Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:

Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:

Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:

Eric Root <eroot@swva.net> said:

mclark wrote:

Tom <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

Tom: Tell me Clarkie, just what troubles you about the reliability of
dating methods?

The possibility that the results could be wrong.

M. Clark

Why does that trouble you?

Clark shows a lack of understanding of science. It's a certainty that
measurements are wrong. That's an "article of faith" that scientists
have, it's why we use confidence intervals and p-levels. The question
is, are close enough to allow reasonable hypothesis-testing, say, as
to whether the "YE" in YEC is wrong.

Consider the fact that atheists/evolutionists are happy when a
pre-historic skull can be "narrowed down" to between 700,000 to 900,000
years old, for example, a mere range of error of +-100,000 years.

Consider it considered.

On
the other hand, regardless that early secular historical writings which
possibly reference Jesus can be narrowed down 50 to 100 years AD, they
are automatically regarded as insignificant by these same people because
they are not eyewitness reports.

Not insignificant at all, because they signify something. Reports that
are purported to be eyewitness reports, but are clearly based only on
word of mouth, are hearsay, and those who purport that they are
eyewitnesses accounts, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary,
are perjurers.

SHOW ME where such reports are claimed to be eyewitness reports.
References to these ancient writings are typically volunteered only
after some atheist puts their foot in their mouth by making the baseless
assertion that there is NO evidence that Jesus ever existed.

If they are not eyewitness accounts, they cannot be taken as direct
evidence. What kind of evidence are they? IOW why *should* they be
regarded as significant?

http://www.safetyline.wa.gov.au/institute/level1/course11/lecture41/l41_03.asp

Thank you but you missed the point. My gripe is that atheists will
assert that there is NO evidence of Jesus. Also, we are not discussing
court procedures but scientifically based probabilities.

Again, thank you for your time.

You are welcome. I just wonder what segment of people you are choosing
to criticize. It's like finding (or perhaps imagining) the worst
player at the chess club, and criticizing all the players, based on
his play (or imagined play). Do you have someone specific in mind, who
is deserving of your criticism, or is it a straw man? Can you name a
few of these supposed patzers?

That's a good analogy. I do make generalizations about atheists but I
don't go out of my way to single out the worst atheist and base my
generalizations on that atheist.

It seems to me that you are criticizing a "type". I am willing to
watch and see if any atheists personify that type. Oh, and I won't
deny that such exist.

Jim07D4

I am determined to pin down the integrity of evolution theory. I will
not blur the line between science and science fiction that I believe
certain atheists do with respect to evolution theory.

Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:

Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:

Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:

Eric Root <eroot@swva.net> said:

mclark wrote:

Tom <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

Tom: Tell me Clarkie, just what troubles you about the reliability of
dating methods?

The possibility that the results could be wrong.

M. Clark

Why does that trouble you?

Clark shows a lack of understanding of science. It's a certainty that
measurements are wrong. That's an "article of faith" that scientists
have, it's why we use confidence intervals and p-levels. The question
is, are close enough to allow reasonable hypothesis-testing, say, as
to whether the "YE" in YEC is wrong.

Consider the fact that atheists/evolutionists are happy when a
pre-historic skull can be "narrowed down" to between 700,000 to 900,000
years old, for example, a mere range of error of +-100,000 years.

Consider it considered.

On
the other hand, regardless that early secular historical writings which
possibly reference Jesus can be narrowed down 50 to 100 years AD, they
are automatically regarded as insignificant by these same people because
they are not eyewitness reports.

Not insignificant at all, because they signify something. Reports that
are purported to be eyewitness reports, but are clearly based only on
word of mouth, are hearsay, and those who purport that they are
eyewitnesses accounts, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary,
are perjurers.

SHOW ME where such reports are claimed to be eyewitness reports.
References to these ancient writings are typically volunteered only
after some atheist puts their foot in their mouth by making the baseless
assertion that there is NO evidence that Jesus ever existed.

If they are not eyewitness accounts, they cannot be taken as direct
evidence. What kind of evidence are they? IOW why *should* they be
regarded as significant?

http://www.safetyline.wa.gov.au/institute/level1/course11/lecture41/l41_03.asp

Thank you but you missed the point. My gripe is that atheists will
assert that there is NO evidence of Jesus. Also, we are not discussing
court procedures but scientifically based probabilities.

Again, thank you for your time.

You are welcome. I just wonder what segment of people you are choosing
to criticize. It's like finding (or perhaps imagining) the worst
player at the chess club, and criticizing all the players, based on
his play (or imagined play). Do you have someone specific in mind, who
is deserving of your criticism, or is it a straw man? Can you name a
few of these supposed patzers?

That's a good analogy. I do make generalizations about atheists but I
don't go out of my way to single out the worst atheist and base my
generalizations on that atheist.

It seems to me that you are criticizing a "type". I am willing to
watch and see if any atheists personify that type. Oh, and I won't
deny that such exist.

Jim07D4

I am determined to pin down the integrity of evolution theory. I will
not blur the line between science and science fiction that I believe
certain atheists do with respect to evolution theory.