Age Correlations and an Old Earth

So, you were lying? Your complimentary front was merely a ploy to seem justified in a backhand attack when you know that your own behavior meant I couldn't, in honesty, reciprocate?You've just provided another example of the behavior I was talking about. You've never been interested in serious debate, only in name-calling. Hrm, I'd really hoped to strike a note of pity. I'll have to work on that. But to suggest "anger" would mean that I give you considerably more thought than I really do.Please, don't flatter yourself. So, you don't believe your bathroom scale or your car speedometer, because their measurements are validated by convergence with other methods?I don't really find your criticism "stinging", I find it impotent and inconsistent. You trust (presumably) your speedometer and your bathroom scale, even though they're validated by the same methods you described as "circular." Oh, shit, I'm convinced! (Hrm, what does that do to your theory? Now that I'm convinced God-sense exists, but I don't have it? Bit of a paradox, isn't it?)

This is exactly what the first post on this topic is about -- externally derived ages that correlate undeniably with the ages of the earth determined by scienctists.They show undeniable proof of an earth older than is possible under any YEC model for any rational person.Note that the topic is about CORRELATIONS not just hand picked results.How can you answer the correlations of age with the annual tree rings, the annual lake varves, the annual ice layers, the annual calcite layers -- each one correlating not just on age but on climate changes over those ages as well?enjoy

If you want to start a topic that is about your claim Please do so. I expect to see real evidence of a difference between people with and people without that can be measured and quantified (is there a specific christian 'god-sense' or one for each religion?)BARRING THAT, this is a discussion on the correlations between age dating methods that show the same patterns of age and climate from a variety of different sources and using methods that have undeniable annual processes, and which ALL show the same patterns and ALL show that the scientific age of the earth is on a solid foundation.Enjoy.

If you really look at the history of science you will find that statement is patently false. In fact, the history of science is just the opposite, newer data leads to contradicting known parameters.Here are a few examples.Lord Kelvin in the 1890's tried to calculate the age of the earth using conduction and raditation of heat from a molten mass. He assumed, based on the best evidence of the day, that there was minimal additional heat and the earth simply cooled off. His best estimate was that the earth was between 20 and 40 millions years old.When radioactivity was discovered, less than a decade later, it became obvious that there was another form of energy present that would add heat to the system. At first, only the rate of decay was used but that pushed the age of the earth from about 40 million years back to at least 1-2 billion years.Subsequent studies of rocks have continually contradicted known parameters pushing the age of the earth back even further. Now we have found samples of rock that are at least 4 billion years old. Samples from lunar rocks and meteorites are even older, at least 4.5 billion years old.At each step, as more is learned, old beliefs and parameters get overturned. What actually happens is exactly the opposite of what you assert.It is not that mankind or scientists try to fit the evidence into some preconcieved notion about age, but rather the evidence forces us all, regardless of our beliefs, to accept that the earth is far older than we once thought.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am not a YEC - you just assume.According to the best scholarship there are eons and eons of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.The same scholarship translates 1:2, "and the Earth BECAME a waste and a desolation".Because of these facts, evos can (and have) argued that this vast gulf of time can accomodate their 4.6 billion age of Earth. Technically they are correct because "eons and eons" can be interpreted as such as it can also be interpreted to mean hundreds or even tens of thousands of years.Other Biblical passages indicate that the Earth's initial use was a meeting place for intelligent beings. Yet, at some point, the fall of Lucifer occurred and the subsequent cursing which is implied in the rendering "the Earth BECAME a waste and a desolation."This truth is also evidenced here:Genesis 1:28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earthNotice God said REplenish and not PLENISH.The point is that the Earth has a very long pre-history, of which even a ballpark timespan cannot be ascertained other than what I have just described. The point is that God retains some secrets. And according to my worldview you are the irrational person because you don't believe that God is the Creator. And the reason you don't believe is because God has punished you for resisting His perceived encroachments one too many times.Rhetorically speaking, how does evolution disprove Genesis ?Answer: Only when the filter of your worldview interprets the evidence to say so.

No I don't assume, I am stating a fact: the earth is older than any possilbe YEC model would allow. This is no different than stating that the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is not the center of the solar system nor the universe. This is accepted fact by rational people.Now you are going to equivocate and say that you think the earth can be old but that dating methods that show the earth is old are not believable? How am I supposed to think you are credilble?Or is there part of YEC that you cannot get away from even though you claim a more liberal OEC view? Like a date for a flood?Again: the information in the original post is based on actual layer by layer annual systems that show a complete lineage back some 560,000 years without any massive interuption. So you don't read signature lines either. Or do you mean because I do not believe in your particular flavour of god? Are you sure you have the correct one being punished for lack of perception? One can only look at the reality of creation to understand the reality of creation.And for the record, I don't need evolution to disprove genesis (or creation for that manner). All I ask is that science be kept on a purely scientific basis as that is the only way to truth. Which page of what religious (or secular for that matter) text is felt to be challenged by the concept of evolution is irrelevant to me: what is relevant is the science, the methodology, the evidence, the rational theorizing of how A becomes B and the best explanation for "life, the universe, and, oh, everything" which is also known as 42 for those followers of another book ("Hitchhiker" by D. Adams).Age correlations show a consistent pattern of age and climate that matches what the various sciences have been saying.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Why do you have to ask that every other avenue to be excluded ?Is it because all the other avenues you want no part of ?You are a typical rank and file member of the religion of scientism.Scientism is the branch of science that elevates science to be the only avenue to determine truth. Have at it. This narrow view reveals fear of other avenues. This view reminds me of medieval friars who excluded science for the same reason you exclude theism. The same business on the other side of the street.Only irrational people reject the Creator.Only irrational people believe science is the ONLY way to truth.Jesus said He is THE way THE truth and THE life.If science depends on a foundation of defining rational then you are basing science on philosophy and not science.Subjective views defining who is rational is not scientific - that is a philosophical argument - you are confused - and confused persons are known to be irrational.

What other method is distinguishable from making shit up? Not theology.

There is a recognized use of the word "scientism" Crash. And I think WT has it about right.While it is true that science has been able to broaden the areas in which it is applicable I don't think it is worth arguing that it is the universal panacea for all things.RAZD should have qualified his statement regrading science being the only way to truth.It is, in my opinion, the only way to sort out incorrect ideas from perhaps correct ideas in certain areas of study.The fact that the issues under discussion (age of earth) is one area where science is the only way to get rid of wrong answers and continue to improve doesn't mean that WT is wrong when he says that there is a philosophy that can take the use of science too far. Where WT is wrong is that that idea has anything at all do to with the topic of this thread. He hasn't offered any reason why any other approach should be trusted other than his say so.RAZD was a little extreme in what he said. WT took that too far if he thinks that the scientism issue has any relevance to this thread and you will carry it way off topic if you keep going.Thanks.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-07-2004 05:28 PM

A fish somehow evolved into a land animal and a land animal somehow evolved into a human being.This is the creation empowered by God sense removal.There is zero evidence that the above happened as it is made up because God is not an option.How about biogenesis ?Why do evos evade biogenesis ?Because they have no answers that make any sense.They have Stephen Hawking type of theories = crank artist cranking out the crank while never supplying any evidence.Why is Hawking a theorist ?Because he has given up on evidence because it leads to God.

It is probable that you didn't see my 5:28 post before posting this. However, you have had time now.Get back on topic!You may also consider it necessary to supply decent evidence for what you post WT. If you continue to fail to do this then it will mean you will have to be put into a learning environment untill you learn how to debate.

Not to continue this off-topic diversion, but Stephen Hawking believes in God. He's famous for saying that the goal of his work is to "know the mind of God." Why would he be interested in the mind of something he doesn't believe in?

I will suspend myself from this topic, as it probably doesn't matter because I will be suspended anyway or even worse before the day is over.WT

Hawking is an atheist.He only uses God as a concept, just like Nazi's did to justify their use of Darwin's theory to conduct ghoulish experiments on Jews.Hawking thinks that when he figures it all out everyone will come to him for the answers - hence his definition of God.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-07-2004 05:40 PM

Willow,What assays or procedures should we use to calculate the age of fossils and geologic layers?