Religion… What do you think?

Gotta love these College Long Essay Replies...

This isn't my opinion, it's a description via the proper interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1. The revelation from God is being clearly described for you (e.g. from believing that Genesis 1:1 was a prelude for the rest of Genesis Chapter 1 into Genesis 1:1 being the first step in a detailed step by step description of creation that is clarified by increased scientific knowledge and new technology, as we go forward with time; it describes how God is creating the earth's rotation, as one example). That was clearly shown to you in my text; you should just pay closer attention instead of what you're doing.

What you are calling Proper Interpretation of Genesis 1 is actually Your Interpretation of Genesis 1 which is basically...... Your Opinion on the Matter. Not unless you can somehow show that it was God who gave you this Great Insight.

The text that you're quoting clearly explains why Genesis Chapter 1 is different from the perspective of a group of secular scientists that you prefer to believe concerning a topic that is actually a historic event, but, you won't just allow the conversation to move forward; and, in this effort, you simply cannot clearly comprehend how it was explained for you; because you can't understand, you still believe that there is something left to explain when it was explained. The Bible is describing the historical event that is the beginning of the earth and the universe. But, this other side that you prefer has made a giant lead of faith by believing that the universe sprang into existence from a point mass, except you're showing that you don't want to pickup on that key point. From there, they're trying to use science to verify this idea but has not; but, based on this effort to validate this idea, they're postulating that there is a 9 billion year gap between the start of the universe and the start of the earth. This 9 billion year old gap stems from a calculation and a postulate about the age of the earth. But, most of the recorded data on display within the scholarly Christian community agrees with the Bible that the earth is somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years old. As with other examples, it appears that the Bible will once again be verified about the origins of the earth and the universe.

The so called different perspective is the General Accepted Model for the Age of the Earth and Age of the Universe. What Dr. Humphreys and Yourself believe in is the Minority. Meaning that Popular Science and Genesis 1:1 do still conflict. So I was Right all along.

The calculation concerning the age of the universe has been addressed for you in several different ways. It's there for the reader to examine in my many different responses to you, as I quote my response to your comments. The ways that I explained are as follows: the velocity of the speed of light changes in different medium; Genesis Chapter 1 describes God creating a precursor for earth and the universe; God then creates light; when God creates light, the precursor universe is a different medium from the universe that we now observe and which the velocity of the speed of light is recorded, as that precursor universe was not yet a finished product by comparison to the universe that's currently being studied; we then also went many different iterations where I suggested that you go and actually read Dr. Humphreys' material, as you appear to be incorrectly trying to surmise that Dr. Humphreys isn't using science somehow; there is also time dilation, as a factor; I then described that there might be at least one other time dilation factor that then faded away, during the time of Moses, where it was most acute before Abraham and after Adam; I then explained that God created the sun, moon, and stars on the 4th day, in finishing His work on the rest of the universe; there was also the Fall between when God finished His creation on day 7 and the time of Abraham and now, when that the medium for light could have been affected in some way, yet again; thus, with this described understanding in mind, we can't just take a calculation devised in the 19th century for the speed of light and use it to then try criticizing Genesis Chapter 1, when the conditions were likely very different; thus, the speed of light on day 1, particularly being in a different medium and different location, is different from the speed of light that was calculated in the 19th century; the conditions between the 19th century and Genesis Chapter 1 were also different, because God hadn't created and set in place the fundamental constants, either (e.g. the preceding nothingness and the precursor universe are each different from the universe in the 19th century; plus, again, the universe is expanding; the previously described is related to the science versus the different perspectives). Thus, taking all of that into account, already, you should understand that there is no 9 billion year time gap to be explained, from our perspective, based on the described science, but, where it is being described in a new and different manner than before.

All of this is your Belief and Interpretation though. There is no evidence that God created a Precursor Earth and Precursor Heavens you just assume that. You do a lot of assuming here without much evidence itself. The Bible itself is the Claim. The Evidence would have to be External from it.

You will just have to put more effort into trying to understand what has been described for you; and, then, I explained that the group that you prefer is trying to verify that the universe came from a point mass, while the scholarly Christian community has shown how science has validated the Bible in terms of the age of the earth, where the age of the universe is being postulated from the speed of light, as calculated in the 19th century, and then recorded in the 20th century. Additionally, your question also demonstrates that you also haven't quite caught on to the fact that the universe is expanding, and needs to be factored into the calculation/equation. Basically, without knowing it, you're computing distances based on an erroneous presumption that a star was in its current location instead of a closer location in times past. All of this has simply done away with a 9 billion year gap, if properly understood, where, again, you're jumbling the two perspectives together. Our perspective isn't governed by their perspective (e.g. their idea that the universe sprang into existence from a point mass and their efforts to verify it doesn't govern our perspective, which is Genesis Chapter 1, where we have likewise used science to verify our perspective, which is Genesis Chapter 1; the perspective isn't the science, except you clearly haven't understood what is meant by a perspective and how it's separate from science, by the way you keep describing things; you should understand the difference, but, I think that it's more that you just wont admit that you lost another point, so you're unnecessarily limiting your growth in understanding).

Put effort into following your Interpretation of the Matter ? I think not. Especially when you carry heavy Bias towards a particular viewpoint with little evidence to back what you are saying. Precursor Earth and Precursor Heavens ? Who else teaches this or even has shown Data for this outside of the Bible ?

=

It was necessary to help you understand the difference between science, itself, and the two different perspectives. The multiple iterations were then used to explain to you that their perspective isn't the actual science. An effort was also made to try to get you to read what Dr. Humphreys was actually saying and how that information should show to you that he's using science. I then explained how your desire to save face around lost points is impairing your ability to grow and expand your knowledge as sort of a courtesy for you.

Not really. If the point was that Genesis 1:1 conflicts with Popular or Secular Science and you agree then I won the discussion. The rest of this stuff is what you usually do in these discussions. Cannon Fodder.

Your question would be answered by simply paying attention to my text.

Nope, you usually just go off on tangents that have little to do with the Original Point.

It has been explained to you how the age of the universe and earth aren't known definitively, if you prefer a perspective other than Genesis Chapter 1, as such would be a matter of historical context. If you used one of the search engines, you'd most quickly run into the perspective that you prefer but, refining your search would also bring you to the scholarly Christian community, which would give you the age of the universe and earth. Even more easier, you can go pick up a Bible and that will give you the age of the earth and universe, after some help from the scholarly Christian community to help with your interpretation.

The data that is available suggests that the Earth is about 4 billion years old and the Universe about 13 billion years old. That could change, sure. As of now, that is what they are saying which is the Point. You can talk about the other perspectives but you should know that I am right here even if you do not accept their Data and Calculations.

This isn't correct, at all. You're citing a very small pocket of the human population on earth in terms of the “general people”; the largest population on earth are Christian; the monotheistic group of people on earth makes this group even larger. Christianity and Judaism accept Genesis Chapter 1 as the age of the earth and universe, while others within monotheism have a text very similar in tone to Genesis Chapter 1, as the origin of the universe. This perspective has been verified by the science, as described within the scholarly Christian community. The secular perspective that you prefer is trying to use science to verify the idea that the universe and everything within it came from a point mass.

Not Really, the Majority of Scientists accept that the Earth is Billions of Years old and that the Universe is even more Billions of Years Old. It's not just a small minority of Humans. Also, Genesis 1 still conflicts with what Scientists are saying about the age of the Earth and age of the Universe. God could not have created them both in the Beginning if one is 13 billion years old and the other is 4 billion years old. That is the Point.

You have so, in your text, as you haven't separated the difference between what was described as a perspective from the actual science. Again, it's the calculation that is different, not the data. But, many times, the scholarly Christian community discusses more data and incorporates that extra data as more variables within calculations which makes the calculations more accurate, many times. But, mostly, when it was discussed in previous iterations, it was differences in the calculation. But, now, I just explained that the perspective that you prefer is trying to verify the idea that the universe sprang from a point mass and some within the scholarly Christian community has jumbled that into our perspective as governing, which is the mistake.

You miss the point. The point is that Secular or Popular Science uses the Figures I am talking about against what is stated in Genesis 1:1. It's not really about if Christians are using Science it's about how Genesis 1:1 conflicts with the Data that these other Scientists use who are the Popular or Majority here.

Data is strictly based on observations, while calculations, as in mathematics, are theoretical in nature. The terms accuracy, precision, percent yield, and standard deviation will help you to understand what I said better. I followed that up by referring you to the term, empirical. You can also now look into the term, theoretical physics.

Here is Webster's Definition of Data. Definition 1 makes it clear that Data is used in Calculation. Also, just because Data is based on Observation does not mean it can not be used as a Calculation especially when Data can be used to Calculate a specific point. Such as Data about the amount of Unarmed People shot by Police can be used to Calculate a figure to how percentages of how many Black Folks are shot by Cops each year. Take that !

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data

You sure did, as your homework was repeatedly to understand Dr. Humphreys' material and to support your implications that he's somehow not using science in his book, Starlight and Time.

It was not that Dr. Humphreys was not using Science in his book. It was that Humphreys was assuming that Time Dilation occurred during Day 1 through Day 4 in a way that could explain the gap in time between Earth and Heavens age that really is assumed to be. Yeah, we know that Time Dilation occurs but to what extent did it in the beginning ? On top of that, Dr. Humphrey differs about the age of the Earth in such a way that he is not really even answering the question I am proposing anyways.

I'm talking to you as a chemist, on a topic that is addressed in chemistry, while the author here is talking from the perspective of a laymen person and from a field outside of science, especially, chemistry. Researching the term, empirical, should have pretty much laid the topic of there being a difference between a calculation and data to rest for you. The author here describes data as the number of days which is empirical in nature. The author only introduces the term, calculation, but, a date, is not a calculation. The analytics, as described in this article, is what we proceed to do with the data that we've collected, once we've finished our work within the laboratory.

I am going to post a link to the Definition of Empirical below from Webster's Dictionary site. Now you show me where it says or shows that Data and Calculations are different from this Definition ?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

The calculated number is trying to verify a perspective using science. The point was to get you to see how science is also supporting the scholarly Christian community perspective. It was you who unsuccessfully tried to say that Genesis Chapter 1 isn't also supported by science, because you can't understand how your preference is merely a perspective.

How do you know that they are trying to verify a perspective of Science ? Who says that their findings can not be legit ? I feel like this is your Bias showing again.

I explained to you that more observed data supports an earth that is between 6-10 thousand years old and is available for your exploration within the scholarly Christian community. That is the point, where you have to understand that there are several different perspectives using one science, but, a matter of history is also involved, which cannot be definitively resolved with our current level of science and technology, where the Bible has otherwise been repeatedly verified as a true description of both history and science, the more science and technology has advanced for humanity.

Well I am sure that Secular Scientists will say that there is more actual data that supports their position of a 4 billion year old Earth. It's He said this... He said that stuff.

It does indeed describe how data is different from a calculation. Evidently, you didn't look up the term, empirical, as that term couldn't explain the differences to you anymore plainly. That article isn't a valid source within the context of this discussion, as it is written by someone who isn't speaking as a chemist, for one. Please, again, look up the term, empirical, to help gain an understanding of the difference between data and a calculation. Looking up the term, theoretical physics, also.

Well so far it's your Word versus the Webster's Dictionary Definition. It does not say how Data is different from Calculation.

For the reasons explained, it's more complicated than that, except you'll have to actually read Dr. Humphreys' book and look at the evidence, information, and data available within the scholarly Christian community.

Dr. Humphreys position is that the Earth maybe thousands of Years old and not Billions but I am going from what other Scientists are saying. Heck even Dr. Hugh Ross whom is Christian believes in an Old Earth so you have that too.

The clear point is that Genesis 1:1 describes the first step, where God created a precursor earth and a precursor universe; on days 1-3, God works on the earth, and, then, on day 4, God finishes working on the universe.

Nope, that's you assumption. Genesis 1:1 could very easily be the overall context of what God had done as a whole and the following verses the in depth nature of what he had done.

It's not made up; rather, it's a logical inference that you can draw by reading my description describing Genesis Chapter 1 and then reading Genesis Chapter 1; as much as you'd like reality to be different, it just isn't; reality is just real reality. You just simply need to let dead points drop and allow the discussion to move forward.

Nope you are assuming that. Give another Christian Scientist who describes Genesis 1 with a Precursor Earth and Precursor Universe. I know this is something you came up with.

No, but you're sure making yourself look stubbornly dense, when you can do yourself so much good by taking the advise to look up terms that will allow you to distinguish the difference from data and a calculation by someone who's a practitioner in science that works on this very topic of working with the inter phase between data and calculations; physicists, especially cosmologists and astrophysicists, on the other hand, generally perform theoretical work.

I gave you Webster's Dictionary Definition of Data and it says just what I stated earlier. I even gave you an example of how Data is made up of Calculations with the whole Data dealing with Unarmed People who was shot by Police and how you calculate Percentages of Groups of People using that Data.

It sure is evidence. Except, you just simply had to ask him for his source, as he's describing for you rather than from someone else, as there wasn't sufficient information for someone other than the poster who could provide it for you. This is so, because so many of these events are described within the circle of praying Christians.

No Sir, it's just a Story without any context of Name of Person or Name of Doctor or Where it Happened ? It's just a Story without any Context like this. Already told you I asked for Sources and got None.

A conventional explanation would have to be a link with the specific examples being described. Or, this would be like stereotyping all Caucasians as scientific geneses because Einstein and Newton were white, or, all Caucasians as serial killers, because Ted Bundy was Caucasian; surely you're not that lost, dazed, and confused in your efforts at spite. The vast majority of Christians tell the truth. Cures are extremely rare within the medical community, where they're very common within the circle of praying Christians.

They are Linked to the examples described. People who are Mistaken or Lie are obviously going to get the Facts wrong about the Events that supposedly happened and we know that Sickness can go to Remission which also happens in Events like these. Your example is Awful. Who is saying anything about all White People anything ?

Again, why wasn't this your first request to the other poster, when he was likely paraphrasing from a news article? News articles aren't published without the information that you requested and aren't published on hearsay information. Again, you're rebutting your own caricatures not real reality that is within the circle of praying Christians. Answered prayers are described in churches everywhere, every Sunday and Wednesday of each week, where you can approached the congregant who described the answered prayer who's likely to be filled with authentic joy and happiness; again, real reality versus your spiteful caricatures.

I did request it after it was given as an example. You keep missing that or purposely don't want to hear it.

I already have, as the result followed in close proximity with the prayer, where this happens within a large pool of people on a continuous basis. The burden of proof is actually on you to show that it isn't answered prayer by showing something on the order of magnitude of all of these instances being coincidences; to show that, you'll have to present the real cause of the results being experience by this colossal pool of individuals who are praying true Christians.

No, you assumed it was the Prayer. We do not know.

While this is true, it's actually your task to show that it wasn't connected with God in any way, when God is described in the Bible as requiring people to help the less fortunate; it's the proximity and timing, and matches God's character. Additionally, and, again, evictions are so likely that a business model and livelihoods are modeled around someone's misfortune of being evicted (e.g. this smells so much like Satan's character and his temptations on people; the Gates to Heaven is the straight and narrow, while that to Hell is broad). Additionally, many people remain homeless for days and weeks, sometimes months and years, at a time; the former, likely God answering their prayer for help and someone coming to their rescue, where people are more likely to come by and look down on them and pass them by, just for starters; it's this group rather than the caring group that are far more common and voluminous; thus, again, the burden of proof is back on you, given the nature of most people.

Not really, if someone can be helped by a Regular Person for a Blessing then a Blessing is indistinguishable from someone helping someone else which means it's not a Miracle. Case and Point. What I described to you before about God restoring someone's arm or leg would be a Miracle.

In this context, it does, because the group of Christians receiving answered prayers are far more voluminous then the examples that you presented. You certainly would need to prove that everything is a coincidence, in this context, in order to claim that that what you presented is a conventional explanation. Again, it's the proximity and timing.

Well you assumed that the answered prayer is just that and not just people helping by conventional means or something else. That also is a Problem.

There's nothing incorrect at all about it being difficult to find people describing miracles that came about as the result of praying Christians, as well as answered prayers. That was the point of the text that you're quoting. When these examples are described, it leads to sufficient information to verify the account, which isn't merely a claim; again, this is your hope and your failed attempt to diminish these examples and steal the joy away from praying Christians such as myself; this could be harmful, though, for people who are considering becoming Christians to receive their eternal salvation; my suggestion to those: just tailor your search to find these, visit local churches on Sundays an Wednesdays for descriptions of answered prayers, and direct the search to the scholarly Christian community.

You have not really given any example of Miracles happening though. You gave a Name and a Story about something that could be chalked up to you getting better over time yourself with some Medicine.

I haven't seen you do it, so far; one reason, this claim is just not true at all, as there are just simply too many examples to be found; and, plus, what has already been explained, that you haven't time to proximity and time of a prayer to God from true Christians followed close in time with a positive result as coincidences (e.g. the vast majority of Christians do no lie and such just cannot or is exceedingly unlikely to be a mistake by its very nature).

I already gave you examples of how they could and since only a vague story about a Miracle from God has come up which can not even be investigated and you have simply been babbling about how so many Miracles occur you have not really given an example to take down. So it is what it is.

You haven't actually explained anything away through a conventional means, you've only thrown that term around many times as a means of avoiding just conceding many lost points; you're not describing anything that's real and that jives with reality, as we know and perceive it, in the given context of Christians and their answered prayers.

I already did. The issue here is that neither you nor the other user gave a good example of a Miracle. I have given you examples of how Miracles can be mistaken for things of Conventional Means though.

In this context, no it isn't; as previously explained, people actually make a livelihood off of the misfortunes of people who can't pay their rent, indicating just how likely and expected it is to happen; my sphere of explanation is only to point to Christians and their prayers being in close proximity to some form of positive result, in the context of where someone is trying to make a case that there must be some conventional explanation available in all of these cases. In this context, it doesn't matter whether it's help soon after an eviction, preventing the eviction, or regrowing a limb, as all of these cases would have come in close proximity to the prayer from a true Christian who's message is going back to the Entity that was involved in the Exodus and Jesus creating wine from water; again, its certainly a matter of perspective.

Yeah, and sometimes Christians pray for Rent Money and they do not get it and get Evicted. That also happens. The point being is that People do help out other People without Prayer occurring. You would have to assume that it does not otherwise. The difference being that the Prayer of someone getting a Limb restored can not be explained by conventional means at all. You can easily explain away someone getting money to pay their Rent because the stuff happens a lot and even for those who don't believe in God.

I've already given you an explanation a long time ago and during several iterations: it's like being asked to help an adult to guide them by the hand to find a local fast food restaurant or grocery store, especially one who's implying that their smarter than people who are religious; examples of these are easy to find, while there are numerous examples to be found; on the other hand, it just simply isn't true that such is hard to find, as you're implying. I already lead by the hand by suggesting that you visit local churches on Sundays and Wednesdays to hear these types of miraculous accounts; they're also available to be found within the scholarly Christian community; you just said on previous occasions that you were unwilling to search those locations; thus, it's not lack of evidence, it's more that you're avoiding the evidence because it makes all of my points.

You have give no Examples of Miracles with Links at all. Your example of a Fast Food Restaurant does not work here as Miracles are not as easy to find as Fast Food. You may claim it is but that's just your Position. Like I said, people at Churches claim all kinds of things as Miracles. From God helping them find their Car Keys to God helping them pay Rent before they get Evicted those are not Miracles.

No, it's explained in the text that you're quoting: it's God, because we're praying through Jesus; Jesus said that He's the only way to God; based on that, it's certainly far more than just an assumption, objectively speaking; again, you're trying to dilute something that's very profound and significant, for it's associated confirmation and verification properties; that's what connects things to real reality versus the caricatures that you need in order to avoid conceding more points.

Well you are assuming that all the stuff in the Bible is correct though too. You can not even verify that Jesus is the only way to God. You simply believe that to be so.

And, to follow up, God just completed that answered prayer 48 hours ago from today, where, last time, it was 48 hours earlier, just a week ago; I prayed for this several times over the past year and it was answered for me to provide this testimony. I thank the Holy Spirit. Thanks to the work of Jesus. So infused and filled with joy, at the moment. A few years ago, I prayed for Rick Flair, when he was hospitalized; I grew up a Rick Flair fan.

And what about those people who Pray for someone to be Healed and they Die ? Is that evidence against God ? I used to have an excuse for this one actually. In any case, this is just your belief about the situation.

Well, God has answered my prayer many times throughout my life; this is profound and significant, even though you need to keep diluting the work of God in the lives of millions of true Christians for some reason; I'm pretty sure I have plenty validation and confirmation to support by faith and confidence; thanks be to God, in and through the name of Jesus. I notice that you always avoid giving the glory to God, but can acknowledge anything else, no matter how outlandish; you also avoid crediting Satan for his evil works; you're dazed and confused, as a former pastor; you're just plan twisted.

So you say... it could very well be that you assume God is answering you and you are just cruising through Life and stuff happens.

This name has all the information you need to verify that she experienced a miracle. Basically, you just simply haven't taken the initiative to find that information; you want to avoid giving praise and glory to God for whatever reason, in some twisted fashion. You're acting pitiful.

Looked up the Name and found nothing about a Miracle attached to it. Now I could assume from this either you made this up or.... something else. In any case, if you had evidence of a Miracle I think you could do better than just a name that presents no files or sources when looked up on the Internet.

I hate God, and think believe his evil. I'm a maltheist, because he gave me cancer when I was born.

Only a dead God is a good God.

I'm in the process of defending God's Word; while engaged in this activity, I had this insight; thus, God gave me this interpretation by proximity. Additionally, it's just the content of this subsection of this discussion, versus what I was responding to from you, at the time, which is a much better interpretation, as compared; this is so, because it connects Genesis 1:1 with the rest of Genesis Chapter 1, while you tried to make a case that it was standalone, while not having an explanation for the rest of Genesis Chapter 1, in the context of the creation account being described. Nothing was left for you to do but to concede points.

I am not going to concede anything... Not when you are just making up stuff and saying God gave you insight into what Genesis 1 is saying. That's not evidence. I do not know if it was God or Captain Kangaroo or Whoever that gave you these thoughts about Genesis 1.

The point of discussion here is mostly about which is more logical: that God was the source of mass and energy or that a point mass sprang the universe and earth into existence, along with mass and energy. The point was also that this is a topic of history, instead of science, as there is no known science and technology that tells us, except the Bible is continually being verified on issues of science, following the advancement of science and technology. The point is to get you to actually examine the available data rather than based simply on someone's word, even though they are also scientists. Again, this is a matter of perspective, not science; here, you begin your comment off by seemingly understanding that it's just a perspective, but then erroneously conclude by implying that the perspective is the science; but, it's just their perspective of science, while we have our perspective of science for the largest block of the human population to examine and feel confident in their faith in God through the Bible and Christianity. Our perspective is a minority, but there are likewise many other perspectives within the secular sphere which are minority views. So, with all this combined, you actually come away with something like a 70:30 ratio. The Big Bang Model/Generally Accepted Model of creation has been crumbling for quite some time now. Thus, no, you're not right along and swinging in the dark isn't going to efficiently help your rolling the dice on this topic instead of simply following my suggestions and learning from the evidence and data available within the scholarly Christian community, even as I hand pick them from time to time in the form of YouTube clips. It's about describing the scientific evidence and suggesting that you do that more so than settling based on someone else's word. Also, though, it's left to you to show any flaws in anything that you may think that you have found within the scholarly Christian community and attempting to rebut that with scientists who are biased towards that, but, nonetheless, a group scientists, as I also try to defend them as a scientist.

Once again you show that you are Way Off Topic here. The point of discussion was how Genesis 1:1 differs from what Science is saying about Earth and Universe formation... It's not about which is more likely of how the Universe came about from God or some other force or event. That's you again adding stuff to the discussion.

The Bible itself has become a type of evidence and is not just a claim, as it has been verified many times of things that we can use science and technology to obtain evidence concerning (e.g. you're incorrect about this, because you refuse to go and examine the material available within the scholarly Christian community, so you have no real basis for describing the Bible as a claim; it's something that you're only hoping is the case). As previously made clear, the origin of the earth and universe are topics of history for which our current level of science and technology cannot allow us to definitively say, if that is what you mean by evidence (e.g. and there are many things that science and technology still cannot verify but are accepted, based on the credibility of the historical documents being used to verify those events; here, again, are you consciously suggesting that the Bible isn't a credible historic document so it should be dismissed by default? And, this after you refuse to just examine the actual evidence supporting it within the scholarly Christian community?; if so, I'll have to break to you that the real facts show that this guess of yours as just not based in reality; it's just objective fact, whether or not you'd like that to be true); evidence has many different forms, direct or circumstantial in nature; thus, on this topic, the Bible and the description form circumstantial evidence; this isn't just a belief for a well reasoned observation of the facts described in the Bible concerning a historical event. By the same token, there is also no evidence supporting the approach that you prefer, even though that's a lot of peoples' opinion.

The Bible can be a type of evidence but not in this case. This is your interpretation of a Passage of Scripture. It's your belief on what would be the evidence. This is not actual evidence itself.

No, this is a comment that you just sprang up from nowhere, somehow, after being continually told to find and study the evidence on this topic from the scholarly Christian community, starting with Dr. Humphreys; how do you keeping missing out on that suggestion, after it was shown to you so many times? Just about everyone one would have gotten the hint to find and then study the information available within the scholarly Christian community. After you've done that, you might put effort into understanding my interpretation; you'd need to understand my interpretation in order to follow my interpretation, as you're purporting to be debating me on this topic; during my interpretation, I'm only describing the Bible in Genesis Chapter 1, something that you can see right before your very eyes; this became necessary, because you initially put out a suggestion that Genesis 1:1 is somehow separate from the rest of Genesis Chapter 1, when almost no one familiar with Genesis Chapter 1 would do such a thing. From there, you just zigzagged all around the place instead of moving the discussion forward on that topic; thus, there is where we are, whereas I've kept it on the original topic as much as possible.

Cannon Fodder !

Well, first, you don't understand evidence is something a lot broader than you're suggesting from your comment; and, you have a bias for another particular viewpoint; I have a bias, but, I'm also supporting it with plenty of logic, you just need to actually pay attention to the text that you're quoting, in order to fully capture that logic; you can't he;pp but to do that, so, you're ignoring it in trying to avoid conceding points that are just inevitably lost for you. There is plenty of evidence backing it, as I'm referring you back to that evidence, when I repeatedly tell you to see the information available within the scholarly Christian community; because you would prefer not going there doesn't then make anything that you say or imply, like there being little evidence, any more real; you just simply need to confine it from your awareness.

Well what did I suggest that evidence was ? See how you just assume things ? I said that the Bible could be looked at as evidence at times but your interpretation of the Bible is not evidence. It's hearsay. Not unless you can show you have some Divine Insight into the passage that no one else has.

Sure, it's a logical extension for the text in Genesis Chapter 1 for the reasons already described. Go back and give careful attention that the text you're quoting and even to some of the comments that you made that appeared to show that you realized that God created the heaven and earth in Genesis 1:1, and then proceeded to work on creating the earth on days 1-3, but, you then became disagreeable that God proceeded to do the same for the heaven/universe on day 4; a point lost, so you spent a couple of iterations ducking that inevitability and no emerge with this comment to avoid conceding a point and allowing the discussion to move forward. Again, this is a historical event and data would be something gathered from science and technology, where such doesn't exists at our current level of science and technology, because a historical event is being described; this is all something that you could have inferred by simply paying attention to the text your quoting and maturing away from you needed to save face so that the discussion can move forward. It's only within the Bible, for those reasons, where you also haven't established that the Bible isn't a credible document; you'll be able to tell by looking to see it's availability within the scholarly Christian community instead of refusing to go there, as that doesn't make anything any less real; you're just trying to critique something, in the environment of rolling the dice, in the process, where you're fully ignorant of what's available. While you can keep wishing, I'm basically just here to correct you on these generalized claims, as they can confused impressionable minds who also prefer to believe you; escape that needs to be separated from real reality.

I have read Genesis 1 several times. I never understood it as God creating a Precursor Earth and Precursor Universe. I do not really know anyone who says that actually. That's just your own belief about it.

That certainly was what's going on; again, the perspectives conflict, because one group is saying that the source of matter and energy is God, using a very credible historical document, the Bible, and science with supported circumstantial evidence, while the other perspective is trying to use science to verify it's believe that the universe sprang from a point mass; and, the latter perspective cannot be allowed to govern the former perspective; again, their perspective isn't the actual science; and, to make comments like this, you need to talk from both sides, claiming that you understand that they're two perspectives, and science is used to support many different perspectives. Again, you Genesis 1:1 is one part of Genesis Chapter 1; it isn't a standalone verse. As such, since you don't understand these things, then, clearly, as someone who does understand these things, I cannot agree with you, as, for one, I'm too advanced in my understanding; you have to catch up some more; you can start by taking the suggestion to find out what's available within the scholarly Christian community; ignoring all that volume of material will not eventually make it any less real, somehow.

So again you accept the position and concede the point. Fantastic. At least you understand that the conflict between Genesis 1:1 and the Science is there. That was the Point.

That is because I had to interject to correct a comment that you made that was based in sheer ignorance; the comment just made no sense. I then actually tried to keep you on this corrected topic, given your tendency to veer off on topics to avoid conceding points that you wanted to use to support something that you said that wasn't correct nor based in reality. Genesis 1:1 is apart of Genesis Chapter 1 and a perspective is not the actual science; science is being used to try to support that perspective; science is also supporting the Bible, as a perspective, but you'll have to see for yourself, as it is found within the scholarly Christian community; refusing to do there will not make its existence any less real somehow.

Nope, you be doing this to side track the conversation.

No, this just isn't correct, no matter how much you need to believe it, for the same reasons that have been repeatedly explained for you; those explained reasons describe for you is why you had no point; the 13 billion year number is a calculation that is the product of theoretical physics, and more data observable data suggest that the earth is within the 6-10 thousand year range (e.g. and the prior text explains further; you're only displaying bias with little evidence to back yourself; accepting the generally accepted model isn't the actual evidence, especially to the narrow view that you want to hold the Bible, partially because you just simply don't fully understand evidence); it's available within the scholarly Christian community for your examination; refusing to examine it isn't going to make it any less real, somehow. The 4 billion year old number for the earth isn't a reliable number for the various reasons describe within the scholarly Christian community; it's partly based on radiological chemistry and how it works (e.g. presumptions were being made, but, study the radiological data after the Mount St. Helen eruption, as one example; the scholarly Christian community is describing this data, while explaining some of the concepts of radiological chemistry, as told by scientists; this is real versus textbook; basically, you learn one thing in undergraduate so that you can get your foot in the door and find out what's real, while being within the workforce; the generally accepted model being advanced is based on the textbooks and the textbook authors being unwilling to update the textbook information, largely because it's a more advanced topic of discussion that is tackled in the real world workforce; the existence of soft dinosaur tissue, also). I understand the side that you prefer calculation for the age of the universe and data for the age of the earth, as previously described for you, while I've also decided to examine some of the information available within the scholarly Christian community for which you have not.

Then why do so many Scientists accept the Data as such including Dr. Hugh Ross who is a Christian Scientist like Dr. Humphreys ? If it's not correct then why do so many Scientists accept the Data as to be ? I mean you could say that the Data could change for them but for now this is what it is.

Taken together, they actually are just a small minority of the human population as compared to the block of humanity who accept Genesis Chapter1; this larger group includes Christianity and others who have a monotheistic religion supporting their belief; but, only recently has a scholarly Christian community emerge to start combating the attacks; it's only possible because of data, evidence, and facts, along with faith in God. Again, while some scientists are actually trying to verify a perspective that the universe sprang from a point mass out of nothingness, the other block of scientists, taken as a group in about a 70:30 ratio have different perspectives about the age of the earth and universe, where the scientists within the scholarly Christian community support one of those others perspectives, that follows the logic that God is the source of matter and energy as opposed to nothingness (e.g. it seems like sells pitch, possibly a very bad one, but, logic can only be logically, despite the possibly faulty sales pitch to get logic accepted, whereas something illogical has a better sales pitch with mass media, as the people who don't attend church and follow God is the largest group of humanity, while they're also not atheists and agnostic; however, some are probably anti-theistic, which then make themselves believe that they're atheists and agnostic, while those two are guide by anti-theistic views, and find these as bases of support for them; but, most people just simply don't want to be burden by the perception that Christianity comes with a ritual that they're required to follow to be considered true Christians and be saved; salvation isn't actually so complicated, however); that's actually not the majority of scientists for the perspective that you prefer; they just also might not want to accept the Genesis Chapter 1 account, either, but one science is being used to support most of these perspectives. I'm a scientist, I understand that perspective, but, my preferred perspective is towards Genesis Chapter 1; and, to some degree, my scientific understanding has to involve some level of bias if I'm to verify the Genesis Chapter 1 account, using science, while the perspective that you prefer is involving bias to support that perspective; there are various levels of biases within that perspective where a Lawrence Kraus is a very strong bias, a Richard Dawkins has a very strong bias, but somewhat less, but, a Neal Tyson is a bit less biased, still.

Well if the Majority of the People who are supposedly studying the Cosmos are saying that the Universe is billions of years old and the Earth is billions of years old. Why is that not good evidence enough if they are taking into consideration Data and Calculations ?

This isn't correct, because there are plenty of scientists within the scholarly Christian community who uses science to support the perspective of Genesis Chapter 1 regarding the age of the earth and the universe; but, there are also scientists who support other perspectives, and are trying to use science to verify those perspectives concerning the age of the earth and the universe. However, you're stunting your level of understanding by refusing to get better informed from a review of the data, evidence, and facts that are available for everyone interested in learning everything about the age of the earth and universe that has availability within the scholarly Christian community.

And there are plenty of other Scientists who believe otherwise. That's the Point. These other Scientists represent the Majority not the Christian Scientists.

God could have, because He's God and has the ability; however, being less advanced, humanity has to wait for science and technology to advance, which is proportional with humanity's level of understanding, if you want to somehow do it apart from the Bible, which God used to explain when and how He accomplished the feat; but, bias steered science in a faulty direction, until the scholarly Christianity community came along, as a competing perspective, using science and technology, to use science and technology to explain how God accomplished such a feat. Again, the perspective that the universe emerged from a point mass is not our perspective, which is that God is the source of matter and energy, where Genesis Chapter 1 is supporting that perspective; you have to match perspective with perspective to avoid jumbling apples and oranges. Science is supporting Genesis Chapter 1, but the ones who wants the perspective that you prefer has been trying to use science to support the perspective that the universe sprang into existence from a point mass that randomly came from nothingness. For the reasons explained, God could have created the universe and earth as described in Genesis Chapter 1, based on a closer understanding of how the calculation of the 13 billion year old calculation came about; understanding this is way you were referred to Dr. Humphreys, but there is also much other information addressing this topic within the scholarly Christian community; then gave a careful description of how you can begin to understand how God possibly accomplished such in the second paragraph that you quoted and purported to be responding in this iteration; it was designed to explain the distance of the stars and the time that light has to take to reach earth, while the universe is also expanding; even the rate of expansion for the universe could vary and could had varied at points in the past; it's a matter of history, but, logic is being used to postulate based around the Bible, where the Bible is otherwise a credible source, according to the evidence and information group together within the scholarly Christian community for such a purpose.

God could not have created the Heavens and the Earth in the beginning if the Heavens are almost Three times as old as the Earth. The Heavens would represent the Beginning and the Earth would have had to have been created later on. That's obviously assuming that the Science is right. DONT YOU FORGET THIS LAST LINE.

I addressed this point that you tried to make over and over again, so, clearly, I could not have missed a point, where it was previously describe; of course, I have addressed a new point that you're just raising to avoid conceding a lost point, as is your tendency. The number that you're quoting, again, is a calculation, not data, which denotes an observation, according to the concept of empirical, which I previously suggested that you study. The perspective is a separate issue from the science. They're trying to use science to verified their perspective that the universe sprang from a point mass. You're then purposefully stunting your understanding with respect to how science is supporting Genesis Chapter 1 because you refuse to examine the science being described within the scholarly Christian community but then using faulty and erroneous view of evidence to throw the dice about what doesn't support Genesis Chapter 1; plus, you can't just willy dilly say things about science, where you have no science background like me; you can't credibly mimic me in this regard, as much as you would like to; actually, the maturity of humanity are Christian or monotheistic, where Christianity is also apart of monotheism.

Data is made up of Calculations. It says it clearly in the Definition I gave you from the Webster Definition Website. What more do you want ?

Sure, but, data isn't the same thing as a calculation; I already explained to you over several iterations that data can be used in a calculation, but a calculation can also be based on pure mathematics, which is usually the case; the number that you've been quoting is largely such a calculation, as there is no science and technology available to verify that the universe sprang from a point mass out of nothingness. In the context of our discussion and your misunderstanding of evidence, the following from the dictionary website is what you're looking for “3: information output by a sensing device or organ that includes both useful and irrelevant or redundant information and must be processed to be meaningful”; believing that it supports you, merely because it included the word, calculation, you got the following: “ factual information (such as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation”; and then, there's one more “: information in digital form that can be transmitted or processed”; as I've repeatedly told you, regarding the second example, the data can be made apart of the calculation, if something like technology of an experiment is available to devise it; the second definition is saying that data and a calculation are the same, if that's what you were thinking and hoping; however, the number that you quoted is a mathematical calculation, not data, as the data would be necessary to calculate the accuracy, precision, and standard deviation; I'd been describing this for you, but you didn't pick it up, instead being more consumed with avoiding conceding a point, and saving face to try to revive a lost point. This explains precisely what I've been telling you, where the number that you quoted is just a calculation, where science and technology cannot produce actual data concerning a verification of that number; it's based on approximations and presumptions, while trying to verify that the universe sprang from a point mass out of nothingness. My description also comes from education and job experience involving both acquiring data and making theoretical calculations. I even posted that video from NASA regarding the helicopter devise on Mars, where the presenters make numerous references to awaiting data to arrive, in order to help you more fully understand how the number that you're quoting for the age of the universe is a calculation from a postulate, the Big Bang, that is currently breaking down.

Data is made up of Calculations. That is and has been the Point. Data could be other things but often it is in fact Calculations. I gave you a great example already.

But, data is something different from a calculation. This example brings no additional substance to the fact that the number that you're quoting is a calculation, where the point was while Dr. Humphreys was using a different calculation, it also involves the same data in order for him to be using science.

The number I quoted is a calculation and it's data as it serves as something that was deduced from observations and calculated. The amount of unarmed people shot and the percentage of people shot that was Black or Brown.

Sure, as such was explained to you, also making the point that Genesis 1:1 is apart of Genesis Chapter 1. Dr. Humphreys is using relativity to explain how time dilation works in order to explain how it could have been a factor between days 1 and 4, he's not just making an assumption; that's apart of explaining how the science is working in the given context. Plus, this statement still doesn't demonstrate that you actually read Dr. Humphreys' book, as these are things that I explained for you, when you were implying that he wasn't using science, but lost several points in the process in trying to shift the topic to avoid having to concede that he was using science. But, you're not understanding the calculation that you quoted about the age of the universe also has what you're branding Dr. Humphreys as “making assumptions”. What Dr. Humphreys is doing is involved the process of theoretical physics.

Yes, Time Dilation could have been a factor but again To What Extent ? 9 Billion Years ? How would he calculated or deduce that ? The Bible only gives so much information about how God supposedly created the Heavens and the Earth and a lot of this sounds like adding into what God may have done here.

Knowing that the earth is somewhere between 6-10 thousand years, explains the extent that time dilation would have to have occurred, at the beginning of time in order for the stars to have their arrangements and distances from the perspective of earth, under the presumption that the velocity of light, as measured today and the earlier part of the 20th century, was the same as it was at the time of Genesis Chapter 1. And then, in the earlier text that you're quoting from me, the velocity of light was likely different as in faster, given that the medium is different in nothingness, was different in the precursor universe, as the location of the light source was different from the current location of the sun, when God spoke light into existence, as the sun was yet to be created, the medium was probably different from the time between day 7 and the Fall, and has possibly experienced more changes, between that time and the 19th century, where your question isn't taking these factors into consideration. It's a means of using science while also being within our perspective, which is different from your preferred perspective. This is one reason I referred to Dr. Humphreys' material, as it allows you to separate the perspectives, even though Dr. Humphreys might have been unwittingly lumping the other perspective with our perspective.

We do not know if the Earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. A lot of the data and calculations say the Earth is billions of years old. That again in itself is a problem. We do not know how Time Dilation affected the time between the Earth and the Heavens. That again is another problem.

Here's the definition that's most closely linked to the context of our discussion: “2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory”; the calculation that you presented mistakes a postulate with a theory, where science and technology doesn't exists such that humanity could have experience and observed the universe sprang into existence, as well as the earth. It does not say that data and a calculation are the same, either, if that is what you tried to establish; it goes against you even more acutely than this websites definition of data, and this is completely beside the point of the text that you're quoting, where the topic, was different, as well; this is actually another example of you veering off on tangents instead of me, if the other quoted text hadn't in the minds of readers; here, I'm also being show trying to keep the topic on the point of discussion as much as possible, given the circumstances, clearly.

I already gave you a Definition Link with Data that says Data is made up of Calculations. Data is and can be Calculations, Statistics, Observations. All of that.

It's far more logical to assume that God is the source of matter and energy, as oppose to it coming about from nothingness on a random day in the form of a point mass, where real reality involves direct and circumstantial evidence of God's existence, as well as the Bible being a valid document (e.g. I'm not doing something like disregarding the information that is available within the scholarly Christian community and then trying to draw conclusions and becoming confused in the process by comments made from someone else who is aware of a broader based of knowledge, where logic would seem to lead one to investigate all of that additional evidence and information). I'm biased towards where most of the evidence leads, stated another way, although I'm willing to admit that i'm biased; everyone has their biases for fewer people understand their biases as well; you want to be biased towards your preference that the universe sprang from a point mass, where it involves your futile efforts to try to link the one science with one perspective that are several outside of the scholarly Christian community otherwise known as secular.

Who says God isn't the source of Matter and Energy and yet Genesis 1:1 still be wrong ? How do you know that God did not create the Heavens 13 billion years ago and the Earth he forms 4 billion years ago meaning God did not form them both in the Beginning as Genesis states ?

Well, here, you're confusing data and a calculation; you don't understand that there's a difference between data and a calculation. Again, what do you think it means by their making an effort to use science to verify their perspective that the universe sprang from a point mass? It's only so far you can go with that idea, when science and technology is limited to a certain level of understanding. But, they certainly don't have as much evidence or more evidence than the scholarly Christian community on this topic, if that's what you think and are suggesting; to find out more, you'll just have to investigate the scholarly Christian community, something that you have been unwilling to do.

Data is Calculations. I gave you an example earlier, I gave you a link to Data definition and I gave you a website link that says Data is Calculations as well that you tried to shoot down.

The article that you were quoting wasn't the dictionary. Also, as explained int the text that you're quoting, my perspective is supported by my field of expertise as a chemist, where we create and process data for a living, while also deriving calculations; it's not just my word, except you're quoting an article from a laymen instead of a dictionary here; the fact that the author is laymen hasn't somehow changed, because you earlier quoted from an internet website and drew conclusions about it before I responded, as it doesn't supported this article, somehow in terms of the point that you were trying to make, versus my given response. And there is nowhere where you entered in a definition from the Webster dictionary, that's just a term that you you just created, being unable to introduce a better comeback to revive a point that was just shot down; you need to stay connected with your own text, as I introduce me responses; where you just simply never had a point, but had it explained to you over and over again; just use commonsense and abandon a point that you tried to support which was wrong for the multitude of reasons expressed for you over multiple different iterations.

Which One ? Because one of them was specifically the Webster Dictionary Website. In any case, I have shown you enough links to show my point.

I referencing the scientists within and scholarly Christian community, as a collective, to include Dr. Humphreys. And, nothing in this established your earlier post that something was simple (e.g. real reality just doesn't show that it's Dr. Humphreys against every other scientist, as you're implying, or even the collective of the scientists within the scholarly Christian community against every other scientist; there are also multiple other perspectives within the secular community with scientists using science which you haven't caught up with yet). You're more taking their word for it, you haven't done anything remotely closed to supporting your implication that there is something wrong with how Dr. Humphreys is using science. Again, just spinning in circles to avoid moving the discussion forward is not somehow proving or establishing any of your points because you don't want to look as if you're agreeing; you just have to try to address the points that are real versus the points that you would like to see made; I'm doing my best to help connect you with reality and away from your preferred preference, where it's involving your trying to make blanket assertions against the validity of the Bible and Christianity.

It can not be a blanket assumption. Not when other Scientists even whom are Christian Scientists believe in a billions of years old Earth.

That's still different from your failed point that Genesis 1:1 is somehow separate from Genesis Chapter 1 (e.g. again, you just never had a point), as you'd otherwise been trying to establish just earlier in this iteration; now, you're resorting to misusing my prior position which was never yours, as you're implying here. In the paragraph that you're quoting, it explains how a precursor earth and universe were created as gathered from the fact that days 1-3 shows God working with the earth, after earlier, where it says that the earth was void and without form (e.g. clearly, this would be a precursor leading into God working on earth to make it something different from something that is without form and void; you can then carry that further to see God further working on the universe, starting on day 4; however, this required an epiphany to be reached, given how Genesis 1:1 was previously seen as either a prelude to the rest of Genesis Chapter 1 or literally describing God as having created the universe and earth at the same time, where some churches teaches that it was during this time that Satan and his demons were expelled from earth, which I previously described; you then avoided that piece, tried to use this, and then take it and make suggestions of how God could not have done such, when it's pretty clearly that the rest of Genesis Chapter 1 describes how God created the earth and the universe in certain time intervals rather than in one split second event; finding you could not sustain your original point, you started spinning your wheels by going on tangent over tangent instead of staying on topic, where I was otherwise staying on topic, as such clarification was the original purpose for my intervening comment that such is what you were doing; your point also paints a picture that the Bible has contradictions, when it doesn't, except that there are people who wants to believe such; obvious, such is rooted in spite, as a former pastor, where pastors are there to show that the Bible doesn't have these alleged contradictions; these lack of contradictions also makes the Bible an amazing document and supports our faith as Christians, as, despite being written so long ago, it stands up to scrutiny, where, if it were as some claim, it would be explained away by advancing science and technology not supporting it; again, this is separate from a perspective and efforts to make science support that perspective).

If Genesis 1:1 is the overview of Genesis 1. Then the rest of Genesis 1 is not needed. My point is strong with what I was originally saying. Meaning I was right. It's not that the rest of Genesis 1 is separate. It's that it's not needed to make my point. You made it seem as though the rest of Genesis 1 was needed for context and I am saying it's not. Gotcha !

It's a logical insight that God just blessed me with about Genesis, so, it wouldn't be available anywhere else; should should be able to gather that much; additionally, it's explaining Genesis Chapter 1, as a whole, as you can see from the text and the description; you can be spiteful about it, but, nonetheless, that's what is happening. If you knew it was something that I logically drew from the text and can look at the text and weigh it against my points, the point that you were trying to make just feel apart for the reasons explained, not making a presumption about what you meant; if not, you would have just acknowledged my point and then explained what you meant, where I can with what you said as compared to what you were previously, while weighing what I said, at the same time.

Oh, here we go with this stuff again.

You quoted from an internet based dictionary website, not the Webster dictionary; this is just something that you sprang up; and, that dictionary did not support you point that data is the same thing as a calculation and nothing would somehow dilute my explanation about this matter as someone who worked with creating both data and calculations, thus, inferring that I'm speaking from experience, education, and expertise on this topic. Again, you only might have a point if something that you said was rooted in actual reality versus a point that you would have like to have made but failed to do so.

No, it was Merriam-Webster Dictionary website with Definitions. The definition of Data saying it's used as a basis for Calculations and Reasoning. Data is very much Calculations as from Calculating can get Data.

But, data is not the same thing as a calculation. Additionally, the number that you quoted for the age of the universe is a calculation that cannot be empirical in nature, where that's the context of this discussion, as demonstrated by you quoting the internet based dictionary to try to revive a lost point of yours.

So that Website I showed you was Lying then ? They said flat out that Data was a set of Numbers or Calculations gathered for a specific metric. It's a Source, whether you like it or not.

Physicists Have Broken The Speed of Light With Pulses Inside Hot Plasma

It took you over 2 weeks to come up with this ?

You should be able to tell who's the source of the inspiration based on the text that you're responding to, as it's such an easy extension to make to most people. Since the Bible is the source and the Word of God, most people would be able to make such a simple connection; it's hard to see how you then just sprang into the discussion these other characters. Another lost point, but, again, just abandon saving fact to advance the discussion forward. That's the real issue here. You might not want to concede, but, nonetheless, there it is as objective reality; it's just something you need to come to grips with for your own sake. Nothing is being made up here, you just sprang some words in, when you otherwise needed to just concede, objectively speaking, of course. And, again, you should just stop springing the word, evidence, as you just don't have a competent enough understanding of it, apart from just listening and following the suggestions to learn about evidence and what it really means. In this case, the evidence is proximity, as I'm defending the Word of God and God inspired me, as a true Christian, as much as you'd like to dilute that fact as a bitter former pastor, by your behavioral characteristics.

Well I can tell who the Source of Inspiration for you is, It's Loki the God of Mischief. Only he could give you such insight into creating all of this Cannon Fodder from my original point. In any case, you have not really shown that it was God who gave you this insight. It's basically your interpretation of the passage with no real evidence to show that as is. Ha Ha... Bitter Pastor. Not really, what would I have to be bitter about anyways ?

What are you talking about here? I'm responding to your prior text; thus, it isn't off topic, but, your text was off on a tangent from the topic, where I have to defend the Bible and explain to you information that you're unwilling to just go and investigate before you try to comment on it in a debate like format. This shows that you're confused about what you're doing, simply because you have points to concede and want to save face, instead.

Your off topic because you have thrown other discussion into our conversation as usual. The point is that what Genesis 1:1 is saying differs from what Current Science is saying, the Popular and Secular ones. You have not really defended the Bible or at least not very well in this case because you have jumped around the particular verse that was in question to bring other things in. I been made my point and even made you concede it.

Again, no, a perspective and not the science that wants to use science to prove that the universe emerged from a point mass from billions of years ago. For the reasons explained, the origins of the universe and the earth are more topics of history. The Bible is a historical piece of document that's credible and which explains the origins of the earth and universe. You're just hung up on a perspective that you prefer because it's making it seem as if you've saved face, after losing a point with no other way to come back at it. That perspective is trying to use science to verify the idea that the universe sprang into existence from a point mass; this has been explained to you more than two dozen times now. It's all in the data, evidence, and information found within the scholarly Christian community that has been gathered, following the application of science and technology to the extent that something like this can be known with humanity's current level of science, as we've used science to support our perspective which is that Genesis Chapter 1 is correct.

It's not just a perspective it's what the Science is saying about it. I even gave you examples of Christian Scientists who also accept the Science of a Billion of Years old Earth and Universe. Where are you examples of Secular Scientists who see the evidence for a 6000 year old Earth ?

How are you again back on describing Genesis Chapter 1 as Genesis 1:1, after previously trying to steal my prior position that Genesis 1:1 was a prelude for Genesis Chapter 1, where my inspiration from God is that Genesis 1:1 is describing the creation of the precursors for the earth and the universe? Here, you're going off on a lost tangent again, to try wiggling this little piece of text off on a tangent to avoid conceding another lost point so that the discussion can move forward. Again, brighten up again and learn the difference between a perspective and how it's different from science. This mini discussion certainly is all about whether God being the source of mass and energy as far more logical than a point mass springing from nothingness, where science is also being used to demonstrate the God perspective and to bring life to the idea that the universe sprang into existence from God, instead.

No, Genesis 1:1 being a prelude to Genesis 1 was my point. You tried to say I needed to take all of Genesis 1, the point being that if Genesis 1:1 is a prelude to Genesis 1 as a whole than my point was correct that Genesis 1:1 is in conflict with Popular Science. That is all.

Again, the issue here is that you're not competent in understanding evidence along with your unwillingness to examine the evidence that is available within the scholarly Christian community, where they're helping people to understand how to correctly recognize and interpret evidence; this, in tern, is then causing you your own problems with expanding your knowledge enough to actually participate in this discussion, rather than trying to save face, as you've long been lost to the discussion. The Bible is a type of evidence in this case, because history is being describe. I'm both responding to some of your text and explaining to you how to find and interpret evidence, not trying to meet your view of evidence, as I'm trying to keep the discussion rooted in reality. Evidence comes in different forms and varieties, where the context sets the discussion.

The real issue here is that you have been beaten essentially by your own words and now you are heading for insults and long worded replies because you got nothing else really.

No, but it should be leading you in a direction to understand the discussion, based on my responding to your prior text, yet you have to do yourself some good and follow those directions.

The question is do you understand the discussion ? You already conceded and had to try to flip your words to say well that Science is just a perspective but if it is then why do even Scientists who are Christian accept it as true as well ?

If you say what I commented on wasn't leading you to evidence than I was responding based on that suggestion, obviously. Again, you're stunting a possibility for yourself to be able to expand your knowledge with your unwillingness to examine the evidence within the scholarly Christian community which comes with suggestions that will help you to properly understand evidence, where it's much broader than your comments are implying. This isn't an assumption, just logical extensions under the given circumstances and context.

So more Cannon Fodder ? What evidence would the Scholarly Christian Community have that would defeat the conflict between Popular Science and Genesis 1:1 ?

No you didn't, but I did. You've been using something other than the Bible, when you were unsuccessful in drifting the discussion off on a tangent in place of conceding a point on each of these different iterations. My interpretation isn't hearsay, because it's either right before your eyes in the Bible or available in a location that you're unwilling to visit, which has available what I've explained; it only seems hearsay to you, because you wouldn't go and investigate the data and scientific evidence supporting the Bible within the scholarly Christian community. I made a new interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 that no one had made before, where it's divinely connected and where I'm defending God and His Word, so, the proximity and timing should be very easy to make as evidence.

Okay, now I know you are trolling me.

Do you mean Genesis 1 as in Genesis 1:1 or Genesis Chapter 1, here? I ask because you previously didn't seem to make the connection that I'm responding to your prior blocks of text. But, in the text that you're quoting, the use of precursor earth and universe and how they're connected to Genesis should be simple to understand. Precursor, because Genesis Chapter 1 breaks down different stages of the creation, after creating a form of the earth and universe in Genesis 1:1 that required work to reach the finished product during the rest of Genesis Chapter 1.

I have read Genesis 1 several times. Never saw Genesis 1:1 as a Precursor Earth and Precursor Universe. Only that this was an overview of what God had done in Genesis 1:1 and the rest of it was God explaining how he done it in detail.

The two perspectives conflict, not the actual science. Genesis 1:1, in and of itself, does not conflict with science, because it's an initial product that God works on throughout the rest of Genesis Chapter 1, before a final product that is still different from the product that we currently experience, because of the Fall; God's finished product was that period of time between day 6 and the Fall (e.g. based on Adam's age, when Seth was born, either 100 years or 87 years had passed between day 6 and the Fall, as he was 187, when Seth was born; thus, Adam lived 100 years before the Serpent tempted Eve to partake of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil or 87 years old, as a best estimate; during this 100 years, light was traveling in this other medium while the universe was expanding, but, the time dilation affecting the earth was at its most acute level; and, then, between the Fall and Noah, time dilation was extremely acute, but, somewhat less acute than this 100 year period; then, between Noah and Abraham, the effects of time dilation dissipated immensely; it then further dissipated between Abraham and Moses; but, after Moses up to David, it's possible that time dilation was still a factor, just not at the level and nature that it was prior to Moses; and, this time dilation between Moses and David is the type that we've only been able to observe today such as that which is created by the event horizon of a black hole; understanding and describing this would be science separate from the perspective).

Well one of the perspectives as you call it is considered Science or Popular Science or Secular Science and it is adhered to by even some Christians who are Scientists. See, too much of this is your own interpretation. How in the Hell would you know about the nature of the Time Dilation between the Fall of Man and Noah or the time between Abraham and Moses ? That's assuming too much. Trying to fit things into holes we do not know.

I explained how the science enters into the discussion, reasoning that God created light, worked with the earth on days 1-3, and then created the sun, moon, and stars on day 4; this part is our perspective, as it's being described by the Bible as a historical source that has held up to scrutiny over time quite well, so, it's reasonable to assume that it's also a piece of very reliable evidence. The science enters the picture with light reaching the earth from a different location than where the sun is currently located (e.g. the current location of the sun is used to calculate the velocity of light within the medium that is the vacuum of space; transferring it back to the Bible, this is the finished product and one that came after the Fall); the precursor universe was a different medium for the light to travel within than the current medium referred to as a vacuum, where the light was also at a different location than the sun, which wasn't created until day 4. From that description, light had to reached earth from this different location instantaneously or nearly so, based on God's description, as recorded in Genesis Chapter 1.

This is waaaaaaay off my point though. I mean what does this have to do with the original point ?

Based on the different medium and different location for light to travel before it could reach the earth, we would then use science to compute a different velocity for light in this different medium; understanding how light moves faster in this other medium than it does in the current medium that is the vacuum of space is also the science. This work is the science of gathering data which can then be used for a new calculation that would allow us to know that the velocity for light was different from the velocity being used within the calculation that approximates the universe to be 14 billion years old, where the medium that light was traveling was also different from what we currently call the vacuum of space.

This again helps None when considering my point. How is Science showing that God created the Heavens and the Earth around the same time when we have other Scientists who use Calculations / Data to suggest there was a massive gap between the time of Heavens creation and Earth creation conflicting with Genesis 1:1 ?

I'm doing this to help you and readers understand the difference between science and different perspectives, where the science is being used to verify a perspective; but, many people should have understood such, after so many iterations; I just need to stay with you so that readers aren't in some way confused by your attempting to save face instead of expanding your knowledge and understanding.

It's not on topic though...

Here, you're just confused because you aren't listening. Plus, there is like a 70:30 ratio, for the reasons previously explained for you. Additionally, the 4 billion year old number is not a form of data, it's an extrapolation from how radiological decay should occur, if you presume certain things that are explained for you within the scholarly Christian community; again, this is that divergence between science and history that I explained for you several times. This is where you can help yourself by gathering information from somewhere other than your preferred source. By your actions in not wanting to visit the scholarly Christian community to expand your knowledge, you're implying that there's something not credible about the data, evidence, information, and science within the scholarly Christian community, when you simply lack any expertise and training in science to be able to know or even explain what you think is wrong with that information to be found. Starting off, you can't even explain how Dr. Humphreys is somehow not using science correctly; if you did somehow do that all on your own and managed to persuade me, objectively speaking, where I should otherwise be persuaded, you'd still be a far cry from matching your actions that somehow nothing within the scholarly Christian community is credible, even though scientists, and, me, as a scientist, find information there quite credible.

No, I know what I am talking about. That's why you do not really have examples of Scientists who are Secular who believe as a lot of Scholarly Christians do about a Younger Earth. In any case, the 4 billion year old Earth is a calculation which can be considered a form of data.

It was already explained for you, that many of these people are trying to confirm for themselves that the universe sprang from a point mass. This area of science fits more into the theoretical physics category, so, they can't actually take into account data; this is again showing that you still do not understand that there's a difference between data and a calculation from someone's whose expertise was working with both data and calculations as a scientists. This is also at the divergence between history and science. I already explained for you how to go from our perspective and then derive science from it in order to derive a measurement, data, and different calculations; from there, it's evidence, since the Bible is a form of evidence that's being repeatedly scrutinized and verified, where it's at that divergence point between science and history, provided you knew how to create data and then derive calculations from that data. Additionally, but, again, the scholarly Christian community has evidence, data, and information for calculating the age of the earth; you'll need to start studying that available information to start developing an understanding.

But that is what you believe about them against what we really know. How do you know they can not take into account data ? Maybe that is exactly what they are doing.

This is beside the point and also just plan wrong. The majority of the earth population are Christians; then, monotheism is the largest majority of earth's population, which includes Christianity. And, then, there's like a 70:30 block of other scientists versus the ones that you prefer. If the science supports the Bible and the Bible is connected to God, then, to avoid being deceived, you should be looking for the science that connects you to God, given how much is at stake, in that direction. Looking for something else is basically like looking for a means to indoctrinate yourself, as you certainly can't dispute their science for those in the scholarly Christian community; best to learn and expand your knowledge.

The Majority of the Earth's population are not Scientists. That was the Point.

Here, you're trying to mix perspectives. I've already explained that science is being used to explain different perspectives. God could have created the heaven and the earth the way in He explained it in Genesis Chapter 1, but, you'll have to actually pay attention to the text that you're quoting, as usually, that would denote that you've read the text and understood it enough to response; so far, you haven't done such or demonstrated such; you're making snide remarks and trying to move the discussion off on a tangent, having nothing left to do other than to concede points, otherwise. It's a matter of understanding that there is a difference between data and a calculation. You'll need to be willing to expand upon what you know and are trying to understand by simply visiting the scholarly Christian community and having them explain for you the science, data, evidence, and information.

It's not a different perspective though if you ask a lot of Scientists who believe in the 4 billion year old Earth they would say that the Earth being 6000 - 10000 years old is nonsense and not based on real data or calculations. Even some Christian Scientists do not believe it so you have that as well.

This isn't the entirety off what the dictionary said, where I broke it down for you. Data isn't the same thing as a calculation. Its not a matter of what I want, it's a matter of connecting yourself with real reality so that you can then more forward with the discussion on the right foot.

Go back and look at Webster's Dictionary answer for Data you will see it's information used for reasoning, discussion or calculations.

This is an example where you're clearly not understanding the text that you're quoted, even where it's plain from a quoting from a dictionary and where I'm explaining for you what the dictionary is saying, where my profession is deriving data and performing calculations; data just simply isn't the same thing as a calculation, where you were always just simply wrong, where the topic was that the 14 billion year number was just a calculation. Calculate: to determine or ascertain by mathematical methods; compute: to calculate the velocity of light. (dictionary.com); calculation: A mathematical determination of the size or number of something (lexico.com); calculation: the procedure of calculating; determining something by mathematical or logical methods; problem solving that involves numbers or quantities (vocabulary.com)

You explained what it means to calculate but that does not mean that calculations can not be or are not Data. I already gave you a great definition of Data, multiple times now.

For the reasons explained, the number you were quoting is just a calculation and data is different from a calculation. No one observed the universe springing into existence from a point mass 14 billion years ago. Again, this is a topic at the divergent point between science and history, where the Bible has demonstrated itself to be a credible historical document; however, God is explaining how He created the earth and universe through the Bible.

Well technically it's both Data and Calculation as it's calculated and seen as the Data from the Calculation up to this point. Obviously, if it comes to past that the Calculation was wrong then we can say that this Data is the stuff that comes out of Bull Butts...

Here, again, you're demonstrating that you can't understand that science is different from a perspective, similar to your not understanding that data is not the same thing as a calculation; our perspective can't be governed by another perspective; the only link that has to be is the tool of science, which I explained, but, where the explanation is also not intended to be exhaustive. Acute time dilation is a factor in explaining the configuration of the stars in the universe relative to the earth, along with their distances, but, light moving in a different medium is a major factor; the 9 billion year old number is derived from the speed of light, which had a different velocity at the time of Genesis Chapter 1, where the medium was also different; the universe then evolved for the 100 years between day 4 and the Fall; the fundamental constants were also not yet defined, during parts in Genesis Chapter 1, where the Fall likely impacted the fundamental constants, once they were finally defined; during this time, the earth was under the influence of acute time dilation, while light was traveling in a different medium; the universe was then expanding, but, not necessarily at a constant rate.

Nah, you are assuming too much. Here from saying that it was 100 years between day 4 and the Fall of Man to assuming that Time Dilation occurred to the extent of a 9 Billion Year gap of time closing. Yes, Light can travel at different velocities but you can not just assume it was or to what speed it was during those events.

No this is just plan wrong, where you took from things that I previously said: a lot more data points to the earth being somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years old. The earth being 4 billion years old is based on much less data, which is mainly through radiological chemistry found in textbooks, but, leaving out other critical information that they explain for you within the scholarly Christian community; the scholarly Christian community is very anxious for people to see this other data, while the group that you prefer will not mention this information, because it doesn't support their perspective.

It's not just plain wrong otherwise you would not have so many Scientists claiming it is correct including Christian ones.

Dr. Humphreys uses science to explain this for you, and I used science to explain it for you, by putting my expertise in deriving data to explain this for you; you also have to understand that there is a difference between science and a perspective, where one perspective (e.g. that the universe sprang from a points mass, randomly out of nothingness, where, it's clear that such was made up to avoid describing science as agreeing with the Bible) cannot govern another perspective (e.g. Genesis Chapter 1, where science is used and God being the source of mass and energy is logical).

Dr. Humphreys tried to explain it using Science but it makes little sense when you have to assume so much here. You have to assume how Time Dilation worked between the time God created the Heavens into the early days of Man and so forth.

Because Genesis Chapter 1 gives the sequence and time intervals where God created a precursor earth and universe at the same time, as a starting point. Most of the data measuring the age of the earth is confirming its age to be somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years old. The Bible is holding up to scrutiny as a historical text, where this question is otherwise more one of history instead of science, given our current level of science and technology; however, from what we do know now, after being willing to examine what's available within the scholarly Christian community, we can accept, with a degree of confidence, along with facts, evidence, and data that God most likely created the universe and earth as described in Genesis Chapter 1.

Genesis 1:1 never says it's a precursor Earth or precursor Universe. Where is the evidence for this claim ? It's really just your own opinion about it.

The rest of Genesis Chapter 1 is necessary to explain the time intervals used to create the earth and universe and to help explain how science supports our perspective. I used my expertise to explain how to derive data from the velocity of light (e.g. what was available in a precursor universe on days 1-3 version what was created on day 4), given how that's used to postulate that the universe is 14 billion years old within another perspective.

Genesis 1 is not needed for the original point though. You made up an excuse to say well God created a precursor Earth and precursor Universe in the beginning because you Saw exactly what I was getting at. The problem is there is no evidence for this proposal you put forward.

The key word in the phrase that you're quoting is empirical, as in data or empirical data.

The website explains that Data is made up of Calculations and Webster's Dictionary also says that Data is made up of Calculations.

An interesting thought if about God being Perfect. I often think about this one because if God be Perfect then why did he create anything ? Even if he desired to express Love. To desire something is not not really be Perfect as you want something. Obviously Love is best shown through expression to another being but is all this other stuff really needed if it's just God wanting to express Love ? Would God desire to express Love if He already be Complete and Perfect before the Creation of everything started.

Its whats wrong with the world. Now I dont disrespect it nor the people who involve itself with it but lets be real, every human atrocity that has been done is caused by religion.

An interesting thought if about God being Perfect. I often think about this one because if God be Perfect then why did he create anything ? Even if he desired to express Love. To desire something is not not really be Perfect as you want something. Obviously Love is best shown through expression to another being but is all this other stuff really needed if it's just God wanting to express Love ? Would God desire to express Love if He already be Complete and Perfect before the Creation of everything started.

Deuteronomy 32:4- “The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust; Righteous and upright is he” Being perfect does not mean you never want anything. He is morally upright and just and he alone sets the standard of what right and wrong should be. In that sense he is Perfect

How do you define "perfect"? That can be an incredibly subjective term. What the perfect steak is depends on who is eating it. It seems subjective to me to claim that the Creator, who has every right to create and make His creation anyway he chooses, is not perfect for choosing to create. Do you desire good things for the people around you? Does that not make you evil by your standard then? To desire to do good, does not seem to be imperfect to me. Desire to do good actually seems like the perfect response, so I just can't reach the conclusion that "desire" is a sign of weakness or imperfection - but can be a sign of moral character.

@king_saturn:

technically Deuteronomy 32:4 is Wrong because not all of God's activity is Perfect as God created Man and Man is pretty flawed

That is a common idea I’ve heard, that God messed up because he created a flawed man. But did he create Man flawed or did he create man perfect and man himself through his own decisions make himself flawed and lose his perfection? To illustrate a construction worker showed up to work drunk and in doing so broke much of the equipment that was needed to do the job. Is it logical for the construction worker to blame the manufacturer of the equipment for making such faulty equipment or would you blame the poor choices of the worker? Similarly, Adam made the conscious choice to disobey God. His death was only contingent on him doing the one thing God said not to do, thus had he not done it, he would even still be here today. Galatians 6:7 says “For whatever a person is sowing, this he will also reap” That is true for all humans, even Adam. He made a stupid choice and thus got a bad consequence. He lost his perfection by his own merit. God did not make him flawed, he became flawed by his own choice. Job 34:10 says “It is unthinkable for the true God to act wickedly, For the Almighty to do wrong!” Do you not think that is true?

Also, Perfect can and has been defined as satisfying all requirements or lacking in no essential detail

There is nothing that God needs. He is complete, holy and perfect. This definition implies creation is essential to Him, as if it’s something He needs. Thing is it isn’t, God has no beginning (Psalm 90:2) thus he has proven for countless eons he doesn’t NEED anything to live his perfect life. Also wanting to do something does not mean you were previously lacking. I really want to visit Greece, but if I go my whole lifetime without doing it I won’t be bent out of shape over it or feel I’m lacking in some way. Likewise out of love God created us, not because he needed to, or because he was missing something but because he wanted to. That does not mean he was missing out in any way, shape or form.

@king_saturn:

If God could create a Man who would freely do as he says and not disobey then you could say his ways are Perfect but for God to create something that he knew would not do what he says and disobeys means he created a Flawed Being.

Could you call that free will then? Creating a being that cannot choose to make a wrong decision is essentially creating a robot that can only do what he is programmed to. Doing so would run counter to God’s love. Then we’d be discussing how God isn’t perfect because he made Adam without the ability to choose.

Also, Job 34:10 would be wrong if Isaiah 45:7 is correct. God creates Evil according to that scripture.

Evil from the perspective of wrong doers. That is why some Bibles translate Isaiah 45:7 as “I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity” He creates calamity for the wicked, such as when he destroyed a wicked world in the Flood. Had he not and stood idle, then we’d be discussing how God is imperfect because he did nothing while the Earth was filled with violence and innocent people were being hurt. Job 34:10 is still valid because he does not do wrong and his way is just. He uses his ability to cause calamity in a just way, against those that do evil. Thus he retains his perfection

Well God could not have truly been complete because if he was why create all this

You are defining what is complete through your own lens. He does not have to feel without anything to want to do something. Had he not created everything perhaps we may be arguing that God is imperfect because he has this incredible power and sat static doing nothing. Either way God doesn’t win in this scenario. When we stop looking at technical definitions of what “perfect“ means and look at the one who sets the standard for what perfection is and let Him define it, we see he was not without. He is holy, complete and perfect. Always has been, always will be. Perfect is whatever he says it is.

It even makes less sense when you consider how much Sorrow the Creation has caused for God

This is again assuming God created Adam and humanity flawed and imperfect, but again every person makes their own choices... even perfect ones. Adam chose wrong and lost his perfection and thus we inherited that same defect. The world is the way it is because of Adam and the one who started the rebellion of man in the first place and misleads the world today, Satan. God isn’t to blame. This is also only true if God does not intend on doing anything about it. Let’s look at Psalm 37:10, 11: “Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more; You will look at where they were, And they will not be there. But the meek will possess the earth, And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.” So it does make sense, if you choose to let the Scriptures harmonize with each other.

Got you soon, but, you're only repeating yourself and wrapped in a pretzel.

@king_saturn:

Yes, it would still be Free Will. Just because God creates us with a bend to do Right does not mean he forces us to do Right. It would essentially be God creating a bunch of people with the personality of Jesus / Yeshua. Nah, because you still have the right to choose you just choose not to do wrong things.

Are you saying Jesus did not have the ability to do wrong? Do you not think Jesus was perfect?

The Bible does not go into great detail about this so we cannot say what those people were like that died from the pestilence. We cannot say those men themselves were not wicked. At the end of the day God reads hearts and he knows who’s deserving of calamity and who is not. God can see each individual and choose to see their potential and what they’re capable of. And even so, God has the ability to resurrect people that die. Acts 24:15 says ”And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.”

We can not argue about what God can or can not do if he never creates us actually. Also, God wanting to do something in essence is God desiring something cause to "Want to Do something" is to desire to do action. If Perfect is subjective it's whatever anyone says it is essentially.

And hypothetically God not wanting to create us is also desiring something. If we keep measuring perfection by what we think “complete“ means then God will never be perfect no matter what he does. You could argue if he was alone he was going without because he did not have subjects. So really this is a discussion hinging on the definition what ”perfect” means. What the Bible calls “perfect” is based off what God deems perfect. Jesus said at Matt 5:48- “You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” So in that sense perfect is whatever He says it is.

No, Adam was created Flawed if he was Perfect he would have done as God asked him to. If Jesus is the example of Perfection, then you see that Perfection is something that is a constant and not something that goes away by bad choices.

You assume Jesus was incapable of making a bad decision. If it was impossible for Jesus to make a bad decision how could he reasonably be tempted by Satan at Matthew chapter 4? Are you arguing Jesus is more perfect than his Father? Being without want is the basis for what you’re defining as perfection and yet even Jesus is guilty of desiring things. Romans 5:19 even compared Jesus to Adam saying “For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous” Jesus was fully capable of making a wrong decision. It wasn’t out of his ability to do. He CHOSE to remain faithful and that’s how he continued to remain perfect. And he was only perfect because he did the will of his Father

Pretty Quick Response... kind of shocked.

Well, you should pay attention to the text. For one thing, we're talking about the Bible. No reasonably thinking person would come up with the name, Loki, in this context. Just pay attention to the text you're quoting, as it implies that you're responding to it, because you read and understood it well enough to address the information in the text.

Just because we are talking about The Bible does not mean you can not be influenced by other Forces.

I sure have, as the information came in proximity with defending Genesis Chapter 1, where my approach was never thought of before, as you pointed out that no one had ever described a precursor earth and a precursor earth before, in reference to Genesis 1:1. this comment here just illustrates your unwillingness to just simply admit when you're just wrong. Or, maybe, you just didn't understand yourself when you said this in a prior iteration, except it still follows your unwillingness to just admit that you're wrong and allow the conversation to have that natural forward progression.

Negative, all you have done is give your interpretation of the scripture and that was after you had essentially conceded my original point. In any case, you seem to think someone else pointed out a precursor Earth and precursor Heavens. Name this other Person with a source if I am so wrong as you say.

Here, again, you just simply don't know what you're talking about, when you just throw out this word, evidence. I described pretty well how I came up with the term, precursor earth and universe, where I connected with the text from Genesis Chapter 1 that I was making reference (e.g. and the earth was without form and void, is another way saying that earth was in a precursor state, at this particular time in history that is being described by Genesis Chapter 1).

Evidence is the available body or facts or information whether or not a belief or proposition is true or valid. Basic Definition. What you have stated is your interpretation of the passage. This is not facts and since we can not validate where you got it from it's essentially hearsay and not valid information. The Earth without form or void is just that. The Earth in another state. It's not a precursor Earth because it's the same Planet. Precursor means like a forerunner or something that exists before another thing. It's the same Earth and same Heavens just in a different state.

It's on topic, given that I'm responding to a particular block of text from you; I then have to describe my response; do you even know how to make this simply context between your text and my response to it? Again, just admit when you were wrong and a point was made so that the conversation can have that natural forward progression.

The block of text was a side step from the original point. It's essentially cannon fodder.

In the given context, suggesting that science is secular or popular just has no real meaning. Science is just science; there aren't any separate types of sciences. Secular is a perspective, in the context of this discussion. Popular is a perspective, in the context of this discussion. Again, the ratio is something like 70:30, where the perspective that you prefer is that 30 versus the 70, which consists of other perspectives using science. One of those other perspectives is the group of scientists who are apart of the scholarly Christian community.

It's not that Science is Secular or Popular it's that these terms set apart what you was using as Science against what I am talking about here. That was the point. You got bent out of shape about me calling the 4 billion year old Earth point as Science so we broke it into two teams. Christian Science and Popular Science.

Well, part of my goal is to reconnect you with real reality, as I had to describe how what you were saying or suggesting was just simply wrong and so, had no real meaning. From there, you'll just have to start paying attention to the text that you're quoting and demonstrate your attentiveness by responding directly to the text, not just coming back to save face based on a point that you just simply lost. From there, I can only speak to the objective and show objectively that I've responded and shot down pretty much every point you're tried to make, objectively speaking, of course.

It was not wrong though. You even had to concede the point. That's why you started talking about a precursor Earth and precursor Heavens because the passage of Genesis 1:1 would conflict with Science and that was a problem.

Well, if you'd pay attention to the text that you're quoting, it surely is a perspective, not science. Again, since there isn't a separate science to be discussed, it has to be a separate perspective.

See there you go again. If it's just a perspective then why are so many Scientists claiming it to be true based on Data / Calculations ?

Actually, you just mentioned one individual by name, but, that doesn't somehow convert a perspective into a separate science. Here, also, you've refused to examine the data, evidence, science, and information available within the scholarly Christian community supporting their perspective.

Well it's one big name actually, Dr. Hugh Ross. I think also Dr. William Lane Craig is on board with an Old Earth as well. These are people who do examine the evidence on top of the fact that you have other Scientists who examine the evidence as well.

I've provided you the name of one scientist who supports the 6000 year old earth, as his perspective is apart of the scholarly Christian community, and I directed you towards the scholarly Christian community who have a number of other scientists who support the perspective of a 6000 year old earth. I also went through several iterations with you explaining for you that there are several perspectives within the secular context. Also, there would be no escaping the scientific data that would support the earth being 6000-10,000 years old number, unless they could refute the finding and explaining how the finding was faulty; they'd have no choice but to acknowledge that evidence (e.g. the evidence is found within the scholarly Christian community but you'll have to be willing to see it; again, you're being unwilling to examine it does not somehow remove it from existence). Here, you're talking out of a state of confusion because you're trying to saving face on a solid point that there are different perspectives discussing one science (e.g. in this context, it's not a matter of evidence, it's that one perspective is that God is the source of matter and energy and using science to demonstrate such, while the other perspective wants to believe that the universe sprang into existence from nothingness through a point mass, and is attempting to use science to demonstrate such; thus, naturally, you're not going to find someone from the latter perspective who's looking to derive data showing that God is the source of matter and energy, since they prefer it being a point mass; and then, of course, there are several perspectives in the secular context).

Dr. Humphreys is a Christian Scientist he is not a Secular Scientist. Moving along.....

No, there are several iterations early on that I have quoted showing me shooting down a point that you tried to establish that somehow Genesis 1:1 was separate from the rest of Genesis Chapter 1. God then inspired me to call Genesis 1:1 step one in His creation process, where I entered in the concept of the precursor earth and precursor universe. There are also several iterations where you were still trying to revive your dead point that Genesis 1:1 is somehow separate from Genesis Chapter 1. it's more about conceding points to allow the conversation to have a forward progression and your unwillingness to allow it.

You have not shot down my point. You just gave your interpretation and said so. Nothing there shows that it was a precursor Earth only that the Earth was just in a different state. It's the same Planet still though.

Yeah, and, this is a moot point, as I addressed it and shot it down; simply put, you were just wrong and have always been wrong, but, you have to pay attention to the text that you're quoting and respond specifically to that text, as you're drafting your response(s). Genesis Chapter 1 supports a different perspective that science can then be applied to support that perspective; however, the problem is you have to be willing to take a look at the evidence within the scholarly Christian community to help you understand that science supports Genesis Chapter 1 via the proper interpretation, which comes from the correct perspective. Again, there aren't different sciences, there are different perspectives using one science.

How could you shoot down a point you was trying to make ? Why ?

I never said that science was just a perspective, I clearly said that science is being used to support different perspectives on dozens of iterations for you now. Except, you remain confused on the matter of separating science and a perspective. I also actually directed you to the scholarly Christian community to learn from the scientists there, as they describe how science supports our perspective.

But it's not though. Most Scientists agree with the Earth being Billions of Years Old.

The scholarly Christian community is there to describe how science supports the perspective that is Genesis Chapter 1. it would start to become clear for you, once you've taken the initiative to find and then process that information. Certainly, they're not there to make a case for how Genesis Chapter 1 is in conflict with science, when, for one, it isn't, when the science is properly interpreted. This question is mostly based on your attempt to revive a lost point revolving your earlier misunderstanding that a perspective was not the same thing as science, but, where you keep trying to revive that lost point, even after several dozen different explanations for you, which helps a reader to understand that science and a perspective are two different things.

You are missing the point.

Sure, go back to paragraph one; this is evidence that God is my inspiration; thus, naturally, it wouldn't be all over the place yet have me trying to make the case that God was my inspiration; that was the case that you unsuccessful tried to make: that there was no evidence that it was God Who was my inspiration.

That's not evidence because there is not a way to validate that it was God who gave you that information.

No, here, you're confused with the matter that science and a perspective are different, plus, you're demonstrating that you're not paying attention to the text that you're quoting, so as to provide responses to the different blocks of text.

How do you know that "Their Perspective" is not Science when they have Data / Calculations to back up their own claims ?

You know it by being really attentive to what's being described in the Bible in the referred to periods. Again, this is another God inspired inspiration for me. I've answered several questions for you, but, you haven't been writing anything to demonstrate that you're likely to pay attention; thus, why would I give yet another answer? This question seems more rhetorical as a setup for even more snide remarks, where I can just leave it here, as it achieves my objective to shoot down yet another unsuccessful attempt at a point by you.

So, you made this up as well. Wonderful...

It's pretty well explained in the text you're quoting. That's a means of deriving data using science, based on the descriptions in Genesis Chapter 1; this is a way to show how science supports our perspective. Plus, you're original point had to be corrected, given that it involved open ended claims against Genesis Chapter 1 conflicted with science, when it's a perspective that it conflicts with, instead.

My original point was never corrected. No one has defeated the conflict between what Science is saying and what the Bible is saying in Genesis 1:1.

The text that you're quoting helps to a massive degree, but, you're just missing the points and how they use science to support Genesis Chapter 1. I've already explained for you on several iterations that those scientists are trying to use science to support their perspective that the universe springing into existence from nothing via a points mass and that such doesn't govern your perspective that God is the source of mass and energy; the evidence, science, data, and information is available within the scholarly Christian community; taking the initiative to look through that information will then allow to you answer your own question, objectively speaking of course. I've also explained this in other blocks of text; this illustrates that you couldn't be picking up on what you're quoting.

You are assuming what those Scientists are doing. That's the problem.

No, it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of perspective; they're not disagreeing with them, due to the science being described, they're trying to support a different perspective using science. This is just an objective description of what's actually going on. Both perspectives are using and describing how science would support their perspective, taken from someone who's taken the initiative to examine what's available within the scholarly Christian community, of course. There's more data supporting the scholarly Christian community perspective for the age of the earth, for the reasons previously described.

It is a matter of belief because if you accept what Science is saying by the majority of the Scientists you would see the data in favor of a much older Earth in comparison to a thousands of years old one. It's that simple.

It's being described in the text that you're quoting; you'll just have to pay attention and respond from there.

You are assuming things again...

This is just something that you just sprang in from the ether for lack of a better comeback; you never made a point that the majority of earth's population aren't scientists. And, you can't be paying attention, because all scientists don't support the perspective that you insist on leaning. If you're now trying to make a point that all scientists support that perspective, then, you're wrong, yet again, as I've been directing describing scientists who don't support that perspective, from the perspective of the scholarly Christian community, and then pointed you towards statistics showing that the majority of scientists don't support that perspective, even though they are also of a different perspective from my prefer perspective; this was done for you quite some time ago and during multiple iterations.

No, this was my point. That if the majority of the Scientists was accepting the Data for a billions of years old Earth against a minority of them. Why lean towards the minorities data especially when there are even Christians who are Scientists who also lean towards a much older Earth.

Why would you set off on a journey to ask scientists who are trying to use science to verify that the earth is 4 billion years old if they think the earth is somewhere between 6000-10000 years old? In science, you have to show that something is nonsense, not say that something is nonsense. Whoever told you this certainly cannot substantiate their claim that it isn't based on real data or calculations, as it's presented right before your very eyes within the scholarly Christian community (e.g. obviously, there's a reason behind my trying to goad people into trying to demonstrate such a claim, where no one with such an open ended claim has ever even set out to take the challenge, yet along successfully shown it to be the case). The scientists from the perspective of the scholarly Christian community are saying that the earth is between 6000 and 10,000 years old, because they obviously have data, science, evidence, and calculations to support their position. This generalized lack of understand is again created by your own refusal to just simply take the initiative and examine the evidence, data, science, calculations, and information available within the scholarly Christian community. These are the points that have been provided for you through several iterations now. Again, are you prepared to show that the evidence, data, information, etc within the scholarly Christian community is all faulty and describe how so in thorough detail? You certainly couldn't, especially if you refuse to see it, as scientists who have that interest in seeing it can't reach an exhaustive level. Again, you're hoping what you say is correct, but, that's not how reality works.

I would not set off on a Journey. That's what YouTube, Google and Internet Sources are for. We can see what other Scientists are thinking and what Data or Calculations they have gathered just by sitting at home and typing on a Computer or Laptop.

Those weren't the points being made; the point was that data and calculations aren't the same thing.

Data is made up of Calculations. They can be the same thing as I have said.

They certainly do; they describe for you the meaning of a calculation. Data is something different from a calculation, for the reasons used, when I took your link and broke down the meaning of data to show that it was different from a calculation.

Negative, the definition of Data includes that it is made up of Calculations. I even gave you another website that flat out said that Data was calculations.

The number that you're quoting is just a calculation. Data has to be acquired from observation and experience, where, the matter under investigation is a point in history that no human being could have observed or experienced; hence, it's a matter of history; it's also important to know that the Bible is a record of history and has held up to scrutiny, so, it's credible.

When people do the Data for the Homicides in America. Do they actually observe and experience all of those Homicides or do they calculate the Data from given sources and databanks that store the calculated information about total Homicides ? Data is not something that has to be observed it's something that can be calculated as well.

I giving a description of how you would acquire data, given the description of history; this would be science in action to support a perspective.

That's one way you can get Data another way is by Calculations.

I'm not incorporating 4 billion years, because that's from a different perspective; honestly, it also doesn't have much basis in reality, as that number is filled with actual assumptions for the reasons already described, except you'd need to pay attention to the text that you're quoting. I'm describing how you can derive data; once you've gotten certain unknowns you can then create a calculation; that would be science supporting our perspective.

You are still assuming a great deal of Time Dilation even from a 6000 to 10000 year old Earth. You do not have the data available to assume so much. Knowing that Time Dilation occurs does not mean you know by how much it did or when God used it. It's not given in the Bible and the best implications is only from God stretching the Heavens in certain verses. Still a Stretch, pun intended.

No one is supporting what you wrote in the quoted text that I then described is being plainly wrong. You created that text, because you're not paying attention well enough to respond to the blocks of texts that you're quoting.

No one is supporting a 4 billion year old Earth ? No one is supporting a 13 billion year old Universe ? No one can calculate that the time between 4 billion and 13 billion is 9 billion ? No one can see that what Science is trying to say here conflicts with God creating the Heavens and the Earth in the beginnings as Genesis 1:1 says ? Heh, I think not.

No, I'm afraid that it's just a matter that you simply don't actually know what Dr. Humphreys said so that you begin to take the necessary steps to describe how his science is wrong, if it even is wrong. Again, it's only something that you're hoping can be true.

I do know because Humphreys himself says he tries to cross reference The Bible with what is given in Science meaning he is looking at the Data he can through the lens of what The Bible is saying. Problem is that gives no real leeway to Time Dilation as it's not really stated in the Bible you can only imply that it occurred at certain days but how can you know ? On what evidence ?

I described this for you several times now, but, you'll have to pay attention to the text that you're quoting. Genesis Chapter 1 explains how God went from a precursor universe and precursor earth and created a finished product for earth and the universe by day 7, mainly, by day 5. The precursor part is my inspiration, thanks to God, otherwise, it wouldn't be an inspiration from God if it were already all over the place before I said it.

And I said that Genesis 1:1 is not describing a precursor Earth as that would be to imply there was another earlier Earth. It's the same Earth just in a different state.

It was described how the original point was wrong and took so many iterations, because you kept trying to save face and revive dead points, when there was no reviving those points.

The original point is not wrong. You even had to concede it was right.

No, it isn't; I plainly describe why I was inspired by God to write down the precursor earth and precursor universe, where, normally, most pastors treat Genesis 1:1 as a prelude for the rest of Genesis Chapter 1. the Bible text, plus my explanation, shows why there was a precursor for the universe and earth before God created the finished product by day 5. on day 5 and day 6, God populated the finished product for earth.

Well, so you say.

I used the dictionary to break down for you how data isn't the same thing as a calculation and then used a dictionary to define a calculation for you.

Negative, you used the dictionary to define what Calculate or Calculation is. That did not prove that Calculations is not Data. I already showed you that Data can be defined from a type of Calculation or Information.

@firestarlord73194:

God is Going to save his entire creation in the end.

^{Col 1:19} For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, ²⁰ and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

@firestarlord73194:

How else can you interpret that ?

@king_saturn: R u a Christian?

I'm defending the Bible, for one. And, two, I'm Christian; and then, an inspiration in proximity; thus, God gave me insight. Plus, this is all explained and promised by the Bible. Basically, it's another case of positive confirmation for what the Bible, specifically, the New Testament promises. All other forces would be Satanic and demonic in origin primed to deceive; thus, what motive would a deceiving adversary have in confirming the Bible? It wouldn't be beneficial in any way.

Even a Christian can be influenced by other Forces. You aint Jesus and You aint Jehovah. Therefore you can be mislead or influenced by Force more Powerful than you if you slipping up.

There's nothing “negative” about anything here, if you're responding to this particular block of text. The subject for this particular block of text was describing how God was my inspiration for redefining Genesis 1:1 as step 1 of the creation process, not whether I conceded a point or gave an interpretation of this Scripture. Of course I gave an interpretation of the Scripture that was never though of before but which is a logical extension of the the text being discussed.

There is no way to confirm that God inspired you to write any of that. However, we can see from what the word Precursor means that it's not logical to consider that there was previously existing Earth and previously existing Universe before the one we are in now. So we can say from that God probably did not inspire you to write that, because it's wrong by definition.

In saying that God was my inspiration for describing a precursor earth and precursor universe and responding to your text that no one ever said this before, clearly, I didn't say someone else came up with this; I said that it wasn't all over the place, I never said that someone else said at the say time that I'm saying it was an inspiration from God. This is the second time now that you attributed something to me that isn't correct, where it's also the opposite of what I've been saying through several iterations. Just concede the lost point and allow the natural forward progression of the discussion.

It could not have been inspired by God because it's not logical. What evidence is there that there was a pre existing Earth and pre existing Universe ? That would be something even Christian Scientists would not attest to based on facts or evidence.

Genesis Chapter 1, being apart of the Bible, is the available body of evidence and facts. The Bible has held up to scrutiny as a history document, so, now, I'm applying scientific interpretation, taking the Bible as being true. In this context, such is only logical. Plus, again, evidence comes in many forms and variety, where the topic under description is also history. In this context, the Bible is otherwise holding up as a credible source of history. And, again, this is about perspectives. You can say the same thing for the other perspective that the universe sprang into existence from a point mass from nothingness, where there is otherwise no credible source backing it outside of an idea that someone just came up with, as a thought experiment and postulate. Basically, rather that disputing the correctness of the science and interpretation, you're only displaying a biased lean, where it's apparent that you don't understand either perspective on this level; you just want one preference to be true and the other to be wrong, where science and history requires much more.

Genesis 1 is the claim itself. The evidence would be what we have observed and tested in reality that confirms if so or if not Genesis 1 is true. King teaching the Scientist again I guess...

Sure, it's important to provide an interpretation, because I'm describing the Bible passage. This is a fact, if we can take the Bible as a true description of this point in history and make a reasonable inference from the passage being described, where the Bible is a valid source of information; this is just something that you made up and hope can be true; part of your problem is your refusal to just take a look at the evidence, data, science, and information that is available within the scholarly Christian community before trying to make open ended claims about what is and isn't available there. This isn't hearsay, because you can see the Bible passage right before you and my description; basically, you can't explain away why the earth being without form and void is otherwise a precursor for the earth, as, basically, that's precisely what a precursor for earth would be. Again, this all stems from my describing for you that Genesis Chapter 1 was necessary for describing Genesis 1:1, when you unsuccessfully tried to establish that the rest of Genesis Chapter 1 was unnecessary for Genesis 1:1, while trying to make an outlandish case (e.g. it involved you're inability to distinguish a perspective from science, where you were trying to make a caricature out of Genesis Chapter 1 and the creation account, where, the problem is part ignorance and part stubbornness; that's fine, but, as God's advocate, I'm compelled to sanitize your comments for the other readers, when God, the Bible, and Christianity is under attack). Now, here we are, all points shot down, where you're only left with conceding points that were always wrong, but, where you're still trying to revive a dead point without realize that the point has basically be left beyond revival for you.

I would say the Bible can be a key in evidence at times but in terms of Genesis 1:1 it conflicts with what current Science is saying about age of Earth and age of Universe. Whether or not the Science is true is another story but that was never my point to begin with.

The earth and universe were in another state that were also states before the finished product and so still are forerunners; a precursor is “a substance from which another is formed”; stated this way is better in the context of describing science, also. This does somehow render what I said into hearsay and invalid information, when what I'm saying reflects what the Bible says, when properly interpreted; the context of the discussion guided my interpretation, as I'm defending the Word of God. This was the state that the earth and universe were in, before God finished creating them; this was necessary to bring up, as it's relevant to a description of the science of this perspective as separate from another perspective about the origins of the earth and universe. It's also important, because the origins is the forerunner, where were not talking about just a random state for the earth and universe.

Being in another state does not mean you are a totally different entity altogether. To say there was a Precursor Earth and Precursor Heavens is to say that there was an existing Earth and existing Heavens before the ones we have later on in Creation and there is nothing to support that position. It's not in The Bible and I do not know of anyone speaking of anything like that.

This wasn't something that my response was intended for, in this series of iterations, which is that science and a perspective are two different things, where you were incorrectly making science the equivalent of a perspective that you prefer. I was using science to support a perspective, as there can only be one science.

But other Scientists used Data and Calculations to support their claims about a billions of years old Earth. That was the point.

I just had to explain for you that a 4 billion year old earth is just a perspective, because you incorrectly called it science, and said that the creation account was in contradiction with science; I laid out for you that the creation account is not in contradiction with science, just a perspective (e.g. that the universe sprang into existence from nothing via a point mass randomly one day); my purpose also has the dual purpose of speaking to other possible readers, as things you say need sanitizing, as you make open ended attacks against Christianity which are true or complete. Since there is only one science, you're talking just shear nonsense, when you invent (or, more precisely, regurgitate) the terms Christian science and popular science, when it's the Christian perspective versus your prefer perspective; given that the ratio is 70:30, it also wouldn't be correct to call it a popular perspective, except you'd need to pay attention to the text that you're trying to respond, when you have nothing left to do but just concede points for forward progression in the discussion.

If it's just a perspective then why do so many sources whether on the Internet or even in Science Journals attest to a 4 billion year old Earth and 13 billion year old Universe ? Why is most of the information of the age of the Earth and Universe lean towards the billions of years old if it's just a perspective ? Why do even so many Christians lead towards the Data in this instance ?

I didn't concede anything, I just had an inspiration from God and laid out that inspiration as apart from what most pastors teach, when discussing Genesis Chapter 1 (e.g. while they generally treat it as prelude for the rest of Genesis Chapter 1, which I was initially led by, I corrected myself, thanks to an inspiration from God, that Genesis 1:1 is step 1 of the creation process, in describing a precursor earth and precursor universe). I then had to explain for you that there is only one science, but different perspectives, so Genesis Chapter 1 is in conflict with a perspective that you're placing your bets, not the actual science, when our perspective starts being described through the lens of science. From there, the issue keeps recurring, because you can't understand how to pay attention to the text that you're quoting, when providing your responses, where I have to sanitized things that you're saying for possible readers.

Your inspiration with God is flawed though which puts it into question whether it was God who told you this. What evidence supports another Earth and another Heaven existing and why is this not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible if it's so ?

This was explained for you: some scientists are using science to try to support their perspectives; the scholarly Christian community is using science to support their perspective and another group is trying to use science to support their perspective, where a calculation is under discussion, not the actual data. Essentially, you'd need to explore what's available within the scholarly Christian community to discover and discussion the data, except you're unwilling to discover that evidence and information, so that you can demonstrate that you actually know what's there, as such is important to know what you're talking about.

If that was so then why do even some Christians who are Scientists accept the Data of an Old Earth if it's just a Secular Perspective ?

What you say here doesn't somehow change the fact that you'd only brought up one name. Dr. Humphreys has examined the evidence, as well as all of the other scientists within the scholarly Christian community; also at issue, historical evidence, as history is at play, not just scientific evidence, as evidence comes in several shapes and varieties. Are you aware here that you're trying to insinuate that somehow the scientists within the scholarly Christian community haven't also done this, when real reality just shows that they have? However, you'll need to be willing to examine their data, science, and information, which you're unwilling; that's mostly apart of the problem here. Plus, the other perspectives with that 70 of the 70:30 have likewise examined the evidence.

I actually said Dr. William Lane Craig as well but okay I guess. The point still stands that more Christians believe in an Old Earth as well as Secular Scientists.

the terms “Christian Scientist” and “Secular Science” is just nonsense that you're regurgitating, without understanding when you're speaking nonsense, despite the explanations intended to help you out on the matter. There is only one science. Dr. Humphreys is describing how science is being used to support the perspective of the scholarly Christian community. Other scientists are trying to use science to support their perspective. Considering the claims that you're making, you have to demonstrate that Dr. Humphreys is somehow applying the science incorrectly, if that's even possible or is even the case. You can't just move on; plus, the text that you're quoting is in response to something that you said. You have to pay attention to the text and respond from there.

Dr. Humphreys belief in a Young Earth would put him in a minority class that would be a Christian whom is a Scientist who leans heavy on The Bible for cross reference. He is not like a Secular Scientists as they would not use The Bible for cross reference. Maybe that makes it a bit more clear for you.

If you paid attention to the text that you're quoting, you'll realize that most scientists don't agree with the perspective that your espousing, as the ration is 70:30, where the perspective that you're espousing is the 30. again, you'll also have to be willing to examine the data, evidence, science, and information that is available within the scholarly Christian community, as it could help you better understand the science and how it's applied.

I do not believe you 70:30 ratio. Especially since there is not source or evidence for it. I will tell you what there is a lot of sources for. Science Journals and Articles talking about a 4 billion year old planet. Just type in age of Earth and you will see yourself.

Sure it is, as, I came up with an interpretation that was not previously known, it was in close proximity to my defending Gods Word, I'm Christian, and the New testament teaches that such would be the expected confirmation for true Christians.

Nah, that's your opinion on top of that I proved earlier that it probably was not God who gave that to you anyways.

You should be better able to understand, once you examine the data, evidence, science, and information that's available within the scholarly Christian community. You're handicapped, because you're stunting your own growth in knowledge and understanding, as you've said that you're committed to not examining the data, evidence, science, and information within the scholarly Christian community, where you also lack the understanding that you can't just runaway with a perspective and pretend that preferring a perspective somehow removes data, evidence, science, and information. Thus, science data, evidence, science, and information supports the scholarly Christian community, I'm also a scientists, and I've separated the science, I know that it's a perspective. As I said, and with that in mind, you've only been quoting a calculation. I've explained this for you dozens of times now.

Cannon Fodder

It has been defeated because you're comparing Genesis Chapter 1 to a perspective not science, where you've created your own problem in refusing to examine the data, evidence, science, and information that available to support Genesis Chapter 1 describing the creation of the earth and the universe; there's also the historical evidence, as this is more a topic of history than science, where the Bible has withstood scrutiny so is a credible document. There are different perspectives but only one science. And, we just went over again how Genesis 1:1 is apart of Genesis Chapter 1, with explaining that the earth were in a precursor state in Genesis 1:1 not a finished product, by the conclusion of Genesis Chapter 1.

No, I am comparing Genesis 1:1 to the Science about the age of the Earth and age of the Universe. I can not help because your position is the minority. The Science articles and journals almost all of them speak of a billions of years old Earth and a three times older Universe. That conflicts with what Genesis 1:1 is saying.

it can't be simple, because what you're saying is wrong and, so, is utter nonsense. The majority of scientists do not support the perspective that you keep espousing, as the ratio is 70:30; plus, there's data and science supporting the scholarly Christian community that's available for any one to examine. Again, you have to figure out that science and any given perspective are different things, where you haven't gotten that down pact for yourself just yet, at least in what you're writing.

That 70:30 ratio is made up by you also it's true. Most articles and sources attest to an old Earth not a young one as they say that's where the Data and Calculations lead to. You can be mad about it but you can't say it's false.

Consider this: the scientists within the scholarly Christian community have run tests, acquired the data, evidence, science, and information as the result of those tests, and put them up for display; if the tests that you've run show that the earth is somewhere between 6000 and 10,000 years, not to mention the historical evidence. With such being fact and reality, objectively speaking, wouldn't this be quite the coincidence that so much data, evidence, science, and information is pointing to this 6000 to 10000 year old period for the age of the earth, consist with what the Bible teaches, instead of something else like 80,000 years, 500,000 years, 4,000,000, or 40 million years, even if they were way below 4 billion years (e.g. if we really stretched the data, the closet we could ever reach was 80,000, but mostly everything was pointing to an age older than 80,000, a little like the case some historians are trying to make about the Gospels being no older than 300AD, with respect to Jesus, where the context there is that Christians were under persecution of the type specifically to destroy all evidence of Jesus as a historical figure)? This 4 billion year old number is actually the number that just came up, as the result of a thought experiment that the Bible could not be correct. One of these other numbers that were different from 4 billion years, yet still much different from 6000 to 10,000, would have been a major blow to the Bible, yet the data supports the Bible, even though a perspective is adamant that the universe sprang into existence from a point mass, where the earth formed later in the process. Objectively speaking, if the Bible were just a toss up, why is there even any data and evidence at all available for the age being somewhere between 6000 and 100,000? That's a quick and objective basis that any reasonable person would take and consider the Bible being more than a toss up; of course, you'll have to actually take the initiative to take a look at this data, evidence, science, and information. Basically, what you're doing, is espousing a perspective and being adamant about it, simply because it appears to contradict the Bible, where it's clear that you're otherwise bitter and spiteful about Christianity, God, and the Bible, as a former pastor (e.g. or also just antitheist), just based on your comments, where you were placed under different lenses, including our other iteration about God performing the miracle of blessings in response to the prayers of true Christians. This is so, because you haven't even learned what Dr. Humphreys has to say, yet along made an attempt to demonstrate that there's something wrong with his science.

“No, this was my point. That if the majority of the Scientists was accepting the Data for a billions of years old Earth against a minority of them.”

The text that you were quoting involved the fact that the largest population of people on earth are Christians, and, then, having no better comeback, you bring in scientists, specifically, where you're still not correct in what you say, as explained in the paragraph that you're quoting. I gave various explanations, even though its not correct that the majority of scientists are relying on actual data, for the reasons already described for you; most of the available data points to the earth being somewhere between 6000 and 10,000 years old, where the scholarly Christian community has that data on open display, while inviting anyone and everyone to take the initiative to explore it. The earth being billions of years old is more about it being advertised by the media and being required to be in textbooks, where the textbooks is only bringing you to the point to step up to the plate; the earth being somewhere between 6000 and 10,000 years old is the actual on the job experience portion. This point, as with others, have been repeated for you many times now to show you that there's no reviving dead points.

And Scientists also run test and calculations to come to the data of billions of years old Earth. Apparently more Scientists come to this conclusions as even Christian ones do as well.

Because, that's not how science works, especially when a scientists such as myself, independently examines the data, even though I admit that I'm bias and I'm a cheerleader for God's Word, the Bible, and Christianity being correct, not just for the sake of cheering, but because God is an active part of my life, and eternal salvation would be at stake, except I'm already a true Christian and have always been. It's not just about how popular a perspective, it's about how persuasive the data and the context; where there not so much convincing data, then, the point that you unsuccessfully tried to make would at least be somewhat stronger. I explained above that it can't just be a coincidence that most of the available data shows that the earth is between 6000 and 10,000 old, instead of another number, where one of those other numbers aren't even close; basically, similar to Jesus, this is where the context is also an important contributing factor in the examination.

And yet somehow there is Data and Calculations that go for a 4 Billion Year Old Earth.

Again, this is something different from what you asked and different from the context of the text that you're quoting, given that you had nothing else to do but concede another point; again, in being committed to a perspective that the universe sprang into existence from a point mass out of nothing, it's unsurprising that such individuals aren't particularly interested in data that supports the more logical perspective that God would be the source of matter and energy (e.g. when you're trying to make a breakthrough in science, you're not interested in what science already seems to be saying about things, you're trying to show that the science might actual show something that's very different; hence, that's what the scholarly Christian community is yelling about). There is no actual data showing that the universe sprang into existence from a point mass billions of years ago, given that I had to explain to you that data and a calculation are different things, where the number you're quoting is just a calculation. All of these things that you point to makes it a reasonable suggestion that you take the initiative to look through the data, evidence, science, and information on open display within the scholarly Christian community that you want to somehow discuss, while, at the same time, being unwilling to examine the information that's available on open display.

There appears to be data that suggest a billions of years old Universe. You may not like it but it is what it is.

No, data will always be something different from a calculation, even though data is somethings used within a calculation; previously, I'd already suggested that you look up terms like percent yield, empirical, accuracy, and precision.

Data is not always different than Calculation as Data can be made up of Calculations. That was the point. I gave definitions showing my point already.

Short and simple, no, and the analogy you're trying to make up here is just nonsense; you can really help yourself by paying attention to the text that you're quoting. To prove that a homicide has occurred, the investigators would go to seek out evidence, which would be data, stated in another way, similar to what I said to you in multiple iterations that we perform laboratory experiments to gather data; sometimes, we use this acquired data in calculations, usually for a specific purpose such as to determine the actual yield as compared to the theoretical yield, which would be the calculation; the actual yield, coming after experimentation, is the data component and couldn't be known without experiencing and observing.

And data would be used as calculations for percentages of homicides in a controlled set such as Race or Age. Data is calculations as you used the Data in the Calculations itself or you can Calculate Data to produce more Data.

Well, these are the logical assumptions that starts to become necessarily, when applying science to support a perspective, presuming that the Bible is an accurate portrayal of history, which experience has taught it almost always is accurate; most of the data is quite literally showing the age of the earth to be somewhere between 6000 and 10,000 years old. If the Bible is correct, we need to derive something, scientifically speaking, to explain why the stars appear to be at the distances and configurations that they appear, mostly through the lens of powerful telescopes; the resolution of the telescopes is also a factor to consider, as, when looking via a powerful telescope, as that light, itself, actually reached the earth? Note, for day 4, the Bible says “and God created the stars also”, after saying that the light from the sun would govern the day, and the light reflection from the moon would govern the night.

Nope, these are still heavy assumptions not really logical ones. No way to know what Time Dilation was happening on Day 4.

In this context, where history is partly at play, the Bible represents that available data, given how it's holding up to scrutiny, especially now with the scholarly Christian community at work actively defending it; even with out a defense, previously, the Bible had held up quite well to the scrutiny constantly placed against it.

The Bible isn't the Data because it speaks nothing on Time Dilation nor does it say anything about a Precursor Earth or Precursor Heavens.

I explained earlier how I suspect that time dilation was at play, based on a keen reading of the Bible, during certain periods in time, such as the period before the Fall, the period between the fall and Noah, the period between Noah and Abraham, the period between Abraham and Moses, and some point between Moses and David, when, by the time we reach David, it appears that time dilation had completely dissipated. What the Bible is also saying is that some other factor was at play that might have been operating on other properties that also involved time dilation, but, just pure time dilation was at play between Moses and David. What that may be requires further thought, as such is science, and using it to support our perspective. As I explained already, there was at least a second source for the time dilation other than the stretching mentioned by Dr. Humphreys, as the Bible hints at it. Without more, you can't just appear and then try to reduce what i'm saying, while in scientific thought experiment, because what Dr. Humphreys says explains things less adequately and, so, that would diminish the credibility of the Bible some; you have to meet me, but, as I said previously, I can't entertain you much further until you can demonstrate for me that you're actually reading and responding to the text that you're quoting; that's the basic point, and it's link to you're needing to take the initiative to view what's available within the scholarly Christian community; basically, you admitted that you were unwilling to do that, as if that somehow took away all of the credibility from the data, evidence, science, and information available, but were unsuccessful in sounding as smart as you thought you would be, before I provided my response; yet, you're the one looking silly, once it's described how unintelligent such an approach levels you, when you're trying to cast aspersions at the scholarly Christian community, where you're otherwise clueless.

Too Much Assuming... You can go to a Scholarly Christian and he would be assuming too. Reading into a Text things that are not there.

Not very well, at least, but, this has nothing to do with supporting the text that you wrote. Now, take the initiative to see the data, evidence, science, and information that's supporting the scholarly Christianity community, the Bible, Christianity, and God's existence, that they have on open display for everyone to see. You have to learn what I mean by numbers that you're quoting are calculations, and, then, follow that up with understanding how data and a calculation are different things.

So you say. I feel like your Trolling is just talking as usual.

If they're reading the text, they'll be able to tell that science is not the same thing as perspective, even though you keep claiming you know the difference, but go on to demonstrate that you don't understand that there's a difference between science and a perspective. You also still can't seem to understand that Genesis 1:1 is a part of Genesis Chapter 1, where Genesis Chapter 1 was used on multiple iterations to show how science supports the perspective that is Genesis Chapter 1; the supporting data, evidence, science, and information is then available in open display within the scholarly Christian community; but, as you pointed to earlier, take the initiative and use “YouTube, Google and Internet Sources...a Computer or Laptop ” to find it; it will help you understand such things as data being different from a calculation and science being different from a perspective.

What ? The Science itself speaks of a 4 billion year old Earth and 13 billion year old Universe which conflicts with what Genesis 1:1 says. No, there is no evidence that shows Genesis 1:1 is correct based on this Science evidence. You can claim it is but that all you can do right now at least.

Its not particularly necessary for most people to need to define ice, in the context of saying that ice is different from water, in order most people to know that ice is different from water, as an analogy; I'm afraid that even this caricature isn't able to revive this particular dead point for you. Data is something different from a calculation.

The Ice and Water analogy does not work as they are separate things. Data and Calculations is not as Data can be Calculations and Calculations could also be Data. It depends on what is being studied or shown.

Why tf does this exist ?

Because some people want honest opinions.

Isn't it against the rules to debate over someone's religion

No. This is not against the rules. Otherwise, a mod would have locked it a long time a go.

@king_saturn:

I explained earlier how I’ve decided that time dilation was at play, with the Delorian based on a keen sharp reading of the Bible and the Holy Scriptures , during certain periods in time travel , such as the period before the Fall and after spring , the period between the fall of Noah off of the top story of the ark, the period between Noah and Abrahams legs, the period between Abraham and Moses’ arse cheeks and some point between Moses and David’s fishing gear, when, by the time we reach David, it appears that time dilation had completely began . What the Bible is also saying is that some other factory was making properties that also involved time dilation watched, but, just pure alcohol was at play between Moses and David’s bar. What that may be requires further drinking , as such is pseudo science, and using it to support our umbrella . As I explained already, a thousand times there was at least an eighteenth source for the time dilation other than the stretching mentioned by Humphrey B Bear, as the Bible hints at it. (You may also use the slim paper pages to roll yourself a spliff in an emergency) Without more, you can't just appear from another dimension and then try to reduce what i'm eating , while in pseudo scientific thought experiment, because what Humphrey B Bear says explains things perfectly adequately and, so, that would increase the credibility of the Koran some; you have to beat me with a club, but, as I said previously, I can't entertain you much without my leather gimp outfit until you can demonstrate for me that you're actually into that and responding to the photos I sent that's the basic point, and it's link to you're needing to take the initiative and maybe send me some special photos to view what's available within the scholarly Christian community; basically, you admitted that you were unwilling to do that, as if that somehow took away all of the credibility from the data, evidence, science, and information and my available, butt. You were unsuccessful in sounding as smart as you thought you would be, before I provided my response; yet, you're the one looking silly, once it's described how unintelligent such an approach levels you, when you're trying to cast aspersions at the scholarly Christian community outfits and photos where you're otherwise clueless.