RE: the earth (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

cybrjewls -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 3:51:23 PM)

If a government of a foreign nation sent diplomats to another nation to negotiate for terms of peace with the people of that nation, and the terms were ignored, rejected, and the diplomats were thrown out, persecuted, and put down. What do you think will happen to those terms of the offer of peace that was extended, then? The leader of that nation who sent His representative to them as a living and 'in person' witness will then negotiate for terms other than peace in accordance with what the people of the other nation does.

We know that in our law there is such a legal theory known as respondeat superior. That the master of those servants that were working for their employer will answer to any actions done by them and also that others will have to answer for detaining their business that they have been sent to do. The company that sent that worker will move for actions in court to resolve any dispute arising from how their business was obstructed and they will want damages against the party that does it at law.

In other words, anyone sent under the authority of a business to operate in that authority of the business is approved by that business to conduct business in their name. Therfore, anything that they write can bind the business to a contract or covenant agreement and is not to be ignored when seeking terms with that business.

We are all servants in this manner in order to get our pay in society even.

Luke 12:47
"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows.


Luke 12:48
But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Empirical refers to data based on experiment. The data relating to radiometric dating of the earth is certainly empirical.
We obviously have an entirely different understanding of the word "empirical. From dictionary.com it means "depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine." Synonyms include "practical, firsthand, pragmatic". Thus, only the universe's Creator has data based on firsthand experience or observation alone and He has condescended to share His empirical data with us in Holy Scripture.

quote:

Conversely, Biblical chronology is decidedly not empirical.
Radiometric dating of the earth is based on multiple assumptions, presuppositions and indirect conclusions. This technology is definitely NOT based on firsthand observation of "zillions of years of evolution". This stands in stark contrast to the historical account of Biblical chronology recorded by the Only Eyewitness, through emanuensis, without any reliance on theory or scientific methodology. Only God could have observed and experienced the empirical evidence of His own Creation!

doc, do you mean amanuensis? By dictation. A secretary is not an eyewitness.



drmark -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 3:53:35 PM)

quote:

doc, do you mean amanuensis? By dictation. A secretary is not an eyewitness.

Yes, thank you, cow, I frequently have trouble spelling that word. [8|] However, an amanuensis is not fully a secretary, at least in the modern sense of the word. I would rather compare with a stenographer who writes down word-for-word dictation, although I wonder if there's a shorthand equivalent for Hebrew. Obviously the amanuensis does not have to be an eyewitness to accurately and correctly record the factual events seen and experienced by the original Eyewitness. But we've been through this before, cow, and you have your theory of divine inspiration and I have mine. I'll stick with the one supported by two millenia of church tradition. You're free to wing it however you like!



cow451 -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 4:05:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

doc, do you mean amanuensis? By dictation. A secretary is not an eyewitness.

Yes, thank you, cow, I frequently have trouble spelling that word. [8|] However, an amanuensis is not fully a secretary, at least in the modern sense of the word. I would rather compare with a stenographer who writes down word-for-word dictation, although I wonder if there's a shorthand equivalent for Hebrew. Obviously the amanuensis does not have to be an eyewitness to accurately and correctly record the factual events seen and experienced by the original Eyewitness. But we've been through this before, cow, and you have your theory of divine inspiration and I have mine. I'll stick with the one supported by two millenia of church tradition. You're free to wing it however you like!

That's what you get for trying to use those fancy words. Actually, I'd never heard of it so I looked it up. I figured it was going to be some kind of spiritual osmosis. Hebrew shorthand, LOL. [8D] Most short-hand I've seen looks like Hebrew.



RCC -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 5:37:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

disregard any empirical evidence or observations that seem to support a billions-year-old earth or evolution.
Oh, that's a marvelous misrepresentation of YEC precepts. The fact stands, RCC, that there is NO empirical evidence for zillions of years of evolution because no one but God could have been around to observe it. And His Eyewitness account claims otherwise, as you carefully pointed out in the first three steps.

But as you probably know, there is much purported or putative evidence for evolution and an old earth that is brandished by evolutionists and mainstream geologists. They also claim that just as a detective can often solve a crime without help from eyewitnesses to the crime, it is sometimes possible to know what has happened in the past with reasonable certainty without eyewitness testimony. These mainstream scientists have managed to convince the vast majority of scientists of the truth of a very old earth and common descent with modification.

So the question is, how should YECs respond to this purported evidence and the arguments concerning the evidence offered by evolutionists and mainstream geologists?

I think the answer is simple: just ignore the alleged evidence and arguments. If you have the answer direct from God, why concern oneself with evidence at all? As my quote from Kurt Wise illustrates, there is no conceivable evidence, observed state of the world, or arguments concerning same that would cause a YEC to accept evolution or an old earth unless said YEC has already lost his or her faith. If the Teacher has given you the answers to the test, who cares if some kids in the class come up with different answers? Why pay any serious attention to what they say?



drmark -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 7:20:44 PM)

quote:

These mainstream scientists have managed to convince the vast majority of scientists of the truth of a very old earth and common descent with modification.

So the question is, how should YECs respond to this purported evidence and the arguments concerning the evidence offered by evolutionists and mainstream geologists?
Sorry Richard, but truth is not determined by majority vote, is it? Is there any conceivable evidence, observed state of the world, or arguments concerning same that would cause you to accept the truth that God created the universe in six days less than 10,000 years ago? Don't preach at me until you accept the finality of your own worldview!



drmark -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 8:06:30 PM)

quote:

Where is it written in Genesis that God Created the darkness? It is an assumed belief, though upon the creation of light that darkness was created and is then separated from it.
There is no passage in Genesis 1 that claims God created darkness. Darkness is merely the absence of light and thus is not a positive created entity. One might say that darkness was the "default situation" before light existed, but obviously there was no physical reality until God spoke light into existence.

If one takes the approach that these first six days are written from the perspective of Adam living on the earth at the beginning but needing an understanding of cosmology beyond his life experience, then a very simple explanation of day and night emerges. God established the earth's diurnal variation in 1:4-5 presumably using some divine source of diffusible light. Then He created the sun, moon, and stars in 1:16-18 which assumed the function of light source from then on. Clearly Adam would have understood the undeniable meaning of "evening and morning the first-sixth day", regardless of the source of daylight, without having knowledge of geophysics and celestial mechanics.

quote:

I believe that because the light is separated from the darkness at the first Work of God in creation, that this is how we are to determine what a 'day' is. It is darkness separated from light to me. This is indicative of any indistinct period or epoch of 'time' as we would account for it.
You've totally lost me here, prophetica. Yes, the Bible states in 1:5 that God defines day and night by the presence of light and darkness respectively. What is "darkness separated from light" to you? How can such a definition indicate "any indistinct period or epoch of time"? Are you suggesting that the earth's daily rotation period has changed dramatically since the Creation week? Any Scripture to support such a far-fetched idea?



cybrjewls -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 8:26:27 PM)

Greetings drmark! Thank you for your response. Could you please describe for me what 'space' consists of? I have heard that there exists such a thing as 'dark' matter. Why would God judge time by the earth rotating at an angle around the sun with adam, who is not even made until the sixth day, standing on earth? Therefore, a 'day' is what God calls the light. It is not exactly written the way that some have proposed. So the existence of light creates the situation where there is now evening (to rule the night) and morning (to rule the day). It shows that from before the beginning of creation, the Morning Star and then after creation, the son of the Morning Star are spoken about by this retroactive prophecy. It is written that darkness was separated from light by God right away for he was a murderer from the begining as it is written. Not that Jesus did not exist eternally as firstborn over all creation, but as a picture of what was going on in the spiritual realm for God is spirit and must be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Thus we see that God calls the light 'day'. That is how a day is defined by God Almighty, as light.
His first Work was to create light which is held as constant in mathematical representations where the quality known as the speed of light is viewed as constant. Some project, when using a certain equation, that if one could travel at the speed of light time would be effected resulting in confirmation of the Ancient of Days who stands outside of time in the spiritual realm. For God's invisible qualities are evident in what was made.
quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Where is it written in Genesis that God Created the darkness? It is an assumed belief, though upon the creation of light that darkness was created and is then separated from it.
There is no passage in Genesis 1 that claims God created darkness. Darkness is merely the absence of light and thus is not a positive created entity. One might say that darkness was the "default situation" before light existed, but obviously there was no physical reality until God spoke light into existence.

If one takes the approach that these first six days are written from the perspective of Adam living on the earth at the beginning but needing an understanding of cosmology beyond his life experience, then a very simple explanation of day and night emerges. God established the earth's diurnal variation in 1:4-5 presumably using some divine source of diffusible light. Then He created the sun, moon, and stars in 1:16-18 which assumed the function of light source from then on. Clearly Adam would have understood the undeniable meaning of "evening and morning the first-sixth day", regardless of the source of daylight, without having knowledge of geophysics and celestial mechanics.

quote:

I believe that because the light is separated from the darkness at the first Work of God in creation, that this is how we are to determine what a 'day' is. It is darkness separated from light to me. This is indicative of any indistinct period or epoch of 'time' as we would account for it.
You've totally lost me here, prophetica. Yes, the Bible states in 1:5 that God defines day and night by the presence of light and darkness respectively. What is "darkness separated from light" to you? How can such a definition indicate "any indistinct period or epoch of time"? Are you suggesting that the earth's daily rotation period has changed dramatically since the Creation week? Any Scripture to support such a far-fetched idea?



RCC -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 8:58:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

These mainstream scientists have managed to convince the vast majority of scientists of the truth of a very old earth and common descent with modification.

So the question is, how should YECs respond to this purported evidence and the arguments concerning the evidence offered by evolutionists and mainstream geologists?
Sorry Richard, but truth is not determined by majority vote, is it? Is there any conceivable evidence, observed state of the world, or arguments concerning same that would cause you to accept the truth that God created the universe in six days less than 10,000 years ago? Don't preach at me until you accept the finality of your own worldview!

Sorry if I seemed to be preaching -- that was not my intent. I'm trying to better understand how YECs see the world, and perhaps shrink the distance between us if possible.

To answer your question, yes, indeed there is conceivable evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince me that God created the universe in six days less than 10,000 years ago. To see what they are, just consider all the arguments made against a young earth, and reverse the conditions. I.e., if there were no light from stars farther away than 10,000 light years; if there were convincing evidence of a global flood within that time frame; if radiometric dating methods yielded results of <10,000 years; etc. etc.

But from where I sit I don't see any possibility that YECs could be swayed out of YECdom by any conceivable evidence. If any YECs think I'm wrong, they can simply answer the question, What conceivable observations, evidence, or state of the world, assuming it existed, would cause you to accept evolution and/or an old earth?



unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 9:33:29 PM)

ORIGINAL:drmark
quote:

I frequently have trouble spelling that word.

I sometimes have trouble with my spilling so I usually prepare my posts in word then cut and paste them into the forum. That way I can take advantage of the smell checker.



unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 9:53:12 PM)

ORIGINAL:RCC
quote:

I'm trying to better understand how YECs see the world, and perhaps shrink the distance between us if possible.

Actually it is quite simple. We view science from a Biblical perspective rather than viewing the Bible from a scientific perspective. I.e. science should conform to Scripture rather than trying to make Scripture conform to science.
What it boils down to the authority you choose to accept.



drmark -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 10:31:41 PM)

quote:

Could you please describe for me what 'space' consists of?
Umm, is this a philosophical or scientific question? Seriously, space "consists" of the three dimensions we call height, width, and depth and is one of the three parameters of reality, along with time and matter/energy. All of physical reality can be described as matter/energy existing in space through time. Hence, God defined our physical reality in this universe when he created the heavens (space) and earth (matter) in the beginning (time).

quote:

I have heard that there exists such a thing as 'dark' matter.
Who knows but God. It is an imaginary construct of astrophysicists who need to balance out their hypothetical models of gravitational force in order to support Big Bang theory.

quote:

Why would God judge time by the earth rotating at an angle around the sun with adam, who is not even made until the sixth day, standing on earth?
As I suggested before, God's inspiration for Adam and/or Moses to put in writing concepts which are even difficult for us today to fully comprehend can easily explain the so-called language of observation that is widely used throughout the Genesis account.

quote:

Therefore, a 'day' is what God calls the light.
More precisely, it is the separation of light that God called "day" implying that time and/or space is now involved in the definition. Again, a very simple explanation would be the rotation of the planet so that one side is in light and the other side in darkness OR that there is a daytime and a nighttime OR both.

quote:

It shows that from before the beginning of creation, the Morning Star and then after creation, the son of the Morning Star are spoken about by this retroactive prophecy. It is written that darkness was separated from light by God right away for he was a murderer from the begining as it is written. Not that Jesus did not exist eternally as firstborn over all creation, but as a picture of what was going on in the spiritual realm for God is spirit and must be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth.
Whoa, partner, that's way too much prophetic gobbly-de-gook to read into a plain-sense historical narrative account. Perhaps some of this possible symbolism may foreshadow the spiritual battle of light against darkness, but the original intent of Genesis 1 is to accurately record the facts of history as God originally experienced them.



Okami -> RE: the earth (1/8/2008 11:37:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

Don’t they gotta ignore Genesis 11 to do that though?



Would they?
What if "fathered" had the same issues?
Look at the genealogy in gen 11.
See anything suspicious there?
I'll let you look at it first to have a shot at finding it, and be back later.



iluvatar -> RE: the earth (1/9/2008 7:21:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Could you please describe for me what 'space' consists of?
Umm, is this a philosophical or scientific question? Seriously, space "consists" of the three dimensions we call height, width, and depth and is one of the three parameters of reality, along with time and matter/energy. All of physical reality can be described as matter/energy existing in space through time. Hence, God defined our physical reality in this universe when he created the heavens (space) and earth (matter) in the beginning (time).

quote:

I have heard that there exists such a thing as 'dark' matter.
Who knows but God. It is an imaginary construct of astrophysicists who need to balance out their hypothetical models of gravitational force in order to support Big Bang theory.


It's not just the Big Bang Theory that needs dark matter. We can look out into space and detect the effects of gravity being exerted on normal matter. The idea of dark matter came from the fact that we can't detect enough matter out there to account for the amount of gravity that we see being exerted. Dark matter (assuming it's real) is essentially matter which doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation.

-Dan.



RCC -> RE: the earth (1/9/2008 8:09:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:RCC
quote:

I'm trying to better understand how YECs see the world, and perhaps shrink the distance between us if possible.

Actually it is quite simple. We view science from a Biblical perspective rather than viewing the Bible from a scientific perspective. I.e. science should conform to Scripture rather than trying to make Scripture conform to science.
What it boils down to the authority you choose to accept.

OK. So the ultimate authority accepted by YECs is their interpretation or understanding of what the Bible says?

Also, I would still like to see an answer to my question:

"What conceivable observations, evidence, or state of the world, assuming it existed, would cause a YEC to accept evolution and/or an old earth?"

If the answer is "nothing," what is the point of debating the observed evidence?



unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/9/2008 10:01:16 PM)

ORIGINAL:RCC
quote:

OK. So the ultimate authority accepted by YECs is their interpretation or understanding of what the Bible says?

It is known as a hermeneutic interpretation. It allows the Bible to interpret itself rather than relying on the ever-changing whims of science.

quote:

"What conceivable observations, evidence, or state of the world, assuming it existed, would cause a YEC to accept evolution and/or an old earth?"

What evidence would it take to convince you that Jesus was not resurrected?

quote:

If the answer is "nothing," what is the point of debating the observed evidence?

If Jesus was not truly dead then the gospel is predicated on a lie. Please cite the observational evidence that a person can be put to death by crucifixion, lay dead in a grave for three days and then come back to life.

Doesn’t favoring science over what the Bible plainly says about origins but rejecting science when it comes to the resurrection seem just a tad bit inconsistent?



ianz -> RE: the earth (1/9/2008 10:48:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:RCC
quote:

OK. So the ultimate authority accepted by YECs is their interpretation or understanding of what the Bible says?

It is known as a hermeneutic interpretation. It allows the Bible to interpret itself rather than relying on the ever-changing whims of science.

This is the reason I asked my question earlier about the versions of the Bible. If the Bible has been subjected to variations over the years, how can we be certain that a literal interpretation is the inerrant word of God?

Regards, Ian



drmark -> RE: the earth (1/9/2008 11:14:19 PM)

quote:

This is the reason I asked my question earlier about the versions of the Bible. If the Bible has been subjected to variations over the years, how can we be certain that a literal interpretation is the inerrant word of God?
Faithful tranlations of the Bible do not subject God's Word to "variations over the years". I personally have never seen an English translation of Genesis 1 that refers to "evening and morning, the first-sixth day" with some obtuse translation like "indefinite epochs of undetermined time". If you know of such a version, please share it with us.



ianz -> RE: the earth (1/10/2008 6:09:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

This is the reason I asked my question earlier about the versions of the Bible. If the Bible has been subjected to variations over the years, how can we be certain that a literal interpretation is the inerrant word of God?
Faithful tranlations of the Bible do not subject God's Word to "variations over the years". I personally have never seen an English translation of Genesis 1 that refers to "evening and morning, the first-sixth day" with some obtuse translation like "indefinite epochs of undetermined time". If you know of such a version, please share it with us.

Nonetheless, any introduction of variation into the reading of the text surely means it cannot be upheld as inerrant. Which means the bible can only be read as human interpretation of God's word, not necessarily precisely God's word, no?

Cheers, Ian



drmark -> RE: the earth (1/10/2008 8:57:29 AM)

quote:

Nonetheless, any introduction of variation into the reading of the text surely means it cannot be upheld as inerrant. Which means the bible can only be read as human interpretation of God's word, not necessarily precisely God's word, no?
Nonsense! If I decide to interpret 2+2 to mean 5, does that show that arithmetic is no longer inerrant? Of course not - it shows that I have an incorrect interpretation of math principles. The Bible is the infallible, authoritative, divinely-inspired Word of God regardless how many folks misinterpret Its precise Text. Try this for starters, Ian - pay close attention to Article X:

CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY



ianz -> RE: the earth (1/10/2008 5:40:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

...
regardless how many folks misinterpret Its precise Text.

But it's not a precise text, is it? Otherwise we'd all be in agreement about its intepretation? We are required to read between the lines and make our own judgement about what it all means.



unclemonkey -> RE: the earth (1/10/2008 5:57:02 PM)

ORIGINAL:ianz
quote:

We are required to read between the lines and make our own judgement about what it all means.

Do you think that applies to salvation also or only the recorded history?



RCC -> RE: the earth (1/10/2008 6:53:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:RCC
quote:

OK. So the ultimate authority accepted by YECs is their interpretation or understanding of what the Bible says?

It is known as a hermeneutic interpretation. It allows the Bible to interpret itself rather than relying on the ever-changing whims of science.

Setting aside for the moment the question of what it might mean to “allow the Bible to interpret itself,” the fact remains that to come to any conclusions about what the Bible means or what God has said through the Bible, you have to do some thinking and make some decisions.

For example, YECs believe that God has said through the Scriptures that He created the world and everything in it in six literal days. Many other people, including most Christians, disagree (see the two-paragraph statement in the link). Obviously, both YECs and non-YECs have thought about what the Bible means, have used their reasoning abilities in various ways, and have reached different conclusions about what the Bible means and what, if anything, God has said (and not just about creation).

So the YEC position, as I understand it, is apparently as follows:

(1) Human reason, in general, is inherently error-prone and fallible. Even the seemingly firmest conclusions of science are questionable, despite the methods science has developed to reduce error (peer review, statistical methods, independent replication of results, double-blind tests, etc.).

(2) Exceptionally, human reason is infallible in the special case when YECs are using their reasoning faculties to reach their conclusions concerning what God has said through the Bible.

It follows from (1) and (2) that:

(3) If what modern scientists say conflicts with what YECs believe God says through the Bible, it is 100% certain that science is wrong in this case and the YEC beliefs are correct.

Have I got it right? Otherwise I don’t know how you get (3).

quote:

If Jesus was not truly dead then the gospel is predicated on a lie. Please cite the observational evidence that a person can be put to death by crucifixion, lay dead in a grave for three days and then come back to life.

Doesn’t favoring science over what the Bible plainly says about origins but rejecting science when it comes to the resurrection seem just a tad bit inconsistent?

I don’t think science has anything to say about the possibility of miracles such as the Resurrection; that’s outside science’s domain. But if scientific reasoning did say that miracles are impossible, just as it says that the earth is billions of years old, I would have to use my human reasoning abilities as best I could to decide what to believe. Maybe someday we will know the truth about these matters directly, but in this vale of tears we have to rely on our human reasoning faculties that are presumably the gift of God.



drmark -> RE: the earth (1/10/2008 7:21:19 PM)

quote:

Even the seemingly firmest conclusions of science are questionable, despite the methods science has developed to reduce error (peer review, statistical methods, independent replication of results, double-blind tests, etc.).
quote:

I don’t think science has anything to say about the possibility of miracles such as the Resurrection; that’s outside science’s domain.
Richard, you're really missing this fundamental flaw in your attempt to understand YEC's position. Origins science is NOT subject to observational scientific methodology. Your first statement misrepresents the use of observational science by YECs for other kinds of scientific endeavors. I use peer review, statistical methods, independent replication of results, double-blind tests, etc. every day in my medical practice and clinical research. These methods are worthless and irrelevant to proving the "seemingly firmest conclusions" of the origins of the universe and earth's biodiversity.

Biblical creationism is outside the domain of observational science because it was a supernatural, one-time event for which experimentation and replication of results are impossible. Our interpretation and understanding of many observational scientific facts is greatly enhanced by the application of the Genesis account to the evidence at hand. You are only kidding yourself if you think that human reasoning is sufficient to prove the mechanism of nature's origin.



EverLearning -> RE: the earth (1/10/2008 8:52:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Richard, you're really missing this fundamental flaw in your attempt to understand YEC's position. Origins science is NOT subject to observational scientific methodology. Your first statement misrepresents the use of observational science by YECs for other kinds of scientific endeavors. I use peer review, statistical methods, independent replication of results, double-blind tests, etc. every day in my medical practice and clinical research. These methods are worthless and irrelevant to proving the "seemingly firmest conclusions" of the origins of the universe and earth's biodiversity.

Biblical creationism is outside the domain of observational science because it was a supernatural, one-time event for which experimentation and replication of results are impossible. Our interpretation and understanding of many observational scientific facts is greatly enhanced by the application of the Genesis account to the evidence at hand. You are only kidding yourself if you think that human reasoning is sufficient to prove the mechanism of nature's origin.


The act of creation may be outside the domain of observational sciences but the creation itself is subject to natural laws which are infact observable and the basis of the natural sciences.



drmark -> RE: the earth (1/10/2008 10:28:56 PM)

I've never said otherwise, EverLearning. In fact, many of the great observational scientists who founded their respective disciplinary fields were Christian creationists. Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Joule, Maxwell, Linnaeus, Mendel, and Pasteur come immediately to mind.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI