Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

I'm not asking you to accept the evidence, we know you dismiss it without reading or understanding it. I'm asking you a different question.The world's scientists in multiple disciples for 200 years have amassed an enormous quantity of evidence that has proven beyond doubt that the earth is old. That evidence exists. My question is why god would plant all this evidence that convinces all those scientists?

That default wouldn't be very useful. Science has to have something to start from. Call it a hypothesis if you prefer. In any case, we can not start by proposing that conditions were somehow different in the past. It isn't based on belief. It's based on the facts as we know them today. It's your belief that conditions were somehow different in the past, though you have no facts to support that belief. Hence, it is your position that is not science.

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.

No belief is useful when it comes to origin issues. There is no useful application for origin claims of science. If you claim that a same nature on the earth is fact based then go ahead and show us the facts. You have none. Instead we see a desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof.

No matter how much weight you imagine your lack of evidence has, it remains a lack of evidence. From my unbiased and intellectually honest perspective your admitted lack of evidence is worthless and appalling.

You still haven't figured out how something that isn't there could be as significant as something that is. That's ok. Intellect is not in everyone's skill set.Still, a lack of evidence that "the nature" changed sometime in the past is significant in doubting that such a change happened. So, whether you care to recognize it or not, there is a BIG data point against your contention that "the nature" did change enough to effect tree ring growth thousands of years ago.You do remember this argument you put forward some time ago, right?Well, now it's your turn.Where is your evidence tree ring growth was in any way altered by this change in nature thousands of years ago?

Look dad, denying that the evidence means what science says it means is different from denying that evidence exists at all.We can very easily present the evidence that has lead every branch of science to conclude that the universe is old, if you deny that that evidence exists you are denying easily provable reality.So, again, why would your god want to trick us like that?

You have it backwards. If you think something has changed, you are the one who has to back up your idea with facts. If you think horses had eight legs in Napoleon's day, you are the one who has to back up that claim. As long as we have no evidence of a change, the rational conclusion is that horses have always had four legs. Yes indeed, you are trying to shift the burden of proof. You're not fooling anybody. Tell that to a petroleum engineer. They get along pretty well working with the idea that those rocks are old.

quote:

---

Still, a lack of evidence that "the nature" changed sometime in the past is significant in doubting that such a change happened.

---

Still, a lack of evidence that "the nature" never changed sometime in the past is significant in doubting that such a change never happened.

And I can easily show that what you imagined to be evidences were actually beliefs. What we need here is fact and real knowledge and science, not political reinvent word games.

You have it all wrong. If you claim anything as science you need real evidence and support. If I claim we do not know, I am off the hook.

And that real evidence is what this thread is about and it was presented in gargantuan, mountainous piles. You would know that if you read and understood this thread, but I don't expect that to happen.The evidence presented here stands un-refuted, by anyone, including you.

Ok, I'll try again.Let's say that hundreds of thousands of scientists for a couple of hundred years are all wrong and what they call evidence is what you call beliefs. All those evolutionary biologists, palaeontologists, radio physicists, astrophysicists, molecular biologists, geologists etc etc, all believe that what are looking at shows that the earth is old.And all that evidence is there - the fossils, the speed of light, the rocks, the rings, the varves, the ice cores, the radio carbon and so on. You can go and look at it yourself. But fine, let's say it's all belief.My question is, why has god made it so that all those people are fooled by the evidence that they see?

I have seen only belief based claims here that have falsely been labelled evidence.

You would know that the piles are belief based piles if you comprehended the thread. From radiometric decay in nature in the past, to using nature of today in determine the time trees used to grow, and ad infinitum. When so called science looks to the universe we see a variation of the same thing, they imagine that space and time that we see here exists all over. In all ways and in every single facet of science that deals in origin issues we see the same thing, and nothing but the same thing.