My Raisin Bread Challenge

[AV1611VET]

The first event was: "God said".

 

[AV1611VET]

I already answered, if it was created 5 minutes ago, looking like it was created 5 minutes ago and you said it was created 5 minutes ago, then YES, you are being honest.

Then you accept that the raisins, which point to an obvious aging process, have nothing to do with the time the loaf of bread came into existence?

(And I asked if I was being DECEPTIVE ... not HONEST.)

 

[CabVet]

Starting with what, specifically? what was the very first historical event?

This, sorry about the cartoon:

If you say birds were created together with sea animals, and land animals created after birds, and men created just a few days after that, I should expect to see all of this reflected in the fossil record.

Forget the time scale on the right, regardless of how long ago it was, I would not expect fossil strata as we see them if life on earth had appeared during a 6-day miraculous creation event.

 

[Loudmouth]

... What happened to the first 4.435 billion years?

Take a geology course and find out.

How do you have an impact on earth, when you don't even have an earth yet?

The evidence demonstrates that the Earth was there 65 million years ago.

If you meant the tektites, instead of the impact, I asked for an event.

The creation of the tektites was the event, and the ongoing decay of 40K to produce the Argon measured in the tektites is an ongoing history.

 

[AV1611VET]

This, sorry about the cartoon:

If you say birds were created together with sea animals, and land animals created after birds, and men created just a few days after that, I should expect to see all of this reflected in the fossil record.

Forget the time scale on the right, regardless of how long ago it was, I would not expect fossil strata as we see them if life on earth had appeared during a 6-day miraculous creation event.

You're smart enough not to answer my questions as I ask them, aren't you?

Okay ... I guess I'll have to look at your cartoon and take a stab at your ... um ... answer.

I assume by the cartoon your answer is: "earth forms"?

If so, please show me specific evidence of this event ... (and I don't want bones and junk of things that happened after this event; I want clear evidence of the event itself.)

[I know ... here comes a picture of the earth ... ]

 

[CabVet]

Then you accept that the raisins, which point to an obvious aging process, have nothing to do with the time the loaf of bread came into existence?

(And I asked if I was being DECEPTIVE ... not HONEST.)

To me, the raisins don't point to an obvious aging process. Mold in the bread would indicate aging (if you said you created it 5 minutes ago). If you said you created "bread" and gave it to me with raisins in it, that would indicate aging, but in this case it does not because you said you created "raisin bread", so you are already implying you created the raisins.

Same goes for the cars, you can say you created an used 1986 BMW and show me a beat up 86 BMW. You can also say you created a new 1986 BMW 5 minutes ago and show me a "new" 1986 BMW. In both cases you would be HONEST.

Now, if you told me you created a "new" 1986 BMW 5 minutes ago and showed me an old beat up BMW, you would be DECEIVING, either because you created it a long time ago or because you created it not looking "new".

 

[AV1611VET]

Take a geology course and find out.



The evidence demonstrates that the Earth was there 65 million years ago.



The creation of the tektites was the event, and the ongoing decay of 40K to produce the Argon measured in the tektites is an ongoing history.

I think I'll just take your evasive and vague answers with a grain of salt.

Let's see if Cab can handle this; or I'd be repeating my question for the next 5 posts until you understand it.

 

[46AND2]

You're smart enough not to answer my questions as I ask them, aren't you?

Okay ... I guess I'll have to look at your cartoon and take a stab at your ... um ... answer.

I assume by the cartoon your answer is: "earth forms"?

If so, please show me specific evidence of this event ... (and I don't want bones and junk of things that happened after this event; I want clear evidence of the event itself.)

[I know ... here comes a picture of the earth ... ]

You don't care about the evidence itself. You'll just claim that scientists are lying about it, anyway, like you did with the tektites.

 

[CabVet]

If so, please show me specific evidence of this event ... (and I don't want bones and junk of things that happened after this event; I want clear evidence of the event itself.)

What specific event do you want evidence for? And again, I am asking you to forget the time scale.

 

[AV1611VET]

To me, the raisins don't point to an obvious aging process.

So Last Thursdayism isn't deceptive to you? how about Omphalism? not deceptive?

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't care about the evidence itself. You'll just claim that scientists are lying about it, anyway, like you did with the tektites.

I don't call people 'liars' ... that's not nice.

Lying assumes they know better, and did it with the intent to deceive.

Even with the rigged Pluto vote, I won't call them 'liars.'

 

[46AND2]

I don't call people 'liars' ... that's not nice.

Lying assumes they know better, and did it with the intent to deceive.

Even with the rigged Pluto vote, I won't call them 'liars.'

You accused them of fudging numbers. If they are fudging the numbers, clearly they know what they are doing. How is fudging numbers not indicative of intent?

 

[AV1611VET]

What specific event do you want evidence for? And again, I am asking you to forget the time scale.

The one I asked for: the first one.

If we have 4.5 billion years of events, what is the first one?

 

[AV1611VET]

You accused them of fudging numbers. If they are fudging the numbers, clearly they know what they are doing. How is fudging numbers not indicative of intent?

And I gave you four different ways to fudge numbers legitimately, didn't I?

 

[CabVet]

So Last Thursdayism isn't deceptive to you? how about Omphalism? not deceptive?

Not if you say you did it. If the Bible said the world was created 6,000 years ago, with embedded age, maturity, memories, fossils, geological events, everything in it, that would be very tough for anybody to counter. But the Bible really does not say that, does it? It says the world was created out of nothing.

Here, very easy, disprove this statement: "the entire world was created last Thursday, with embedded age, memories of historical events". Can't really disprove it, can you?

Now, this "last Thursdayism" would only be deceptive if the world was created with evidence in it indicating that it was created on Tuesday (or Saturday). Very metaphysical discussion.

 

[46AND2]

And I gave you four different ways to fudge numbers legitimately, didn't I?

No you didn't. I asked you in that thread to demonstrate how your examples were not fudging numbers, and you never responded.

There is no legitimate way to fudge numbers. If they are not certain that numbers are correct, then they do one of two things: 1. They don't use them, or 2. They give qualifications, or caveats so the readers know there is debate about their veracity.

To claim that they give numbers that are fudged, and call them legitimate numbers is accusing them of deceit.

 

[CabVet]

The one I asked for: the first one.

If we have 4.5 billion years of events, what is the first one?

The bottom one is the oldest layer with no fossils in it. Here:

The one in the base would be the oldest. Again, forget about dates. Actually, for the sake of this argument, let's assume the "Cambrian Strata" is 3,000 years old.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think I'll just take your evasive and vague answers with a grain of salt.

Look who's talking. You are evading the evidence, as usual.

 

[Loudmouth]

The one I asked for: the first one.

If we have 4.5 billion years of events, what is the first one?

The first one, geologically speaking, would be the formation of meteorites which consistently date to 4.55 billion years old:

In the case of St Severin, for example, we have 4 different natural clocks (actually 5, for the Pb-Pb method involves 2 different radioactive uranium isotopes), each running at a different rate and each using elements that respond to chemical and physical conditions in much different ways. And yet, they all give the same result to within a few percent. Is this a remarkable coincidence? Scientists have concluded that it is not; it is instead a consequence of the fact that radiometric dating actually works and works quite well. Creationists who wants to dispute the conclusion that primitive meteorites, and therefore the solar system, are about 4.5 Ga old certainly have their work cut out for them!
Radiometeric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

​

Meteors preserved the first events of planet formation in our solar system.

 

[AV1611VET]

No you didn't. I asked you in that thread to demonstrate how your examples were not fudging numbers, and you never responded.

There is no legitimate way to fudge numbers. If they are not certain that numbers are correct, then they do one of two things: 1. They don't use them, or 2. They give qualifications, or caveats so the readers know there is debate about their veracity.

To claim that they give numbers that are fudged, and call them legitimate numbers is accusing them of deceit.

Do you remember these two posts?

Maybe "fudge" was a bit strong.

What I meant by that was, maybe they have a way of systematically adjusting the ages up or down.

Perhaps by averaging them ... or whatever.

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

Perhaps it's done systematically?

When it comes to crunching numbers systematically, have you ever heard of mean, mode, range and median?

Just pick the one that gives you what you're looking for, and bingo, there you are.