Speciation

[adocus]

If all you are going to do is backpedal by making your claims more vague, then there is little point in discussing the matter. The fact remains that you made a positive assertion that has now been shown to be incorrect.

But please feel free to try again.

[dayage]

adocus,

I admitted a mistake in the way I expressed the phrase, but that does not change the truth in what I said. I am not being vague. We are dealing with a single Hebrew word and the Bible's definition fits something on the order of genus or species. You have given no possitive evidence to support a different meaning of min. Please stop dodging the issue and give us your evidence.

Lev. 11
13 'These, moreover, you shall detest among the flying creatures; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,
14 and the kite and the falcon in its kind,
15 every raven in its kind,
16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind,
17 and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl,
18 and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture,
19 and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.

In these verses alone you have four owl kinds, although the owl of verse 16 may be the nighthawk. Then you have the hawk, kite, falcon and eagle as different kinds and different vultures are listed as kinds. The same can be seen in Deut. 14.

[sandy_mcd]

But here is the problem. Why are P-A test excluded? Because of what we KNOW and not what we ASSUME. We KNOW the material is new, therefore we exlcude the old dates. Convenient. And then chastize those who point it out.

Sorry, that is the way science works. There is seldom one definitive test for anything. Lots of related information has to be evaluated and interpreted. The argument presented is specifically against radiometric dating but it just as easily applies to all of science. Assumptions (or conditions) have to be tested and sometimes they fail. Experiments are never done in isolation from the rest of the universe and experiments are never truly reproducible under the exact same conditions. Many methods only work under certain conditions and fail (give the wrong answer) under others. It's science, not philosophy.

[jlay]

Sorry, that is the way science works. There is seldom one definitive test for anything. Lots of related information has to be evaluated and interpreted. The argument presented is specifically against radiometric dating but it just as easily applies to all of science. Assumptions (or conditions) have to be tested and sometimes they fail. Experiments are never done in isolation from the rest of the universe and experiments are never truly reproducible under the exact same conditions. Many methods only work under certain conditions and fail (give the wrong answer) under others. It's science, not philosophy

Interesting.
Shouldn't a consideration be to call into question assumptions regarding the dating of lava flows in general. Seems to me, and seems you are willing to admit that, at least in this case, assumption outweighs fact.