Age Correlations and an Old Earth

Take your time. I wouldn't want you to give yourself short shrift on this.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-12-2004 11:16 PM

The appropriate place would be in the interpretation forum waiting to be moved for you.You say that someone has to prove that worldview is not what is producing the results of science. You made an accusation. You have to defend it or stop making it.You are also to stop cluttering up other threads with it. This is not the thread unless you show exactly how you would explain the correlations with the interpretation of your worldview.It seems a bit silly anyway. This thread is about dating. You've agreed that the earth is old. Unless you disagree with the dating methodologies used why don't you just stay out of this thread?

As I said kernals of truth are likely in every myth, but those truths do not show the whole myth to be true: that would (of course) be a logical fallacy of the first order.Funny how those "myths of Darwinism" don't depend on historical stories for validation again and again by succeeding generations: that they can be (and are) derived independantly over and over. I know of no myth that is self regenerating. Yes -- to the extent that every single experience is ultimately subjective. To the extent that those experiences can be repeated with the same results, repeated by other people, and repeated at different times and in different places ... and all have the same results, then it amounts to the subjective experience that all rational people call objective. I use the definitions in common usage and from dictionaries, a fairly subjective set of rational criteria.What you need to look at is not that which is subjective or objective, but what is discarded as nonsense: the world view that needs to discard more information as nonsense in order to work is less likely to be true -- Occams sharp and persistent razor.I have more on this concept and can start another topic on it if you are interested -- THIS one is about dating CORRELATIONS and is wandering off topic with a steady drift towards ... nonsense? ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This topic is not about proving or disproving genesisIt is about correlations in age dating methods showing a pattern of age that has to be explained by some other mechanism for any of the methods to be criticised as innacurate: EACH method needs to be addressed to show that each would give these same results under some other mechanism, and that WITHOUT any such explanation the age of the earth must be accepted according to these methods to be a rational measure of age.Please start another topic if you want to drift to another topic.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

please start another topic to discuss this issue.

Careful about dismissing the contributions of others. It's my opinion that the post in question was establishing the scientific framework for interpreting evidence that would corroborate an old Earth.Adminssimo Hambre

There has been topic drift for some time on this thread and it needs to be brought back to the issue of correlations between dating methodsHolding posts to the topic on hand is one of the things I like about this forum: it allows one to come in to the end of a discussion and have it relate to the topic title that would have originally interested them.I also take responsibility as the thread originator to review all posts on the topic to see how they relate to MY thesis, and I do NOT appreciate having to wade through less relevant posts in order to answer those that ARE on topic.I usually find when I have 10 or more e-mails about my topic that they are off topic.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This from the guy who just spent a whole post talking about subjectivity and Occam's razor? You may want to post something pertinent to the topic yourself.Adminssimo Hambre

the concluding statement of that post was:"I have more on this concept and can start another topic on it if you are interested -- THIS one is about dating CORRELATIONS and is wandering off topic with a steady drift towards ... nonsense? ... "

Remember recently, how you contended that bodily chip implant technology would never create a chip with the prefix numeral 666, that they would deliberately evade this prefix in order to disprove this well known Revelation prophecy ?Your underlying point assumes the wide mainstream popularity of Biblical text.My point here is that it is extreme naievete to assert educated persons have no bias or mindset concerning Genesis - EVERYONE knows about Genesis and its perceived claims.What silences the criticism that this alleged truth which contradicts Genesis is based upon the worldview of the scientist interpreting the evidence ?IOW, funny how it is atheists who interpret evidence to say it contradicts Genesis ?If you say, "there are plenty of theists who agree" then they are really not theists despite what they claim. I could suddenly say in this context I am an atheist....IOW, turncoats confusing the identity of the combatants is only a cheap attempt to secure support from an opposing worldview. By logical definition, a (Hebrew/Christian) theist cannot claim Genesis refuted just like an atheist cannot claim Genesis verified. And how does any of these scientific discoveries disprove Genesis ? If their STARTING premise is false (creationism cannot be true) then there is no wonder involved at all. They all have knowledge of the basic claims of Genesis/creationism, and the claims of Genesis are but a few; God created universe, Earth, Adam, animal, plant, etc.etc.They all conclude opposite of ID. They all are atheists for the most part.These conclusions manifest in the form of these dual meaning adjectives: mindlessness, purposeless, random, chance, and the best one of all - accident. All these terms are also making a statement about Genesis.How does any of the aforementioned adjectives evidence against a Creator ?God created what is seen to look as if it was as described so to not overpower man's free will and negate the need for faith.Here is a post I wrote evidencing how Genesis has always claimed control by God under the appearance of accident/chance:http://EvC Forum: PHILOSOPHY IS KING -->EvC Forum: PHILOSOPHY IS KING But theists claim major transmissions problems from the get-go.Of course there are no transmission problems if you are a secularist/atheist.BUT the only issue is theist truth/claims.All you have done is assert your worldview to be supported worldwide.I agree there is universal truth in the interpretation but any component therein which goes against Genesis is the philosophy of the worldview speaking and not any evidence. Richard Milton and Jonathan Wells have exposed the fraud laced through-out evolution. Eliminate these frauds and ToE is a THEORY salivating for evidence.Do you have any idea how long the peppered moths fraud was allowed to remain in science books before any evo raised an eyebrow ?Human evolution is based upon a paucity of physical evidence which is then used as props supporting that preexisting narrative structure: Ape to human/tree dwelling to upright man visual rhetoric. The amount of alleged human fossil evidence layed down in front of MILLIONS of years hominid evolution scenario is equivalent to a 10 billion piece jigsaw puzzle (preexisting narrative structure) containing a couple hundred scraps of pieces.That preexisting narrative structure ONLY exists because Genesis is not an option. Like Jonathan Wells says, "So much based on so little."Where are the graveyards of fossil evidence ? Skeleton after skeleton should exist abundantly if humans evolved. The only issue is the insistence that God is not the Creator.Whether it is implied or straight out admitted I contend the evidence supports Genesis/Romans and is only seen to not do so when philosophy is craftily laced in scientific interpretations and conclusions.

Is there anything in that post that has anything to do with age correlations and an old earth?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

For the second time recently. A strong topic warning.

"Concealed", I suppose, in the display cases in museums, on public display. You know, those places you go when you want to learn something.I guess that explains why you haven't seen the fossils, huh?

I live in a city with MANY world class museums.Everytime I visited one they displayed fake plaster cast fossils inserted into some preexisting narrative structure. The implication being obvious: The paucity of real fossils in existence does not allow for every museum to show them. My re-occurring point:So much based on so little, yet the purported lack of the same type of evidence for ancient Israel = the greatest double standard you will find anywhere.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-26-2004 08:20 PM

Is there anything in that post that has anything to do with the topic?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion