"you'd be correct if all scientists supported the old earth theory, but they all don't!!" What AIG, ICR and the discovery institute put out isn't science. Forget finding evidence, they don't even adhere to the scientific methodology of methodological naturalism.

Believer, "God did indeed cause the Genesis Flood but His purpose for the flood was not to make the earth look old” And yet this is exactly what you’re claiming. He caused it, and it inadvertently made it look older. How did the flood make the sun older? How did it make the moon older, and the rest of the solar bodies in our solar system older? “come on the Ark!!” Look believer...more

Believer,

"God did indeed cause the Genesis Flood but His purpose for the flood was not to make the earth look old”

And yet this is exactly what you’re claiming. He caused it, and it inadvertently made it look older. How did the flood make the sun older? How did it make the moon older, and the rest of the solar bodies in our solar system older?

“come on the Ark!!”

Look believer, I don’t mind talking with you, but making anpoint with double exclamation points as you so often do does not make it any more logically tenable or true. An emphatic statement =/= a true statement simply b/c it’s emphatic. This too, like circular reasoning and why it’s flawed, is very basic logic.

“I do know because God said it and that settles it!”

You know it’s true b/c the book that you think your god authored or inspired men to write says it’s true. Circular reasoning fail once again.

“So don't deny God's truth because some scientists can't find the evidence”

Unlike you, I will not accept claims without empirical evidence, especially well tested and analyzed evidence. You’re claim that water or flood water ages rocks or accelerates the decay of radioactive isotopes is utterly unfounded & there is zero evidence to support such a claim. Absence of evidence for your ‘flood aging’ is your problem, not mine. Got evidence for it? If not, go away. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

“especially since some scientists have found evidence that supports a worldwide flood!!”

Really, where? Why aren’t they publishing their findings? Why haven’t they published their articles that such a flood aged the rocks as you say? Like I said, you shamelessly make it up as you go along.less

Believer, “some of them vary with the number of thousands of years old” Right, some creationists claim its 6,000 years old, others say closer to 10,000 years old. Either way, the margin of error with respect the actual scientifically dated age of the earth (4.57 Billion) is quite high. The difference between a few thousand years when compared with the scientific known lower limit age is ...more

Believer,

“some of them vary with the number of thousands of years old”

Right, some creationists claim its 6,000 years old, others say closer to 10,000 years old. Either way, the margin of error with respect the actual scientifically dated age of the earth (4.57 Billion) is quite high. The difference between a few thousand years when compared with the scientific known lower limit age is nominal.less

Parrot, “I understand that the church did not object to Galileo's position” Riight, that’s why the church had him put under house arrest. I guess he should feel luck he didn’t get burned at the stake like Giodana Bruno? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno “they requested he provide appropriate evidence to substantiate his claim….. Galileo was unable to do that” ...more

Parrot,

“I understand that the church did not object to Galileo's position”

Riight, that’s why the church had him put under house arrest. I guess he should feel luck he didn’t get burned at the stake like Giodana Bruno?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

“they requested he provide appropriate evidence to substantiate his claim….. Galileo was unable to do that”

He did with the telescope in showing moons orbiting Jupiter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

“then violoated an agreement he reached with the church by publishing stuff he wasn't supposed to. That is what got him into trouble.”

He got in trouble b/c he dared to challenge the authority of the dogmatic church.

“A precursor of what happens to those scientists of today who don't toe the party line such as those found in Expelled”

Right, except for in expelled no one is being threatened to be burned at the stake & no one is being put under house arrest. Just where the scientists are published works of the ID movement, where is their research showing that ID is more empirically supported and testable as the existing theorem?less

Railhead, “Scientists deal with observable, testable data made from direct observation, not wild speculation that cannot be tested or proven.” Indeed. For Darwin that consisted of reviewing the current artificial selection employed in dog breeding, and he observed that this same sort of (natural) selection was occurring on isolated islands in the Galapagos where obviously similarly relat...more

Railhead,

“Scientists deal with observable, testable data made from direct observation, not wild speculation that cannot be tested or proven.”

Indeed. For Darwin that consisted of reviewing the current artificial selection employed in dog breeding, and he observed that this same sort of (natural) selection was occurring on isolated islands in the Galapagos where obviously similarly related species shared ancestry. Additionally he observed fossils of species which looked quite similar to those which were living & questioned why it was they were found so closely, unless they might be related somehow. He also observed that early in embryonic development, to the naked eye, a pig, human, chicken, & fish are utterly indistinguishable.

“One species producing an entirely new species has never been directly observed”

Go home. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

There have been so many different types of speciation that scientists have had to create entire categories on how they differ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopatric_speciation#Isolating_Mechanisms

“there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record.”

Go home already.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

“Dinosaur fossils with red blood cells and soft tissue still intact have been discovered”

Fail. The fossil was that of a T-Rex, and it was no oozing with blood upon discovery. Only upon using a cleaning agent of desalination did it become evident there were some fibrous springy tissue & what appeared to be dried blood cells.less

RLB, “HOW they propose to convince themselves that my argument is not "sound", having, allegedly, a false minor premise” The one response I have heard is that they think, whether they really believe this or are putting it up merely b/c having to consider the alternative is unconscionable to their a priori mindset, is that the whole world of global scientists are in some sort of a cabal o...more

RLB,

“HOW they propose to convince themselves that my argument is not "sound", having, allegedly, a false minor premise”

The one response I have heard is that they think, whether they really believe this or are putting it up merely b/c having to consider the alternative is unconscionable to their a priori mindset, is that the whole world of global scientists are in some sort of a cabal out to kill their literalistic interpretation of their religion. It’s quite sad really; it’s like the ‘9-11 truthers’ as they commit more logical problems to answer questions that can readily already be explained by the natural evidence.

This is more or less what believer did with regards to the age of the earth paradox. There is very little evidence (none?) for any such global flood 4000 years ago, & there is zero evidence that water or floods age rocks or accelerate the decay of isotopes on earth. Even with this unfalsifiable hypothesis believer puts forth, it still doesn’t explain why the rest of the universe looks the age it does as it’s over 13 billion years old. It doesn’t explain the age of our sun ( ~5 billion years old) nor the age of the moon rocks from our trips to the moon (4.5 billion years old). How exactly did this earthly flood cause the sun, or moon or other solar bodies to age he wont say, but it’s not like he could. It’s a shameless case of making it up as they go along parading it around to be scientific.less

Believer, “I have never in any way said the God purposely made the earth look older than what it is, what I said was as a result of the power and damage of the Genesis Flood the earth may appear to look a lot older than what it really is.” But wait….didn’t your god supposedly cause the flood. So how does the flood he created, that you assert (not know) not become directly or indirect...more

Believer,

“I have never in any way said the God purposely made the earth look older than what it is, what I said was as a result of the power and damage of the Genesis Flood the earth may appear to look a lot older than what it really is.”

But wait….didn’t your god supposedly cause the flood. So how does the flood he created, that you assert (not know) not become directly or indirectly linked to his actions? Besides all that, there is zero evidence that water or floods age minerals at all.less

Believer, “could this "old age" look simply be the natural consequence of a worldwide flood” No. Your first problem is supporting your position of a global flood. If it was really global, & as recent as you say, then there really should be lots of evidence for it. But despite all that we don’t’ find much (any?) evidence. Second, there is zero evidence that rain, or floods, local or g...more

Believer,

“could this "old age" look simply be the natural consequence of a worldwide flood”

No. Your first problem is supporting your position of a global flood. If it was really global, & as recent as you say, then there really should be lots of evidence for it. But despite all that we don’t’ find much (any?) evidence. Second, there is zero evidence that rain, or floods, local or global, could cause minerals to ‘age faster’.

“what we are seeing is not an earth that looks old, but rather an earth that is bearing the signs of the consequences of man's sin and God's punishment for those sins with Noah's Flood??”

Totally unfalsifiable rubbish. This goes back to my original post days ago, that not a single person tried to answer.

How they (creationists) distinguish between ‘god making it look older than it really is’ & their insert anytime confounding things occur ‘devil that lays misleading evidence’ is something I’d like to know.less

"! In other words it is a pointless question!!" Believer, you would only call it a worthless question b/c you cannot answer it, no on can. Any time a hard question such as this comes up, it's dismissed, rather than thought on critically. To claim something is all powerful means certain logical inconsistencies like these can't help but to arise. That is, such a being as described with certain...more

"! In other words it is a pointless question!!"

Believer, you would only call it a worthless question b/c you cannot answer it, no on can. Any time a hard question such as this comes up, it's dismissed, rather than thought on critically.

To claim something is all powerful means certain logical inconsistencies like these can't help but to arise. That is, such a being as described with certain properties of omniscience, omnipotent, and omni-beneveolent doesn't exist, or it doesn't have all the properties. This is why the Epicurus riddle of Evil is still to this day unanswered effectively. It's not the unbelievers fault for not accepting claims that a circle is actually a square (logically inconsistent).less

abhodim, “I always note these days that the "ardent defender of Darwinism" also has to be an avowed atheist. “ Or they could be like Ken Miller, Dobzhansky, Carrol, or Bakker? “It seems that the theory has not progressed all that much since the days of Huxley.” Right, I mean how could it have advanced in the past 150 years. Well, for one we have far more understanding of the de...more

abhodim,

“I always note these days that the "ardent defender of Darwinism" also has to be an avowed atheist. “

Or they could be like Ken Miller, Dobzhansky, Carrol, or Bakker?

“It seems that the theory has not progressed all that much since the days of Huxley.”

Right, I mean how could it have advanced in the past 150 years. Well, for one we have far more understanding of the development of organisms thanks to our understanding of modern genetics, & the modern synthesis, and epigenetics, & population dynamics.less

Hawk\Parrot "yet evolution is trying to force interpretations to fit a naturalistic presuppostion." Well HELLO, that's how the methodology of science works. Science requires testability and falsifiability, the supernatural cannot be tested for, let alone shown to exist, but nature can in both cases.

Hawk\parrot “Does gravity and chemistry prove evolution? This is the silly argument from your side.” No, they’re entirely separate domains of science knowledge. One does not necessarily imply the other(s) are true, or false. However, that there is great symmetry in the physics laws & mathematical laws and that they’re consistent, suggests logically it’s far more probable both are c...more

Hawk\parrot

“Does gravity and chemistry prove evolution? This is the silly argument from your side.”

No, they’re entirely separate domains of science knowledge. One does not necessarily imply the other(s) are true, or false. However, that there is great symmetry in the physics laws & mathematical laws and that they’re consistent, suggests logically it’s far more probable both are correct rather than wrong.

However our side doesn’t conflate in equating evolution as true simply b/c gravity is. No this isn’t the argument put forth by scientists at all.

Rather the two, gravity and evolution, are compared as each are science THEORIES, and oh so often those who advocate creationism conflate a science theory/model with being the same thing as a wild guess made by a person who’s tested nothing and lacked empirical data. They’re really only compared to suggest that those like yourself who fail to comprehend that if they’re thinking is so narrow that they think a theory for evolution makes it less certain, then logically they must apply the same rule to other science which adhere to the vernacular of ‘theory’, hence ‘gravity theory’.less

Parrot, "actually, gravity and chemistry are in the family of operational science and evolution belongs to the family of historical science, not operational science" Right, so I guess when scientists in the lab are analyzing allelic frequencies as they change over the courser numerous generations in response to competition and selection, that some how doesn't count as operational science.

"is the real issue and the above individuals have made some great inroads for truth." Parrot, Sure they have, I mean where oh where are all their peer reviewed published works demonstrating neo-creationism to be correct? Lumping Ham and Behe together couldn't be more of a disaster for advocates of creationism like yourself. For one, cdesignpropents, I mean Intelligent Design proponents, have...more

"is the real issue and the above individuals have made some great inroads for truth."

Parrot,

Sure they have, I mean where oh where are all their peer reviewed published works demonstrating neo-creationism to be correct? Lumping Ham and Behe together couldn't be more of a disaster for advocates of creationism like yourself. For one, cdesignpropents, I mean Intelligent Design proponents, have tried since their infamous loss at Dover in 2005 to persuade others that what they're selling isn't creationism, but actually science, and what they do advocate isn't at all what young earthers like Ham advocate.less

4Him, “the evidence regarding “the” missing link remains elusive today as ever before” If it’s so elusive, why do we have multiple specimens for multiple species? Why do we have over 400 specimens for the Neanderthals alone? “I believe true science goes hand in hand with the Bible but it is interesting to note that the science community has felt compelled to conjure up these a...more

4Him,

“the evidence regarding “the” missing link remains elusive today as ever before”

If it’s so elusive, why do we have multiple specimens for multiple species? Why do we have over 400 specimens for the Neanderthals alone?

“I believe true science goes hand in hand with the Bible but it is interesting to note that the science community has felt compelled to conjure up these apparent fossils discoveries; why is that? All these have been proven to be frauds…”

No honey, they certainly have not. Even places like AIG, & ICR fully admit that the fossils, like those I mentioned from the Smithsonian institute collection, are indeed real.

“Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years.”

No, it was much longer ago than that, it was shown to be falsified nearly that long ago. No scientists refer to Piltdown, there is no need to with the plethora of other fossils.


“Neandertal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind. “

No, they were just a diseased kind, we have many hundreds of specimens of them, even infants, that are quite different morphologically and genetically when compared with H. Sapiens.


“Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.”

Right, originally such species were only found around Java, however later many others were found in China, Africa (turkana boy), and Eurasia. Hence the term of ‘Java man’ was not quite accurate as they opted to define the species for its range and not for being exclusively found only in java.less

"Taking a second glance at the fossil record will demonstrate that these supposed ape-men have been proven to be frauds" Apparently 4him, you need more than a second glance. http://humanorigins.si.edu/

"we simply don't believe in macro-evolution" It's a little more complicated than that. Fundies reject geology, geochemistry & physics which says the earth is 4.57 billion years old. They also reject astronomy & cosmology that says the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Saying 'oh, I just reject (macro) evolution' is a canard.

I understand morals & ethics, and how they're different. In the question of adopting, those concerns of not allowing certain people to adopt stem for instance from their lack of responsibility (alcoholic), their examples of neglect, their indifference to human suffering (murderer) thus they wouldn’t be fit to take care of another who cannot take care of themselves. That said, how would being...more

I understand morals & ethics, and how they're different. In the question of adopting, those concerns of not allowing certain people to adopt stem for instance from their lack of responsibility (alcoholic), their examples of neglect, their indifference to human suffering (murderer) thus they wouldn’t be fit to take care of another who cannot take care of themselves.

That said, how would being gay disqualify anyone?less

I can understand that point. So assuming the gay person or persons are otherwise upstanding citizens, no drugs, nor crimes, pays taxes, all that jazz, I take it you'd still reject them?

C'mon Rev, the devil planted that evidence to make it *look* like it occurred in the past. That’s not god being deceptive, he just wanted to make it look like it’s really a lot older than it can be inferred by the book he inspired humans to write 2000 yeas ago. How they distinguish between ‘god making it look older than it really is’ & their insert anytime confounding things occur ‘de...more

C'mon Rev, the devil planted that evidence to make it *look* like it occurred in the past. That’s not god being deceptive, he just wanted to make it look like it’s really a lot older than it can be inferred by the book he inspired humans to write 2000 yeas ago.

How they distinguish between ‘god making it look older than it really is’ & their insert anytime confounding things occur ‘devil that lays misleading evidence’ is something I’d like to know.less