Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 144 (587410)
10-18-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


No dating techniques needed...
Zubbbra25 writes:
Wouldn't this strengthen their position that the earth is as young as they say it is? Instead of saying that radiometric dating has supposed flaws, shouldn't they be working on new methods?
No YEC would ever accept that his position needed any strengthening. The Bible genealogy says that the Earth is 6000 years old. Why is confirmation needed? To YEC, if the earth is any substantially amount older than 6000 years old, then the Son of Man never came so that we might have life and have it more abundantly.
A Bible friendly scientific dating technique that appeared to support a 6000 year old earth would probably be taken as some kind of Faustian deal that could start spitting out billion year old dates just when its time for some ICR scientist to start his research.
Edited by NoNukes, : check spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 1:30 PM Zubbbra25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by goldrush, posted 03-01-2011 9:47 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 144 (587523)
10-19-2010 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Zubbbra25
10-19-2010 6:13 AM


Re: Belief vs. evidence
Zubbbra25 writes:
It seems that these YEC's want creation science to be taught in the science classroom and yet they can't provide any science to back it up. It boggles my mind!
That's not how a YEC would view things.
As near as I can tell, Creation Science is nothing more than rebuttal of any secular science that conflicts with the Bible, and primarily addresses science that conflicts with the creation and flood accounts in Genesis. CS serves no other purpose excluding selling books and lecture appearances. Still, many Creationists believe that the rebuttals are good science.
Given their hearts desire, YECs would have literal Biblical creation taught in public school classrooms, and would eliminate the teaching of evolution, chemicals-to-biology abiogenesis, and Big Bang cosmology in science classrooms.
But federal courts have said that the YEC curriculum is religion, and cannot be taught as science in public schools. Teaching Creation Science rebuttals, perhaps disguised as intelligent design, along side secular science is a fall back position.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : Make minor corrections

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-19-2010 6:13 AM Zubbbra25 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 144 (589851)
11-04-2010 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
11-04-2010 2:16 PM


Salt accumulation
slevesque writes:
One that is consistent with the given age. For example, the accumulation of salt in the ocean gives a maximum age consistent with a young earth. This was in fact my very first thread at EvC, and if you want to discuss it you could dig up my old thread and we could start off from there
There are plenty of unaddressed criticisms of the ocean salinity aging technique in that old thread of yours. Perhaps participation in that thread would be a more attractive option if you answered some of the stuff already posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 2:16 PM slevesque has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 144 (589916)
11-05-2010 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
11-04-2010 10:18 PM


Salinity is really not a dating technique...
slevesque writes:
92 million years I think. But of course, this is going all the way back to when there wasn't a grain of salt in the ocean, a situation that never was even in the naturalistic history of the oceans.
Even assuming that the ocean salinity age estimate were valid, it isn't really a dating technique is it? We could say that the oceans are less than ninety something million years old, but we cannot date anything else.
Unless there is possibility of finding samples of ancient ocean water with its salinity preserved, how would we date anything. We cannot, for example, use ocean salinity to date the Great Sphinx to show that it is younger that 4400 years old. We just know that the Sphinx and everything else are less than ninety or so million years old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 11-04-2010 10:18 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:00 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 144 (590205)
11-06-2010 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by slevesque
11-06-2010 5:00 PM


Re: Salinity is really not a dating technique...
slevesque writes:
Read my very first post in this thread, to see how this ocean salinity issue fits in the whole web of things. I never pretended that this was a dating technique that could be applied on a wide range of things.
Others are addressing the issue of fitting into a 'whole web of things'. I won't join the pile. I was just confirming that you had not proposed a dating technique. That is after all the topic of the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 11-06-2010 5:00 PM slevesque has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 144 (607093)
03-01-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by goldrush
03-01-2011 9:47 PM


Re: No dating techniques needed...
goldrush writes:
Actually the Bible puts no specific or approximate age on the earth.
You are taking my post out of its intended context.
YEC do interpret the Bible as providing an estimate of the age of the earth. My post was meant to explain why a person holding such a belief would not need or accept dating methods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by goldrush, posted 03-01-2011 9:47 PM goldrush has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by arachnophilia, posted 03-01-2011 11:13 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 129 by goldrush, posted 03-02-2011 1:19 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 144 (607108)
03-02-2011 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by goldrush
03-02-2011 1:19 AM


Re: No dating techniques needed...
goldrush writes:
It's almost off-topic for this particular thread, but I just wanted to make it known that its not actually the Bible itself promoting the idea of either a young or old earth.
The Bible cannot promote anything without a promoting human. Are you saying that there is no support in the Bible for the YEC interpretation? I cannot agree with that despite the fact that I think the YEC interpretation is wrong.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by goldrush, posted 03-02-2011 1:19 AM goldrush has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024