Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [M & B] June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!

Expand Messages
  • Ray Ausban
    We said: Ray: The rebuttal is this is within the margin of error of a couple of percentage points. It s a reasonable rebuttal. Pi: No. The rebuttal is that
    Message 1 of 17 , Feb 11, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
       
      We said:
       
      Ray:
      The rebuttal is this is within the margin of error of a couple of percentage points. It's a reasonable rebuttal.
      Pi:
      No. The rebuttal is that the test results are invalid.
      There are known limitations to the test method. The samples submitted by ICR were known to be too young for the method to produce a reliable result. Failure to produce a reliable result is meaningless.
      Worse .... ICR KNEW the samples were not suitable for testing but submitted them anyway. The facts that:
      1) ICR knew the samples were not appropriate.
      2) ICR deliberately concealed the source of the samples because ICR knew no lab would accept them for testing because they are inappropriate.
      3) ICR conceals the known limitations of the method when reporting the test results.
      There is a pattern of deception on the part of ICR.
       
      I think:
       
      If some one knowingly sneaks in rocks they know the age of and did not reveal the facts or lied about it to get the test done, then there is some deception taking place. You can say the test results are invalid, but it doesn't change the results. The results are not wrong, just because the submitters knew the age of the item before hand.
       
      So, please tell me what testing lab will date your rock, when they know your purpose is to discredit them? They are not willingly going to give you accurate test results, if they are willing to do it at all. This is just as deceptive. Since Big Science controls all the cards, some people have resorted to fighting fire with fire.
       
      Are you also opposed to covert activity in war because it is deceptive? Or men hiring private eyes to see if their wife is cheating?
      When people suspect that something is wrong, they use covert activities to help determine the truth.
       
      As I understand it, many 'creationists' have used this tactic. I also understand that the ICR has its own machines, so I don't know they are sneaking around as you claim. Maybe they once did but that is not my concern. My concern is what is the truth about the past.
       
       
      ____________________________________________________________________________________________
       
      We said:
       
      Ray:
      And the question is, why do they make such claims? Funding, of course.
      Pi:
      To me, there are some other questions:
      1) Why should a test result on a sample known to be inappropriate for the test method cause any concern?
      2) Does the fact ICR would engage in such a pattern of deception call into question their integrity?
      And last, but not least:
      Why would ICR make such claims? Funding, of course.
      ____________________________________________________________________________________________
       I think:
       
      In the 'peer review' system of science, 'fact' is determined by lab work. If the lab work can not be done for some reason, then 'fact' is determined by a consensus of science guys in the peer review system. At the turn of the 20th century there were crazy inventors trying to build flying machines, yet the science guys and their math models said flight wasn't possible. And then they back tracked after the Wright Brothers. The point is consensus is not verifiable fact. Today, most scientists believe in evolution of species. Lab work from horse, dog and fruit fly breeders has shown thus far, that evolution of species is not a fact. However, the peer review system considers it so, so evolution of species is a fact (in their minds).
      I do not consider unverifiable opinions based on conjecture, speculation and math models as fact. Astronomy, Geology and much of Archeology fall into this area of being considered a fact, when there is no real way of verifying it. This is also true with the creation 'science' people. And I agree, all the 'know it alls' have a funding need and every camp seems to do what they need to do to get it.
      So, when I smirk at obvious pseudo-science statements coming out of "real" scientists, then there has to be a reason.
       
      What I am befuddled about, is why all you theists here at Robert's group are as closed minded as the science elite about the past, when you should see the same things I do.
      Or why you fellows think there is no literalness to most of the Bible? Do you really think all of Jewish history was a bunch of symbolizm in stories and events that never happened?
       
      In those conversations with Zuma, I showed much about the creation is symbolic, but I also maintain much is literal too. And you guys seem to drink up the Big Bang doctrine. Why?

      From: "PIASAN@..." <PIASAN@...>
      To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:35 PM
      Subject: Re: [M & B] June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
       
      Ray:
      If there is validity to radiometric dating
       
       
      Pi:
      There is.  When the test is used on appropriate samples, the results are statistically valid.
       
       
       
       
       
       
      Ray:
      you are right, that it could not be accurate to 12,000 years in 66 million.
       
      Pi:
      I didn't read the details, but the only way I could think of to get any validity to that kind of precision would involve hundreds, if not thousands of tests using multiple radioisotopes.  As I understood the article, the only method used was Ar-Ar.
       
       
       
       
      Ray:
      The tests done by the ICR of recent lava flows date in the millions of years for something of known age of a few hundred years old.
       
       
      Pi:
      The test results are invalid.
       
      Remember what I said about "appropriate samples?"  ICR violated the known limitations of the test method.
       
       
       
       
       
      Ray:
      The rebuttal is this is within the margin of error of a couple of percentage points.  It's a reasonable rebuttal.
       
       
      Pi:
      No.  The rebuttal is that the test results are invalid.
       
      There are known limitations to the test method.  The samples submitted by ICR were known to be too young for the method to produce a reliable result.  Failure to produce a reliable result is meaningless.
       
      Worse .... ICR KNEW the samples were not suitable for testing but submitted them anyway.  The facts that:
      1)  ICR knew the samples were not appropriate.
      2)  ICR deliberately concealed the source of the samples because ICR knew no lab would accept them for testing because they are inappropriate.
      3)  ICR conceals the known limitations of the method when reporting the test results.
       
      There is a pattern of deception on the part of ICR.
       
       
       
       
      Ray:
      But these numbers are a hundredth of one percent. I don't think the machines are that good.
       
      Pi:
      I haven't studied the most recent technology, but most of these dates are in the order of +/- 5%.  With a good statistical analysis of hundreds of tests globally I think you could probably get it down to 0.5%, but less than 0.01%.... not likely.
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      Ray:
      And the question is, why do they make such claims? Funding, of course.
       
       
      Pi:
      To me, there are some other questions:
       
      1)  Why should a test result on a sample known to be inappropriate for the test method cause any concern?
      2)  Does the fact ICR would engage in such a pattern of deception call into question their integrity?
       
      And last, but not least:
      Why would ICR make such claims?   Funding, of course.
       
       
       
       
    • piasanaol
      We said: Ray: The rebuttal is this is within the margin of error of a couple of percentage points. It s a reasonable rebuttal. Pi: No. The rebuttal is that
      Message 2 of 17 , Feb 19, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        We said:
         
        Ray:
        The rebuttal is this is within the margin of error of a couple of percentage points. It's a reasonable rebuttal.
        Pi:
        No. The rebuttal is that the test results are invalid.
        There are known limitations to the test method. The samples submitted by ICR were known to be too young for the method to produce a reliable result. Failure to produce a reliable result is meaningless.
        Worse .... ICR KNEW the samples were not suitable for testing but submitted them anyway. The facts that:
        1) ICR knew the samples were not appropriate.
        2) ICR deliberately concealed the source of the samples because ICR knew no lab would accept them for testing because they are inappropriate.
        3) ICR conceals the known limitations of the method when reporting the test results.
        There is a pattern of deception on the part of ICR.
         
        I think:
         
        If some one knowingly sneaks in rocks they know the age of and did not reveal the facts or lied about it to get the test done, then there is some deception taking place.
         
        Pi answers:
        So you admit not revealing the facts, or lying about them to get the test done is deception.  ICR did NOT reveal the facts in order to get the test done.  They knew (in advance)  their sample would have been rejected as inappropriate if they had revealed the facts.  ICR lied by omission when they submitted the samples for testing.
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
         You can say the test results are invalid, but it doesn't change the results.
         
        Pi:
        It isn't necessary to change invalid results.  It isn't necessary to refute them either.  There is no need to deal with them except to explain why the results are invalid.  That has been done.  The test results, whatever they are, are meaningless.  ICR lies by omission when they publicize these results but withhold the fact their samples were outside the limitations of the test method used.
         
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
         The results are not wrong, just because the submitters knew the age of the item before hand.
         
        Pi:
        The results are wrong because the submitters knowingly presented a sample they KNEW, in advance, was not appropriate for the test method they wanted used.  In other words, they knew samples less than 100,000 years old should not be tested using the Ar-Ar or K-Ar methods for well known and understood technical reasons.  They went ahead and submitted the unsuitable samples anyway.
         
        From that perspective, I can congratulate them for submitting an inappropriate sample and obtaining an invalid test result.  Except for the fact ICR is using this invalid test result for propaganda purposes, why should this bother me?
         
         
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
        So, please tell me what testing lab will date your rock, when they know your purpose is to discredit them?
         
        Pi:
        All of them.  It's done all the time.  In fact, good test validation demands it.  Researchers regularly submit samples of known age along with samples of unknown age for blind testing to assure the test results are reliable.  The difference is the samples submitted by those doing real research meet the requirements of the test method being challenged.  The ICR samples did not.  ICR knew this before even submitting the samples.  ICR lied by omission.
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
         They are not willingly going to give you accurate test results, if they are willing to do it at all.
         
        Pi:
        Sure they will .... if you give them a sample that is appropriate for the method being used.  A ten year old sample is not appropriate for either K-Ar or Ar-Ar dating for technical reasons we have already discussed..  Any reputable lab would reject that sample as inappropriate for the test.  No HONEST researcher would even submit such a sample.  ICR did.... with full knowledge the method is not suitable for the sample.  They were dishonest.
         
         
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
         This is just as deceptive.
         
         
        Pi:
        No, it isn't. 
         
        The labs openly state the qualifications necessary to obtain a valid test result.  In what way is that deceptive?  ICR, with full knowledge of those standards, deliberately submitted a sample that did not meet the requirements necessary to obtain a valid test.
         
        ICR lied by omission when they submitted the sample.
         
        ICR lies by omission when they publicize the results of the test without disclosing the sample did not meet test requirements.
         
        About the only honest things ICR did was to say: "Here's a rock."  and "We had it tested."
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
        Since Big Science controls all the cards, some people have resorted to fighting fire with fire.
         
        Pi:
        That does not excuse the lies and deception of ICR.  You have not shown the labs were deceptive in any way, shape, or form.  In fact, the situation is the exact opposite... the labs have been very open about the limitations of the process.  So, how does an absence of deception on the part of the labs justify deceptive behavior on the part of ICR?
         
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
        Are you also opposed to covert activity in war because it is deceptive? Or men hiring private eyes to see if their wife is cheating?
        When people suspect that something is wrong, they use covert activities to help determine the truth.
         
         
         
        Pi
        OK.... ICR used covert activities and determined the truth that when you submit an inappropriate sample for testing you get unreliable and/or invalid results.  Congratulations to ICR for determining what we already knew.
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
        As I understand it, many 'creationists' have used this tactic.
         
        Pi;
        Yes, they have.  As I pointed out earlier, creationists have often had seals, polar bears, or mollusks dated by C-14, then when the ages come back several hundred years old, they claim the method isn't reliable..... even though we already know these samples will return an age of several hundred years and why they do.
         
         
         
         
         
         Ray:
        I also understand that the ICR has its own machines, so I don't know they are sneaking around as you claim.
         
        Pi;
        Does this sound familiar?  
         
        "If some one knowingly sneaks in rocks they know the age of and did not reveal the facts or lied about it to get the test done, then there is some deception taking place." 
         
        Guess who said that and when?  ICR makes no secret of the fact they "did not reveal the facts .... to get the test done."
         
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
         Maybe they once did but that is not my concern. My concern is what is the truth about the past.
         
        Pi:
        So your concern is not that they were dishonest.  I kinda figured that......
         
        As for the truth about the past..... you won't get that by testing samples we already KNOW will not give accurate results.
         
        Once again.... my compliments to ICR for discovering the truth of GIGO.
         
         
         
         
         
         
        ____________________________________________________________________________________________
         
        We said:
         
        Ray:
        And the question is, why do they make such claims? Funding, of course.
        Pi:
        To me, there are some other questions:
        1) Why should a test result on a sample known to be inappropriate for the test method cause any concern?
        2) Does the fact ICR would engage in such a pattern of deception call into question their integrity?
        And last, but not least:
        Why would ICR make such claims? Funding, of course.
        ____________________________________________________________________________________________
         I think:
         
        In the 'peer review' system of science, 'fact' is determined by lab work. If the lab work can not be done for some reason, then 'fact' is determined by a consensus of science guys in the peer review system.
         
        Pi:
        This isn't about the peer review system.  It's about the submission of samples KNOWN to be inappropriate, then when erroneous results are returned, pointing to those results as if they are a failure of the test method.
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
         At the turn of the 20th century there were crazy inventors trying to build flying machines, yet the science guys and their math models said flight wasn't possible. And then they back tracked after the Wright Brothers.
         
        Pi:
        Even at the time of the Wright brothers, we knew full well that heavier-than-air flight was possible.  After all, we had been watching birds and insects do it from the dawn of time.  The question was power-to-weight.  What the Wright brothers actually did was to produce an engine with an improved power-to-weight ratio that made powered flight possible.
         
        The same can be said of man-powered flight.  It was considered impossible due to power-to-weight constraints.  The development of new materials made it possible to overcome those limitations making man-powered flight a reality.
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
         The point is consensus is not verifiable fact. Today, most scientists believe in evolution of species. Lab work from horse, dog and fruit fly breeders has shown thus far, that evolution of species is not a fact. However, the peer review system considers it so, so evolution of species is a fact (in their minds).
         
         
        Pi:
        Actually, speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild.  However, biology isn't my "thing" and evolution isn't my reason for rejecting a literal reading of Genesis.
         
         
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
        I do not consider unverifiable opinions based on conjecture, speculation and math models as fact. Astronomy, Geology and much of Archeology fall into this area of being considered a fact, when there is no real way of verifying it.
         
        Pi:
        Astronomy?   Really ??  In what way is it mere conjecture or speculation to determine (for example) the distance to Sn1987a is calculated by direct trigonometry to be over 167,000 light years and to conclude from that data that it took light from that event over 167,000 years to reach Earth?
         
        Reference my paper at:   http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm and identify the "conjecture" or "speculation" in that work.
         
         
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
         This is also true with the creation 'science' people. And I agree, all the 'know it alls' have a funding need and every camp seems to do what they need to do to get it.
        So, when I smirk at obvious pseudo-science statements coming out of "real" scientists, then there has to be a reason.
         
        Pi:
        Just as there's a reason I accuse ICR of being deceptive.... ok.... make that liars.
         
         
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
        What I am befuddled about, is why all you theists here at Robert's group are as closed minded as the science elite about the past, when you should see the same things I do.
         
        Pi:
        Do you?  If you walk out in your back yard and directly observe the galaxy Andromeda (distance 2.4 million light years) how can you explain our ability to see that in a universe only a few thousand years old.
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
        Or why you fellows think there is no literalness to most of the Bible? Do you really think all of Jewish history was a bunch of symbolizm in stories and events that never happened?
         
        Pi:
        So far as I know, most histories of the type the Bible represents have some truth in them.  The Iliad and Odyssey are examples. 
         
        For example, was there a really big flood at about the time of Noah?  Yes.  Was that flood global in nature?  No.  The supporting evidence I would expect from a global flood is simply not there.
         
         
         
         
         
        Ray:
        In those conversations with Zuma, I showed much about the creation is symbolic, but I also maintain much is literal too. And you guys seem to drink up the Big Bang doctrine. Why?
         
        Pi:
        The Big Bang can be absolutely, totally, completely 100% false.  That does nothing at all to the evidence I use as the basis of my rejection of YEC and a literal Genesis.  That rejection is based on our ability to directly observe objects millions of times more distant than what we should be able to see in a universe only a few thousand years old.
         
         
         

      • Ray Ausban
        First Pi, thanks for answering my questions. I was hoping some others would too, but I ll take what I can get. I added some comments below and answered your
        Message 3 of 17 , Feb 19, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          First Pi, thanks for answering my questions. I was hoping some others would too, but I'll take what I can get. I added some comments below and answered your questions about star light.
           
          Others are welcome to answer my questions, this is a discussion 'group'.
           
          Ray

          From: "PIASAN@..." <PIASAN@...>
          To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 7:31 AM
          Subject: Re: [M & B] June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
           
          We said:
           
          Ray:
          The rebuttal is this is within the margin of error of a couple of percentage points. It's a reasonable rebuttal.
           
          Pi:
          No. The rebuttal is that the test results are invalid.
          There are known limitations to the test method. The samples submitted by ICR were known to be too young for the method to produce a reliable result. Failure to produce a reliable result is meaningless.
          Worse .... ICR KNEW the samples were not suitable for testing but submitted them anyway. The facts that:
          1) ICR knew the samples were not appropriate.
          2) ICR deliberately concealed the source of the samples because ICR knew no lab would accept them for testing because they are inappropriate.
          3) ICR conceals the known limitations of the method when reporting the test results.
          There is a pattern of deception on the part of ICR.
           
          I think:
           
          If some one knowingly sneaks in rocks they know the age of and did not reveal the facts or lied about it to get the test done, then there is some deception taking place.
           
          Pi answers:
          So you admit not revealing the facts, or lying about them to get the test done is deception.  ICR did NOT reveal the facts in order to get the test done.  They knew (in advance)  their sample would have been rejected as inappropriate if they had revealed the facts.  ICR lied by omission when they submitted the samples for testing.
           
          Ray:
          Yes, I admit that covert activity is deceptive in any instance. Unfortunately, in many cases it is justified. I don't know if it is justified here. If it was me, I would have raised the money, bought a machine and done my own tests, rather than go to one of the testing labs. 
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
           You can say the test results are invalid, but it doesn't change the results.
           
          Pi:
          It isn't necessary to change invalid results.  It isn't necessary to refute them either.  There is no need to deal with them except to explain why the results are invalid.  That has been done.  The test results, whatever they are, are meaningless.  ICR lies by omission when they publicize these results but withhold the fact their samples were outside the limitations of the test method used.
           
          Ray:
          The results do matter. If a young sample tests within the 100,000 years, that is one thing, but if it tests in the millions or billions, that is quite another. I don't know the exact details of this particular instance to discuss the matter. If a young sample tests 100 million years old, then it can't be distinquished from what is supposed to be an actual sample that is 100 million years old. This would indicate the process is not valid.
           
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
           The results are not wrong, just because the submitters knew the age of the item before hand.
           
          Pi:
          The results are wrong because the submitters knowingly presented a sample they KNEW, in advance, was not appropriate for the test method they wanted used.  In other words, they knew samples less than 100,000 years old should not be tested using the Ar-Ar or K-Ar methods for well known and understood technical reasons.  They went ahead and submitted the unsuitable samples anyway.
           
          From that perspective, I can congratulate them for submitting an inappropriate sample and obtaining an invalid test result.  Except for the fact ICR is using this invalid test result for propaganda purposes, why should this bother me?
           
          Ray:
          Okay, it sounds like what you are saying is this: If a sample is known to be under 100,000 years old, the test will not be performed because the method won't work. So a sample must be over 100,000 years old. If a sample is that old, then there is no other means of verifying its age except for another radiometric method. In other words, we don't really know how old the sample is unless we believe radiometric dating is truely reliable.
           
           
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
          So, please tell me what testing lab will date your rock, when they know your purpose is to discredit them?
           
          Pi:
          All of them.  It's done all the time.  In fact, good test validation demands it.  Researchers regularly submit samples of known age along with samples of unknown age for blind testing to assure the test results are reliable.  The difference is the samples submitted by those doing real research meet the requirements of the test method being challenged.  The ICR samples did not.  ICR knew this before even submitting the samples.  ICR lied by omission.
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
           They are not willingly going to give you accurate test results, if they are willing to do it at all.
           
          Pi:
          Sure they will .... if you give them a sample that is appropriate for the method being used.  A ten year old sample is not appropriate for either K-Ar or Ar-Ar dating for technical reasons we have already discussed..  Any reputable lab would reject that sample as inappropriate for the test.  No HONEST researcher would even submit such a sample.  ICR did.... with full knowledge the method is not suitable for the sample.  They were dishonest.
           
           
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
           This is just as deceptive.
           
           
          Pi:
          No, it isn't. 
           
          The labs openly state the qualifications necessary to obtain a valid test result.  In what way is that deceptive?  ICR, with full knowledge of those standards, deliberately submitted a sample that did not meet the requirements necessary to obtain a valid test.
           
          ICR lied by omission when they submitted the sample.
           
          ICR lies by omission when they publicize the results of the test without disclosing the sample did not meet test requirements.
           
          About the only honest things ICR did was to say: "Here's a rock."  and "We had it tested."
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
          Since Big Science controls all the cards, some people have resorted to fighting fire with fire.
           
          Pi:
          That does not excuse the lies and deception of ICR.  You have not shown the labs were deceptive in any way, shape, or form.  In fact, the situation is the exact opposite... the labs have been very open about the limitations of the process.  So, how does an absence of deception on the part of the labs justify deceptive behavior on the part of ICR?
           
          Ray:
          It is a deception when you only test samples which there is no other way of validating the age. There is no written history or other means to prove the age of something which reaches back before the age of man.
          I don't excuse the ICR for things they do wrong. I think Christians should live by "every word which proceeds from the mouth of God", which includes honesty.
           
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
          Are you also opposed to covert activity in war because it is deceptive? Or men hiring private eyes to see if their wife is cheating?
          When people suspect that something is wrong, they use covert activities to help determine the truth.
           
           
           
          Pi
          OK.... ICR used covert activities and determined the truth that when you submit an inappropriate sample for testing you get unreliable and/or invalid results.  Congratulations to ICR for determining what we already knew.
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
          As I understand it, many 'creationists' have used this tactic.
           
          Pi;
          Yes, they have.  As I pointed out earlier, creationists have often had seals, polar bears, or mollusks dated by C-14, then when the ages come back several hundred years old, they claim the method isn't reliable..... even though we already know these samples will return an age of several hundred years and why they do.
           
          Ray:
          C-14 has way too many calibrations and excuses made for it. ICR takes advantage of this to help them raise money, just like the calibrators of the method keeps the labs open.
           
           
           
           
           
           Ray:
          I also understand that the ICR has its own machines, so I don't know they are sneaking around as you claim.
           
          Pi;
          Does this sound familiar?  
           
          "If some one knowingly sneaks in rocks they know the age of and did not reveal the facts or lied about it to get the test done, then there is some deception taking place." 
           
          Guess who said that and when?  ICR makes no secret of the fact they "did not reveal the facts .... to get the test done."
           
          Ray:
          I wasn't being contradictory here. I was indicating I didn't know which instance you were referring too. I think in the 60's they sneaked into testing labs, but I know they  now have some machines of their own. I know for certain they have a C-14 machine. I'm not sure about the rock testing machines.
           
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
           Maybe they once did but that is not my concern. My concern is what is the truth about the past.
           
          Pi:
          So your concern is not that they were dishonest.  I kinda figured that......
           
          As for the truth about the past..... you won't get that by testing samples we already KNOW will not give accurate results.
           
          Once again.... my compliments to ICR for discovering the truth of GIGO.
           
          Ray:
          You are very concerned about the honesty of YEC and it appears you assume I sanction dishonesty. Well, I do not. I can see from the YEC point of view, that they are 'fighting for souls' that 'science' is destroying with 'false truth'. In their mind, covert activity is acceptable. I don't agree with it per say; I mentioned how I would go about it.
           
           
           
           
           
           
          ____________________________________________________________________________________________
           
          We said:
           
          Ray:
          And the question is, why do they make such claims? Funding, of course.
          Pi:
          To me, there are some other questions:
          1) Why should a test result on a sample known to be inappropriate for the test method cause any concern?
          2) Does the fact ICR would engage in such a pattern of deception call into question their integrity?
          And last, but not least:
          Why would ICR make such claims? Funding, of course.
          ____________________________________________________________________________________________
           I think:
           
          In the 'peer review' system of science, 'fact' is determined by lab work. If the lab work can not be done for some reason, then 'fact' is determined by a consensus of science guys in the peer review system.
           
          Pi:
          This isn't about the peer review system.  It's about the submission of samples KNOWN to be inappropriate, then when erroneous results are returned, pointing to those results as if they are a failure of the test method.
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
           At the turn of the 20th century there were crazy inventors trying to build flying machines, yet the science guys and their math models said flight wasn't possible. And then they back tracked after the Wright Brothers.
           
          Pi:
          Even at the time of the Wright brothers, we knew full well that heavier-than-air flight was possible.  After all, we had been watching birds and insects do it from the dawn of time.  The question was power-to-weight.  What the Wright brothers actually did was to produce an engine with an improved power-to-weight ratio that made powered flight possible.
           
          The same can be said of man-powered flight.  It was considered impossible due to power-to-weight constraints.  The development of new materials made it possible to overcome those limitations making man-powered flight a reality.
           
          Ray:
          I was pointing out the classic example, that science can be wrong in a big way as well as being right. Peer Review may mean concensus, but it doesn't mean fact.
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
           The point is consensus is not verifiable fact. Today, most scientists believe in evolution of species. Lab work from horse, dog and fruit fly breeders has shown thus far, that evolution of species is not a fact. However, the peer review system considers it so, so evolution of species is a fact (in their minds).
           
           
          Pi:
          Actually, speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild.  However, biology isn't my "thing" and evolution isn't my reason for rejecting a literal reading of Genesis.
           
          Ray:
          I've never read or seen in any evolution show of a fruit fly turning into a dragon fly or a dog into a monkey or any thing of the sort. Evolution of species whether true or not isn't my reason for accepting much of Genesis as literal and some of it as symbolic.
           
           
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
          I do not consider unverifiable opinions based on conjecture, speculation and math models as fact. Astronomy, Geology and much of Archeology fall into this area of being considered a fact, when there is no real way of verifying it.
           
          Pi:
          Astronomy?   Really ??  In what way is it mere conjecture or speculation to determine (for example) the distance to Sn1987a is calculated by direct trigonometry to be over 167,000 light years and to conclude from that data that it took light from that event over 167,000 years to reach Earth?
           
          Reference my paper at:   http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm and identify the "conjecture" or "speculation" in that work.
           
          Ray:
          Yes really, Astronomy, but not for the reasons you think. I went and read your paper and you did a very good job. I agree with it. Star light takes a long time to cover vast distances. However, I never took the 6,000 year old universe postion. I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe idea either. If you go back and read some of my views, you will see that I have always said the universe is very old (and is the position of my church).
           
          My position is this: Moses who wrote the Creation story in Genesis was a prophet with whom God spoke to directly. The Creation  story is shrouded in much symbolism, such as the "days" and so forth and I showed in my exchange with Zuma, that a day did not mean 24 earth hours, but was an undefined length of time. Much was not revealed about the Creation, but I think the order, where the earth is created before the Sun and stars, is correct (as I will explain right now).
          The biggest problem the YEC has is what the word "create" meant by Moses. They have taken the position that it means "bring into existence from nothing" that was first used in the second century by , can't remember his name Bishop. The Hebrew word for "Create" means to "organize".
           
          All wording such as 'the beginning' are references from this earth's point of view. The earth was created in some sort of dense nebula. I do not know what length of time this took. Later, on the 'fourth' day, the nebula was sucked up in the formation of the sun and the rest of the solar system. The earth no longer being in a dense nebula revealed (created or organized) from the earth's reference, the stars of heaven which had already been there for billions of years, including the star light.
           
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
           This is also true with the creation 'science' people. And I agree, all the 'know it alls' have a funding need and every camp seems to do what they need to do to get it.
          So, when I smirk at obvious pseudo-science statements coming out of "real" scientists, then there has to be a reason.
           
          Pi:
          Just as there's a reason I accuse ICR of being deceptive.... ok.... make that liars.
           
           
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
          What I am befuddled about, is why all you theists here at Robert's group are as closed minded as the science elite about the past, when you should see the same things I do.
           
          Pi:
          Do you?  If you walk out in your back yard and directly observe the galaxy Andromeda (distance 2.4 million light years) how can you explain our ability to see that in a universe only a few thousand years old.
           
          Ray:
          Explained above. 
           
           
           
          Ray:
          Or why you fellows think there is no literalness to most of the Bible? Do you really think all of Jewish history was a bunch of symbolizm in stories and events that never happened?
           
          Pi:
          So far as I know, most histories of the type the Bible represents have some truth in them.  The Iliad and Odyssey are examples. 
           
          For example, was there a really big flood at about the time of Noah?  Yes.  Was that flood global in nature?  No.  The supporting evidence I would expect from a global flood is simply not there.
           
          Ray:
          So you do not consider the Bible more than just ancient literature?
           
           
           
           
           
          Ray:
          In those conversations with Zuma, I showed much about the creation is symbolic, but I also maintain much is literal too. And you guys seem to drink up the Big Bang doctrine. Why?
           
          Pi:
          The Big Bang can be absolutely, totally, completely 100% false.  That does nothing at all to the evidence I use as the basis of my rejection of YEC and a literal Genesis.  That rejection is based on our ability to directly observe objects millions of times more distant than what we should be able to see in a universe only a few thousand years old.
           
          Ray:
          Pi, thanks again for answering my questions. Just one more which I have asked but no one answers. Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in any Bible miracles for what they are such as Jesus coming back to life after being killed?
           

        • rlbaty50
          ... I thought Pi did a pretty good job in dealing with the rock testing issue. From what I saw, it seemed fairly simple. It seems like it is undisputed that
          Message 4 of 17 , Feb 19, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote:

            > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions.
            >
            > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll
            > take what I can get. I added some comments
            > below and answered your questions about star
            > light.
            >  
            > Others are welcome to answer my questions,
            > this is a discussion 'group'.

            I thought Pi did a pretty good job in dealing with the "rock testing" issue.

            From what I saw, it seemed fairly simple.

            It seems like it is undisputed that if you do not have a proper testing subject that the test will tend to give false readings.

            If that be the case, if some folks go "undercover" to present improper test subjects and then use the results to draw conclusions in support of something other than "everyone knew that would happen", then I think it can be concluded that the "undercover" technique can properly be seen to reflect negatively on those involved in the "undercover" scheme.

            As to star light, I may or may not have anything to say about that after I get a chance to review it.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • rlbaty50
            ... I ll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science. ... I do! Sincerely, Robert Baty
            Message 5 of 17 , Feb 19, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
              Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote to Pi, in part:

              > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions.
              >
              > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll
              > take what I can get. I added some comments
              > below and answered your questions about star
              > light.
              >  
              > Others are welcome to answer my questions,
              > this is a discussion 'group'.
              >
              > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position.
              > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe
              > idea either. 
              >
              > If you go back and read some of my views, you will
              > see that I have always said the universe is very
              > old (and is the position of my church).

              I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science.

              Ray then concluded with:

              > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions.
              > Just one more which I have asked but no one
              > answers.
              >
              > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in
              > any Bible miracles for what they are such as
              > Jesus coming back to life after being killed?

              I do!

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty
            • Ray Ausban
              Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks   Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud
              Message 6 of 17 , Feb 25, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks
                 
                Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud over his eyes, and the man was healed. Outwardly, that is all we know happened, but obviously, something much more was happening such as extremely rapid tissue regeneration. Today, if a blind man has a certain surgery or treatment he may be able to see again. The healing process is much slower but still works (in some cases). We do not accept our ability to heal a blind man a divine miracle, because we understand the process. Because we understand it, we consider it science. However, the process itself and the explosion of knowledge the last two hundred years leading up to modern 'miracles' of science may also be a gift from God to mankind (prophesied by Daniel).
                 
                In our understanding of God, every miracle we credit him with operated on a science that we may or may not understand today. If we don't understand it: it is a miracle, if we do understand it, it is science. The parting of the Red Sea, the raising of the dead or fulfillment of prophecy, all such miracles are a science that we, mankind, do not understand. Shortly after these events occurred, they were recorded as a testimony of a God for mankind to have and consider how to conduct our lives.
                 
                There are many at this group here who do not believe in the past miracles because they don't understand how it could have been. They seem to struggle over this idea of the earth being 'old' or 'young' and have taken solid positions on it one way or the other. I believe there is a God, so eventually we will all know how everything came to be. I presented a scenario of how the earth can be 'created' before the stars by simply understanding the frame of reference of the text and what the Hebrew word for 'create' really means. The Bible is not false because not every single item about creation wasn't explained to our liking.
                 
                Surely, the YEC promoters have their difficulties trying to maintain a position that can't be real based on their short sighted understanding of the scripture. However, I can respect them for believing the Book to be a witness of God, because I think it is. I ask the group here to keep an open mind.
                 
                 
                 
                From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
                To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 PM
                Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                 


                --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
                Ray Ausban wrote to Pi, in part:

                > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions.
                >
                > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll
                > take what I can get. I added some comments
                > below and answered your questions about star
                > light.
                >  
                > Others are welcome to answer my questions,
                > this is a discussion 'group'.
                >
                > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position.
                > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe
                > idea either. 
                >
                > If you go back and read some of my views, you will
                > see that I have always said the universe is very
                > old (and is the position of my church).

                I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science.

                Ray then concluded with:

                > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions.
                > Just one more which I have asked but no one
                > answers.
                >
                > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in
                > any Bible miracles for what they are such as
                > Jesus coming back to life after being killed?

                I do!

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

              • rlbaty50
                ... Maybe some of the others (i.e., Daniel, Pi) missed it. ... I think I have an open mind! I can respect those who claim to interpret the scriptures to mean
                Message 7 of 17 , Feb 25, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote, in part:

                  > Okay Robert, you seem to be the only
                  > one here to admit it!
                  >
                  > Thanks

                  Maybe some of the others (i.e., Daniel, Pi) missed it.

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote, in part:

                  > I can respect them (young-earth creation science
                  > promoters) for believing the Book to be a witness
                  > of God, because I think it is.
                  >
                  > I ask the group here to keep an open mind.

                  I think I have an open mind!

                  I can respect those who claim to interpret the scriptures to mean that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

                  It's what some of them do beyond that that causes them to lose respect.

                  I figure they probably feel the same way about me!

                  However, in my opinion there's a difference and the difference is in the details.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty
                • Todd Greene
                  Or Jesus could have healed the blind man just like Benny Hinn heals blind men, and the story grew into a legend just like the stories of Benny Hinn
                  Message 8 of 17 , Feb 25, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Or Jesus could have "healed" the blind man just like Benny Hinn "heals" blind men, and the story grew into a legend just like the stories of Benny Hinn "healing" people.

                    On the scale of plausiblity, knowing what we know about human behavior and religious beliefs and gullibility (especially in the ancient world) and the propagation of oral traditions (i.e., "fish stories"), my explanation ranks almost infinitely higher.

                    Just saying.

                    - Todd Greene

                    --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks
                    >  
                    > Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud over his eyes, and the man was healed. Outwardly, that is all we know happened, but obviously, something much more was happening such as extremely rapid tissue regeneration. Today, if a blind man has a certain surgery or treatment he may be able to see again. The healing process is much slower but still works (in some cases). We do not accept our ability to heal a blind man a divine miracle, because we understand the process. Because we understand it, we consider it science. However, the process itself and the explosion of knowledge the last two hundred years leading up to modern 'miracles' of science may also be a gift from God to mankind (prophesied by Daniel).
                    >  
                    > In our understanding of God, every miracle we credit him with operated on a science that we may or may not understand today. If we don't understand it: it is a miracle, if we do understand it, it is science. The parting of the Red Sea, the raising of the dead or fulfillment of prophecy, all such miracles are a science that we, mankind, do not understand. Shortly after these events occurred, they were recorded as a testimony of a God for mankind to have and consider how to conduct our lives.
                    >  
                    > There are many at this group here who do not believe in the past miracles because they don't understand how it could have been. They seem to struggle over this idea of the earth being 'old' or 'young' and have taken solid positions on it one way or the other. I believe there is a God, so eventually we will all know how everything came to be. I presented a scenario of how the earth can be 'created' before the stars by simply understanding the frame of reference of the text and what the Hebrew word for 'create' really means. The Bible is not false because not every single item about creation wasn't explained to our liking.
                    >  
                    > Surely, the YEC promoters have their difficulties trying to maintain a position that can't be real based on their short sighted understanding of the scripture. However, I can respect them for believing the Book to be a witness of God, because I think it is. I ask the group here to keep an open mind.
                    >  
                    >   
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
                    > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 PM
                    > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                    >
                    >  
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
                    > Ray Ausban wrote to Pi, in part:
                    >
                    > > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions.
                    > >
                    > > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll
                    > > take what I can get. I added some comments
                    > > below and answered your questions about star
                    > > light.
                    > >  
                    > > Others are welcome to answer my questions,
                    > > this is a discussion 'group'.
                    > >
                    > > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position.
                    > > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe
                    > > idea either. 
                    > >
                    > > If you go back and read some of my views, you will
                    > > see that I have always said the universe is very
                    > > old (and is the position of my church).
                    >
                    > I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science.
                    >
                    > Ray then concluded with:
                    >
                    > > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions.
                    > > Just one more which I have asked but no one
                    > > answers.
                    > >
                    > > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in
                    > > any Bible miracles for what they are such as
                    > > Jesus coming back to life after being killed?
                    >
                    > I do!
                    >
                    > Sincerely,
                    > Robert Baty
                    >
                  • Ray Ausban
                    Of course, what you say is true about human behavior but assuming there is a God, then it is highly plausible, he is likely to send messengers from time to
                    Message 9 of 17 , Feb 26, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Of course, what you say is true about human behavior but assuming there is a God, then it is highly plausible, he is likely to send messengers from time to time to guide humanity. Moses, Jesus and others are examples of this. But unlike Benny Hinn and and other preacher types, God has left us a better way of knowing who is from him. It is called the witness of the Spirit. We have talked of this before so we don't need to rehash. I have only asked that you keep an open mind.
                       
                      Just remember Thomas. He learned there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes.

                      From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
                      To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:40 PM
                      Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                       
                      Or Jesus could have "healed" the blind man just like Benny Hinn "heals" blind men, and the story grew into a legend just like the stories of Benny Hinn "healing" people.

                      On the scale of plausiblity, knowing what we know about human behavior and religious beliefs and gullibility (especially in the ancient world) and the propagation of oral traditions (i.e., "fish stories"), my explanation ranks almost infinitely higher.

                      Just saying.

                      - Todd Greene

                      --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban wrote:
                      >
                      > Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks
                      >  
                      > Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud over his eyes, and the man was healed. Outwardly, that is all we know happened, but obviously, something much more was happening such as extremely rapid tissue regeneration. Today, if a blind man has a certain surgery or treatment he may be able to see again. The healing process is much slower but still works (in some cases). We do not accept our ability to heal a blind man a divine miracle, because we understand the process. Because we understand it, we consider it science. However, the process itself and the explosion of knowledge the last two hundred years leading up to modern 'miracles' of science may also be a gift from God to mankind (prophesied by Daniel).
                      >  
                      > In our understanding of God, every miracle we credit him with operated on a science that we may or may not understand today. If we don't understand it: it is a miracle, if we do understand it, it is science. The parting of the Red Sea, the raising of the dead or fulfillment of prophecy, all such miracles are a science that we, mankind, do not understand. Shortly after these events occurred, they were recorded as a testimony of a God for mankind to have and consider how to conduct our lives.
                      >  
                      > There are many at this group here who do not believe in the past miracles because they don't understand how it could have been. They seem to struggle over this idea of the earth being 'old' or 'young' and have taken solid positions on it one way or the other. I believe there is a God, so eventually we will all know how everything came to be. I presented a scenario of how the earth can be 'created' before the stars by simply understanding the frame of reference of the text and what the Hebrew word for 'create' really means. The Bible is not false because not every single item about creation wasn't explained to our liking.
                      >  
                      > Surely, the YEC promoters have their difficulties trying to maintain a position that can't be real based on their short sighted understanding of the scripture. However, I can respect them for believing the Book to be a witness of God, because I think it is. I ask the group here to keep an open mind.
                      >  
                      >   
                      >
                      > ________________________________
                      > From: rlbaty50
                      > To: mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 PM
                      > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                      >
                      >  
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
                      > Ray Ausban wrote to Pi, in part:
                      >
                      > > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions.
                      > >
                      > > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll
                      > > take what I can get. I added some comments
                      > > below and answered your questions about star
                      > > light.
                      > >  
                      > > Others are welcome to answer my questions,
                      > > this is a discussion 'group'.
                      > >
                      > > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position.
                      > > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe
                      > > idea either. 
                      > >
                      > > If you go back and read some of my views, you will
                      > > see that I have always said the universe is very
                      > > old (and is the position of my church).
                      >
                      > I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science.
                      >
                      > Ray then concluded with:
                      >
                      > > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions.
                      > > Just one more which I have asked but no one
                      > > answers.
                      > >
                      > > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in
                      > > any Bible miracles for what they are such as
                      > > Jesus coming back to life after being killed?
                      >
                      > I do!
                      >
                      > Sincerely,
                      > Robert Baty
                      >

                    • Todd Greene
                      I keep an open mind to good evidence - and not to anything else. What I said is indeed true about human behavior, which is why it s a far more likely
                      Message 10 of 17 , Feb 27, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I keep an open mind to good evidence - and not to anything else. What I said is indeed true about human behavior, which is why it's a far more likely explanation, since it's actually the case in the real world that humans make up all sorts of sensational stories based on superstition in order to try to back up various religious beliefs (and I'm referring to all sorts of religions throughout history, not just Christianity). A story about Moses or Jesus, "assuming there is a god", is no more plausible than a story about Lord Krishna, assuming there are gods. We can *assume* anything we want to assume just by making it up. That is precisely the problem. That's why using a standard of good real world evidence provides an effective constraint, not only against irrationality, but also even against rational ideas that happen to be incorrect (such as, for example, when a murder detective tests out details of various hypotheses in a case in trying to determine and nail down the killer - all hypotheses should be realistically plausible, but only one can be the actually correct one).

                        The "witness of the Spirit" is nothing more than a vacuous rhetoric people use to try to usurp divine imprimatur for their own fallible human thoughts, feelings, and desires. The "witness of the Spirit" is the exact same thing as the alleged "divine inspiration of scripture", and the claim has the exact same problem. If it was correct, there would be good real world evidence to back it up. There isn't, so there's no good reason to accept it. And the fact that "there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes" - which is quite true - is merely a red herring a lot of people use to try to justify gullibility (i.e., the acceptance of ideas that are not backed up by good evidence). (Also, do bear in mind that the resurrection stories - where the story of Thomas comes from - are rife with contradictions.)

                        Don't get me wrong - if there really was a god talking with humans and telling them things, then it would be abundantly obvious precisely because it would be a genuine god we're dealing with. Religious believers usually demonstrate a definite poverty of imagination in regard to god talking with people. Of course, that's because they're overwhelmed with sycophancy for their own particular human-fabricated religious traditions, and so simply fail to even think about what it would really be like talking with a being of a vastly superior intelligence and knowledge - so much so that even using the analogy of being vastly superior to the human mind like the human mind is above the mind of an amoeba is a huge understatement.

                        - Todd Greene


                        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Of course, what you say is true about human behavior but assuming there is a God, then it is highly plausible, he is likely to send messengers from time to time to guide humanity. Moses, Jesus and others are examples of this. But unlike Benny Hinn and and other preacher types, God has left us a better way of knowing who is from him. It is called the witness of the Spirit. We have talked of this before so we don't need to rehash. I have only asked that you keep an open mind.

                        > Just remember Thomas. He learned there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes.
                        >
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
                        > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:40 PM
                        > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                        >
                        > Or Jesus could have "healed" the blind man just like Benny Hinn "heals" blind men, and the story grew into a legend just like the stories of Benny Hinn "healing" people.
                        >
                        > On the scale of plausiblity, knowing what we know about human behavior and religious beliefs and gullibility (especially in the ancient world) and the propagation of oral traditions (i.e., "fish stories"), my explanation ranks almost infinitely higher.
                        >
                        > Just saying.
                        >
                        > - Todd Greene
                        >
                        > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks
                        > >  
                        > > Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud over his eyes, and the man was healed. Outwardly, that is all we know happened, but obviously, something much more was happening such as extremely rapid tissue regeneration. Today, if a blind man has a certain surgery or treatment he may be able to see again. The healing process is much slower but still works (in some cases). We do not accept our ability to heal a blind man a divine miracle, because we understand the process. Because we understand it, we consider it science. However, the process itself and the explosion of knowledge the last two hundred years leading up to modern 'miracles' of science may also be a gift from God to mankind (prophesied by Daniel).
                        > >  
                        > > In our understanding of God, every miracle we credit him with operated on a science that we may or may not understand today. If we don't understand it: it is a miracle, if we do understand it, it is science. The parting of the Red Sea, the raising of the dead or fulfillment of prophecy, all such miracles are a science that we, mankind, do not understand. Shortly after these events occurred, they were recorded as a testimony of a God for mankind to have and consider how to conduct our lives.
                        > >  
                        > > There are many at this group here who do not believe in the past miracles because they don't understand how it could have been. They seem to struggle over this idea of the earth being 'old' or 'young' and have taken solid positions on it one way or the other. I believe there is a God, so eventually we will all know how everything came to be. I presented a scenario of how the earth can be 'created' before the stars by simply understanding the frame of reference of the text and what the Hebrew word for 'create' really means. The Bible is not false because not every single item about creation wasn't explained to our liking.
                        > >  
                        > > Surely, the YEC promoters have their difficulties trying to maintain a position that can't be real based on their short sighted understanding of the scripture. However, I can respect them for believing the Book to be a witness of God, because I think it is. I ask the group here to keep an open mind.
                        > >  
                        > >   
                        > >
                        > > ________________________________
                        > > From: rlbaty50
                        > > To: mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com
                        > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 PM
                        > > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                        > >
                        > >  
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
                        > > Ray Ausban wrote to Pi, in part:
                        > >
                        > > > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions.
                        > > >
                        > > > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll
                        > > > take what I can get. I added some comments
                        > > > below and answered your questions about star
                        > > > light.
                        > > >  
                        > > > Others are welcome to answer my questions,
                        > > > this is a discussion 'group'.
                        > > >
                        > > > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position.
                        > > > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe
                        > > > idea either. 
                        > > >
                        > > > If you go back and read some of my views, you will
                        > > > see that I have always said the universe is very
                        > > > old (and is the position of my church).
                        > >
                        > > I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science.
                        > >
                        > > Ray then concluded with:
                        > >
                        > > > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions.
                        > > > Just one more which I have asked but no one
                        > > > answers.
                        > > >
                        > > > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in
                        > > > any Bible miracles for what they are such as
                        > > > Jesus coming back to life after being killed?
                        > >
                        > > I do!
                        > >
                        > > Sincerely,
                        > > Robert Baty
                        > >
                        >
                      • Ray Ausban
                        Yes, us to an amoeba is a good comparison to the intellect of the kind of God it would require to be in charge of and control the universe. And I agree that
                        Message 11 of 17 , Feb 27, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Yes, us to an amoeba is a good comparison to the intellect of the kind of God it would require to be in charge of and control the universe. And I agree that religion in general is full of difficulties for many good reasons. This does not mean that the belief in the existence of God is a falsehood. People seem to be hard wired to believe in some sort of God: I've seen plenty of science shows which indicate this. And practically all ancient cultures and peoples believed in a God whether the cultures were connected to each other in some way or not. (The same with creation and flood stories). This is hard evidence that indicates something about this is worth investigating and shouldn't merely be dismissed because of lack of faith.
                           
                          According to the scriptures, at this time, faith is required to have a "witness from the Spirit". You can dismiss it all you like but millions have had the experience. What you are saying is akin to getting my hand smashed with a hammer. I tell you it hurts and you tell me it doesn't because you might happen to be one of those people who can't fell physical pain. 
                          But the promise is, all will change at the return of Christ.  The scriptures are pretty dismal about events leading up to that return, and many of those prophecies are unfolding. The 'signs' and fulfillment of prophecy is evidence. It probably isn't the kind of evidence that you want, but it is recorded that is what we will get. It is a take it or leave situation. And most people will leave it.
                           
                          Because people do not have faith today, even among most of the religious. Joseph Smith said that when the great sign of Christ's return will appear in heaven (in space), he said, "what will the world say? It is a comet or planet..." In other words, right up until the end, the doubters will reign supreme.
                           
                           

                          From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
                          To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:03 PM
                          Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                           
                          I keep an open mind to good evidence - and not to anything else. What I said is indeed true about human behavior, which is why it's a far more likely explanation, since it's actually the case in the real world that humans make up all sorts of sensational stories based on superstition in order to try to back up various religious beliefs (and I'm referring to all sorts of religions throughout history, not just Christianity). A story about Moses or Jesus, "assuming there is a god", is no more plausible than a story about Lord Krishna, assuming there are gods. We can *assume* anything we want to assume just by making it up. That is precisely the problem. That's why using a standard of good real world evidence provides an effective constraint, not only against irrationality, but also even against rational ideas that happen to be incorrect (such as, for example, when a murder detective tests out details of various hypotheses in a case in trying to determine and nail down the killer - all hypotheses should be realistically plausible, but only one can be the actually correct one).

                          The "witness of the Spirit" is nothing more than a vacuous rhetoric people use to try to usurp divine imprimatur for their own fallible human thoughts, feelings, and desires. The "witness of the Spirit" is the exact same thing as the alleged "divine inspiration of scripture", and the claim has the exact same problem. If it was correct, there would be good real world evidence to back it up. There isn't, so there's no good reason to accept it. And the fact that "there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes" - which is quite true - is merely a red herring a lot of people use to try to justify gullibility (i.e., the acceptance of ideas that are not backed up by good evidence). (Also, do bear in mind that the resurrection stories - where the story of Thomas comes from - are rife with contradictions.)

                          Don't get me wrong - if there really was a god talking with humans and telling them things, then it would be abundantly obvious precisely because it would be a genuine god we're dealing with. Religious believers usually demonstrate a definite poverty of imagination in regard to god talking with people. Of course, that's because they're overwhelmed with sycophancy for their own particular human-fabricated religious traditions, and so simply fail to even think about what it would really be like talking with a being of a vastly superior intelligence and knowledge - so much so that even using the analogy of being vastly superior to the human mind like the human mind is above the mind of an amoeba is a huge understatement.

                          - Todd Greene

                          --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban wrote:
                          >
                          > Of course, what you say is true about human behavior but assuming there is a God, then it is highly plausible, he is likely to send messengers from time to time to guide humanity. Moses, Jesus and others are examples of this. But unlike Benny Hinn and and other preacher types, God has left us a better way of knowing who is from him. It is called the witness of the Spirit. We have talked of this before so we don't need to rehash. I have only asked that you keep an open mind.

                          > Just remember Thomas. He learned there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes.
                          >
                          >
                          > ________________________________
                          > From: Todd Greene
                          > To: mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:40 PM
                          > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                          >
                          > Or Jesus could have "healed" the blind man just like Benny Hinn "heals" blind men, and the story grew into a legend just like the stories of Benny Hinn "healing" people.
                          >
                          > On the scale of plausiblity, knowing what we know about human behavior and religious beliefs and gullibility (especially in the ancient world) and the propagation of oral traditions (i.e., "fish stories"), my explanation ranks almost infinitely higher.
                          >
                          > Just saying.
                          >
                          > - Todd Greene
                          >
                          > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks
                          > >  
                          > > Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud over his eyes, and the man was healed. Outwardly, that is all we know happened, but obviously, something much more was happening such as extremely rapid tissue regeneration. Today, if a blind man has a certain surgery or treatment he may be able to see again. The healing process is much slower but still works (in some cases). We do not accept our ability to heal a blind man a divine miracle, because we understand the process. Because we understand it, we consider it science. However, the process itself and the explosion of knowledge the last two hundred years leading up to modern 'miracles' of science may also be a gift from God to mankind (prophesied by Daniel).
                          > >  
                          > > In our understanding of God, every miracle we credit him with operated on a science that we may or may not understand today. If we don't understand it: it is a miracle, if we do understand it, it is science. The parting of the Red Sea, the raising of the dead or fulfillment of prophecy, all such miracles are a science that we, mankind, do not understand. Shortly after these events occurred, they were recorded as a testimony of a God for mankind to have and consider how to conduct our lives.
                          > >  
                          > > There are many at this group here who do not believe in the past miracles because they don't understand how it could have been. They seem to struggle over this idea of the earth being 'old' or 'young' and have taken solid positions on it one way or the other. I believe there is a God, so eventually we will all know how everything came to be. ‚ presented a scenario of how the earth can be 'created' before the stars by simply understanding the frame of reference of the text and what the Hebrew word for 'create' really means. The Bible is not false because not every single item about creation wasn't explained to our liking.
                          > >  
                          > > Surely, the YEC promoters have their difficulties trying to maintain a position that can't be real based on their short sighted understanding of the scripture. However, I can respect them for believing the Book to be a witness of God, because I think it is. I ask the group here to keep an open mind.
                          > >  
                          > >   
                          > >
                          > > ________________________________
                          > > From: rlbaty50
                          > > To: mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com
                          > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 PM
                          > > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                          > >
                          > >  
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
                          > > Ray Ausban wrote to Pi, in part:
                          > >
                          > > > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions.
                          > > >
                          > > > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll
                          > > > take what I can get. I added some comments
                          > > > below and answered your questions about star
                          > > > light.
                          > > >  
                          > > > Others are welcome to answer my questions,
                          > > > this is a discussion 'group'.
                          > > >
                          > > > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position.
                          > > > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe
                          > > > idea either. 
                          > > >
                          > > > If you go back and read some of my views, you will
                          > > > see that I have always said the universe is very
                          > > > old (and is the position of my church).
                          > >
                          > > I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science.
                          > >
                          > > Ray then concluded with:
                          > >
                          > > > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions.
                          > > > Just one more which I have asked but no one
                          > > > answers.
                          > > >
                          > > > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in
                          > > > any Bible miracles for what they are such as
                          > > > Jesus coming back to life after being killed?
                          > >
                          > > I do!
                          > >
                          > > Sincerely,
                          > > Robert Baty
                          > >
                          >

                           
                        • Ray Ausban
                          Additionally, are you looking for anything to see if the scriptures have support?   For instance, one of the amazing things in the O.T. is the life span of
                          Message 12 of 17 , Feb 28, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Additionally, are you looking for anything to see if the scriptures have support?
                             
                            For instance, one of the amazing things in the O.T. is the life span of people. Hundreds of years in length. Now, according to the pedigree, those life spans fell off after the 'flood' and by the time of Moses, it reached where we are today (about 120 years at the out side).
                             
                            We still do not know what really causes aging, but we do know some interesting things. First, cancer cells do not age. They keep on living. Second, I just read a report about brain cells being able to last a long time, way beyond the typical life span (in this case the test subject was a mouse). The article suggested that brain cells could last indefinitely.
                             
                            This article doesn't suggest "indefinitely", but the first one I read did:
                             
                             
                            Why?
                            Why would evolution have some special thing about brain cells being able to out live the body many times over, unless the body at one time might have lived much longer than today?
                             
                            These things are clues of the truth locked in the scripture. The more one looks, the more you will see it. The more one turns a blind eye, the more fairy tale like the Biblical words seem.

                            From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
                            To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:03 PM
                            Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                             
                            I keep an open mind to good evidence - and not to anything else. What I said is indeed true about human behavior, which is why it's a far more likely explanation, since it's actually the case in the real world that humans make up all sorts of sensational stories based on superstition in order to try to back up various religious beliefs (and I'm referring to all sorts of religions throughout history, not just Christianity). A story about Moses or Jesus, "assuming there is a god", is no more plausible than a story about Lord Krishna, assuming there are gods. We can *assume* anything we want to assume just by making it up. That is precisely the problem. That's why using a standard of good real world evidence provides an effective constraint, not only against irrationality, but also even against rational ideas that happen to be incorrect (such as, for example, when a murder detective tests out details of various hypotheses in a case in trying to determine and nail down the killer - all hypotheses should be realistically plausible, but only one can be the actually correct one). The "witness of the Spirit" is nothing more than a vacuous rhetoric people use to try to usurp divine imprimatur for their own fallible human thoughts, feelings, and desires. The "witness of the Spirit" is the exact same thing as the alleged "divine inspiration of scripture", and the claim has the exact same problem. If it was correct, there would be good real world evidence to back it up. There isn't, so there's no good reason to accept it. And the fact that "there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes" - which is quite true - is merely a red herring a lot of people use to try to justify gullibility (i.e., the acceptance of ideas that are not backed up by good evidence). (Also, do bear in mind that the resurrection stories - where the story of Thomas comes from - are rife with contradictions.) Don't get me wrong - if there really was a god talking with humans and telling them things, then it would be abundantly obvious precisely because it would be a genuine god we're dealing with. Religious believers usually demonstrate a definite poverty of imagination in regard to god talking with people. Of course, that's because they're overwhelmed with sycophancy for their own particular human-fabricated religious traditions, and so simply fail to even think about what it would really be like talking with a being of a vastly superior intelligence and knowledge - so much so that even using the analogy of being vastly superior to the human mind like the human mind is above the mind of an amoeba is a huge understatement. - Todd Greene
                            --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban wrote: > > Of course, what you say is true about human behavior but assuming there is a God, then it is highly plausible, he is likely to send messengers from time to time to guide humanity. Moses, Jesus and others are examples of this. But unlike Benny Hinn and and other preacher types, God has left us a better way of knowing who is from him. It is called the witness of the Spirit. We have talked of this before so we don't need to rehash. I have only asked that you keep an open mind. >  > Just remember Thomas. He learned there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes. > > > ________________________________ > From: Todd Greene > To: mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:40 PM > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM! > > Or Jesus could have "healed" the blind man just like Benny Hinn "heals" blind men, and the story grew into a legend just like the stories of Benny Hinn "healing" people. > > On the scale of plausiblity, knowing what we know about human behavior and religious beliefs and gullibility (especially in the ancient world) and the propagation of oral traditions (i.e., "fish stories"), my explanation ranks almost infinitely higher. > > Just saying. > > - Todd Greene > > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban wrote: > > > > Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks > >   > > Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud over his eyes, and the man was healed. Outwardly, that is all we know happened, but obviously, something much more was happening such as extremely rapid tissue regeneration. Today, if a blind man has a certain surgery or treatment he may be able to see again. The healing process is much slower but still works (in some cases). We do not accept our ability to heal a blind man a divine miracle, because we understand the process. Because we understand it, we consider it science. However, the process itself and the explosion of knowledge the last two hundred years leading up to modern 'miracles' of science may also be a gift from God to mankind (prophesied by Daniel). > >   > > In our understanding of God, every miracle we credit him with operated on a science that we may or may not understand today. If we don't understand it: it is a miracle, if we do understand it, it is science. The parting of the Red Sea, the raising of the dead or fulfillment of prophecy, all such miracles are a science that we, mankind, do not understand. Shortly after these events occurred, they were recorded as a testimony of a God for mankind to have and consider how to conduct our lives. > >   > > There are many at this group here who do not believe in the past miracles because they don't understand how it could have been. They seem to struggle over this idea of the earth being 'old' or 'young' and have taken solid positions on it one way or the other. I believe there is a God, so eventually we will all know how everything came to be. I presented a scenario of how the earth can be 'created' before the stars by simply understanding the frame of reference of the text and what the Hebrew word for 'create' really means. The Bible is not false because not every single item about creation wasn't explained to our liking. > >   > > Surely, the YEC promoters have their difficulties trying to maintain a position that can't be real based on their short sighted understanding of the scripture. However, I can respect them for believing the Book to be a witness of God, because I think it is. I ask the group here to keep an open mind. > >   > >    > > > > ________________________________ > > From: rlbaty50 > > To: mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 PM > > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM! > > > >   > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, > > Ray Ausban wrote to Pi, in part: > > > > > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions. > > > > > > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll > > > take what I can get. I added some comments > > > below and answered your questions about star > > > light. > > >   > > > Others are welcome to answer my questions, > > > this is a discussion 'group'. > > > > > > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position. > > > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe > > > idea either.  > > > > > > If you go back and read some of my views, you will > > > see that I have always said the universe is very > > > old (and is the position of my church). > > > > I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science. > > > > Ray then concluded with: > > > > > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions. > > > Just one more which I have asked but no one > > > answers. > > > > > > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in > > > any Bible miracles for what they are such as > > > Jesus coming back to life after being killed? > > > > I do! > > > > Sincerely, > > Robert Baty > > >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.