quote:

[/url] ^ That says it all... :P Anyway, about validity of the bible... I've found some interesting stuff. "If I were to prove the Bible to be the Word of God (which I DO believe), I would look for prophecies contained therein and whether they came true or not for starters. After all, we do believe that God is TRUTH and cannot/willnot lie so therefore, if there were any false prophecies contained within the Bible, then I would be inclined to believe it to be nothing more than the product of wishful thinking on the part of man. However, all prophecies especially concerning Jesus, (a Messiah to come) HAVE come true and Jesus' teachings and life, and manner of death can also be historically verified outside of the Bible. How is that for starters?" EDIT: It cut off the second half of my response, sorry.

Ahh, so now we're discussing fulfilled prophesies? Again, another interesting and worthwhile topic to debate, but it's offtopic to this particular question I posed.

quote:

We could discuss the validity of the Bible topic all day. The dates the 4 gospels were written, Red Sea scrolls, all that stuff. It's kind of a mute point really, isn't it? The scrolls have been dated (using your techniques) and even the most hardcore evolutionists can't deny the fact that the people and events (at least the historical ones) of the Bible actually did exist. But, I don't think your stating that you don't think the Bible was ever written. You're asking if the stuff that it's written about is true. So, I believe we are on even ground, are we not? I believe the Bible is true.

The Dead Sea Scrolls did little justice to Bible inerrancy and "truth":

http://www.infidels.org/library/mag...4/4jerem90.html

There is no denial on my part the fact that the DDS were written. That does not, however, give credence to the existence of Moses. For example, there were many books written on the multiple Gods of the Greeks. Does the fact that multiple books written about Greek Gods give credence to the fact that we have Zeus and his posse lookin' over us?

Other factors in the Bible really make it difficult for the existence of Moses as well - Deuteronomy 34:10, "(T)here has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses," would be meaningless and absurd if it had been written by Moses himself. We should also not neglect Numbers 12:3, which stated that Moses was the meekest guy in the world. If written by a man about himself, it would be boastful, which is the exact opposite of meek.

More can be found here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mag...5/995moses.html

quote:

And you believe all the assumptions that modern science uses to prove evolution.

You mean those assumptions that are tested and retested and give a high probability on an event occurring as opposed to a Book being written down with a legion of discrepencies and translation problems, as well as very little outside evidence to support its context?

Umm, yeah.

quote:

Once again, I'd say that makes us both brothers in faith, does it not?

Once again, your definition of "faith" with evolution is a quite a stretch of the imagination, given your rather weak definition of "assumptions".

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Point well taken on this subject. I understand where you are coming from, exactly. However, we must ask ourselves - are these little, virtually non-noticable (except under severe scrutiny) copyist or translation errors really effecting the message of the Bible? I would have to say no. Sure, it may give the skeptics "fuel" - but is your entire Bible reading experience really ruined by finding out that Ahaziah ruled 20 years earlier than stated earlier? (or whatever) It's like reading the Lord of the Rings trilogy and hating it because Tolkien said "the" instead of "they" in one line, and missing the fact that they are awesome literary works. Although the LotR books might not be considered "divinely inspired" (by most) and definately not the word of God, I believe that human error in copying and translating the texts has been good enough to still portray the events that happened and get the message across. However, while we are on the subject, it does scare me that the Catholic church (mainly) is responsible for the Bible we read today. I wouldn't put it past them to have a "Stigmata"-sort of conspiracy going on, omitting parts of the bible that would go against the assembly of a church. I do have to believe, however, that the current Bible's we read today are complete enough to get the point across. As for which Bible to read, I'd just avoid the ones with "thy and whilst" in it a lot - lest you find yourself sounding like a high-strung evangelist whilst quoting scripture.

No the message of the bible is quite clear. These clerical errors do not in any way interfere or detract from the overall message that the bible conveys. However, these are HUGE caveat lectors for those who may dispute that the bible, in its entirety or on strict literal terms, is the divine word of God. Now, this is not an utter refutation that portions of the bible are may be inspired by God, however, it is a refutation of the absolute credibility of every word and every passage being attributed to God. Indeed if the bible is prone to clerical or transcriptional errors that we can easily detect and confront, one must ask oneself what portions of the bible, in all of its many renditions and alterations, were subjected to human manipulation that is not easily detectable? Is it God who is saying kill the gays in the old testament or that the passage into heaven is restricted to only those who come through Jesus, or is it subtle manipulation of the text by opinionated church leaders of old? Clearly one cannot prove the veracity of such a claim, however, in a similar fashion one cannot dismiss doubts about the veracity of the bible as a whole. Therefore one cannot dismiss doubts about theological doctrine that is derived from the bible.

quote:

Occrider: Good response... what do you think about the following article?: http://www.rae.org/radiodat.html quote: quote: I will attempt to give you a few answers to your questions concerning radiometric dating. If you want to study what creationists say about radiometric dating in depth, I recommend three books, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods and Studies in Flood Geology, both by John Woodmorappe and Creation's Tiny Mystery by Robert Gentry. John Woodmorappe's books are advertised elsewhere on my web site. These books contain an exhaustive study of radiometric dates that do not fit the results evolutionists expect. There is also an exhaustive ongoing study of this subject called the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) Group, a team of six scientists who are investigating the subject in depth, and have published the first of several studies. There are several methods of radiometric dating. Carbon-14 dating has limited value for evolution because its half-life is too short. The method assumes that the production of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere from nitrogen is a process that is in equilibrium, and it is not.

Said author seems to completely ignore the scientific response to resolving the issue of fluctuating carbon levels in the atmosphere (ie: carbon 14 calibration). Additionally, if one were to look back at some of my pretty graphs that I posted of historical carbon levels, one can clearly see that the carbon levels in the atmosphere have been steadily decreasing over time. Therefore, uncalibrated carbon 14 dating would consistently underestimate the age of an object, not overestimate. However, I’ll let this author’s ignorance on the matter slide and continue to his other arguments.

quote:

quote: The other methods deal with dating igneous rocks. Sedimentary rocks normally cannot be dated with radiometric methods (there are a few exceptions) because they do not have crystals that were consolidated at the time the rock was formed. Therefore, since sedimentary rock is the only kind of rock that bears fossils, a relative date is estimated by the position of a sedimentary rock in relation to an igneous outflow. There is a discussion of a few examples of radiometric methods with sedimentary rocks in Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. Creationists believe that the assumptions of radiometric dating are invalid and cannot be proven. These assumptions are: (1) the radioactive element decays at a constant rate (2) the rock crystal being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product (3) the rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed (4) leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur. The Potassium-Argon dating method suffers from both leaching and contamination problems. Rubidium-Strontium and Uranium-Lead also has problems of the same kind. Potassium, Rubidium and Uranium salts are highly soluble. Leaching of the parent element out of the rock would increase the age of a K-Ar sample. One way to test this would be to analyze the sample before and after soaking it under pouring water. This would reduce the concentration of the potassium ions to the point that it would increase the date of the rock dramatically. I have heard that this experiment has been done, demonstrating this effect (I am searching for the reference).

Or another way is to simply perform the argon-argon dating method as I described. The author is somewhat correct about dating sedimentary rock … it is difficult to date. However, dating can be effectively accomplished by dating fossil foraminifer and radiolarian using morphology. Sometimes glauconite is present which can be dated. However, indirect dating methodology of the surrounding strata is effective in establishing minimums and maximums of the age of sedimentary rock. While the margin of error may be a few million years, we’re already talking about ages upwards of 100-200 million years. Therefore we can typically arrive at a generally accurate age range.

quote:

quote: Recent studies of Mt. St. Helens rock known to have come from the 1980 eruption (Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, see www.christiananswers.net) yielded erroneous dates in the millions of years. Similar studies at the Grand Canyon found volcanic rocks dated at the top of the canyon older than those found in the bottom. Something's wrong here. One of the tests that has not been done on the method is to subject it to a double blind study. That is where the sample of interest is tested along with several others of the same rock type, but from different areas. Check out Dr. Walt Brown's book on-line at The Center for Scientific Creation. My link to it is on www.rae.org/revevlnk.html. On page 64 of his book he describes the double blind test needed to establish credibility for radiometric dating. We believe that since evolutionists expect certain rocks to yield dates that agree with their theory, no laboratory will publish dates that are wildly out of whack, or they wouldn't get paid for producing a result that would be hotly contested as experimental error. Woodmorappe shows that even the published results are enough to render the method as unreliable. In any event, radiometric dating doesn't disprove the Bible. It never will unless somehow you could go back in time and observe the process from the formation of the rocks to the present and verify the assumptions to be true.

Yes the Mt St. Helens dating discrepancy is a classic example of Potassium-Argon contamination. It merely proves the succeptibilty of K-AR to contamination, and why most researchers now use AR-AR dating if they have those resources. It doesn’t discredit dating methodology. As a proof of AR-AR’s effectivness, researchers were able to date artifacts from the destruction of Pompei and were off by a mere 7 years. That’s a less than a 5% margin of error. To date, I know of NO criticisms or attacks against AR-AR dating. Every attack has been against known contamination errors with K-AR. But by all means, I’m open to any criticisms against AR-AR dating if you can find them …

quote:

quote: Also adding: quote: Dr. Eugene Chaffin, editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly and professor at Bluefield College in Virginia, led off a series of three physics presentations with, "A Study of the Variation in the Neutron Resonance and Effective Capture Cross Section of Samarium for the Oklo Natural Reactor." The Oklo natural reactor is a fissionable deposit of uranium which accumulated in a sandstone layer in Africa and was apparently active during Earth history. By looking at residual daughter elements, Dr. Chaffin has attempted to show that the natural reaction would be consistent with a young Earth, but not one which is billions of years old. If an accelerated decay event occurred, the concern is that the ore in the Oklo natural reactor would not be present in the measured amounts. In this presentation, Dr. Chaffin calls into question the treatment of the calculated cross section of the samarium isotopes which act as "poisons" in the reactor to slow down the process. He suggests that several variables in the calculation of nuclear cross section could change by orders of magnitude under conditions of an accelerated decay rate. A tad bit off your topic, but interesting when relating to radioisotope dating. As for the astronomy + radioisotope dating = old earth thing, I'm refrencing this article: http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r03.htm ^Great article, I suggest reading it - it's extremely non-biased toward creation or evolution. Here we go!

Well considering the affiliation of the researchers:
STEVEN A. AUSTIN, Ph.D.
Institute for Creation Research

And

ANDREW A. SNELLING, Ph.D.
Answers in Genesis

I would hardly label the study non-biased. However, that study goes beyond my knowledge of geology so I cannot critique it.

quote:

The last problem that we will discuss is probably the single biggest problem that recent creationists face today: the light travel time. Simply stated, if the universe is billions of light years in size, then how did the light from most objects get here in a few thousand years? Several answers have been proposed. One is that light travels in a non-Euclidean geometry. This was suggested more than 40 years ago by a couple of non-creationist physicists to address a different problem. Though still mentioned from time to time, few take it seriously anymore [3]. There is a prediction about close binary stars that the model makes, and the predicted effect is not observed, but this apparently has not been published. Setterfield, who showed that the measured speed of light had decreased since the first measurement was made three centuries ago, proposed a second answer. Extrapolating the much higher speed of light into the past could produce a speed that was near infinite in the early universe and would permit the light from the most distant objects to have reached us. In the past 15 years there has been much debate among creationists over this issue, with some insisting that the effect is real and others convinced that it is not. A mini-symposium on this topic appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly a few years ago. The early measurements provide the greatest evidence, but are also subject to the greatest error. It is most curious that the decrease seemed to end about 1960. There are some theoretical problems as well. The speed of light is not a constant that can be arbitrarily changed. It depends upon some fundamental constants that have an effect on the structure of matter. If the speed of light is changed much, the structure of matter will be dramatically changed. Most creationists have adopted the concept of a fully functioning universe as the best explanation for the light travel time problem. In the garden Adam would have been a particularly healthy male. If we could go back in a time machine and examine him we might have concluded that he was 20 to 30 years old. Of course we would have been wrong, because Adam was created only a few days before. In other words, creation implies some sort of apparent history. It is argued that in like fashion, for the stars to serve their intended purpose (for the marking of time and seasons) their light must have reached earth in time for Adam to see them two days later. Thus God must have created the light in transit. But did Adam bear the scars of past history, such as injuries that never happened? When the fossilized remains of large extinct and previously unknown creatures were unearthed over a century ago, some Christians responded that the fossils were created in the rocks and that the creatures never existed; they just appeared to have existed. Most people would reject this as absurd. Yet the creation of starlight in transit raises a similar philosophical point. In the spring of 1987 a superdeca was observed in a nearby galaxy called the Large Magellanic Cloud. Since that time the progress of the explosion and its aftermath have been carefully observed. We have been able to piece together many fine details of what happened. But if the notion of light created in transit is correct, then none of the observed events happened. How is this different from God creating fossils in the ground? This idea also has no predictive power like the other two suggestions above, which relegates it more to a philosophical idea rather than a scientific one. On the other hand the white hole cosmogony of Humphreys [29], [30] is a very detailed scientific model that seeks to answer the light travel time question. As with the big bang or steady state theories, this model assumes modern relativity theory, but with a different set of initial conditions for the universe. One of the big differences is that the universe started as a white hole. Humphreys assumes that the matter of the universe is bounded. He had chosen to call his model a white hole cosmology, because he perceives that the initial condition is similar to what is called a white hole. Most people have heard of black holes: regions of space where matter and light are falling inward and cannot escape. Most people are not aware that the same theory predicts the possibility of white holes, regions of space very similar to black holes except matter and light are streaming outward. Such a condition is unstable, and so unlike black holes which may exist forever once they form, white holes exist for a relatively short time before ceasing to exist. That is one reason why white holes largely have been largely ignored. Another reason they have been ignored is that we have a theory of how black holes can form naturally at this time in the universe, but not white holes. Any primordial white holes should have ceased to exist by now. The Humphreys cosmology assumes that the universe began as a white hole. Sometime during late in the creation week the white hole ceased to exist, giving us our present universe. The particle horizon swept past the distant stars on day four when the starlight reached the earth on that day. The important point is that through relativistic effects, time proceeds at very different rates in different parts of the universe. While only a few thousand years elapsed near and on the earth, billions of years could have elapsed elsewhere. This would allow light to travel millions or billions of light years to reach the earth while only a few thousand years occurred on the earth. This all happens because of the different rate at which time passes in different reference frames in general relativity. Not only does this cosmogony purport to answer the light travel time problem, it also provides creationists with a Biblically based cosmology as well. However, several questions remain. For instance, why does the solar system, which is not the product of stellar nucleosynthesis, and the rest of the universe, which has undergone stellar nucleosynthesis, have the same basic composition? As mentioned earlier, most creationists reject stellar evolution, but the Humphreys cosmology seems to demand that it has occurred. The Humphreys cosmology also demands that the universe is indeed Gyr’s old, though only a few thousand years has elapsed since the beginning of creation in the reference frame of the earth. It would seem those indicators of a young universe, such as sprial structure in galaxies, the break up of clusters of galaxies, and the ages of SNR’s cannot be reconciled to the Humphreys cosmogony. While only six days occurred on or near the earth, exactly when in those six days did the creation of the stars take place? If the particle horizon swept past the distant stars on the fourth day so that the stars first became visible on the earth, then how is that different from those who argue the same thing (that stars were created earlier, but only became visible on the surface of the earth on day four), but that the cause was a clearing of the atmosphere? While the Humphreys cosmogony met with little discussion or opposition at first, the level of debate has increased tremendously. Several critical papers have been written [11], [13], and Humphreys has responded [32]. Humphreys' critics have charged that he has either misunderstood or improperly applied general relativity in his model. Byl [11] has argued that while time dilation effects are real, the sense of time corrections are always in the wrong direction and/or are too small to solve the light travel time. Byl, along with Connor and Page [13], concludes that the approach that Humphreys is attempting would more properly describe the time difference between an observer in the universe to one outside of the universe. If this is true, then the Humphreys model certainly does not succeed in addressing the question as framed. This criticism has led the editorial staff of the ICC to conclude that there was a failure in the peer review process of Humphreys' 1994 paper [29] in which he first publicly presented his model. Humphreys is convinced that his model is still viable and is continuing to correct and refine his model. Whether this model survives or not, we should applaud this very serious effort that Humphreys has made. So what is the state of creationist astronomy? We have seen that it has some good points to make. We have also seen that there have been some false starts and some problems. We must go beyond arguing what is wrong with evolutionary models. What is needed is an overall model or paradigm to describe the universe. A formation and history of the solar system must be explored. A particularly important question to address here is when and how the cratering that we see in the solar system occurred. Did the cratering occur during creation, at the fall, during the flood, or at some other time? A few authors have begun work on this question [25], [39]. If we are not satisfied with stellar evolution, then we must provide physical arguments against it and supply our alternative. For the universe as a whole we must explain the light travel time in a plausible way. Some progress has been made in creationist astronomy, but there is much work to be done. Older arguments must be continually reevaluated and expanded. The words of the late George Mulfinger in his early review are just as true today as they were 25 years ago [38]: "…much work remains to be done the in the area of creationist astronomy. Christians who have sufficient background in the field who have strong enough convictions to take a good stand on the issues involved should be encouraged to write." It is hoped that this discussion has inspired some who are already competent in the field to pursue these matters or encouraged bright young people to enter the field for this purpose. Great read... I think I'm going for my astrophysics PhD after I finish my Theology one...

Astronomy is actually one of my hobbies. The whole “light in transit” theory is completely crap, but relative time dilation is a new one I’ve never heard of (although it seems rather far-fetched). Anyway I’ll need some time to research the theory before I can evaluate its merits.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Yay! I win.

I’m logically following your definition of “assumption”. This did not entail that I concede your point in any way, rather, as I point out your definition of “assumption” goes to the point of absurdity.

quote:

I see where you are coming and going with this. I'm not trying to take a "Chicken Little" sort of approach. I disagree with you that the possibility of your scientific assumptions having a small possibility of invalidity.

Why? Dating, for example, relies on a well known fact of chemistry –½ life. Are you now telling me that you do not trust known facts of chemistry? Or perhaps you do not trust the application of those facts of chemistry? If this is the case, do me a favor –

Do not take anymore medications from this point forward, OTC or prescription. You just can’t trust them.

Call some Hiroshima bomb relatives or remaining survivors and tell them it simply wasn’t possible that they died in the explosion.

God, or perhaps even Satan himself through a miraculous effort, must have done it instead.

Call every single chemist professor and tell them they’re full of doo-doo. Their life’s work is all for naught.
It’s just chemistry. Get over it already.

quote:

I agree with the rest of your statements on this matter, but they dodge the fact that the probability (in my mind) that they are invalid is indeed high.

Have you taken a class on statistics yet? Do you even have an understanding as to what you are referring to here? Science relies quite heavily on stats., and to simply handwave reliability of certain tools and events away simply because you feel (in your mind) that they’re invalid simply won’t cut it with anyone. That’s patently absurd.

Dating methodology has been tested over and over again. Of course there are occasional discrepancies, which is why multiple testing methods are utilized, and often combined with non-dating methods. The combination of these techniques give a very high probability to a particular age of an object. Again, that’s just plain statistics, chemistry, and logic. Without explaining in huge detail the reliability of dating, here’s some links for you to read for yourself:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
http://lordibelieve.org/time/age4.PDF
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/...cy/pompeii.html
(interesting link – gives the precise dating of the destruction of Pompei using Ar-Ar dating. Coincidence?)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...t/277/5330/1279
(free registration)

And finally, one you should be very interested in – Radiometric Dating, a Christian perspective:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

So what’s the problem?

quote:

Now you're getting the picture! Assumptions to prove assumptions.

*blink*

You really don’t catch on very fast, do you?

By your definition of “assumptions” I can logically categorize literally every single event in life as an “assumption”. So we “assume” that the sun is going to come up, we “assume” that your computer is going to work, we “assume” that putting gas into your car it will run, hell we “assume” that a full tire will run more effectively than a flat tire.

So what differentiates weak “assumptions” from strong “assumptions” (keeping with your definition, mind you)? – You guessed it, it’s probability. The higher probability of an event occurring gives more strength to that “assumption”, does it not?

So we have one dating technique that gives us a date. With consistency of that particular technique we feel somewhat confident in it’s accuracy. But to increase the probability, we invoke another dating technique utilizing a different isotope. It gives a very similar date to that particular item with no significant differences. We’re really feeling pretty good about that, but to further strengthen our case, we invoke yet another dating method with a different isotope, and again it gives a very similar date with no significant differences. Damn, we’re feelin’ pretty good, but to be absolutely certain, we invoke a final method that does not involve dating at all – say stratigraphy. Sure enough it correlates exactly with our dating techniques.
This is the process that helps with discoveries every day. Again, it’s just chemistry, statistics, and logic. What’s the problem?

quote:

Until our beautiful science and technology invents a time machine, I'm afraid we're both out of luck.

You seem pretty hellbent on this time machine concept. You are implying that if no one is around to witness an event, let alone write that event down, it never happened.

Do you not see the absurdity in such a ridiculous argument? This boils down to the old tree-falling-in-the-forest-but-no-one-around-to-hear-it-therefore-it-didn’t-happen scenario. You do understand the absurdity of this argument, right?

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that, since you are a Christian (pretty close to fundamentalist at that), that you believe in the death penalty. Now let me be clear, I am in no way categorizing all Christians with this belief, but let me indulge for a moment. Even if you do not believe in the death penalty, it is the law of many states and those citizens must abide by it. Now my point:

We have successfully prosecuted many individuals over the years throughout history, and successfully convicted those individuals on a preponderance of evidence that supports their guilt, even without any surviving witnesses or folks that write such an event down or record it in any way. Why have we allowed such individuals to be put to death without any witnesses or recorded events that occurred?

quote:

Well, I'll make sure all the scientists are available for the next Fall of Man or Flood. We'd get some serious data-farming there.

Funny how many times the Christians threaten that the end of the world is so near. It really is a shame to your believers just how often this prophesy goes unfulfilled. Either God is lying to his believers, or Satan must be tricking everyone. I assume you’ll probably fall for the latter:

http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm

Here’s a lovely list from just 2000:

http://2think.org/hundredsheep/skep...edictions.shtml

I used to hold my breath and pray for the end days to come. I got over that little morbid thought long ago. Jesus thought it was in his generation – didn’t happen. The only end days that I foresee will either be our own complete stupidity through our political leaders, a runaway virulent virus/bacterial strain, or a giant meteor (without that God-awful Armageddon themesong from Aerosmith, hopefully) . Neither involves God very much, if at all.

quote:

I agree that science has been constantly working at trying to understand our world and how it came to be. The problem IS the assumptions however - and not having the open-minds to try and view the world without evolutionary-biased thinking.

There you go with “assumptions” again. As stated, an “assumption” no longer becomes an “assumption” with reliability. Again, it’s just basic statistics, logic, and chemistry.

Many scientists need not involve evolutionary-based thinking to view the age of the earth. In fact, the geological record involving the examination of rock strata predates any evolutionary idea. The evolutionary theory only strengthened the dating of a much older earth. Problems with that – talk to a geologist. You do realize that you’re completely insulting a great many scientists by simply handwaving their life’s work away as a consequence to your unsupportable incredulity, don’t you?

quote:

Well, you did hit the weak spot of creation science (astronomy) - but look above for the Apple-Orange-Coconut analogy and I think it's a viable solution in a well-neglected field. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-113.htm - Radiometric dating using isochrones

I giggled out loud when you said that astronomy was a creation science weak spot. As of yet you have given no positive, verifiable, tested, rested, and falsifiable evidence for creation science. Seriously, how much weaker can you get?

Pardon me for saying, but Akridge’s essay here is an unbelievable pile of crap! The real life scenario in this case is patently flawed with regards to mixing. Here’s an article that explains much better than I could about mixing:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/iso...ing.html#mixing

Considering Akridge’s ridiculous arguments on a shrinking-sun, I have a difficult time believing he knows anything worthwhile on dating:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html

quote:

The following is taken from http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-104b.htm

Morris is quite famous for misquoting, blatantly misleading, and being flat-out wrong so many times I really don’t even know where to start. Here’s a couple off the top of my head:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html

Really now, don’t you tend to find it strange that folks like Morris begin with a conclusion like the earth is only a few thousand yrs. old, then try to find evidence to fit their conclusions? What’s worse, they distort evidence, twist it around, and do whatever they can to fit their conclusion? Is that really a scientific process of observing first, then hypothesizing on those observations, testing that hypothesis and collect data, AND THEN DRAW A CONCLUSION based on those observations?

Which one is really more appropriate to explain observed phenomena? Are you so bent on your conclusion of a faulty Biblical historical account that you are willing to do anything necessary to fit your conclusion? How logical is that process really?

quote:

Since these decay rates are now very stable, this has seemed to be a reasonable assumption. However, there are several clues that past rates have changed, or that some other process dominated. For example, the existence of short half-life polonium halos in rock have been used by many to argue for rapid formation (i.e., creation) of host rocks. Even evolutionists admit that the halos are a mystery. Yet nearby a full uranium halo might be found which would take a long period of time to form. These two 'mutually-exclusive' facts convince one that something has been overlooked.

Umm, Gentry’s arguments on Polonium halos were inherently flawed, and it would do you credit not to continue regurgitating Morris’ quotes such as these. Here’s more info. on that “mystery”:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

Now I pointed out the different cross-checking methods of showing how radioisotope decay has been constant earlier. To refute that you can up with a very old, dated polonium halo creationist argument? Evolutionists or geologists are not extrapolating or assuming when we say that radioactive decay rates are constant; we are stating a conclusion based on a wide variety of physical and theoretical evidence. Every published paper uses the same decay constant to reflect the most recent atomic decay research. It isn't geologists that are creating these decay rates, it is physicists working with atomic theory. So the burden is on you to show me any data (not rhetoric) that shows how decay rates can drastically change in an Earth like environment.

quote:

We know of many ways in which the materials can be made mobile, most particularly through ground water leaching. But even when questionable specimens are rejected, many results are still unusable, and explained away by contamination.

Mr. Morris, what does that have to do with parent or daughter material being added or taken away from the specimen?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/iso...g.html#isowrong

quote:

Furthermore, since the dynamic Flood of Noah's day covered the entire globe, what rock could have escaped its effects?

Give me evidence to support the notion of a worldwide flood, and perhaps we should all consider the possibility.

quote:

Only rocks and minerals which formerly were in a hot molten condition (like lava) can be dated. But what if the original melt already had some radiogenic lead? The resulting rock would inherit a deceivingly "old" date. In recent years, the "isochron" method has been derived to differentiate between inherited material and true daughter material. Unfortunately, even this has now come into disfavor. Many "pseudo-isochrons" have now been published which yield bizarre, useless dates. This assumption actually denies the possibility of creation, for God may have created an array of radioisotopes which, if analyzed with false assumptions, could be misinterpreted as age.

Jesus man, if you’re going to use a quote from Morris, at least have the respect of tagging his weblink:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-104b.htm

Anyways, that somewhat resembles this question, does it not?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014_1.html
Or this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

As well as some criticisms here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

Since we’re so apt at giving answers from other sources, perhaps you could indulge me by specifically refuting any of the information from those websites I gave you that refute your arguments against dating.

quote:

Yep - the Debil did it! I don't see a diabolical scheme here, same as you.

No, but you’re clearly sold on creationist propaganda that distorts and misleads their readers right to their faulty conclusions which is based on no supporting evidence.
Honestly, this is nothing new from a creationist.

quote:

Do the geologists really care if said oil is 4000 or 400 million years old? Is oil like wine, better with age? The system, the science, works for the system they apply it to.

No, but I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a geologist who would utilize ANY Noachian theory to find oil. If you find any, please let me know. Until then, I’d say the oil industry is pretty satisfied with finding oil by utilizing modern-day biostratigraphy. If they dug down to an 4000 yr. approximation of the earth, I hardly think they’d find a consistent oil bed. But hey, don’t take my word for it, challenge the industry on your own and see what they have to say.

quote:

The evidence you stated for this scene does not accurately portray evidence toward evolution, in my opinion.

Your opinion holds little support.

quote:

Let me edit to be more of a evolution vs. creation type evidence. The crime happened a really long time ago. The evidence at the scene seems to point toward the husband. 100 people saw you commit the crime and wrote a book about it. Millions have read it. It states that the husband came in and tried to stop you, in the process leaving blood and other incriminating evidence at the crime scene. Ignoring the book, isn't it easy to convict the husband? Without the book, it seems to make sense. Add personal witness in there, and a book written about the said events, and it makes a lot more sense.

I see, so what people write down in books therefore supercede valid forensic evidence collection?

Added to my list of careers I hope you do not pursue: anything involved with crime.

If we rely on books so much, why are we still not worshipping Zeus?

If we rely on books so much, why does everyone worship so many different gods across the world? Is there ever an absolute truth in it, and if so, please support evidence to show it. Be specific.
Your handwaving of forensic evidence that supports one theory just so you can believe a flawed, unsupported storybook does not cut it here. Try again.

quote:

Well, that's one way to not have to follow rules.

What rules? Explain in detail.

quote:

I don't dismiss them. I'm not intimately familiar with them. I also happen to believe my current one. Educate me on some of them, or perhaps I will, but I think we have enough fuel for the fire on this one currently.

Hypocrite.

You believe in your own story of creation without knowing or even giving other stories a chance to explain it?

And who continues to ask me if I could at least accept the possibility of an alternative version of events?
Why haven’t you educated yourself on other possibilities?

quote:

There isn't a well documented account of it throughout history.

True, but there isn’t a very well documented, verifiable account of Biblical events either. Much of it is very controversial. So what’s the difference?

quote:

I challenge you to give me postitive, verifiable evidence of evolution (I think they've all been refuted, haven't they?) - don't some of the creationist guys offer like a half a million dollars for one anyway? Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean it's right. That could go for both of our causes, couldn't it?

*blink*

You did not just say that, did you?

Dating methodology, paleontological evidence, cell, molecular, and genetic evidence, the geologic record, all correspond with an old earth and a long process of life evolving over hundreds of millions/billions of years. All have utilized scientific methodology (that is, positive, tested, retested, verified, and falsified) to come up with the supporting results.

You do understand scientific methodology, don’t you?

I assume you are referring to Walt Brown’s Debate offer. Read more about it here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wbdebateoffer.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wbrown2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA342.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA340.html

Joe Meert has accepted Walt Brown’s offer, but to this day Brown has backed down. I wonder why?

quote:

Once again, ignoring the fact that you are making assumptions about the past. I don't doubt the ability of modern scientists - I doubt their logic by not considering the simple fact of Creation. Call it a .0000001% chance if you will, I call it a 100% chance.

*sigh*

Once again, scientists have long considered creationism – but do not fault science for not accepting it. Creationism tried to play by the same rules as science by utilizing scientific methodology, and it failed miserably. It’s reduced now to misquoting, misleading, and downright lying in order to convince those who want to believe in an unsubstantiated young earth story.

Enough with the “assumptions” already. I believe I pointed out that your definition is quite absurd once those “assumptions” are tested and cross-referenced. Perhaps we can use the word “premises” now?

quote:

Carbon-14 fluxations in the atmosphere, magnetic field weakening, speed of light being faster when first measured - the list goes on and on - some that you yourself have mentioned. Science thought the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe once - is it that unplausible that some scientific constants will be disproven before the end of our lifetimes?

With the exception of the magnetic field (which admittedly I know very little about), none of these rates ever changed. Rather, our ability to measure these events have advanced over time.

You have a problem with the advancement of measurements? Excellent, I believe I found a group to meet your standards:
http://www.flat-earth.org/

Enjoy.

quote:

You should have been a meteorologist - understand enough of the system and you'll be able to predict it for sure, right?

Thank you for reiterating my point.

quote:

The only difference between me and you is that I strive to live by it, and you use it for a tale of morals and ethics. Not that far off, I guess.

Off topic. N/R.

quote:

There are three types of lies; a lie, a damned lie, and a statistic. -- "Mark Twain"

I would venture to guess Mr. Twain would think differently in modern day times. I would also venture to guess that Twain was not referring to the field of statistics, but rather A given statistic (like morbidity rates, etc.). Quite a difference of reference, if this is the case.

quote:

Those ingorant of the past will be ignorant of the future, as well.

Couldn’t agree more. Who were you referring to again?

quote:

Go back up and look at your first comment. You admitted it there, whether you wanted to or not, that you take belief on faith.

A highly tested and consistent premise becomes reliable. What’s your problem with that?

quote:

So, Father Opus, Preacher of Evolution, our eternal battle continues. I do look forward to your next reply.

Christ man, what’s up with this “Father Opus” crap? I know I’m 30 for God’s sake, and that may be pretty damn old by Tranceaddict standards, but damn, do I have to be reminded so damn often?
You still have not presented any positive, tested, retested, verifiable evidence for creation. Please do so now.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Jul-28-2004 at 19:28

Good arguments father Opus. And no we're not trying to make you feel old father Opus, but you know how it is with Alzheimer's ... you never know when the memory lapses kick in .

Anyway with respect to the astronomy argument that I said I would get back to:

The solution is simpler than I thought. If indeed the speed of light were changing over the course of time or was relative in nature, we would be able to make direct observations of such an occurrence. For example, assuming that the speed of light decreased over time, than far away objects would be seen as if in slow motion. However, Cepheid Variables, or pulsars, have distinct rotations, and the periods of Cepheid Variables are not dependant upon distance but on luminosity. Therefore, in the case of relativistic time dilation or a slowing down in the speed of light, those effects should be directly observed by examining the frequencies of Chepheid Variables. However, what is observed is that the frequency of the Cepheid Variables in the Milky way are exactly the same as the frequencies of Cepheid Variables in other galaxies. Therefore there is no indication that C is relative nor that it is affected by time.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Astronomy is actually one of my hobbies. The whole “light in transit” theory is completely crap, but relative time dilation is a new one I’ve never heard of (although it seems rather far-fetched). Anyway I’ll need some time to research the theory before I can evaluate its merits.

Aye, it's one of mine as well. I agree that the "light in transit" theory is a bit out there. The relative time dilation is kind of interesting (though-provoking) at least. I'll research it as well, if I have time after my multi-hour response to Brother Opus that is in the works... hehe

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I’m logically following your definition of “assumption”. This did not entail that I concede your point in any way, rather, as I point out your definition of “assumption” goes to the point of absurdity.

Yes, you are somewhat correct - however you did admit that you "assume" basic facts (no matter how unlikely).

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5.The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

I would venture to say that you (and all evolutionists) fall into 1, 2, 3, and 6.

I know you'll argue 2, but remember that your logical proof and material evidence does use assumptions.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Why? Dating, for example, relies on a well known fact of chemistry –½ life. Are you now telling me that you do not trust known facts of chemistry? Or perhaps you do not trust the application of those facts of chemistry? If this is the case, do me a favor – Do not take anymore medications from this point forward, OTC or prescription. You just can’t trust them.

Dating does rely on 1/2 lives. Every single article and fact that you used to disprove my reasoning has been biased toward evolution. You're using circular reasoning. I use circular reasoning because I throw in the fact of a flood (which isn't, by your logic, provable). So, I suppose I am using it as well. We can circular reason each other to death on any evolution/creation topic.

As for the medication comment, you're taking my logic and skewing to sound absurd.

quote:

Call some Hiroshima bomb relatives or remaining survivors and tell them it simply wasn’t possible that they died in the explosion.

I think there are 2 distinct! differences here in your drug-induced logic.

You are saying that:
1. A historical event that was photographed, documented and still shows the effects of, and also has still living witnesses and survivors...

is the same as....

2. Scientific constants being affected by a. The fall of man, b. A worldwide flood (both which were documented as well, but thats circular reasoning, right?) - or another unknown factor, 6000-4000 years ago...

And it's my logic you are refuting?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Call every single chemist professor and tell them they’re full of doo-doo. Their life’s work is all for naught. It’s just chemistry. Get over it already.

You say "get over it" a lot. I don't really know why. It seems you've given up and made your decision on how everything works and how everything has always been...

I'm not saying Chemistry is an unviable or unimportant field. No one will question the uses or advances that it's given us as a whole.

quote:

Have you taken a class on statistics yet? Do you even have an understanding as to what you are referring to here? Science relies quite heavily on stats., and to simply handwave reliability of certain tools and events away simply because you feel (in your mind) that they’re invalid simply won’t cut it with anyone. That’s patently absurd.

Yes, I have. Maybe I should have paid attention more. I must have missed the part where we can measure something for a short period of time and say it's %100 fact that it's always been that way.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Dating methodology has been tested over and over again. Of course there are occasional discrepancies, which is why multiple testing methods are utilized, and often combined with non-dating methods. The combination of these techniques give a very high probability to a particular age of an object. Again, that’s just plain statistics, chemistry, and logic. Without explaining in huge detail the reliability of dating, here’s some links for you to read for yourself: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm http://lordibelieve.org/time/age4.PDF http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/...cy/pompeii.html (interesting link – gives the precise dating of the destruction of Pompei using Ar-Ar dating. Coincidence?) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...t/277/5330/1279 (free registration) And finally, one you should be very interested in – Radiometric Dating, a Christian perspective: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html So what’s the problem?

The problem is that all of your testing methods use the same damn assumptions that I've trying to get through to you all along.

They are all interesting reads, however. Pompeii is a mute point since it happened in 79 A.D., which is post-flood. Using it proves neither of our points. Good article, however. I like how it "proves" all other Ar-Ar testing.

I'm not trying to refute the methodology or processes of the current methods. I'm refuting the validity, because, as I've said before, they all assume everything has been the same.

We'll discuss assumptions in reference to your next comment, so don't get the flamethrower out yet.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 *blink* You really don’t catch on very fast, do you? By your definition of “assumptions” I can logically categorize literally every single event in life as an “assumption”. So we “assume” that the sun is going to come up, we “assume” that your computer is going to work, we “assume” that putting gas into your car it will run, hell we “assume” that a full tire will run more effectively than a flat tire.

I'd like to invoke the common sense rule.

Let me respond by asking you a series of questions:

1. Can you, or anyone, observe the scientific constants that we use to "date" everything, that were present 6000-4400 years ago?

2. Can you, or anyone, observe the scientific constants present now?

3. What is the probabilty that they are the same and how did you come to that conclusion?

quote:

So what differentiates weak “assumptions” from strong “assumptions” (keeping with your definition, mind you)? – You guessed it, it’s probability. The higher probability of an event occurring gives more strength to that “assumption”, does it not?

I'd like to see the probability formula you use to come to the conclusion that a worldwide flood did indeed not happen.

Last edited by Seventil on Jul-28-2004 at 20:48

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Yes, you are somewhat correct - however you did admit that you "assume" basic facts (no matter how unlikely). faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth) n. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5.The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs. I would venture to say that you (and all evolutionists) fall into 1, 2, 3, and 6. I know you'll argue 2, but remember that your logical proof and material evidence does use assumptions.

No, none of these definitions fit the bill.

-If #1 concluded with "with supporting evidence", then I would agree.
-For #2 - evolution and any science for that matter relies quite heavily on logical proof. You need to provide evidence to the contrary. Simply telling me that it relies on your faulty definition of "assumptions" does not cut it. I followed your definition of "assumption" to logical absurdity. Do me the courtesy of either acknowledging that or refute it.
-#3 - science requires no loyalty, just reliability of a given set of supporting events
-#4 - probably the closest we have come, but then we're defining what "belief" is. Evolutionists "believe" in a given set of events that have shown to have high validity with reliability. It's simple and logical. If, however, we are structuring the definition of "belief" towards definition close to #1, again it's incorrect without supporting evidence.

Premise

prem·ise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prms)
n. also prem·iss (prms)
A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.

Reliability
re·li·a·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-bl)
adj.
Capable of being relied on; dependable: a reliable assistant; a reliable car.
Yielding the same or compatible results in different clinical experiments or statistical trials.

What's your problem with these definitions?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Dating does rely on 1/2 lives. Every single article and fact that you used to disprove my reasoning has been biased toward evolution. You're using circular reasoning.

Explain. By particles releasing subatomic particles we can trace back to the age of those items with high probability (hence being highly reliable). How is that circular?

quote:

I use circular reasoning because I throw in the fact of a flood (which isn't, by your logic, provable). So, I suppose I am using it as well. We can circular reason each other to death on any evolution/creation topic.

I appreciate you admitting your flawed logic. Please explain how dating is similarly flawed.

quote:

As for the medication comment, you're taking my logic and skewing to sound absurd.

You don't need my help. Your lack or refusal to understand stands just fine on it's own as illogical.

quote:

I think there are 2 distinct! differences here in your drug-induced logic. You are saying that: 1. A historical event that was photographed, documented and still shows the effects of, and also has still living witnesses and survivors... is the same as.... 2. Scientific constants being affected by a. The fall of man, b. A worldwide flood (both which were documented as well, but thats circular reasoning, right?) - or another unknown factor, 6000-4000 years ago... And it's my logic you are refuting?

No, that is not my line of reasoning whatsoever. I am saying that you are doubting a known chemical property with no logical reason or evidence to support that doubt. That particular property is utilized in a number of different fields, including chemistry and subatomic research. To doubt this particular known property is to doubt subatomic properties in general.

Hence my reasoning that you should be doubting medications, because chemically they shouldn't be working.

BTW, you should also doubt the expiration dates on those prescriptions too.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...