How old is the Earth?

[Black36]

The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.

We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectively they represent a reliable set of data and processes.

I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.

In fact this is another example of a bait-and-switch as you have no reasonable answer to the ice core records do you B36.

I already explained what assumptions are being made with respect to this example. Nothing here offered so far in this thread has given me pause.

To be honestly I didn't expect it to make you change your mind. What I wanted to find out was how long you would attempt to defend the indefensible, before you gave up with the 'Goddidit' answer, which you did a few posts back. If I were a third party watching this debate it is patently obvious that when faced with perfectly reasonable evidence you are just ignoring it and have nothing but derision to offer to refute the evidence.

The thing is, if God did do it, then the answer "God did it", is accurate.

[Tank]

The ice layers, just as with radioisotope dating methods, require initial condition information and conditional impact information throughout the life of the thing being studied. We have neither, so all we have are assumptions. We know from scripture that Adam was created in an adult state, so it is possible and completely coherent and consistant within a theistic model that the universe was also created in an adult state. You must give me something better in order to give me pause.

We have an initial starting condition, the top surface of the ice sheet. We can calibrate the ice cores based on volcanic eruptions that deposit dust in the stratigraphy. A model may be self consistant, but that does not make the model correct. Testing the model against other models e.g. 'ice cores > dendrochronology > sedimentry varve chronologies > radiocarbon' are all cross referential, which is why they can be trusted. I would not trust any one method in isolation but collectively they represent a reliable set of data and processes.

I'm sure that you are aware of the appearance of geological age created by the ine day Mt St Helen's event.

In fact this is another example of a bait-and-switch as you have no reasonable answer to the ice core records do you B36.

I already explained what assumptions are being made with respect to this example. Nothing here offered so far in this thread has given me pause.

To be honestly I didn't expect it to make you change your mind. What I wanted to find out was how long you would attempt to defend the indefensible, before you gave up with the 'Goddidit' answer, which you did a few posts back. If I were a third party watching this debate it is patently obvious that when faced with perfectly reasonable evidence you are just ignoring it and have nothing but derision to offer to refute the evidence.

I gave you an answer from my worldview. You gave an answer from yours. Neither one of us can offer an exact age of the earth.

There is no equivalence between the assertions of a person who bases their world view on an institutionalised superstition and the deductions made by a person whose world view is based on repeatable experimental and observational evidence.

However the age of the Earth is many orders of magnitude greater than the assessment made by Archbishop James Ussher et al. When defending the YEC world view you are not defending the inerrant word of god but men who were trying to find out how old the world was. Ussher et. al. wanted to know how old the Earth was, they turned to the only 'evidence' they had in the 17th century, The Bible. Ussher was probably not a stupid man, he was literate and educated (after the fashion of the day). Can you say that he would have held to his view had he had access to the ice-core data? There is no 'date of creation' in the Bible, the YEC position is based on the assertions, guesstimations, predudices and biases of a 17th century Irish Bishop, among many others, but it is not based on the word of god. So why are you defending a position that is so demonstrably wrong.

You stated that the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old, based on the opinion of a 17th centry bishop. I am happy to state that the Earth is approximatly 4.5 billion years old based on repeatable experimental and observational evidence deduced by the scientific method. The same scientific method that forms the foundation of the engineering knowledge used to produce the computer, and all the associated hardware and software, that allows us to participate on this forum. So don't be too keen to dismiss the scientific method that you rely on to make the difference between the first and third world.

[xSilverPhinx]

Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?

[Ihateyoumike]

Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?

god's buttcrack?

[xSilverPhinx]

Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?

god's buttcrack?

Just as good as any other theory!

LOL

[Black36]

Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?

I don't know, and neither do you. I even stated earlier that neither view knows for certain how old the earth is. The Bishop's view is based on lineage accounts. The naturalist's view is based on assumption. I tend to lean towards a younger view because I hold scripture in a high regard. I do not hold theories offered by naturalists who have a low respect for scripture. Please understand, though, I am not a Christian who believes that this is an essential prerequisite for the salvational offering by Christ.

[Tank]

Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?

Don't know, and neither do you. I even stated earlier that neither view knows for certain how old the earth is. The Bishop's view is is based on lineage accounts. The naturalist's view is based on assumption. I tend to lean towards a younger view because I hold scripture in a high regard. I do not hold theories offered by naturalists who have a low respect for scripture, in a high regard. Please understand, though, I am not a Christian who believes that this is an essential prerequisite for the salvational offering by Christ.

Your argument from ignorance 'I don't know so you don't know.' is no better than a schoolyard taunt. Your regard for the truth is extremely questionably as you ignore reasonable evidence (ice-cores) that anybody without a mythological view to defend would accept. Canyons are produced by tectonic action or erosion. Don't worry that I have a low respect for Christian scripture, I have a low respect for all mythologies as a source of knowledge, I'm not just picking on your particular institutionalised superstition.

[xSilverPhinx]

Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?

I don't know, and neither do you. I even stated earlier that neither view knows for certain how old the earth is. The Bishop's view is based on lineage accounts. The naturalist's view is based on assumption. I tend to lean towards a younger view because I hold scripture in a high regard. I do not hold theories offered by naturalists who have a low respect for scripture. Please understand, though, I am not a Christian who believes that this is an essential prerequisite for the salvational offering by Christ.

That much is clear. Though how reality has to be subverted to do so is beyond my understanding. A view which gives what people from around 2000 years ago have written higher precedence over what we're able to measure nowadays with more advanced tools and knowledge is not worthy of any respect.

The naturalist/scientific view is not based on assumption. It's based on the scientific method, which is good enough to have given you even the computer to read these messages. people who so readily dismiss what the data points to must have a very limited understanding of what it is and how it works. Looks to me like you see it as educated guesses.

Edit:

Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?

god's buttcrack?

Just as good as any other theory!

LOL

Can we keep the derails to a minimum please as I did ask B36 to do so, thanks.

Okay.

[Tank]

Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?

god's buttcrack?

Just as good as any other theory!

LOL

Can we keep the derails to a minimum please as I did ask B36 to do so, thanks.

[Black36]

Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?

I don't know, and neither do you. I even stated earlier that neither view knows for certain how old the earth is. The Bishop's view is based on lineage accounts. The naturalist's view is based on assumption. I tend to lean towards a younger view because I hold scripture in a high regard. I do not hold theories offered by naturalists who have a low respect for scripture. Please understand, though, I am not a Christian who believes that this is an essential prerequisite for the salvational offering by Christ.

That much is clear. Though how reality has to be subverted to do so is beyond my understanding. A view which gives what people from around 2000 years ago have written higher precedence over what we're able to measure nowadays with more advanced tools and knowledge is not worthy of any respect.

The naturalist/scientific view is not based on assumption. It's based on the scientific method, which is good enough to have given you even the computer to read these messages. people who so readily dismiss what the data points to must have a very limited understanding of what it is and how it works. Looks to me like you see it as educated guesses.

Edit:

Black36, how do you explain the carving of canyons?

god's buttcrack?

Just as good as any other theory!

LOL

Can we keep the derails to a minimum please as I did ask B36 to do so, thanks.

Okay.

Data does not point to anything. It's the reader of the data who imparts a possible reason as to why the data says what it says. Two people with opposing views can look at the same thing and react differently: One says, "wow, look what nature made by chance," while the other says, "wow, look what God designed."

[MinnesotaMike]

Data does not point to anything. It's the reader of the data who imparts a possible reason as to why the data says what it says. Two people with opposing views can look at the same thing and react differently: One says, "wow, look what nature made by chance," while the other says, "wow, look what God designed."

Science isn't concerned with reacting to data, but rather interpreting it in a meaningful way. We aren't wrapping it to any specific ideals or something we are convinced is the conclusion. Think of it as predicting the ending of a really REALLY long book... you read it and revise your guess based on the plot progression. It would be absurd to try to make the plot fit your ending.

[Black36]

Data does not point to anything. It's the reader of the data who imparts a possible reason as to why the data says what it says. Two people with opposing views can look at the same thing and react differently: One says, "wow, look what nature made by chance," while the other says, "wow, look what God designed."

Science isn't concerned with reacting to data, but rather interpreting it in a meaningful way. We aren't wrapping it to any specific ideals or something we are convinced is the conclusion. Think of it as predicting the ending of a really REALLY long book... you read it and revise your guess based on the plot progression. It would be absurd to try to make the plot fit your ending.

Or, if one where to find a book with the beginning chapters missing, it would also be absurd to try and make the the missing chapters fit "your" beginning. This is what I see the secular consensus doing in all academic disciplines. They take their worldview, apply it in an infinite regress, and then call it history.

[Tank]

Data does not point to anything. It's the reader of the data who imparts a possible reason as to why the data says what it says. Two people with opposing views can look at the same thing and react differently: One says, "wow, look what nature made by chance," while the other says, "wow, look what God designed."

Science isn't concerned with reacting to data, but rather interpreting it in a meaningful way. We aren't wrapping it to any specific ideals or something we are convinced is the conclusion. Think of it as predicting the ending of a really REALLY long book... you read it and revise your guess based on the plot progression. It would be absurd to try to make the plot fit your ending.

Or, if one where to find a book with the beginning chapters missing, it would also be absurd to try and make the the missing chapters fit "your" beginning. This is what I see the secular consensus doing in all academic disciplines. They take their worldview, apply it in an infinite regress, and then call it history.

Histororical research is a scientific discipline based on evidence. There is a difference between deducuction and speculation. Deduction follows a logical progression, speculation is characterised 'blue sky' and 'out of the box' thinking. If one found a book with the first few chapters missing one could deduce some things quite accuratly. For example "Jesus is the son of Joseph and Mary." appears in the piece of the book one has; it is entierly reasonable to deduce that Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse and that a son called Jesus was the result.

Now can we please get back to how old the Earth is?

[Whitney]

black36, until come to the understanding that science is neither anti-god or pro-god then I don't see how any discussion related to factual science and how it relates to religious understanding can occur.

If all you want to do is tell us what you believe without backing it up with objective facts then there isn't anything to discuss at all.

Non YEC theists have absolutely no issue accepting science while accepting that their god did it.  Many of them are Christian too.

So do you actually have anything productive to add or are you just going to keep complaining about the nonexistent science conspiracy against god?

As tank requested...get back on track...why do you think the Earth is young?  If your only basis is the Bible then the discussion is pointless.

[xSilverPhinx]

Data does not point to anything. It's the reader of the data who imparts a possible reason as to why the data says what it says. Two people with opposing views can look at the same thing and react differently: One says, "wow, look what nature made by chance," while the other says, "wow, look what God designed."

That's a lot of data that's been gathered and interpreted by people who are experts in their fields, those being scientific fields independent of eachother that you're dismissing.

Once again I don't know if you think that they speculate and guess based on what they want to believe, like creationists do.

Also, when you put it like either it's chance or god did it...you might want to think that through a bit more.

Back on topic: as for YEC, you could start by offering good, valid and testable explanations for all the gaps that will be left in knowledge if all the evidence and methods used to obtain them are dismissed.

I think a better analogy would be to say that it's like investigating a crime scene, because books and literature can be much more open to subjective interpretations than actual justified knowledge and the data used to reach it.

You (investigator) don't actually have to have been there to witness the crime to gather some incriminating evidence. For instance, say you find a blood sample belonging to the perpetrator. You rely on established knowledge that blood contains DNA which is hereditary. You also rely on the justified knowledge that half the person's DNA comes from his or her mother and the other half comes from the father. It's rather pointless to say that maybe in some remote past it wasn't so and so appeal to ignorance without presenting evidence for that sort of assertion yourself. If you can't reach the suspect, you will be able to show with a very high probability of certainty that the DNA sample found belongs to the child of those two. Suppose to also find proof that whoever was in that crime scene bought something at a certain shop located in a certain hotel. you go there and find that person's name as someone who had stayed there during the period when the murder was committed. You also find a shoe print on the carpet. In that person's hotel room, you find the exact shoe model (size and make) that would make that print.

Suppose the opposing hypothesis in this case is that there is another possible suspect that has two different parents. That DNA testing would disqualify that suspect as the donor. YEC would be that suspect that has been disqualified.

Old Earth not only has the DNA evidence linking it to the theory with much higher probability of being true, but also the hotel evidence. That's what is meant by saying that independent fields verify the old Earth theory.