Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: danieljones0094
Post Volume: Total: 920,786 Year: 1,108/6,935 Month: 389/719 Week: 31/146 Day: 4/8 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
PaulK
Member
Posts: 18063
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 1516 of 1525 (921181)
01-03-2025 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1510 by dad3
01-02-2025 6:24 PM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
quote:
Using only the natural is a statement that all you need is the natural. So that says that no creation happened, but rather a long sequence of natural processes. Since you have no evidence that this is the case, you cannot claim anything is deceptive. IT is simple a choice to accept/use.believe only in the natural.
As I have already explained that is not true. Certainly in this case there is no reason why all the evidence would have to point to great ages unless the Earth really were old.
Until you can answer that point instead of ignoring it you have nothing but an empty assertion grounded in nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1510 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 6:24 PM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1517 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 12:56 AM PaulK has replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 1517 of 1525 (921182)
01-03-2025 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1516 by PaulK
01-03-2025 12:11 AM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
There is another reason. All of the methods sit on the premise that using only the natural could tell us about our creation. In other words if you look only at what was created and how it works, that cannot tell you where it came from. All of your methods look only at the natural processes and realities that now exist. You make the same mistake across the board, so it is certain your results, however self correlated they may be, would all be wrong. The issue is not whether beliefs and assumptions agree with themselves. Probably all beliefs do that much. You have no independent evidence that only the natural exists.
So all your naturalonlydunnit models are nothing more than statements of faith. Unless the natural is all that exists and ever existed, then your models are not fact or knowledge based. It may be a fact that the natural processes happen and even precisely as you claim, but we cannot take the giant leap of faith that using only the natural tells us where it all came from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1516 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2025 12:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1519 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2025 1:04 AM dad3 has replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 1518 of 1525 (921183)
01-03-2025 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1514 by Percy
01-02-2025 8:59 PM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
I proposed another similar but more specific thread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1514 by Percy, posted 01-02-2025 8:59 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 18063
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 1519 of 1525 (921184)
01-03-2025 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1517 by dad3
01-03-2025 12:56 AM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
quote:
There is another reason. All of the methods sit on the premise that using only the natural could tell us about our creation
Which boils down to the assertion that the natural is not deceiving. Again given the quantity and quality of evidence we have - and no reason at all to expect that if the Earth were not very old - why should that be a problem?
Worshipping men who say that God is a liar seems a far worse method of investigating our reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1517 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 12:56 AM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1520 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 3:03 AM PaulK has replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 1520 of 1525 (921186)
01-03-2025 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1519 by PaulK
01-03-2025 1:04 AM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
Why would the natural be deceiving? It is fine, The problem comes when you use only one part of the equation to get a result.
Like two plus 2 = 4. You just use the 2 and try to tell us what the answer is from that alone
You use only the natural. Since you do not know that only the natural exists, you are making things up.
There would be a problem if you were in Eden dating a rock created yesterday and claimed it was billions of years old! Oh, you might say, we have evidence. The decay happening is a certain rate and so all that daughter isotope must have come to exist from decay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1519 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2025 1:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1521 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2025 3:12 AM dad3 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 18063
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 1521 of 1525 (921187)
01-03-2025 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1520 by dad3
01-03-2025 3:03 AM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
quote:
Why would the natural be deceiving?
That’s the question you should be answering since you claim that the evidence of nature IS deceiving - and in fact represents a massive and consistent deception.
quote:
There would be a problem if you were in Eden dating a rock created yesterday and claimed it was billions of years old!
Why would I - wouldn’t the evidence indicate that the rock was too young to be dated by radiometric methods ? Why wouldn’t it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1520 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 3:03 AM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1522 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 4:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 1522 of 1525 (921188)
01-03-2025 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1521 by PaulK
01-03-2025 3:12 AM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
There is nothing deceiving about how creation works. Natural processes are part of this world and heavens.
What evidence in Eden the day after creation would indicate the earth was young to a naturalonlyist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1521 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2025 3:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1523 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2025 4:22 AM dad3 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 18063
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 1523 of 1525 (921189)
01-03-2025 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1522 by dad3
01-03-2025 4:10 AM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
quote:
There is nothing deceiving about how creation works. Natural processes are part of this world and heavens.
Then the Earth really is old.
quote:
What evidence in Eden the day after creation would indicate the earth was young to a naturalonlyist?
Well, for a start we’d expect radiometric dating methods to indicate that all the igneous rocks were too young to date. As I L ready told you. We shouldn’t expect artificial ages, should we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1522 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 4:10 AM dad3 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9638
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1524 of 1525 (921191)
01-03-2025 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1511 by dad3
01-02-2025 6:35 PM


Re: prove the natural did it
dad3 writes:
You can say almost anything, but not as fact or science
Correct, it's a belief. Just like your belief that God exists, just a pointless utterance with no base in reality.
Correct, and that means just the natural. Will you admit that if there was a supernatural creation, that what you are able to observe could never explain how it happened?
Well that's gobbledegook isn't it? We form conclusions about what is, not what ifs.
By claiming the universe and man came to exist a certain way, they certainly do claim that the naturalonlydunnit
I don't believe that we are claiming that the universe came to exist in a certain way - yet. There are a number of hypotheses awaiting real evidence. None of which include god of course, that's not a hypothesis that can ever be tested.
We do KNOW how man came about though as we have the evidence.
Yes it claims that only the natural dunnit all. That is as clear a statement as one could get.

No different than a Goddiddit statement. One cannot prove that the supernatural does not or does exist. Especially using ONLY the natural!
You're still confused, probably because you think that your god, the one of the bible, has something to do with all this, that is provably false.
When science is considering origins it can only work on what is real; stuff that there is evidence for. Gods that exist outside time and space (whatever that means) and don't intervene in our world can't be observed by science so it just shrugs and somehow manages without the need for that particular hypothesis.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1511 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 6:35 PM dad3 has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13143
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1525 of 1525 (921196)
01-03-2025 9:39 AM


Please take discussion to the Inspecting a rock the day after creation thread. Post replies to messages here over there. Please include a link to the message you're replying to. Each message has a message ID at the top in light gray next to the message number text, for example, "Message 1517 of 1525 (921182)". To link to this message you would enter [mid=921182], e.g.:
This is a reply to [mid=921182].
Which would render like this:
This is a reply to Message 1517.
You can even do something like this:
This is a reply to dad3's Message 1517 that was posted in the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread.
Click on the Peek button to see how to do this.
I'm temporarily closing this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025