Dating Methods

[crjmurray]

That's not how it works. If we look at say a bacteria under a
microscope, that is evidence. What it means and where it
came from is an assumption.

We all have the same evidence. There is no special evidence
one side has that the other does not. You are doing what a lot
of people here do. You are confusing conclusions about the
evidence with the evidence itself.

Sure we all have the same evidence. And you interpret it to fit your religion. Why do you think anyone else is using it to fit their beliefs?

 

[EternalDragon]

Sure we all have the same evidence. And you interpret it to fit your religion. Why do you think anyone else is using it to fit their beliefs?

Did I say that? No, I did not.

And I do not interpret it to fit my religion. I don't practice religion.

 

[lasthero]

We all have the same evidence. There is no special evidence
one side has that the other does not. You are doing what a lot
of people here do. You are confusing conclusions about the
evidence with the evidence itself.

The thing is, though, that you can come to all sorts of conclusions about anything. That doesn't automatically mean they hold equal weight.

For instance, this is the conclusion hollow-earthers have about the inside of the earth.

This is the conclusion that geologists and seismologists and...pretty much everyone else has.

Now, that's two different interpretations of the evidence, but would you really say they're equal? That one isn't a wee bit more grounded in reality than the other?

 

[crjmurray]

Did I say that? No, I did not.

And I do not interpret it to fit my religion. I don't practice religion.

You literally said we all have the same evidence. And you do use said evidence to back your beliefs (maybe you don't like religion). Now how is anyone else using the same evidence to back a certain belief?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's not how it works. If we look at say a bacteria under a
microscope, that is evidence. What it means and where it
came from is an assumption.

Inferences are not assumptions. A conclusion backed by evidence is not an assumption.

We all have the same evidence. There is no special evidence
one side has that the other does not. You are doing what a lot
of people here do. You are confusing conclusions about the
evidence with the evidence itself.

Then please show us how you use the ratio of isotopes in rocks to conclude that the Earth is young.

 

[Split Rock]

What kind of person seeks to explain history while ignoring the records of history?

A scientist.

What kind of person seeks to understand the earth while ignoring the earth?

What kind of person seeks to understand life while ignoring life?

A creationist!

 

[Split Rock]

That's not how it works. If we look at say a bacteria under a
microscope, that is evidence. What it means and where it
came from is an assumption.

We all have the same evidence. There is no special evidence
one side has that the other does not. You are doing what a lot
of people here do. You are confusing conclusions about the
evidence with the evidence itself.

You continue to imply that the evidence means anything to you... it doesn't. All that matters is your religious dogma. Why the deception?

 

[Split Rock]

Where is the circular logic?

You have also changed your accusation. Before, you said that the "method supports it's own conclusions". Now you have changed it to" science backs up science". At least try to stick to one accusation at a time.

He realized that he goofed the first time. Now he goes with "using science to prove science" is circular logic. I suppose "using history to prove history" is also circular logic.

 

[Split Rock]

Did I say that? No, I did not.

And I do not interpret it to fit my religion. I don't practice religion.

Is that because you've been doing so long that you don't need to practice anymore?

 

[Loudmouth]

What kind of person seeks to explain history while ignoring the records of history?

A scientist.

What kind of person dogamtically claims that a story is accurate history when all of the evidence contradicts it?

A creationist.

 

[Loudmouth]

I will have to take your word for it as I get conflicting info when I checked it out. But I would just like to clarify that not all creationists are young earth.

What conflicting info?

 

[Doveaman]

Inferences are not assumptions. A conclusion backed by evidence is not an assumption.

What do we call two opposing conclusions that are backed by the same evidence?

Scientific discoveries.

 

[bhsmte]

What do we call two opposing conclusions that are backed by the same evidence?

Scientific discoveries.

Maybe in your world.

 

[lasthero]

What do we call two opposing conclusions that are backed by the same evidence?

Scientific discoveries.

If you try hard enough and stretch things far enough, you can make the evidence fit anything. Hollow Earthers could say the same thing, geocentrists could say the same thing. That hardly makes either of their conclusions as valid as the ones that are accepted.

 

[keith99]

The thing is, though, that you can come to all sorts of conclusions about anything. That doesn't automatically mean they hold equal weight.

For instance, this is the conclusion hollow-earthers have about the inside of the earth.

This is the conclusion that geologists and seismologists and...pretty much everyone else has.

Now, that's two different interpretations of the evidence, but would you really say they're equal? That one isn't a wee bit more grounded in reality than the other?

Do you want to go into detail on why we can be confident that there is an inner and outer core and why the outer core is liquid and the inner solid or should I?

 

[lasthero]

Do you want to go into detail on why we can be confident that there is an inner and outer core and why the outer core is liquid and the inner solid or should I?

You could probably do it better than I can, so go ahead.

 

[EternalDragon]

If you try hard enough and stretch things far enough, you can make the evidence fit anything. Hollow Earthers could say the same thing, geocentrists could say the same thing. That hardly makes either of their conclusions as valid as the ones that are accepted.

Like making similarities in design look like common ancestry?

 

[lasthero]

Like making similarities in design look like common ancestry?

Common ancestry explains the facts and makes predictions that bear out. Your claims of design don't.

For instance, common ancestry requires that, since snakes and other lizards share a common ancestor, we should find evidence of snakes losing their legs over time. And that's exactly what we find.

Design doesn't require this to be.

Common ancestry requires that, since turns have shells and beaks that other lizards don't have, we should find evidence of turtles developing shells and beaks over time. And that's exactly what we find.

Design doesn't require this to be.

Common ancestry requires that, since frogs and salamandars are genetically closer the caecelians, we should find evidence of their common ancestry, amphibians that share their features. And that's exactly what we find.

Design doesn't require this to be. I could go on.

Design doesn't require any of the predictions that evolution makes to be true. It doesn't require any predictions to be true at all. It makes no predictions of future, there are no tests that falisfy it. And that's why it fails.

 

[EternalDragon]

Common ancestry explains the facts and makes predictions that bear out. Your claims of design don't.

For instance, common ancestry requires that, since snakes and other lizards share a common ancestor, we should find evidence of snakes losing their legs over time. And that's exactly what we find.

Design doesn't require this to be.

Common ancestry requires that, since turns have shells and beaks that other lizards don't have, we should find evidence of turtles developing shells and beaks over time. And that's exactly what we find.

Design doesn't require this to be.

Common ancestry requires that, since frogs and salamandars are genetically closer the caecelians, we should find evidence of their common ancestry, amphibians that share their features. And that's exactly what we find.

Design doesn't require this to be. I could go on.

Design doesn't require any of the predictions that evolution makes to be true. It doesn't require any predictions to be true at all. It makes no predictions of future, there are no tests that falisfy it. And that's why it fails.

And you are basing all that on sketchy details that have been assumed
by man. The snake evolution is still a mystery to scientists.

The same with turtles. They don't even know what the creature was that
led to modern turtles.

I didn't even bother looking up frogs.

You are believing in man's assumptions instead of God's word.

 

[lasthero]

And you are basing all that on sketchy details that have been assumed
by man. The snake evolution is still a mystery to scientists.

True, they don't know everything. Nonetheless, snakes with legs have been found, which is EXACTLY what the theory predicts. Design makes no such predictions.

The same with turtles. They don't even know what the creature was that
led to modern turtles.

Again, ignoring the point. Evolution predicts that the earliest turtles we find will have underdeveloped shells and beaks. Design makes no such prediction. If evolution is so invalid, if it's just similarities and nothing more, how can it make predictions that turn out to be true?

I didn't even bother looking up frogs.

Of course you didn't
[/QUOTE]