|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
In 'pure science', things are proved. If DuPont uses pure science to determine to try a new chemical formula in one of its paint products to improve its performance, and it's performance is observed to be improved, then that scientific experiment was proven.
Yes, but how do you know that God did not step in an skew the results? Maybe today he wanted to see success, but how about tomorrow? Ah, perhaps you are a uniformitarian? So, Dupont does not account for God in their testing. Or maybe they use mystical incantations? Does that mean that they are all atheists? Hey, you might have painted your house with the devil's own stain. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I don't try to prove science is wrong. I just sometimes question the promotion of certain theoretical kinds of science which only exist to promote the atheist worldview, and liberal politics.
You honestly think that theoretical science always has an agenda? And yet, you give professional creationists a pass? Why would geology advance liberal politics or atheism? Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
But Dupont doesn't say "The Miracles of Engineering".
No, but to them, the science is done. They are engineers. The bring us the rewards of science.
Science is a subject. Just like the study of a language, or history, or mathematics, or many other things. All those subjects can and do provide knowledge that science can't provide. Science has long been controlled by people who choose to use it as a weapon against religion. The only way they can successfully do that is by taking it beyond its bounds, taking where it interferes with and conflicts with knowledge of other subjects.
Oh, don't play the persecution card again. Maybe it is religion that is interfering with us learning about the natural world.
Atheism declares there is no God.
More accurately, atheism declares that no god is necessary.
Dupont's use of science doesn't declare that at all. "Secular" best describes what they do. Secular is what science is supposed to be. And it should STOP when it gets near other subjects.
Science is secular. If you see that as a threat, we cannot help you. Maybe religion should stop when it gets into discussions of the origin of the universe.
But it long ago quit doing that. Why? Could it be power and money?
I am sorry that science is too hard for YECs to do. Darwin had a hard time also, but he realized that he just had to keep collecting evidence. Why can't YECs figure that out?
It was an AED who started this thread, and spent many hours in this thread and others trying to make a convincing argument for it. It's safe to say that AED's have spent much more time trying to convince as many people as possible that the earth is old than have YEC's tried to show the earth is young.
Well, then, what are you doing here? Get back to the lab and find more evidence.
The reason is simple, Darwinist's HAVE to have an old earth, the earth's age isn't as critical to YEC's.
THen why are you so exercised about it? Hey, all you need is evidence and then you got something.
Any scenario like that can fit with YEC, it can't fit with AED. That's the reason for the AED agonizing, it requires near perfection in the earth's climate for millions of years.
I'm not sure how you get that. Climate has been changing for millions of years. What is 'perfect climate' by the way?
Yes, I did a little "model building" here years ago. I'm not going to search for it, but the AED's here had a fit, I remember that. I showed how if the earth was scaled down to the size of a grain of sand, located in New York City, one light-year away would be about as far as Atlanta Georgia. The nearest star to earth, about 4 light-years away, would be well out over the Pacific ocean from NY City. We can do some testing and falsifying concerning the activities of our own solar system, but beyond that, the distances are too great for it to be science. It's fun to guess about what might be going on, but guessing is all it is.
What makes distances 'too great for science'? Were the oceans 'too big' at one time? What happened there? Do you realize that your exercise didn't really science? It was an explanation of scale. Do you think that you actually expanded the knowledge base of the human species?
But there is a big difference in what they do versus atheist philosophy like how old the earth might be, or how all of reality can be explained with only rearrangement processes.
Then how do we extend the frontier of knowledge if we don't look for ways to test the frontier?
Today's scientific community is trying to seamlessly combine 2 distinctively different processes in science, one here-and-now materials-science, versus atheist philosophy.
There are a lot of Christian scientists out there who are going to be shocked that they are accomplishing atheist ends. I suggest you think about that again.
That way when anything they propose, including liberal politics, is questioned by anyone whose knowledge is in subjects other than science, those questioners can then be accused of being "anti science".
Maybe it is you who is conflating science with religion. Perhaps you are projecting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Nothing all that consitent that you have shown in rings some 5000 years old, is there? Any smaller or bigger, or darker or lighter in the rings,( if you ever could show a good close up pic of the rings..ha) could as easily been caused by the growth conditions in the time it grew in the former nature. You seem to have a superficial, shallow case.
Tell us more about this 'former nature'. When did it happen and what was it like back then? Why did it change to the present nature? Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
You prefer to play games rather that learn science.
In creation's world, it is not necessary to learn science, in fact, it's a hindrance to do so. It's all very convenient. Since we don't know everything going back to the beginning of the universe, we really can't be sure of anything. So, it's possible to just make stuff up, and the truth is whatever he decides. This guy is going to bore you to death with his platitudes and self-righteous attitude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Fortunately the posts by creation are so completely devoid of evidence, reason, even basic Christian education that they stand as a monument to ignorance and deceit.
Yah, well, this has been going on for years elsewhere. If you haven't heard the rest of the spiel, you are in for a treat, assuming that you enjoy fantasy. Reality is not an option.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Listen, I know the Flood happened, I accept the date of 4500 years ago, so just because I can't explain a given phenomenon says nothing about what really happened.
Believing something happened is not evidence for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I don't agree it stands on it's own. The dates for Egypt cannot be set by vague claims.
But claims of a 'previous state' can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
If nature was not the same, then no correlations have any meaning for you. You would have no idea how fast trees grew, corals grew, or ice layers accumulated, or how atoms behaved. ALL your so called correlations depend on ONE belief, and you cannot support it.
Okay, how fast should coral have grown in a previous state and how fast did ice layers accumulate? Please document. In detail, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I would go with the evidence myself. How many growth lines of evidence do you have for corals pre 4500 years?
You are the one professing a previous state. Can you not support your declaration? If you want to "go with the evidence", where is yours? What was life like back in this previous state?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The bible supports a different nature, in many ways. Science doesn't know either way. Guess what has the support then?
So, you don't have anything, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
What it comes down to, is the fantasy of things being different in some past time means that the making of all things in past so that it perfectly replicates exactly evidence for actual old age while being much younger, means that your god is a joker and a liar.
We haven't even seen the half of it here. This guy has been polluting discussion forums for years now and, in case you haven't seen it, things only get more bizarre as time goes on. Not really worth responding to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
You cannot show us any correlation so called that does not rest n believing the ature was the same. Tree rings, corals, C14, radioactive dating, etc etc. Not one.
Nonsense. The correlations exist regardless of interpretation. The question is, "What is your interpretation?" And you have none. All you have is denial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Tree rings. You try to use the present nature as the basis for how long trees took to grow. If you talk C14, again you use the present nature as the basis for what C14 is all about and it's function and place in nature. Etc etc. Nothing you say varies from this one belief. Ever.
Projection. So give us a good reason to reject uniformity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
You need not reject your beliefs.
Your opinion. Make a compelling argument.
You simply need to admit they are beliefs.
Supported conclusions.
I have my own, thanks.
Yes, you have unsupported beliefs, fantasies.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024