[sassyT]

QUOTE]

You make a questionable suggestion here : if there has to be corrected on radio dating, we are talking about some percentage points at max, because the general basis is correct (as PROVED by objective supporting evidence).

Yes it has been Proved ONLY ASSUMING the assumptions used are correct. There is no way of knowing the assumptions used are accurate!

However : religious (Bible) claims are based on BELIEF and so far have never been proved by any objective evidence to be correct.

The Bible's claims have been proven to those who are really seeking its truth. The Bible contains scientific knowledge that scientists have only figured out in last few centuries. Science is only beginning to catch up on what God had man record in the Bible from ancient times. The Bible never claims to be a text book on science but when it does speak on nature or physics it is absolutely accurate.

The Universe IS Expanding
For example the Scientists have just recently figured out that the universe is expanding and yet thousands of years ago it was written in Bible that God is expanding and stretching out the heavens with His right hand. The same thing is repeated in all of the following books by different authors. Job 9:8, Psalms 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:16

The Earth is a Sphere
Man believed the earth was flat until recent years and yet thousands of years ago the Bible describes earth as a sphere in many verses. Here is one:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (Isaiah 40:22)

Number of stars exceeds a billion.
God speaking to Abraham who is the one he would begin to give his teachings to Gen. 13:16 “And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered.” Genesis 15:5 says the stars cannot be numbered by man. Jeremiah 33:32 explains the stars are beyond numbering. Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. Hipparchus said in 150 B.C. there are exactly 1,026 stars. 150 years later a Roman named Ptolemy said there are 1,056, Kepler counted 1,006. Since Galileo invented the telescope in 1608, we continued to discover more stars. Up until the last few hundred years until the discovery of the telescope there were only 6,000 stars seen by the naked eye. A modern telescope of 200 inches estimates 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. And there are not millions but billions of such galaxies. The Biblical scientific insights were far in advance of four modern day science. Today, with our technology and high powered telescopes in space and astronomers estimate that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy with an additional 20-100 billion galaxies in the universe! Henry Morris says there are at least 10 million, billion, billion stars! See Gen.15:5, Job 22:12; Isaiah 55:9; 1 Corinthians 15:41 and 2 Peter 3:10.

Gen. 22:17 “ I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; Another example of the amount of stars that cannot be counted.

Water Cycle
In recent history science taught that most clouds are formed by evaporation of water from the ocean, but the Bible recorded this centuries ago. Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, “The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. Here King Solomon, writing 3,000 years ago explains how the oceans are the origin of rain. Tells us the wind has currents. This was unknown to man, today science has documented the direction of wind currents and wind paths.

Earth is suspended in space
Job 26:7 says the earth is suspended on nothing. Early man thought Atlas, a huge turtle or elephants held up the earth. In the North sky within the millions of stars is a vast expanse of blackness. The Bible was there before the telescope so only God could describe it. Today we know it is gravity that holds the planets and stars in their orbits making them appear to be hung on nothing.
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. (Job 26:7)


I have just mentioned about 10% of the scientific knowledge in the Bible if you want I can go on. I wrote a 10 page paper about this and couldn't even mention everything. To me because I love science, this is what made me believe the Bible was truth. This is just the scientific aspect. There is a lot more prove of the Bible's credibility if you analyze prophesy. If you want to see if the Bible is true look at the Nation of Israel. Everything that has happened to that nation was written thousands of years before it happen. I don't just have blind faith. I have done a lot of research on the Bible and it is amazing how true it is.

The age of earth is "somewhere" between 4.500.000.000 and 4.600.000.000 years, based on scientific data (supported objective evidence).

According your faith and beliefs.

Even if this would contain a 10% miscalculation (which it does not) the earth is at least minimal 4.000.000.000 years old, which is about 3.999.994.000 years older than the age as per the creationist claim

.

The miscalculation is only with in the assumptions. Not reality.

[sassyT]

It's a measurement with a known certainty - in this case about 1%, so we know that the age of the earth according to all available evidence, with certainty, is between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old.

Like i said before, we can only know things within certain error limits - we cannot know anything with 100% certainty.

The Error limit is 1% assuming the assuptions used are accurate. How come you don't get this. If you are science expert you should know this.

For those who don't know this is how radio dating works let me explain it. I did a study on this too.

The accuracy of these dating methods depends “critically” on several assumptions.To date a rock by radiometric means, one must first assume:


1. What the initial amount of the parent atoms was at the time that the rock formed.
2.That the original composition of the rock contained no daughter atoms.
3. That neither parent nor daughter atoms have ever been added or removed from the rock.
4. That the decay rate of parent atom to daughter atom has always remained constant.


If these assumptions are correct, then the radiometric dates are correct. However, there is no way to independently test these assumptions. If they are wrong, the method could yield faulty dates that might be far too old.

To illustrate let give this analogy, suppose there is a burning candle sitting on the table. How long has that candle been burning? This can be calculated if the candle's burn rate and original length is known. However, if the original length is not known, or if it cannot be verified that the burning rate has been constant, it is impossible to tell for sure how long the candle was burning. A similar problem occurs with radiometric dating of rocks. Since the initial physical state of the rock is unknowable, the age can only be estimated according to certain assumptions.

When dating a rock, the geochronologist must first assume the rock's age before it is dated. For example, if a scientist believes a piece of rock is 4.5 billion years old, he or she may then use the uranium-lead dating method because it has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This involves circular reasoning.

The geochronologist must also be sure that the rate of decay, from uranium to lead for example, has remained constant in the rock over the past 4.5 billion years. Furthermore, the amount of uranium in the rock that was present to begin with must also be assumed. And neither uranium nor lead can have ever been added or removed from the specimen by any natural circumstances, catastrophic or otherwise. If all of these assumptions are correct, then the resulting dates are correct. However if even one of these assumptions is wrong, then the resulting dates are erroneous. So if you have faith in the assumptions that fine, but just be aware of that the dating process is not founded on facts.

[NeedKarma]

I'll still go with the sciences versus "streched out his hand".

[sassyT]

NeedKarma, I don't know if you know this or not but you are on my ignore list. So I don't accually get to see any of what you write. Just an FYI in case you ever try to reply my posts or direct any comments to me.

[Fr_Chuck]

I'll still go with the sciences versus "streched out his hand".

Now that is real faith, to believe it all could just happen, the big bangger and everything fell into this perfect balance of gravitational pulls.
Then on this somehow water and gasses formed, then something started life. And from that first single cell, every form of plant, animal, fish and bird were created, every different type of grass, treee all mutated from the same first plant.

Now if that is not faith in things that can't be seen or proved I have never known any.

[NeedKarma]

Sassy,
Wow, if that's what a good christian is these days then I don't want to be part of that club. (remember not to read this)

[Fr_Chuck]

NeedKarma, i dont know if you know this or not but you are on my ignore list. So i dont accually get to see any of what you write. Just an FYI incase you ever try to reply my posts or direct any comments to me.

That takes all the fun out of the posts, I have to think it is so funny anyone could actually believe in the idea of everything starting from one first cell that somehow got started. Now if one wants to think of something not beleivable, that is surely it. I almost roll out of my chair laughting at some of the ideas that put mans opinions and assumptions into play. Remember they made fun of Noah's faith until it started to rain, I would guess at about knee deep they were not really laughing much any longer.

[NeedKarma]

Remember they made fun of Noah's faith untill it started to rain, I would guess at about knee deep they were not really laughing much any longer.

That ark thing never happened. That can be another thread.
BTW why did you quote her "ignore" comment when replying to me?

[sassyT]

That takes all the fun out of the posts, I have to think it is so funny anyone could actually beleive in the idea of everything starting from one first cell that somehow got started. Now if one wants to think of something not beleivable, that is surely it. I almost roll out of my chair laughting at some of the ideas that put mans opinions and assumptions into play. Remember they made fun of Noah's faith untill it started to rain, I would guess at about knee deep they were not really laughing much any longer.

Yeah I agree with you. I don't posses enough faith to believe that I share a common ancestor with a fruit fly. A one cell creature that crawls out of a mythical pond is responsible for all diversity of life. I think to be an evolutionist you have to poses an immeasurable amount of faith.

[Credendovidis]

Creation Scientists

There are no CREATION-SCIENTISTS, Chuck.

There are scientists. There are creationists. There are creationists who are scientists (whatever field - except anything religious).

But there are no creation-scientists. Science is not involved in anything religious, as religion is not based on facts and/or objective proof / evidence, but on belief.

If someone claims to be a creation-scientist, he/she actually is a creation "PSEUDO-SCIENTIST".

[Dark_crow]

You're right, we don't talk about certainties. But we do talk all the time about uncertainties. This is about working out how accurate our results are and lets us know what range of values the true value lies.

In all fairness I would like to point out that (And maybe you will agree) when scientists use the term theory, it has a different meaning than it does in normal everyday use.

In science, facts are collected or observations and then laws are used to describe them; and a theory to explain them. A Theory is not a law; Laws describe things, theories explain them.

The situation we have is the Laws which are used to describe the Universe, but different theories that explain the existence of these Laws.

[sassyT]

There are no CREATION-SCIENTISTS, Chuck.
There are scientists. There are creationists. There are creationists who are scientists
(whatever field - except anything religious)
If someone claims to be a creation-scientist, he/she actually is a creation "PSEUDO-SCIENTIST".

Credendovidis, FYI A scientists who believes in intelligent design is Called CREATION-SCIENTISTS. Just because a scientist does not believe in a creature that crawled out of a Mythical pond and is responsible for all Biological life does not mean he/she ceases to be a scientist.

It is interesting that you used the expression Pseudo Scientist considering Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is NOT religious, yet he called evolution a "pseudo-science."

[NeedKarma]

In all fairness I would like to point out that (And maybe you will agree) when scientists use the term theory, it has a different meaning than it does in normal everyday use.

In science, facts are collected or observations and then laws are used to describe them; and a theory to explain them. A Theory is not a law; Laws describe things, theories explain them.

The situation we have is the Laws which are used to describe the Universe, but different theories that explain the existence of these Laws.

I reference exactly that in post #60 of this thread. :)

[Credendovidis]

sassyT

How wrong and illogical you are. Why would there be no way of knowing that the assumptions used (in radio dating) are accurate? Of course there is accurate evidence.
The problems in your argument is always that if I state that the evidence is 99,999.999.232 %, you demand evidence of 99,999.999.233 %.
And once I confirm that the evidence is 99,999.999.233 %, you demand evidence of 99,999.999.234 %.
At the same time YOU make claims that carry 0,000.000.000.000.000.000.000 % evidence, but which you claim to be the one and only truth.

---

"The Bible's claims have been proven to those who are really seeking its truth" .
Not true. There is no objective evidence for any of the important basics of the Christian religion. There are ONLY claims, based on belief.

I AM JUST LIKE YOU SEEKING THE "TRUTH". HOWEVER WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE THE TRUTH IS IN MY VIEWS JUST RELIGIOUS BABBLE.
You elevate what you BELIEVE to reality WITHOUT any objective evidence for that claim.

---

"The Bible never claims to be a text book on science but when it does speak on nature or physics it is absolutely accurate".

How do you KNOW that? Can you provide objective evidence for that? No you can't. All you do is BELIEVE you are correct.

The creation did not happen as stated in Genesis. The Bible is not even consistent with it's creation claims, as the two Genesis stories show unacceptable differences to even allow them to have any serious value.
The Bible is full of contradictions and mistakes. That is a FACT.
No problem if you BELIEVE that the Bible is correct. But it is a serious problem for people with a more open mind, who base their position on suppported objective evidence.

---

The Earth is a Sphere

However, you still have not refuted my post about the Bible claim that "the earth was without a form", while I stated that the earth was already a sphere before the sun started to shine, "and there was light" (for the first time).
So using the above chapter line is nonsensical and insincere.

---

You made a list of some small quotes from the Bible as if that elevates the entire Bible to factual.
But why don't you simply prove that the Bible is correct?
Why don't you simply prove that God exists?
Why don't you prove that God was the father of Jesus?
Why don't you prove that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one?
Why don't you prove that God is superpotent and omnibenevolent, and omniscient?
That would prove something. What you posted as "proof" is no more than religious babble.
.

[Credendovidis]

.... It is interesting that you used the expression Pseudo Scientist considering Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is NOT religious, yet he called evolution a "pseudo-science."

For every creation "pseudo-scientist" there are thousands of real scientists, who know the difference between claim and objective evidence.

There are indeed differences of OPINION on evolution, based on different views by different scientists. We all know that there never will be 100% proof for evolution. But the basics of evolution have been proved beyond any doubt.

And that is just what can not be stated of anything connected to religion, because that is all based on BELIEF and lack any objective supporting evidence.

[sassyT]

For each and every creation "pseudo-scientist" there are thousands of real scientists, who know the difference between claim and objective evidence.

There are indeed differences of OPINION on evolution, based on different views by different scientists. We all know that there never will be 100% proof for evolution. But the basics of evolution have been proved beyond any doubt.

And that is just what can not be stated of anything connected to religion, because that is all based on [BELIEF and lack any objective supporting evidence.

This is exactly my point. There is no 100% proof of evolution but you believe in it anyway. So you have FAITH in evolution because you believe the little evidence provided is sufficient. I don't.
In the same way I can not give you 100% proof of God but there is enough Objective evidence to prove to me His word is truth. I just don't have a "Believe", there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in the Bible to prove its validity. You may not think so and that's fine, because I also don't believe evolution has enough objective evidence to prove its validity.

[sassyT]

The fact that the Bible explains scientific concepts and facts that were not known to man until recently, is enough Objective evidence to prove it had super natural Inspiration.

The world was thought to be a flat and yet God's word already said it was spherical.
Before a telescope was even invented God's word said there were billions of stars when scientists were busy counting them and saying there are 1026 stars.

In Job 36:27 and 28 is the statement, He draws up the drops' of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour Down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind.” Here we find an accurate description of the earth's hydrologic, cycle. Even during the Middle Ages, the source of rain water was something of a mystery. But in approximately 2,000 B.C. we find Job accurately describing the rain cycle.

Psalm 8:8 mentions the paths of the sea. We read about “the birds of the air, and the fish of' the sea, all that swim the paths of the sea.” But it wasn't until the mid nineteenth century when Matthew Fontaine Maury, the “father of oceanography,” published his discovery that the ocean possesses predictable paths or currents. When Psalm 8 was written, the only seas known to the Hebrews were the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, the Mediterranean, and the Red Sea.' These bodies of water did not possess “paths” or significant observable currents. It took Matthew Maury a great deal of time to collect the crude observational data that existed from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century to make his own discovery. And yet the Psalmist wrote of “the paths of the seas.”

Water cycle described Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10, Job 36:27-2818
Valleys exist on the bottom of the sea 2 Samuel 22:1619
Vents exist on the bottom of the sea Job 38:1620
Air has weight Job 28:2522
Winds blow in circular paths Ecclesiastes 1:623

[sassyT]

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]sassyT

How wrong and illogical you are. Why would there be no way of knowing that the assumptions used (in radio dating) are accurate?Of course there is accurate evidence

Credendovidis, you are obviously not very well educated in the field of science because this is the most ignorant statement I have seen in this argument. You need to re-read my candle analogy (in Green) maybe it will help you understand better.
Also if you revise the meaning of assumption you will find out that it means Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition:


.

The problems in your argument is always that if I state that the evidence is 99,999.999.232 %, you demand evidence of 99,999.999.233 %.
And once I confirm that the evidence is 99,999.999.233 %, you demand evidence of 99,999.999.234 %.
At the same time YOU make claims that carry 0,000.000.000.000.000.000.000 % evidence, but which you claim to be the one and only truth

The problem is that you are either too irrational to admit that assumptions are not facts or you need to take a few science courses to educate yourself.

"The Bible's claims have been proven to those who are really seeking its truth" .
Not true. There is no objective evidence for any of the important basics of the Christian religion. There are ONLY claims, based on belief.

The Bible said the Earth was Spherical thousands of years ago when it was believed to be flat up until recent centuaries. That is pretty OBJECTIVE evidence to me.

I AM JUST LIKE YOU SEEKING THE "TRUTH". HOWEVER WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE THE TRUTH IS IN MY VIEWS JUST RELIGIOUS BABBLE.
You elevate what you BELIEVE to reality WITHOUT any objective evidence for that claim.

Like I said there is ample objective evidence in the Bible. For example the claims made by the Bible of the plagues God sent to Egypt. These plagues including rivers turning to blood were recorded by Egyptians so that proves the Historicity of Biblical claims. Read this OBJECTIVE INFO Read the Section on Historicity Plagues of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---

"The Bible never claims to be a text book on science but when it does speak on nature or physics it is absolutely accurate".

How do you KNOW that? Can you provide objective evidence for that? No you can't. All you do is BELIEVE you are correct.

Of course I KNOW the scientific information in the Bible is correct because it is consistent with what we know now. Duh.

The creation did not happen as stated in Genesis. The Bible is not even consistent with it's creation claims, as the two Genesis stories show unacceptable differences to even allow them to have any serious value.
The Bible is full of contradictions and mistakes. That is a FACT.
No problem if you BELIEVE that the Bible is correct. But it is a serious problem for people with a more open mind, who base their position on suppported objective evidence.

What evidence do you have to prove creation did not happen as stated in Genesis? Were you there?
Also instead of just saying "the Bible is full of contradictions and mistakes" why don't you provide specific instances in which you feel it was inconsistent.

---

The Earth is a Sphere

However, you still have not refuted my post about the Bible claim that "the earth was without a form", while I stated that the earth was already a sphere before the sun started to shine, "and there was light" (for the first time).
So using the above chapter line is nonsensical and insincere.

How do you know that the earth was not with out form before it was spherical? Do you have evidence to otherwise show what the world looked like before the beginning of time?

---

You made a list of some small quotes from the Bible as if that elevates the entire Bible to factual

Small quotes? Mmm... I think it proves a lot. It prove that Before scientists God WAS.

But why don't you simply prove that the Bible is correct?
Why don't you simply prove that God exists?
Why don't you prove that God was the father of Jesus?
Why don't you prove that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one?
Why don't you prove that God is superpotent and omnibenevolent, and omniscient?
That would prove something. What you posted as "proof" is no more than religious babble.

Atheism is also religious babble to me. You have "no proof" that God does not exist but you believe it anyway. So atheist is also based on faith. So one could argue it is a religion. A religion I also have zero faith in.

[Donna Mae]

The creation did not happen as stated in Genesis. The Bible is not even consistent with it's creation claims, as the two Genesis stories show unacceptable differences to even allow them to have any serious value.
The Bible is full of contradictions and mistakes. That is a FACT..

C-I am very interested to hear what all these contradictions and mistakes are too.

[NeedKarma]

Athiesm is also religous babble to me. You have "no proof" that God does not exist but you believe it anyway. So athiest is also based on faith. So one could argue it is a religion. A religion i also have zero faith in.

One does not have to prove a negative i.e.. You don't have to prove there is no god.

Actually by you saying the above this whole discussion is basically closed since you will never deviate from your position regardless of what is presented to you. You've stated that you have zero faith in atheism and science so why are you here arguing? Why not live your life your way and let others live their lives their way?