6000 years?

[dad]

In this thread, the onus is on you to provide evidence

Nonsense. Science doesn't accept God as evidence. I just asked someone to provide a focused example of evidence that the world is more than the 6000 years old, rather than being so general. Pick a fossil, or rock or something.

 

[Krysia]

[/font]
Nonsense. Science doesn't accept God as evidence. I just asked someone to provide a focused example of evidence that the world is more than the 6000 years old, rather than being so general. Pick a fossil, or rock or something.

Besides all the amber fossils I saw at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History (this past Saturday) that have been dated to be millions of years old (ex. butterfly in amber, dated 30,000,000 years old)?

 

[dad]

Evolution has nothing to do with dating different earth strata

I don't think so, I've had many admit that in many cases rocks are dated by the fossils in them, The fossils are presumed to be old according to evolution. You cannot dissagree with this. But I agree in the broad sense, Evolution does have nothing whatsoever to do eith anything!

 

[llDayo]

[/font]
Nonsense. Science doesn't accept God as evidence. I just asked someone to provide a focused example of evidence that the world is more than the 6000 years old, rather than being so general. Pick a fossil, or rock or something.

If there were evidence of God, science would accept it. A book isn't evidnce, it's just that, a book. You want to read about evidence ofr an old earth? Start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html Click on the first link in that list.

 

[dad]

that have been dated to be millions of years old (ex. butterfly in amber, dated 30,000,000 years old)?

Do you know how they were dated? Or do you care?

 

[Krysia]

I don't think so, I've had many admit that in many cases rocks are dated by the fossils in them, The fossils are presumed to be old according to evolution. You cannot dissagree with this. But I agree in the broad sense, Evolution does have nothing whatsoever to do eith anything!

Are you even READING the extremely informative post I put up for you, relating to an article from Dr. Roger Wiens (Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory), regarding Radiometic Dating From A Christian Perspective?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Nonsense.

No, it's not nonsense, it's the whole point of the thread.

Science doesn't accept God as evidence.

Rather, science doesn't accept the existence OR nonexistence of a god because there is neither positive nor falsifying evidence.

But this is irrelevant. If the earth is actually 6000 years old, that's what the evidence should indicate. The onus is on you to provide that evidence. That's the whole point of the thread.

I just asked someone to provide a focused example of evidence that the world is more than the 6000 years old, rather than being so general. Pick a fossil, or rock or something.

If you are interested in things that prove YECism wrong, then peruse the archive thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t1161676-the-ce-thread-archive.html

Furthermore, evidence was presented that radiometric dates agree despite being different methods involving different modes of decay and different rates of decay, so there's no sense in pretending like evidence has not been presented: http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

The point is that has already been done on the forum, and it's not the purpose of the thread. Re-read the OP and address it directly rather than trying to twist the discussion around.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

[/font][/color][/size]
Do you know how they were dated? Or do you care?

I don't think he is truly interested in anything but arguing, least of all learning something.

 

[llDayo]

I don't think so, I've had many admit that in many cases rocks are dated by the fossils in them,

No, AFAIK the fossils are dated by the rock strata they are found in.

The fossils are presumed to be old according to evolution.

Evolution has nothing to do with dating.

You cannot dissagree with this. But I agree in the broad sense, Evolution does have nothing whatsoever to do eith anything!

Except biological/medical sciences. Please, never get a vaccine, we wouldn't want you to have to use evolution.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I don't think so,

Then what you think is wrong.

I've had many admit that in many cases rocks are dated by the fossils in them,

False. Rocks are not dated by fossils. The only place where this is remotely true is by using index fossils, but the age of index fossils is determined by radiometric dating. Index fossils simply provide a quick reference, but they do not actually date the rocks.

The fossils are presumed to be old according to evolution. You cannot dissagree with this.

I can disagree with this and scientists disagree with this as well. Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the eath. Fossils are not presumed to be old, first of all. They are concluded to be old based upon geological evidence. Second, this has nothing to do with evolution because evolutionary biology does not dictate whether something is old or not.

Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

But I agree in the broad sense, Evolution does have nothing whatsoever to do eith anything!

Stop emotional posturing if you want to be taken seriously.

Start getting back on topic if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[JohnR7]

Please, never get a vaccine, we wouldn't want you to have to use evolution.

Your only fooling yourself. EVolution has nothing to do with vaccines.

 

[dad]

If there were evidence of God, science would accept it

There have been hundreds of millions of witnesses to God, and the supernatural though all time, even today. There are fulfilled prophesies, healings, esp, angels, and spirits seen, etc. Science cannot detect God, ot the spirit world. They are unseen. It chooses to ignore the evidence, When it come to the unseen in the cosmos, they choose to acknowlede it, mainly by it's effects on physical stars and stuff. Spirits have an effect as well, that can be detected, and should be admitted as evidence fot the Unseen as well. So, science won't accept evidence out of it's severely limited range of perception.

I think true science does include God. That is why, looking at a broader range of evidence than the poor spirit challenged scientists, true scientists can determine where the so called science went wrong in dating assumptions.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

There have been hundreds of millions of witnesses to God, and the supernatural though all time, even today. There are fulfilled prophesies, healings, esp, angels, and spirits seen, etc. Science cannot detect God, ot the spirit world. They are unseen. It chooses to ignore the evidence, When it come to the unseen in the cosmos, they choose to acknowlede it, mainly by it's effects on physical stars and stuff. Spirits have an effect as well, that can be detected, and should be admitted as evidence fot the Unseen as well. So, science won't accept evidence out of it's severely limited range of perception.

I think true science does include God. That is why, looking at a broader range of evidence than the poor spirit challenged scientists, true scientists can determine where the so called science went wrong in dating assumptions.

What you speak of is under the realm of metaphysics. This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and radiometric dating. Please, look at the previous links provided, and try to understand.

 

[Krysia]

Wait a minute...are we on Candid Forum? Is "dad" the host? Did my mom put you up to this? That sneaky so-and-so!! You had me going there for a minute I honestly couldn't believe how someone of the human species, even with limited mental capacities, could be as ignorant as "dad," of should I call you "Wink?"

 

[llDayo]

Your only fooling yourself. EVolution has nothing to do with vaccines.

Medical pathologists study how vaccines would affect a particular pathogen's evolution so they can figure out how to alter it to fight the newer pathogen. Antibiotics are done the same way.

 

[dad]

For a Christian perspective, please read the following (why do I think you won't?

I glanced at you common misunderstandings list.
Here is something from the link. "The only two quantities in the exponent of a decay rate equation are the half-life and the time. So for ages to appear longer than actual, all the half-lives would have to be changing in sync with each other. "
So, he admits to two components. When Adam ate the fruit, and started to die, I would think he began a decay rate. He started to decay, and eventually, to die. Before he did this, (is someone wants to wax theological, we could use our heavenly decay rates instead) -there were more than the 2 factors at work. What happened? Did man's whole physical universe also start to decay, or some spiritual element removed, or something, so that we were left quickly with what now would look old? If the decay rates were different (Adam would not have died, I believe, and many others) and they were made different fairly suddenly, we could not just look at them, and assume it took long periods of time to decay like that! Now, yes, we know the rate of decay, at present conditions, we could say, 'it would have taken so long' to get like this.

So decayed things, to me do not in the least denote great age, in any measurement you want to use!
So, because this poor guy was christian, does not mean that your link is 'the' christian' viewpoint. If you want that, you need to go to the bible.
If we assumed present decay rates, also, as absolute, then the future rates would need also to be assume the same as the past assumed rates!
So, in effect, believing only in present measurements of decay rates is merely a choice to believe God will not and did not change them! I fully expect my decay rates to change so much, I will live forever!
Why would I want to take only 'so called' God absent 'science', and their limited detection and assumptive abilities, and choose their death rates?

 

[dad]

What you speak of is under the realm of metaphysics. This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and radiometric dating. Please, look at the previous links provided, and try to understand.

Well I contend early big bang theory is also. I think the random appearance and growth of all life is also metapyhsical. If we were created, then thats pretty exra ordinary as well. In the case of the bible God, we have record of rapid changes in rates!
Please try to understand.

 

[dad]

If anyone else wants me to explain what it is I will but I think Dad is the only one who doesn't understand.

Try and explain your best decay point in a nutshell, and we'll see where the misunderstanding lies.

 

[dad]

Oh, it's the post originator. OK, I'll leave your thread, bye

 

[Krysia]

awww...I feel kinda bad