EvC Forum: A Question About Deception

Sorry, I was just skimming this topic for the relationship to my {perceptions of reality} topic and came across this:

What illusion is in the age of the earth? I feel that there is good evidence to support both a young earth and old earth hypothesis. In fact, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research give lengthy reasons for why they believe the earth is young, while Reasons to Believe gives lengthy reasons for why the age of the earth is very old.

There is a common misconception that having evidence for a concept is sufficient to give it some credence.

Let's consider the "Flat Earth" concept: the evidence of our eyes and our feeling of solidy on a (predominately) stable earth that is not perceptably moving (except in california) is that the earth is fixed and that the sun and stars rotate overhead. We still talk of sunrise and sunset, moonrise and moonset and the rise and setting of stars and planets.

But the "Flat Earth" is not a concept that most people give much credence to -- why? Because there is sufficient accessible evidence that the earth is round and orbits the sun -- evidence that invalidates the "Flat Earth" concept that cannot be refuted (only denied).

Having evidence FOR the "Flat Earth" concept is not sufficient to give it credence because of evidence that invalidates it.

For a concept to have credence not only must there be evidence for it, there cannot be evidence that invalidates it.

The evidence for an OLD earth invalidates the concept of a YOUNG earth and needs to be refuted (not denied) for a YOUNG earth model to have any credence.

The evidence for a YOUNG earth does not invalidate the concept of an OLD earth, because the question is not what the minimum age of things you can find is, but what the maximum age of things you can find is.

It is easy to find things that are younger than the maximum age, just as it is easy to find certain specific situations where dating methods can have problems. These do not refute the evidence of old age.

Just by looking at the earth around you, what determination have you made that the earth is either young or old? I have to first ask this question in order to go into anything else.

My determination of the evidence of a minimum age of the earth that vastly exceeds a YOUNG earth model is at:
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)< !--UE-->

It is not just the evidence itself but the correlations between the different forms of evidence that all come to the same dates in spite of being based on entirely different mechanisms.

For this to be possible AND have a YOUNG earth there would indeed need to be massive deception in the creation of all this evidence as well as all the other evidence that shows a consistent old age of the earth.

There would have to be sufficient deception that one would be as justified in believing in a flat earth as in believing in a young earth.

Enjoy.

Message 33
I can tell you this much, Dendrochronology fits a Young-earth model better than it does anything else. In fact, the oldest known tree is a bristlecone pine in California. Lovingly referred to as, "Methuselah," for obvious reasons, its almost 5,000 years old, which is concurrent with the postdiluvian era where seeds were beginning to regerminate the earth after the Deluge.

That's where I start. LOL.

pss -- there's more?

Message 36
We know the earth is slowing down, which means there wasn't a 24 hour day in the past, but much shorter, maybe as much as 21 hours.

Correct. See the part on Talking Coral Heads in my thread linked above.

Extrapolating backwards at the same rate, if the earth was 4.5 billion years old, it would have spun so fast so as to make it inhabitable due to the Coriolis Effect.

False. (and I think you mean uninhabitable). Of course this also would have made the earth fly apart and self-destruct if it were true.

If the earth didn't slow at the same rate as it measurably is currently, then old-agers have to figure out why that is.

It's not a linear relationship. There is research on it that shows you what the correct calculations involve -- from basic astrophysics (without needing relativity)

I'm not a YEC or an OEC. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. I have not made a 100% determination on where I stand. But in these two instances I feel that the Young-earth model is best supported.

Good. Study the evidence.

Edited by RAZD, : added end

Edited by RAZD, : added second ps ... oh my.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

1 online now:	Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus)
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/2