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

[Right Divider]

What would be the point.

The point would be that we can properly discuss the topic.

You just respond: "your dreaming" "not true" or other mantras instead of explaining why the evidence shown is weak.

When you start supporting your assertion, I can attempt to discuss details. You have constantly made claims without a shred of support.

You are mostly a waste of time.

Look in a mirror.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes there is.

No, there isn't.

Whoever said it was? Not me. But if all the world's authorities in a discipline all agree on any matter in their own discipline, then there is a valid appeal to authority possible.

Appeals to authority are a fallacy for a reason. They prove nothing about the science claim.

Truth stands on its own.

That's easy to say and harder to prove.

Would you like to discuss the topic or are you just here to distract?

 

[Idolater]

No, there isn't.

Yes there is.

Appeals to authority are a fallacy for a reason.

Provide it. I set out one way how to make a valid appeal to authority. Set out yourself the reason for why it's impossible to make a valid appeal to authority so we can compare notes.

They prove nothing about the science claim.

A valid appeal to authority doesn't necessarily have to prove any scientific claim, but it will prove that an entire discipline's authentic experts agree on any matter.

That's easy to say and harder to prove.

Yes, but the principle I don't think is not without merit.

Would you like to discuss the topic or are you just here to distract?

You can't determine much from extrapolation. Can anyone unironically say what will happen in billions of years, based on extrapolation? Same for 'billions of years ago'. We have about 10000 years of written history. No one can extrapolate from 10000 years 'billions of years' in either time direction.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes there is.

No, there isn't.

Provide it. I set out one way how to make a valid appeal to authority. Set out yourself the reason for why it's impossible to make a valid appeal to authority so we can compare notes.

Appeals to authority are, by definition, logical fallacies.

A valid appeal to authority doesn't necessarily have to prove any scientific claim, but it will prove that an entire discipline's authentic experts agree on any matter.

You can enjoy the informed opinion of an authority, but their authority does not make them correct. That is why an appeal to authority is, by definition, a logical fallacy.

Yes, but the principle I don't think is not without merit.

That truth stands on its own does not help when discussing what is true and what is not.

You can't determine much from extrapolation. Can anyone unironically say what will happen in billions of years, based on extrapolation? Same for 'billions of years ago'. We have about 10000 years of written history. No one can extrapolate from 10000 years 'billions of years' in either time direction.

OK then. Billions of year is out.

 

[Skeeter]

You can't determine much from extrapolation. Can anyone unironically say what will happen in billions of years, based on extrapolation? Same for 'billions of years ago'. We have about 10000 years of written history. No one can extrapolate from 10000 years 'billions of years' in either time direction.

Projecting into the future is vastly more difficult than reconstructing the past. So much so I would not compare the two.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes there is.

No, there no "valid appeal to authority" when is comes to logical arguments.

Provide it.

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

 

[Stripe]

A "valid" appeal to authority cannot overturn a competing theory.

Darwinists use appeals to authority to deny challengers a seat at the table. They always use it in an invalid fashion.

 

[expos4ever]

Appeals to authority are, by definition, logical fallacies

Deeply misleading.

Obviously we are being very reasonable, and in no sense illogical, when we adopt the views of qualified experts. It is in no way a "fallacy" or "illogical" to believe what trained experts almost unanimously believe to be the case about evolution.

Just as it is eminently reasonable to believe, based on authority alone, that cigarettes cause cancer, that E=mc squared, and so on.

You guys are forced to use this strategy of accusing us of "appeal to authority". But no thinking person will buy it - we defer to authorities all the time and are being entirely reasonable in doing so.

 

[Idolater]

No, there isn't.

Appeals to authority are, by definition, logical fallacies.

Provide your evidence.

You can enjoy the informed opinion of an authority, but their authority does not make them correct. That is why an appeal to authority is, by definition, a logical fallacy.

Provide your evidence. Same request.

That truth stands on it's own does not help when discussing what is true and what is not.

OK then. Billions of year is out.

Agreed.

 

[Idolater]

No, there no "valid appeal to authority" when is comes to logical arguments.

What other kinds of arguments are there, where valid appeals to authority do exist?

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

Who publishes yourlogicalfallacyis-dot-com? Before I click the link. I don't recognize this website.

 

[Idolater]

A "valid" appeal to authority cannot overturn a competing theory.

There is no valid appeal to authority about how old the world is. No one was there to see it. No one was there with a calendar, 'starting the clock'. There's no time keeping device that was there at the foundation of the world.

Darwinists use appeals to authority to deny challengers a seat at the table. They always use it in an invalid fashion.

Cosmology is informed by science, but ultimately it's philosophy, and in the field of philosophy, there is certainly no uniform agreement among all the world's PhDs (and the like) on how old the world is. And even if there is, it is just a uniform appeal to cosomology PhDs, which certainly is an invalid appeal to authority, since the age of the world isn't within the discipline of cosmology but of philosophy, so such a uniform appeal to the authority of cosmologists made by all the world's PhD (and the like) philosophers would be a uniform abdication of their own responsibility.

I'm taking philosophy to mean more expansive than university philosophy, I'm taking philosophy to mean the 'umbrella' discipline under which all the other academic disciplines fall. Taken this way, philosophy would include and imply theology along with the sciences, and university philosophy, and every other academic discipline.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Bet you that she never read "In the Beginning" by Dr. Walt Brown.

Wouldn't know, ask her.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's a pity that your idols are all dead.

Uh huh. Strange man you are and no mistake...

 

[Right Divider]

Deeply misleading.

Obviously we are being very reasonable, and in no sense illogical, when we adopt the views of qualified experts. It is in no way a "fallacy" or "illogical" to believe what trained experts almost unanimously believe to be the case about evolution.

Just as it is eminently reasonable to believe, based on authority alone, that cigarettes cause cancer, that E=mc squared, and so on.

You guys are forced to use this strategy of accusing us of "appeal to authority". But no thinking person will buy it - we defer to authorities all the time and are being entirely reasonable in doing so.

So AGAIN you will not touch the FACTS of the case. That figures.

 

[Right Divider]

Provide your evidence.

Truth is NOT determined by:

• Who believes something.
• How many believe something.
• What the credentials are of someone that believes something.

If this is beyond your comprehension, so be it.

 

[expos4ever]

Truth is NOT determined by:

• Who believes something.
• How many believe something.
• What the credentials are of someone that believes something.

If this is beyond your comprehension, so be it.

This is profoundly misleading. While technically true, at least in a sense, it is only peripherally relevant.

Yes, the truth of a proposition P is not determined by who believes P, how many believe P, and what their credentials are.

But you are obviously constructing a strawman - no one here is say that truth is determined in this manner. The reality, of course, is that if almost all trained experts believe that the evidence supports P, this is powerful, although not 100% conclusive evidence, that P is correct. Besides, there is no credible theory to explain how these experts could all be wrong - the simple-minded ravings of other posters notwithstanding, the "they hate God" argument is ridiculous. Even if this were true, it is addle-pated fantasy to think they would dedicate their lives to constructing a complex story as to why we should not take Genesis 1 literally.

You are in a very difficult position - almost all credible experts believe the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

 

[Idolater]

... You are in a very difficult position - almost all credible experts believe the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

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.

And even if we finally do witness a new species generated from evolution, even then, that's not proof that evolution generated all the already extent species.

 

[Right Divider]

You are in a very difficult position - almost all credible experts believe the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Then they are far too easily "overwhelmed".

 

[ok doser]

... almost all credible experts believe the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

@Right Divider will understand

 

[Stripe]

This is profoundly misleading. While technically true, at least in a sense, it is only peripherally relevant.

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.

the truth of a proposition P is not determined by who believes P, how many believe P, and what their credentials are.

Then engage over the evidence.

if almost all trained experts believe that the evidence supports P], this is powerful, although not 100% conclusive evidence, that P is correct.

Nope. It's a logical fallacy to assert that the popularity of an idea, regardless of the training or experience of those in the group, is evidence for the veracity of the idea. If you have evidence, present it. If all you have are logical fallacies, you join the long list of Darwinists with nothing to contribute.

there is no credible theory to explain how these experts could all be wrong

Your logical fallacies don't turn into rational points by adding more nonsense to them.

it is addle-pated fantasy to think they would dedicate their lives to constructing a complex story as to why we should not take Genesis 1 literally.

Genesis is an accurate account of the history of the universe. The "literally" description is a rabbit trail.

Darwinists love rabbit trails.

You are in a very difficult position. That you believe almost all credible experts believe the evidence for evolution is overwhelming does nothing to establish the truth of your religion.