• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?

expos4ever

Well-known member
This a typical tactic of the Darwinist. They are asked to provide evidence, they proclaim how popular their idea is and then get upset when their pathetic attempts to derail the topic get called on them.
Nonsense. It is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that evolution is "popular", as if it were merely fashionable to believe it. What you have to hide, of course, is the uncomfortable fact that tens of thousands of highly trained experts are virtually unanimous in their agreement that the evidence supports evolution so conclusively, it can be legitimately accorded the status of fact.
 

marke

Well-known member
Nonsense. It is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that evolution is "popular", as if it were merely fashionable to believe it. What you have to hide, of course, is the uncomfortable fact that tens of thousands of highly trained experts are virtually unanimous in their agreement that the evidence supports evolution so conclusively, it can be legitimately accorded the status of fact.
Tens of thousands of "experts" whose jobs depend upon supporting mob delusions about evolution will say anything to support the false narratives whether they know the narratives are false or not.
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
I don't believe in evolution, and I don't find my position difficult at all. Whether or not evolution generated the species is not a matter of biology, not until evolution actually is observed generating a new species. Until then, it's an opinion, and it's an opinion whose bailiwick is philosophy and not biology.
This is a common critique of evolution but I believe it is misguided. From Scientific American:

Creationist Claim: 3. Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
 

marke

Well-known member
This is a common critique of evolution but I believe it is misguided. From Scientific American:

Creationist Claim: 3. Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
Bad argument: Natural adaptations in species can be called "microevolution" and then used to claim macroevolution must be true since evolution has been 'proven.'
 

Right Divider

Body part
Nonsense. It is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that evolution is "popular", as if it were merely fashionable to believe it. What you have to hide, of course, is the uncomfortable fact that tens of thousands of highly trained experts are virtually unanimous in their agreement that the evidence supports evolution so conclusively, it can be legitimately accorded the status of fact.
Fallacies ... fallacies... fallacies...

It matters not one tiny bit that so many believe something, or what their credentials are, or that you have difficulty believing that so many "agree'ers" can be wrong.

They are wrong regardless of those things.
 

Right Divider

Body part
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution.
"Micro-evolution" is simply variation based on already existing genetic traits. It is readily observable and is fully compatible with the Creation Model.
"Macro-evolution" is a fairy tale that is not observable and is denied by the facts of science.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nonsense. It is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that evolution is "popular", as if it were merely fashionable to believe it.
"I don't like this cat. He reads minds."

What you have to hide, of course, is the uncomfortable fact that tens of thousands of highly trained experts are virtually unanimous in their agreement that the evidence supports evolution so conclusively, it can be legitimately accorded the status of fact.
This is the logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity and authority. While it is true that most experts advocate Darwinism, that does nothing to establish the veracity of the theory.

When you learn how to stop committing logical fallacies, perhaps you can be part of a sensible conversation.
 

Right Divider

Body part
When you learn how to stop committing logical fallacies, perhaps you can be part of a sensible conversation.
The evolutionist apologists here use the same old tired tactics that all evolutionists use:
  • Fallacy after fallacy
  • False equivocation
  • Elephant hurling
  • Ridicule
  • etc. etc. etc.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
"I don't like this cat. He reads minds."


This is the logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity and authority.
There is no absolute fallacy in appealing to authority to establish some types of propositions. For example dictionaries are authorities that we all happily 'appeal to' when establishing the meaning of words. We all Christians 'appeal to authority' in the Scripture. We make these valid appeals to authority all the time, without hardly thinking about it.

But appeal to popularity is an absolute fallacy, in all cases.

I could argue that the appeal to authority is the most important part of doing philosophy. You have to define your terms before you start talking about anything. And that's going to be an appeal to authority.
While it is true that most experts advocate Darwinism, that does nothing to establish the veracity of the theory.
No, it doesn't, agreed. But it does establish that most experts advocate Darwinism, which is the salient thing in any attempt to make a valid appeal to authority. You trust the dictionary because you trust that all the world's PhDs (and or the like) in defining words (whatever discipline that is) all uniformly agree that the word you're 'looking up' means what your dictionary says that it means. That's a valid appeal to authority, so long as your dictionary is known as a standard in the dictionary industry, things like (in English) Webster's, Oxford English Dictionary, and the like.
When you learn how to stop committing logical fallacies, perhaps you can be part of a sensible conversation.
I hope you see that there are valid appeals to authority. Just as an aside, it's impossible to establish that all appeals to authority are categorically invalid (fallacious) without making an appeal to authority.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Bad argument: Natural adaptations in species can be called "microevolution" and then used to claim macroevolution must be true since evolution has been 'proven.'
Why don't you read what you have quoted? It answers your own foolish criticism. It's almost like you are ignoring the details on purpose. Not the biggest surprise.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There is no absolute fallacy in appealing to authority to establish some types of propositions. For example dictionaries are authorities that we all happily 'appeal to' when establishing the meaning of words. We all Christians 'appeal to authority' in the Scripture. We make these valid appeals to authority all the time, without hardly thinking about it.

Like I say. An appeal to authority cannot overthrow the simple assertion of the opposite.

When there is a disagreement, it must be the evidence that is examined.

I hope you see that there are valid appeals to authority. Just as an aside, it's impossible to establish that all appeals to authority are categorically invalid (fallacious) without making an appeal to authority.
A valid appeal to authority would require both sides to bow to that authority.

It is indeed always fallacious to answer a challenge to an idea by asserting that "most professors believe it."
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
"Micro-evolution" is simply variation based on already existing genetic traits. It is readily observable and is fully compatible with the Creation Model.
"Macro-evolution" is a fairy tale that is not observable and is denied by the facts of science.
You have to ask yourself what needs to be observed to draw conclusions in science. Can it be pieces of the puzzle or must it be the whole thing? Do you apply your requirement of overarching observe-ability to other areas of science or just evolution?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You have to ask yourself what needs to be observed to draw conclusions in science. Can it be pieces of the puzzle or must it be the whole thing? Do you apply your requirement of overarching observe-ability to other areas of science or just evolution?
This is utterly unresponsive.

Men can "draw conclusions" based on any amount of observations, including none.

The idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection will never be anything greater than a theory.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
This is a common critique of evolution but I believe it is misguided. From Scientific American:

Creationist Claim: 3. Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution
Here's what I don't do. I don't blanket dismiss that basically all the world's PhD biologists think evolution is the best theory to explain the fossil record. I just know that whether the theory of evolution is absolutely true, is not in the discipline of biology, it belongs in philosophy because it's a logical argument, not biology. And that all the world's PhD philosophers abdicate their responsibly by appealing to all the world's PhD biologists doesn't change that it belongs in the discipline of philosophy.

And the reason they can't agree on it in philosophy anyway is because it depends upon another topic in the discipline of philosophy called God. If God made the world 6000 years ago then evolution is clearly out the window. But if God is not real, then evolution looks like the 'front runner' anyway as to how the fossil came to be. And so until philosophy as an entire discipline can answer the currently open question of God, we're never going to have a valid appeal to authority available to us in the matter of whether or not the theory of evolution is true.
ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution
"Microevolution" is begging the question that evolution is true and accurate. But what "microevolution" means, I agree that we have seen this happening. They are real changes within a species.
has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.
How profound? The issue is new species, is it that profound?
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.
Right. The most you can hope for is that no evidence directly and insurmountably conflicts with your hypothesis and theory.
For instance, evolution
A theory.
implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern
It's called interpolation.
, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.
It shows many different species who don't exist anymore. We don't know if they ever existed, that requires not interpolation but extrapolation, and extrapolating very far outside your reliable data's bounds is fundamentally fraught. So concluding that evolution continually generated successive species that appeared to be like the species they apparently succeeded but different, and along an interpolated path of development that's suggested by the theory of evolution, is begging the question, but very subtly.
But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter
Genesis documents precisely this. God did it.
, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s.
He was a philosopher.
More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
Because someone has an agenda you mean.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
This is utterly unresponsive.
You are one to talk. You are always about a monologue rather than a dialog. Otherwise you would get pinned down right quick.
Men can "draw conclusions" based on any amount of observations, including none.
We are talking about conclusions based on empiricism. Not a fortune teller drawing conclusions from her marks demeanor. Keep focused.
The idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection will never be anything greater than a theory.
True. It has become a theory which is the ultimate goal of the culmination of various bodies of evidence converging. I know you know the definition of a theory in this context, and yet you try to weasel in another definition. Nice try.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
whether the theory of evolution is absolutely true, is not in the discipline of biology, it belongs in philosophy

...

if God is not real, then evolution looks like the 'front runner' anyway as to how the fossil came to be.

Get rid of the biologist and the philosopher both. To determine what was required for the fossil record to be created requires a geologist.

And when it comes to how rocks were made, there's only one viable candidate: a global flood.
 
Top