Different state past

[Elendur]

Thank you. So far, this place seems a lot like a Ripley's Believe It Or Not!

How many of these postings are from people who are just fooling us as Poes? Of course, if you could answer that, Poe's Law wouldn't exist. Nevertheless it is fun to try to figure out which is which.

I couldn't agree more

I assume dad abhors Uniformitarianism. So perhaps he can explain to us why the uniformitarian methods mentioned above work so well. (Does dad actually answer questions? Or just declare himself the winner and "undefeated"?)

The answers to the questions marked in bold are no and yes (in that order).

 

[Elendur]

hey are all same state past fundies. And since they have no proof of a same state past, their fables are now dead. End of story.

Again you abuse the term 'proof'. You don't listen to anyone, do you?
Also, You might want to correct that first sentence, I don't understand what you're trying to say(write).

 

[MostlyLurking]

MostlyLurking wrote: Obviously, it depends upon which definition of YOM you are using. And if you presume a 24hour day, that's a strange unit of time to talk about "before the sun."
​

No. Morning and evening can't be anything else.

So you admit being uninformed in basic Hebrew linguistics and lexicography. No surprise there.

God idiot proofed it.

I have no idea what that sentence means. But it sure sounds blasphemous. (Not that either observation would be uncommon in critiques of the author of that set of words.)

 

[MostlyLurking]

Man doesn't even know what time is.

Or at least one man doesn't. (But as with Michael Behe, just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean that nobody does!)

 

[MostlyLurking]

MostlyLurking: In any case, the first references to the sun and stars is within Genesis 1:1 where both "the heavens and the earth" already exist.​

Not true. No stars or sun existed or were mentioned, That is in your bean.

When it is a choice between your opinion and what the Biblical text says, I'll go with the scriptures.

(The idea of the heavens somehow omitting the stars is quite an accomplishment on your part. You might want to get your money back on that Hebrew lexicon you are using. Or should I say "not using"?)

 

[SkyWriting]

So why was stuff done on the first days before man was even here? Was that all in some timeless limbo? Was AGod wrong to say it was days consisting of mornings and evenings?

Of course HE wasn't wrong! So guess who that leaves to be wrong.

When Jesus healed people was it wrong-er to have the person healed,
or was it wrong-er to have the person look as if they had been through
weeks of medical therapy? Were the people healed in "an instant"?

God had control over whatever time was needed. I'm not aware of one
person who thinks that 27 weeks of healing is by God's hand. If God choose
to Create over the period of a week, that's His option for us to learn from.
And there is nothing to show it was done in one week. Not from what I read.

How long would it take for Adam to get hungry?
How long does it take for trees to fruit after planting?

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden;
and there he put the man he had formed.
9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—
trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.
In the middle of the garden were the tree of life
and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202%20&version=NIV

God controls time. No human scientist can recreate
these events or measure them well. If you don't like
my answer, it's because God doesn't let me watch
all that He does.

 

[SkyWriting]

Interesting. What Genesis 1 says about time doesn't matter to you. That's a new one that I hadn't seen before.

It's what you think it says that is up for review.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, though it's still the best we've got for now.

Agreed. That's what your stuck with. Along with a jury of peers in the same boat who have the final say by majority vote.

Problems with Peer-Review: A Brief Summary - Evolution News & Views

 

[dad]

MostlyLurking wrote: Obviously, it depends upon which definition of YOM you are using. And if you presume a 24hour day, that's a strange unit of time to talk about "before the sun."
​

So you admit being uninformed in basic Hebrew linguistics and lexicography. No surprise there.

I admit not having a lot of patience to be able to explain things to nommies. Now care to explain morning away?

I have no idea what that sentence means. But it sure sounds blasphemous. (Not that either observation would be uncommon in critiques of the author of that set of words.)

Well, I have seen books awhile ago like "dos for dummies" or "windows for dummies" Basically idiot proof. Now I am saying that God included checks and balances like mentioning that the day was composed of an evening... But I guess it is like the old bumper sticker said "Make it idiot proof, and they'll build a better idiot"

My point of course is that God knew some of us needed it to be spelled out pretty clear.

He did that...in any language.

Moving on..

Hey the thread is almost over here at 1000 maybe hit us with your best same state past from science proof attempt.

 

[dad]

Of course HE wasn't wrong! So guess who that leaves to be wrong.

Who?

When Jesus healed people was it wrong-er to have the person healed,
or was it wrong-er to have the person look as if they had been through
weeks of medical therapy? Were the people healed in "an instant"?

When the devil showed Jesus all kingdoms it was in time! (a moment of it)

God had control over whatever time was needed. I'm not aware of one
person who thinks that 27 weeks of healing is by God's hand. If God choose
to Create over the period of a week, that's His option for us to learn from.
And there is nothing to show it was done in one week. Not from what I read.

Yes, and with that control He cites creation week was a number of days. That has to mean time.

How long would it take for Adam to get hungry?
How long does it take for trees to fruit after planting?

Who cares? What we do know is that creation took so many days. That means time.

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden;
and there he put the man he had formed.
9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—
trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.
In the middle of the garden were the tree of life
and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

Point? Yes, trees were for good eating...and..?

God controls time. No human scientist can recreate
these events or measure them well. If you don't like
my answer, it's because God doesn't let me watch
all that He does.

Right, and He knew what a real day was before the sun got here.

 

[dad]

MostlyLurking: In any case, the first references to the sun and stars is within Genesis 1:1 where both "the heavens and the earth" already exist.​

When it is a choice between your opinion and what the Biblical text says, I'll go with the scriptures.

Then no sun will be anywhere till it was created on a certain day...so?

(The idea of the heavens somehow omitting the stars is quite an accomplishment on your part. You might want to get your money back on that Hebrew lexicon you are using. Or should I say "not using"?)

Hey, stars were after the fact. We are the important bit! They were made for time(s) and signs etc for us. They will cease to be there when it suits earth folks and God too. Don't go Saganish on me now.

 

[dad]

Or at least one man doesn't. (But as with Michael Behe, just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean that nobody does!)

Then if you claim to know what time is tell us what exactly it is here and now!!!!!?

 

[Elendur]

Agreed. That's what your stuck with. Along with a jury of peers in the same boat who have the final say by majority vote.

Problems with Peer-Review: A Brief Summary - Evolution News & Views

Feel free to present a better way, there seem to be a rather small group complaining.
Also you should check up on what peer review really means.

Edit: I like this point:
"The peer-review system is often biased against non-majority viewpoints."
No, really? The numbers taken from the group is represented by the group? Shocking!

I also like this point:
"ID proponents have published a significant body of legitimate peer-reviewed research, but it's important to understand that being recognized in the peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea's scientific merit."
So the ID proponents can publicize their work in highly biased newspapers, and still complain about the rest being biased.

 

[Tiberius]

I can't help but notice that dad has chosen to ignore my posts. Apparently the question I posed in my last post is one that he cannot answer.

For the record, the question is: why does radiometric dating predict the ratio of parent to daughter to granddaughter material so accurately if it is wrong?

 

[dad]

I can't help but notice that dad has chosen to ignore my posts. Apparently the question I posed in my last post is one that he cannot answer.

For the record, the question is: why does radiometric dating predict the ratio of parent to daughter to granddaughter material so accurately if it is wrong?

I don't believe you. Predict the ratio in the rock sample I gave then, let's see your stuff at work. 'reverse extrapolate'?..maybe

 

[Tiberius]

So unless I do it, it doesn't count? Radiometric dating has been used for decades. It needs to make predictions in order for it to work. I haven't personally done it, because golly gee, I'm not a scientist working in a field where such skills are required.

But the fact remains that even if I can't do it myself, others can do it. And these are people who rely on radiometric dating to be reliable. If it doesn't work, they don't get money.

Now, given the billions of dollars a year spent on this kind of thing, do you really think that people and companies would be spending all that money for something that couldn't produce results?

Do ya?

Oh, and by the way, I don't care if you don't believe me, because I'm not asking you to just take my word for it. You are welcome to go and see for yourself.

 

[dad]

So unless I do it, it doesn't count?

It is easy to make sweeping claims. When asked to apply them to an actual sample you melt like wax.

Radiometric dating has been used for decades. It needs to make predictions in order for it to work. I haven't personally done it, because golly gee, I'm not a scientist working in a field where such skills are required.

Then maybe address something you know.

But the fact remains that even if I can't do it myself, others can do it. And these are people who rely on radiometric dating to be reliable. If it doesn't work, they don't get money.

Then they can post. You have nothing but blind faith in them to offer.

Now, given the billions of dollars a year spent on this kind of thing, do you really think that people and companies would be spending all that money for something that couldn't produce results?

Nonsense. That doesn't help your claim.

Do ya?

Oh, and by the way, I don't care if you don't believe me, because I'm not asking you to just take my word for it. You are welcome to go and see for yourself.

So you had nothing all this time after all. OK. Better inform the poor newbie who copied you in the silly sig about defeating dad.

 

[Elendur]

I can't help but notice that dad has chosen to ignore my posts. Apparently the question I posed in my last post is one that he cannot answer.

For the record, the question is: why does radiometric dating predict the ratio of parent to daughter to granddaughter material so accurately if it is wrong?

He has ignored many uncomfortable questions, not just yours.
(Several questions from me for example)

 

[Tiberius]

It is easy to make sweeping claims. When asked to apply them to an actual sample you melt like wax.

First of all, my claim does not melt like wax just because I personally do not know the intricate details about it.

Secondly, I think it's a bit rich that you have the nerve to criticize me for making sweeping claims when you have produced nothing but general claims and provided not a shred of detail about those claims.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Then maybe address something you know.

I may not have a detailed knowledge about radiometric dating, but I have enough of a knowledge about it to know that it works.

Then they can post. You have nothing but blind faith in them to offer.

And they have.

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that nothing counts unless it is posted in here.

Nonsense. That doesn't help your claim.

Only if you believe that people in business are willing to throw billions of dollars at something that is useless.

So you had nothing all this time after all. OK. Better inform the poor newbie who copied you in the silly sig about defeating dad.

It takes very little to defeat someone who doesn't bring anything to the table. And I've provided more than that.

By the way, here are some more questions you won't be able to answer...

Why is it that the radiometrically dated age for the Hawaiian islands matches exactly with the predicted ages for them based on the rate of plate movement and how far the islands are away from the hotspot that created them?

Why is radiometric dating consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity?

Why is radiometric dating consistent with the luminescence dating method?

Why is radiometric dating consistent with relative dating methods?

 

[SkyWriting]

I may not have a detailed knowledge about radiometric dating, but I have enough of a knowledge about it to know that it works.

But not about how well it works.

Mumba rockshelter, Tanzania

"Uranium/thorium dates of the deposits are between 70,000-40,000 years ago;"


"Despite its archaeological importance, however, the chronology of the site is poorly constrained,
despite the application since the 1980s [30 years worth] of several dating methods (radiocarbon, uranium-series and amino acid racemisation) to a variety of materials recovered from the deposits. "