Assignment...

"But if the bible did not exist, or was not held as inerrant,
the lines of argument and enquiry typically (is that better? ))
used by YEC's would not exist either."
--How do you know this? Where is your time-machine? I would agree that the same detailed scenario would be quite different, however, I would think that there would still be a theory of some sort of Flood and catastrophic sequential development of the earths lithosphere and crust. As well as a relatively young earth, though I wouldn't think it would be too near 6,000. Possibly a couple hundred thousand. In this way you don't have to deal with all the probabilities and mess with short time-scales. As we usually do today, occums razor would most likely be the only pair of scientific biased goggles worn."The vast majority of christians have no problem with mainstream
science explanations for diversity of life on earth ... and
many christians do NOT hold the bible to be literally exact."
--That's nice."A large part of the debate (even on this site) from YEC's tends to
be argument against one or more evidences used to support
evolution, rather than a clear statement of a model, followed
by evidences and interpretations to support it ... check it out
if you don't believe me ... it's all here in blue and white"
--And its significance. Let me go drag a bunch of my little ignorant evo's on this board and then I can say the same thing. This makes no matter toward the veracious plausibility of any theory. Argument by majority or authority is not adequate."That would tend to suggest that there is a significant proportion
of YEC's whose aim is to validate their view that the Bible
is inerrant."
--Makes no matter."Could you give references that would support the view that
in former times every christian believed in a young earth ?
--Its in any guide or introduction to geology in its historical development. The old-day thoughts on a young earth are regularly criticized in today's geologic texts. Usually in phrases somewhere along the line of 'geologists soon recognized that the earth must be old'. Most likely in reference to stratigraphic deposition."I would tend to think, that if that were true the uniformitarian
view, and the suggestion that the earth was much older than 6000 years
would not have come into play until much later. I cannot
support my view either, but that's the challenge to your
view that natural philosophers held YEC beliefs."
--If mind serves me right, these sorts of uniformitarian theoretical concepts started to gain rigour in the scientific community about 200-300 years ago."And in direct reference to the flood ... we DO know about those
things now, and yet modern geologists still find no evidence for
a global flood approx. 4500 years ago."
--No, this is ridiculous if I take you literally. This assertion has grown entirely, completely, and utterly tedious. It is silly to say that there is 'no evidence'. If you wish to argue that the evidence is not complete, or that there is evidence against or something less general, that is something else."I used radiometric dating as an example ... all dating methods
are suggested to be erroneous by YEC standpoints ... otherwise
YEC would fall apart because (as sited elsewhere) there are
many different ways by which we can detect evidence that the
earth is MUCH older than 6000 years (or even 10000 years)."
--And after arguing each one, I have found in my experience at least, that they all will end up at radioisotopic dating. I have heard very few arguments independent of radiometric isochrons (ie, relative dating methods) which hint at its success against a 10 or so thousand years."Some-one else pointed out that there could be evidence of this
effect ... so I bow to those who know more in the relevent
fields, but ask DOES such evidence exist ? If it does why
has NO mainstream scientist brought it up as an anomaly ?"
--I haven't done adequate research in this area again, though I brought a book or two with me down to Key West, Fl. and did a little reading. Also, as far as I can tell, there are many 'anomalies' in the mainstream view, though all you need is a vast quantity of time for a mainstream rationalization."Originally posted by TrueCreation:Check the biblical inerrancy thread ... there is NO direct
archeological support for the bible.Some events have been suggested as relating to historically documented
events ... but only in so far as they are similar in SOME
details.Finding cities in the right place is NOT support for the bible.
Reason:: If I were to read 'The Three Musketeers', and look for
Nantes or Paris I would find them, where suggested by the text.
This does NOT make the story true."
--Where did this come from? Because it certainly is nothing I have said. Nor can I find any segment of it in this forums database."Any reasoning individual would agree with you ... unfortunately
an un-reasoning attitude is typical of religous zealots."
--Than the reasoning individual is someone to listen to, the 'un-reasoning attitude', should be looked upon as no more than an unreasoned attitude. Either way, this makes no effect on the veracity of any theory.--[Edit] - I think that we may end up straying the topic if this is continued, and I do not think that we will be hearing from the topic originator any time soon. If you find something interesting, it may be better to find a more appropriate place for its discussion.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-29-2002]

I'll be very brief here, because I agree with your final comment,
about the topic et al.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"But if the bible did not exist, or was not held as inerrant,
the lines of argument and enquiry typically (is that better? ))
used by YEC's would not exist either."
--How do you know this? Where is your time-machine?

---

Why doubt the age of the earth as put forward by scientists
world-wide ?If you did NOT have the bible to say it's younger than that
what would lead you to that conclusion ?The main objections, for example, to radiometric dating techniques
seems to come down to either ::They are wrong (despite cross-corroboration with other techniques
which rely on different methods).ORradio-active decay happened at a different rate in the past.The first is arguably worth pursuing, the second only arrises
if we already beleive the earth to be young ... and that
belief stems from the believed inerrancy of the bible.OOOh ... that's not very brief ... I'll try harder

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"The vast majority of christians have no problem with mainstream
science explanations for diversity of life on earth ... and
many christians do NOT hold the bible to be literally exact."
--That's nice.

---

I thought so ... and you don't appear to disagree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"A large part of the debate (even on this site) from YEC's tends to
be argument against one or more evidences used to support
evolution, rather than a clear statement of a model, followed
by evidences and interpretations to support it ... check it out
if you don't believe me ... it's all here in blue and white"
--And its significance. Let me go drag a bunch of my little ignorant evo's on this board and then I can say the same thing. This makes no matter toward the veracious plausibility of any theory. Argument by majority or authority is not adequate.

---

I have to disagree, as the point I was making has nothing to
do with authority or majority.The point was that MOST YEC's do not put forward evidence of
their position, they attempt to refute evolution. But the
refutations are grounded in the belief that the bible is
inerrant, without the level of support for that assertion
which they require of evolutionists.Not you, by the way, but check out some of the YEC attitudes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"That would tend to suggest that there is a significant proportion
of YEC's whose aim is to validate their view that the Bible
is inerrant."
--Makes no matter.

---

Yes it does. It means that the basis for objection is not
that the theory of evidence does not seem credible, but that
it is opposed to their fundamentalist beliefs.That makes it directly relevent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Could you give references that would support the view that
in former times every christian believed in a young earth ?
--Its in any guide or introduction to geology in its historical development. The old-day thoughts on a young earth are regularly criticized in today's geologic texts. Usually in phrases somewhere along the line of 'geologists soon recognized that the earth must be old'. Most likely in reference to stratigraphic deposition.

---

And those early geologists were christian, and didn't believe in
a young earth ... thankyou for supporting my assertion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"I would tend to think, that if that were true the uniformitarian
view, and the suggestion that the earth was much older than 6000 years
would not have come into play until much later. I cannot
support my view either, but that's the challenge to your
view that natural philosophers held YEC beliefs."
--If mind serves me right, these sorts of uniformitarian theoretical concepts started to gain rigour in the scientific community about 200-300 years ago.

---

Which suggests that 200-300 years ago there was increasing doubt
that the bible was intended literally. Which was all I was really
saying ... those individuals were predominantly christian, but
did not hold YEC views.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"And in direct reference to the flood ... we DO know about those
things now, and yet modern geologists still find no evidence for
a global flood approx. 4500 years ago."
--No, this is ridiculous if I take you literally. This assertion has grown entirely, completely, and utterly tedious. It is silly to say that there is 'no evidence'. If you wish to argue that the evidence is not complete, or that there is evidence against or something less general, that is something else.

---

For the global flood to have taken place around 4500 years ago,
there would have to be evidence of that in every part of the
world at the right date.There isn't.What is ludicrous about that. There are places where the strata
at 4500 years ago are not idicative of flood deposits (aren't
there ?) Or are those dates wrong too ?There is some evidence that there were local floods in the middle-east
around this time but this layer is NOT evident globally at the
approriate time scale. It's not absence of evidence, or incomplete
evidence, it is CONTRARY evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"I used radiometric dating as an example ... all dating methods
are suggested to be erroneous by YEC standpoints ... otherwise
YEC would fall apart because (as sited elsewhere) there are
many different ways by which we can detect evidence that the
earth is MUCH older than 6000 years (or even 10000 years)."
--And after arguing each one, I have found in my experience at least, that they all will end up at radioisotopic dating. I have heard very few arguments independent of radiometric isochrons (ie, relative dating methods) which hint at its success against a 10 or so thousand years.

---

A while ago I posted a long list of links to earth dating
methods that pre-date radiometric techniques, and all dated
the earth progressively older. I don't think you responded
to that one though, perhaps you missed it ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Some-one else pointed out that there could be evidence of this
effect ... so I bow to those who know more in the relevent
fields, but ask DOES such evidence exist ? If it does why
has NO mainstream scientist brought it up as an anomaly ?"
--I haven't done adequate research in this area again, though I brought a book or two with me down to Key West, Fl. and did a little reading. Also, as far as I can tell, there are many 'anomalies' in the mainstream view, though all you need is a vast quantity of time for a mainstream rationalization.

---

But are they the right anomalies ? [QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]

"Why doubt the age of the earth as put forward by scientists
world-wide ?"
--Because that is how scientists think, a scientist doesn't just accept something because everyone else does and go from there. I am skeptical about everything, not just the age of the earth."If you did NOT have the bible to say it's younger than that
what would lead you to that conclusion ?"
--Another model of earth history. In the face of radioisotopic dating, this most likely would be a geochemical model."The main objections, for example, to radiometric dating techniques
seems to come down to either ::They are wrong (despite cross-corroboration with other techniques
which rely on different methods).ORradio-active decay happened at a different rate in the past.The first is arguably worth pursuing, the second only arrises
if we already beleive the earth to be young ... and that
belief stems from the believed inerrancy of the bible."
--Actually it may stem from other observations, such as a model for a Flood. It's like saying that 'Evolution still wouldn't be considered bunk whether the fossil record was for it or not, because look at all the other evidence we have!" something I hear frequently."I thought so ... and you don't appear to disagree."
--I don't disagree."I have to disagree, as the point I was making has nothing to
do with authority or majority."
--Actually, it is an argument from majority as directly supported by your next statement (bolded):"The point was that MOST YEC's do not put forward evidence of
their position, they attempt to refute evolution. But the
refutations are grounded in the belief that the bible is
inerrant, without the level of support for that assertion
which they require of evolutionists.Not you, by the way, but check out some of the YEC attitudes."
--That is detrimental to themselves, not anyone else. That's like looking at every bit of YEC scientific work and concluding that Hovind is the leading and credible source! Thus YECists are bunk, this isn't logical."Yes it does. It means that the basis for objection is not
that the theory of evidence does not seem credible, but that
it is opposed to their fundamentalist beliefs.That makes it directly relevent."
--See above comments, what I mean is that it doesn't matter what lunatics are out there with whatever view, if they are the lunatics, then they are irrelevant toward the veracity of the conventional feasible view."And those early geologists were christian, and didn't believe in
a young earth ... thankyou for supporting my assertion."
--No, I was talking about before then, even Joe Meert made comment on this earlier."Which suggests that 200-300 years ago there was increasing doubt
that the bible was intended literally. Which was all I was really
saying ... those individuals were predominantly christian, but
did not hold YEC views."
--That's nice, and if this is your point, I don't' see the need for argument."For the global flood to have taken place around 4500 years ago,
there would have to be evidence of that in every part of the
world at the right date.There isn't."
--Please, please, please peter.. don't assert this again. This is increasingly more frustrating than dealing with YEC's that come in here such as RvX, JennaCreationist, Blitz, et al. This is entirely untrue and I'd like it if you realized it. there is evidence for a Flood all over the planet. If you would like to change your argument in saying that there is evidence against it, or that not 'all' evidence agrees with it, this could be discussed."What is ludicrous about that. There are places where the strata
at 4500 years ago are not idicative of flood deposits (aren't
there ?) Or are those dates wrong too ?"
--If you want evidence of a Flood, you have to work in its framework to find its merit."There is some evidence that there were local floods in the middle-east
around this time but this layer is NOT evident globally at the
approriate time scale. It's not absence of evidence, or incomplete
evidence, it is CONTRARY evidence."
--Its also evidence that assumes uniformitarian deposition, in a YEC scenario, this is non-sense and unacceptable as a starting line in any search for evidence."A while ago I posted a long list of links to earth dating
methods that pre-date radiometric techniques, and all dated
the earth progressively older. I don't think you responded
to that one though, perhaps you missed it ?"
--Maybe I did, where is it?"But are they the right anomalies ?"
--I don't know, what type of anomalies are you looking for?------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Why doubt the age of the earth as put forward by scientists
world-wide ?"
--Because that is how scientists think, a scientist doesn't just accept something because everyone else does and go from there. I am skeptical about everything, not just the age of the earth.

---

That's not really what I was getting at. Personally I don't
accept anything much at face value, never had, never will.But ... if you look at the various, independent lines of enquiry
that are concerned with the age of the earth few support the
view that the earth is only 6000 years old ... which is what YECism
seems to be suggesting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"If you did NOT have the bible to say it's younger than that
what would lead you to that conclusion ?"
--Another model of earth history. In the face of radioisotopic dating, this most likely would be a geochemical model.

---

True. Is there another model of earth history that supports
a young earth, but is not rooted in judeo-christian belief ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"The main objections, for example, to radiometric dating techniques
seems to come down to either ::

​

They are wrong (despite cross-corroboration with other techniques
which rely on different methods).

​

OR

​

radio-active decay happened at a different rate in the past.

​

The first is arguably worth pursuing, the second only arrises
if we already beleive the earth to be young ... and that
belief stems from the believed inerrancy of the bible."
--Actually it may stem from other observations, such as a model for a Flood. It's like saying that 'Evolution still wouldn't be considered bunk whether the fossil record was for it or not, because look at all the other evidence we have!" something I hear frequently.

---

But the Flood stems from a view of Biblical accuracy too.If the fossil record completely contradicted ToE, ToE would
not survive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"I thought so ... and you don't appear to disagree."
--I don't disagree.

​

"I have to disagree, as the point I was making has nothing to
do with authority or majority."
--Actually, it is an argument from majority as directly supported by your next statement (bolded):

​

"The point was that MOST YEC's do not put forward evidence of
their position, they attempt to refute evolution. But the
refutations are grounded in the belief that the bible is
inerrant, without the level of support for that assertion
which they require of evolutionists.

---

I was not suggesting that this was THE YEC view, only that many
YEC's hold such views ... so beware!I used the term MOST to indicate NOT ALL.Hope that clears that up ... after all you are in a minority
with your reasoned, scietific attitude to the questions.
(That wasn't sarcasm by the way ... I may disagree with you,
but that doesn't mean I don't have respect for you line or
arguments ... sometimes ).

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Not you, by the way, but check out some of the YEC attitudes."
--That is detrimental to themselves, not anyone else. That's like looking at every bit of YEC scientific work and concluding that Hovind is the leading and credible source! Thus YECists are bunk, this isn't logical.

​

"Yes it does. It means that the basis for objection is not
that the theory of evidence does not seem credible, but that
it is opposed to their fundamentalist beliefs.

​

That makes it directly relevent."
--See above comments, what I mean is that it doesn't matter what lunatics are out there with whatever view, if they are the lunatics, then they are irrelevant toward the veracity of the conventional feasible view.

---

Unfortunately you will find that it is the lunatics that have
the loudest voices, and the biggest fan-base.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"And those early geologists were christian, and didn't believe in
a young earth ... thankyou for supporting my assertion."
--No, I was talking about before then, even Joe Meert made comment on this earlier.

​

"Which suggests that 200-300 years ago there was increasing doubt
that the bible was intended literally. Which was all I was really
saying ... those individuals were predominantly christian, but
did not hold YEC views."
--That's nice, and if this is your point, I don't' see the need for argument.

---

OK.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"For the global flood to have taken place around 4500 years ago,
there would have to be evidence of that in every part of the
world at the right date.

​

There isn't."

​

--Please, please, please peter.. don't assert this again. This is increasingly more frustrating than dealing with YEC's that come in here such as RvX, JennaCreationist, Blitz, et al. This is entirely untrue and I'd like it if you realized it. there is evidence for a Flood all over the planet. If you would like to change your argument in saying that there is evidence against it, or that not 'all' evidence agrees with it, this could be discussed.

​

"What is ludicrous about that. There are places where the strata
at 4500 years ago are not idicative of flood deposits (aren't
there ?) Or are those dates wrong too ?"
--If you want evidence of a Flood, you have to work in its framework to find its merit.

​

"There is some evidence that there were local floods in the middle-east
around this time but this layer is NOT evident globally at the
approriate time scale. It's not absence of evidence, or incomplete
evidence, it is CONTRARY evidence."
--Its also evidence that assumes uniformitarian deposition, in a YEC scenario, this is non-sense and unacceptable as a starting line in any search for evidence.

---

Then there can be NO support for a global flood in a YEC
framework ... because we cannot date any particular stratum.In the conventional view the Flood's found are not indicative
of a single global flood due to timescales.In the YEC view we cannot determine the timescales.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"A while ago I posted a long list of links to earth dating
methods that pre-date radiometric techniques, and all dated
the earth progressively older. I don't think you responded
to that one though, perhaps you missed it ?"
--Maybe I did, where is it?

---

I'll try to check ... but if you do a yahoo search on
"Age of the Earth" you'll find lots.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"But are they the right anomalies ?"
--I don't know, what type of anomalies are you looking for?

---

Someone suggested what the evidence of faster decay in the past
would look like, so I was asking is that evidence found anywhere ?