Pick one single factor out of that that doesn't rely on assumptions
You won't because you can't
I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
You won't because you can't
Alate_One
Well-known member
No. You're wrong. I do believe God spoke and it was so, just not instantly. If you read the creation story, God speaks and life follows His commands. I believe that is what God did, and is still doing. The creative word reverberates to this day. Evolution is God's handiwork and it has created endless forms most beautiful.
What is time to God that the poetic story written to ancient people should be interpreted as a science textbook? Which is the greater miracle, that God created everything a few thousand years ago with fake evidence in the ground and the universe around us, or that He spoke the universe into being and brought each of us into existence in the fullness of time?
| Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end. |
Alate_One
Well-known member
Pick out a single scripture that isn't based on an assumption. You assume that what was written is what God intended (There are false scriptures out there). You assume that the translation of it is accurate. You assume your interpretation of it is correct. You must assume that the Bible is what it says it is. I believe it is, I assume you do as well. But I also believe that the natural evidence is quite clear.
Everything we know or understand must have underlying assumptions, it is disingenuous to attack any one position with this assumptions line without looking at your own ideas.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Well one thing that is different with the dating of rocks is independent people can test the same rocks and get the same answer. That's what makes science different from other ways of knowing. If everyone is doing testing and they all seem to get the same answer, that tells you something about the natural world.
Right Divider
Body part
Radiometric dating is based on MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS. That's a fact.
Rather than hurling a lengthy Wikipedia article.... how about your discuss the FACTS involved with radiometric dating?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Try reading the article. If you can dispute it then go right ahead as it explains everything that you seem to have a problem with.
Right Divider
Body part
This is typical of someone losing an argument.... they try to move on to something else.
:juggle:
I don't have a "problem" with the FACT that radiometric dating the based on MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS that make it a completely unreliable determination of the age of anything so supposedly old.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's hardly "moving onto something else" when the article describes and answers the matter precisely on point. Either read it fully or don't but you can hardly dismiss it as irrelevant.
Alate_One
Well-known member
You could, start at the beginning.
| In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.787±0.020 billion (109) years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. The uncertainty has been narrowed down to 20 million years, based on a number of studies which all gave extremely similar figures for the age. These include studies of the microwave background radiation, and measurements by the Planck spacecraft, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang, and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time. |
Right Divider
Body part
Of course it's moving on... as you have not yet understood the multiple assumptions that invalidate radiometric dating as a valid way to measure the age of the earth.
Right Divider
Body part
You sound like another one that does not understand the multiple assumptions involved in radiometric dating which is commonly claimed to support a very old age for the earth.
The assumptions of radiometric dating and how they affect the assumed ages of the rock that is being tested.
The rest of this article goes into a lot of detail on how the assumptions used by evolutionists/geologists are very often wildly wrong. It's a very good article.
https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
[h=1] More Bad News for Radiometric Dating [/h]
Most scientists today believe that life has existed on the earth for billions of years. This belief in long ages for the earth and the existence of life is derived largely from radiometric dating. These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock and inferring an age based on this ratio. This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say, uranium) gradually decays to the daughter substance (say, lead), so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning. Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers. To me it has been a real eye opener to see all the processes that are taking place and their potential influence on radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava (properly called magma before it erupts) fills large underground chambers called magma chambers. Most people are not aware of the many processes that take place in lava before it erupts and as it solidifies, processes that can have a tremendous influence on daughter to parent ratios. Such processes can cause the daughter product to be enriched relative to the parent, which would make the rock look older, or cause the parent to be enriched relative to the daughter, which would make the rock look younger. This calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into serious question.
Geologists assert that older dates are found deeper down in the geologic column, which they take as evidence that radiometric dating is giving true ages, since it is apparent that rocks that are deeper must be older. But even if it is true that older radiometric dates are found lower down in the geologic column, which is open to question, this can potentially be explained by processes occurring in magma chambers which cause the lava erupting earlier to appear older than the lava erupting later. Lava erupting earlier would come from the top of the magma chamber, and lava erupting later would come from lower down. A number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger.
The rest of this article goes into a lot of detail on how the assumptions used by evolutionists/geologists are very often wildly wrong. It's a very good article.
https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
The assumptions that scientists make that are religious in nature.
The rest of this excellent article is found at the following link. http://lyceumphilosophy.com/?q=node/117
The rest of this excellent article is found at the following link. http://lyceumphilosophy.com/?q=node/117
Show us that.
Give the same rock to two labs that know nothing about it and show us their undiscussed results.
Show us that.
Right Divider
Body part
So... you think that multiple labs making the same MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS and getting similar results is a proof that the method using the MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS is scientifically valid?
You surely don't understand the problem.
i predict that artie will either ignore it, mischaracterize it or misunderstand it
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, it wan't. It was a link explaining how such processes work and if you think that the age of the universe has somehow been invalidated somehow then that's just a silly assumption of your own.
Right Divider
Body part
Why do you just keep avoiding the FACTS of radiometric dating? Do you think that nobody is watching?
A couple of points here:
This article was written by David Plaisted, who is a Computer Science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In other words, the topics of evolution, geology, radiometric dating, etc., are outside of his area of expertise, and he doesn't really know what he is talking about. See here for documentation: https://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/09/13/creationist-drivel-from-a-sob
This article comes from the website of the Saint Anselm College Philosophy Department. Saint Anselm College is a Catholic college founded by Benedictine monks at the invitation of the first bishop of Manchester in New England. This is significant because, as one bishop of the Catholic Church wrote, "Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence." So while the Catholic Church affirms God as Creator, their teaching does not reflect the YEC perspective. The article you linked to should be understood in that light.
This article was written by David Plaisted, who is a Computer Science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In other words, the topics of evolution, geology, radiometric dating, etc., are outside of his area of expertise, and he doesn't really know what he is talking about. See here for documentation: https://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/09/13/creationist-drivel-from-a-sob
This article comes from the website of the Saint Anselm College Philosophy Department. Saint Anselm College is a Catholic college founded by Benedictine monks at the invitation of the first bishop of Manchester in New England. This is significant because, as one bishop of the Catholic Church wrote, "Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence." So while the Catholic Church affirms God as Creator, their teaching does not reflect the YEC perspective. The article you linked to should be understood in that light.