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

[1Mind1Spirit]

Sure it can. Perhaps not an exact age, but we can get within 100 years on either side.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - A Scientific Answer:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - A Biblical Answer:

So people recorded a reoccurring light in the sky.
How is that in any way, using the scientific method, proving how old the earth is?
Where is the experiment that determines the cause?
You're as guilty as skeeter.

 

[marke]

Nope. Pseudoscience is science done badly or dishonestly, like not using a control group or other control measures, claiming correlation alone to be causation, or using a paper's caveats and limitation sections to draw conclusions unsupported by the study.

Several observations can be used to infer processes that are otherwise unobservable. Studies of the earth's core result in explanation of processes not directly observable. Your claim is that such studies are pseudoscience.

Studies in the vast size, complexity, and comparative youth of the universe can be explained by God's creation of the universe, but other explanations are less scientifically valid.

 

[Clete]

Stay tuned, Cletus.

I'm paying full attention. Haven't seen you post a syllable yet of anything worth reading.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

So people recorded a reoccurring light in the sky.

It's called a comet.

How is that in any way, using the scientific method, proving how old the earth is?

Explained on the page.

Where is the experiment that determines the cause?

Try reading the book.

You're as guilty as skeeter.

 

[expos4ever]

Rogue waves defy all the, a-hem, known laws of physics.
Yet they exist.

I doubt this very much - can you substantiate the claim that rogue waves, in fact, defy the know laws of physics?

 

[expos4ever]

Electrons are observable.
Your evolution is not.

Misleading. Yes some aspects of evolution entail 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 Divider]

Misleading. Yes some aspects of evolution entail 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.

The "inference from fossils and DNA" in the evolutionary model are completely biased and very equivocal.
It is pretty obvious that fossils do not form under "normal" conditions. Special conditions are required to get vast numbers of fossils. That special condition is a global flood. The evidences for the global flood are many, regardless of your idea that none exists.
The "inference from DNA" is equally biased in the evolutionary model.

 

[expos4ever]

Finding the age of the earth cannot be scientifically achieved as it cannot be naturally observed by an individual human.
Historical writings is all an individual has to go on.
History is another subject.

This kind of argument is frequently used by creationists - "it cannot be directly observed, therefore it is not science" argument. It is a clever, if deceptive strategy - you are trying to squeeze way too much out of definitions. Let's suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the "definition" of science requires that something be directly observed to count as science. Fine.

But that is hardly evidence that evolution is not correct, it is an argument that evolution does not meet a particular definition.

The big bang was never observed, but the evidence for it is very compelling.

 

[expos4ever]

The "inference from fossils and DNA" in the evolutionary model are completely biased and very equivocal.
It is pretty obvious that fossils do not form under "normal" conditions. Special conditions are required to get vast numbers of fossils. That special condition is a global flood. The evidences for the global flood are many, regardless of you idea that none exists.
The "inference from DNA" is equally biased in the evolutionary model.

Mere claims, with no supporting evidence. Why would any reasonable third party believe your unsupported claim against the claims of tens of thousands highly trained experts?

 

[Right Divider]

The big bang was never observed, but the evidence for it is very compelling.

No, it's not all that "compelling". There are TONS of problems with the "big bang" theory.
RSR has an excellent list of such issues. @JudgeRightly Do you have the link handy?

 

[Right Divider]

Mere claims, with no supporting evidence.

The wide spread sedimentary layers are excellent evidence of the global flood. That you ignore such evidence is your problem.

Why would any reasonable third party believe your unsupported claim against the claims of tens of thousands highly trained experts?

Appeals to popularity and authority are fallacious.
And you're complaining about "Mere claims, with no supporting evidence." ... what a hypocrite!

 

[Skeeter]

This kind of argument is frequently used by creationists - "it cannot be directly observed, therefore it is not science" argument. It is a clever, if deceptive strategy - you are trying to squeeze way too much out of definitions. Let's suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the "definition" of science requires that something be directly observed to count as science. Fine.

But that is hardly evidence that evolution is not correct, it is an argument that evolution does not meet a particular definition.

Some definitions of science require observable and repeatable conditions, but by this it is not meant that the past cannot be studied. Rather testing of the evidence is the focus. The phenomena itself does not need to be repeated before our eyes. Each piece of evidence that converges to form a theory does.

 

[Skeeter]

The "inference from fossils and DNA" in the evolutionary model are completely biased and very equivocal.

They have passed a peer review process. Even most Christian SCIENTISTS concur.

It is pretty obvious that fossils do not form under "normal" conditions. Special conditions are required to get vast numbers of fossils. That special condition is a global flood. The evidences for the global flood are many, regardless of you idea that none exists.

Evidence of a global flood has not passed peer review. No non-Christian scientist believes the Flood holds any water. Only CHRISTIAN "scientists" agree that there is evidence of a global flood.

It contradicts the scientific findings in geology, physics, stratigraphy, geophysics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archaeology. The consensus across fields is telling.

So, there is bias here somewhere. But it seems your claims are all wet.

 

[Right Divider]

They have passed a peer review process. Even most Christian SCIENTISTS concur.

When the "peers" share the same bias... that is meaningless.

Evidence of a global flood has not passed peer review.

Nonsense.

No non-Christian scientist believes the Flood holds any water.

So what?

Only CHRISTIAN "scientists" agree that there is evidence of a global flood.

So what?

There is bias here somewhere. But it seems your claims are all wet.

Again, your post contains no substance. Just your bias again and again.

 

[Skeeter]

They have passed a peer review process. Even most Christian SCIENTISTS concur.

Evidence of a global flood has not passed peer review. No non-Christian scientist believes the Flood holds any water. Only CHRISTIAN "scientists" agree that there is evidence of a global flood.

It contradicts the scientific findings in geology, physics, stratigraphy, geophysics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archaeology. The consensus across fields is telling.

So, there is bias here somewhere. But it seems your claims are all wet.

When the "peers" share the same bias... that is meaningless.

Nonsense.

So what?

So what?

Again, your post contains no substance. Just your bias again and again.

LOL. Compare your post with my post. Empirically -- what do you see in regard to substance?

 

[Right Divider]

LOL. Compare your post with my post. Empirically -- what do you see in regard to substance?

The global flood has left many impacts on the earth. That you cannot see them is not my problem.

This thread is about the AGE OF THE EARTH and how to scientifically support MILLIONS/BILLIONS of years.
You've failed miserably on that topic.

P.S. The HPT is solid regardless of your complains about it and its author.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, it's not all that "compelling". There are TONS of problems with the "big bang" theory.
RSR has an excellent list of such issues. @JudgeRightly Do you have the link handy?

You mean this one?

Evidence Against the Big Bang Theory | KGOV.com

rsr.org

 

[Right Divider]

You mean this one?

Evidence Against the Big Bang Theory | KGOV.com

rsr.org

Yes! Thanks!

 

[marke]

They have passed a peer review process. Even most Christian SCIENTISTS concur.

Evidence of a global flood has not passed peer review. No non-Christian scientist believes the Flood holds any water. Only CHRISTIAN "scientists" agree that there is evidence of a global flood.

It contradicts the scientific findings in geology, physics, stratigraphy, geophysics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archaeology. The consensus across fields is telling.

So, there is bias here somewhere. But it seems your claims are all wet.

Secularists who value the judgment of "peer reviewers" over the revelation of God are not wise.

flaws in peer review process - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

THE DEFECTS OF PEER REVIEW​

So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.

 

[marke]

Misleading. Yes some aspects of evolution entail 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.

Historical secular science assumptions, speculations, theories, postulations, and guesses do not become irrefutable facts of science over time.