|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,786 Year: 1,108/6,935 Month: 389/719 Week: 31/146 Day: 4/8 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1732 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 | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18063 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
dad3 Member Posts: 65 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
dad3 Member Posts: 65 Joined: |
I proposed another similar but more specific thread
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18063 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
dad3 Member Posts: 65 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18063 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: 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: Why would I - wouldn’t the evidence indicate that the rock was too young to be dated by radiometric methods ? Why wouldn’t it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
dad3 Member Posts: 65 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18063 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Then the Earth really is old.
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9638 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
dad3 writes:
Correct, it's a belief. Just like your belief that God exists, just a pointless utterance with no base in reality.
You can say almost anything, but not as fact or science 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13143 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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. Edited by Admin, : Clarify.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025