Taking questions of the Different state past (2)

[PsychoSarah]

If you are referring to the bit about how whatever we put first and believe and honor or respect more than God, don't blame me. Blame God.
Not when arguments involve unbelief. You see, the basis of the arguments is what is germane. Now if you had a scientific argument on something, such as say, you claimed the continents always moved slowly...we could look at that. If you claimed something like...we can't believe Scripture...well, that is another dog altogether.


I do. I look to God's wprd, so I can know. Not just assume.


True. I used to accept the creation science mainstream position that the flood was the big factor in the strata and fossil record. I don't now.
Great so you have no idea one way or the other. Better talk about something you have some idea about then..no?


Science is not what we would look to for any conclusion on things that science does not and cannot even deal with, such as the spiritual. Might as well ask a penguin!



Exactly, so I won't lean on you for advice on that issue.


Evidence in history and sacred record is evidence that is above the scope of science. One would not expect 'evidence' of the kind those sand box clowns are equipped to be able to deal in!

I'll leave it to the atheists to agonize over what believers already know, and what Jesus proved. I have no such mind melting issues, thanks.

Come on over to the relaxed side.

I am not going to place blame on a deity I do not perceive as real. Besides, you have to remember that I view the bible as purely written by humans, who were just as capable of bias then as we are now. You sir are just continuing an ancient fallacy that didn't even originate from your own mind.

I honestly don't know why anyone takes texts written in ancient languages as word for word literal. That intent is impossible, ancient languages, thanks to limited vocabularies, had to use allegory extensively in order to get certain ideas accross for which there were no words. Half of the OT characters have name puns it seems like, honestly, on what basis do you justify taking this text to be literal?

Again, I view the bible as the words of ancient, barely literate men (especially the OT). Now just imagine how ridiculous this justification would sound to you if you had that perspective. In addition, you are indirectly either calling me a liar or implying that I cannot know myself, both of which are immensely insulting and untrue. I am autistic for crying out loud, literally "the condition of self", people with the disorder are known for knowing their own mind and no one else's. It comes at a ridiculous price I would never voluntarily pay, but as a consequence of only being able to understand myself well and not others, I ended up pretty self-aware. I know how I think, don't you suggest otherwise. Lie to yourself about it all you like, but never state it to me.

Just because I am unsure about a topic doesn't mean I don't have anything to contribute about it in a discussion. A neutral position is completely valid. The "chaotic neutral" thing below my username is just me thinking "true neutral", how I actually interact, as sounding kinda arrogant. In any case, I do not have to explicitly pick sides in a debate to be a part of said debate. It isn't my goal to win the debates anyways.

Yes, science only covers natural and observable phenomena. Which is also why it never makes any conclusions about deities either way. Viewing science as being against your religion is on you, not the science itself. Not its fault the world doesn't fit your beliefs.

I don't expect you to.

Except history doesn't support scripture either. And history is not more reliable than science, they are just different fields that cover different subjects. They process information in different ways.

I wish I had that kind of confidence in my philosophical stance. Or maybe not, seeing as it would make it more difficult for me to accept being wrong.

Belief isn't a choice like that, I thought we discussed this.

 

[dad]

I am not going to place blame on a deity I do not perceive as real. Besides, you have to remember that I view the bible as purely written by humans, who were just as capable of bias then as we are now. You sir are just continuing an ancient fallacy that didn't even originate from your own mind.

One cannot hold that view for long if one studies it, because no man could do it. The life of Christ and events of history and prophesies make that utterly impossible.

I honestly don't know why anyone takes texts written in ancient languages as word for word literal.

Because one believes them I guess. But don't get silly with the literal business....a camel perhaps might have trouble getting through the eye of the needle. That does not give one license to disrespect the text as to what is presented as truth and fact though.

That intent is impossible, ancient languages, thanks to limited vocabularies, had to use allegory extensively in order to get certain ideas accross for which there were no words. Half of the OT characters have name puns it seems like, honestly, on what basis do you justify taking this text to be literal?

Jesus and the apostles confirmed the flood and creation. No hiding behind Hebrew possible there.

Again, I view the bible as the words of ancient, barely literate men (especially the OT). Now just imagine how ridiculous this justification would sound to you if you had that perspective.

I know better. There is a reason it is the best seller of all time.

In addition, you are indirectly either calling me a liar or implying that I cannot know myself, both of which are immensely insulting and untrue. I am autistic for crying out loud, literally "the condition of self", people with the disorder are known for knowing their own mind and no one else's. It comes at a ridiculous price I would never voluntarily pay, but as a consequence of only being able to understand myself well and not others, I ended up pretty self-aware. I know how I think, don't you suggest otherwise. Lie to yourself about it all you like, but never state it to me.

That does not make you an expert on spirits, when you claim to be an agnostic atheist.

Just because I am unsure about a topic doesn't mean I don't have anything to contribute about it in a discussion. A neutral position is completely valid.

As an opinion, sure. An opinion based on nothing much at all, or less when it comes to God being real or spirits.

The "chaotic neutral" thing below my username is just me thinking "true neutral", how I actually interact, as sounding kinda arrogant. In any case, I do not have to explicitly pick sides in a debate to be a part of said debate. It isn't my goal to win the debates anyways.

A neutral cannot take one side, so cannot be on the winning side.

Yes, science only covers natural and observable phenomena. Which is also why it never makes any conclusions about deities either way. Viewing science as being against your religion is on you, not the science itself. Not its fault the world doesn't fit your beliefs.

It does make a statement loud and clear that there is no God but that the universe and life created itself basically. It just cannot be honest about it's position and pretends neutrality.

Except history doesn't support scripture either.

Yes it does, The land of israel is a long series of fulfilled prophesies for example.

And history is not more reliable than science, they are just different fields that cover different subjects. They process information in different ways.

History can cover things science cannot. The spiritual for example is not part of science but a major major major part of history. Science is not only unreliable in any discussion of anything spiritual, it is ignorant, and biased. It draws a cultish little circle and keeps it all out.

I wish I had that kind of confidence in my philosophical stance. Or maybe not, seeing as it would make it more difficult for me to accept being wrong.

Trusting in God and His son is never wrong and can never be. Scripture will last forever and this world will pass away.

Belief isn't a choice like that, I thought we discussed this.

I say it is a choice, because if we chose to try to believe and want to believe, God helps us, and has given us His words to give us more faith. Peter had some faith, and was saved, yet he started to sink beneath the waves when he looked down, when he started walking on water one day. Like a baby, we grow, we are not expected to be mr or mrs superwoman or superman in faith at first any more than a baby.

 

[Kylie]

So what are you saying? Don't claim others are lying.

I am saying that you are claiming that I am using a "Last Thursdayism" argument when I am not using such an argument.

So either you are ignorant of what "Last Thursdayism" actually means, or you know what it means and are lying about whether I am using it or not.

Man lives in the present, and we do not have specs for the different future coming, or any different past. It was not by specs that man knows about what went on in the far past, it is by Scripture.

Yeah, that's still not anything close to specific.

False. In no way would the created stuff that exists and which existed at the start of this present state require any 'coincidence' whatsoever to be how it is. That is foolish.

Your vague claims are foolish and meaningless.

In no way does it look anything like that, unless one first soils and contaminates and colors the evidences with your same state past belief, a past in which there was no God, or creation. On it's own, the world and the evidence do not look old!!!!! That is all in your religious head.

You may think that a person's thoughts and desires can change stuff, but that doesn't actually happen. THe rocks that exist in reality do not change themselves to match what we expect to find.

So if you lived last week (in this case, a few thousand years ago)-- you would believe in it!?

If I had evidence to support it, and that evidence withstood investigation, I would believe in it. (Accept it as being true is probably a better way to phrase it.)

Using the Daniel 9 prophesy of the time till Messiah would come, a Scotland Yard man, years ago calculated the days till the time Jesus entered Jerusalem, from the exact time that a certain specific proclamation to rebuild Jerusalem was issued. (Robert Anderson). He came up with a year that some others have questioned, because of various phases of the moon, and eclipses and whatever.

In getting any date for Jesus' birth or death, one seems to have to resort to the moon and eclipses, etc. For example, when an eclipse was known in Herod's time.

My point is that when the creator of the universe itself died, we well may have experienced some form of time change, or time being affected. That would mean that man could not get the exact days right. That is why there are several different years proposed by scholars for the birth of Christ, and the death week.


Furthermore, since the date cannot likely be determined, I see NO reason to doubt Robert Anderson's calculations, which are in agreement with the prophesy of Daniel.

Have you got a link for this?

 

[Kylie]

That is why they remain clueless on all things of importance.

Yeah, the things you think are important aren't actually important.

It is a great phrase to describe the thinking of the deniers of what went down 2014 years ago and before!

Yeah, except it doesn't mean that, does it?

Our sources are known and trusted. When folks who knew Jesus and the apostles for example passed down sacred records that bore the name of certain people (like Peter for example) it is stuff that comes from Peter.

A claim from you is NOT a source. DO you even know what a source is?

--shortened for sake of prompt reply....

Shortened so you can get out of actually answering the question and providing a source.

 

[dad]

I am saying that you are claiming that I am using a "Last Thursdayism" argument when I am not using such an argument.

Wrong. Denial of records even more than a week amounts to the same thing.

Yeah, that's still not anything close to specific.

Specs are for those that know about something...the state of the past is above that for you, and for mankind.

You may think that a person's thoughts and desires can change stuff, but that doesn't actually happen. THe rocks that exist in reality do not change themselves to match what we expect to find.

The issue is why we expect that created order pattern. You don't get to wish real hard that we ignore all other options and have to chose your belief in a silly same state past.

Have you got a link for this?

I can see the whole thing is new to you. It is fairly in depth. But we could link to Robert Anderson, so we can look at the basics.


https://www.raptureready.com/resource/anderson/chapter10.html

 

[Kylie]

Wrong. Denial of records even more than a week amounts to the same thing.

How about, then, you give us your own definition of what "Last Thursdayism" is, just so we can all see that you actually know what you are talking about.

Remember: In your own words. No cutting and pasting from some other website, okay?

Specs are for those that know about something...the state of the past is above that for you, and for mankind.

Oh, big words to try and defend your inability to actually post anything of relevance.

The issue is why we expect that created order pattern. You don't get to wish real hard that we ignore all other options and have to chose your belief in a silly same state past.

I ignore things that are not supported by the evidence.

All you do is string together some implausible technobabble to try and sound important.

I can see the whole thing is new to you. It is fairly in depth. But we could link to Robert Anderson, so we can look at the basics.


https://www.raptureready.com/resource/anderson/chapter10.html

No need to be passive aggressive there, dad. I'll go and have a look at it...

 

[dad]

How about, then, you give us your own definition of what "Last Thursdayism" is, just so we can all see that you actually know what you are talking about.

Some people claim not to be able to prove anything past last week. I would say that not accepting reasonable records of early Christians or other Scripture is a version of that.

I ignore things that are not supported by the evidence.

You think that coloring evidence with a same state past belief is what evidence is! You cannot separate the two apparently, and therefore all you demonstrate is a total misuse of the word evidence.

All you do is string together some implausible technobabble to try and sound important.

Guess there is a little science in all of us

No need to be passive aggressive there, dad. I'll go and have a look at it...

Ok Lucy, keep up the diagnosis eh?

 

[Kylie]

Some people claim not to be able to prove anything past last week. I would say that not accepting reasonable records of early Christians or other Scripture is a version of that.

And you;d be wrong. I can prove that I gave birth about a decade ago ("Exhibit A, my ten year old daughter").

Once again, you've got it wrong.

You think that coloring evidence with a same state past belief is what evidence is! You cannot separate the two apparently, and therefore all you demonstrate is a total misuse of the word evidence.

Doesn't surprise me one bit you don't understand what evidence is.

Guess there is a little science in all of us

Maybe one day you'll demonstrate the science in you and surprise everyone.

Ok Lucy, keep up the diagnosis eh?

Are you allergic to manners?

 

[dad]

And you;d be wrong. I can prove that I gave birth about a decade ago ("Exhibit A, my ten year old daughter").

The sort of last thursdayism I spoke about involved denial of things some thousands of years ago. Once again, you've got it wrong.

Doesn't surprise me one bit you don't understand what evidence is.

I know what it is not.

Maybe one day you'll demonstrate the science in you and surprise everyone.

I exorcise it.

Are you allergic to manners?

You immune to humor?

 

[Kylie]

The sort of last thursdayism I spoke about involved denial of things some thousands of years ago. Once again, you've got it wrong.

Your ideas are completely crazy. You arbitrarily redefine ideas, and then tell anyone who keeps the original, widely accepted version that they are wrong.

Please. You're just making yourself look crazy.

I know what it is not.

I doubt you have any comprehension about evidence.

I exorcise it.

Starting, no doubt, by tossing your computer out the window.

You immune to humor?

You think being rude is humour now? Oh, you must be a real hit with the ladies.

 

[dad]

Your ideas are completely crazy. You arbitrarily redefine ideas, and then tell anyone who keeps the original, widely accepted version that they are wrong.

I disagree, and think it is crazy to say so.

I doubt you have any comprehension about evidence.

I doubt you would know actual unbiased and untainted evidence if it bit you on the nose.

Starting, no doubt, by tossing your computer out the window.

So called science has never made a computer or done anything else but lie through it's teeth and preach the message of hell with a whole and willing heart.


You think being rude is humour now? Oh, you must be a real hit with the ladies.[/quote]

You offered about the same sort of advice as Lucy, although it was worth less. That it??

 

[Mainframes]

So called science has never made a computer or done anything else but lie through it's teeth and preach the message of hell with a whole and willing heart.

All science does is provide facts about how the universe about us works and is by its very definition unbiased. If that happens to disagree with your particular viewpoint then thats tough. Perhaps you ought to reassess your own position if flies against all available evidence.

 

[Kylie]

I disagree, and think it is crazy to say so.

Of course. You just decide that widely agreed upon things suddenly mean something new, and anyone who thinks otherwise, well, they're just wrong, aren't they?

I doubt you would know actual unbiased and untainted evidence if it bit you on the nose.

Shall we put it to a vote then? Shall I start a thread with a poll asking which of the two of us has a better understanding of what evidence is? Willing to put your money where your mouth is?

So called science has never made a computer or done anything else but lie through it's teeth and preach the message of hell with a whole and willing heart.

Science doesn't make computers. Really. What, you think the factory where they are made has a bunch of people praying them into existence or something?

You offered about the same sort of advice as Lucy, although it was worth less. That it??

The worth of my arguments is not determined by how much you like them. It is determined by how accurately my arguments correspond with reality. And so far, mine are way ahead of yours.

 

[Loudmouth]

I disagree, and think it is crazy to say so.

You ignore all of the evidence around you in favor of your made up fantasies. That is the very definition of crazy.

 

[bhsmte]

I disagree, and think it is crazy to say so.


I doubt you would know actual unbiased and untainted evidence if it bit you on the nose.



So called science has never made a computer or done anything else but lie through it's teeth and preach the message of hell with a whole and willing heart.


You think being rude is humour now? Oh, you must be a real hit with the ladies.

You offered about the same sort of advice as Lucy, although it was worth less. That it??[/QUOTE]

How many times have you "gonged" yourself now dad?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

"Take tree rings for instance, the oldest is the Old Tjikko spruce tree dating at 9,550yr old. We believe the earth was only 6,000 years. How do we explain this apparent contradiction?

Old Tjikko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to biblical timeline, the flood is around 4200-4500 years ago. We can't push the flood back. I believe the flood changed the weather after, but I don't know how to explain it. I don't know how to reconcile this whole puzzle together."


My reply would be that if trees could grow in weeks in the former state, a tree ring from that time would not have the meaning it would now.

I would like to clarify a point with you. Based on this response and others you have given, it seems to me that you don't dispute the fact that dendrochronology and other dating methods yield ages that do not conform to the YEC model. But you believe those results are incorrect because they assume that the past state was the same as the present state. Correct?

In other words, the evidence when viewed through the (to your mind incorrect) assumption of a same state past indicates an old earth. The (according to you) true age of the Earth is only revealed when one assumes a different state past. Is that right?

 

[Zosimus]

"In almost all branches of science, other than tree-ring studies, there is a check on the validity of published research: other researchers can, and often will, independently seek to replicate the research. For example, if a scientist does an experiment in a laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not the same, there will be some investigation.
The result is (i) a scientist who publishes bogus research will be caught (at least if the research has importance and is not extremely expensive to replicate) and (ii) because all scientists know this, bogus science is rare. Tree-ring studies do not have this check, because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other researchers can gather that wood.
Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions. This is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-ring investigators, in part—and this is crucial—because investigators in one region typically do not have access to data from other regions. The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one."

http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf

 

[Dizredux]

Zosimus

"In almost all branches of science, other than tree-ring studies, there is a check on the validity of published research: other researchers can, and often will, independently seek to replicate the research. For example, if a scientist does an experiment in a laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not the same, there will be some investigation. The result is (i) a scientist who publishes bogus research will be caught (at least if the research has importance and is not extremely expensive to replicate) and (ii) because all scientists know this, bogus science is rare. Tree-ring studies do not have this check, because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other researchers can gather that wood. Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions. This is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-ring investigators, in part—and this is crucial—because investigators in one region typically do not have access to data from other regions. The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one."

http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf

I looked up the author (Douglas J. Kennan). He appears to be a legitimate researcher but could only find a few articles including two on Google Scholar involving tree rings. These had a relatively number of cites overall.

Your quote is from an unpublished paper on his web site (informath). I looked some more at him but could not find much except that he was described as a climate change denier. Wiki did not pick him up.

Overall he looks like a legitimate scientist but not a very heavy hitter. Provisionally I am not able to place a lot of weight on this article unless I can get his conclusions confirmed a little better.


Take care,

Dizredux

 

[Zosimus]

Zosimus



http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf

I looked up the author (Douglas J. Kennan). He appears to be a legitimate researcher but could only find a few articles including two on Google Scholar involving tree rings. These had a relatively number of cites overall.

Your quote is from an unpublished paper on his web site (informath). I looked some more at him but could not find much except that he was described as a climate change denier. Wiki did not pick him up.

Overall he looks like a legitimate scientist but not a very heavy hitter. Provisionally I am not able to place a lot of weight on this article unless I can get his conclusions confirmed a little better.


Take care,

Dizredux

Open Source Dendrochronology – Aardvarchaeology

"Dendrochronology has a serious organisational problem that impedes its development as a scientific discipline and tends to compromise its results. This is the problem of proprietary data. When a person or organisation has made a reference curve, then in many cases they will not publish it. They will keep it as an in-house trade secret and offer their paid services as dendrochronologists. This means that dendrochronology becomes a black box into which customers stick samples, and out of which dates come, but only the owner of the black box can evaluate the process going on inside. This is of course a deeply unscientific state of things. And regardless of the scientific issue, I am one of those who feel that if dendro reference curves are produced with public funding, then they should be published on-line as a public resource."

"Dendrochronology: Tool of Truth or Deception?" by Stewart Pollens

"At 60% Gleichläufigkeit or higher (representing a probability of 95% or better), 52 matches were found, and at 65% Gleichläufigkeit or higher (representing a degree of probability of around 99% or better), 13 matches were found (with final dates of the series ranging from 1445 to 1953). It is also disconcerting that the PCAB Giertz Obergurgler, LADE Siebenlist Obergurgler, and PCAB Schweingruber Obersaxen master chronologies produced very few dates in common (1732 and 1756); the Media 46° chronology exhibited several concordances (1522, 1572, 1665, 1732, and 1756), but this would be expected as it is a composite derived from over thirty chronologies, including the other three that I used. The 1657 date (which has the highest Gleichläufigkeit of 70.5% and a probability of 99.9%) is of interest because violas of this large size were still being constructed at this time, though if correct, it would rule out Gasparo da Salo as the maker, as he died in 1609. However, I should point out that I subsequently discovered a date of 1805 with a considerably higher Gleichläufigkeit of 75.3% using the CEBR Schweingruber Ceader Valley (Cipro) chronology. I must admit that I did not initially seek a match with this master chronology because its synchronization dates extend only from 1675 through 1981, and my inclination was to search for dates using master chronologies that had earlier starting points. This only demonstrates that one may inadvertently overlook a master chronology because its inclusive years would appear to fall outside the date that one hopes or expects to find."

Field Techniques

"Factors influencing growth. Most people think that trees add a ring for every year of growth. To a great extent this is true, but there is more. Ring formation is as much a function of moisture as any annual cycle...Trees also add one ring for each rainy season within a year. If the climate of a particular region is wet year-round, as in the tropics, rings tend to be very thick and almost indistinguishable. If the climate of an area has two distinct rainy seasons separated by periods of no rain, trees will add two rings per year. Now, here's a problem to consider. How might one interpret tree rings if an area with bimodal rainfall experiences an anomolous year in which there is only one rainy season? Clearly, dendrochronology isn't as easy and clearcut as it might seem at first glance.

"Problems affecting growth. Complicating the interpretation of tree rings are other factors, three of the most common of which are burning, sloping terrain, and multiple trunks. Forest fires can burn off the bark and outer rings on one side of a tree and thereby affect the tree's growth, and hence ring formation, in following years. 'False rings' can make life difficult for dendrochronologists. Slopes can affect the centricity of tree ring formation. It is not at all unusual to find trees with thicker rings on one side of the tree than on the other. In those cases were trees are growing on stable slopes, the rings tend to be thick on the downslope side. On unstable slopes, where landslides have disturbed vegetation, rings tend to be thicker on the upslope side. Trees with multiple trunks, junipers, for example, pose special problems. Growth patterns above points of bifurcation are usually different from that below the fork although the ages of the two segments might well be the same."

 

[Dizredux]

Zosimus


I do not understand what point you are trying to make. If you are saying that there is something wrong with the way Dendrochronology is done, I think cites to the literature would be more appropriate. It is not my area but so far, at least to me, you are mostly being vague and a little obscure.

Open Source Dendrochronology – Aardvarchaeology This is a blog, interesting but again cites would be a lot better..

"Dendrochronology: Tool of Truth or Deception?" by Stewart Pollens He is a Fine Musical Instrument Expert and restorer. What is the point?

Field Techniques I don't understand why this was cited. All scientific measurement methods have some problems that the researchers have to be aware of and deal with in their articles.

Again, what point are you trying to make. It is much better to make a point and support it rather than post stuff with no explanation.

So let us know what you are trying to say.

Dizredux