Summations Only

Let me fix that for you.There is no way to confirm the dating methods because there is no way for those who wish to remain ignorant to see into the past.For those who do not wish to remain ignorant there are many, many ways to see into the past.Even the wilfully ignorant Creationists see into the past when they want to see those fantasies that support the dogma of their cult.

quote:

---

There is no way to confirm the dating methods because there is no way to see into the past

---

You do love repeating your favourite falsehoods. In fact dating methods can be tested by comparing them with completely independent methods. For instance the carve counts at Lake Suigetsu are completely independent of radiocarbon decay.RAZD has written quite extensively on dating methods. To bad you ignore those writings, in favour of repeating ignorant and false opinions.

quote:

---

As long as the evidence I've collected points consistently to the Biblical framework of time I have no interest in radiometric dating.

---

You don’t have any significant evidence confirming your Biblical framework of time. So all you are doing is - once again - drawing attention to your complete inability to think critically.

That is false and you know it. If you could allow yourself to look at the evidence you might actually learn something--but you have shown that that's the last thing you want to do. The evidence you've collected relies heavily on denial and obfuscation, designed to fool yourself. In that it has succeeded. But your denial does not make the evidence go away.

Of course there are ways to see into the past. Suppose you see a footprint. That's evidence of something that happened in the past.And there are many ways of estimating how far in the past. A footprint in mud was made after it rained. A footprint in mud with marks of raindrops in it was made before the last rain but after the second-last.And so on.

Unless they changed textbooks after I left, I can assure you that these details are taught at the undergraduate level, often by the students at the graduate level. It is inconceivable that Austin or others could not have learned the mainstream explanation for the the deposition of strata. It is conceivable, however, that Austin had already decided to reject the mainstream before he entered university level education and decided to deceive the willing creationist minds.

But how would it benefit him to misrepresent that? It's still millions of years that is nonsensical no matter how you cut it.

quote:

---

But how would it benefit him to misrepresent that?

---

That is obvious. He needs to pretend to have a case for a Young Earth, against the overwhelming evidence. It’s the same reason you have to keep repeating silly falsehoods.

quote:

---

It's still millions of years that is nonsensical no matter how you cut it.

---

Because the real absurdity is trying to force geology into a mere 10,000 years or less - as you’ve demonstrated. Your opinion - a product of irrational prejudice - is not shared by that many people.

He's a creationist. He was writing for creationists. He was expected to feed them the same lies that they've been fed for years.Because creationists have no evidence, all they have to use are lies. And because reality exposes their lies, their only refuge is their ignorance.Like the deliberate lies created by those creationist hucksters deliberately creating bogus radiometric dating results.Like the deliberate lies about genetics and protein comparisons, such as Gish's bullfrog protein lie.Like the deliberate lies about astronomy, including the moon dust claims, the solar mass loss claims, the shrinking sun claims, the "changing speed of light" claims (I heard that that one is in your movie), the geo-magnetic field claim.Like your own lies about having proof for a young earth, which you refuse to present.I have been studying "creation science" since 1981 and in all that time all that I have ever seen coming from creationists has been lies.And since the most devout believers in your religion believe so strongly that they can only support it with lies, that tells us all that we would ever need to know about your religion. Thank you for your witness. No, the evidence clearly points to billions of years. What is nonsensical is how you persist in denying reality.What is also nonsensical is to tie your faith to a young earth, such that you believe that if the earth is indeed billions of years old then that destroys your god. There is no reason to hold such a belief outside of extreme stupidity. And the earth is indeed old.What is wrong with you?

I don't follow any of those arguments you are listing.I've given the evidence for a young earth many many times, both geological and biological. The same evidence is given in the film we're talking about. I have no doubts whatever that the earth is young.The only actual evidence for billions of years is radiometric dating and as I said that can't be confirmed because you'd need an independent witness in that ancient past and it doesn't exist.Creationists no doubt get carried away with bad arguments but that doesn't make them liars. And the more you guys make that accusation the less I for one would ever take you seriously.God is the author of the Bible. An honest calculation of the times given in the Bible shows a young earth. Evolution is a total contradiction with the Bible in terms of time and in other ways, such as that it contradicts the fact that there was no death until the Fall. And the billions of years (I was talking about the millions per time period) are just nonsensical from simple observation of the physical facts. In seventeen million years, the supposed age of Grand Canyon, there would be no canyon left, it would all be eroded away. It doesn't take more than a few hundred years to produce all the variations possible within a given genome, or Kind. Millions of years to get the different species of trilobite is absurd. The very abundance of fossils, which require specific conditions to form, is proof against your millions/billions of years and evidence for rapid deposition. The idea that different kinds of sedimentary rocks represent different time periods of millions of years is laughable.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The hell you have!And your claim was to have proof of a young earth. Which you have never presented.If you do actually have that proof, then present it!If you do not have that proof, then stop lying about it! Complete and utter bullshit!Besides which, you are demonstrably abjectly ignorant of radiometric dating, so just exactly how could you be such a expert on it to be able to dismiss it?You are not deceiving anyone with your bullshit, except for yourself. Except that case after case after case has involved creationists engaging in deliberate lying. So that's just more of your nonsensical bullshit. Says the one who has posted so much blithering nonsense that nobody can ever take anything you say seriously. You are a very bad joke. And you're not even funny.

A lot of my "blithering nonsense" is well expressed in the film supposedly being discussed here, which shows that I'm in tune with the others who share my paradigm.I just gave some of the evidence you say I haven't given in that last post. I've given tons more in argument after argument.No, I'm sure it is not deliberate lying by creationists, it is only their refusal to accept what evolutionists say, which is sensible of them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Let me take a look at your evidence

quote:

---

God is the author of the Bible.

---

That is an assertion that is hardly supported by the Bible or even tradition. Some books of the Bible explicitly claim to be written by a human author, some clearly imply that they are and many more are credited with human authors by tradition. Not one book of the of the Bible claims - even by implication - to have been written by God.

quote:

---

An honest calculation of the times given in the Bible shows a young earth.

---

Which relies on the assumption that Genesis is accurate when read literally. However there are enoug( problems with a literal reading of Genesis to make that a questionable position.

quote:

---

Evolution is a total contradiction with the Bible in terms of time and in other ways, such as that it contradicts the fact that there was no death until the Fall

---

It’s odd that you’d try to drag evolution into this. You would do better to say science since both the age of the Earth and the fact that death long preceded the appearance of humanity are both established by the evidence without any need to consider evolution. Besides, even if the Bible clearly stated that there were no animal deaths before the Fall (it doesn’t) that wouldn’t establish it as a fact among people who do not share your rather dubious religious dogma.

quote:

---

. And the billions of years (I was talking about the millions per time period) are just nonsensical from simple observation of the physical facts. In seventeen million years, the supposed age of Grand Canyon, there would be no canyon left, it would all be eroded away

---

That’s your opinion, and one you have failed to adequately support. Trying to pass it off as evidence is a genuine absurdity. Since you have also expressed the opinion that there is too much erosion at the Grand Canyon it is rather clear that your opinions are shaped more by the need to have arguments against an old Earth than any concern for the truth.

quote:

---

It doesn't take more than a few hundred years to produce all the variations possible within a given genome, or Kind. Millions of years to get the different species of trilobite is absurd

---

Because obviously wolves naturally bred themselves into all the dig breeds without human intervention. That is just silly. Humans brought out a lot of variations within the wolf genome in a few hundred years - if we limit it to the period of serious selective breeding and ignore the previous history. But wolves are still wolves.So, the idea that you can produce thousands of subspecies in a few hundred years under natural conditions is hardly an obvious truth - indeed it seems to be, at best, something that is virtually impossible. There are twenty thousand recognised species of trilobites.Secondly the idea that mutations played no role is your assumption. By the evidence it is not even true for dog breeding. If the known trilobite variations required mutations then the timescale would be expanded again.If the actual evidence points to long periods of time - and it does - your implausible opinions can hardly override it.

quote:

---

The very abundance of fossils, which require specific conditions to form, is proof against your millions/billions of years and evidence for rapid deposition.

---

And that is completely ridiculous. Obviously the older the Earth is, the more often those conditions will have occurred.

quote:

---

The idea that different kinds of sedimentary rocks represent different time periods of millions of years is laughable.

---

Perhaps one day you will explain it. I doubt it though.Summing it up, your claims about the physical evidence simply refers to your own opinions. The least bad part of your case is the religious side - but even that has quite obvious problems.

No one has ever doubted that you are in tune with the rest of the Christian Cult of Ignorance & Dishonesty Faith. No one doubts that Creationists believe they are not lying; yet that is what they do. The Bible is not evidence of a Young Earth Faith; and it is not even good evidence for the dogma of your cult.Edited by jar, : fix quote box

But you don't have evidence for your position. Your position is notable for it's lack of evidence and for it's demands that fantasy is real. Except that others are not dealing with them. For example, concerning radiometric dating even the RATE group found no issues.And you don't even deal with the issues your own arguments raise, for example, all the issues listed in Message 1369 and Message 1379.--Percy

Well, they claimed to have found issues.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.