Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Hans Blaster]

They really don’t need dating.

The rocks don't need dating? Why not? How else shall we known the geological history of a place? (In this case eastern Washington and Oregon.)

 

[dlamberth]

Genesis 1:1 and following.

So looking at what the Earth is showing us about itself is not an option?

And if it IS God's Creation, why would the Earth lie to us about itself?

 

[dlamberth]

The 17 million year track of the Yellowstone Hot Spot as it burned it's way to it's present location....

Track of Yellowstone hotspot | U.S. Geological Survey

 

[AV1611VET]

They really don’t need dating.

Good point!

 

[dlamberth]

They really don’t need dating.

Ya they do, at least if a person want's to know about Earths geological history. And it IS really interesting stuff to learn about.

 

[dlamberth]

Good point!

I'm troubled by his response. Not for his beliefs. But what comes up for me is the affect on society as a whole if it takes that kind of approach with the dumbing down geological as well as other scientific inquiries. I've seen the effect with extended family members which sometimes left me wondering where we're headed as a society.

Being an optimest, I don't have to jump far to see the old Biblical Genesis Creation stories are being replaced by a new Creation story. It's a story filled with new knowledge and understandings that the Earth and Cosmos are opening up for us to see. And it's a story that is working it's way through humanity with the old being replaced by the new. It's also a story where Lovers of God are finding ways to accept the new Creation Story and still maintain their faith. Maybe even deepen it.

 

[driewerf]

They really don’t need dating.

These rocks may no need dating, but they have been dated with scientifically sound methods. So here we have hard data. Deal with it.
Just saying "a lie" or not true", isn't dealing with it.
The measuremenst are here and won't go away.

 

[Astrid]

I'm troubled by his response. Not for his beliefs. But what comes up for me is the affect on society as a whole if it takes that kind of approach with the dumbing down geological as well as other scientific inquiries. I've seen the effect with extended family members which sometimes left me wondering where we're headed as a society.

Being an optimest, I don't have to jump far to see the old Biblical Genesis Creation stories are being replaced by a new Creation story. It's a story filled with new knowledge and understandings that the Earth and Cosmos are opening up for us to see. And it's a story that is working it's way through humanity with the old being replaced by the new. It's also a story where Lovers of God are finding ways to accept the new Creation Story and still maintain their faith. Maybe even deepen it.

Where you are headed as a society,
yes, well you may wonder. Well you
may have doubts.
We see Americans as very self indulgent.
Fat tourists are automatically ' Americans".

But it runs way way deeper than that,
as any perceptive American surely knows.

The focus here though concerns indulging
in regressive ignorant and self righteous
anti intellectualism.

Fundamentalist beliefs are rarely seen in the
Ivory towers of academia which the " fundies"
love to scorn.
No, those sects draw their numbers from the
low rungs of the socioeconomic/education
ladder- the trailer park crowd.

There is no way on ( God's green) earth that
the low information society can withstand
a competitive world.
The steel and textile mills are long closed,
out competed by people willing to work harder.
Education?
Look for numbers on higher education, look at
your standing in the world re what high school
students have achieved.
The last thing you need is anti- education as a
profound religious value.

America has 4.25% of the world's population.
There's an enormous number of very intense,
highly motivated, highly educated people just
over the horizon and they've not the least sentiment for 'America values".

There won't be any angel with flaming sword
at the trailer park gate.

I've lived in the USA. I've friends and family
there. I'm not speaking as an enemy of the US.

Call me a concerned friend.

 

[Hammster]

The rocks don't need dating? Why not? How else shall we known the geological history of a place? (In this case eastern Washington and Oregon.)

Why do you need to know? What’s missing from your life if you don’t know the history?

 

[Hammster]

So looking at what the Earth is showing us about itself is not an option?

It’s an option. But you have to have the correct presupposition.

And if it IS God's Creation, why would the Earth lie to us about itself?

The earth isn’t lying. You are just misreading the data.

 

[Hammster]

Ya they do, at least if a person want's to know about Earths geological history. And it IS really interesting stuff to learn about.

Well, we know it’s about 6000 years old.

 

[Hammster]

These rocks may no need dating, but they have been dated with scientifically sound methods. So here we have hard data. Deal with it.
Just saying "a lie" or not true", isn't dealing with it.
The measuremenst are here and won't go away.

And there’s no way the dates can be wrong?

 

[driewerf]

Well, we know it’s about 6000 years old.

No, we don't know that. Quite the opposite, for many features we know them to be much older. Very much older.

 

[Frank Robert]

And there’s no way the dates can be wrong?

No one has provided evidence to refute the dates. Creationists attempt to dispute the dates via apologetics but that is not evidence.

 

[Astrid]

And there’s no way the dates can be wrong?

Nothing in science is ever claimed to
be perfect certainty. No scientist claims
inerrancy.
Tell us, is there no way you can
be wrong about your " 6000 yrs"
etc?

 

[Hammster]

No, we don't know that. Quite the opposite, for many features we know them to be much older. Very much older.

Not according to scripture.

 

[driewerf]

And there’s no way the dates can be wrong?

Wrong by how much? 1%? 5% 10%?
The Deccan traps are dated as 66 million years old. Even if we assume that the geologists are off by 10%, that makes the age of the Deccan Traps 66 million ± 6.6 million years old, hence between 72 and 60 million years. Or do you believe that geologists are so far off the mark that they measure an age of 66 million years old where it ought to be 6000? And when you have dealt with the Deccan Traps, you’ll have to deal with the Yellowstone Plateau, the Mauna Kea shield volcano, the Great Barrier Riff, the Siberian Traps, the Tibetan Plateau, the Alps, the magnetic reversals in the Atlantic floor and the Giant’s Causaway. Are you going to pretend that all geologists researching these very different geological features are all off the mark? And that you know better? Fine, maybe you have had an incredible training in geology and know better than all geologists world wide.

Deccan Traps

The Deccan Traps are one of the largest volcanic provinces in the world. It consists of a composite thickness of more than 6,500 feet (>2,000 m) of flat-lying basalt lava flows and covers an area of nearly 200,000 square miles (500,000 square km) (roughly the size of the states of Washington and...

volcano.oregonstate.edu

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1155371

Enter the astronomers. The Sun has been calculated to be 5 billion years old. The Andromeda Galaxy is 13 billion years old. It is situated 2.5 million light years away, so the image of the Andromeda Galaxy that we see today is already 2.5 million years old, and the light was emitted millions of years ago. And the Andromeda Galaxy is but one of the many galaxies. All other galaxies are equally old, and much further away. So the light needed to travel even longer. Are the astronomers off the mark? And by chance you have an incredible advanced training in astronomy, so that you outknowledge all astronomers on astronomy? On top of knowing more about geology than all geologists?

Andromeda Galaxy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then you need to have a look at the so called Taung Child, a fossil skull of 2.8 million years old. Of course, one of the many. Are you suggesting that palaeontologists don’t know their job as good as you know it? And by how much would that age be wrong? And how would you know? Have you measured it?

Taung Child - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Since you’re looking-g around, have a look at the Greenland Ice Sheet, 18 million years old. According to glaciologists.

Greenland ice sheet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is easy to just say wrong. But you’ll have to tell what is wrong with these measurements. You’ll have to go into the deep technical details of how sampling was done – and what could have go wrong there – or how the used measurement methods are wrong, and show a deep technical knowledge of all these methods. You’ll have to demonstrate that you know more about glaciology than glaciologists, more about palaeontology than palaeontologists, more about astronomy than astronomers and more about geology than geologists. That you know all this stuff at the same time.

 

[driewerf]

Not according to scripture.

Why should we care about "scripture"? We have hard reliable empirical data.

 

[Astrid]

No one has provided evidence to refute the dates. Creationists attempt to dispute the dates via apologetics but that is not evidence.

A person would need to have
at least have heard of data, better
still understand it, and, it has to
be wrong, before they be can real good
at refuting it.
If deep time were wrong the evidence
would be everywhere.
Creationists who want to dispute
evolution and deep time are stuck
with "I am right because my opinion
is infallible".

 

[Astrid]

Why should we care about "scripture"? We have hard reliable empirical data.

Scripture says Pi=3
Match your so called "empirical
evidence" against THAT!