|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
It took many years for science to figure out how photosynthesis and growth works here in this nature. Why would you expect them or others to know how it works in a different nature?
That is like saying, how does a tree grow new fruit every month, and a different new fruit on the same tree each month as we are told will happen in the future? No one in science knows. Nor does anyone else today. That doesn't mean we could claim it will never happen. Same with the record of the past. If people live 1000 years or trees grow in weeks we can't say it did not happen. Nor can we say how it happened. Yet when science claims ancient tree rings or isotope ratios (etc) represent things formed in our present nature, they are saying the things I mentioned could not happen. If you want to claim that rules of this present nature applied you need to show us that it existed. Not just believe real hard and model the past on those beliefs!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
All the science done by any scientist is recent and in this nature. It is your belief and claim it always existed on earth. You cannot support that. So remember never ever ever to call it science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Looking at that post, I ignored nothing. It is all based on a belief in a same nature in the past. Why ignore that? Prove it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Nor do you get to use beliefs as a definition for science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
No one cares what you believe. You either have evvidence for the same nature in the past that you use in models or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
If I answer will you say it is an assertion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
No. When you believe nature on earth was the same in the past you use a preset belief. When you assume time in the far universe is the same as here, you use a belief. Be honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
I see. A default belief. OK. Do you claim beliefs default or otherwise are science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Your evidence is that you have no evidence then. OK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Funny thing is that if creation started the ball rolling, we would have seen a certain percentage of ratios from the getgo. I guess that is a matter of belief, not knowing. Then, if some processes in a different nature also worked on that original ratio that would have affected it also. Then, we know our nature affected things also. Your belief is that only our nature and nothing else is the cause of all ratios we see. I hope you can see why some people view that as belief based and not really science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Well, OK then you want us to state a belief. My belief is that the dates science uses are belief based and must be rejected out of hand and whole of cloth for all dates involving billions or millions or hundreds of thousands of years. I would side with the belief that all the universe and the world is only several thousand years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
So you again admit that your evidence is that you have absolutely no evidence. Interesting religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
When a question is asked about the unknown the real default is 'I don't know'. You can call your beliefs a conclusion all you like. The conclusion based on beliefs is not knowledge, fact or real science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Why? Easy. I think that the so called sates are bogus. The reasons for the dates and the basis for them is totally belief based.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
And I am not asking you to accept the evidence...only to stop pretending you have anything but beliefs. No one has amassed a shred of evidence for your claims of old ages etc. You have plastered beliefs over evidences. Big difference.
Edited by dad, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024