Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[rwatts]

The rest of your post wasn't anything meaningful. Your hopes and your views from the outside have nothing to do with any meaningful conversation

But you claimed:-

this idea that Christians always have to tip toe around you is your brand of Christianity not Gods.

- to which I pointed out:-

"Oh, that's not my idea of Christianity either. I don't think Christians ought to tip toe around when dealing with atheists."

I then noted and asked:-

"I hope you don't think that God was guiding you when you made that mistake about my thoughts on Christianity. If God was guiding you then what hope is there for the Bible being infallible and inerrant, given the same impeccable guidance?"

So care to address my question? Or are you suggesting that your comment was worthless in the first place? Or would you like to go back and edit the comment out of your earlier post?

[Juvenal]

Rounding off is an approximation, and therefore not exact.

I am saddened by lack of examples of cutting off a decimal. I have thousands of books here in my home, and no good examples of that. I guess I'm just not reading the right material. Oh, well.

floor_graph.gif

[rwatts]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11847[/ATTACH]

So minus -4 ~ +4.

Anyway, I always round up when it comes to chocolate and ice-cream.

[Mikeenders]

I'm afraid we've gone off the topic quite a bit. It was something very loosely related to the age of the Earth/Universe, I suppose. Any thoughts about starlight? That's a bit more basic than half lives of various isotopes. Being able to see galaxies that are billions of light years away seems to me to strongly imply an ancient universe.

I don't blame you one wit for not reading this whole long thread but surprise surprise for anyone coming in now I am actually an Old Earth Creationist who believes at present YEC have nothing to really answer radiometric dating with. The whole bruhahaha in this thread is because I dared to say that given the great reluctance and surprise of scientist initially to tens of millions years old dinosaur soft tissue I thought the YEC have at least one good point and that it should be independently verified by researching tissue decay itself not just looking at radiometric dating.

So I hold to an old earth and to radiometric dating but the fact that i think its at least possible it could be falsified has got the fundies in an uproar. I have never said it was falsified or that it will be but tht soft tissue deserves study before I am conclude its no possible issue

[Mikeenders]

So care to address my question? Or are you suggesting that your comment was worthless in the first place?

NO I am suggesting your posts asking me about what I thought God was leading me to do or rot do, your suggestion for bible verses to read and your outside views of Christianity are totally and obviously worthless in this thread.

Is that clear enough this time?

[Juvenal]

So minus -4 ~ +4.

For sufficiently resolvable negations of minus.

Anyway, I always round up when it comes to chocolate and ice-cream.

I prefer to eat the difference of an uneven split, recursively.

[Yttrium]

I don't blame you one wit for not reading this whole long thread but surprise surprise for anyone coming in now I am actually an Old Earth Creationist who believes at present YEC have nothing to really answer radiometric dating with. The whole bruhahaha in this thread is because I dared to say that given the great reluctance and surprise of scientist initially to tens of millions years old dinosaur soft tissue I thought the YEC have at least one good point and that it should be independently verified by researching tissue decay itself not just looking at radiometric dating.

So I hold to an old earth and to radiometric dating but the fact that i think its at least possible it could be falsified has got the fundies in an uproar. I have never said it was falsified or that it will be but tht soft tissue deserves study before I am conclude its no possible issue

I see. Carry on, then. I'm all for attempting to falsify scientific theories. Scientists do that kind of thing to themselves and each other all the time. It's part of the scientific method, after all.

[Carrikature]

bruhahaha

Yes, I know they're not saying brouhaha, but every time I see 'brouhaha', it makes me think of this clip.

[rwatts]

Is that clear enough this time?

Not really, because you did make that claim and I told you it was wrong. So I asked an obvious question given that I presume you believe that God guides you and that God agrees with what you write.

So it's not clear at all.

(As has been pointed out, this thread is already off topic. So how was my question inappropriate?)

[Mikeenders]

Back to telling whoppers again I see. No one used EXACT in the manner you're claiming, that 3.1 is EXACT for Pi. It was used in strict mathematical equivalencies. 1/2 is exactly 0.5, not "approximately" 0.5. 0.6 hours is exactly 36 minutes, not 'approximately" 36 minutes.

Dude let me cliff note it for you ONE LAST TIME because its pretty obvious no matter what you and your two feet in mouth comrades will continue in your VAST ignorance and cluelessness. Go look at your sources . Seconds are involved in the calculations. its not just a count of minutes so no I have no way of knowing that .6 hours breaks down into exactly 36 minutes (if it represents a rounded decimal or whatever yu wish to call it it does NOT automatically no matter how you beg). Your garbage the it has to be exact to 36 minutes (no seconds etc) is just that- GARBAGE. Seconds could be involved due to .6 not being enough decimal points to tell. SO I stated approximately to be clear that I understood .6 or .5 decimal notation is not specific enough to be exact

Then like a pack of nitwits you all come in to show your cluelessness (and lest face it - your rhetoric about everyone who doesn't completely agrees with your position as stupid is part of what got that foot stuck in your jaws) to claim I should have said exactly.

so babble on some more. You fell on your heads and can't extract your feet from your mouth. I have no intention of spending my weekend reading you foolishly trying to claim your feet are not in your mouth and very much stuck there for all time..

[Yttrium]

Seconds could be involved due to .6 not being enough decimal points to tell. SO I stated approximately to be clear that I understood .6 or .5 decimal notation is not specific enough to be exact

I'm forced to disagree. Normally, if the decimal is rounded off, one would note that. One would say that it's "approximately 0.6", or "0.6 rounded off". Unless otherwise indicated, 0.6 can be assumed to be exactly 0.6. After all, one isn't going to bother writing down endless zeroes after the 6.

[Mikeenders]

Not really, because you did make that claim and I told you it was wrong

Yeah you did but all your references and so called obvious presumptions say otherwise so I am not obliged to automatically believe it. You didn't come into this thread just asking . You came in sniping (fr whatever reason doesn't change that) so I do not and will not, in his thread at least, be taking you seriously like someone asking a genuine question. Just because a thread goes off subject in a discussion doesn't mean that anyone can just come in and decide anyone in it has to go off with you on another one.

Sorry if my previous answer and this is not clear enough - I guess it just won't be clear enough. I will have nothing more to add on that. This thread is too long and crazy already to have even more going on in side topics like your presumptions.

[Juvenal]

I'm forced to disagree. Normally, if the decimal is rounded off, one would note that. One would say that it's "approximately 0.6", or "0.6 rounded off". Unless otherwise indicated, 0.6 can be assumed to be exactly 0.6. After all, one isn't going to bother writing down endless zeroes after the 6.

The 0.6, as far as I'm aware, was part of an example abstracted from physical measurements.

[Juvenal]

Hi Mike,

Just wanted to mention that I still have disagreements with you that I'd like to discuss, but I'm not going to participate in a dogpile.

As ever, Jesse

[Mikeenders]

I'm forced to disagree. Normally, if the decimal is rounded off, one would note that. One would say that it's "approximately 0.6", or "0.6 rounded off". Unless otherwise indicated, 0.6 can be assumed to be exactly 0.6. After all, one isn't going to bother writing down endless zeroes after the 6.

Doesn't really matter whether you disagree or not. Its not up to a vote. Its up to the reality of where the number comes from. They come from a calculation involving seconds. to say that the are automatically exact to minutes when they involve calculations that are broken down into seconds is just nonsensical (however you might have come in not knowing where they come from).

I wrote approximately precisely because I wanted to be clear that I knew the calculations were base down into seconds and as is obvious .6 hours is not enough to know that.

Sorry, you, them anyone that claims thats wrong doesn't understand decimals when related in hours.