Believer, “I have never said that I believe the earth is only 6,000 years old” Talk about back peddling! Look believer, if you’re going to say its 10,000 years young (old), as opposed to 6,000, when compared with the science dating it at 4.57 billion, that really doesn’t matter, it still makes you a YEC. So what evidence is there that it’s ‘only a few thousand years old’ or tha...more

Believer,

“I have never said that I believe the earth is only 6,000 years old”

Talk about back peddling! Look believer, if you’re going to say its 10,000 years young (old), as opposed to 6,000, when compared with the science dating it at 4.57 billion, that really doesn’t matter, it still makes you a YEC. So what evidence is there that it’s ‘only a few thousand years old’ or that ‘water makes rocks look older? And you did state that much.

Ok believer, how old do you believe it to be & what evidenced do you use to support this belief?less

believer, “which is the demand you and others make of creationism if it is to be believed or taught.” I don’t demand any such thing, science does. Science demands that hypothesis be testable & if tests show that a hypothesis is wrong (water ages rocks) then that hypothesis has been shown wrong (falsified) & is disregarded. Creationism doesn’t want to be tested, it wants to just assum...more

believer,

“which is the demand you and others make of creationism if it is to be believed or taught.”

I don’t demand any such thing, science does. Science demands that hypothesis be testable & if tests show that a hypothesis is wrong (water ages rocks) then that hypothesis has been shown wrong (falsified) & is disregarded. Creationism doesn’t want to be tested, it wants to just assume what it wan assume based on their narrow interpretation & ignore anything which lacks empirical evidence & reject anything to the contrary, the definition of dogmatic.

“just because you believe it looks billions of years old by no means says it is since once again other than God no human being was there in the beginning to verify it.”

Fail again. I am not conflating & merely saying it just ‘looks older’, rather I am saying IT IS older by virtue of our testing & analysis. We don’t have to be a direct witness to know how old it is any more than we have to be a direct witness to a murder to determine the cause of death & when & who caused it.

The conclusion of science is based on consistent data which is rigorously tested, whereas some decry from authority (another logical fallacy) of ‘my fabled god says its this old’ is utterly untreatable. So once again, your hypothesis of a ‘revealed age’ fails as it cannot be tested for. Logically we know no humans could’ve made the earth, or made it look as it does. But we do know humans make up religions & are quite prone to error & gullibility & being deceived especially when such alleged ‘revelations’ always conspicuously come from a single source as they always are in religion (see Joseph smith one Mormonism). Even from that standpoint, we have more logical certitude in examine the earth to find its age rather than reading some book penned by men.

“it appears our discussion has come to an end since we simply continue to say the same things over and over.”

If you showed some evidence for water aging rocks, or that it’s stated as such in your bible, then you would be getting somewhere. Till now you’ve been making it up as you go along.less

Believer, “needless to say you are set in your beliefs and I am set in mine” Well, no, not quite. I mentioned earlier that Steve & I ARE open to being proved wrong with regards to what science currently shows by virtue of new evidence which is consistent with the rest of the evidence. I am willing to consider new evidence that is testable & can show the existing paradigm to be incorrect...more

Believer,

“needless to say you are set in your beliefs and I am set in mine”

Well, no, not quite. I mentioned earlier that Steve & I ARE open to being proved wrong with regards to what science currently shows by virtue of new evidence which is consistent with the rest of the evidence. I am willing to consider new evidence that is testable & can show the existing paradigm to be incorrect.

You on the other hand have made it abundantly clear that you’re not interested in evidence at all. Like your other logical fallacies & circular reasoning, you think having beliefs which are not only devoid of evidence but in fact counter to any empirical evidence is A-OK. This makes it quite difficult in reasoning with a zealot who refuses to accept that science does have fruits, while creationism doesn’t.

“you are not willing to even allow creationism to be taught in the classroom simply because it does not meet your manmade definition of science”

Fail. Creationism isn’t science b/c it ignores the very basis of science – methodological naturalism. There aren’t ‘my rules’ or ‘my definition’ it’s how science has been practiced for many centuries, & evidently by the fruits, it looks like it works bud! Creationism appeals the supernatural, which is unfalsifiable & isn’t science. This goes along way into explaining why creationism can’t explain reality & has zero fruits. If the methodology of creationism was correct we might expect it be to able to explain something. I’ll opt for the method which produces actual progress in human knowledge which translates in to results over the one which doesn’t any day.

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

“scientists who see creationism as a viable scientific option”

Show me they’re practicing science in the first place. Kent hovind isn’t a scientist; he’s a tax evading cell mate.

“I am not opposed to evolution being taught even though it has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt”

Hmm, the irony here is there is ZERO evidence the earth or other solar bodies are as young as you say, & that goes double for your ‘water aging rocks nonsense’. Certainly nothing on the sort of ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’ & yet you accept it. This suggests that you would reject evolution anyway out of hand, or perform ad-hoc analysis to ignore it just as you did with the ‘water ages rocks’ nonsense you proposedless

"The evidence is in the Bible." What evidence is there, which claims the earth and other bodies in the solar system are young like you say, that is testable prophet? If it's not testable, it's not evidence. A non testable statement is merely a statement.

Believer, “considering God's Word does not specifically say how old the earth is” Well, if it doesn’t declare the exact age, then why do you think it’s a mere 6000 years old? Either it states the age, or implies it, or it doesn’t. You cannot have it both ways in saying your YEC position is correct & then later backpedal to say it says nothing on the age implied or otherwise. If it�...more

Believer,

“considering God's Word does not specifically say how old the earth is”

Well, if it doesn’t declare the exact age, then why do you think it’s a mere 6000 years old? Either it states the age, or implies it, or it doesn’t. You cannot have it both ways in saying your YEC position is correct & then later backpedal to say it says nothing on the age implied or otherwise. If it’s merely a matter of interpretation, which I will grant you, then why would you assume the one which is at odds with so much science evidence is the correct one?

You’re aware of the laws of non-contradiction too, yes? (A =/= -A) Round is not square. 1 is not 2, red is not blue, a foot is not a mile, and 6000 years IS NOT 4.57 billion years.

“then that leaves that open for discussion and debate.”

If it’s open for debate, & science has ruled on the age consistently, then why oh why do you dismiss it out of hand in saying the methodology or applications are flawed? Again, based on the fruits alone science has shown a track record for efficacy, what is the fruits of creationism?

“Although the correct age based on the Word of God would be in the thousands and no where near the billions as claimed by others”

Although there is ZERO evidence for this at all! None. Nor more that the evidence that supposedly water can age rocks now or in the past.less

we've already established that YEC's think this much & we've moved onto to asking for evidence of this in nature. It, like the asserted 'water ages rock's has zero evidence for it now or in the past.

“Item (B) “ A ‘best guess’ is surely how I'd label such an arrived at age as well. However believer & others contend that it’s infallible & thus it literally means the whole universe is a mere 6000 years old (in their view). As such the premise is solid as it's not dependent on what the actual evidence says as he doesn't care of empirical science. “Item (C) "Carbon Dating accura...more

“Item (B) “

A ‘best guess’ is surely how I'd label such an arrived at age as well. However believer & others contend that it’s infallible & thus it literally means the whole universe is a mere 6000 years old (in their view). As such the premise is solid as it's not dependent on what the actual evidence says as he doesn't care of empirical science.

“Item (C) "Carbon Dating accuracy"

But Carbon dating isn’t used to get the lower limit age of the earth; it’s only applicable to ~65,000 years and below.

“If you dare go do some research into the rate of salt accumulation in the oceans. “

Yaaawn. If only you’d dare to do the same. - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.htmlless

true.

"nothing good comes from legalizing an addictive substance." You ever see the brain, on religion, now that's a hell of a drug, and there are no laws against that.

Though I don't attribute to it their happiness, there is quite the correlation of non-believers in those places.

“thank you for acknowledging that you are somewhat closed-minded as well in this matter.” Where did I imply I was close-minded on anything? “I don't need to provide evidence that water ages rocks or makes rocks look aged simply because God's Word teaches they are not near as old as some suspect they are.“ First point, yes you do need to provide positive supportive evidence, it’s...more

“thank you for acknowledging that you are somewhat closed-minded as well in this matter.”

Where did I imply I was close-minded on anything?

“I don't need to provide evidence that water ages rocks or makes rocks look aged simply because God's Word teaches they are not near as old as some suspect they are.“

First point, yes you do need to provide positive supportive evidence, it’s your claim after all that the flood/water aged the rocks, ergo you have the burden of proof to show how that water ages rocks or made them ‘look older’. I do not need to disprove something for which you cannot prove in the first place.

The bible doesn’t even claim or imply the water aged anything, for all you know the water didn’t & your god supposedly make it look older prior to the flood, or maybe he did after david showed up, there is really no evidence for it either way as neither involves – EVIDENCE! It’s all mindless speculation & ad-hoc fallacious thinking devoid of evidence made up as you go along.

“if God is telling the truth that the universe as we know it is only thousands of years old then we are not even looking at billion year old rocks but thousand year old rocks”

This is an unfalsifiable statement, never mind the fact that it’s circular reasoning all over again. It says it’s that age, & we know it’s correct b/c it says so! Logic fail.

God’s can do anything right? So hypothetically a god could make them just ‘look like’ any age & do it in any possible way that science later ended up finding them to be.

“how can we even know what something that doesn't exist looks like?”

We can’t disprove a negative & that’s what you’re asking for, it’s a logical impossibility. Can you disprove I don’t have a green leprechaun sitting on my shoulder giving be stock tips? NO! You can no more disprove that statement any more than someone can disprove an unfalsifiable claim that your god made them look that age with water or that it didn't occur by water. The one thing we can test now is if water actually ages rocks, which you cannot show evidence for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot#Russell.27s_original_textless

Believer “then it's not faulty, but at this point neither one of us or even science can prove that” I mentioned the fruits of science, did I not? Is this not sufficient evidence & proof that the methodology works, is correct & to that end can explain reality? Were it the case that the methodology didn’t work (you still haven’t shown it hasn’t), & didn’t provide fruits, then & onl...more

Believer

“then it's not faulty, but at this point neither one of us or even science can prove that”

I mentioned the fruits of science, did I not? Is this not sufficient evidence & proof that the methodology works, is correct & to that end can explain reality? Were it the case that the methodology didn’t work (you still haven’t shown it hasn’t), & didn’t provide fruits, then & only then you’d have a point that it’s not proven. Adding to that, the alternative methodology of creationism utterly lacks ANY fruits, what are its fruits?

“since we are limited in our ability to fully interpret the data since no one was physically present”

I do not reject that by our reason we’re limited by our ability to interpret data, however this premise isn’t exclusive to science, it also applies to anyone trying to read your bible or any thing for that matter. The manner in which data is interpreted is a given, as I stated, so this point is moot. I notice that this argument for ‘data as a matter of interpretation’ isn’t something you mentioned when asserting water aged the rocks or that your circular reasoning applied to your bible isn’t problematic.

“other than God when this all began.”

That point too is moot. God(s) might have ‘inspired’ it, but men wrote it, edited it, copied it, and translated it, all of them interpreting what it meant along the way as they rejected whole books & sections as it evolved. Men believer.less

Believer, The irony here is that you’re quite quick to tell others that your literalistic interpretation is correct & the only way it could ever be read. What some might call dogmatic. But when coming to explain the apparent age of the earth & other objects by science you appeal to ad-hoc analysis fallacies of saying ‘water caused it to look older’, even though it’s neither mentioned...more

Believer,

The irony here is that you’re quite quick to tell others that your literalistic interpretation is correct & the only way it could ever be read. What some might call dogmatic.

But when coming to explain the apparent age of the earth & other objects by science you appeal to ad-hoc analysis fallacies of saying ‘water caused it to look older’, even though it’s neither mentioned or implied in the bible nor is there a single piece of evidence ever that water today or in the past causes rocks to age or ‘look older’. Adding to this you then assert that the methodology itself (science) is flawed, yet this is at variance with the very fruits (nuclear power, atomic weapons, etc) that we’ve obtained from our knowledge of physics which is the main domain used in .understanding isotope decay rates.

Like I said, you shamelessly make it up as you go along…less

Believer, “unless we can get God to directly intervene in an experiment that could replicate the Genesis Flood then there is no way we can prove or disprove on whether or not water is capable of giving rocks an old age appearance” Well, there is zero chance of getting god(s) to act in a controlled science experiment (gods don’t have to act in a controlled manner hypothetically), let al...more

Believer,

“unless we can get God to directly intervene in an experiment that could replicate the Genesis Flood then there is no way we can prove or disprove on whether or not water is capable of giving rocks an old age appearance”

Well, there is zero chance of getting god(s) to act in a controlled science experiment (gods don’t have to act in a controlled manner hypothetically), let alone the requirement of numerous repeatable tests required to make it actually testable & know the results.

Thus testing of your uh, ‘flood makes rocks look older’ hypothesis’ failed immediately on 2 sets of demarcation required of science. It cannot be tested, nor can it be falsified. Thus, it fails, & is rejected.

Absent of such a direct study of the supposed flood, is there anything, any evidence at all that suggests that water/flood make rocks 'look older'? No, none at all.

You need EVIDENCE for a proposition my dear believer, not anecdotal nonsense, not hearsay, not conjecture & certainly not appeals to authority ('my bible says so') Evidence.less

Believer, “but simply the fact that if it is faulty then the interpretation will also be faulty.” And if it’s not faulty, then what? Logically it’s hard to suggest that 6 independent dating methods all being measured to a margin of error of 1% all hitting on the same age of 4.57 billion years, could be wrong. Again I ask, what is your evidence that water ages rocks, or makes it ju...more

Believer,

“but simply the fact that if it is faulty then the interpretation will also be faulty.”

And if it’s not faulty, then what? Logically it’s hard to suggest that 6 independent dating methods all being measured to a margin of error of 1% all hitting on the same age of 4.57 billion years, could be wrong.

Again I ask, what is your evidence that water ages rocks, or makes it just ‘look older’?

“You see as you well know my desire that you are adamantly opposed to is to allow Creationism to be presented as a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution”

No, I reject ALL pseudo-science, not just creationism. If creationism had some fruits in science research it might find it self in becoming taught at public schools, until then, not a chance. No sense in teaching non-science in a science class.less

believer, “God is supernatural by no means negates the fact that He is involved in our everyday living to include with the scientific realm as well.” Well, like I said numerous times already, it really doesn’t matter to science if god exists or not, it operates under the context that god(s) aren’t involved so as to determine the root cause & effect relationship when performing tests....more

believer,

“God is supernatural by no means negates the fact that He is involved in our everyday living to include with the scientific realm as well.”

Well, like I said numerous times already, it really doesn’t matter to science if god exists or not, it operates under the context that god(s) aren’t involved so as to determine the root cause & effect relationship when performing tests.

If we assume god(s) are interfering with the results then it becomes impossible to determine a root cause & effect as we could never be sure if god(s) were changing the results, or changing our interpretation, or changing physical laws, & so on. Like I said, find a singe time EVER that science knowledge has progresses by answering ‘god did it’. You wont find one…

By the way, got any evidence that water ages rocks or makes them just 'look older'?

“God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind in many ways”

No doubt, looking at the 1000’s of religions man has made up, it’s no surprise they too appealed to the ‘god did it’ explanation to explain reality.

“And the best tool is not what God has created or allowed to be created or discovered by man, but rather God Himself is the best resource available to man to determine the answers to life's most difficult questions.”

Then for the, um, 10th time I ask, WHAT ARE THE FRUITS OF CREATIONISM? If creationism is sooooo superior in describing reality, where is the evidence for its efficacy? Science’s fruits are quite evident.

“And I certainly do believe science has much to say about reality, but if it comes down to a choice between what God says is reality and what supposed scientific truth says about reality I will go with God's truth every time”

So, when the bible says the earth is fixed, you’re going to go with that. When the bible says a man can live in a whale, & snakes & donkey's can talk, you're going with that. When the bible says, insects have 4 legs, you’re going to go with that. Got it.less

Believer, “saying that God being involved in scientiific processes is just a meta-physical philisophical claim and not a scientific claim is totally untrue” It’s entirely true. God(s) existence or not IS a metaphysical argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#The_problem_of_the_supernatural. “since God is indeed the designer and initiator of all true science.” ...more

Believer,

“saying that God being involved in scientiific processes is just a meta-physical philisophical claim and not a scientific claim is totally untrue”

It’s entirely true. God(s) existence or not IS a metaphysical argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#The_problem_of_the_supernatural.

“since God is indeed the designer and initiator of all true science.”

The supernatural is unfalsifiable, what part of that is beyond your comprehension? For science to work, it must operate in accordance to natural laws to explain natural phenomena. The moment we say ‘oh well god did this’ then all progress stops as such a hypothesis in principle cannot be tested for, & shown to be wrong (falsified). Show me a single time, EVER, where science progressed by saying 'god did this'.

If we cannot show something to be wrong (falsified), then we lose out on concluding any cause & effect relationship. If we lose that then there is no way to determine for instance the cause of infections, or being sick.

Is being sick (getting a cold) judgment from god(s), or a contraction of a very, very small pathogen? The Dark Ages told us 'god caused sickness;.

Science has the goods, science works b/c it roots out that chief cause. Creationism doesn’t b/c it appeals to mysticism, magic, & other unfalsifiable bronze age nonsense.

Look believer, I really don’t care if you believe in god(s) or not, my point here is with regards to how we as humans study the world, & the best tools at are disposal are logic, reason & with that the tool of science. Again ,we can compare the fruits of each methodology. The fruits of science are readily evident to anyone in a developer or even developing world. What though are the fruits of creationism? Casting out ‘demons’ which were actually people with neurological disorders?

If you don’t think science has anything to say about reality, then give up all the things science has brought for humanity and live in a cave. At least then you wouldn’t be living as a hypocrite.less

“first must rely on man's ability to develop instruments that can accurately measure the age of things” Are you saying the instruments in science used for this are flawed then? If so, WHERE is your evidence this is the case? I tend to think science has it right here & in most aspects as evident by that little thing I mentioned many times – its fruits. I mean, how could it be that we ca...more

“first must rely on man's ability to develop instruments that can accurately measure the age of things”

Are you saying the instruments in science used for this are flawed then? If so, WHERE is your evidence this is the case?

I tend to think science has it right here & in most aspects as evident by that little thing I mentioned many times – its fruits. I mean, how could it be that we can produce atomic weapons and use atomic energy unless we knew quite well how radioactive elements behave?

Logically, if the method of science lacked efficacy, then it wouldn’t produce fruits & would describe nature. But it can, & does, so it’s a question of why you reject (out of hand no less) a method that so obviously has produced so many fruits over the centuries that to suggest it’s not correct or at least onto something is to ignore history & reality itself.

“we must rely on man's ability to correctly interpret the data produced by this equipment.”

Fail. Everything is part of human interpretation, interpretation is a GIVEN, just like reading your bible requires interpretation.less

Believer, Well, no I haven’t met alcoholics first hand, but I am aware of what you speak of. But your argument is flawed, for we can know a persons age by other means. For one, a person may ‘look older’ than they might actually be, but only slightly, there is nothing empirical to suggest water does this to rocks or isotopes. If so, show it. Biologically we can tell a lot about a person...more

Believer,

Well, no I haven’t met alcoholics first hand, but I am aware of what you speak of. But your argument is flawed, for we can know a persons age by other means. For one, a person may ‘look older’ than they might actually be, but only slightly, there is nothing empirical to suggest water does this to rocks or isotopes. If so, show it.

Biologically we can tell a lot about a person’s actual age based on their telomeres. So even were they an alcoholic, this would be a more precise measurement.

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

Even an alcoholic will have some history of their life on earth, birth certificates, documents of graduation, & so forth which can be used to reasonably gauge the persons age. Finding such evidence like this is more or less like measuring the evidence for numerous isotopes which have steadily decayed over the eons.

“once again that was not God's purpose for sending the Genesis Flood but simply a consequence of the Genesis Flood.”

Until you show that water actually causes rocks to age, or ‘look older’ it’s all hot air nonsense that is was a consequence of anything. You should be happy I haven’t routinely called you out on the lacking evidence for any such global flood as well. Evidence. Got any? If not, you’re wrong, deal with it.

“as far as the age of the earth and the other things you cited who but God since He is the only person who has existed for eternity would even have the slightest idea of what something billions of years old would even look like.”

Your statement totally glossed over my questions. You said the flood caused the rocks to ‘look older’, ok fair enough, then how did the flood/water cause other things to also ‘look older’?less

lpepperw, no, have you? Besides one doesn't need to have breast cancer to understand its cause(s).