Carnivores and the Fall

[Jig]

I see. You equate miraculous events with God's action (thereby giving Him credit), and non-miraculous events as happening apart from God (thereby not giving Him credit). Sometimes God has a hand in things, sometimes he doesn't. How very deistic.

Just because a perfectly natural explanation for some phenomenon exists, doesn't mean it happens apart from God or that I don't give Him credit for it, Jig. I think you should watch the following videos:

Okay, so I watched the first video. Here is my comment:

It is true, and is partly my point, that scientific naturalism can only study ordinary providence and only consder physical aspects of our world. This is not only limited to the present but renders assumptions that are based on the idea that special providence in the unseen past never changed or re-configured our regular observed "natural" patterns. If a supernatural being truely sustains all things at their very root then what is fundimentally natural? If special providence exists then who can determine if the universe has always had uniform properties since its beginning? Aslo, why must God be limited to purely material means of supporting the universe?

My beef with scientific naturalism is that since it can only consider the physical and material universe, it is subjected to irrational conclusions (on the origin and development of the universe, etc.) based on the exclusion of the supernatural phenomena that are just as real and active as the "natural".

You can't play poker with only half the deck.

Tell me...is the idea that God created a fully mature universe and Earth "ready" for life to be sustained a theological problem for you or is it a scientific problem? If its a theological problem then why all the talk about science? If its a scientific problem for you, how could you scientifically prove my statement wrong?

 

[philadiddle]

My beef with scientific naturalism is that since it can only consider the physical and material universe, it is subjected to irrational conclusions (on the origin and development of the universe, etc.) based on the exclusion of the supernatural phenomena that are just as real and active as the "natural".

We must have a different definition of the word "irrational", or at least a different way of going about how to determine what is irrational.

Here's a simple example of a rational conclusion based on evidence, not assumption. If the body of a woman is found and the coroner wants to determine the time of death, there are certain things he looks for such as the settling of the blood, how stiff it is etc. His conclusion will be based on the evidence, not when he predetermined the death occurred, and in this case he determined she died between 8:30 and 9:15 the night before. In this example, there are even more things to look at. A neighbor heard the alarm at about 8:55. 911 received a call from inside the house from the lady at 8:56. There are signs of a struggle, and a broken analog clock is on the floor with the time reading 8:57. The lady's watch is also broken at the same time. The evidence in the room suggests she died there (blood splatter etc). I could go on but I think you get the point. My point is this, evidence leads to conclusions. Imagine if a detective decided that she died at 7:00 and kept coming up with ad hoc explanations for everything? It seems more rational to me to accept the evidence as it is. So jig, my questions for you are, is the conclusion that the lady died at 9:00 irrational because the supernatural hasn't been taken into consideration? Would it be more or less rational to believe she died at a different time because the crime scene and witnesses may have been influenced by lephrecauns, gnomes, poltergeists, or some other supernatural spirit? To avoid making irrational decisions based on naturalism, how open to the supernatural do we have to be?

It disappoints me that as God speaks through His creation people deny His works so that their own interpretation of His word can be believed. He must be a bit sad about that. The mountains of evidence for our origins is so overwhelming. And like the analogy above, you could try to explain it away based on a preconceived notion, like creationists do, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence, on it's own without any assumptions, suggests that the universe is 14.5ish billion years old, the earth is 4.5ish billion years old, and organisms evolved from a common ancestor.

Tell me...is the idea that God created a fully mature universe and Earth "ready" for life to be sustained a theological problem for you or is it a scientific problem? If its a theological problem then why all the talk about science? If its a scientific problem for you, how could you scientifically prove my statement wrong?

It is a theological problem that God made the earth fully formed because my theological understanding is that God can't lie, and if the earth is young then He lied through His works. If the earth is old however, there is no lie from God because it's only a fundamentalist interpretation that makes the earth 6000 years old, not the bible itself.

 

[Mallon]

If special providence exists then who can determine if the universe has always had uniform properties since its beginning? Aslo, why must God be limited to purely material means of supporting the universe?

Nobody here is saying God works only via natural means. That's a fabrication of your own making. What we are saying is that there is good evidence that God created the universe and everything in it largely by natural means. Certainly, he might have sparked a miracle to kick everything off (then again, maybe He didn't), but we have good evidence that things proceeded to unfold according to the predictable and natural laws God established and continues to sustain. And why should we expect anything different? The Lord alludes to this predictability in nature in Ecclesiastes 1.
(Note that even though I am not ascribing miraculous events to God here, I am giving Him credit for establishing and sustaining His natural laws.)

Tell me...is the idea that God created a fully mature universe and Earth "ready" for life to be sustained a theological problem for you or is it a scientific problem? If its a theological problem then why all the talk about science? If its a scientific problem for you, how could you scientifically prove my statement wrong?

Science says the earth looks old, and you appear to agree. So my issue isn't science, since we both agree that the world looks old. We both share the same interpretation of the evidence.
So I guess my problem is more of a theological/philosophical one. For one, I'm used to seeing YECs insist that if we read Genesis as something other than a literal, historical account, we make God out to be a liar. The idea that God might have accommodated a creation story to the first Hebrews in order to introduce Himself to us is poo-pooed. And yet here you are advocating that God accommodated us an old planet to sustain life. Where's the consistency in that? Moreover, where is the consistency in arguing that God miraculously poofed life into existence, but required an old planet on which to sustain life naturally? Why could He not continue to sustain life miraculously on a young planet?
And who says life can't be sustained on a young(er) planet, anyway? Our earth is 4.6 billion years old, and we've only showed up on the scene in the last couple million years. Yet we likely could have survived the conditions back in the Palaeozoic, some 400 million years ago. So why didn't God create the earth to look closer to 4 billion years?
Gordon Glover voices more of my concerns here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1QFLlzYbdI
To sum, I just don't think the Omphalos idea is necessary. It's just an ad hoc claim fabricated to prop up a dead framework.
Besides, the Omphalos idea still does nothing to explain the order in the fossil record or the hierarchical distribution of life. It's garbage theology.

 

[GenemZ]

My beef with scientific naturalism is that since it can only consider the physical and material universe, it is subjected to irrational conclusions (on the origin and development of the universe, etc.) based on the exclusion of the supernatural phenomena that are just as real and active as the "natural".

Its quite simple. To attack faith? Set your own rules that you refuse to budge from, and make the one opposing your theory confine all his counters to the rules you set.

They must do that. For they could never take the ascending position if minds were allowed to be open to all possibilities. Well intentioned stupid Christians abide by the rules, or won't call the secular evolutionist out on the game he plays in order to secure the upper hand.

We often times hear.. "Science does not consider Deity in what it evaluates." Science? Or, your brand of science? A Christian knows very well that science and God can not be separated. Its the atheistic thinking, pseudo Christian, who insists upon these rules. Or, he will make the Bible into a fairytale as a convenient means of not having to confront what he craves to avoid. Its a bully tactic that some learned to manipulate others with since childhood. Set your own rules. Those willing to abide by them are your dupes. Those not, are to be seen as unreasonable, or to have their words distorted to make them appear to be. The end justifies the means. The desired end? Destroy the efficacy of faith.

Ephesians 6:12
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in
high places."
​

These super evil angels have committees of think tanks that keep feeding the minds of those who have an affinity for an elitist way of thinking. These men enjoy feeling a part of an elite. Theses powers train men they have recruited to manipulate and distort with psychological shell games.

Not only that. To make their position secure? These powers recruit arrogant Christians to religiously grasp onto ideas using the Bible that serve to reinforce the notion that the Bible is fable and myth. These powers work one side against another.

Its the doctrinal believer who sees through it. But, he must be ignored for the system to work. They can not always ignore though. That is when the church experiences a true revival. A word of God revival.



In Christ, GeneZ

 

[Mallon]

Faith is believing in God's providence regardless of whether or not we can show it using science. geneZ. That's why it's called faith. Don't accuse "stupid" and "arrogant" Christians who practice good science of setting out to destroy faith by not explicitly including God in their hypotheses. Submitting God to scientific testing is the opposite of faith. It's is the belief that we can empirically exclude God from nature given enough evidence. That's not faith. I think you've got the shoe on the wrong foot.

 

[Jig]

Nobody here is saying God works only via natural means. That's a fabrication of your own making. What we are saying is that there is good evidence that God created the universe and everything in it largely by natural means. Certainly, he might have sparked a miracle to kick everything off (then again, maybe He didn't), but we have good evidence that things proceeded to unfold according to the predictable and natural laws God established and continues to sustain. And why should we expect anything different? The Lord alludes to this predictability in nature in Ecclesiastes 1.
(Note that even though I am not ascribing miraculous events to God here, I am giving Him credit for establishing and sustaining His natural laws.)

Science says the earth looks old, and you appear to agree. So my issue isn't science, since we both agree that the world looks old. We both share the same interpretation of the evidence.
So I guess my problem is more of a theological/philosophical one. For one, I'm used to seeing YECs insist that if we read Genesis as something other than a literal, historical account, we make God out to be a liar. The idea that God might have accommodated a creation story to the first Hebrews in order to introduce Himself to us is poo-pooed. And yet here you are advocating that God accommodated us an old planet to sustain life. Where's the consistency in that? Moreover, where is the consistency in arguing that God miraculously poofed life into existence, but required an old planet on which to sustain life naturally? Why could He not continue to sustain life miraculously on a young planet?
And who says life can't be sustained on a young(er) planet, anyway? Our earth is 4.6 billion years old, and we've only showed up on the scene in the last couple million years. Yet we likely could have survived the conditions back in the Palaeozoic, some 400 million years ago. So why didn't God create the earth to look closer to 4 billion years?
Gordon Glover voices more of my concerns here:

I do not argue for apparent age, I argue for maturity. I don't think the Earth looks old (because age is subjective), I am saying the Earth IS mature [fully developed for life]. The video's you post show a distinction between philosopical materialism and scientific naturalism, saying that scientific naturalism is only a methodology, which would be true if it was practiced as such and without the philosophy of constant uniformitiarianism.

Sure nature has a sense of great predictability, I'll admit that, but this current state can only be known to have been constant after observers were around to observe it, not before. Assuming any constant or uniform progression beyond what we can observe [such as in the deep supposed past] is no longer natrual science but philosophy. This is because scientific naturalism cannot take into account any supernatural activity that may have occured.

I used the example of the creation of Adam. Who would have had fingernails, hair, and skin. All of these properties could be falsely assumed to have undergone the same rates of growth based on currently observed growth rates of nails, hair, and skin. Yet, this proposition fails to include speacial providence, and as such fails all together in understanding Adam's true "age".

You also use the terms younger and older as if they relate to maturity, when they don't necessarily have any correlation. So to ask me, "Why couldn't life be supported on a younger planet?" Is not a valid question. If you would have asked, "Why couldn't life be supported on an immature planet?" You would have seen my point.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't think you've made a convincing case for saying that tooth morphology can't be used convincingly to argue for diet. With all due respect, juvie, you've only asserted yourself rather than supporting your case with evidence. Again, I guess I shouldn't expect otherwise. Evidence means nothing when conclusions are sought first.

In this nature of argument, I do not need any evidence to support my idea. I only need the existence of possibility. The burden of proof on the impossibility is on you. Try to convince me that teeth, any type of teeth, are not adequate enough to eat plants. It just occurred to me that bird has no tooth and yet is good enough to eat plants. Do you count that as an evidence?

 

[Mallon]

In this nature of argument, I do not need any evidence to support my idea. I only need the existence of possibility. The burden of proof on the impossibility is on you. Try to convince me that teeth, any type of teeth, are not adequate enough to eat plants. It just occurred to me that bird has no tooth and yet is good enough to eat plants. Do you count that as an evidence?

That's baloney, juvie. It's silly arguments like this that make me question whether you really are a professional teacher, as you claim.
The onus is on you because you are the one defying conventional wisdom. If you want to make the case that snakes can eat plants, you have to provide evidence to support your claim because we certainly don't see any herbivores today sporting the dentition of a snake.

 

[Mallon]

I do not argue for apparent age, I argue for maturity. I don't think the Earth looks old (because age is subjective), I am saying the Earth IS mature [fully developed for life]. The video's you post show a distinction between philosopical materialism and scientific naturalism, saying that scientific naturalism is only a methodology, which would be true if it was practiced as such and without the philosophy of constant uniformitiarianism.

Sure nature has a sense of great predictability, I'll admit that, but this current state can only be known to have been constant after observers were around to observe it, not before. Assuming any constant or uniform progression beyond what we can observe [such as in the deep supposed past] is no longer natrual science but philosophy. This is because scientific naturalism cannot take into account any supernatural activity that may have occured.

I used the example of the creation of Adam. Who would have had fingernails, hair, and skin. All of these properties could be falsely assumed to have undergone the same rates of growth based on currently observed growth rates of nails, hair, and skin. Yet, this proposition fails to include speacial providence, and as such fails all together in understanding Adam's true "age".

You also use the terms younger and older as if they relate to maturity, when they don't necessarily have any correlation. So to ask me, "Why couldn't life be supported on a younger planet?" Is not a valid question. If you would have asked, "Why couldn't life be supported on an immature planet?" You would have seen my point.

I think I understand. You're perfectly happy with making uniformitarian assumptions about present processes because they evidently work, but you're not willing to extend that working assumption into the past because it offends your religion and because you don't think we can ever empirically support this assumption.
Well, I don't know how to remedy the former (other than telling you to open your mind), but we can certainly test our uniformitarian assumptions to see whether they have any merit. If, as you insist, God was screwing with the fundamental constants of the universe way back when, we should find that no two independent tests extending into deep time agree. This isn't the case. For example, we can test the divergence times of particular animal lineages using two different methods: by radiometric dating the fossil record and by the molecular dating of DNA ("molecular clocks"). If these two rates (radiometric decay and DNA mutation) were so different in the past, they should not provide similar dates today. And yet they usually do. (Here's an example: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m44n172527030653/). This is exactly the type of result the uniformitarian assumption predicts. The type of erratic behaviour you attribute to the fundamental laws of nature in the past is not supported.

 

[philadiddle]

In this nature of argument, I do not need any evidence to support my idea. I only need the existence of possibility. The burden of proof on the impossibility is on you. Try to convince me that teeth, any type of teeth, are not adequate enough to eat plants. It just occurred to me that bird has no tooth and yet is good enough to eat plants. Do you count that as an evidence?

With your logic, the burden of proof lies on the people who do not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, or fairies. People who believe in such things are justified by repeating that they are possible, despite the lack of evidence. Of course, demanding that someone shows them to be impossible is absurd in the highest degree.

 

[juvenissun]

With your logic, the burden of proof lies on the people who do not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, or fairies. People who believe in such things are justified by repeating that they are possible, despite the lack of evidence. Of course, demanding that someone shows them to be impossible is absurd in the highest degree.

No. It takes more than just saying it. I did present arguments for the possibility and my arguments stand.

 

[juvenissun]

That's baloney, juvie. It's silly arguments like this that make me question whether you really are a professional teacher, as you claim.
The onus is on you because you are the one defying conventional wisdom. If you want to make the case that snakes can eat plants, you have to provide evidence to support your claim because we certainly don't see any herbivores today sporting the dentition of a snake.

Your logic ability did not improve in the past year. I guess it is not something which could be improved in a short period of time.

Your problem is that you are confused on the domain of argument. Your domain is a subset of my domain. You are talking about science, and I am talking about creation science.

 

[Mallon]

Your logic ability did not improve in the past year. I guess it is not something which could be improved in a short period of time.

Your problem is that you are confused on the domain of argument. Your domain is a subset of my domain. You are talking about science, and I am talking about creation science.

 

[philadiddle]

No. It takes more than just saying it. I did present arguments for the possibility and my arguments stand.

Since we cannot empirically rule out the supernatural, and because I believe that trolls are supernatural entities, bridges that collapse do not collapse due to the naturalistic causes that unbelievers often attribute to the collapse (unbelievers in trolls that is). This narrow minded view that trolls do not exist is a subset of troll science, it doesn't see the big picture. Even if the evidence indicates erosion, or poor design, there is still the tiniest possibility that trolls are the cause of the collapse of bridges. Therefore, I can ignore all of your evidence and the burden of proof is on you to show me how it is impossible for a troll to have collapsed a bridge.

Sound logical?

 

[Jig]

I think I understand. You're perfectly happy with making uniformitarian assumptions about present processes because they evidently work, but you're not willing to extend that working assumption into the past because it offends your religion and because you don't think we can ever empirically support this assumption.

Yes, some hypotheses influenced by uniformitarianism flow contrary to my theology. I have no problem stating this. I am fully aware of my bias, are you aware of yours?

This is the definition of "uniformitarianism" given by wikipedia:
Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, assumes that the natural processes that operated in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its...frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.

2 Peter 3:3-7
3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

You see, I believe in God's Word. I believe that "the Earth was formed out of water and by water." I believe that the "world of [time past] was deluged and destoyed." There is no indication or reason to believe that Genesis is anything but the literal truth. I based my bias on God's own eyewitness testimony.

The idea of billions of years allows men to embrace moral relativism, atheism, and philosophic materialism. The idea of 12,000 years or less doesn't allow such room.

If, as you insist, God was screwing with the fundamental constants of the universe way back when

I never asserted that God "screwed" with any constants. Again, I'll use the example of Adam. Take his hair, I believe it was created complete without it growing to its certain length. God never changed the rate of growth. Do you believe that when God said let there be light, light started as a infinitely small singularity and from there preceded to cover existence or could God have just had light be where ever He wished without having to be limited by the speed of light? We are talking about divine fiat here! God says and it just is!

we should find that no two independent tests extending into deep time agree.This isn't the case. For example, we can test the divergence times of particular animal lineages using two different methods: by radiometric dating the fossil record and by the molecular dating of DNA ("molecular clocks"). If these two rates (radiometric decay and DNA mutation) were so different in the past, they should not provide similar dates today. And yet they usually do. (Here's an example: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m44n172527030653/). This is exactly the type of result the uniformitarian assumption predicts. The type of erratic behaviour you attribute to the fundamental laws of nature in the past is not supported.

Is this not also an assumption? However, independent tests are off all the time. I've seen independent tests date rock and have age differences off by millions.Yet, these get pushed to the side. Radiometeric dating assumes that radioactive decay rates are unaffected by physical conditions like temperature and pressure. They also assume they are independent of the chemical environment. As for molecular clock dating, that method is only valid if evolution is assumed in the first place. Dating of an extinct creature for example would be based on where those extinct creatures can be found in the fossil record [circular], which is interpreted by evolutionists through uniformitarian assumptions. So I am not surprised by any of those findings.

 

[juvenissun]

Since we cannot empirically rule out the supernatural, and because I believe that trolls are supernatural entities, bridges that collapse do not collapse due to the naturalistic causes that unbelievers often attribute to the collapse (unbelievers in trolls that is). This narrow minded view that trolls do not exist is a subset of troll science, it doesn't see the big picture. Even if the evidence indicates erosion, or poor design, there is still the tiniest possibility that trolls are the cause of the collapse of bridges. Therefore, I can ignore all of your evidence and the burden of proof is on you to show me how it is impossible for a troll to have collapsed a bridge.

Sound logical?

Yes. But logic is only part of science. In addition to logic, you need content.
In order to be scientific, you need to give a model on how could trolls cause the collapse. In the issue of this thread, you need to show me that sharp teeth "can not" eat grass. And I don't think it is possible to demonstrate that.

 

[Mallon]

I have no problem stating this. I am fully aware of my bias, are you aware of yours?

Of course. Uniformitarianism is an assumption we have to make in order for science to work. If we didn't make that assumption, we could never come to any answer because everyone's fanciful ideas about how something happened would be equally valid. The point Gordon Glover makes in the video I posted earlier is that you make uniformitarian, naturalist assumptions every day of your life. If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to find your car keys or schedule a meeting.

You see, I believe in God's Word... There is no indication or reason to believe that Genesis is anything but the literal truth. I based my bias on God's own eyewitness testimony.

So did Luther:
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon…. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

So did Melanchthon:
"The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves.... Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it."

So did Calvin:
"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"

The idea of billions of years allows men to embrace moral relativism, atheism, and philosophic materialism.

I subscribe to the idea of deep time. Do you think I am morally relativistic or atheist? What do you think of the fact that the first people to propose an ancient age for the earth were Christian?

The idea of 12,000 years or less doesn't allow such room.

I never asserted that God "screwed" with any constants. I never asserted that God "screwed" with any constants. Again, I'll use the example of Adam. Take his hair, I believe it was created complete without it growing to its certain length. God never changed the rate of growth. Do you believe that when God said let there be light, light started as a infinitely small singularity and from there preceded to cover existence or could God have just had light be where ever He wished without having to be limited by the speed of light? We are talking about divine fiat here! God says and it just is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1QFLlzYbdI

Is this not also an assumption?

No, it is a prediction. A testable prediction. And that prediction has passed many tests more often that not. If it makes you feel better, you can poo-poo the 5% of the time that radiometric dating doesn't appear to work, but that doesn't change the fact that it works the other 95% of the time, that it agrees with dendrochronology, molecular clock dating, ice core dating, or varve chronology. You're more than free to feel that this is all just coincidence rather than testament to the reliability of God's creation. Believe what you like, but if we're not going debate on the merits of evidence that we can all agree on, then there's really little point in continuing this discussion since we have no common ground. You accuse others of subscribing to relativism, but the shoe is apparently on the other foot!

 

[philadiddle]

Yes. But logic is only part of science. In addition to logic, you need content.
In order to be scientific, you need to give a model on how could trolls cause the collapse. In the issue of this thread, you need to show me that sharp teeth "can not" eat grass. And I don't think it is possible to demonstrate that.

I need to give a model? Since when have creationists ever attempted to do that. Try to find a creationist source that identifies the original species created, or the species that came off the ark. You won't find it because once creationist start stating something testable, their views may be proven wrong. There's also no model that works for a worldwide flood that can explain everything we see. Once we invoke strong currents and turbulation to form some structures, we've eliminated the possibly, under that model, of things like chalk cliffs being formed. Earlier you said you just had to show it was possible, now you are saying that you need a working model. Showing that one thing is possible is, in my opinion, very different then providing a working model that explains all the evidence, which is something that creation scientists have never been able to do. The old earth model explains the data better, as is the consensus of the academic world, the burden is on you to show otherwise.

 

[Jig]

Of course. Uniformitarianism is an assumption we have to make in order for science to work. If we didn't make that assumption, we could never come to any answer because everyone's fanciful ideas about how something happened would be equally valid. The point Gordon Glover makes in the video I posted earlier is that you make uniformitarian, naturalist assumptions every day of your life. If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to find your car keys or schedule a meeting.

I never said that uniformitarianism is always a bad philosophy. Just as catastrophism isn't always a good philosophy. Both help us in our scientific understanding and predictions. The issue isn't uniformitarianism, the issue is when it is applied. In any of our current predictions it is proper to apply such assumptions, since that is what we observe in present-time nature. However, I feel it is improper to suggest that uniform progression has always occured when we believe that a supernatural being acted sometime in the past. The only possible way for us to determine how He created and formed the universe would be to have an eyewitness account, since scientific naturalsim influenced by uniformitarianism cannot adequently, due to its limitations within nature, explain this supernatural activity.

I subscribe to the idea of deep time. Do you think I am morally relativistic or atheist? What do you think of the fact that the first people to propose an ancient age for the earth were Christian?

I never called you a moral relativist or an atheist. I did say that the idea of billions of years allows room to believe moral relativism, atheism, and philosophical materialism. While as a timeline of 12,000 years or less cannot offer such sanctuary.

No, it is a prediction. A testable prediction. And that prediction has passed many tests more often that not. If it makes you feel better, you can poo-poo the 5% of the time that radiometric dating doesn't appear to work, but that doesn't change the fact that it works the other 95% of the time, that it agrees with dendrochronology, molecular clock dating, ice core dating, or varve chronology. You're more than free to feel that this is all just coincidence rather than testament to the reliability of God's creation. Believe what you like, but if we're not going debate on the merits of evidence that we can all agree on, then there's really little point in continuing this discussion since we have no common ground. You accuse others of subscribing to relativism, but the shoe is apparently on the other foot!

I don't feel it is mere coincidence. My point, which I think you missed, was that all are based on the same underlying assumptions to form such predictions. Thus, why wouldn't they have simular findings and conclusions?

Ice core dating only yields such dates if we assume ALL the layers were laid down constantly throughout the supposed deep past. I am sure that most layers were laid down by uniform progression after the flood, but it is impossible to know that about all of them. Molecular clock dating assumes that macro-evolutionary progession occured in the deep supposed past.

 

[Mallon]

I did say that the idea of billions of years allows room to believe moral relativism, atheism, and philosophical materialism. While as a timeline of 12,000 years or less cannot offer such sanctuary.

If that were true, there would have been no atheists in the world before an old age was posited for our planet. And Kent Hovind would have paid his taxes. And the highest rates of divorce wouldn't occur in the Bible Belt. There's no truth to your assertion. YECs are just as prone to amorality as any other Christians.

I don't feel it is mere coincidence. My point, which I think you missed, was that all are based on the same underlying assumptions to form such predictions. Thus, why wouldn't they have simular findings and conclusions?

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you get when I'm saying. I'll try again:
A variety of independent methods applied to a single question could still operate under the same assumptions and not come to the same conclusion. This would speak to a failure of the methods and/or assumptions built into them. But the fact that radiometric dating, dendrochronology, ice core dating, and molecular clocks so often agree is testament to the fact BOTH the methods and built-in assumptions hold true even into the deep past! If any one of the assumptions or methods were flawed, the methods would never agree more often than would be expected by chance.
Now, if you're just going to say that God simply created these rates so that they would all agree independently on the age of bothe earth and life -- that the world and the life in it are young, but only seem old -- can you really blame people for thinking that these things actually are old?