Posted on 04/29/2013 8:13:56 AM PDT by kimtom
Funny how mythical crossover species never seem to form fossils. The appearance of new species seems to be a step function not an analog process....
I understand the biasness, because we all succumb to it in our growth.
as for the KJV, god allowed it because men’s education was limited, and most were not astute enough to know. It was better to have an version, even if flawed, to be used during the time from 1500 to 1900’s, because the West was being populated by those opposed to the false teachings of Catholicism.
The errors were not so egregious as to cause one to lose their salvation, but it was more than adequate to guide a growing nation that was slowly getting more and more educated in their knowledge.
Now, most differences many see between the KJV and others that are different than the Vulgate errors transferred have to do with which Greek texts were used. Without getting too involved, it has to do with a similar problem that happened when the split happened between Eastern and Western. Different argument, but similar type of disagreement over ancient textual translations from Hebrew to Greek to either Arabic Eastern readers and Latin for Western readers.
It all depends on what you are either comfortable with or partial to. It is much more indepth than that, but I think you get my gist.
As for me, I have a problem with the Alexandrian texts because they had a lot of Gnosticism ebbing into their Theological schools at the time the texts date back to.
Similar to the way Greek humanism creeped into Catholicism during the late Dark Ages. I guess we can also say that the catholic church started pushing the Apocrypha in a way to combat the many good changes the minds of the masses were being opened up to during the reformation.
Tell your Greek Scholar I said Hi. :>)
“..It all depends on what you are either comfortable ...”
Thanks!
It's decidedly non-scientific to suggest scientific disagreements relate to the "Father of Lies".
kimtom: "Why do you use erroneous proof???
Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science."
Not certain what you intend by the term "historical science", but likely something to the effect of: if you didn't see it happen, then you can never really say what did happen.
But if that were true, then there would be no forensic science usable in courts of law, since according to you: what we didn't actually see we can never prove.
In reality, sciences like geology, paleontology, astronomy, etc., are built on assumptions that physical processes we see are more-or-less the same today as they were in eons past.
Your opposing claim -- hypothesis -- that this is not true, that claim is not supported by scientific evidence.
kimtom: "Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science.
Neither condition is directly observable."
Forensic science is about establishing facts for criminal trials, facts that were not directly observed, but left detectable evidence behind.
Likewise the physical world left evidence behind of what went before, evidence which can be detected and analyzed with scientific instruments.
One confirmation this scientific analysis is correct can be seen in the ability of geologists to predict and find valuable natural resources thousands of feet underground.
Likewise paleontologists search for certain fossils in rock formations similar to those known to produce those fossils.
In short, it is the predictive powers of these scientific assumptions (hypotheses / theories) which confirm their validity.
By contrast, your opposing assumptions have zero predictive powers, except to confirm your pre-conceived ideas about biblical creation.
kimtom: "Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:
1.The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known."
All radio-metric dating starts from the time of last melting, when initial values of various isotopes are set to 100% and zero.
This can be established in laboratories by melting such rocks and determining the resulting ratios.
kimtom: "2.The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay."
The burden of proof here is to show how such "other" processes happened, not just in a few cases here or there, but in every case, such that not a single radio-metric dating was ever even remotely accurate.
Such "proof" has never even been suggested, much less scientifically demonstrated.
kimtom: "3.The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed."
Again, the scientific burden of proof here would be to show how and why not just some, but every radio-metric decay rate has fluxuated over time, such that not a single radio-metric dating could possibly be remotely accurate.
Of course, I'm not saying that no radio-metric result was ever flawed, only that it's never been scientifically shown how or why all of them are -- wildly off -- such that rocks which appear to be hundreds of millions of years old are, in reality, only a few thousand years old.
kimtom: "Fraud does exist."
Sure, and is eventually discovered and corrected by superior science, for example: the alleged Piltdown Man.
Another example is probably "anthropogenic global warming", where government funded, politically motivated scientists dominate a scientific argument with a small minority of anti-AGW scientists -- who must usually find funding from non-government sources.
But in the end, anti-AGW scientist must still win the argument, especially if and when the earth begins its rapid descent out of our brief 10,000 year-long Interglacial and back to more-or-less permanent Ice Age.
In short, the likely results will show that AGW has little, if any, predictive confirmation.
kimtom referring to lack of scientific evidence for a "young earth" hypothesis: "That is not a Fact, but opinion (your opinion)".
No, it's a fact that nobody here has presented scientific evidence confirming a "young earth" hypothesis.
It's also a fact that no study allegedly confirming a "young earth" has ever been accepted as scientifically legitimate.
So "young earth" has no scientific existance.
It exists only in the minds of certain theologians who see it as an essential prop for their religious convictions.
Wrong.
Ultimately, all geological dating is based on radio-metric results which establish ages of various rock strata, and hence fossils found in them.
Those same fossils found in other locations can help determine geological ages, often confirmed by further radio-metric dating.
So, despite your fondest hopes, there is nothing "circular" about it.
Yeah, sure, and when the radio metric results give wildly different “ages”, they ask “what fossils were in the layer with it?” so they can pick the matching result.
Besides, radiometric dating relies on the assumptions of initial “zero” condition, constant rate of decay, and no leaching or doping of the sample over the period of time in question.
kimtom responding: "That is YOUR opinion."
No, it's a fact that evolution meets criteria for a scientific theory, and your religious doctrines simply don't, and can never, because they begin not with physical evidence, but rather with revealed words.
BJK: "“..If you consider science “Evil”, that ..”
kimtom responding: "I did not say that. You use a False arguement; (If Then)"
But my argument is true and your response false.
In fact since evolution is a scientific theory, to call evolution "Evil" is, by definition, to call science "Evil".
Such pejoratives are simply not appropriate to a scientific discussion or debate.
kimtom: "Evolution is Your Religion (seems to be) and The Bible (Christianity) is mine...so your point is?..."
The science of evolution is, by definition, nobody's "religion".
Indeed science itself is intended to be the opposite of religion, since all religions begin with divinely Revealed Truths while science only accepts ideas built on discovered facts.
it is evolution that is not scientific. It is a believe system to explain nature with out God. isotopic dates DO NOT converge on an assumed age of 4.5 billion years for earth. even low-temperature fluid processes can cause open systems in dates. This casts serious doubt on the assumption that isotopic systems could remain closed for millions of years. fission--track (FT) dates, most of which are "too young", unambiguously interpreted in terms of annealing caused by geologic heating events, or are such presumed events invented as an ad hoc basis precisely because the dates are "too young'. Your acclamations are incorrect.
"..So "young earth" has no scientific existance. It exists only in the minds of certain theologians who see it as an essential prop for their religious convictions...."
You make false assumptions with these claims. Science has confirmed the Biblical accounts much better than evolution. You can choose not to accept that, I am sorry, you seem very intelligent.
Global warming is a Hoax (man-made) You may cling to your evolutionary beliefs. And I'll stick with mine.
Since we will get no where, if each deny the other, we will stop. You may if you insist, have the last word.
Thank You for the opportunity to discuss these things.
My pleasure.
There IS an assumption of when the “clock” started.
Don't you love it when evolutionist try to separate God from science...the creator of Nature!!!! They say believing in God is un scientific!!! science is a method.
And unfortunately it is dominated by Godless men.
Satan, the author of Lies, will concure.
Sure, there is only one remaining "mankind", human beings, scientifically: homo sapiens sapiens, all of whom can and often do interbreed.
But in the not-so-distant past fossil and bone records show other homo species or sub-species, some of whom apparently did interbreed -- and left the evidence in our genetic inheritances.
So, were they necessarily different "kinds"?
And how many different zebra-kinds are there, or bear-kinds, elephant-kinds, whale-kinds, etc.?
Is "kind" the same as a scientific species, genus or family?
The truth of the matter is, nobody can say for certain, and scientifically, it's irrelevant.
The word "kind" has no meaning in science, and truthfully: no important meaning in theology either.
"Kind" is simply an imprecise word totally acceptable in the ancient world of non-scientific, mostly illiterate farmers & shepherds, but useless scientifically.
OneWingedShark: "your argument is akin to saying that because there's only one number 3 there's no such thing as 'integer'."
Not true.
I have simply challenged you to do the impossible: provide a scientifically useful and relevant definition of the word "kind".
Sorry, but all of my arguments are true, and your responses are false, FRiend. ;-)
kimtom: "{a bunch of gobbledygook}"
kimtom: "I do not claim that soft tissue (itself) proves YE.
But I do say That it Supports a YE model over a Billion YO model."
Reports of soft tissue come from dinosaur fossils circa 100 million years old.
The hard evidence for dating fossils comes from numerous radio-metric analyses, none of which have ever been proved to be grossly in error.
But even without radio-metric dating, there is no conceivable scientific "young earth" explanation for the many thousands of feet of geological strata that we all sit on top of -- or even Antarctic ice cores dating back hundreds of thousands of years.
Only if words themselves have no legitimate meanings -- if you can redefine words to mean whatsoever you wish they would have meant.
But if words do have real meanings, then science is science and your religion is not.
And if words do have real meanings, then your attempt to pretend your religion is just another branch of "science" is, in reality, a Big Lie -- perhaps even a child of the Father of Lies?
kimtom: "I chose to interpret the evidence differently than you.
You do not "own" science (the word or the discipline).
Your claim that Creation Science (or your words religion) is not science, is only again opinion."
Of course I don't "own" science, but in fact, science can and does speak for itself, through the words of recognized scientists, and science does not accept your mis-interpretations.
Your efforts to wrap religious doctrine in the mantle of "science" are found by science itself to be laughable and dishonest, FRiend.
kimtom: "God believing scientist choose to look for and find scientific evidence to prove their belief (or theory as you may call it) is as valid as your claims."
If that is truly their methodology, then it is by definition not "scientific".
True science requires that you begin with evidence and follow it toward whatever conclusions it leads.
Then after forming some hypothesis, you must now begin to test to falsify it -- and if your tests fail to falsify, then you can begin to assert your hypothesis is a confirmed theory.
No such conditions exist for any "new earth" hypothesis.
kimtom: "I'd rather be Right!! You can be scientific but still be wrong!"
Of course many scientific hypotheses are proved wrong every year.
Indeed, it would be safe to say that far fewer pass all their falsification tests.
In fact, the very word "science" does not mean "always right", but rather it means: "we will test scientifically to determine which hypotheses are right and which wrong, regardless of somebody's preconceived ideas."
kimtom: "Those who ascribe to evolutional Bias will so interpret the data likewise.
To say differently would be terrible dishonest."
I'd say it's "terrible dishonest" to claim that science should be moved by some religious doctrine, or that your particular doctrine is somehow "scientific".
... If you are using Bishop Ussher's timeline, which is as full of holes as Obama's birth story!
If you have other notations from Scripture, they would be welcomed by this Christian... who believes Scripture reveals everything (but can't find anything that says how old the earth really is!)! God created everything, and therefor, only He can suspend the rules...
2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Joshua 10:13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
Sure, your example here would simply demonstrate that people doing radio-metric work recognize various issues associated with it.
But by no conceivable stretch of imagination could such issues provide evidence to support an "young earth" hypothesis -- after all, even carbon-14 dating of wood found in old bogs can produce results older than "young earth" suggests.
Ice cores in Antarctica go back hundreds of thousands of years.
The many thousands of feet of geological strata beneath our feet cannot conceivably be laid down in a few thousand years -- and the list goes on and on...
MrB: "Besides, radiometric dating relies on the assumptions of initial “zero” condition, constant rate of decay, and no leaching or doping of the sample over the period of time in question."
All of which are testable and in any case cannot conceivably be so wrong as to support a "new earth" hypothesis.
But I have presented only facts, which you chose to ignore or deny.
kimtom:: "it is evolution that is not scientific.
It is a believe system to explain nature with out God."
Of course -- that is the very definition of the word "science" -- natural explanations for natural processes.
Science by definition, indeed by scientific law does not deal with the Supernatural.
It can't, it's not permitted to assume Divine intervention into any natural occurrence.
So once you go beyond the natural realm, then you are beyond science and into some other branch of philosophy -- be it metaphysics or theology, whatever.
These are not matters of my opinion or yours, but matters of fact and definitions of words.
kimtom:: "isotopic dates DO NOT converge on an assumed age of 4.5 billion years for earth."
Most, isotopes have half-lives too short to measure back 4.5 billion years.
However, according to these sources:
Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the magnitudes of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks.
Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium) – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old,[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth."
kimtom:: "even low-temperature fluid processes can cause open systems in dates.
This casts serious doubt on the assumption that isotopic systems could remain closed for millions of years..."
Sure, doubtless some radio-metric samples were somehow "contaminated" over millions of years, but not all -- and only a few have to give truly accurate results to provide scientific evidence of the earth's overall age.
So the burden of scientific proof is on those who claim a "young earth" hypothesis, and no such "proof" has ever been forthcoming.
kimtom:: "fission--track (FT) dates, most of which are "too young", unambiguously interpreted in terms of annealing caused by geologic heating events..."
"Too young" for what, exactly?
All long-period radio-metric dating begins with the last time of geologic heating and annealing.
That's what sets radio-metric "clocks" to "midnight" and starts the countdown to today.
If, for example, some isotope has a half-life of a million years, and is found to be 3/4 converted, that means the most recent geological heating happened two million years ago.
That's how it works.
kimtom:: "You make false assumptions with these claims.
Science has confirmed the Biblical accounts much better than evolution.
You can choose not to accept that, I am sorry, you seem very intelligent."
I make no "false assumptions", only report to you what real scientists say about real science.
You are free, of course, to accept or reject whatever you wish, but you can't honestly do so in the name of science, because that is not who you speak for.
You speak for your religious convictions, which have nothing to do with real science.
kimtom:: "Global warming is a Hoax (man-made)"
Actually, global warming -- natural warming & cooling -- is a fact, which happens daily, yearly and over thousands of years.
The hoax is political agendas which claim that humans (especially Americans) are somehow now responsible for every storm or drought that happens to inconvenience somebody somewhere in the world.
That is nonsense, and hopefully real scientists will eventually prevail with the real truth of the matter.
But it's got to be hard when governments are paying you to tell them what they want to hear...
kimtom:: "Thank You for the opportunity to discuss these things."
You're welcome, and thank you.
Actually, I’m not proving anything. I’m just showing you the evidence you hang your hat on is nothing but vapor.
You might want to check out the strata laid down in a few weeks after the mt St. Helens eruption and also the airplanes found under ice in the arctic.
Once again, I’m not proving, I’m disproving your evidence as not indicating what you say it does.
I’ve been lurking on the thread watching the debate between reason and emotion, but finally have to put in my two cents in. I believe that you young earthers do a huge disservice to the Christian religion when you cling to old disproven beliefs. The bible may or may not be the inspired word of God, but that is an entirely different argument. But it was written by men in the context of what made sense to them at the time.
The knowledge base of mankind has expanded exponentially since then. Don’t you think it is time you moved into the 21st century?
http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/other/sdc/sdc_mount_saint_helens.htm
http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/magazines/Creation/1997/greenlandair.htm
Oh, since you assert that the beliefs are disproven I guess I’ll just have to give them up, as you say.
Does that sound reasonable?
You are free to believe what ever you want, but those that continue to believe as you do are driving people away from Christianity. I know that as a fact because it is exactly what started my doubting of the bible.
I am not trying to convert anyone to any point of view, but just making an observation.
Have a good day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.