You are probably right but I myself can relate to the confusion that is present in his understanding since I myself up until a decade ago was not so different in my perception of science as being unfathomable.I blame the drugs and a fatal attraction to the outdoors.LOL
P.S. Thanks for help with the link earlier.
This message has been edited by sidelined, 05-27-2004 11:46 PM
Sorry mark i have nothing to reply to. I do not trust any dating method that can give dates of millions/billions of yrs as they are not reliable and rely more on a presupposition that the world is billions of yrs old.
Actually they make no presupposition that the world is millions of years plus old. That's what the data points to.
All those numbers you give me is just all crap to me and is just a way of indoctrinating the world more that the earth is billions of yrs old.
Ah yes. Ye olde atheistic conspiracy. We have an irritating habit of going with the evidence, don't we? Given you have failed yet again to deal substantively with the evidence, I think "indoctrination" is a far better descriptor of creationism, wouldn't you say? I mean, we have the evidence & you have none, right? When I asked for the 6,000 year old earth evidence you were strangely silent. In fact you did what all creationists do, you tried attacking dating methods that disagree with you instead of providing evidence to support your own position. Not very impressive, mate.
Creationists have already showed me the problems with dating methods.
Like what? The four DIFFERENT methods are based upon different assumptions & therefore test the assumptions of the others. As a result, radiometric dating is based upon tested assumptions just like the rest of science. The odds of it being wrong is incredible.
Did your creationist buddies explain to you the colossal odds of different dating methods hitting the same dates & therefore eliminating their untested assumptions? No, thought not. You just read what you wanted & that was enough for you, wasn't it? Whatever you do, don't read anything those evil atheist conspiratorial scientists have to say, or those evil atheist conspiratorial mathematicians, or those evil atheist conspiratorial biologists, or those evil atheist conspiratorial geologists, palaeontologists, molecular biologists, etc. will you?
Your problem, in common with all YEC's, is that you are more interested in denying science that doesn't fit with a literal interpretation of the bible. It is noted throughout my discussions with you that you haven't offered a SINGLE answer that tackles the data itself. Your tactic is to offer no refutation based on logic & evidence, but to simply offer your incredulity as sole reasoning. This is appalling intellectual dishonesty. It is also a defining character of creationists in general.
If you do ever get around to supplying me with evidence of a 6,000 year old earth, I will be sure to apply your standards of evidence to it.
And all other methods of dating including the ones for a young earth.
Hit me with the dating methods that conclude the earth is 6,000 years old, big boy! Oh, we already seem to have been here, don't we? I remember the eery silence only too well.
Hollow words. Lying for Jesus. Again.
And all those numbers calculating do not prove anything. My opinion, you have yours.
Again, the incredulity. My "opinion" is supported by evidence, literally tons of it. Your's has none. The calculations show that the K-T boundary is 65 myo, give or take, & it shows this to a remarkable degree of confidence. We call it "evidence", & "maths". We learn about it at school. As such, my opinion counts for something because it is supported, yours counts for nothing because it isn't. You are not going to be allowed to conflate my opinion with yours & reduce it to the lowest common denominator. This is not some post-modernist exercise where all "opinions" are equal.
I have massively corroborated evidence that the earth is old involving zero untested assumptions, you have nothing but wishful thinking backed up by a bible refuted by science.
Forgive me for saying so but your contention is as much of a blanket statement as the one I replied to. All I am asking for here is a link to the poll, or polls that can substantiate these claims. I do believe that forum rule #4 would apply here, unless of course you are speaking only of those catholics and protestants with whom you have personally spoken. Then I do not think the rule would apply. Anyway, I cheerfully await any information that you are able to supply me with and I thank you in advance for your kind help in this matter.
Thanks for your reply. I would have to agree with you on the thought of the theory of evolution not being religious in nature, though I do know of several individuals who support it religiously. Also, thanks for the clarification of "simple majority" but I was hoping that you could supply me with a link to a poll or something that could help to confirm your statement.
I have met with, and talked with thousands of christians from nearly every denomination over the past several decades and the conclusion that I have come to is that the vast majority of them cling to the notion of a young earth and totally reject the idea of evolution.
Personally, I can't understand the logic in clinging to this notion of the earth being only 6000 to 7000 years old but then I suppose some people can't understand why evolutionists believe in a much, much older planet when they read the creation account in genesis. I don't try to explain things to them, mostly because I am not knowledgeable enough to do so.Anyway, if you do have any links to polls or anything like that, I would very much appreciate your supplying them for me.
Also, (and this is for those creationists out there), in keeping with the framework of this thread, I would appreciate any links, (and I would think that there would be at least one, if not several), to any polls of evolutionists who consider their adherence to the theory of evolution as being religious in nature, or even the theory of evolution being a bonafide religion.
I have used several search engines but find little evidence of evolutionist behaviour that could be considered as being religious. If anything, and correct me if I am wrong here, they are on the opposite end of the spectrum because they are willing to continually change their way of thinking, (reminds me of mormons and catholics), when scientific study shows that any current belief is in error.
Hardcore religious belief on the other hand, (and yes I know there are exceptions to the rule. I studied catechism and know first hand that the ten commandments in the catholic bible and those taught in catechism are not exactly the same), is steadfast in adhering to the tenets of whatever doctrine has been handed down through the ages.
As far as I know, 2000 years after the fact, the majority of christians still believe that jesus died on a cross and rose from the dead three days later. Now that's a religion, baby!
I challenge any creationist to show me that kind of steadfast belief in the tenets of the theory of evolution, with the exception of the assertion that it actually happened, I'll give you that one when it comes to "religiously" believing in something. The torch is lit. Anyone care to pick it up and run with it?
quote:Which creationists showed you and just exactly what did they show you? It is fine by me if you wish to ignore the evidence but please do not simply give up because you do not understand how to differentiate between sides of an arguenment. Please,by all means, allow us to view the problems that you have been shown. We will do all we can to show you how to judge for yourself based upon understanding how scientists arrive at the conclusions they do.
Ok i would appreciate your input and help thx you. Anyway creationists have showed me the flaws in dating methods, evidence against old earth etc. I dont want to get into young/old earth issue so his just a short link about the age issue. This of course is just one of the thousands of sources creationists have written on the matter. So please have a listen and i would appreciate any replys to the matter. I did not become a christian 6 months ago from blind faith. But rather was convinced and saved from the evidence for creation and against evolution.
Almeyda, how about posting stuff in your own words rather than linking to long audio clips of lies? In an audio clip it's difficult to focus on specific issues and it's impossible to check references; I suspect that you like audio clips for exactly that reason.
As a side comment on your post in New Topics, I strongly suggest that your hour-long clip of Sarfati be disallowed. Sarfati's a worse liar than Ham or Wieland, and I've seen all he has to say on the subject; it's not worth one minute's attention, much less an hour. If you have something to say, say it.
Ham and Wieland either know nothing about how the Earth is dated or they are deliberately lying about it. They are useless as a source of information about the age of the Earth. They are recycling old and tired misrepresentations and spouting ignorant garbage.
I note a blatant lie right at the beginning: "the only way to measure elapsed time is to be there measuring it with a stopwatch; you can't scientifically measure anything older than your own lifetime". (That's not an exact quote, but it's close).
His claim that the "assumptions" of radiometric dating are unprovable is old news. It is sort of true in a strict interpretation, but you might as well say that by the same standard you can't prove that gravity exists. The "assumptions" of radiometric dating have been and continue to be checked and cross-checked and validated to a fare-thee-well.
And, of course, they pull the standard creationist trick of ignoring isochron dating and concordia-discordia dating, (and the vast majority of dates measured today use one of these methods), in which the "assumptions" they list are relaxed or not used at all.
All in all, a total waste of time, and nothing there that I haven't seen a hundred times before, and nothing there that hasn't been discussed and debunked in this and many other forums. Dressing it up in an audio clip doesn't add anything; it's just much less interesting and useful thatn a written presentation with references.
If you really want to learn about radioisotope dating, see Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. Until you've read that and understood it (whether or not you agree with it) you have no business commenting on the age of the Earth and radioisotope dating.