow we are actually using, and Jo's calculations are based on that.

The king told Jo and Mo to tell him how long it would take to fill the jar. That was the analogy you gave us. Nothing was said about the variables. You want to eliminate the variable before they can be eliminated. That is the problem you are having with understanding the whole discussion. Instead of trying to understand, you are twisting the arguments and analogies to say things they aren't.

And they are both right. It takes 10 hours work and it takes a week to find 10 hours time to do the work. So where is the bias?

In this analogy the biased scientist is the one that proclaims 10 hours without qualifying that there are other factors that will affect the time necessary to finish the project, like drying time for example. The amount of drying time is not figured into the 10 hours of work, but would be discussed in an unbiased approach to the topic at hand. In fact, usually, I am asked, how long would it take to finish the project, not how many hours will it take, the difference though it seems minor has huge implications, and is indeed a variable that must be calculated into the equasion.

Now, let's apply this to what you have been told. The test results are what they are, but if we don't figure in all the variables, like drying time, break time, interuptions, and equipment failure, etc. we do not have an accurate measure of how long it will take to produce the piece. Though we might say that it is 10 hours of work, we have misled the customer to think that it will be finished in 10 hours. Biased scientists are kind of like this, the test results are what they are, but they mislead people by removing all the vaiables to proclaim to know truth.

And that is where the analogy breaks down. A university may only see a student's grade and not the actual tests on which the grade is based, so they don't see the misgraded test. But science papers always include a section on method--how they got their results--so the method as well as the conclusion can be examined and challenged for bias.

most teachers have on record the yearly lesson plans and grading scale used. That doesn't stop our biased teacher from grading and turning the grades in biasedly. In fact, it makes the bias worse because it is not held to the same standards on the assumption that the bias doesn't exist or it wouldn't be admitted to.

No, you don't know how science works. You forget that science actively tests its speculations by creating hypotheses. And then, through observation and/or experiment, finding out which "ifs" are probable and which impossible. Scientists don't sit around with a bunch of "ifs" saying "How are we ever going to be able to calculate all these?" They take one "if" at a time and ask "What are the consequences of this if?"

No, I am using the agreed criterion of 1 million years. And I said I agreed that the 40,000 year old rock would be no problem for that definition of yec. What is a problem is why a 40,000 year old rock looks to be 65 million years old.

In the post in question, you included the 40,000 year old rock in those things that appear old. If you misspoke, just say, I mis spoke, don't try to excuse it away, it makes you look dishonest.

 

[gluadys]

your argument dismisses two things. 1. you haven't shown it to be impossible yet and 2. you still haven't explained what you gain from accusing me of not being able to see the evidence because of my belief when all I am doing is playing the devil's advocate.

I asked you to show me where I made the accusation you describe in point 2. I no more like being accused of saying something I did not say than you do. So I would like to see my exact words to determine if I was at fault or if we are dealing with a misunderstanding.

Look at it this way, if we are to take anything you say as valid, you need to own the fact, that a devil's advocate argument is not held because of belief but rather because of what value it does hold.

Agreed. consider that done.

No, I have not been shown the bias in science.

we talked about people you hold in high esteem accepting the bias.

Not sure what people you are referring to, but more importantly I would like to remind you of the full context of what I said.

No, I have not been shown the bias in science. Wait a minute, do you mean you have shown me that there are controversies in science? Is that what you mean by bias?

Would you please check out the meanings of "controversy" and "bias". I think you will find they are not the same thing.

Please clarify if you have been using "bias" as a synonym for "controversy".

I have seen you present evidence of controversy. I have not seen you present evidence of bias.

most teachers have on record the yearly lesson plans and grading scale used. That doesn't stop our biased teacher from grading and turning the grades in biasedly.

And this is where science differs from the teacher. The scientist is like a teacher who not only posts the grades, but includes all the marked tests on which the grades were based. So anyone coming along later can see where the teacher made a mistake in the marking and correct for that.


I also note you are falling into a habit of misquoting/misreading me. For example:

Any other interpretation of the event, such as the one you gave that the earth is still hot, removes the appearance of age.

I did NOT say that the earth is still hot and this is the second time I have told you. I said that since the earth is NOT hot, it must have cooled down, and therefore it must be old.

Also:

In the post in question, you included the 40,000 year old rock in those things that appear old.

No, I didn't. I asked a question, the same one I am asking now. What difference does it make to supporting life if a rock is 4 billion, 4 million or 40 thousand years old?

We have rocks dated millions and billions of years old that by a young-earth criterion must be less than a million years old. The theory is that they look much older because the age is needed to support life. So show me what there is about appearing 4 million or 4 billion years old rather than a young-earth compatible 40,000 years old that makes a difference to supporting life.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...ition&ct=title

http://www.robertniles.com/stats/margin.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

and there you have it folks, the explainations of margin of error that have been removed by science because gluady's says they have.

Now here is a challenge for you. Find a statement in any of those articles that contradicts what I said. Because I have read all three and I don't see anything in them I disagree with.

When in fact, there are ways to bring valid questions to the yec ist argument just as there are ways to bring valid questions to the evolutionist argument, and the old earth creationist argument. All have valid points as well as points of dispute,

Now, this raises a question for me I had not thought of before, that may put the whole conversation in a different light. We have already noted and agreed that the biblical accounts of creation do not present a single absolute view of the age of the earth.

You also gave as a reason for looking carefully at the text "2. see if it is compatable with science".

Do you hold that all three scriptural possibilities re: the age of the earth are compatible with science? Or do you think it possible that science can be compatible with only one or two of the three, but not all?

show me which one you can't open and I will get to it, there were two you were given.

It was this one: http://www.answersincreation.org/Th...with a Number in Genesis 1 - distribution.pdf

And the other one you gave me was from the Geoscience Research Institute of the Seventh-Day Adventists. http://www.grisda.org/index.htm

But exciting news! I found a back way into the Answers in Creation document so I have now read it. And I am wondering if you ever read it side by side with the other. Did you know they are completely opposite in their conclusions?

Mr. Whitefield from Answers in Creation, interprets the Hebrew grammar quite differently from Mr. Hasel from the GRI.

While Mr. Hasel says (as I expect a young-earth creationist would say)

The cumulative evidence, based on comparative, literary, linguistic and other considerations, converges on every level, leading to the singular conclusion that the designation yôm, "day," in Genesis 1 means consistently a literal 24-hour day.​

Mr. Whitefield strongly disagrees and says:

1) The uniqueness of the Hebrew numbering of the creative "yom" actually supports the view that the creative "yom" are not ordinary (24-hour) days. 2) The numbering of the creative "yom" does not exclude the "extended period" or "age" meaning of the Hebrew word "yom" when referring to the six creative times. The unique numbering of the creative times adds support for the "extended period" or "age" meaning.​

Of course, he is an old-earth creationist. However, this is the first time I have seen this grammatical point studied by an old-earth creationist and it is rather gratifying to see he agrees with me.

So you can tell hubby that the question has been answered. Young-earth creationists support one interpretation of the Hebrew. Old-earth creationists support a different interpretation of the Hebrew. Probably they are both biased, but in any case, the Hebrew is obviously not conclusive since it can be argued both ways.

Now with that detour out of the way, we can go to the original question of chronology.

Mr. Hasel (though disagreeing with it) describes a viewpoint that considers the Genesis 1 account not to be chronological.

[Victor P.] Hamilton* speaks of a "literary reading" of the Genesis creation account. The "literary reading" allows him to understand the "days" of creation literally but "not as a chronological account of how many hours God invested in His creating project, but as an analogy of God's creative activity."41 In this view the 24-hour "days" in Genesis 1 are but an "analogy" based on a "literary [non-historical] reading" of the Genesis creation account.
This view of a "literary reading" is dependent on Charles E. Hummel**.42 Hummel argues that even if the "days" in Genesis 1 are to be meant as solar days of 24 hours, which he believes they are, "the question still remains whether the [literary] format is figurative or literal, that is, analogy of God's creative activity or a chronological account of how many hours he worked."43​

* author of The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Ml: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990),
**author of "Interpreting Genesis 1" Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 38 (1986): 175-186

The framework interpretation which I introduced is quite flexible, allowing for three possibilities.

A coherent form-and-fill structure seems clear. After recognizing this, we can ask whether the six days are also chronological. The meaning intended by God for the six days could be only structural (this is the conventional "framework" view) but not chronological (not making statements about the sequence or duration of creation), or both structural and chronological (this would be compatible with either young-earth or day-age views), or (if the framework is illusory) only chronological.​

I know your husband favors the second possibility (both structural and chronological) and I respect his opinion. However, there are clearly a variety of ways to approach Genesis 1 and a chronological order is only one of several possibilities.

So we have two non-absolutes to add to our non-absolute of the age of the earth. We do not have an absolute on the length of the creative days and we do not have an absolute on whether the days represent a chronological order.

One other note, and this can be an aside or a new topic. The presenters of the framework interpretation make an important distinction between chronology and history.

It is important to recognize that nonchronological does not mean nonhistorical. In a framework interpretation, Genesis 1 describes historical events that actually occurred. These real events are just described in a way that is logical, not chronological. This is consistent with the fact that history is often written (now and in the past, in the Bible and elsewhere) with a topical structure in which topics are arranged in a logical framework, not in a chronological sequence.​

A lot of more specific material to look at, but I am trying to get back to central themes rather than details. We sometimes need to recall the orginal context or we forget why a point was raised in the first place.

 

[gluadys]

your argument dismisses two things. 1. you haven't shown it to be impossible yet

"It" in this case being a young earth. Now I do want to make one thing perfectly clear. When I say a young earth is not possible, I mean it is not scientifically possible. I don't affirm that it is biblically impossible or supernaturally impossible. I don't think there is any way to say it is impossible in those senses. Only that it is scientifically impossible.

Is that sufficient for you?

I'd like to re-ground the discussions of specific points in the context of the overall question. That question was the point you raised in a devil's advocate vein about appearance of age.

Now bear with me a bit. Historically, this young-earth argument is a response to the scientific discoveries of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries that led scientists to the conclusion that life, the earth, the solar system, stars & galaxies and the universe as a whole are old.

Most Christians have no real problem with this. (I know you personally don't.) Most accept that the scientific dating is accurate. They don't need or use any "appearance of age" argument. For them, there is one simple explanation of the dates. The earth seems to be 4.5 billion years old because it is 4.5 billion years old. The universe appears to be 13.7 billion years old because it is 13.7 billion years old. A fossil appears to be 175 million years old because it is 175 million years old. A star appears to be 7 billion years old because it is 7 billion years old. In general things appear to be a certain age because that is how old they are.

But from a young-earth perspective none of these old ages can be real. They all have to fit really into a much shorter time frame. So how does it happen that science sees them all as very old? Answer: They aren't really old. They only appear to be old.

And that leads to the next question: why do they appear to be older than they are?

And this is where things start to get complicated. Because there are a lot of reasons things could appear older than they really are. Or they could appear older than they are for no reason at all. Just because it pleased God to make them look old.

Frankly, I think that last option is best. Things look old because God decided to make them look old. No reason given. When you start giving reasons, you start second-guessing how God thinks. Besides, as soon as we offer a reason for things looking old, we can start examining things that look old and see if the reason fits.

So when you presented the reason as "because they needed to be that way to support life." I began to ask what was needed to support life.

One thing would be fruit trees. Since Adam and Eve and the animals apparently needed to eat, they could not have a garden that had only had three days to grow. Especially one with fruit trees. Trees ordinarily take years to mature enough to produce fruit.

But does this reason explain old-looking worn down mountains? deep river-cut canyons? We can list a lot of things that seem old with no apparent relation to supporting life. The two we have been looking at in particular are the Chicxulub crater in Yucutan, dated at 65 million years of age and any one of several stars located a billion or more light-years from earth.

On stars, there is a point of confusion to clear up.

look at it this way, we have a river that flows from the mountain, we take a fish and plop it down in the middle of the river, thus we can conclude that the fish originated in the mountain source of that river. Would our conclusion be accurate? Why or why not? If we don't know the source of light, and let's assume for the moment that that light is eternal (which btw, the text gives us reason to doubt this theory), then ploping the earth down in that light, will not affect the age of the earth, it only affects the age of the light. Thus, using this as an example of the earth appearing to be old is false,

Quite right, and if you check back through my posts you will find I never used this as an example of the earth being old. What it measures is the age of the light coming to earth from the star. By implication this is also the minimum age of the star and the minimum age of the universe. In fact, the star can be considerably older than the light coming from it. And the universe is considerably older than the star. While the earth (as a formed planet), the sun, moon and solar system are all much younger than many stars.

The stars are a problem for the appearance of age idea, because they are in no way necessary to sustain life on earth.

This led into the more general discussion of light as eternal light, God's Light. My conclusion here is that this light behaves in the universe like any other light, so it still looks old and it still is not necessary to support life on earth, so we are back to the same problem.

I notice that you are bursting to give a biblical rebuttal to your own proposal. Go ahead. Have fun.

The other item was the Chicxulub crater and we have gone a long way from its age (65 million years) to cooling down an overheated earth. Perhaps you had even forgotten that they were connected.

Assertion: appearance of age was necessary to support life.
Response: The impact crater of the meteor which is found at Chicxulub on the Yucutan peninsula in Mexico has been dated at 65 million years old. (Actually a bit older, but I'm not sure of the decimal needed.) The crater is not needed to sustain life, so why does it look so old?

From here our conversation went it two directions and I noted an interesting thing. On the one hand you tried to show the crater was necessary to support life (and so had a reason for looking old). On the other hand you questioned that it looked old by asserting problems with the scientific method of dating, in particular radiometric dating (so it really looks young). If one of these arguments is valid the other is necessarily false. It can't both look old and look young at the same time.

Was the meteor and/or the resulting crator necessary to produce and/or sustain life? We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. You have provided nothing but your own imagination in support of this idea.

Now for the second argument which leads to the discussion of cooling in this way.

Assertion: the crater is really young. Its age has been inflated by flaws and false assumptions in the dating method.
What flaws? What assumptions?
Radioactive decay is assumed to have always been at the same rate. If it had been faster, the dates would be younger.
Possibly, but according to the scientists, a speeded up decay rate would create an enormous amount of heat. What happened to the heat?
Response: Obviously the earth cooled down.
OK, but cooling down a whole planet takes a lot of time. I thought the idea was to show the earth is young and the crater is really young. But to allow for cooling down the planet the earth has to be old.
Response: God can cool it down quickly.

Perfectly good answer. But it has consequences too. Two of them.

1. The young-earth scenario is no longer compatible with science, because it ends up relying on a non-scientific divine process.
2. If in the end, we have to invoke miracle, why wait to the point of cooling down an overheated earth. Why not supernaturally prevent the overheating in the first place? In fact, why bother with rapid radioactive decay at all? Why even bother with a meteor? Just say God supernaturally created the Yucutan peninsula with the crater already there. Why go through all the pseudo-scientific claptrap of changing radioactive decay rates when eventually you have to call on a miracle anyway. One may as well skip all the fuss and just claim the crater itself was made miraculously. If one has to ditch science sooner or later, why not sooner?

Enough with appearance of age. I think we have shown well enough that being necessary for the support of life is not a sufficient explanation. (The stars show that whatever one may imagine about Chicxulub.) And there are plenty more examples.

The really big divide in our thinking is still the matter of variables and accuracy, to which you added bias and now want to focus only on bias.

On bias, let me first state loud and clear that some scientists are probably biased. After all they are only human. But there remain three problems.

1. I think you are mistaking controversy for bias. Every time I have asked for evidence of bias, what you have shown me are examples where there is controversy over something that is not well understood yet e.g. to what extent, if any, was the Chicxulub crater a factor in the K-T mass extinction. This is irrelevant to the question of bias. Controversy is not bias.

2. You keep linking up unknown and unspecified variables with bias and I don't see any connection between them. To me, bias is not about what is unknown. It is about turning a blind eye to what is known. How can one show bias about what one doesn't know?

3. You have specifically said that variables make the calculation of ages and dates so problematical that (at least in the hands of biased scientists) they cannot be as accurate as claimed. The problem here is that there is no scientific disagreement on the ages obtained. Even YECs will agree that, using scientific methods, these are the ages you will get. So if bias is the problem, this is a blanket indictment of all scientists (including young-earth scientists) for being biased, and that is just unreasonable.

Now I have been focusing less on bias and more on the question of whether variables destroy the possibility of getting accurate results. But I think I will leave that line of thought until we have better understanding of the charge of bias and how it relates to variables.

 

[razzelflabben]

I asked you to show me where I made the accusation you describe in point 2. I no more like being accused of saying something I did not say than you do. So I would like to see my exact words to determine if I was at fault or if we are dealing with a misunderstanding.

I don't believe that is necessary. Personally, your false accusations don't mean a thing, because I don't need to own them. I get frustrated at them, and wish sometimes that you would own them but no worries. You have been asked several direct questions about false accusations you have made and each you refused to answer. Me going back and finding this one with result in the same ignoring and I put all the time into it for nothing. I'll save my time and you can go on pretending and we'll move on to bigger and better things. Leave the petty stuff. Just please in the future try to make only fair accusations that are supported by the evidence. BTW, these fair accusation backed by evidence I appreciate because I can honestly evaluate them to see if I do indeed need to own them. It is the false, based on your own bias accusations I find irritating..

Please clarify if you have been using "bias" as a synonym for "controversy".

no

I have seen you present evidence of controversy. I have not seen you present evidence of bias.

bias is a conclusion based on all the evidence presented not just on one. IOW's the controversies are not the only evidence, there is a string of evidence of which I summarized in a list, when we put all that evidence together, the only logical conclusion is bias. oh and I try to anticipate anything you will argue in the future so in order to shortcut your argument, it wasn't that controversies exist that was evidence presented, but rather that there is no concenses as to what is known and what is not known. You know, the removel of variables you keep telling us we can do.

And this is where science differs from the teacher. The scientist is like a teacher who not only posts the grades, but includes all the marked tests on which the grades were based. So anyone coming along later can see where the teacher made a mistake in the marking and correct for that.

see the evidence that would say you are wrong.

I did NOT say that the earth is still hot and this is the second time I have told you. I said that since the earth is NOT hot, it must have cooled down, and therefore it must be old.

To which I said, that by it not being hot, we have the "illusion" of age, that was necessary for supporting life. That should end the discussion about the heat issue with a support for yec. Instead, you started out trying to make it sound like I was saying the earth was still hot and we only had the illusion of a cool earth. I corrected this only to here be accused of saying that you think the earth is still hot. This is a false accusation. What I said is that your assumption of what I said is misleading and false, not that your claim was that the earth was still hot. I took your evidence and showed you how it fit the theory in question and instead of your accepting it as presented, you tried to make it an argument about the temp of the earth. This is misleading on your part and instead of owning it, you come along and accuse me of misleading.

No, I didn't. I asked a question, the same one I am asking now. What difference does it make to supporting life if a rock is 4 billion, 4 million or 40 thousand years old?

The difference is that one supports a yec theory and the other doesn't. That is why the issue of aging the earth is so important and why that margin of error is so vital to understand. Because ONE SUPPORTS A YEC THEORY THE OTHER DOESN'T

We have rocks dated millions and billions of years old that by a young-earth criterion must be less than a million years old. The theory is that they look much older because the age is needed to support life. So show me what there is about appearing 4 million or 4 billion years old rather than a young-earth compatible 40,000 years old that makes a difference to supporting life.

Well, this is not permissible in the discussion because it relies on evidence that is inconclusive, however, in the original post in question, the difference is all about one fitting into a yec idea. Look at it this way, you assert that yec is not compatable with science and to show this you present evidence that supports yec. I call you on it and instead of owning that you made a mistake or that you are wrong, you try to change the point to be the age of the rocks. We already dismissed the age of the rocks through traditional tests, so all we need to hash out right now is that a 40,000 year old rock is not a problem for a yec as defined.

Now here is a challenge for you. Find a statement in any of those articles that contradicts what I said. Because I have read all three and I don't see anything in them I disagree with.

which are you refering too? I presented a lot of articles for review. In addition, the evidence we are discussing is about perspective or premis not about conclusions. Our conclusions are always based on our premis or perspective that is why denying bias is so stupid of an argument.

Do you hold that all three scriptural possibilities re: the age of the earth are compatible with science? Or do you think it possible that science can be compatible with only one or two of the three, but not all?

that question is still unanswered by us at this moment. we can study into it if you want but it would require that we for the moment dispense with the science.

But exciting news! I found a back way into the Answers in Creation document so I have now read it. And I am wondering if you ever read it side by side with the other. Did you know they are completely opposite in their conclusions?

you worry too much about conclusions and not enough about the evidence that leads to the conclusions.

The cumulative evidence, based on comparative, literary, linguistic and other considerations, converges on every level, leading to the singular conclusion that the designation yôm, "day," in Genesis 1 means consistently a literal 24-hour day.​

this is not part of our discussion, I wondered where you were going with this since I told you repeatedly now that the length of day was not part of our discussion, but only the chronology of days, so in order to make your case, you need to show how the conclusions of chronology differ. When we finish that we can talk about the length of day if you like. But you will have to tell me if I am to play the devil's advocate or not when we get to that discussion.​

Mr. Whitefield strongly disagrees and says:

1) The uniqueness of the Hebrew numbering of the creative "yom" actually supports the view that the creative "yom" are not ordinary (24-hour) days. 2) The numbering of the creative "yom" does not exclude the "extended period" or "age" meaning of the Hebrew word "yom" when referring to the six creative times. The unique numbering of the creative times adds support for the "extended period" or "age" meaning.​

see above, you need to focus in on the discussion at hand and not go off on some other topic just to make a point. Both show how the ancient Heb. text shows chronology of days. That was the discussion at hand when the sites were references, trying to change the topic mid way is dishonest at best.​

Of course, he is an old-earth creationist. However, this is the first time I have seen this grammatical point studied by an old-earth creationist and it is rather gratifying to see he agrees with me.

[/quote]

So you can tell hubby that the question has been answered. Young-earth creationists support one interpretation of the Hebrew. Old-earth creationists support a different interpretation of the Hebrew. Probably they are both biased, but in any case, the Hebrew is obviously not conclusive since it can be argued both ways. [/quote] are you talking about chronology or length of day? I have seen nothing to question the interpretation of chronology from scholars, which was the discussion at hand. any conclusion about length of day is based on your own bias because we haven't looked into it at all yet.

Now with that detour out of the way, we can go to the original question of chronology.

that chronology issue was the only one being discussed and just as the text to evidence shakespere might include more quotes, it doesn't change the topic to include them with the evidence. You really are being forceful in your dishonesty on this topic. I guess all that is left to do is prepare myself for your continued dishonest approach and ignoring the corrections and move on.

Mr. Hasel (though disagreeing with it) describes a viewpoint that considers the Genesis 1 account not to be chronological.

The framework interpretation which I introduced is quite flexible, allowing for three possibilities.

I know your husband favors the second possibility (both structural and chronological) and I respect his opinion. However, there are clearly a variety of ways to approach Genesis 1 and a chronological order is only one of several possibilities.

what you believe is yours to own, his is based on study with some of the best ancient heb. scholars of our day. That seems like a pretty good reason to go with the same conclusion to me. If you would rather rely on those who haven't put the time and study into it, that is yours to own. My husband and I choose to go with the scholars, who come with evidence. OOOPs, I mentioned personal opinion, time for you to ignore that I gave it and make more misleading statements about what I believe just as you have done repeatedly in the past.

So we have two non-absolutes to add to our non-absolute of the age of the earth. We do not have an absolute on the length of the creative days

we haven't even looked into that question yet

and we do not have an absolute on whether the days represent a chronological order.

we have scholarly conclusions based on the evidence at hand. Which is all science gives us as well. So, why then are the scholars conclusions wrong but the scientists conclusions right? Both are based on evidnece at hand and both are based on years of experience and study and exploration. But one you hold up as truth and the other as nonsense. What could be the cause of this double standard except your own bias?[/quote]

One other note, and this can be an aside or a new topic. The presenters of the framework interpretation make an important distinction between chronology and history[/quote] as I said many times many ways, something that is not a historical account does not automatically make it not historically accurate.

A lot of more specific material to look at, but I am trying to get back to central themes rather than details. We sometimes need to recall the orginal context or we forget why a point was raised in the first place.

If you are honestly trying to stay on topic then why was so much of this post about a topic we never even brought up for discussion yet (only mentioned in passing) the topic of length of day in Gen.?

 

[razzelflabben]

"It" in this case being a young earth. Now I do want to make one thing perfectly clear. When I say a young earth is not possible, I mean it is not scientifically possible. I don't affirm that it is biblically impossible or supernaturally impossible. I don't think there is any way to say it is impossible in those senses. Only that it is scientifically impossible.

I think that is more than clear. But what you fail to understand is that you have not yet shown it to be scientifically impossible.

Now bear with me a bit. Historically, this young-earth argument is a response to the scientific discoveries of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries that led scientists to the conclusion that life, the earth, the solar system, stars & galaxies and the universe as a whole are old.

actually, it is a literal interpretation of the bible and though it may be a hightened by the discoveries of the 18th,19th and 20th centuries, without the literalists of the GEn.. account, the argument would not exist at all.

Most Christians have no real problem with this. (I know you personally don't.)

what do you base this understanding of my personal opinion on? I didn't provide it on this topic.

But does this reason explain old-looking worn down mountains? deep river-cut canyons? We can list a lot of things that seem old with no apparent relation to supporting life. The two we have been looking at in particular are the Chicxulub crater in Yucutan, dated at 65 million years of age and any one of several stars located a billion or more light-years from earth.

let me just for the sake of stirring the pot, say that I watched a documentary on Niagra Falls a few months back, it was especially interesting since we had gone to the FAlls that year. Anyway, the rate of erosion by the falls was amazing and showed clearly how quickly things could indeed change given the right situations.

Quite right, and if you check back through my posts you will find I never used this as an example of the earth being old. What it measures is the age of the light coming to earth from the star. By implication this is also the minimum age of the star and the minimum age of the universe. In fact, the star can be considerably older than the light coming from it. And the universe is considerably older than the star. While the earth (as a formed planet), the sun, moon and solar system are all much younger than many stars.

it can also be a deceptive measure of age just as we discussed.

This led into the more general discussion of light as eternal light, God's Light. My conclusion here is that this light behaves in the universe like any other light, so it still looks old and it still is not necessary to support life on earth, so we are back to the same problem.

Light can be old while the earth is young so it is no problem for the yec ist.

I notice that you are bursting to give a biblical rebuttal to your own proposal. Go ahead. Have fun.

I want you to think outside the box you have been taught to argue. Give it a go.

Assertion: appearance of age was necessary to support life.
Response: The impact crater of the meteor which is found at Chicxulub on the Yucutan peninsula in Mexico has been dated at 65 million years old. (Actually a bit older, but I'm not sure of the decimal needed.) The crater is not needed to sustain life, so why does it look so old?

From here our conversation went it two directions and I noted an interesting thing. On the one hand you tried to show the crater was necessary to support life (and so had a reason for looking old). On the other hand you questioned that it looked old by asserting problems with the scientific method of dating, in particular radiometric dating (so it really looks young). If one of these arguments is valid the other is necessarily false. It can't both look old and look young at the same time.

actually look at it in context, things always make more sense in context. argument 1. this is invalid because our aging methods are not accurate. argument 2 even if they were accurate, this crators effects are not yet known making it again irrelavent to the evidence you need to present and argument 3 even if we overlook both the above, we still see that not all life was destroyed thus we see a change in the environment and this change can have a huge impact that we don't know all the implications of yet, given the right scenario, it could have created an environment necessary for life to exist.

Was the meteor and/or the resulting crator necessary to produce and/or sustain life? We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. You have provided nothing but your own imagination in support of this idea.

nor do we have evidence to falsify the claim which is the point. Lack of evidence means that it can't be argued effectively either way and therefore is not permissible as evidence of appearance of age.

Assertion: the crater is really young. Its age has been inflated by flaws and false assumptions in the dating method.
What flaws? What assumptions?

been there done that

Radioactive decay is assumed to have always been at the same rate. If it had been faster, the dates would be younger.
Possibly, but according to the scientists, a speeded up decay rate would create an enormous amount of heat. What happened to the heat?
Response: Obviously the earth cooled down.
OK, but cooling down a whole planet takes a lot of time. I thought the idea was to show the earth is young and the crater is really young. But to allow for cooling down the planet the earth has to be old.
Response: God can cool it down quickly.

Perfectly good answer. But it has consequences too. Two of them.

1. The young-earth scenario is no longer compatible with science, because it ends up relying on a non-scientific divine process.

which can be tested. Now whether or not the tests are conclusive is open to individual interpretations and bias, but it can be tested none the less therefore, not outside science.

2. If in the end, we have to invoke miracle, why wait to the point of cooling down an overheated earth. Why not supernaturally prevent the overheating in the first place?

that dear one was an possible assertion made.

In fact, why bother with rapid radioactive decay at all? Why even bother with a meteor? Just say God supernaturally created the Yucutan peninsula with the crater already there. Why go through all the pseudo-scientific claptrap of changing radioactive decay rates when eventually you have to call on a miracle anyway. One may as well skip all the fuss and just claim the crater itself was made miraculously. If one has to ditch science sooner or later, why not sooner?

this is the core reason I started the thread about communication, because this line of nonsense shows a total lack of understanding for the arguments presented and makes assumptions that are not part of the argument, nor are they logical conclusions of the arguments made so don't flatter yourself. Some of your basic missed assumptions. 1. we can test for God and miracles. Consider this, I broke my wrist some time ago, the dr wanted to do surgery but I didn't want it, so he agreed to set it without and do surgery if needed. The wrist healed without surgery and gives me absolutely no problems to this day. The dr.'s very own words were it is a miracle. Now, is there evidence that this miracle happened? sure, we have records, x rays, eye witness accounts, etc. But was it a miracle none the less? according to the dr. yes. Miracles are not outside the realm of science, if they were, science wouldn't exist because everything would fall into this category before we discovered what made it work. 2.what God does does not have to lack reason. Just because we don't know what God might have had in mind doesn't mean He didn't have a purpose. We see this in science all the time, somthing we once thought to be worthless shows up to be valuable. Two I can think of off the top of my head without effort, tonsils and appendix. And that is just to basic assumptions you fail to understand. Science is very compatable with religion as a whole and the bible specifically, conclusive is another issue.

On bias, let me first state loud and clear that some scientists are probably biased. After all they are only human. But there remain three problems.

1. I think you are mistaking controversy for bias. Every time I have asked for evidence of bias, what you have shown me are examples where there is controversy over something that is not well understood yet e.g. to what extent, if any, was the Chicxulub crater a factor in the K-T mass extinction. This is irrelevant to the question of bias. Controversy is not bias.

then you aren't putting the argument in context and just simply picking and choosing what you want to use as my argument and that is a sad thing to have to own.

2. You keep linking up unknown and unspecified variables with bias and I don't see any connection between them. To me, bias is not about what is unknown. It is about turning a blind eye to what is known. How can one show bias about what one doesn't know?

we know that variables exist, therefore they are a known. Trying to say they don't is dishonest and that also is sad and would be a sad thing to have to own, but alas you are faced with this one as well.

3. You have specifically said that variables make the calculation of ages and dates so problematical that (at least in the hands of biased scientists) they cannot be as accurate as claimed. The problem here is that there is no scientific disagreement on the ages obtained. Even YECs will agree that, using scientific methods, these are the ages you will get. So if bias is the problem, this is a blanket indictment of all scientists (including young-earth scientists) for being biased, and that is just unreasonable.

you still have not accepted the fact, that it isn't the test that is flawed but the lack of acceptance of the known variables, that make the conclusions flawed.

Now I have been focusing less on bias and more on the question of whether variables destroy the possibility of getting accurate results.

and this is also a sad thing you must own because I did not declare the tests to be wrong, only the conclusions wrong. Let me see......ah yes, we had a river which originated in the mountains, we had a fish we plopped down in the middle somewhere, when we catch the fish, we assume he originated from the mountain source. But is this right or wrong. The test clearly shows that the fish was caught in the river that originates in the mountain. It is an accurate measure. However, if we do not include the variables of how the fish got in that river, we fail to understand the truth of where the fish came from.

 

[gluadys]

Just please in the future try to make only fair accusations that are supported by the evidence. BTW, these fair accusation backed by evidence I appreciate because I can honestly evaluate them to see if I do indeed need to own them.

Generally I try to respond to arguments without making any personal accusations at all. In future, I will appreciate it if you draw all instances of personal accusation (not just the ones you think are unfair) to my attention, so that I can edit them out.

IOW's the controversies are not the only evidence,[of bias]

They are not evidence of bias at all.

but rather that there is no concenses as to what is known and what is not known.

Lack of consensus is not bias either.

you still have not accepted the fact, that it isn't the test that is flawed but the lack of acceptance of the known variables, that make the conclusions flawed.

Actually this is what I call a good definition of bias. "lack of acceptance of the known variables". So now, we have a way to establish bias. What known variables are not being accepted by whom? Whenever we can fill in the "what" and the "who" we have a right to claim bias. Without that the accusation of bias is empty.

This is a false accusation. What I said is that your assumption of what I said is misleading and false, not that your claim was that the earth was still hot.

It is not a false accusation. You said it twice.

. Instead of understanding that argument, you twisted it to say that the cool down was an illusion and somehow we are all living on a hot earth. (post 247)
Any other interpretation of the event, such as the one you gave that the earth is still hot, removes the appearance of age. (post 251)

see the evidence that would say you are wrong.

Can't without the link. Remember to point me to evidence you wish me to see.

The difference is that one supports a yec theory and the other doesn't. That is why the issue of aging the earth is so important and why that margin of error is so vital to understand. Because ONE SUPPORTS A YEC THEORY THE OTHER DOESN'T

That doesn't answer the question. The question is not what supports YEC theory. The question is what is there about an apparent old rock age of 4 million or 4 billion years that is necessary to support life that we do not find in a young rock of 40,000 years?

If a young rock of 40,000 years can do the job of supporting life, why do any rocks need to appear millions or billions of years old?

Well, this is not permissible in the discussion because it relies on evidence that is inconclusive,

I see we have a bit of confusion again. It is permissible, because this is what the scientific claim is and yecs agree that this is what the scientific claim is. They dispute the claim, but not that the claim is made.

Try this comparison. Which of these statements is controversial:

A. Muhammad is the messenger of God.
B. Muslims believe Muhammad is the messenger of God.

Statement A is controversial. Muslims agree with it; non-Muslims disagree with it.
Statement B is not controversial. Both Muslims and non-Muslims agree that this is what Muslims believe.

Now which of these statements is controversial:

A. Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.
B. Most scientists agree that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.

Statement A is controversial if you have reason to believe scientific dating methods are not accurate. But Statement B is not controversial. YECs agree that this is what most scientists say. In fact, they even agree that the methods used by scientists give these dates. They don't dispute that the claim is made and that the claim is reasonable given the dating methods used. In short, there is no disputing that from a scientific perspective, dinosaur fossils appear to be at least 65 million years old (and most of them even older).

Remember, the whole question of appearance of age comes from the scientific claim that the fossils are old. So the scientific consensus on the age is admissible evidence of appearance of age. After all, without that consensus, the whole debate wouldn't even exist. Even those who think the scientists are wrong about the date agree that the date is the one claimed and that it is based on scientific dating methods. That is why they try to find an explanation for this old appearance.

I will try to be clearer on whether I am submitting as evidence the date itself or the claim about the date. So I am not faulting you here as it may not have been clear that I was speaking of the claim (which is admissible evidence) not about the date (which is controversial--at least for a yec.)

however, in the original post in question, the difference is all about one fitting into a yec idea. Look at it this way, you assert that yec is not compatable with science and to show this you present evidence that supports yec. I call you on it and instead of owning that you made a mistake or that you are wrong, you try to change the point to be the age of the rocks. We already dismissed the age of the rocks through traditional tests, so all we need to hash out right now is that a 40,000 year old rock is not a problem for a yec as defined.

No, the original claim was that appearance of age was necessary to support life. And the question posed is and has always been, does a rock need to appear 4 million or 4 billion years old to support life?

Of course, a 40,000 year old rock would not be a problem. The problem is if the scientists don't agree that it is 40,000 years, but instead peg it at 4 million years. Now we have a discrepancy between the age determined scientifically and the age compatible with yec. How do we resolve this discrepancy?

The first solution offered was the appearance of age argument. It looks old (note this is yec agreeing that it looks old) because it is necessary to support life. Is this a viable solution?

It would appear not, for you are now going to a second argument. That there is a problem with scientific dating methods.

That, I think, is where we stand now. Note that no one has shown that there is really a problem with scientific dating methods, so the scientific date cannot be dismissed yet. Questioned, yes; dismissed no.

which are you refering too? I presented a lot of articles for review.

These ones:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...of+error&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

http://www.robertniles.com/stats/margin.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

...about which you said:

and there you have it folks, the explainations of margin of error that have been removed by science because gluady's says they have.

And lest you have forgotten, here is the challenge again.

Find a statement in any of those articles that contradicts what I said. [about margin of error]

you worry too much about conclusions and not enough about the evidence that leads to the conclusions.

The evidence is spelled out in the article. Did you expect me to cut and paste it all? You have the link. You provided it in the first place. Check it out for yourself.

this is not part of our discussion, I wondered where you were going with this since I told you repeatedly now that the length of day was not part of our discussion,

You introduced the topic when you put up the links to it. Since you apparently don't read pages before you post the links, no doubt it was inadvertent, but it was you who brought length of day into the discussion. So I had every right to discuss it.

but only the chronology of days, so in order to make your case, you need to show how the conclusions of chronology differ.

Did that later in the same post.

When we finish that we can talk about the length of day if you like.

I'm finished with that topic, but if you want to go over it again later I can review it when you are ready.

Both show how the ancient Heb. text shows chronology of days.

Actually neither of them do. They are both about length of day with Hebrew grammar used as evidence for their opposing positions. You really do need to start reading what you are presenting as evidence. Not just skimming.

That was the discussion at hand when the sites were references, trying to change the topic mid way is dishonest at best.

It was the sites themselves that changed the topic. Why would I not assume you posted them to talk about what they were talking about? If you wanted to talk chronology, you should have posted sites about chronology, not about whether 'yom with a number' means 24-hour days.

are you talking about chronology or length of day?

The articles you posted were about length of day, so that is what I was speaking of.

any conclusion about length of day is based on your own bias because we haven't looked into it at all yet.

You may not have yet, but I have. And my conclusion is based on the evidence presented by the two scholars in the links you provided.

 

[gluadys]

what you believe is yours to own, his is based on study with some of the best ancient heb. scholars of our day. That seems like a pretty good reason to go with the same conclusion to me. If you would rather rely on those who haven't put the time and study into it, that is yours to own. My husband and I choose to go with the scholars, who come with evidence.

Oh, lay not that flattering unction to your soul, that this is a question with "the best ancient heb. scholars of our day" on one side and gluadys' unstudied personal opinion on the other. For I have not been presenting my personal opinion, but the opinion of some of the best ancient heb. scholars of our day.

Consider the credentials of Lee Irons and Meredith Kline.

Lee Irons (B.A., University of California, Los Angeles, M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary in California) is Pastor of Redeemer Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and author of several scholarly essays for Always Reformed and Creator, Redeemer, Consummator. He also has written articles for publications such as Modern Reformation, Reformation and Revival, Kerux, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and Ordained Servant.

Meredith Kline received his A.B. from Gordon College, Th.B. and Th.M. from Westminster Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania, and Ph.D. in Assyriology and Egyptology from Dropsie College. He enjoyed a long and fruitful professorial career spanning five decades and two coasts, teaching Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary (1948-1977), Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (1965-1993), the Claremont School of Theology (1974-1975), Reformed Theological Seminary (1979-1983), and Westminster Seminary California (1981-2002). Kline was a professor emeritus at Westminster Seminary California and Gordon-Conwell until his death. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

I am sure your husband will recognize their names. They are the scholars who devised the framework interpretation. They are both with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which, (I have been told) is the most conservative of the Presbyterian churches in the US. And, should you take time to read the articles linked below, you will see that both take the stand that the framework of Genesis 1 is structural only, not chronological.

http://www.upper-register.com/papers/framework_interpretation.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html

Another scholar of note, from the same denomination is Rev. Dr. Rowland S. Ward, who was one of those asked by the denominational leadership to write a study of the framework interpretation for delegates who would be deciding if it was a permissible position for the denomination to take. In his report (which was favorable), he also opts for the view that the organization of Genesis 1 is structural and topical, not chronological.
http://spindleworks.com/library/ward/framework.htm

Framework interpretation is the most developed form of what is also called literary interpretation. Other scholars who have held to a literary interpretation, whether framework or not, are Howard van Til and Charles Hummel. http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1985/JASA9-85VanTill.html
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/fourth.html
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/hummel86.html

I could name others, but I think that is more than enough reading for you. It would certainly be an insult to suggest that these scholars have "not put time and study" into their work. They clearly have, and yet they differ from those you and your husband agree with. So there is no scholarly consensus on whether Genesis 1 represents a chronology as well as a structure or only a logical structure.

we haven't even looked into that question

I have. Let me know when you are ready to catch up.

yet we have scholarly conclusions based on the evidence at hand.

And, as shown above (Irons, Kline et al) that scholarly opinion is divided on the question of chronology.

So, why then are the scholars conclusions wrong

Who says the scholars conclusions are wrong? Not me. I have only shown that the scholars don't agree with each other on the question of chronology. Therefore, we do not have a scholarly consensus on this matter.

I think that is more than clear. But what you fail to understand is that you have not yet shown it to be scientifically impossible.

Good. On to more evidence then.

actually, it is a literal interpretation of the bible and though it may be a hightened by the discoveries of the 18th,19th and 20th centuries, without the literalists of the GEn.. account, the argument would not exist at all.

Right, and without a scientific consensus on the old age of the earth, the argument wouldn't exist either. The literalists are responding to the scientists.

what do you base this understanding of my personal opinion on?

On the fact that you have often chided people, including me, for wrongfully assuming that you are a young earth creationist and that in this very thread you re-iterated that you were only taking that position as a devil's advocate.

Light can be old while the earth is young so it is no problem for the yec ist.

Yes, it is a problem, for despite the moniker "young earth" creationist, yecs hold that the heavens as well as the earth were made within the 6-day creation period no more than a million years ago. So visible light that is older than that is still a problem even though it does not relate to the age of the earth. Nor can it be explained as necessary to support life on earth.

it can also be a deceptive measure of age just as we discussed.

Yes, that is the yec response to the dilemma above. Now the question is, are the yecs right, or are the scientists right, about the reliability of the speed of light as a measure of time. Why would it be deceptive? What would make it deceptive?

argument 1. this is invalid because our aging methods are not accurate.

Yes, that is the argument. Remember that we haven't yet shown that the dating methods are not accurate. So it is only an arguement, not a conclusion yet.

argument 2 even if they were accurate, this crators effects are not yet known making it again irrelavent to the evidence you need to present

The crater IS an effect. Do you mean the effect of the meteor impact? That has been studied pretty thoroughly. Why would you say the effects are not known? Have you read the papers on it?

argument 3 even if we overlook both the above, we still see that not all life was destroyed

That was never claimed in the first place.

thus we see a change in the environment and this change can have a huge impact

Indeed, it has been suggested that this was the trigger for the K-T mass extinction. That is a huge impact.

given the right scenario, it could have created an environment necessary for life to exist.

You are forgetting that life already existed, so there was no need to create an environment necessary for life to exist. It already did exist.

God only needs to create an environment necessary for life to exist when no life exists yet. No one is claiming the Chicxulub impact ruined the whole planet the way gap theorists say the earth was destroyed in Gen. 1:2, so that life and the conditions necessary to life had to be restored in a second creation.

nor do we have evidence to falsify the claim which is the point. Lack of evidence means that it can't be argued effectively either way

I would say the evidence that life already existed (showing that the conditions necessary for life were already in place) and that some life survived the impact (showing that the condition for life were not destroyed and did not need to be recreated) is sufficient evidence that the meteor impact was not necessary to support life. Therefore its apparent age of 65+million years cannot be explained on that basis.

and therefore is not permissible as evidence of appearance of age.

Do you dispute that the age determined by scientists is 65 million years? Do you dispute that they came to that conclusion because of the tests they did?

Some of your basic missed assumptions. 1. we can test for God and miracles. Consider this, I broke my wrist some time ago

This is equivocating the meaning of "miracle" again.

There are at least two distinct meanings of "miracle".
Contrast, this set of defintions

A miracle, derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning "something wonderful", is a striking interposition of divine intervention by a God in the universe by which the ordinary course and operation of Nature is overruled, suspended, or modified.

An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: “Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves” (Katherine Anne Porter).

2. miracle - a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of God
mir·a·cle (mir'?-k?l) n.

1. act of God: an event that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature and is regarded as an act of God

with this set of definitions

In casual usage, "miracle" may also refer to any statistically unlikely but beneficial event, (such as the survival of a natural disaster) or even to anything which is regarded as "wonderful" regardless of its likelihood, such as birth.

[An event] that excites admiring awe.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin miraculum, from mirari, to wonder at, from mirus, wonderful.]

Noun 1. miracle - any amazing or wonderful occurrence
happening, natural event, occurrence - an event that happens

2. amazing event: an event or action that is amazing, extraordinary, or unexpected

3. marvelous example: something admired as a marvelous creation or example of a particular type of science or skill
a miracle of modern engineering

(All definitions found here:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=miracle+definition+&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Your wrist healing without surgery is a miracle of the second type. An event that is marvellous and wonderful, maybe even inspires awe, but also quite natural. And that type of miracle, can indeed be studied by science.

The sort of rapid cooling of the earth we were speaking of is a miracle of the first type, which overrules or suspends natural process, is contrary to the laws of nature and inexplicable by science. This cannot be tested by science since science, by definition, can only test what occurs naturally.

Switching from one meaning to the other is called "equvocation" and is fallacious reasoning.

Science is very compatable with religion as a whole and the bible specifically,

I agree. But it is not compatible with breaking the laws of thermodynamics to cool down a planet with supernatural speed. Just as it is not compatible with raising a man three days dead from the tomb. Such events are not within the power of science to explain.

we know that variables exist, therefore they are a known.

Of course we know there are variables. What you haven't shown is someone turning a blind eye to them and ignoring them. IOW you have not shown bias in regard to variables.

you still have not accepted the fact, that it isn't the test that is flawed but the lack of acceptance of the known variables, that make the conclusions flawed.

What lack of acceptance of the known variables? Please either provide an example of a known variable deliberately ignored to get a biased answer or drop the accusation of bias.

You also haven't responded to this:

The problem here is that there is no scientific disagreement on the ages obtained. Even YECs will agree that, using scientific methods, these are the ages you will get. So if bias is the problem, this is a blanket indictment of all scientists (including young-earth scientists) for being biased, and that is just unreasonable.

I did not declare the tests to be wrong, only the conclusions wrong.

If the tests are not wrong, what makes the conclusions wrong?

ah yes, we had a river which originated in the mountains, we had a fish we plopped down in the middle somewhere,

The problem was your error in thinking we were measuring the age of the fish (earth) when we were really measuring the age of the river (light).

 

[razzelflabben]

Actually this is what I call a good definition of bias. "lack of acceptance of the known variables". So now, we have a way to establish bias. What known variables are not being accepted by whom? Whenever we can fill in the "what" and the "who" we have a right to claim bias. Without that the accusation of bias is empty.

before we discuss bias any more please answer this question for me. What do we gain from discussing it further? You have been shown evidence, you have had that evidence listed since you can't read it anyother way. You have been shown people of like conclusions as yours who actually admit that bias occurs, we have discussed it at length. You have shown your own bias, and still you refuse to accept that it happens. So what do we gain from continuing a discussion that has shown you evidence that you blatantly refuse to accept? If you show me one viable thing we gain, I'm in. Otherwise, it is more of your circular arguing and I am tired of that and ready to move on, we aren't even remotely close to the OP topic at this point.

Can't without the link. Remember to point me to evidence you wish me to see.

I am still waiting for you to tell me what link you couldn't open so that I can do what you ask.

That doesn't answer the question. The question is not what supports YEC theory. The question is what is there about an apparent old rock age of 4 million or 4 billion years that is necessary to support life that we do not find in a young rock of 40,000 years?

Ah a different question, cool, at least this one makes some sense. I had a long answer all laid out and the computer lost it, let me see if I can recreate it.

Anything that creates an environment where unique life exists is necessary for sustaining life. But let's take this idea one step further, let's say that the earth changed dramatically after A. sin entered the world and B. the flood. For the time being let's focus on sin. It is traditionly understood that there was no death before sin entered the world. If this is true, then all life changed at this point in history and where it was not necessary for the sustaining of life before to have hiding places it suddenly became necessary to now. So we have the need to create environments that didn't exist before or life cannot survive. But, what about the "age" of the rocks. well, we can ignore that, which we will get into in a moment, but let's say we will look at the age of the rocks, just to humor you. Okay, we have rocks that appear very old. Why? Given the senerio above, we see that all life is dependant on two things, environment and other life.

Let's take a side trip to get a handle on a concept that will be connect this all together. IF God wanted to make a tree, that could sustain life, what would He create? A seed? or a full sized tree with leaves and fruit? Remember this trees purpose is to sustain life. He would indeed create a tree that had leaves and fruit. If it didn't look like it was older than a seed, it couldn't sustain life. Environments are much like this, some can only support certain life if they are "appearing" to be old. Take the mountains for example. The mountains support some life that exists no where else but the mountains. These mountains must then be necessary for supporting or sustaining life, or there wouldn't be creatures that live only in the mountains. Was it necessary for their survival to have some crevises deeper than others? Some rock softer than others,? etc. etc. etc. An environment is essential to the sustaining of life and science knows this, accepts this, and furthermore, science understanding that all these things are interconnected in ways that we are A. still unraveling and B. cannot be seperated.

I see we have a bit of confusion again. It is permissible, because this is what the scientific claim is and yecs agree that this is what the scientific claim is. They dispute the claim, but not that the claim is made.

now to recreate this argument. there are two different claims made here. 1. the appearance of an old earth and 2. what scientists conclude is the appearance of an old earth. The first of these is what we spoke of in the original discussion as put forth. The second was your assumption and assertion based on your own bias and beliefs. In order to be fair to the discussion and the respect of all beliefs, we can only discuss those things that both deem appearance of age, not only those things concluded by scientists as old earth.

Let's see, another example. You did not start the discussion by saying let's discuss the conclusions the scientists have about the age of the earth, but instead you said, let's discuss what reasons God could have for creating the earth to look old. The discussion has never been about why God would allow the scientists to conclude that the earth was old. Therefore anything that falls into this category though admissible for discussion is not admissible as evidence of an old earth unless it cannot be dismissed scientifically or mathematically. Thus when you produce evidence that the scientists conclude this or that and I say, not admissible because of this evidence you must either falsify the evidence presented (which you haven't even put forth a good effort to do) or you need to accept that the evidence you presented isn't admissable and move on to something that is.

Statement A is controversial if you have reason to believe scientific dating methods are not accurate. But Statement B is not controversial. YECs agree that this is what most scientists say. In fact, they even agree that the methods used by scientists give these dates. They don't dispute that the claim is made and that the claim is reasonable given the dating methods used. In short, there is no disputing that from a scientific perspective, dinosaur fossils appear to be at least 65 million years old (and most of them even older).

see above, you don't know what the discussion is even about. We are not discussing if the scientists conclude that the earth is old or young, we are discussing if the evidence of an old earth is A. admissible as conclusive and B. dependant on the sustaining of life.

Remember, the whole question of appearance of age comes from the scientific claim that the fossils are old. So the scientific consensus on the age is admissible evidence of appearance of age. After all, without that consensus, the whole debate wouldn't even exist. Even those who think the scientists are wrong about the date agree that the date is the one claimed and that it is based on scientific dating methods. That is why they try to find an explanation for this old appearance.

wrong, see above, and now that it has been fully covered, all other references will be deleted to control space.

The first solution offered was the appearance of age argument. It looks old (note this is yec agreeing that it looks old) because it is necessary to support life. Is this a viable solution?

you still aren't listening. How can you hope to understand another person or view if you aren't willing to listen to it in the first place?

These ones:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...of+error&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

http://www.robertniles.com/stats/margin.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

...about which you said:

And lest you have forgotten, here is the challenge again.

Find a statement in any of those articles that contradicts what I said. [about margin of error]

now I am extremely confused. You said you couldn't open my link and wanted me to show you the quotes that talked about chronology, and when I ask you what link you couldn't open you go off about margin of error. Did you read the links or can't you link to anything posted? This is why it is vital for you to stay focused rather than changing the topic every time you get into a bit of a jam for an argument.

You introduced the topic when you put up the links to it. Since you apparently don't read pages before you post the links, no doubt it was inadvertent, but it was you who brought length of day into the discussion. So I had every right to discuss it.

And so you have the right to change the quote being discussed from "to be or not to be" in shakespere when I put forth a scene for evidence. Come on even you know better than that.

I'm finished with that topic, but if you want to go over it again later I can review it when you are ready.

We can discuss it when it is a part of the discussion. I refuse to accept anything as truth just because you proclaim it to be so. Every person has a right and obligation to review the evidence for him/her self and make a decision based on that evidence. Your trying to go behind my back to declare something as truth that wasn't even talked about much less brought into the discussion is dishonest and since this type of changing the topic mid stream dishonesty is so common with you, I will now hold you accountable for it and point it out to you every time you bring up this argument that I brought up the topic or that it was discussed or that you know the truth or any combination, or version thereof.

Actually neither of them do. They are both about length of day with Hebrew grammar used as evidence for their opposing positions. You really do need to start reading what you are presenting as evidence. Not just skimming.

again, I am holding you responsible for your dishonest approach of this topic. The only reason it came up is that you had nothing to offer the discussion of chronology and so you needed a way out and chose to change the topic, try to frame me for doing so and thus declare yourself honest. Sorry, doesn't fly.

It was the sites themselves that changed the topic. Why would I not assume you posted them to talk about what they were talking about? If you wanted to talk chronology, you should have posted sites about chronology, not about whether 'yom with a number' means 24-hour days.

The assumption is always that a referenced site is referencing the discussion at hand and if you had read the entire site you would have seen the parts that talk about chronology, which was the discussion, just as a scene from shakesphere is admissible as evidence of the quote "to be or not to be" and thus does not give you the right to change the discussion to another quote, the site referenced does not give the right to change the topic just because it includes more than the discussion at hand. And BTW, if it had been lengthy, I would have pointed you to the direct quotes. But in fact, it was much shorted than many sites I have referenced you to and you were able to stay on topic with them. Though over time you went back and twisted what was said, at the time, you were able to focus.

The articles you posted were about length of day, so that is what I was speaking of.

Both the articles I posted dealt with chronology which was the topic you brought up for discussion. If you want to add the topic of length of days, you at least need to present it for discussion, and not as an excuse for discussing a topic you brought up for discussion.

You may not have yet, but I have. And my conclusion is based on the evidence presented by the two scholars in the links you provided.

Your beliefs are for you set in stone, you have made that clear all along, the problem is, some of us like to look at the evidence and discuss it and examine it for ourselves not just take the word of someone like yourself as gospel truth. So have your belief, it is yours to own but don't try to pawn it off on the rest of us just because you are afraid to examine it with us.

 

[razzelflabben]

Oh, lay not that flattering unction to your soul, that this is a question with "the best ancient heb. scholars of our day" on one side and gluadys' unstudied personal opinion on the other. For I have not been presenting my personal opinion, but the opinion of some of the best ancient heb. scholars of our day.

well, since I wasn't suggesting it was scholar against gluady's, I don't understand what your issue is, but oh well. What I was suggesting is that all the evidence you presented us was with evolutionist sites, not ancient heb. scholars, and unsubstanciated claims from books you have read. When asked for evidence to your claims you refused to present it. This contrasted with two sites that were presented by creationist, ancient heb. scholars, and referenes by my husband from two of the best ancient Heb. scholars in the country. It's like looking at a water quality report from the city or talking to my neighbor about the water quality. Both have somthing to offer the discussion but when they contridict one another, you got to go with the experts. If you have other evidence to present, don't ignore the request to do so.

Consider the credentials of Lee Irons and Meredith Kline.

Lee Irons (B.A., University of California, Los Angeles, M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary in California) is Pastor of Redeemer Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and author of several scholarly essays for Always Reformed and Creator, Redeemer, Consummator. He also has written articles for publications such as Modern Reformation, Reformation and Revival, Kerux, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and Ordained Servant.

Two things are missing 1. credetials for being a scholar of ancient hebrew and 2. evidence that he thinks chronology is not part of the text. thus you are still at zero

Meredith Kline received his A.B. from Gordon College, Th.B. and Th.M. from Westminster Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania, and Ph.D. in Assyriology and Egyptology from Dropsie College. He enjoyed a long and fruitful professorial career spanning five decades and two coasts, teaching Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary (1948-1977), Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (1965-1993), the Claremont School of Theology (1974-1975), Reformed Theological Seminary (1979-1983), and Westminster Seminary California (1981-2002). Kline was a professor emeritus at Westminster Seminary California and Gordon-Conwell until his death. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

same two problems as above, in fact, you do realize I hope (since it is so obvious) that assyriology and egyptoloty are not the same thing as anceint hebrew? We are looking for ancient Hebrew scholars.

I am sure your husband will recognize their names. They are the scholars who devised the framework interpretation. They are both with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which, (I have been told) is the most conservative of the Presbyterian churches in the US. And, should you take time to read the articles linked below, you will see that both take the stand that the framework of Genesis 1 is structural only, not chronological.

http://www.upper-register.com/papers/framework_interpretation.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html

at least now you have some actual evidence for us to review, that is a whole heap lot better than you offered us before. I'll read it and get back to you.

HUM, the first paragraph shows the same answer you were given by the other scholarly references, that it is both, see the quote

[SIZE=-1]Although the temporal framework has a non-literal meaning, the events narrated within the days are real historical events of divine creative activity. What is the exegetical support for such a view? [1][/SIZE]

Need we go further? It says the same thing you were told, it is both. So once again you show us evidence that supports the claims you are trying to argue against. I really don't think you understand how debate works.

The second reference is somewhat hard to follow on this topic because it is theological in nature not grammatical. But it seems to be saying that if we want to be able to wrap our mind around God we should look at it this way because I say so. Not compelling evidence at all, especially when held up to the ancient hebrew scholars and your argument of grammer of the text. I know you can do better than this.

Another scholar of note, from the same denomination is Rev. Dr. Rowland S. Ward, who was one of those asked by the denominational leadership to write a study of the framework interpretation for delegates who would be deciding if it was a permissible position for the denomination to take. In his report (which was favorable), he also opts for the view that the organization of Genesis 1 is structural and topical, not chronological.
http://spindleworks.com/library/ward/framework.htm

so again, your argument was one of grammatical of which is not even discussed here and this is not an ancient heb. scholar, and still he says, as you pointed out that it is both, again, consistant witht he evidence I provided. only I did it through scholars and a discussion of the grammer, in accordance with your contridictory claims. DId you disagree with me just to be difficult?

Framework interpretation is the most developed form of what is also called literary interpretation. Other scholars who have held to a literary interpretation, whether framework or not, are Howard van Til and Charles Hummel. http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1985/JASA9-85VanTill.html
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/fourth.html
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/hummel86.html

some of these are really hard to narrow down to one quote but let me see if I can.

I prefer to call the two views 11 categorically complementary" because they differ in the categories of questions which they address. Each view is blind to those dimensions of the material world that are visible in the other. Either view must be complemented by the other in order to obtain the unified and all-encompassing understanding of the cosmos that we seek.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this review are the opinion of the author of this review alone and should not be taken to represent the views of any other person or organization.
The last two are book review for heaven's sake and tells us nothing about the views of the "scholar".

So what we have is a bunch of essays by non ancient Heb. scholars who do not discuss at all the grammer of the text, but all seem as best we can tell to agree that the text is both chronological and structual, which is consistant with the information I presented from ancient Heb. scholars which discussed the grammer of the text. Hummm what is your problem with the claims I made?

I could name others, but I think that is more than enough reading for you. It would certainly be an insult to suggest that these scholars have "not put time and study" into their work. They clearly have, and yet they differ from those you and your husband agree with. So there is no scholarly consensus on whether Genesis 1 represents a chronology as well as a structure or only a logical structure.

Who says the scholars conclusions are wrong? Not me. I have only shown that the scholars don't agree with each other on the question of chronology. Therefore, we do not have a scholarly consensus on this matter.

see above It appears you don't even know what you are saying much less what the scholars or myself are saying.

On the fact that you have often chided people, including me, for wrongfully assuming that you are a young earth creationist and that in this very thread you re-iterated that you were only taking that position as a devil's advocate.

that doesn't make me an evolutionist by default, nor an old earth creationist, or an aleins did it advocate either. IOW's don't assume what you don't know. You know the old saying don't you? Assuming makes an --- out of U and Me. If you feel like you need to insert what I believe, at least find out what I believe before you make assumptions.

Yes, it is a problem, for despite the moniker "young earth" creationist, yecs hold that the heavens as well as the earth were made within the 6-day creation period no more than a million years ago. So visible light that is older than that is still a problem even though it does not relate to the age of the earth. Nor can it be explained as necessary to support life on earth.

Light is absolutely necessary to support life, so you are wrong on that one. and in addition, visible light being old doesn't equal an old earth. Light can be much older than the earth. But as I said, this argument can be concluded by looking no further than scripture itself, you just have to be willing to think instead of regergitate what you have been taught.

Yes, that is the yec response to the dilemma above. Now the question is, are the yecs right, or are the scientists right, about the reliability of the speed of light as a measure of time. Why would it be deceptive? What would make it deceptive?

If God is the light talked about, and God is eternal, then light is also eternal and the earth is not. Therefore, the measure of light is not equal to the age of the earth.

The crater IS an effect. Do you mean the effect of the meteor impact? That has been studied pretty thoroughly. Why would you say the effects are not known? Have you read the papers on it?

addressed previously.

You are forgetting that life already existed, so there was no need to create an environment necessary for life to exist. It already did exist.

but not sustained if that life was becoming extinct because of something in the environment. Remember the argument was that it was necessary for sustaining life.

Do you dispute that the age determined by scientists is 65 million years? Do you dispute that they came to that conclusion because of the tests they did?

Yes and no yes to the first question, no to the second.

There are at least two distinct meanings of "miracle".
Contrast, this set of defintions

yep, brought up already and ignored so that you could wait to bring it up as a new idea when you thought you could twist it to your benefit. Not very honest of you but consistant.

(All definitions found here:

Your wrist healing without surgery is a miracle of the second type. An event that is marvellous and wonderful, maybe even inspires awe, but also quite natural. And that type of miracle, can indeed be studied by science.

apparently, the dr. disagrees with you, apparently the dr. believes that me having no issues with it, even when it rains, is not natural or he would not have been surprised. But, that doesn't allow you to use the same argument to your benefit, so pretend I didn't follow through to the logical conclusion on this one and keep going with your argument.

The sort of rapid cooling of the earth we were speaking of is a miracle of the first type, which overrules or suspends natural process, is contrary to the laws of nature and inexplicable by science. This cannot be tested by science since science, by definition, can only test what occurs naturally.

what is naturally? If God is eternal, then He would indeed be the only natural thing in existance. OOPs, I destroyed your argument again.

I agree. But it is not compatible with breaking the laws of thermodynamics to cool down a planet with supernatural speed. Just as it is not compatible with raising a man three days dead from the tomb. Such events are not within the power of science to explain.

Not so, there are many things in the bible that are known as miracles that science does study. But accepting such removes your argument.

Of course we know there are variables. What you haven't shown is someone turning a blind eye to them and ignoring them. IOW you have not shown bias in regard to variables.

I have shown that accepting the variables for what they are and figuring them into the equasion would give us a much different answer than the one we claim to have.

What lack of acceptance of the known variables? Please either provide an example of a known variable deliberately ignored to get a biased answer or drop the accusation of bias.

Done in the sites I referenced you to that showed the lack of what science knows. If we factor these variables into the equasion, our answer is much different than what science currently claims.

You also haven't responded to this:

I have addressed it many times in many different ways, If I am understanding you wrong, don't assert I haven't addressed it but rather rephrase it to show what I have missed.

If the tests are not wrong, what makes the conclusions wrong?

not adequately accounting for the variables......

The problem was your error in thinking we were measuring the age of the fish (earth) when we were really measuring the age of the river (light).

No, that is your error because the analogy is about the variables not about what we are measuring. By claiming there are no variables, or that the variable that we plopped the fish down in the middle of the stream, is not possible, then we have made a false conclusion and called it truth. Jo and Mo's king might kill them for such a mistake.