In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[StanJ]

You are the one assuming, no me. It is measurable.

What do you accept for the age of the earth?

That's my whole point you believe that science is telling you the truth. I believe the Bible is telling me the truth. Who are Christians supposed to believe?

Well based on what we can glean from the Bible I'd say that it shows that the age of the Earth to be approximately 10,000 years old.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well that may be what the physical scientists say but that doesn't mean it's indeed practiced.

That doesn't mean it isn't practiced, either. Just because you wave about the word "assumption" doesn't make it true.

Not quite the same thing.

Why not?

But the question I asked was if somebody tested the man Adam that God made from the soil what would he test as one day or 20 years old.

Would God create fake evidence in Adam's body for past events? If you are suggesting that God creates all of this fake historical evidence, then the question is why you would believe in such a deity.

For example, would God create fake laminations in his teeth that past growth would produce? Or would it be solid enamel with no laminations from past growth?

Would Adam have scars from when he was a kid? Bone calcifications from broken bones when he was a kid?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's my whole point you believe that science is telling you the truth. I believe the Bible is telling me the truth. Who are Christians supposed to believe?

Seems like a rather risky and unnecessary move, to pit your beliefs against the facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seems like a rather risky and unnecessary move, to pit your beliefs against the facts.

I wonder what would happen if I moseyed over to thescienceforum.com and told them Jesus walked on water?

 

[Loudmouth]

I wonder what would happen if I moseyed over to thescienceforum.com and told them Jesus walked on water?

I wonder what you would do when they asked for evidence that such a thing occurred?

 

[RickG]

Well that may be what the physical scientists say but that doesn't mean it's indeed practiced. Are you trying to Advocate that all physical scientists are ethical and aboveboard?

There are outliners in all disciplines of learning, including theology. However yes, it is indeed practiced and that is not just my opinion, I happen to be one of those physical scientists you appear to be questioning the integrity of.

Yes that's what scientific assumptions are supposed to be so have they been in this regard? In case you haven't figured it out yet I know exactly what I'm talking about the question is do you know what the so-called science is talking about and how they arrived at all these conclusions based on assumptions?

M.S. in Physical Earth Science (Univ. of Memphis, 1977) and almost 30 years experience as a research chemist. And you?

 

[StanJ]

Science tells us no such thing. Science says that theories and observations are different things. Theories are not observations. As Gould put it:
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Theory and Fact"

Well main science does, but isn't that awfully convenient that your own preferred science has a different set of rules based on how it operates outside of all other scientific endeavor?

The same way you observe any other rock.

Really? You have four and a half billion years old scientist that observed these rocks

They are theories in ever sense. The prosecution presents their theory, and the observations that support it. It is a perfect analogy.

No, they are hypothesis and deduction based on evidence. The legal system is laws they aren't theories. We don't prosecute and charge people based on theories. Again you're comparing apples to oranges

What difference does it make? The unobserved past is the unobserved past. If we can use evidence in the present to reconstruct what happened at a crime scene in the past, why can't we do the same for geology?

That's the whole point if you can't observe it you can't confirm it and you can't falsify it. How is that so hard to understand given all the mental gymnastics you're doing now it should be a piece of cake.

It is apples to apples. You just don't like it because it refutes your argument.

Funny I didn't know denial is a scientific principle?

We can DIRECTLY observe isotopes decaying in the past when we look at distant objects. We can see that those decay rates were the same in the past. We can see that all of the physical constants that define decay rates were the same in the past.

Well now I'm not really sure what kind of Decay rate you're talking about? You can see Decay rates through a telescope? Are those the same Decay rates that are used to tell us how old our rocks are on Earth? How exactly do you see in the past if you weren't there to observe the origin?

No, I am talking about naturally occurring nuclear reactors.

Yes and you said Okla.

I did articulate my own view point, and talk origins isn't biased.

Trust me it's more than bias than a lot more than a little condescending. It also uses a lot of assumptions that it calls factual science.

I'm sorry, but you can't just hand wave all of this away.

Is that what I'm doing?

When you look at distant stars, that's exactly what you are doing.

No you're looking at the light that became viewable about 10000 years ago. There is no proof that it started before we actually saw it based on what Genesis 1 tells us.

 

[StanJ]

I wonder what you would do when they asked for evidence that such a thing occurred?

You obviously missed the point or ignored it. If they asked me for evidence, I'd show them where it's written in the Bible.

 

[RickG]

You misunderstand, I said how did they observe? Nobody was there.

Radiometrically dating the rocks via the physics and chemistry provided for us by God.

 

[StanJ]

There are outliners in all disciplines of learning, including theology. However yes, it is indeed practiced and that is not just my opinion, I happen to be one of those physical scientists you appear to be questioning the integrity of.

That would be against the rules here besides I don't even know you. Trust me I've seen enough evidence about the bias and how it is used to purge any kind of religious belief out of the system. Modern Academia is full of it and it has been proven. But that's not the issue of this thread.

M.S. in Physical Earth Science (Univ. of Memphis, 1977) and almost 30 years experience as a research chemist. And you?

45 years as a born-again baptized in the holy spirit Bible believing Christian. 40 Years of that has been studying the Bible and believing everything it says and seeing It proven in my life and the lives of all those around me. Some don't view the Bible the same way as I do. I take 2nd Timothy 3:16 very seriously... Do you?

 

[RickG]

That's my whole point you believe that science is telling you the truth. I believe the Bible is telling me the truth. Who are Christians supposed to believe?

The bible says nothing about the age of the earth.

Well based on what we can glean from the Bible I'd say that it shows that the age of the Earth to be approximately 10,000 years old.

The physical evidence left by God's creation describes a different age. Are you suggesting God to be a deceiver?

 

[StanJ]

Radiometrically dating the rocks via the physics and chemistry provided for us by God.

That's not personal observation

 

[StanJ]

The bible says nothing about the age of the earth.

And that's exactly what someone who doesn't know the Bible would say.

The physical evidence left by God's creation describes a different age. Are you suggesting God to be a deceiver?

The physical evidence that man is still theorizing about. I'm not suggesting anything I'm saying that God is so vastly beyond us and is able to create what he did how could we possibly ever hope to understand even one iota of what he did? I trust what I read in his word. That's how Christians operate, in faith, with everything else coming in second.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well main science does,

No, it doesn't. Theories and observations are two different things. You don't observe a theory.

but isn't that awfully convenient that your own preferred science has a different set of rules based on how it operates outside of all other scientific endeavor?

They are the same rules.

Really? You have four and a half billion years old scientist that observed these rocks

Why would a scientist have to be that old to observe a rock? A 1 year old can observe a rock. Haven't you ever looked at a rock?

No, they are hypothesis and deduction based on evidence.

That's exactly what the age of the Earth is. It is a proven hypothesis based on evidence.

The legal system is laws they aren't theories. We don't prosecute and charge people based on theories. Again you're comparing apples to oranges

Apples to apples, chief. They use evidence found in the present to reconstruct what happened in the past.

What next? God plants DNA at crime scenes? How is that any less ludicrous than what you are proposing for geology?

That's the whole point if you can't observe it you can't confirm it and you can't falsify it.

We can observe the predicted ratios of isotopes in rocks which confirms the accuracy of radiometric dating methodologies. We can observe the predicted decay rates in distant supernovae, which confirms the constancy of decay rates through time. We can observe the constancy of physical constants for billions of years into history by looking at distant stars.

It is all confirmed.

Funny I didn't know denial is a scientific principle?

Denial is all you have. You try to pretend that God invented fake evidence.

Well now I'm not really sure what kind of Decay rate you're talking about? You can see Decay rates through a telescope?

Yes. You can measure the quantity of a specific element by its spectra, and measure how fast that element disappears by the reduction in light intensity for that spectra. You can directly observe decay rates in distant supernova.

You want to pretend that God faked all of this evidence. If the evidence weren't consistent with a past with the same constants we have now, why would you have to make such a claim?

Yes and you said Okla.

"There are also naturally occurring nuclear reactors, like those in Oklo."--post 386

Again, Oklo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

Trust me it's more than bias than a lot more than a little condescending. It also uses a lot of assumptions that it calls factual science.

Again, waving the word "assumption" around does not make it so. You are attacking the person making the argument instead of actually dealing with the argument. Show how these things are assumed, or admit that they aren't.

No you're looking at the light that became viewable about 10000 years ago. There is no proof that it started before we actually saw it based on what Genesis 1 tells us.

Based on what evidence?

 

[RickG]

That would be against the rules here besides I don't even know you.

That is why I mentioned it. I am/was (retired) a part of the group that you seem to consider to be incompetent and dishonest. I take it personally.

45 years as a born-again baptized in the holy spirit Bible believing Christian.

That's fine, God bless you. I have 68 years. But nevertheless, my question was, and I'll be more specific, what is your experience in the field of Earth Sciences, to make such uninformed claims concerning radiometric dating.

 

[RickG]

That's not personal observation

Why do you criticize things that you apparently have absolutely no knowledge about?

 

[RickG]

The physical evidence that man is still theorizing about. I'm not suggesting anything I'm saying that God is so vastly beyond us and is able to create what he did how could we possibly ever hope to understand even one iota of what he did? I trust what I read in his word. That's how Christians operate, in faith, with everything else coming in second.

So you are suggesting that God is deliberately misleading us about the age of the earth?

 

[StanJ]

No, it doesn't. Theories and observations are two different things. You don't observe a theory.

Really then how are theories ever formed if they're never observed? Do you think that Darwin did all these observations after he formed his theory?

They are the same rules.

Not even close.

Why would a scientist have to be that old to observe a rock? A 1 year old can observe a rock. Haven't you ever looked at a rock?

Are you being deliberately obtuse now or is my English not clear enough for you? If scientists is going to make a decision on a four and a half billion year old rock somebody has to be there to observe that rock at its beginning or have faith that the science they've been told about is accurate and true which wouldn't make them a whole lot different than a Christian who has faith in the Bible. I still stick with the Bible.

That's exactly what the age of the Earth is. It is a proven hypothesis based on evidence.

Wow! Where did you get that degree in equivocation? The Earth isn't a hypothesis and the age hasn't been directly observed nor has there been any evidence that has been directly observed or falsifiable

Apples to apples, chief. They use evidence found in the present to reconstruct what happened in the past.

Denial doesn't prove fact and whatever is used in the present is not observation of the past. A lot of reconstruction is bad reconstruction.

What next? God plants DNA at crime scenes? How is that any less ludicrous than what you are proposing for geology?

You only consider it ludicrous because you don't fully understand or are willing to admit that you don't understand. I find it rather presumptuous of any human being would presume to be anywhere close to understanding how God created the universe and all the principles and laws that went into doing so. Bottom line for me is that if God says one thing and science says another, then science is simply wrong.

We can observe the predicted ratios of isotopes in rocks which confirms the accuracy of radiometric dating methodologies. We can observe the predicted decay rates in distant supernovae, which confirms the constancy of decay rates through time. We can observe the constancy of physical constants for billions of years into history by looking at distant stars.

I understand that you can only observe what you can observe and confirm those observations and that is my whole point. You can't observe what you can't observe and obviously nobody can observe four and a half billion years ago nor can anybody observe the day of creation. I have no idea how you can make this last statement when mankind hasn't been around for billions of years ? Regardless of what modern-day science tells us, which by the way is not what the science of a hundred years ago told us, I can only go by what the word of God tells us.

Denial is all you have. You try to pretend that God invented fake evidence.

Not quite, I call it rationale and it's not me that is pretending that God invented fake evidence it is you asserting that he did. My point of view is that you or others don't understand what it actually takes to create a world in a universe and that doesn't mean that God would fake any evidence at all it just means that based on whatever laws he used in creation we don't know. So assuming based on current information that man has it all figured out and that his tools and or theories are accurate and 100% infallible can only be considered assumption.

Yes. You can measure the quantity of a specific element by its spectra, and measure how fast that element disappears by the reduction in light intensity for that spectra. You can directly observe decay rates in distant supernova.

How exactly do you observe the decay rate that you think started four and a half billion years ago if that start point is not accurate or if the rate is not consistent across the spectrum. What if the universe is a cylinder or a funnel in the shape of a circle or one of a number of hypotheses that some scientists have asserted?

You want to pretend that God faked all of this evidence. If the evidence weren't consistent with a past with the same constants we have now, why would you have to make such a claim?

Again that's your assertion, I'm not claiming that God fixed anything. I'm claiming the accuracy and infallibility of Genesis 1.

Again, waving the word "assumption" around does not make it so. You are attacking the person making the argument instead of actually dealing with the argument. Show how these things are assumed, or admit that they aren't.

Neither does equating theory with fact. Sorry who were they attacking? From what I understand they are assumed so you show me how they're not assumed. You show me the facts because so far you're showing me nothing but assumptions based on non-observations that you insist are observations but that's a normal everyday person would not even consider to be observations. Is there also a special language in your preferred area of science that is not normal everyday English vernacular?

 

[StanJ]

Why do you criticize things that you apparently have absolutely no knowledge about?

Why do you try to pawn off scientific methods or tools as personal observation?

 

[Loudmouth]

Really then how are theories ever formed if they're never observed?

You can form an explanation without observing an explanation. For example, Rutherford famously theorized that the center of an atom was made up of a small positively charged molecule. To test that theory, he shot an particle beam at some gold foil and observed readings consistent with particles bouncing off of each other. He never directly observed a particle striking an atomic nuclei. What he did have were observations that were consistent with his theory.

Theories are models that try to describe why we see the observations we do see. Theories are never the observations themselves. Theories are the explanation for what we can't directly observe.

Do you think that Darwin did all these observations after he formed his theory?

The observations he made did help him form the theory, but that doesn't make the theory an observation.

Not even close.

Again with the hand waves.

Are you being deliberately obtuse now or is my English not clear enough for you? If scientists is going to make a decision on a four and a half billion year old rock somebody has to be there to observe that rock at its beginning or have faith that the science they've been told about is accurate and true which wouldn't make them a whole lot different than a Christian who has faith in the Bible. I still stick with the Bible.

Do we have to have faith that a suspect committed a crime when we have his DNA, fingerprints, shoe prints, fibers, and tire prints right at the scene of the crime?

We don't need faith. We have evidence. We can test all of the aspects of radiometric dating to see if they are accurate.

Wow! Where did you get that degree in equivocation? The Earth isn't a hypothesis and the age hasn't been directly observed nor has there been any evidence that has been directly observed or falsifiable

The age of the Earth is the hypothesis, and it has been tested. Also, you don't directly observe a hypothesis or a theory.

Denial doesn't prove fact and whatever is used in the present is not observation of the past.

You say that denial doesn't prove anything, and then you flat deny that what is in the present came from the past. I think you need a dose of your own medicine.

Are you seriously denying that what we have in the present is a direct result of what happened in the past?

A lot of reconstruction is bad reconstruction.

And again with the denial.

You only consider it ludicrous because you don't fully understand or are willing to admit that you don't understand. I find it rather presumptuous of any human being would presume to be anywhere close to understanding how God created the universe and all the principles and laws that went into doing so. Bottom line for me is that if God says one thing and science says another, then science is simply wrong.

And yet here you are trying to tell everyone exactly how God created, and in a way that requires God to fake all of the evidence. Presumptuous much?