[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Don’t be silly."

What's silly (or worse) is to claim the Bible condemns natural-science.
It absolutely does not.

Kalamata: "The phrases you posted are typical of those found in evolutionary “research” papers and text books; so where does the “evolution is a fact” hype come from?"

Many elements of evolution theory are indeed facts.
Descent with modifications has been observed, that's a fact.
Natural selection has been observed, so it's also fact.
Fossils are facts.
DNA is a fact, etc.

But as much as evolution refers to events in the past which can never be observed, evolution will always remain a theory.

Kalamata on Tour discussing Miller-Urey: "In my world, the last sentence is characterized as mockery."

Sure, but Tour also said nothing important has been achieved since Miller-Urey, and that makes Miller-Urey a big deal, Tour's mockery notwithstanding.

Kalamata: "No, God’s Word accurately portrays history, science, nature, and the future."

Properly understood, which Kalamata is incapable of.

Kalamata: "Are you claiming these are idle words?

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” — Mar 10:6 KJV"

No, I'm saying you misunderstand them.

Kalamata: "Or, are are you saying we should throw the Bible in the trash and rely on our “reason”, like the Pharisees in the time of Christ? Just curious . . ."

But "reason" is not what Pharisees relied on nor does the Bible ever condemn "reason".
Like Kalamata, Pharisees relied on their own misunderstandings of the Bible.
So, I'm saying "we" should try harder to understand the Bible.

Kalamata lying by misquoting BJK: "In fact they have several different methodologies (to predict the age of the earth,) all of which roughly agree.
The current estimate of 13.8 billion years is simply considered the best of the group."

My words which you misquote referred to estimates of the age of the Universe, not the Earth.

Kalamata: "None agree.
For that reason, the results from radiometric dating must be cherry-picked to keep the myth alive."

No radiometric dating is involved in estimating the age of the Universe.

As for the ages of Earth materials, that can indeed involve radiometric dating, of which there are dozens of different types, as well as several other non-radiometric methods.
Yes, every method has strict procedures and pitfalls such that even small mistakes can lead to bogus results.
But around the world are dozens of radiometric labs dating materials daily (doubtless for fees) and their results relied on people from many walks of life.

The Earth's age is estimated around 4.5 billion years.

Kalamata: "Generally, radiometric-dating labs require an estimated age of the rocks before they will proceeed (they need to know the answers before they will take the test.)
Some scientists practical jokesters decided to test the accuracy of radiometric dating, but without telling the labs how old the rocks were.
These are the results in million-years, using the K-Ar method (real dates are in parentheses):"

A total fraud, since Potassium-Argon has a half life of 1.3 billion years and is totally inappropriate for material less than 100,000 years old.
Your alleged "scientists" here were just tricksters, who had to lie on their paperwork to get those labs to even accept the materials for dating.

Kalamata: "The “millions of years” nonsense came along decades before radiometric dating arrived on the scene.
Now that radiometric dating has been invented, it is manipulated and hyped to make rock dating appear to be scientific."

Nonsense, there were other methods used before radiometric dating and other methods developed since radiometric dating -- dozens of methods in total.
Some are as basic as counting ancient tree rings or ice-core levels.
Some cover a few thousand years (i.e., carbon-14) others billions of years (ie., Potassium-Argon).
Taken together they provide convincing evidence for the ages of materials studied, including meteors from outer space.

[Kalamata]

>>What’s silly (or worse) is to claim the Bible condemns natural-science. It absolutely does not.

I showed you some of the evidences of science in the Bible, but you ignored them.

>>Many elements of evolution theory are indeed facts.
>>Descent with modifications has been observed, that’s a fact.

That has never been observed, either in life or in the fossil record.

>>Natural selection has been observed, so it’s also fact.

Natural Selection is an observed fact, but it is not evolution. So-called “cumulative selection”, a requirement for common descent, is pseudo-science.

>>Fossils are facts.

No kidding?

>>DNA is a fact, etc.

No kidding, again?

Like I said, there is no evidence for evolution. There is also no evidence that you have a clue about what the scientific method entails.

********************************
>>But as much as evolution refers to events in the past which can never be observed, evolution will always remain a theory.

It is a dead theory. It died from lack of evidence.

********************************
>>Sure, but Tour also said nothing important has been achieved since Miller-Urey, and that makes Miller-Urey a big deal, Tour’s mockery notwithstanding.

No. It was a dud. The media and evolutionists “hyped it” into a big deal.

********************************
>>But “reason” is not what Pharisees relied on nor does the Bible ever condemn “reason”.

Yes, “reason” is what the Pharisees relied up, over and above the scripture. They were the “enlightenment” of their time; and they caused as much mayhem in their era as the “enlightenment” crowd has caused in our era. This is from the Pharisee named Josephus:

“Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice.” [Flavius Josephus, “The Complete Works: Wars of the Jews.” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1934, p.957]

********************************
>>Like Kalamata, Pharisees relied on their own misunderstandings of the Bible.

No, like you, they believed the Bible was a mere “figurehead”, metaphorically speaking.

********************************
>>Kalamata lying by misquoting BJK: “In fact they have several different methodologies (to predict the age of the earth,) all of which roughly agree. The current estimate of 13.8 billion years is simply considered the best of the group.”

You are lying about me lying. I was in a hurry to finish, so I got careless. So, sue me.

********************************
>>My words which you misquote referred to estimates of the age of the Universe, not the Earth.

True, and there is no evidence to support your assertion that the universe is 13.8 million years old.

********************************
>>No radiometric dating is involved in estimating the age of the Universe.

Duh.

********************************
>>As for the ages of Earth materials, that can indeed involve radiometric dating, of which there are dozens of different types, as well as several other non-radiometric methods. Yes, every method has strict procedures and pitfalls such that even small mistakes can lead to bogus results. But around the world are dozens of radiometric labs dating materials daily (doubtless for fees) and their results relied on people from many walks of life.

All Radiometric dates all bogus, and will remain so until someone invents a time machine to check the initial concentrations of daughter elements.

There is a very funny story on RM Dating surrounding the famous anthropologist, Richard Leakey, and his encounter with the East African KBS-Tuff strata, and the KNM-ER fossil. The rocks were initially RM dated to 212-230 MA (MA = million years). However, it was later determined there must have been an error in the Argon age due to the presence of certain fossils, and that the “real” age should be between 2 and 5 million years. In other words, the fossils determined the dates, not the radiometric laboratory. Dates were instantly reduced over 200 million years due to the presence of those fossils.

To make a long story short, after many re-tries, they finally got the date they were looking for; but not from the RM dating attempts, but rather from the presence of a fossilized pig’s tooth. I kid you not! LOL!

Martin Lubenow, author of the book “Bones of Contention”, provides a summary, with refs, here:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/the-pigs-took-it-all/

********************************
>>Some scientists practical jokesters decided to test the accuracy of radiometric dating, but without telling the labs how old the rocks were.

LOL! You don’t get it, do you. If the dates from very young rocks are grossly exaggerated, even to millions of years, then none of the RM dates are reliable. That is science.

********************************
>>A total fraud, since Potassium-Argon has a half life of 1.3 billion years and is totally inappropriate for material less than 100,000 years old. Your alleged “scientists” here were just tricksters, who had to lie on their paperwork to get those labs to even accept the materials for dating.

Wow! You really are scientifically-challenged! Think about what you are saying? If K-Ar dating was reliable, the results for very young rocks would be zero, not millions of years. With that test, every rock is old, no matter what! LOL! This is really funny stuff!

Okay, how do you know any rock is 100,000 years old, or older? You don’t, unless there is a way to date it. The dates of all rocks prior to the invention of radiometric dating were imagined. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying to you. There was absolutely NO way to tell how old they were.

So now we have Radiometric Dating, and it works like this. When a rock is submitted for dating, you must know the approximate age of the rock. But you can’t possibly know the age until it has be tested by Radiometric Dating. That is a curcular argument. It is nonsense.

You don’t see it, do you?

********************************
Nonsense, there were other methods used before radiometric dating and other methods developed since radiometric dating — dozens of methods in total. Some are as basic as counting ancient tree rings or ice-core levels.

Tree rings are somewhat useful for-post flood dating, but the dating of ice-core strata is totally unreliable.

For example, are you familiar with the lost WWII squadron that crashed in Greenland in 1942? When the planes were found in 1997, they were buried under at least 250 feet of compacted snow and ice. I hope you understand the rammifications of that find.

********************************
>>Some cover a few thousand years (i.e., carbon-14) others billions of years (ie., Potassium-Argon). Taken together they provide convincing evidence for the ages of materials studied, including meteors from outer space.

You have been misled. It was previously shown that K-Ar dating is circular, so that method is out; and if you believe Carbon 14 dating is reliable, then you must also believe coal, diamonds and some fossils, including dinosaurs, are about 5,000 years old. Those are the dates that keep popping up.

Mr. Kalamata