Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 871 of 1498 (841758)
10-21-2018 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 869 by creation
10-21-2018 9:35 AM


Re: creation Proves that the Bible is Wrong!
Nice to see the positions drawn clearly in the sand.
Yes indeed!
My position is that creationist claims must be truthful and honest and that the consequences of dishonest and false claims (including deliberate lies and deception) are the discrediting of Christianity and the loss of Christians' faith, as has been demonstrated many times. Most religious claims cannot be tested, but when the ones that we can test all turn out to be false, then there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to believe the claims that we cannot test.
Your position is to make false claims about the real world and to claim that if those false claims do indeed turn out to be false (which they are) then God does not exist. IOW, your position is to disprove God. Within the context of Christian doctrine, you are serving Satan.
In Message 834, you claim:
creation writes:
Looking at the times given in Gen for Noah in the flood, and looking at Revelation we do see a 360 day year actually.
Prove it! Present the actual verses which say that!
Or are you also lying about what the Bible says?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 869 by creation, posted 10-21-2018 9:35 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 873 by creation, posted 10-21-2018 5:53 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 872 of 1498 (841761)
10-21-2018 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 855 by ringo
10-11-2018 3:07 PM


Re: And now some correlations
The fact that creationists make little or no effort to test their preconceived notions is also telling.
It's even worse than that. Even when somebody else is doing that testing for them in order to find support for the claim, they aren't interested.
Refer to Ed Babinski's article, Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3 : Men Over Ten Feet Tall (1996), in which he tried to work with Carl Baugh to research one of his claims. Baugh just handed him a "19th century photograph" (quite obviously a drawing by an artist with no understanding of light sources) that he had received from the then-late Clifford Burdick. When Babinski tried to work with Baugh in verifying this claim, Baugh showed no interest at all.
Of course, the obvious reason why creationists won't test their ideas nor help others test them is because even they realize that those tests would expose their ideas as being utterly false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by ringo, posted 10-11-2018 3:07 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 873 of 1498 (841780)
10-21-2018 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 871 by dwise1
10-21-2018 2:04 PM


Re: creation Proves that the Bible is Wrong!
No. My position is that God is right, and what you believe is right contrary to that do not matter.
I cannot say for certain a year was 360 days in the past here. I can say God uses it, so it probably is how it was, and is how it will be.
You better cool your little jets in thinking science can fight it's way out of a fishbowl.
Game on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 871 by dwise1, posted 10-21-2018 2:04 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 875 by dwise1, posted 10-21-2018 6:55 PM creation has not replied
 Message 876 by GDR, posted 10-21-2018 6:57 PM creation has not replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 874 of 1498 (841781)
10-21-2018 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 870 by RAZD
10-21-2018 10:59 AM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
You admit is used the king lists! Then you make some vague claim about only when validated! Ha. Show us an instance where dates were validated?
So if you want to use the dog star, you need to fight tooth and nail to prove it was what you say and that it was indeed that way also in the post flood days.
It seems..cough cough...that you seek to sneak in dates from king lists or what star you believe was the dog star..etc...and then get some correlation in the C14. Nice try.
By the way, where are the close up pics and details about rings of a tree pre 4500 along with the C14 from then you seem to have forgotten to post?
We wait.
Edited by creation, : No reason given.
Edited by creation, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 870 by RAZD, posted 10-21-2018 10:59 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 878 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2018 12:13 AM creation has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 875 of 1498 (841784)
10-21-2018 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 873 by creation
10-21-2018 5:53 PM


Re: creation Proves that the Bible is Wrong!
No. My position is that God is right, ...
No, you don't. The creationist position is that what God created cannot be right. The earth, which actual creationists believe God created, is ancient, but creationists insist that it is not. Creationists are saying that God is wrong! Furthermore, creationists insist that if the world is as it actually is (eg, ancient), then God does not exist. As a result, they must use endless lies in order to deny that the world is as God had created it.
You deny God and God's Creation.
... , and what you believe is right contrary to that do not matter.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Could you please restate that in English instead of in gibberish?
And while you are at it, do please describe to me exactly what it is that I believe. You obviously have no clue what you are babbling about.
I cannot say for certain a year was 360 days in the past here.
Then why do you insist that it was? Yet again:
dwise1 writes:
In Message 834, you claim:
creation writes:
Looking at the times given in Gen for Noah in the flood, and looking at Revelation we do see a 360 day year actually.
Prove it! Present the actual verses which say that!
Or are you also lying about what the Bible says?
You keep blathering on about your imaginary 360-day year and you actually stated that it's in the Bible. SO SHOW US! Don't lie about it. Show us!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by creation, posted 10-21-2018 5:53 PM creation has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 876 of 1498 (841786)
10-21-2018 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 873 by creation
10-21-2018 5:53 PM


Creationism proves that it doesn't understand the Bible
creation writes:
No. My position is that God is right, and what you believe is right contrary to that do not matter.
Of course it matters that God is right. The question is, "what is God saying to us".
Out of ancient Jewish mythology there is a great message recorded in Genesis. It tells us that God created us as an act love, that He cares for us, and that we have free will with the knowledge of good and evil, that he wants us to choose that which is good and primarily that He has given us the responsibility to be stewards of our world by being the image bearers of His love into it.
creation writes:
I cannot say for certain a year was 360 days in the past here. I can say God uses it, so it probably is how it was, and is how it will be.
You keep trying to have the Bible say something that wasn't intended when it was written and isn't intended now. It draws you and others away from what God is really trying to tell us.
Let science do the job it does very well and learn from it. It tells us how things are and how it got to be that way. Let us use our Christianity to tell us why things are the way they are. When you look at evolutionary theory you should look at it with amazement that God could bring about a process that allowed you and all the other myriad of living creatures to evolve.
Science has given us healthier longer and fuller lives. Why don't you just be grateful to God for what it has accomplished instead of treating it like an enemy.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by creation, posted 10-21-2018 5:53 PM creation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 877 by dwise1, posted 10-21-2018 7:47 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 882 by Faith, posted 10-22-2018 8:32 AM GDR has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 877 of 1498 (841787)
10-21-2018 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 876 by GDR
10-21-2018 6:57 PM


Re: Creationism proves that it doesn't understand the Bible
Bingo!
Creationists keep claiming that the Bible does not contain any error and that if even a single error were to be found in the Bible, then the entire Bible is in error and completely false and it must be thrown into the dustbin (Br for "garbage can").
Furthermore, they claim that if the Bible is not true then God does not exist (or alternatively that God is a Liar and must not be worshipped). Either way, they are taught that they must abandon their faith and become atheists (not real atheists, but rather the perverted Christian version).
Additionally, they have made many false claims about the real world and have assigned those false claims the same inerrancy status as they have the Bible. Therefore, if they false claims about the real world are shown to be false, then that disproves the Bible which in turn disproves God.
Obviously, the Bible is not completely devoid of errors. And obviously their false claims about the real world are false. They have booby-trapped their faith and then stumbled into their own traps.
Or to put it into the terms that GDR offers, they are putting words into God's mouth, words that God never said and never would say.
I do not believe any of that. I have a much more realistic understanding of the Bible. It obviously contains errors, but that has no bearing whatsoever on whether the rest of it is in error. That also had no bearing whatsoever on whether God exists or not. And false claims about the real world are just plain false and should not be used. Making one's faith dependent on those false claims about the real world can only result in driving everybody away from that false creationist theology.
Creationists must examine what they believe in order to weed out false beliefs such as "creation science".
Actual creationists (as opposed to faux creationists like creation) believe that God created that universe. Science studies how the universe works. Creationists claim that explanations using natural processes for how something works denies God, whereas actual creationists believe that God created those natural processes, including evolutionary processes. There is no conflict between divine Creation and science, including evolution.
The only thing that causes any conflict with science is when creationists inject their false theology and false claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 876 by GDR, posted 10-21-2018 6:57 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 880 by Faith, posted 10-22-2018 8:07 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 878 of 1498 (841790)
10-22-2018 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 874 by creation
10-21-2018 5:57 PM


Re: Correlation validation by Egyptian Chronology
You admit is used the king lists! Then you make some vague claim about only when validated! Ha. Show us an instance where dates were validated?
So if you want to use the dog star, you need to fight tooth and nail to prove it was what you say and that it was indeed that way also in the post flood days.
Nope.
You asked how the Egyptian Chronology was developed without using C14 dates.
I provided you with that information.
The question to answer is not how the ages were developed, but why they correlate to the same ages with the measured C14 levels in the oak tree chronology for those ages by annual ring count.
It seems..cough cough...that you seek to sneak in dates from king lists or what star you believe was the dog star..etc...and then get some correlation in the C14. Nice try.
Again, you asked how the Egyptian Chronology was developed without using C14 dates.
I provided you with that information.
The FACT that the levels of C14 found in wood artifacts from the Old Kingdom period match the levels of C14 found in the oak tree annual rings for the same age count means that they correlate for that age.
The question you are not addressing is why such correlation exists.
Your job is not to laugh at the information, but to explain how/why that correlation occurred if either system (or both) are erroneous.
What is the mechanism that causes these to systems of measuring age to agree.
By the way, where are the close up pics and details about rings of a tree pre 4500 along with the C14 from then you seem to have forgotten to post?
The older tree ages are measured with core samples, and they are kept in a lab. Dendrochronology is done by matching tree rings between samples of different ages. You want to see them then go to the source.
We wait.
You can wait a long time. This is nothing but a desperate red-herring attempt to divert the thread from the issue of the correlations between age measurement systems.
There are four independent dendrochronologies that span the time from the present to over 5,000 years ago, plus one single living tree where the core sample showed an age over 5,000 years.
Those four dendrochronologies match each other for measured C14 levels at the same annual ring counts (the living tree has not been tested for C14 levels). We have also seen that there are correlations with historical dates to the same ages denoted by the tree rings for matching measured C14 levels. That is the evidence for these ages being valid absolute annual ages.
They are valid because of the correlations, so if you question the age you have to explain the correlations.
Your job is to explain the correlations.
You haven't yet explained the correlations.
You haven't yet even attempted to explain the correlations.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 874 by creation, posted 10-21-2018 5:57 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 887 by creation, posted 10-22-2018 10:57 PM RAZD has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 879 of 1498 (841792)
10-22-2018 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 786 by creation
10-02-2018 7:02 PM


Re: And now some questions on past times
All so called correlations are based on the same belief...you pick one. Tree rings...starlight...decay...fossils...etc.
Bullshit! You obviously have no clue what correlations are nor why they are so important.
In statistics class, we learned about the confidence interval. Every measurement and test has a figure of merit describing how confident we are that it is correct. That figure of merit, the confidence interval, is expressed as a probability of its being correct -- probabilities range from 0 (impossible) to 1.0 (dead certainty), which can also be represented as percentages from 0% to 100%. Common values for the confidence interval of reliable tests tend to range from 90% to 98%. Probabilities are normally annotated as p.
Now for correlations, which are based on the joint probabilities of the confidence intervals of all the independent tests.
Joint probabilities for independent tests are obtained by multiplying the component probabilities together. For example, flipping heads with a fair coin (a rare thing, actually, given the lopsided distribution of mass of most coins) n number of times. The probability of heads with a fair coin is 1/2 or 0.5, so the probability of n heads in a row is 0.5n. The probability of two heads in a row is 0.52 = 0.25. The probability of five heads in a row is 0.55 = 0.03125. The probability of ten heads in a row is 0.510 = 0.0009765625 = 9.765625×10-4. The probability of fifty heads in a row is 0.550 = 8.882×10-16. The probability of a hundred heads in a row is 0.5100 = 7.8886×10-31.
Now let's try the probability of a confidence interval of an individual test being 95%. The probability of two tests giving the same results is 0.952 = 0.9025. The probability of five tests giving the same results is 0.955 = 0.77378. The probability of ten tests giving the same results is 0.9510 = 0.5987. The probability of fifty tests giving the same results is 0.9550 = 0.077. The probability of a hundred tests giving the same results is 0.95100 = 0.00592. The probability of a thousand tests giving the same results is 0.951000 = 5.29×10-23.
Do you get the drift there? The probability of having more and more independent tests just happening to come up the same purely by chance becomes increasingly smaller regardless of how high the individual confidence interval is. So if independent test after independent test keeps coming up with the same results, the probability that those same results are completely due to pure chance becomes vanishingly small. That tells us that those results are significant. That tells us that we have a high level of confidence in the correlation of those results.
Thousands of correlating results are extremely significant. You cannot just pooh-pooh them away out of pig ignorance. You must deal with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 7:02 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 888 by creation, posted 10-22-2018 11:01 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 880 of 1498 (841796)
10-22-2018 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 877 by dwise1
10-21-2018 7:47 PM


Bible Inerrancy is Foundational
Since this is off topic here, it has been moved to a new thread: Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 877 by dwise1, posted 10-21-2018 7:47 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 881 by Tangle, posted 10-22-2018 8:26 AM Faith has replied
 Message 884 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2018 8:35 AM Faith has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 881 of 1498 (841799)
10-22-2018 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 880 by Faith
10-22-2018 8:07 AM


Re: Bible Inerrancy is Foundational
Faith writes:
It doesn't get into issues of creation science beyond making the general statement that the Bible is correct wherever it touches on such matters.
The utterly weird thing about that is that they and you think that it matters to anybody but yourselves what you accept or deny.
What you accept or deny is irrelevant to what the facts are unless you can rationally demonstrate why you accept or deny them. 'Because I believe' is not a rational answer.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 880 by Faith, posted 10-22-2018 8:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 883 by Faith, posted 10-22-2018 8:35 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 882 of 1498 (841800)
10-22-2018 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 876 by GDR
10-21-2018 6:57 PM


Christ and the Bible are one
Since this is off topic here, it has been moved to a new thread: Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 876 by GDR, posted 10-21-2018 6:57 PM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 883 of 1498 (841801)
10-22-2018 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 881 by Tangle
10-22-2018 8:26 AM


Re: Bible Inerrancy is Foundational
off topic
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 881 by Tangle, posted 10-22-2018 8:26 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 886 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2018 8:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 884 of 1498 (841802)
10-22-2018 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 880 by Faith
10-22-2018 8:07 AM


Re: Bible Inerrancy is Foundational ** not for this thread
Curiously this has nothing to do with age correlations, which you agree you cannot explain.
Please take this to another thread.
Thanks

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 880 by Faith, posted 10-22-2018 8:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 885 by Faith, posted 10-22-2018 8:37 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 885 of 1498 (841803)
10-22-2018 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 884 by RAZD
10-22-2018 8:35 AM


Re: Bible Inerrancy is Foundational ** not for this thread
I'm sorry, I specifically dug this up to answer dwise's false claims which came off GDR's. It belongs on this thread to the extent I've included it here. If anyone else wants to discuss it further, fine, start another thread. I'm done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2018 8:35 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024