Sanctifying the age of the earth/universe

[lifepsyop]

Why should we believe that the same institutions that still can't figure out where the Earth's oceans came from (among countless other features and phenomena), have also irrefutably demonstrated that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Only recently has the geologic community rejected uniformitarianism as an unjustified limitation on scientific inquiry into Earth's history, as it constrains past geologic rates and conditions to those of the present. After bitterly resisting the widespread evidence of past earth catastrophe, geologists finally came around to realizing their prior assumptions were wrong.

So why can't today's evolutionists and old-earth believers accept the possibility that radioactive decay rates may have been different in the past as well? Why must the radioactive uniformitarian assumption to be removed from questioning? Why is this particular uniformitarian assumption regarded as a sanctified truth of the universe?

One knee-jerk response might be "because different data agree with each other" ... but that is simply not true. There are countless features or phenomena in the universe that do NOT agree with conventional age estimates and these are simply explained away as unreliable, or when all explanation fails.... anomalous.

Now for a question I think the evolutionists know the answer to, whether they want to admit it or not:

IF radiometric dating methods generally returned ages that could not possibly accomodate the time required for an evolutionary narrative, would you accept it as a disproof of Evolution (universal common descent).... OR... would you simply assume that the dating method is unreliable? (due to past fluctuations in decay rates, contamination, or some other anomaly)

Are you doing this very thing for any phenomena that might demonstrate evidence of a younger earth/solar system, etc. ? (e.g. when we find original undecayed protein in dinosaur fossils, or likewise discovering features of a planet in our solar system which should have decayed a long, long time ago if the body were that old)

(substantive responses only please. If all you have is emotional hand-waving or a snide flippant comment then please just move along)

 

[Halbhh]

Why should we believe that the same institutions that still can't figure out where the Earth's oceans came from (among countless other features and phenomena), have also irrefutably demonstrated that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Only recently has the geologic community rejected uniformitarianism as an unjustified limitation on scientific inquiry into Earth's history, as it constrains past geologic rates and conditions to those of the present. After bitterly resisting the widespread evidence of past earth catastrophe, geologists finally came around to realizing their prior assumptions were wrong.

So why can't today's evolutionists and old-earth believers accept the possibility that radioactive decay rates may have been different in the past as well? Why must the radioactive uniformitarian assumption to be removed from questioning? Why is this particular uniformitarian assumption regarded as a sanctified truth of the universe?

One knee-jerk response might be "because different data agree with each other" ... but that is simply not true. There are countless features or phenomena in the universe that do NOT agree with conventional age estimates and these are simply explained away as unreliable, or when all explanation fails.... anomalous.

Now for a question I think the evolutionists know the answer to, whether they want to admit it or not:

IF radiometric dating methods generally returned ages that could not possibly accomodate the time required for an evolutionary narrative, would you accept it as a disproof of Evolution (universal common descent).... OR... would you simply assume that the dating method is unreliable? (due to past fluctuations in decay rates, contamination, or some other anomaly)

Are you doing this very thing for any phenomena that might demonstrate evidence of a younger earth/solar system, etc. ? (e.g. when we find original undecayed protein in dinosaur fossils, or likewise discovering features of a planet in our solar system which should have decayed a long, long time ago if the body were that old)

(substantive responses only please. If all you have is emotional hand-waving or a snide flippant comment then please just move along)

The convincing evidence that the Universe is older than 10,000 years depends on trigonometry that you learned in school -- given 1 side and 2 angles of a triangle, we can know the lengths of the other sides mathematically.

With that, and with measuring the speed of light, we can find out the distance to nearby stars, by only trigonometry, since the Earth's orbit about the sun is of a known diameter, and nearby stars will then appear to shift against the background of more distant stars when observed 6 months apart, forming 2 angles.

For our experimental assignment in Sophomore Physics lab, I personally measured the speed of light using a classic experiment first done in the 19th century.

Pulses of light are created by interrupted a beam of light with a rotating disk with openings to allow pulses of light to pass through, and a half-silvered prism/mirror that splits the beam, and the 2 pulses are sent on different path lengths (using a series of mirrors), and then the 2 pulses return for a final reflection off a rotating mirror, so that more delayed pulse traveling the longer path length will hit the rotating mirror later and be sent to a different spot on the final measurement surface than the shorter-path light pulse.

It's really simple geometry stuff.

I personally set up the experiment, figured out all the details, did all the measurements, and determined the speed of light to be about 300,000 km/second.

So it is not a guess or an acceptance on faith for me to know the speed of light. I'm not accepting it 2nd hand that the speed of light is about 300,000 km/sec. It's my direct first hand knowledge, by direct observation.

I know then that we can determine the distances to nearby stars then out to about 10,000 light years using the highly precise Hubble telescope, and that those nearby stars are shifting in location vs a background of more distant stars.

Ergo, the light of the more distant background stars is therefore older than this up to 10,000 year age of the light of the nearer stars.

With further such straightforward observations, we can see that the bright and huge Andromeda galaxy is more distant than the relatively distant stars in our own galaxy....

But this won't surprising to believers in God that read Genesis chapter 1 carefully and without making assumptions -- we know God did not say to us anywhere the age of the universe. He did not say how much time passed in Gen 1:1 before Gen 1:2 happened. (in the vision of the days of creation, the sun, moon and stars are not visible in the vision until the 4th day, but that would align with that being the first day in the vision with clear skies (not cloudy), since the vision would be from the point of view of being on the surface of Earth, of course)

 

[Yttrium]

IF radiometric dating methods generally returned ages that could not possibly accomodate the time required for an evolutionary narrative, would you accept it as a disproof of Evolution (universal common descent).... OR... would you simply assume that the dating method is unreliable? (due to past fluctuations in decay rates, contamination, or some other anomaly)

I'd assume that one or the other is wrong. Maybe both. I'm good with the ToE, but it's no problem for me if it's disproved tomorrow. I'm not clinging on to any grand philosophy of life, the universe and everything.

That still wouldn't touch the age of the universe, though, and showing that something funky happened with the speed of light is much more of a stretch.

 

[lifepsyop]

The convincing evidence that the Universe is older than 10,000 years....

But we're not discussing supposed minimum ages of the universe.. you're changing the subject.

The age of the earth has been sanctified as 4.5 billion years.
The age of the universe has been sanctified as 13.7 billion years.

These ages have been decreed as beyond any question by the 'scientific community', (ignoring issues raised in the OP... that they are largely based on assumptions about the past.)

 

[Ophiolite]

Why should we believe that the same institutions that still can't figure out where the Earth's oceans came from (among countless other features and phenomena), have also irrefutably demonstrated that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

1. You shouldn't believe anything. You should, however, accept the weight of argument and evidence that points to a particular hypothesis or theory as the best current explanation for those observations. Failure to do so is fatuous.

2. Anyone who thinks that we ought to know everything is mistaken. The point about science is to carefully and methodically extend our knowledge. At any one time there will be much that we do not know. We have several excellent lines of evidence for the origin of the oceans and this is an active area of research. There is general agreement that the oceans waters were supplied by comets, asteroids and mantle outgassing. The uncertainty arises over the relative proportions of each.

3. Science does not demonstrate anything irrefutably. All hypotheses are provisional. The weight of evidence for the Earth being 4.5 billion years old is massive. To ignore this evidence would be delinquent.

Only recently has the geologic community rejected uniformitarianism as an unjustified limitation on scientific inquiry into Earth's history, as it constrains past geologic rates and conditions to those of the present. After bitterly resisting the widespread evidence of past earth catastrophe, geologists finally came around to realizing their prior assumptions were wrong.

1. The battle between uniformitarianism and catastrophism fought in the 19th century remains a battle that was won and whose victory remains in place today. The catastrophism of Victorian scientists is not the catastrophism we embrace today. That anachronistic catastrophism is long since - and rightly - rejected.
Today's catastrophism is responsible for occassional, distinctive events producing major impacts upon geology and biology, but the majority of geological and biological processes arise in a uniformitarian manner. That was not the concept that was fought over in the 19th century.

2. The perennial "assumption" raises its deformed head yet again. I would be interested to see you specify, in detail, just one of those alleged assumptions. It would provide a good insight as to how well you understand the subject you have chosen to argue about. Will you take the risk?

So why can't today's evolutionists and old-earth believers accept the possibility that radioactive decay rates may have been different in the past as well? Why must the radioactive uniformitarian assumption to be removed from questioning? Why is this particular uniformitarian assumption regarded as a sanctified truth of the universe?

1. Simple. There is no evidence that radioactive decay rates have been different in the past and sufficient evidence that they were the same, so that there is no reason to consider the alternative to any depth.

2. Science does not deal with sanctified truths. The uniformitarian view of decay rates is not an assumption, but an observation validated in multiple ways at multiple times.

One knee-jerk response might be "because different data agree with each other" ... but that is simply not true. There are countless features or phenomena in the universe that do NOT agree with conventional age estimates and these are simply explained away as unreliable, or when all explanation fails.... anomalous.

Please list the three that you consider the most important along with meaningful links to sound information on each.

Now for a question I think the evolutionists know the answer to, whether they want to admit it or not:

IF radiometric dating methods generally returned ages that could not possibly accommodate the time required for an evolutionary narrative, would you accept it as a disproof of Evolution (universal common descent).... OR... would you simply assume that the dating method is unreliable? (due to past fluctuations in decay rates, contamination, or some other anomaly)

Neither. At present the data are very clear. The time available is adequate for the "evolutionary narrative". Choosing between the two options you present would depend upon the nature of the evidence that led to a much reduced timescale. What this would do is to create a clear ambiguity that needed to be resolved.

It sounds akin to the present tension between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Both theories are thoroughly tested and validated, yet at certain scales they are (currently) irreconcilable.

As an interim position I would weight the evidence for the time-scale, revised as you have postulated, versus the weight of evidence for evolution, then state "We have a clear contradiction here that we need more research to resolve. I suspect that it will turn out that "A" is valid, but only further study and discovery will determine this."
(In this response "A" is the option that seemed to carry the greater weight of evidence.)

Are you doing this very thing for any phenomena that might demonstrate evidence of a younger earth/solar system, etc. ? (e.g. when we find original undecayed protein in dinosaur fossils, or likewise discovering features of a planet in our solar system which should have decayed a long, long time ago if the body were that old)

No.

(substantive responses only please. If all you have is emotional hand-waving or a snide flippant comment then please just move along)

Then I expect the same behaviour and courtesy from you. scattering your post with emotional phrases such as "bitterly resisting" and "sanctified truth" is not helpful. I shall be direct and respectful, but I think you need to follow suit.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why should we believe that the same institutions that still can't figure out where the Earth's oceans came from (among countless other features and phenomena), have also irrefutably demonstrated that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Because not knowing who won the 1936 World Series doesn't mean you can't know who won the 2019 Indy 500 with perfect certainty.

Why must the radioactive uniformitarian assumption to be removed from questioning?

Because we have good evidence that nuclear physics was the same long long ago (and far far away).

Why is this particular uniformitarian assumption regarded as a sanctified truth of the universe?

Because the fundamental forces of nature are fundamental, unlike the varied history of geology on earth.

There are countless features or phenomena in the universe that do NOT agree with conventional age estimates

There are countless lists of such supposed features passed around in YEC circles, but they bear no weight with actual experts.

IF radiometric dating methods generally returned ages that could not possibly accomodate the time required for an evolutionary narrative, would you accept it as a disproof of Evolution

Given my training in physics, I know a lot more about the inner details of radiometric dating than I do about evolution (although my geology isn't too extensive). If properly conducted radiometric dating "generally returned ages" in the thousands of years, I would conclude the earth was thousands of years old. I believe that would be too short for evolution to be possible.

Obligatory reference to the isoducks.

 

[Yttrium]

These ages have been decreed as beyond any question by the 'scientific community'

Incorrect. Such things are always flexible as new evidence comes in. The ages have been moved and refined many times in the past, and they can be again.

More than 10,000 years, though, yeah, that's been decreed as beyond any question. Way more than 10,000 years. Billions more.

 

[lifepsyop]

I'd assume that one or the other is wrong. Maybe both. I'm good with the ToE, but it's no problem for me if it's disproved tomorrow. I'm not clinging on to any grand philosophy of life, the universe and everything.

Okay... just as a thought-experiment, what if it was demonstrated that the topology of the entire earth today is largely the result of a global catastrophe that occurred only several thousand years ago?

Would you be good with that discovery, or would you begin to worry that there might actually be something to what those crazy Bible believers are ranting about every day?

That still wouldn't touch the age of the universe, though, and showing that something funky happened with the speed of light is much more of a stretch.

Didn't something kinda funky happen with the whole 'everything appearing out of nothing' thing?

Why are we so hostile to the idea that other 'funky' things happened in relation to the origin of features or phenomena of the universe that might contrast with their natural appearances behaviors today?

(Especially after the scientific consensus has made fundamental errors in such thinking up till only recently, e.g. uniformitarianism)

 

[Yttrium]

Okay... just as a thought-experiment, what if it was demonstrated that the topology of the entire earth today is largely the result of a global catastrophe that occurred only several thousand years ago?

Would you be good with that discovery, or would you begin to worry that there might actually be something to what those crazy Bible believers are ranting about every day?

I'd be good with it, and I'd take the Genesis account more seriously.

Didn't something kinda funky happen with the whole 'everything appearing out of nothing' thing?

Big Bang theory doesn't propose that something appeared out of nothing. It only describes the reduction in density of the known universe. Where all that matter came from is still unknown, as far as science is concerned. But it might have been pretty funky.

Why are we so hostile to the idea that other 'funky' things happened in relation to the origin of features or phenomena of the universe that might contrast with their natural appearances behaviors today?

I'm not hostile to such ideas. Funky is cool. The funkier the better. I'm just saying it would be much trickier. It took something very funky (relativity, quantum mechanics) to overthrow Newtonian mechanics, so there is precedence.

 

[Halbhh]

But we're not discussing supposed minimum ages of the universe.. you're changing the subject.

The age of the earth has been sanctified as 4.5 billion years.
The age of the universe has been sanctified as 13.7 billion years.

These ages have been decreed as beyond any question by the 'scientific community', (ignoring issues raised in the OP... that they are largely based on assumptions about the past.)

To me 'sanctified' has no connection with or engineering or math or machine design or science or how to drive a car, etc., but instead is about the holy and good. But I think you mean 'generally accepted'?

Actually the age of the Universe, currently guesstimated at 13.8 billion does depend on some certain measurements that are harder (such as the expansion rate change over time), and therefore isn't thought to be as well determined (not yet) as the age of the Earth.

But it will not matter much if the estimate goes up or down 10% or 40%.

Also, for us as believers, it won't even matter the tiniest, slightest bit whether the precise age of Earth or the Universe is finally an order of magnitude different -- just not important.

We do have a rough timeline guesstimate from after (not before or during!) Adam and Eve left the Garden until Christ, depending on which genealogy we use, if we add an assumption about no time gaps, but even that calculation is not of any true importance for believers. To make it seem important would be like making it seem important how big is the orbit of Saturn precisely -- making a not-really-important quantity number to seem important. They are unimportant quantities for believers. For real saving faith in Christ -- the only faith that can save -- it matters not even the slightest bit that the sun is powered by fusion of hydrogen, or precisely how old the Earth was before the Garden, or how much time passed during the Garden (with the Tree of Life and the Eternal One walking there). We do not need time estimates. They are not connected with faith in Christ.

 

[lifepsyop]

If properly conducted radiometric dating "generally returned ages" in the thousands of years, I would conclude the earth was thousands of years old. I believe that would be too short for evolution to be possible.

But why not assume something unknown had occurred that "science is still working on" that you do for so many other things that appear to resist conventional age models?

Look at something like the belief in Abiogenesis. There is nothing happening on earth today that suggests life can generate itself from non-life. Yet belief that Abiogenesis actually happened is faithfully and slavishly adhered to by the scientific community with absolutely zero room for criticism.

Belief in Abiogenesis is simply a necessity for an evolutionary worldview, and therefore, uncontested, absolutely removed from the bounds of 'scientific' debate.

So why should anyone believe you would treat radioactive phenomena differently? If you're willing to believe the very laws of nature that radioactivity is beholden to somehow generated itself, (a ludicrous idea when measured against any phenomena seen to be occurring in the universe today), then why wouldn't you relegate radioactivity to the realm of "anomoly" if it returned results unfavorable to your evolutionary creation worldview?

Furthemore, it was only a decade or so ago that decay rates of organic material were considered to be highly accurate measurements of, at least, maximum possible ages. (The idea of undecayed protein products lasting just a few million years was thought extremely unlikely even under ideal conditions, and now such things are being found repeatedly in fossils under some of the worst preservation conditions in the range of 100 million years. As a result the "laws" of organic decay have essentially been rewritten to accommodate Evolutionary ages.)

Heck, you're even willing to make up entities out of thin air (entities said to dominate the universe like Dark Matter), to explain away why observations do not fit a preferred model of the natural universe.

So I really don't understand the posturing that you'd be willing to give up all of your evolutionary creation beliefs over radioactivity. Again, why not simply assume something unknown or anomalous was at work in nature like you do for other things?

 

[Halbhh]

Heck, you're even willing to make up entities out of thin air (entities said to dominate the universe like Dark Matter), to explain away why observations do not fit a preferred model of the natural universe.

As a friendly observation -- if a scientist makes up a hypothesis in a random way without any good motivation from physical phenomena to suggest it could be right, that would be pretty unlikely to have any chance of being realistic. Instead the many various (and conflicting) guesses -- hypotheses -- about what might be dark matter have typically been motivated by some kind of reasoning from already-supported (by observations) physics or from more speculative theories which themselves are built on some plausible reasoning from older supported physics. Of course, along with such interesting hyposthesis, there are more fringe ideas also (less plausible). That's all part of the process.

The motive is just to try to figure it out. What is causing the apparent extra gravity?

As a believer though, you can expect that whatever it is, it is the design of the Creator. Whatever is causing the high rotation speeds in the arms of Galaxies, the extra bending of light from more distant sources, etc. -- the aim is merely to figure it out.

 

[Yttrium]

Look at something like the belief in Abiogenesis. There is nothing happening on earth today that suggests life can generate itself from non-life.

There has been some progress on that, but it's still very much up in the air as far as science is concerned.

Yet belief that Abiogenesis actually happened is faithfully and slavishly adhered to by the scientific community with absolutely zero room for criticism.

You're completely wrong about that. The thing is, it's the role of science to look for natural explanations. Science doesn't have the ability to look at the supernatural, after all. Many scientists believe that some form of abiogenesis happened, many believed in divine creation, and some may have other ideas. It's the job of the scientists to follow the scientific method; naturalism is not a belief requirement.

Belief in Abiogenesis is simply a necessity for an evolutionary worldview, and therefore, uncontested, absolutely removed from the bounds of 'scientific' debate.

Nope. Evolution doesn't care how life started. If God created the first forms of life, then evolution is unchanged. Evolution is all about change in living things. It's not even a necessity for a naturalistic philosophy, although it would undoubtedly be the most common belief under a naturalistic philosophy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But why not assume something unknown had occurred that "science is still working on" that you do for so many other things that appear to resist conventional age models?

I'll be interested to see the three things you come up with in answer to Ophiolite's query. As far as I know, there is nothing science 'is still working on' that disagrees with what we know about the age of the earth.

Look at something like the belief in Abiogenesis. There is nothing happening on earth today that suggests life can generate itself from non-life. Yet belief that Abiogenesis actually happened is faithfully and slavishly adhered to by the scientific community with absolutely zero room for criticism.

I still don't understand the creationist objection to abiogenesis. Everyone seems to agree that there was a time when there was no life on earth, and now there is. So abiogenesis certainly occurred. The question is how.

So I really don't understand the posturing that you'd be willing to give up all of your evolutionary creation beliefs over radioactivity.

Read my sig once or twice and do me the kindness of considering that I am a sincere human being.

 

[lifepsyop]

We do have a rough timeline guesstimate from after (not before or during!) Adam and Eve left the Garden until Christ, depending on which genealogy we use, if we add an assumption about no time gaps, but even that calculation is not of any true importance for believers. To make it seem important would be like making it seem important how big is the orbit of Saturn precisely -- making a not-really-important quantity number to seem important. They are unimportant quantities for believers. For real saving faith in Christ -- the only faith that can save -- it matters not even the slightest bit that the sun is powered by fusion of hydrogen, or precisely how old the Earth was before the Garden, or how much time passed during the Garden (with the Tree of Life and the Eternal One walking there). We do not need time estimates. They are not connected with faith in Christ.

So, despite the fact that Genesis specifically states a timeline (6 days of creation leading up to Adam), you claim that "timelines are unimportant".... Then why were they added? Why must we know anything at all of creation in order to believe in Jesus?

If the Bible repeatedly mentioned the orbit of Saturn, then yea, I'd think the orbit of Saturn was pretty important. So why can't you accept that timelines are important when they ARE repeatedly stated in the Bible?

Is it really edifying to Jesus Christ, The Word, The Beginning and the End, to teach people that the truth is completely different than what is plainly recorded in scripture?

Faith in the blood of Jesus Christ will save anyone no matter what they believe about the history of the Earth, yet I wonder just how many would-be believers have fallen away because of the belief that "Genesis isn't true so the Bible has been debunked!"... They could have been handed faith in the word, but were instead handed an awkward compromise. (ehhh, some of this is true, but some of it isn't) I shudder at the thought of standing before Jesus one day knowing I might have contributed to such a tragic scenario.

 

[lifepsyop]

I still don't understand the creationist objection to abiogenesis. Everyone seems to agree that there was a time when there was no life on earth, and now there is. So abiogenesis certainly occurred. The question is how.

... and by "how", you obviously mean how did life blindly and naturalistically arise from non-life.

As you stated, you already *know* that it happened. It's only a matter of "science" eventually settling on a palatable enough narrative. But "science" will never be allowed to ask the question whether or not it actually happened at all.

That alone says a lot. It's why people aren't kidding when they call Evolution a religion. (cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, organic, biological, etc.)

 

[Ophiolite]

... and by "how", you obviously mean how did life blindly and naturalistically arise from non-life.

As you stated, you already *know* that it happened. It's only a matter of "science" eventually settling on a palatable enough narrative. But "science" will never be allowed to ask the question whether or not it actually happened at all.

That alone says a lot. It's why people aren't kidding when they call Evolution a religion. (cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, organic, biological, etc.)

May I expect a response to my detailed post any time soon?

 

[Jimmy D]

The age of the earth has been sanctified as 4.5 billion years.
The age of the universe has been sanctified as 13.7 billion years.

Why do you use the word “sanctified”? Might I suggest an online dictionary...

sanctify | Definition of sanctify in English by Oxford Dictionaries

These ages have been decreed as beyond any question by the 'scientific community',

Where did you read that?

 

[Halbhh]

So, despite the fact that Genesis specifically states a timeline (6 days of creation leading up to Adam), you claim that "timelines are unimportant".... Then why were they added? Why must we know anything at all of creation in order to believe in Jesus?

If the Bible repeatedly mentioned the orbit of Saturn, then yea, I'd think the orbit of Saturn was pretty important. So why can't you accept that timelines are important when they ARE repeatedly stated in the Bible?

Is it really edifying to Jesus Christ, The Word, The Beginning and the End, to teach people that the truth is completely different than what is plainly recorded in scripture?

Faith in the blood of Jesus Christ will save anyone no matter what they believe about the history of the Earth, yet I wonder just how many would-be believers have fallen away because of the belief that "Genesis isn't true so the Bible has been debunked!"... They could have been handed faith in the word, but were instead handed an awkward compromise. (ehhh, some of this is true, but some of it isn't) I shudder at the thought of standing before Jesus one day knowing I might have contributed to such a tragic scenario.

I did not get a message about a time duration in Genesis chapter 1, but I did get some deep and powerful meaning.

I've read it in many translations...many times, but what helped the most was when I put aside every idea and just truly listened, put aisde arguments and questions and doctrines, and truly listened, to let the Word be the teacher instead of me talking over the scripture with my own ideas or doctrines or agends.

What happened then was wonderful -- if you truly listen, the scripture changes you.

That's what we really want.

But about the nevertheless interesting time duration question -- interesting to me since I'm the type that is interested in such things -- the text is wonderfully more profound than that. (It is not about a mere quantity number like 156 hours or 10,000 years or whatever number. That would be so trivial.) The scripture is never about mere historical detail, even in some places when it seems so, but instead about something meaningful. But in chapter 1, the meaningful is good stuff, and zero about mere time duration. For instance, one wonderful thing is repeated to us in 7 instances, as you begin to hear when just listening.

 

[essentialsaltes]

... and by "how", you obviously mean how did life blindly and naturalistically arise from non-life.

I certainly did not say so. In the context of my sentence about things that YE creationists and scientists agree on, it doesn't seem likely that that's what I meant.

If you want to hold both sides of the conversation, it would seem my participation is unnecessary. But, if you'll let me, I can speak for myself.

It's why people aren't kidding when they call Evolution a religion.

I don't think you're joking about it. You're just incorrect.

There are countless features or phenomena in the universe that do NOT agree with conventional age estimates and these are simply explained away as unreliable, or when all explanation fails.... anomalous.

Do you have three you would care to discuss? Ophiolite (and I) are eager to see your response.