Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. It's not important to me. It's not going to effect how I live my life, how I interact with other people, establishing the date I'm going to die, or how I make decisions concerning how I try to please God in living out the plan he has for my life.Some notable creationists like Ken Ham do have a firm belief in a young earth. Like much of what passes for "science", it's not observable science. Anything that's not observable science comes up short in being testable and falsifiable enough to be without controversy. The reams of material you've come up with, (and continue to come up with, I see) has been amassed for over a hundred years by scientists who first came to a conclusion, (the earth MUST be old for Darwinism to work) then choose evidence that supports that conclusion, and ignores evidence that doesn't.We live in a world of re-arrangement. That's all humans can do, they can't create material, and they can't destroy material. The only thing anyone can do is re-arrange material that's already here. We can do some pretty profound re-arrangements, like changing something in such a way that we can't change it back. (like burning something, etc) But the material is not destroyed. We live in a world of ONE time dimension, and three space dimensions.Few people seem to think that humans are capable of understanding all of reality. The endlessness of space, the meaning of life and all of that. I've seen a few at forums like this say something like; "we don't know it all yet, but we're going to figure it all out someday if we could get rid of all these science blocking Christians", or something similar. But they're a tiny minority, and have no proof that they're intellectually superior to everyone else.A very basic of Christianity is that there is more than one time dimension and three space dimensions that God operates/has operated in. And yet whenever the scientific community addresses something non-observational, it is always assumed that it must fit the paradigm of re-arrangement, of one time and three space dimensions. The scientific community doesn't immediately clash with Christianity or the supernatural, it just goes past it. The clash part usually comes soon after.Some who claim to be Christians try to bend and shape Christianity to conform with what the godless scientific community claims, if it takes issue with a traditional Christian belief. As if to say, "if there's a choice between the supernatural and re-arrangements that humans can understand, then the human understandable part has to be given preference.If we were to ask a science guy like Bill Nye what percentage of reality can humans not be capable of understanding versus what we can understand, he'd probably say we can understand...80 to 90% of all of reality. Only 10 or 20% to go. As I consider only re-arrangement in just about everything we can do or comprehend, I'd almost have to reverse those percentages - I believe there's A LOT about all of reality that humans have no chance of ever being able to comprehend. To try to jam pack all of reality into a re-arrangement realm isn't just an easily reversed minor mistake - it's WRONG. It's far worse than just a trip to nowhere, it's a wrong road that can continue to lead to more and more wrong conclusions, with society destroying consequences. Today's liberalism is a good example.If God did use his ability to use more than one time dimension and three space dimensions to create the earth and the universe, ALL this time and energy spent on speculation that naturalistic processes blundered along for billions of years to do the same thing more than just a gigantic waste, it's VERY detrimental to all of human existence.

Why is it fascinating? You don't understand that people have diverse views and interests? Life is short, mine is quite full, there are no huge voids in my life because I don't spend time on non-observational science that isn't provable. I'm only in this thread because you invited me. I am curious about a few things though, I hope you can lose a little of the anger and address them. After I address a few dates from your link;

quote:

---

By the early 20th Century...... In 1911......In 1921....... in 1927

---

Darwin's book "Origin of Species" was written in 1859. All the above dates come shortly after that. Meaning that the interest in an old earth increased greatly with the publication of that book. I was only referring to material, not little philosophical cuties about "rearranging understanding". You are the one who quickly went from "howling with laughter" to sputtering with rage in our last discussion. Those who promote an old earth for political reasons can hardly consider themselves exempt from emotion. You missed my question completely, let me try again. I referred to what humans are CAPABLE of understanding. It has nothing to do with building new knowledge on previous information. Do you believe that humans, at any time in the future, are CAPABLE of understanding the endlessness of space, as one example? Since I don't have FIVE YEARS to read through it all, could I get a summary about one thing that I seldom ever see addressed? What percentage of these dating methods show only old material, (old rocks, etc) without showing proof for a life-as-we-know-it friendly climate? It would be possible for the earth's core and crust and all of that to be old, without evidence that the earth has been going around the sun with similar temperatures that we have today for millions of years. Life is fragile, temperature-wise. There's no species on earth that can survive long at all outside its narrow temperature range.It's been awhile, but every so often we get warnings on the news that yet another of the man-made satellites orbiting the earth is coming in for a crash landing. I guess we don't hear about it when one loses its gravity grip and drifts away. What would happen if we had a NASA guy say, "uh folks, we have a little evolution problem - it seems that our data on satellites shows that it's not possible for a satellite, or a planet, to orbit something more than 10,000 or 20,000 times without drifting away or being drawn in. I only know one thing that would happen for sure - he'd lose the top two thirds of his head in an unfortunate shaving accident before his discovery would see the light of day. There really is politics involved in scientific study. How ignorant are you about world history? About socialism and tyrants? About Biblical teaching on morality? About finances and national debt? If you stay ignorant of those subjects, you'll believe anything Bernie Sanders tells you. I'm 62 and I've been to funerals of several people that were younger than me. Do you have any priorities, or is the age of the earth everything your life is about? Working, paying taxes, living a life, these are all things that automatically take care of themselves for you? I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm trying to get across to you, as I have for others here for the past several years, that science isn't the only source of knowledge. Maybe one more terrorist attack, maybe a financial crash that the U.S. has never seen before, will wake a few more people up to that fact.

You've possibly seen the oval shaped "DUPONT" emblem at some point in your life, it's a large, long-time company. Most of the times I've seen it, it has the little one-line description under it; "The Miracles Of Science". Here's a link to one of their main pages;http://www2.dupont.com/...ourced_Materials/en_US/vision.html

quote:

---

DuPont strives to be the world's most dynamic science company, creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. DuPont believes it can deliver on this vision with uncompromised performance from renewable resources, while minimizing its operational impact on the environment. As an ingredient supplier with unparalleled experience and expertise in science and technology, DuPont has the unique ability to have far-reaching impact on virtually every major industry helping grow shareholder value, while contributing to social and environmental progress worldwide.

---

This is traditional science. It's been around longer than "war against Christianity" science. The type of science Dupont and many other free-market companies do is 100% testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable. War-against-Christianity science ALWAYS misses one or more of those 4. I see your source for definitions is from NASA, a company that is mostly government funded, whose work is almost never testable, or falsifiable.Events of the past aren't repeatable, and aren't observable, so there are 2 that are missing from this thread's claims of an ancient earth. That only leaves testable and falsifiable, and since there are claims of correlation in some of the data in the claim of an old earth as RAZD outlined, then AED's (ancient earth Darwinists) can rightfully claim some testability. Falsifiability should be present in most of AED's claims as well, but it usually isn't for one main reason - all the anger and emotion that AED's put forward whenever their war-against-Christianity "science" is questioned. The instant anger that went up with the release of Darwin's Black Box back in the 1990's is one of many examples.So we have 2 distinct types of science, the kind Dupont does that benefits mankind and is accountable to free markets, and there's the type that AED's and NASA does, science for amusement and politics, because it seldom has nuts-and-bolts benefits for mankind. I'm sure there are several here who will tell me there's a bridge between these 2 types of science - I actually had an AED on another forum long ago tell me that without the knowledge of a multi-billion year old earth, we would have no idea how to purify water. I'm sure there have been countless hundreds of AED'S in government funded labs who have made a case for this type of claim, and I don't have the time or interest to face a gang of AED'S about it.Science is involved in medicine, pharmaceuticals, electricity, chemicals, and many other things that are proved and provable. It seems those in the 'war-against-Christianity' division of science are starting to forget that.

Quantity? What does that mean, lay out every question that there is concerning unresolved questions? One would be where material/matter came from. I realize science has put forward a theory, that 13 billion years ago there was a big bang that arose from an area the size of the head of a pin, and it contained all the material in the universe. Then in the next breath they'll mock Christians for believing in "magic".I'd like to know how space can be endless. The human mind can't comprehend how it can be, neither can it comprehend how it can't be. If we were to build a spaceship that could travel at 1000 parsecs per hour, and get us to the edge of our galaxy, or to the edge of the "observable universe", what would be there? A big wall with a sign that say's "THE END, TURN BACK NOW!" If so, what's on the other side of that wall? More galaxies? Wouldn't we have to admit that if space is completely endless, that there would have to be an endless number of earths exactly like this one, same number of blades of grass, grains of sand, that this one does? And all the slightest variations, anything we could imagine. One where dogs or cats rule, and humans go around barking and meowing. Or an earth exactly like this one in every way, except that on that one's EvC, Razd would be the YEC, and marc9000 would be the AED?If that were true, wouldn't there be civilization somewhere that would be advanced enough to come here, with a spaceman who looked just like Bernie Sanders, and started commanding us how to live our lives?I choose not to believe "endlessness". I believe in the definition that the Bible gives us. There's nothing silly about questioning the wisdom of fitting all of reality into what might be a very limited re-arrangement realm. If there is more than one time dimension, (the belief of 2 or more is basic to all of Christianity) could the AED worldview provide impressive evidence to deny a second time dimension's existence, even though that evidence would actually turn out to be all wrong?

So you don't understand the concept of the moon slightly drifting away from earth? You've never heard of a satellite crashing into earth's atmosphere?Tell me something Christian, do you believe there is more than one time-dimension?

I suspect the Ken-Ham's-grandfather-riding-a dinosaur allegation might have more to it than we're being told also. But I'm not going to worry about researching it. Ken Ham isn't the only representative of Christianity.

So they're "absolutely" repeatable and observable, but not "provable"? Because earlier, you said this; Do you think I could show you that companies like DuPont, who do real science, really do scientific things that are provable? Are they provable? Is your previous all caps statement actually false?

Yes, if we didn't have atheism, we would have no idea how to dig things out of the ground and use them. I've heard it all before.

There's no disagreement between YEC's and AED's on how life is pro-created. But there is disagreement on between them on how old the earth is, what the supernatural is capable of if it isn't bound by one time and three space dimensions. I'm learning. I see that; Do you agree with that statement? If you do, I'd like to show you a few things DuPont does - I might have the mistaken idea that DuPont does science.

I don't believe court systems absolutely prove things, they just come to the best conclusion they can based on the information they have. Worldviews aren't involved to the same extent.

Does DuPont use the scientific method? Does DuPont prove things? Was your statement wrong?Do you think I can show you scientific things that DuPont proves? Edited by marc9000, : Took out trollish sentence. Edited by marc9000, : Added one more question

In 'pure science', things are proved. If DuPont uses pure science to determine to try a new chemical formula in one of its paint products to improve its performance, and it's performance is observed to be improved, then that scientific experiment was proven. Not pure science. Just theoretical science, often atheistic science. EVERYTHING. What to study, how thorough to study it, what desired conclusions have already been reached, etc.

It's not? With the slogan of "The Miracles of Science"? "At some point", within DuPont's many methods, including science. (pure science) Not the atheist-promoting kind.

quote:

---

DuPont’s vision has always been to apply world-class science to enable a better, safer, and healthier life for people everywhere. Today, we are helping our customers find solutions to some of the world’s most pressing needs, by enabling safer, more nutritious food; creating high-performance, cost effective and energy efficient materials; and increasingly delivering renewably sourced bio-based materials and fuels. All of our business call upon our world-class science and technology, a deep understanding of commercial value chains and market knowledge to deliver value-added solutions. This total system of innovation continually renews our portfolio, creates new product lines, and transforms markets to deliver results for our customers, employees and shareholders.

---

Science and Innovation | DuPontYou'll notice there was nothing there about wasting a lot of time and effort in agonizing over the age of the earth.Some more from that link;

quote:

---

Our world class science draws on a rich mix of deep scientific disciplines to address significant market opportunities both within and across our businesses. Broadly speaking, these disciplines fall under chemistry, materials science, biology, and engineering. DuPont science includes deep, world-class capabilities and sub-disciplines such as organic chemistry, polymer chemistry, microbiology, molecular biology, and process engineering that are frequently brought together within and across businesses to advance new technologies and create valuable new outcomes for our customers.

---

(bolded mine) If you and others here don't think DuPont is in the business to do science, shouldn't the scientific community sue them for claiming they do?

Often after starting with a pre-determined conclusion, heavily influenced by a worldview. Except when the creationist conception considers the possibility of another time dimension. Something the human mind can't comprehend. And as I alluded to earlier, if we try to mistakenly jam-pack all of reality into ONLY what we can understand, the possibilities of going off on a wrong tangent and having it quickly snowball into a whole lot of wrongs is understood by those who don't think humans are perfect, who don't think humans are gods. I don't need to get used to it, I live in the present. The only reason you would suggest that I get used to it is to make it easier for me to accept future liberal political commands that are associated with its "knowledge". That's what the scientific community's brand of science is all about, isn't it?

I don't try to prove science is wrong. I just sometimes question the promotion of certain theoretical kinds of science which only exist to promote the atheist worldview, and liberal politics.