Summations Only

Faith writes:

quote:

---

The evidence for old age is hardly "massive," it's all radiometric dating.

---

Incorrect.For example, you are ignoring the cosmological data (the stars and galaxies really are that far away and the light from them really does take billions of years to reach us in order for us to see it; analysis of star clusters given their mass will indicate how old they are) and even simple kinematic data (we can plot the motions of objects such as asteroids and determine where they were in the past and thus determine their origin...such as from a collision that broke it into two...and when that event happened)And if you want to look at just the earth, you are ignoring the biological data and geological data. We have tree rings and ice cores and varves that show ages much greater than YEC claim. And since those three methods are all independent of each other, the fact that they align with each other to indicate an earth at least 100,000 years old is evidence that it is at least that old (the ice cores show nearly a billion years.)The fact that you think "radiometric decay" is insufficient is telling. You don't actually care what the evidence says.

quote:

---

There IS evidence for the Flood

---

No, there isn't. The Great Pyramids were built hundreds of years before the flood, but there is no water damage to them. Civilizations outside of the Middle East such as the Central and South American natives as well as China had thriving civilizations at the time of the flood, and there is no interruption in their documentation of their history. Not even Egypt seemed to notice.And that ignores the topological impossibility of a global flood. If it were mathematically possible to flood the earth, it would be flooded right now.

quote:

---

and I continue to think it really funny that such obvious evidence as sedimentary strata and bazillions of fossils is just flatly refused while the absurd and impossible interpretation of time periods assigned to various blocks of strata is treated as reasonable.

---

And yet, you continue to refuse to recognize the obvious evidence from sedimentary strata and bazillions of fossils as evidence of an old earth while the absurd and impossible interpretation of time periods assigned to various blocks of strata as if they were young you claim to be reasonable. This sort of "science" you put forward really is laughable.

quote:

---

Oh, also that wishfulness that calls the non-life of replicating molecules "building blocks of life."

---

This would be where you define what you mean by "life" and "non-life," then. We can create self-replicating, auto-cataylsing, homochiral molecules that evolve, Faith. If that isn't "life," then what is?

quote:

---

unlike the sciences of the past for which most of the information is irretrievably lost.

---

Then we had better open up the prisons, Faith, for that same "sciences of the past for which most of the information is irretrievably lost" is what is used to convict people. For most crimes, there is no witness. We only have the "sciences of the past" to determine what happened and by whom.And we had certainly stop trying to claim we can determine paternity, for that is the same "sciences of the past."

You don't necessarily have to repeat an event to test the explanation of that event.You see evidence A, and you speculate B; because B would leave A behind, wouldn't it?You can't test this by going back in time, but you can test it by asking what else B would leave behind. Assume B, predict the expected consequences (other than A, which you already know), and then check if they're there as well. If they are, your confidence in B is strengthened.

Dredge writes:

quote:

---

Firstly, the fact that you consider it possible that science could one day produce life from dead matter says a lot about your grip on reality.

---

Yep. That it's pretty tight. After all, that's how life happens in the first place: It takes dead material and turns it into life. The food you eat isn't alive. It's not like you go out and hunt animals to consume their still-beating hearts. The vegetation you eat dies when you cultivate it. About the only thing that's still alive when you eat it are the bacteria and fungi that are on the food you eat, but it isn't like you get your sustenance from them.For crying out loud, salt is a rock and yet you continue to incorporate it into your cells in order to keep you alive.So we can clearly see through simple observation that life is continually created from non-life. Life is merely a chemical process that takes certain reagents and produces certain products in a long-term reaction. And as we all know from chemistry, it doesn't matter how the reaction gets started and there is no magic to it. You simply need the appropriate reagents with sufficient activation energy to start the reaction.Now, right here and now we can create self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve. If that isn't "life," what is it? What is your definition of "life"?

You obviously never got very far reading Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. What we actually have is sufficient evidence from other sources to demonstrate the validity of radiometric dating, by several different methods that all arrive at the same results. Because the flying magic flood fails miserably to explain the details in the rocks, including the changes in quantities of radiometric isotopes that cannot be explained by water movement, especially also including the changes in life-forms in pace with those radio-isotope changes are viewed along an exponential axis.You always ignore the details because they invalidate your fantasies. Actually the molecules in question use the same amino acids as life ... so they are building blocks. Try reading the threads instead of blind dismissal.Enjoy

Tree rings, varves and ice cores do not support an ancient earth, they add a few thousand years at most to the YEC timing.

No, it's A hypothesis. It would only be "an" if the "h" is silent, as in "an 'ypothesis". A link to a whole thread is not very specific. Specifically, which do you think is the best example of a self replicating molecule?

Well when I look back over the contradictory advice on diet over the years I would conclude that science is often wrong. Even when wrong there has usually been a consensus. "Eggs are bad for you, don't eat more than 2 a week". "No, eggs are good for you, eat often".

But unlike religion, science corrects itself in time.

CRR is right, the sciences of nutrition and dieting have a lousy track record over the last few decades, which was a major theme of Percy's threads on this subject too. We may now be getting better information but it's still coming from alternative sources while the mainstream still pushes the low fat diets that have always failed. Wanting to keep my blood sugar down I've read up on mainstream diabetes sources and have been amazed at the high carb intake they recommend. As Phat says, many doctors don't know the latest about nutrition and continue to prescribe the old failed ideas.I should have mentioned this problem too but my point was only that all the information is available for studies of nutrition so theoretically it ought to be possible to come up with reliable results. However there are lots and lots of variables to complicate matters. But the main thing is that for some studies it has all been guesswork on the the level of there is cholesterol in eggs, it's cholesterol that clogs arteries, therefore don't eat eggs, failing to grasp that the cholesterol in the eggs doesn't end up as cholesterol in your arteries and that it may actually be sugar that causes that condition.But theoretically the information is all available for study while for the distant past the information isn't even all available and most of it has to be guessed at without any means of correction available.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You seem to have quoted the wrong post of mine, but it's pretty clear what you meant to quote: Maybe. But in the case of the meaning of the strata and fossils the Flood accounts for the actual facts much better than the Geological Time Scale, which is really an impossibility as an explanation for a block of sedimentary strata, and though there's no way to test your interpretation about a one-time event in the past the prejudices of mainstream science are accepted anyway. It's logical in the abstract but get into the actual facts and see how far you get.ABE: And what about calling replicating molecules "building blocks of life" when there is no life in such molecules, or "pre-biotic." Science uses a lot of wishful word magic like that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Its been a while for that stupid food pyramid, but hopefully its finally being corrected a bit.And as you note there are alternative sources out there now.The Paleo diet and all the related ones are a welcome relief!

How naive. ToE was invented and is sustained by a philosophical position - atheism. The error of evolution will persist as long as the error of atheism will.

Crap. More crap.

Get a grip. No one knows what happened billions of years ago. Scientists who think they do are egotistical bs-artists. Self-replicating molecules are several universes away from even the simplest self-replicating organism.Are all Darwinists this bad at reality? Assumed to be pre-biotic. But really just a guess. More guesswork.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The Bible you claim to follow offers not the slightest hint that the Darwinist tale you believe in is scriptural. On the contrary, it states something very different - creation over a few days.