Summations Only

Do I need to cite all 21,000+ of your posts here at EvC?? You have already agreed that: So maybe you don't argue against the facts, but you do argue against the evidence of old ages and evolution.Here's how it works:
Fact: ⁴⁰K decays to ⁴⁰Ar at a known rate
Fact: ⁴⁰Ar becomes trapped in the crystalline matrix after solidification
Fact: A rock sample contains a measurable amount of ⁴⁰Ar
This series of facts and the resulting data output then becomes evidence for the age of the rock sampleIf that evidence indicates that the sample is 100 million years old, will you reject or except the evidence?ABE: I will point out that the facts listed above are tested and verified in the present and so are the sort of "incontrovertible facts that lead to an inevitable conclusion." One may suggest that there should be more facts in that list such as: the decay rate was different in the past. If so, the onus would then be on the claimant to test that assertion and provide evidence that it is indeed a fact before that fact can affect the conclusion. /ABE And that's why you don't want to distinguish between scientific and nonscientific evidence.However, the Bible is not evidence of a young earth not because it is necessarily unreliable, but because it is the basis of your premise; using your premise as evidence is begging the question. What you are looking for is evidence that supports your premise. Denial land? what am I denying???That is just how you avoid dealing with counter arguments. However, I was not denying ANYTHING, nor was I arguing against anything. I was asking you how to determine what qualifies as evidence. If we have a set of facts, how do we determine if the facts are evidence for hypothesis A or hypothesis B?HBDEdited by herebedragons, : Added ABE section

I will not argue about time. The Bible says 6000 years from the Creation, that's the end of it.

And so once again Faith affirms that there is no Science in Creationism.

That is not the end of it.That is evidence that the bible is wrong.That you refuse to accept the fact that the bible is wrong, or that someone's interpretation of the bible is wrong, is immaterial. Refusing to accept that fact just makes you wrong as well.

My argument/discussion is NOT about time... it's about evidence.So, do you agree that there is no science in creationism?? Or do you want to answer my questions about evidence?HBD

Well given your above statement I will agree you are CURRENTLY, ignorant. Well look we found something to agree onEvery investigation has a conclusion. Only the strictest format of idiocy would conclude otherwise.Your above statement is jargon meant to sound like an argument, it's nonsenseDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I meant the CREATIONISTS who understand the dating methods, not just anybody for pete's sake. There are creationists who have lots to say about how the dating methods are seriously flawed. I avoid discussing the time issues except to say the Bible gives the time frame of 6000 years and I don't need any other dating system. On this basis I am entitled to a very informed opinion.

quote:

---

I avoid discussing the time issues except to say the Bible gives the time frame of 6000 years and I don't need any other dating system. On this basis I am entitled to a very informed opinion.

---

It certainly isn't a scientific opinion.

Those of you, a whole passel of you, who are pronouncing that I can't claim to be arguing science if I believe the Bible, are of course in step with EvC policy but historically you're out to lunch. There was a time when most geologists were Christians who said they believed the Bible. There is lots of evidence in the strata and the fossils for a worldwide Flood, so we're talking science whether you like it or not.And it did occur to me to ask if I was allowed to do science if I believed the Koran rather than the Bible.

Only partially right Faith.Yes, geologists did believe in stuff like a young earth or that one of the Biblical Flood stories actually happened, but then they actually studied the earth, geology and what the result of floods looked like and so abandoned young earth and the flood nonsense. But that was over a hundred years ago Faith.AbE:Remember Faith it is only a very very small percentage even of educated Christians that think the earth is only 6000 years old or that there are actual descriptions of creation in the Bible or that either of the Biblical Flood myths actually happens. Most Christians understand and acknowledge that the Bible is often factually wrong and worthless as a Science text.Edited by jar, : see AbE;

Sure, and they examined the evidence and concluded that the earth was much older than previously thought. It wouldn't be science even if you were using Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker as your absolute authority and ignored evidence that was contrary to the premises in his book. The point is, science follows the evidence where it leads and is willing to change facts and theories when warranted.HBD

Creationists let belief get in the way of learning (hey, that would make a great signature line!). They will not--CANNOT--accept anything that contradicts the bible.They are not doing science--they are doing religious apologetics, the exact opposite of science. You are parroting a narrow interpretation of a bronze age myth, not expressing an informed opinion.An informed opinion would rely of evidence which could withstand challenges. The evidence has overwhelming shown that the 6000 year old date or anything close is absolutely wrong. So you are relying on belief, not evidence and you are doing religious apologetics, not science.Your opinions on the age of the earth are not based on reality, and you should not even think of using the word "science" in anything you ever post here. You are literally the exact opposite of science, and have no valid opinions whatsoever on science or its discoveries.

Sorry, I can't deal with this question, it's too absurdly nonsensical. Scientific evidence as I said is whatever gives support to a scientific conclusion. Why is more needed here? Historical science can only be conjectural and is open to other interpretations. So you can't call your interpretations facts when others are challenging your interpretations. Here is where you've gone into terminal denial. There can't be any doubt that sedimentary layers that are KNOWN TO BE FORMED BY WATER plus billions of dead things that include every life form on the planet are THE EXACT PERFECT RESULT OF THE PURPOSE OF THE FLOOD, WHICH WAS TO KILL ALL LIVING THINGS.The people who deny this nitpick over what they think OTHER evidence shows in favor of their theory, such as the order of the fossils which is interpreted to prove evolution, and simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious fit between these real physical phenomena the strata and the dead things and the Biblical account of the Flood. Which is what you are doing now too.The order of the fossils can't disprove the obvious fit I'm talking about because that too is just an interpretation that can't be proved. The evidence of the strata and the fossils is a lot more direct evidence for the Flood than the order of the fossils is for evolution. And of course the argument will go on from here where we discuss the impossibility of the evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian and so on and so forth.I can only give examples, I can't give you a definition and I don't think a definition is what is needed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your opinion about the Bible is just your silly opinion, coyote. You have no basis for judging it as myth, that's just your silly uninformed opinion. You can't impose your opinion on me as fact because it isn't fact. My opinion is that the Bible is nothing but truth and that whatever it says about the physical world is true and can serve as the launching pad for real-world science. Sorry, all you have is an uninformed opinion, best to keep it to yourself.

But again Faith, the evidence shows the flood simply failed; failed miserably.In the layers with dinosaurs not ONE human ever got killed. In the layers with humans not ONE dinosaur got killed.Until you present the model, method, process, procedure that shows how a flood can do that you got diddley squat.And that is the evidence that led ALL of geology to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that neither of the Biblical Flood stories ever happened.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title