Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[dad]

What circular thinking?

Science assumes a same state past. As for your thinking, you wiggle so much it is hard to pin you down. You can't seem to offer a rock in the real world, a real layer where something is found or anything else. All religious twaddle and pi in the sky.

You look at ratios and want to believe they all got there via this present state and our decay. Too bad you can't go back and check that fable.

 

[Vicomte13]

I'm sure that Catholics have just as much faith as you do in the validity of the Bible. They simply tend to "lack faith" in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I'm Catholic. I take Genesis quite literally.
Genesis - which is to say B'reshiyt - is written in Hebrew pictographs, not English. The Hebrew pictographs and their overlaying meanings is rather astonishingly sharp and accurate.

But one must read it textually and literally, and that means not just reading English guesses that look at words, but in the Hebrew reading the words as themselves being hieroglyphic sentences.

The degree of compactness and complexity - of letter, word and even letter name and sound - in the text is superhuman in its tightness. And considering that the overlaying words are the simple words of a pre-scientific, nomadic and uneducated people, the insight into the actual universe at creation is quite astonishing.

But to really see that, one must set aside the English translations and engage in the letters themselves - as originally written - which is not in English, and not even in modern Hebrew, but in the most ancient pictographic Hebrew - Old Ivrit.

I am willing to do this for the curious. I am not, however, willing to do it in a forum where people are hammering and yammering and spitting at me and spewing anger and ignorance. It took me years of my life to be able to decipher the delicate flower garden that is the original Hebrew pictographs, and I am completely unwilling to let anybody into that garden who is not prepared to silently observe what he cannot himself see without a guide, or anybody who is going to start trampling the flowers.

There is an immense ocean of astonishing wonder packed into a few words, that aren't even WORDS in the traditional sense. It's all THERE, in plain ancient Hebrew, but the Hebrew of Genesis 1 is superhuman in its features.

If you want to see, we can take the discussion to one of the closed fora and discuss Genesis in an environment of quiet academic respect, where the braying dogs of atheism and angry deception are not admitted.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science assumes a same state past.

Where is it assumed?

As for your thinking, you wiggle so much it is hard to pin you down. You can't seem to offer a rock in the real world,

187 measurements of real rocks from real geologic layers, all of which I have presented to you at least 5 times now.

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...-dating-does-work&hl=en&gl=us&strip=0&vwsrc=0

You look at ratios and want to believe they all got there via this present state and our decay.

I have shown you how those ratios are consistent with a same state past. You have been unable to refute it.

 

[dad]

Where is it assumed?

In assuming decay dunnit.

187 measurements of real rocks from real geologic layers, all of which I have presented to you at least 5 times now.

And what about it? This is news to you? Ratios exist. So? The issue is whether daughter material all got here by present state decay, or whether it was already here at the start of the present state.

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide.

Probably the flood era...so?

Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more.

Great..so what then? Why bring it up?

Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives.

In other words there are ratios and you chose to interpret that as ages. Foolish and circular.

Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."

No dating was ever done anywhere actually!!! What was done is a sick religious exercise in misrepresenting isotopes and where and how they got here.

 

[Loudmouth]

In assuming decay dunnit.

Where did I assume that?

Where in the measurement of isotopes within rocks is the decay rate assumed?

Where do you plug in the decay rate of the isotopes into the mass spectrometer so you get a specific result?

And what about it? This is news to you? Ratios exist. So? The issue is whether daughter material all got here by present state decay, or whether it was already here at the start of the present state.

You ignore this issue. I have already shown you the ratios that would be consistent with a same state past. You refuse to even discuss it.

In other words there are ratios and you chose to interpret that as ages.

False. There are ratios I consider to be consistent with a same state past. There is nothing in the measurement of isotopes within rocks that would guarantee that I get those ratios. You have been unable to refute this position. You have been unable to show that these ratios are not consistent with a same state past. My evidence stands.

Foolish and circular.

You haven't shown one thing that is circular. Please show how the measurement of isotopes in rocks is changed if we assume a different decay rate.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

I'm Catholic. I take Genesis quite literally.
Genesis - which is to say B'reshiyt - is written in Hebrew pictographs, not English. The Hebrew pictographs and their overlaying meanings is rather astonishingly sharp and accurate.

But one must read it textually and literally, and that means not just reading English guesses that look at words, but in the Hebrew reading the words as themselves being hieroglyphic sentences.

The degree of compactness and complexity - of letter, word and even letter name and sound - in the text is superhuman in its tightness. And considering that the overlaying words are the simple words of a pre-scientific, nomadic and uneducated people, the insight into the actual universe at creation is quite astonishing.

But to really see that, one must set aside the English translations and engage in the letters themselves - as originally written - which is not in English, and not even in modern Hebrew, but in the most ancient pictographic Hebrew - Old Ivrit.

I am willing to do this for the curious. I am not, however, willing to do it in a forum where people are hammering and yammering and spitting at me and spewing anger and ignorance. It took me years of my life to be able to decipher the delicate flower garden that is the original Hebrew pictographs, and I am completely unwilling to let anybody into that garden who is not prepared to silently observe what he cannot himself see without a guide, or anybody who is going to start trampling the flowers.

There is an immense ocean of astonishing wonder packed into a few words, that aren't even WORDS in the traditional sense. It's all THERE, in plain ancient Hebrew, but the Hebrew of Genesis 1 is superhuman in its features.

If you want to see, we can take the discussion to one of the closed fora and discuss Genesis in an environment of quiet academic respect, where the braying dogs of atheism and angry deception are not admitted.

Count me in. Can't say I'll agree at the moment, but very interested to see what you have to say.

 

[dad]

Where did I assume that?

Where in the measurement of isotopes within rocks is the decay rate assumed?

Where do you plug in the decay rate of the isotopes into the mass spectrometer so you get a specific result?

"What is the half-life of an isotope?

The half-life of an isotope is the time on average that it takes for half of the atoms in a sample to decay.

For example, the half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years. This means that if you have a sample of carbon-14 with 1,000 atoms, 500 of these atoms are expected to decay over the course of 5730 years. Some of the atoms may decay right away, while others will not decay for many thousands more years.

The thing to remember about half-life is that it is a probability. In the example above, 500 atoms are "expected" to decay. This is not a guarantee for one specific sample. It is just what will happen on average over the course of billions and billions of atoms. "

http://www.ducksters.com/science/chemistry/radiation_and_radioactivity.php

The half life is a time measurement. It involves looking at the present rate of decay and assuming this applied always.

You ignore this issue. I have already shown you the ratios that would be consistent with a same state past. You refuse to even discuss it.

Nothing to ignore, a silly woulda coulda shoulda maybe baby game.

IF there were a same state past, and the layers really were as old as we think by our religious circular so called dating techniques, and there was no creation or God, etc..THEN it woulda coulda took so long in this state to produce all we see.

You haven't shown one thing that is circular. Please show how the measurement of isotopes in rocks is changed if we assume a different decay rate.

Unable to focus or listen? Forget rates of any kind unless first, yes first and I mean first, (as in horse before cart) you prove there was a present state in the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

The half life is a time measurement.

How is the half life used to measure the concentration of isotopes in a rock?

It involves looking at the present rate of decay and assuming this applied always.

How is it assumed when we measure the ratio of isotopes in rocks?

Unable to focus or listen? Forget rates of any kind unless first, yes first and I mean first, (as in horse before cart) you prove there was a present state in the past.

Are you unable to focus or listen? I will ask again.

How is the half life used to measure the ratio of isotopes in a rock?

Think you can answer it this time?

 

[dad]

How is the half life used to measure the concentration of isotopes in a rock?

The concentration doesn't matter. The issue is the belief system they foist onto the ratio, whatever it may be!

How is it assumed when we measure the ratio of isotopes in rocks?

Ratios do not matter. The thing that matters is how stuff got here. Not what it does now while here.

 

[Loudmouth]

The concentration doesn't matter.

It does.

How is the half life used to measure the concentration of isotopes in a rock? You are claiming it is circular, so let's see you back it up.

The issue is the belief system they foist onto the ratio, whatever it may be!

What belief system is being foisted onto the measurement of isotopes in rocks?

 

[ChristsMercy]

So is every reference to the earth being flat or the heavens being in a "firmament" or tent above the earth figurative as well?

Yes, as God often had to speak in terms of Man in that particular era so they would remotely understand anything of such a complex nature, it is a safe assumption that it was meant to be taken figuratively. In the Bible, you will find many parables, stories, facts, and FIGURATIVE examples. Some people may have responded better to one or the other and God probably wanted to touch all bases, due to us not being omniscient and relying on human nature. Get it?

 

[dad]

It does.

How is the half life used to measure the concentration of isotopes in a rock? You are claiming it is circular, so let's see you back it up.

Easy Show us a sample. A layer. Now show the concentrations. Now show how old the sample is.

What belief system is being foisted onto the measurement of isotopes in rocks?

The belief system that assumes ratios all got here not because of creation or any former nature, but because of this present nature. Phooey.

 

[Vicomte13]

Count me in. Can't say I'll agree at the moment, but very interested to see what you have to say.

Ok, so, do we have this conversation in a private forum, or do we find an appropriate forum on one of those "Only" threads?

I am unfamiliar with the architecture of this site, having only just recently started posting here. And I am not really very curious about electronic filing cabinets or computer software, to tell you the truth. So, if you'd like to go over this, the very first, immensely helpful thing you could do is to find an electronic space here on this site where we can sit down on the grass and have a pleasant conversation without the fire ants showing up and sowing pain.

 

[bbbear2002]

1 Timothy 6
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Ok, so, do we have this conversation in a private forum, or do we find an appropriate forum on one of those "Only" threads?

I am unfamiliar with the architecture of this site, having only just recently started posting here. And I am not really very curious about electronic filing cabinets or computer software, to tell you the truth. So, if you'd like to go over this, the very first, immensely helpful thing you could do is to find an electronic space here on this site where we can sit down on the grass and have a pleasant conversation without the fire ants showing up and sowing pain.

I sent you a private message. It should be in your inbox on the site.

 

[Michael]

Unable to focus or listen? Forget rates of any kind unless first, yes first and I mean first, (as in horse before cart) you prove there was a present state in the past.

I don't think you quite grasp how "science" works dad.

Pretty much all branches of science assume that nature is consistent. You assume that your cell phone or computer will work tomorrow because the laws of physics are consistent over time.

Furthermore, if one posits a "different state" than the one we observe, it's really up to that individual to provide evidence to support such an assertion.

Radiometric decay rates are know to be very consistent over time, and there is simply no evidence that the laws of physics worked differently in the past or that they will change in the future.

 

[dad]

I don't think you quite grasp how "science" works dad.

Pretty much all branches of science assume that nature is consistent.

Bingo. Now prove it.

You assume that your cell phone or computer will work tomorrow because the laws of physics are consistent over time.

Noah had no cell.

Furthermore, if one posits a "different state" than the one we observe, it's really up to that individual to provide evidence to support such an assertion.

False. Only if one posits a different state here in this one would that be true. God records a different state in the future and past, not here.

Radiometric decay rates are know to be very consistent over time,

Baloney. Not more than a few hundred years are ANY rates known to exist. Forget different rates or same rates. The time in question here is around the flood time and after.

and there is simply no evidence that the laws of physics worked differently in the past or that they will change in the future.

Or not! Not from science so you lose. I will believe God thanks.

 

[dad]

Ok, so, do we have this conversation in a private forum, or do we find an appropriate forum on one of those "Only" threads?

I am unfamiliar with the architecture of this site, having only just recently started posting here. And I am not really very curious about electronic filing cabinets or computer software, to tell you the truth. So, if you'd like to go over this, the very first, immensely helpful thing you could do is to find an electronic space here on this site where we can sit down on the grass and have a pleasant conversation without the fire ants showing up and sowing pain.

Almost sounds like a cult. Why not post in the thread you are in? Want to get folks off in a corner?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Almost sounds like a cult. Why not post in the thread you are in? Want to get folks off in a corner?

Mostly want to keep it from turning argumentative and accusatory. As seems to happen on here quite a bit. Myself not excluded

 

[Michael]

Bingo. Now prove it.

The laws of physics have been tried and tried, and tried again, by various individuals and they always work the same way. Do you have any physical evidence to the contrary?

Baloney. Not more than a few hundred years are ANY rates known to exist.

Yet they've been measured repeatedly and always produce the same results.

Or not! Not from science so you lose. I will believe God thanks.

As I've pointed out to you, it's not ultimately "God" that you believe since there are many different ways to interpret the Bible. You only actually seem to "believe" in your own inerrant ability to "correctly interpret" the bible, and you believe that you are "more enlightened" than the Pope in terms of that ability.