Summations Only

I don't want to compare the science that establishes physical facts to the sciences that claim to establish lengths of time. Time is a slippery thing, but I understand physical facts.

So you understand the physical fact that uranium239 decays to lead, and the fact that potassium-40 decays to argon and calcium.
Got it.
But you refuse to understand that both do so at constant rates. That's your problem right there.

quote:

---

What evolutionists and old earthists do is NOT the same thing as criminal forensics.

---

How are they different? Both look at evidence from past events that neither of them were there to witness and come to conclusions based on that evidence. What's the difference?

Forensics has all kinds of stuff to work with from the current time period, Anything connected to a crime scene has shown up hundreds of times in other crime scenes in recent enough time to be used for reference, or just other current human contexts. You may not have direct witnesses, but you'll have lots of people connected with the situation who could give relevant clues. The geological past is however absolutely without such references.

I leave all that stuff to the people who understand it, and stick to the very limited areas I understand well enough to argue them.

It is not a "cheat," it is trying to establish some common ground as to what constitutes evidence.Here's a cheat... You say that any evidence of the ancient past is not evidence; yet you say that the entire universe is only about 6,000 years old so there is NO ancient past, only the past in which humans have lived and recorded history. So any evidence that indicates the earth is older than that is rejected as not being evidence simply because you do not believe in the interpretation of that evidence.

quote:

---

You can't reasonably deny evidence for an event you don't believe in on the basis of having your own interpretation of that evidence
  —Faith

---

This goes both ways...So rather than telling me what you think is evidence for your particular position, tell me what you think makes something valid evidence. Excellent! I agree with you on this. In fact, this would be my #1 criteria for evidence that it supports an hypothesis. So the next question would be, how do you determine if a particular fact supports an hypothesis or not? Do you accept evidence from tarrot cards, palm reading, personal experiences and opinions as scientific evidence? If you were ill and I gave you a crystal and told you that if you put it around your neck you would be healed, You might ask what the evidence was that it would work. If I told you that aliens gave it to me and it healed me, would you consider that evidence?? I assume you would say "No", that would not be evidence. However, it was presented in support of an assertion, so it was at least presented as evidence. The question then is, how do we decide whether that "evidence" can be considered good enough to be scientific evidence?I find it odd that you reject the distinction between scientific and other kinds of evidence but are adamant about the distinction between observational and historical science. But how do you know? Others say those facts do not support a global flood, you say they do. How do we determine if they do or don't? Does it only depend on the conclusion you or I want to come to?HBD

quote:

---

Forensics has all kinds of stuff to work with from the current time period, Anything connected to a crime scene has shown up hundreds of times in other crime scenes in recent enough time to be used for reference, or just other current human contexts. You may not have direct witnesses, but you'll have lots of people connected with the situation who could give relevant clues. The geological past is however absolutely without such references.

---

Pronounced by someone with virtually no knowledge in either field. Unless you have education or expertise you've not previously mentioned.

1) I've seen a lot of crime dramas and real-life crime reports.2) I know nobody has written an eyewitness account of any of the geologc time periods.

quote:

---

1) I've seen a lot of crime dramas and real-life crime reports.
2) I know nobody has written an eyewitness account of any of the geologc time periods.

---

Neither of which demonstrates even a rudimentary understanding of the methods each of them uses to come to their conclusions.

The topic faith is supposed to be "The Science in Creationism".But neither you nor Dawn nor ICANT nor ANY Creationist has ever presented any evidence that there is any Science in Creationism.What is the model, method, process, procedure, theory, explanation, mechanism or even thingamajig that is the Science in Creationism?

Where have I said that? If I claim there is evidence for the Flood then there is evidence for the ancient past. Even 6000 years is ancient. But I don't say there isn't evidence for the Old Earth, didn't I just say the same facts are used as evidence for the Old Earth as for the Flood? What I've said is that you can't replicate the past, you can't test it the way you can test the facts that led to the DNA helix or the sun's hydrogen. But I've never said there is no evidence. I don't think it supports the OE but it IS evidence. 6000 years is the ancient past and all we have for that is Moses who wasn't there, and Noah didn't leave a written record of the Flood so although I consider the Bible evidence of these things it isn't evidence you'd accept as scientific so I don't use it that way. I've also never said one word about "the entire universe." You may assume it has to be included in the age of the earth, and it may be but I don't know so I've never said. 6000 years is the time since the beginning of Creation. I'm still pondering the possibility of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and the seven days of creation. Again I haven't said there is no evidence for that. But I will put the witness of the Bible above any manmade evidence of anything where I think there is a contradiction. Where have I denied evidence for evolution or the old earth? I argue with the INTERPRETATION of the evidence but I don't deny the evidence. However, as I said, I can't get ANY acknowledgment of what excellent evidence for the Flood the strata and the fossils are.I'm glad we agree that evidence is evidence in relation to a theory or a hypothesis and otherwise it's just facts.The rest of your post goes so far out in Denial land, or so it seems to me, I am going to have to come back to it when I feel I can tolerate it.

Whatever you say.

If that is the case Faith then what you are doing is not and cannot be science.

quote:

---

But I will put the witness of the Bible above any manmade evidence of anything where I think there is a contradiction.

---

This, of course, disqualifies you from doing science. Science doesn't conclude that any particular piece of evidence is incontrovertible. And, because all creationists hold to this same article of faith, they are equally disqualified.

The people who understand those things say they are evidence for an old earth.You, when you admit to not understanding them, are not entitled to an informed opinion.Repeat--you are not entitled to an informed opinion. On issues you don't understand you should remain silent, and perhaps learn!