Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Alan]

Don't use that BS on me. 

I am looking at this as an engineer.  It is a mathematical model.  Verifying a few data points does not mean it is valid across the entire curve.

I'm not minimizing your credentials by any means, I was pointing out that testing is performed in multiple instances and multiple environments prior to verification. The effort to remove "error" is very high.

[The Barbarian]

NOPE If God banged, uniformitarianism was intervened.

Since our universe and laws didn't exist until after the Big Bang, it would be absurd to suppose it happened to something that didn't exist at the time.

If man's ages were truncated by God, he intervened with uniformitarianism.

But aside from a few patriarchs, the Bible doesn't say that humans lived longer than the three score and seven the Bible says.

Many more examples. Not the least of which is a global flood that drained somewhere miraculously within one year.

If there was a flood (and that's not clear; some Christian think there was, and others don't) it remained in the Black Sea basin, where it flooded.

[The Barbarian]

I am looking at this as an engineer.

If you had an instrument that, at the very extreme of it's calibrated range, had an error of 0.35%, would you consider it unreliable?  If so, a lot of the instruments engineers use are more unreliable than that.   For various reasons one expects about 2% error on most radiometric  tests.

Here's a discussion, as well as a demonstration of texting across several different methods.   As you see, it's surprisingly accurate.
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm


 

[The Barbarian]

Today,  the argon-argon method is accurate to withing a few decades.

For relatively short periods of time, it is.   If you're talking about ages of several hundred million years, a 2 million year variation wouldn't be surprising.   It's a percentage of the total.

The use of isochrons can greatly reduce uncertainty, but there's still a number of factors.

[Alan]

For relatively short periods of time, it is.   If you're talking about ages of several hundred million years, a 2 million year variation wouldn't be surprising.   It's a percentage of the total.

The use of isochrons can greatly reduce uncertainty, but there's still a number of factors.

Assuming for long periods of time the Ar/Ar method is compounded with K/Ar to determine an age, still very accurate with a correction pf 0.65%.

[The Barbarian]

In Australia, some wood found the Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was "dated" by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was "dated" by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!

Here's the article.   Basalt commonly has a large number of xenocrysts (unmelted mineral crystals that remaind solid during the flow, an therefore are very ancient) and unless carefully screened for these crystals, the sample will give weirdly old ages.   Gentry (another creationist) used this trick in dating the rock from the lava dome at Mt. St. Helens.   

It's a very useful trick for people who are not familiar with the method.

[The Barbarian]

Assuming for long periods of time the Ar/Ar method is compounded with K/Ar to determine an age, still very accurate with a correction pf 0.65%.

Yep.   It's not much comfort for creationists, if a date turns out to be 578 million years, compared to 588 million years.

[AVZ]

And you know that how? Were there rules and variables before? What were they?  How do you know?  In point of fact, you don't know.  You haven't the foggiest notion about that at all.  Don't feel bad, no one else does either. There really is no way to know about anything before the big bang. So far as anyone knows, there was no "before the big bang".  Before is a measure in time; time being a physical entity created at the big bang.

You may wish to remember that the Big Bang scenario is a theory. It attempts to give an explanation in line with observations of our present natural laws, but it remains and will always remain assumption at best. What we do know is that at some point in time the laws of nature did not exist, and at some point they did.
How the laws came into existence, what model they followed and how much time passed is simply not known.

The existence of a singularity in a space that does not exist violates any principle of the laws of nature we know of.
We don't know if time itself did not exist within that singularity, but something must have existed within the event itself to make the event happen.
The assumption is that the gravitational forces within the singularity must have been tremendously huge, but that would mean gravity existed before it could exist.
These are the dilemma's science is trying to deal with, but no satisfactory answer is found and neither can any of this be proven.

If it is possible for a singularity to pop into existence in a space that does not exist, then it is also possible for a body to pop into existence into a space that does exist.
In fact the earth could have popped into existence, and the stars, and planets, and animals, and trees.
They could have popped into existence one shortly after the other, or maybe with millions of years between them.
The likelihood that something pops into existence in a space that does exist, is still more likely than something popping into existence in a space that does not exist.

What I am saying is that there are no guarantees, or compelling arguments, to say that the laws of nature have always been what they are today.
We do know that right at the start of this universe they were not like what they are today.

Now you argue that there is no such thing as time before the big bang, but really who is to tell?
If a singularity can pop into existence, then anything could have popped into existence before the singularity.
And who is to tell that during the big bang things only started to exist? It would be wholly possible that in the big bang things that were ceased to exist.
If it is reasonable to believe a big bang, then it is equally reasonable to believe the opposite.

The point that I am trying to make is that you really have no framework to claim with certainty that the universal constants have always been constant.
They could be constant for now, but that's no guarantee they will always be or were before.

[AVZ]

If you had an instrument that, at the very extreme of it's calibrated range, had an error of 0.35%, would you consider it unreliable?  If so, a lot of the instruments engineers use are more unreliable than that.   For various reasons one expects about 2% error on most radiometric  tests.

Here's a discussion, as well as a demonstration of texting across several different methods.   As you see, it's surprisingly accurate.
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

I would consider the instrument reliable only for the time it actually measures.
How did you arrive at the error margin?

You took an event that you factually know happened 2000 years ago, took present day measurements, and concluded the error margin of 0.35%
However if I were to ask you to do the same on an event that happened 10,000 years ago, you would impossibly know the error margin.
So what you do is extrapolate the error margin into history past as a constant value.

Fact is however, you do not know if the variables you work with are indeed constants.
You also don't know if your error margin is a constant. The error margin could be the product of assumed constants which in fact are not constant at all.
The simple fact is that if indeed this universe is 14 billion years old, and all the factual data you have is 2000 years old, you are missing a baffling 99.9999999% of testable data.

The real question is that since you have an error margin of 0.35% and an allowed error margin of 2% over a period of 2000 years, what caused the error margin?
And if you allow for the error percentage to multiply by 6 within a 2000 year time frame, how much allowance would you give it for a time frame of 2 million years, or 2 billion years?
And why would you not allow for more error margin, or why would you?

[The Barbarian]

You may wish to remember that the Big Bang scenario is a theory.

Yep.  If it was just a law, it wouldn't explain how it happened.

It attempts to give an explanation in line with observations of our present natural laws, but it remains and will always remain assumption at best.

You've been misled about that.    The hallmark of a theory is that it is supported by a body of observed evidence.   Even better, the Big Bang theory has made predictions that later were confirmed by observation.   Two Bell Lab employees happened to discover the microwave background predicted by the Big Bang.   Such confirmed predictions are what make theories compelling.

What we do know is that at some point in time the laws of nature did not exist, and at some point they did.
How the laws came into existence, what model they followed and how much time passed is simply not known.

You were misled about that, too.   We are getting a better and better understanding of the mechanisms involved and the length of time it took.   Different ideas about that involve testable predictions and our subsequent observations make clear which, if any of them are correct.

If it is possible for a singularity to pop into existence in a space that does not exist, then it is also possible for a body to pop into existence into a space that does exist.

They are called "virtual particles", and yes, we do observe them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

What I am saying is that there are no guarantees, or compelling arguments, to say that the laws of nature have always been what they are today.

The farther we look back in time, we see the laws of nature working as they do today.   There are other ways we know this to be true.  For example, the speed of light is a constant in the formula for radioactive breakdown.  So if the speed of light was significantly faster in the past than it is today, the radiation would have cooked all living things on Earth.
 

The point that I am trying to make is that you really have no framework to claim with certainty that the universal constants have always been constant.

Observations show that the evidence is consistent with uniformitarianism.   And that's all that matters.

[The Barbarian]

I would consider the instrument reliable only for the time it actually measures.
How did you arrive at the error margin?

We know the actual date of the eruption that buried Pompeii.

You took an event that you factually know happened 2000 years ago, took present day measurements, and concluded the error margin of 0.35%
However if I were to ask you to do the same on an event that happened 10,000 years ago, you would impossibly know the error margin.

No, that's wrong too.   For example, we've been able to calibrate the C-14 system using lake varves, which always form seasonally, two per year.

Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/12/varves-chronology-suigetsu-c14-radiocarbon-callibration-creationism/

So what you do is extrapolate the error margin into history past as a constant value.

Nope.

The real question is that since you have an error margin of 0.35% and an allowed error margin of 2% over a period of 2000 years

No.  It's not unusual for argon-argon testing for rocks hundreds of millions of years old to show about 2% variation.

what caused the error margin?

It's impossible to completely remove xenocrysts and xenoliths, both of which can affect the reading.  Extremely tiny inclusions can matter.   If you really want to know, I could ask a geochronologist I know, for more detail.

And if you allow for the error percentage to multiply by 6 within a 2000 year time frame

That's not how it works.  Learn more about it here:
https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/radioactive-dating-game

[Jean74]

The Bible is real. And it is God who is THE author of it all. No matter what kind of versions there are, God is the same like that of the Bible. Never changes. Nor never will.

[Michael2012]

From what have been said here by the Christian scientists, such as Barbarian, science is not about God, but about nature and the physical world, about the creation of God. So, if science is not about God, and is about physical reality, and scriptures is about God, is there any reason to involve science with scriptures?

Secondly, whatever it is we read in scientific scriptures, we know that it is coming from man, while scriptures comes from God. So, where do we choose to go when searching for the truth and of life?

Thirdly, the Christian scientist believes that scriptures is the truth. Not because science validates it, but that because he believes that it is the word of God. The moment that he finds himself validating scriptures with other than scriptures, then he should sit back and pray.

And so, the Christian scientist who has strong confidence in science, believe the creation of man by the million and perhaps billion years long evolution by natural selection, until perhaps to the point with which God intended of man to be, if this evolution still is continuing. And he finds himself confronted with the matter of having to interpret the creation as written in scriptures, in such a way as to fit this scientific knowledge into the texts. But then, he seems to forget that scriptures has been there for the longest time and the creation of man by God was understood, not in any way close to what scientists call evolution by natural selection. Was such an understanding wrong?

On the physical side of the matter, the Christian scientist might say that there really is not a problem because of the overwhelming evidence he points to that compels him to believe in the theory. And on the spiritual and supernatural side of it, as that in relation to God, he says that the theory does not have any effect about it. Obviously this is the way to go for the Christian scientist. But the reality is, the theory affects scriptures, that he himself cannot deny. For he himself finds it necessary to re-interpret Genesis. And with a different interpretation of Genesis, based on the scientific theory, the message in scriptures may well be affected, in some way.

If I'm not mistaken, scientists says that evolution is a continuing process, and goes on even now. And that man evidently evolves to betterment of its kind, the better survival of its kind. Perhaps the scientists predicts that someday man will have knowledge of how to live a longer life than a 100 years, maybe a 1000 years, or maybe even for as long as he so have knowledge to maintain life.

And so I asked:

Is salvation the end result of evolution? Is not science then leading man to believing that he can by science, someday attain, if not eternal life, a very very long life? 

[Alan]

From what have been said here by the Christian scientists, such as Barbarian, science is not about God, but about nature and the physical world, about the creation of God. So, if science is not about God, and is about physical reality, and scriptures is about God, is there any reason to involve science with scriptures?

Secondly, whatever it is we read in scientific scriptures, we know that it is coming from man, while scriptures comes from God. So, where do we choose to go when searching for the truth and of life?

Thirdly, the Christian scientist believes that scriptures is the truth. Not because science validates it, but that because he believes that it is the word of God. The moment that he finds himself validating scriptures with other than scriptures, then he should sit back and pray.

And so, the Christian scientist who has strong confidence in science, believe the creation of man by the million and perhaps billion years long evolution by natural selection, until perhaps to the point with which God intended of man to be, if this evolution still is continuing. And he finds himself confronted with the matter of having to interpret the creation as written in scriptures, in such a way as to fit this scientific knowledge into the texts. But then, he seems to forget that scriptures has been there for the longest time and the creation of man by God was understood, not in any way close to what scientists call evolution by natural selection. Was such an understanding wrong?

On the physical side of the matter, the Christian scientist might say that there really is not a problem because of the overwhelming evidence he points to that compels him to believe in the theory. And on the spiritual and supernatural side of it, as that in relation to God, he says that the theory does not have any effect about it. Obviously this is the way to go for the Christian scientist. But the reality is, the theory affects scriptures, that he himself cannot deny. For he himself finds it necessary to re-interpret Genesis. And with a different interpretation of Genesis, based on the scientific theory, the message in scriptures may well be affected, in some way.

If I'm not mistaken, scientists says that evolution is a continuing process, and goes on even now. And that man evidently evolves to betterment of its kind, the better survival of its kind. Perhaps the scientists predicts that someday man will have knowledge of how to live a longer life than a 100 years, maybe a 1000 years, or maybe even for as long as he so have knowledge to maintain life.

And so I asked:

Is salvation the end result of evolution? Is not science then leading man to believing that he can by science, someday attain, if not eternal life, a very very long life?

Why do you not mention all of the (supposedly) scientific claims that support YE creation? If science should be separated from scripture, then to a faithful man such as yourself, the YE creationist scientific claims should hold no more weight than any other research and study, be it 6000 years or billions of years.   

[4WD]

From what have been said here by the Christian scientists, such as Barbarian, science is not about God, but about nature and the physical world, about the creation of God. So, if science is not about God, and is about physical reality, and scriptures is about God, is there any reason to involve science with scriptures?

Yes, most definitely; at several levels in fact.  When God speaks about the sun and the moon, it is about physical reality.  So then when we read in Ecclesiastes that "the sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises" (Eccl 1:5). , we know that the writer is not speaking about the real motion of the sun, but rather about the rotation of the earth whether or not the author knew anything about it.  It also lets us know that heaven is not a physical place somewhere above the earth, no matter how any scriptures might seem to present it as that.  Then there is the authenticity of the Scriptures that are borne out from a knowledge of archaeology or history. One should never forget that the bulk of what is given us in the Scriptures is about physical reality.  It is, after all, the truth, properly rendered and evaluated, of what we can see, feel, and measure that gives us the trust in the truth of all that we cannot see, feel, and measure.

Secondly, whatever it is we read in scientific scriptures, we know that it is coming from man, while scriptures comes from God. So, where do we choose to go when searching for the truth and of life?

As I just noted above, the only way to know that the scriptures do actually come from God is based upon what the scriptures say about the physical world.

Thirdly, the Christian scientist believes that scriptures is the truth. Not because science validates it, but that because he believes that it is the word of God. The moment that he finds himself validating scriptures with other than scriptures, then he should sit back and pray.

Islam makes the same claim about the Quran as you do about the Bible. Prove without resorting to other than Scripture that it is the Bible not the Quran which is the word of God.  Obviously you cannot for it is, as I said above, the truth revealed about the physical reality that validates the truth about the spiritual reality.  Unless you know that the virgin birth is not a physical reality, you have no basis for saying it is a miracle.  It is the science of the physical that establishes the spiritual as the source of miracles.

So whether you want to admit it or not, your very basis for faith in God of the Scriptures is based upon science and the physical reality that it establishes.

[Michael2012]

If it is possible for a singularity to pop into existence in a space that does not exist, then it is also possible for a body to pop into existence into a space that does exist.

The likelihood that something pops into existence in a space that does exist, is still more likely than something popping into existence in a space that does not exist.

Very good AVZ.

Barbarian said that "Science doesn't ever say that something is impossible." So, I predict that Barbarian would agree that something popping into existence in a space that does not exist is possible. The non-scientist Christian would. But, I doubt if he actually will. The overwhelming scientific evidence of a several billion year old universe compels and directs what he believes about that.   

I do believe that it crossed the mind of scientists that, there was in the beginning, something that exist from eternity from which all things came and started to be created from. For whatever theory they come up with always comes from an existing "something". They just don't want to deal with the matter as to where that "something" came from  or speak of an eternal "something".   

[Michael2012]

Why do you not mention all of the (supposedly) scientific claims that support YE creation? If science should be separated from scripture, then to a faithful man such as yourself, the YE creationist scientific claims should hold no more weight than any other research and study, be it 6000 years or billions of years.   

I haven't really heard of what the YE creationist scientific claims are. It's not really about whether who is right of the two sides of the controversy. But that, what matters is what God says in scriptures. I am convinced that the matter of creation is not for us to know nor spend our time trying to know more than what God has told us in scriptures. I am convinced that what God has revealed is more than sufficient to convey His message on creation. 

And I don't say neither, that science should or should not be separated from scriptures. What I said in my post is what scientists, like Barbarian told this board with regards science in relation to God, that science is not about God, but about nature and the physical world, about the creation of God.

[4WD]

You may wish to remember that the Big Bang scenario is a theory. It attempts to give an explanation in line with observations of our present natural laws, but it remains and will always remain assumption at best. What we do know is that at some point in time the laws of nature did not exist, and at some point they did.
How the laws came into existence, what model they followed and how much time passed is simply not known.

The existence of a singularity in a space that does not exist violates any principle of the laws of nature we know of.
We don't know if time itself did not exist within that singularity, but something must have existed within the event itself to make the event happen.
The assumption is that the gravitational forces within the singularity must have been tremendously huge, but that would mean gravity existed before it could exist.
These are the dilemma's science is trying to deal with, but no satisfactory answer is found and neither can any of this be proven.

If it is possible for a singularity to pop into existence in a space that does not exist, then it is also possible for a body to pop into existence into a space that does exist.
In fact the earth could have popped into existence, and the stars, and planets, and animals, and trees.
They could have popped into existence one shortly after the other, or maybe with millions of years between them.
The likelihood that something pops into existence in a space that does exist, is still more likely than something popping into existence in a space that does not exist.

What I am saying is that there are no guarantees, or compelling arguments, to say that the laws of nature have always been what they are today.
We do know that right at the start of this universe they were not like what they are today.

Now you argue that there is no such thing as time before the big bang, but really who is to tell?
If a singularity can pop into existence, then anything could have popped into existence before the singularity.
And who is to tell that during the big bang things only started to exist? It would be wholly possible that in the big bang things that were ceased to exist.
If it is reasonable to believe a big bang, then it is equally reasonable to believe the opposite.

The point that I am trying to make is that you really have no framework to claim with certainty that the universal constants have always been constant.
They could be constant for now, but that's no guarantee they will always be or were before.

With all due respect, most of that is little more than a statement of what you do not know.  You said, "If it is possible for a singularity to pop into existence in a space that does not exist, then it is also possible for a body to pop into existence into a space that does exist."  If you think about that for just a bit, you will see the error in it.  Popping into a space that doesn't exist??  What sort of silliness is that?   The big bang didn't pop into existence into a space that did not exist.  Space began to exist with the big bang, just as did time.  Energy, space and time together with the rules governing them was the big bang. That was the creation of the physical universe.  That is what God did.  That was God's creation.  A very remarkable accomplishment to say the least.

[Alan]

I haven't really heard of what the YE creationist scientific claims are. It's not really about whether who is right of the two sides of the controversy. But that, what matters is what God says in scriptures. I am convinced that the matter of creation is not for us to know nor spend our time trying to know more than what God has told us in scriptures. I am convinced that what God has revealed is more than sufficient to convey His message on creation. 

And I don't say neither, that science should or should not be separated from scriptures. What I said in my post is what scientists, like Barbarian told this board with regards science in relation to God, that science is not about God, but about nature and the physical world, about the creation of God.

Thanks for that Michael. Science definitely verifies God's creation but it cannot account for every instance written in His word. Attempting to quantify "literal"scriptural interpretations via science is as absurd as saying that God did not create all things.

[Michael2012]

From what have been said here by the Christian scientists, such as Barbarian, science is not about God, but about nature and the physical world, about the creation of God. So, if science is not about God, and is about physical reality, and scriptures is about God, is there any reason to involve science with scriptures?

Yes, most definitely; at several levels in fact.  When God speaks about the sun and the moon, it is about physical reality.  So then when we read in Ecclesiastes that "the sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises" (Eccl 1:5). , we know that the writer is not speaking about the real motion of the sun, but rather about the rotation of the earth whether or not the author knew anything about it.  It also lets us know that heaven is not a physical place somewhere above the earth, no matter how any scriptures might seem to present it as that.

I disagree sir. Here we differ in our reading. What I think the ancient people know and understand, and I included, what the writer speaks about in the verse cited, is based upon man's experience of the sun. Nothing of any scientific sense there.       

Then there is the authenticity of the Scriptures that are borne out from a knowledge of archaeology or history. One should never forget that the bulk of what is given us in the Scriptures is about physical reality.  It is, after all, the truth, properly rendered and evaluated, of what we can see, feel, and measure that gives us the trust in the truth of all that we cannot see, feel, and measure.As I just noted above, the only way to know that the scriptures do actually come from God is based upon what the scriptures say about the physical world.Islam makes the same claim about the Quran as you do about the Bible. Prove without resorting to other than Scripture that it is the Bible not the Quran which is the word of God.  Obviously you cannot for it is, as I said above, the truth revealed about the physical reality that validates the truth about the spiritual reality.  Unless you know that the virgin birth is not a physical reality, you have no basis for saying it is a miracle.  It is the science of the physical that establishes the spiritual as the source of miracles.

The authenticity of the extant manuscripts of God's words may well be important to determine. But the truth of God's words does not depend on that. I believe that God supernaturally takes care of the words He caused to be written in scriptures for the benefit of His children. I depend on His wisdom and ways, and especially on the Holy Spirit, and on angels who ministers to the saints, to those who will inherit salvation. I have accepted the gospel and embraced the truth, God, and Christ, by faith, without any question of scientific concerns regarding the authenticity of the scriptural manuscripts, nor the correctness of their selection and translation. Having begun in the Spirit and have been strengthened by Him, must I now find strength in science made by man? Whether science tells me that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that shows that the scriptures are indeed the words of God, it really does not make much of a difference to me now. Likewise, if science shows evidence to the contrary, there is no difference, except that I am faced with an enemy of the faith, something to fight against.       

You said "As I just noted above, the only way to know that the scriptures do actually come from God is based upon what the scriptures say about the physical world." I disagree. While I can agree that what scriptures say about the physical world, somehow points that said scriptures actually came from God, it is not as you say as the only way to know that. If there is any thing that make us know that the scriptures actually came from God is Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. 

You said "Prove without resorting to other than Scripture that it is the Bible not the Quran which is the word of God." Just reading some portions of the Quran would   convince any child of God that the Quran is not the word of God.   

You said " Unless you know that the virgin birth is not a physical reality, you have no basis for saying it is a miracle.  It is the science of the physical that establishes the spiritual as the source of miracles." Can anyone of us, by science even, prove now that Mary actually existed and was a virgin when she conceived Jesus? I believe it just as the scriptures says. Whether that is a miracle or not is really not what matters. Now, if later, scientists points evidences showing that Mary was a virgin or not a virgin, would that really matter to you?     

So whether you want to admit it or not, your very basis for faith in God of the Scriptures is based upon science and the physical reality that it establishes.

I don't have to admit anything on that regard. It may well be for you that your basis for faith in God of the scriptures is upon science. You speak for yourself. I for one does not base my faith in God upon science. I am not even a scientist as Barbarian is. And I'm pretty sure that many many more Christians, who are not scientists like me, like I, had faith in God, upon hearing the gospel which they accepted, having been convicted by the Holy Spirit of sin, righteousness, and judgement, in their heart. 

[Michael2012]

With all due respect, most of that is little more than a statement of what you do not know.  You said, "If it is possible for a singularity to pop into existence in a space that does not exist, then it is also possible for a body to pop into existence into a space that does exist."  If you think about that for just a bit, you will see the error in it.  Popping into a space that doesn't exist??  What sort of silliness is that?   The big bang didn't pop into existence into a space that did not exist.  Space began to exist with the big bang, just as did time.  Energy, space and time together with the rules governing them was the big bang. That was the creation of the physical universe.  That is what God did.  That was God's creation.  A very remarkable accomplishment to say the least.

Just want to make a small comment:

You said "Popping into a space that doesn't exist??  What sort of silliness is that?   The big bang didn't pop into existence into a space that did not exist.  Space began to exist with the big bang, just as did time."

If space began to exist with the big bang, then there was no space before it. So what does the singularity scientist speak about occupy or where was it, if space was not yet? Scientists even describes this singularity as a singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe. Can't you see what they are saying? Speaking of infinite things which even the Christian scientist, I suppose, cannot really define nor fully define, just like the eternal God.

Was it silly to think or say that there just suddenly popped up, a coin from within a fish? Is it silly if God, out of nothing, not even space, spoke and ll there is in the universe popped up out into a non-existent space, exactly so that space should exist?   

[4WD]

Just want to make a small comment:

You said "Popping into a space that doesn't exist??  What sort of silliness is that?   The big bang didn't pop into existence into a space that did not exist.  Space began to exist with the big bang, just as did time."

If space began to exist with the big bang, then there was no space before it. So what does the singularity scientist speak about occupy or where was it, if space was not yet? Scientists even describes this singularity as a singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe. Can't you see what they are saying? Speaking of infinite things which even the Christian scientist, I suppose, cannot really define nor fully define, just like the eternal God.

Was it silly to think or say that there just suddenly popped up, a coin from within a fish? Is it silly if God, out of nothing, not even space, spoke and ll there is in the universe popped up out into a non-existent space, exactly so that space should exist?

Michael, that you asked that question, shows that you have had no exposure to the world of science and mathematics.  A "singularity" is the designation for something that doesn't really exist.  You might start with this:

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

You asked,

Was it silly to think or say that there just suddenly popped up, a coin from within a fish? Is it silly if God, out of nothing, not even space, spoke and ll there is in the universe popped up out into a non-existent space, exactly so that space should exist?

That, Michael, was the big bang. The size, the dimension, of the "space" was zero, or very close to it. It doesn't need to be exactly zero because what filled it was not infinite.

[Michael2012]

Michael, that you asked that question, shows that you have had no exposure to the world of science and mathematics.  A "singularity" is the designation for something that doesn't really exist.

If a singularity is the designation for something that doesn't really exist, so what then is the sense of designating that which does not exist? And further say that this designated non-existent something expand in the Big Bang? How could anything come out of something that does not really exist? Would not anything that comes from a non-existent something be non-existent as well? 

Was it silly to think or say that there just suddenly popped up, a coin from within a fish? Is it silly if God, out of nothing, not even space, spoke and all there is in the universe popped up out into a non-existent space, exactly so that space should exist?
You asked, That, Michael, was the big bang. The size, the dimension, of the "space" was zero, or very close to it. It doesn't need to be exactly zero because what filled it was not infinite.

So, are you saying that space really was not non-existent after all and there was really space to begin with?  You are not making much sense to me. Perhaps because I don't have the mind of a scientist.

Anyway, would you at least say it is possible that God, out of nothing, spoke and all that there is in the universe popped up out into a non-existent space, exactly so that space should exist, and exactly how things are, move and behave as they are at present and as observed?

[Texas Conservative]

I'm not minimizing your credentials by any means, I was pointing out that testing is performed in multiple instances and multiple environments prior to verification. The effort to remove "error" is very high.

""Fallible dating methods" is just another religious misinterpretation turned hyperbole." - This is the arrogant argument I was talking about.

Dating methods are fallible.  They are based upon a mathematical model and assumptions are made.  Are there points on the curve where they are accurate?  Absolutely.  But that doesn't negate that there are assumptions made.  That it is a model, and that we are making assumptions that it carries through on all parts of the curve for later dating.  Scientists are making their best possible estimates, but in the end it cannot be verified.

[Texas Conservative]

If you had an instrument that, at the very extreme of it's calibrated range, had an error of 0.35%, would you consider it unreliable?  If so, a lot of the instruments engineers use are more unreliable than that.   For various reasons one expects about 2% error on most radiometric  tests.

Here's a discussion, as well as a demonstration of texting across several different methods.   As you see, it's surprisingly accurate.
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

Instruments I use to check voltage, current, watts, or other things are accurate and verifiable within the entire range.  Simply not true with radiometric dating.  You cannot verify if something is 578 million years old or 588 million years old.

[Texas Conservative]

Yep.   It's not much comfort for creationists, if a date turns out to be 578 million years, compared to 588 million years.

[4WD]

Instruments I use to check voltage, current, watts, or other things are accurate and verifiable within the entire range.  Simply not true with radiometric dating.  You cannot verify if something is 578 million years old or 588 million years old.

I doubt that the instruments that you use are accurate to within 0.3%.  Some of the newer, better digital voltmeters may be a little better than 1% but I doubt they are accurate to within 0.3%. 

[Texas Conservative]

I doubt that the instruments that you use are accurate to within 0.3%.  Some of the newer, better digital voltmeters may be a little better than 1% but I doubt they are accurate to within 0.3%.

That wasn't my point at all, and I never claimed any were accurate to within 0.3%.

[4WD]

Anyway, would you at least say it is possible that God, out of nothing, spoke and all that there is in the universe popped up out into a non-existent space, exactly so that space should exist, and exactly how things are, move and behave as they are at present and as observed?

Yes, Michael, I truly believe that He could have done that. That would certainly have been within His power to do so.  But God, Himself, says "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork"(Psa 19:1) .  And that declaration and proclamation presents us with the information and data that says He didn't do that.  So that if that is what He actually did, then the declaration of the heavens that the proclamations of the sky are, without a doubt, deceptive.  And I am just absolutely positive God is not deceptive.

[4WD]

That wasn't my point at all, and I never claimed any were accurate to within 0.3%.

Then I think you didn't bother to look at the web site he posted.  Or if it was that you were simply point out that the measurements were based on models and assumptions, you might be surprised to find that is true for those instruments you use as well.  Besides, what is the meaning of your statement,

Instruments I use to check voltage, current, watts, or other things are accurate and verifiable within the entire range.     

How accurate?  Within 20%? Within 10%?  The statement that they are accurate is meaningless.

[Texas Conservative]

Then I think you didn't bother to look at the web site he posted.  Or if it was that you were simply point out that the measurements were based on models and assumptions, you might be surprised to find that is true for those instruments you use as well.  Besides, what is the meaning of your statement,  How accurate?  Within 20%? Within 10%?  The statement that they are accurate is meaningless.

If you learned reading comprehension, I think you would grasp what I was saying.  Since my point was valid, you are trying to find some reasons to argue.

[4WD]

If you learned reading comprehension, I think you would grasp what I was saying.  Since my point was valid, you are trying to find some reasons to argue.

Yes, your point that radiographic methods depend upon models and assumptions is indeed valid.  That is true for nearly every method for measurement except for direct counting techniques.  But that does not invalidate the methods. I am not arguing with you.  I am simply showing why you are wrong.

[tooldtocare]

If you believe the link below I have a great house to sell you in the land of Oz
btw: $10,000 deposite required up front

https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/09/26/636104905812273029522410039_evolution-005.jpg

[Alan]

If you believe the link below I have a great house to sell you in the land of Oz
btw: $10,000 deposite required up front

https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/09/26/636104905812273029522410039_evolution-005.jpg

It's much more plausible than thinking we are the result of aliens, at least there exists evidence for evolution that can be argued for or against, alien seeding is just a bad dream.

[Michael2012]

Yes, Michael, I truly believe that He could have done that. That would certainly have been within His power to do so.  But God, Himself, says "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork"(Psa 19:1) .  And that declaration and proclamation presents us with the information and data that says He didn't do that.  So that if that is what He actually did, then the declaration of the heavens that the proclamations of the sky are, without a doubt, deceptive.  And I am just absolutely positive God is not deceptive.

So you are convinced through science that God did not do that. And perhaps you are also convinced that God did not create Adam in adult age form, as that would be deceptive to you. Things seem to be deceptive that way, because you began with science, what science tells you, as that of the matter of age. But if you begin with God, that would not at all be deceptive. 

Of course God is not deceptive nor is a deceiver. Between God and what science says, if there is that deceives or is deceptive, it's certainly not God. God creating Adam in adult age form is not deceptive at all nor when God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind on the SAME DAY He created man. Why will God be deceptive if He created things by His word just the way they are? Now the scientists, through their work with science, have taught the world, that something is a million years old or billion years old, by means of their scientific dating methods. And many were convinced with such knowledge, so that they believe in whatever science tells them about age, with a confidence strong enough as if they knew it for a fact. God knows for a fact how old things were and what He created and when. They don't. They are just guessing. No matter what they do, they will never know things only God knows. If there is any deception, it is not coming from God but from the one with the guesswork.

God since the creation, had made Himself known to man through the things He created and later through His words spoken by the prophets, and in the last days spoken to us by His Son. And so God may be known from ancient times according to these revelations. And He will be known by the same revelations today and until He comes. So, if there is any teaching of any new knowledge about God other than what had been revealed for man to see and know, beware of such doctrine.