Old Earth Geology Part 1 and Part 2

[dad]

This blog post nicely explains it: Can Young-Earth Creationists Find Oil?

Seriously? Such old strawman arguments, and not well thought out. They say the age is what is important, too bad they do not know the ages! So what we have is that a lot of fossils were deposited a long time ago, when we do not know, and in what nature (which determines how they decayed, etc) we do not know. Instead, they look at ratios of isotopes in various layers and assume that means great age, and also, therefore that BY that great age is how so much deposit happened! Hilarious when we realize the basis for it all.

It's not about replacing beliefs; it's about replacing applications (e.g. stuff that works).

Look for layers with the ratios that correspond and boom, we find oil. Tring to claim the ratios represent great ages is another matter altogether! Their dream dates have NOTHING to do with finding gas or oil. (Nor do their imaginary ages have anything to do with how the deposits actually accumulated)
Ho Hum.

That creationists still haven't figured this is out is partially why creationism is such a failure. Creationists still have this huge blind spot when it comes to the real world.

Better get a mirror for that one! Ha

 

[pitabread]

Instead, they look at ratios of isotopes in various layers and assume that means great age

Because we know how radioactive decay works.

Better get a mirror for that one! Ha

When creationism yields practical applications besides merchandising and tourism then we'll talk.

 

[dad]

Because we know how radioactive decay works.

Yes we do, and if we know that there was also this nature along with how things work here in the distant past, you might have a point.

When creationism yields practical applications besides merchandising and tourism then we'll talk.

Believers have great fruit in their lives actually. If they see something that needs to be shown up as dangerous and false, they have every right to conduct tours, to help people avoid it!

 

[pitabread]

Yes we do, and if we know that there was also this nature along with how things work here in the distant past, you might have a point.

It's a common creationist argument that radioactivity was faster in the past, which is the YEC claim to try to reconcile radioactive isotopes observed on Earth with the amount of decay required. But there is also a consequence of such increased radiation, namely energy release in the form of heat. Creationists haven't been able to reconcile that issue.

Now, you can avoid all of that with -insert miracle here- but this is precisely where creationism ceases to have any relevant meaning.

Believers have great fruit in their lives actually. If they see something that needs to be shown up as dangerous and false, they have every right to conduct tours, to help people avoid it!

None of this has anything to do with real world applications of real science.

All this does is reinforce that creationism is about little more than reality denial.

 

[dad]

It's a common creationist argument that radioactivity was faster in the past,

That could well be the case, however since it is not my claim, who really cares? What I have asked is whether we know any radioactive decay existed in the former times. Not whether it was slower or faster.

which is the YEC claim to try to reconcile radioactive isotopes observed on Earth with the amount of decay required.

Not my problem, talk to them.

But there is also a consequence of such increased radiation, namely energy release in the form of heat. Creationists haven't been able to reconcile that issue.

Right, however in my scenario, nature would be different, so no such thing would exist or be a problem at all.

Now, you can avoid all of that with -insert miracle here- but this is precisely where creationism ceases to have any relevant meaning.

Since none of all that affects or concerns me, and I also have no issue with miracles, not sure why you are flogging a strawman dead horse here?

None of this has anything to do with real world applications of real science.

I agree, you just made it up and posted it. Nothing to do with my position.

All this does is reinforce that creationism is about little more than reality denial.

What it does is show you are truly very much out of touch. Try debating actual issues here, rather than tossing out other people's weak arguments, that try to make your own beliefs seem stronger.

 

[Ophiolite]

What it does is show you are truly very much out of touch. Try debating actual issues here, rather than tossing out other people's weak arguments, that try to make your own beliefs seem stronger.

The only issue I see from you is a string of inconsequential, irrelevant nonsense. You have no argument, merely a litany that can be paraphrased as "I believe what I believe. You are wrong. I am right. Science is an act of deluded faith."
Your objections are ludicrous, your logic non-existent, your rhetoric juvenile and your meaningful content zero. The children's sand pit is at the other end of the forum. You might be happier there.

 

[dad]

The only issue I see from you is a string of inconsequential, irrelevant nonsense.

The issue I see from you is not knowing what is relevant.

You have no argument, merely a litany that can be paraphrased as "I believe what I believe. You are wrong. I am right. Science is an act of deluded faith."

You can believe what you like. If you make a science claim that will need to be supported. The issue is not what belief you declare deluded or not. The issue is what is belief or not.

Your objections are ludicrous, your logic non-existent, your rhetoric juvenile and your meaningful content zero. The children's sand pit is at the other end of the forum. You might be happier there.

Sorry, not interested in responding to schoolyard whining.

 

[Ophiolite]

You can believe what you like.

Belief is a vastly overrated personal delusion. I generally avoid it. I was paraphrasing, for your benefit, how your expressed beliefs come across to the critical observer.

If you make a science claim that will need to be supported.

Which I do: either accompanying the claim if it is non-mainstream, or upon request if it is something that is generally understood and accepted. I had ceased responding to you for some time since you typically ignore or reject (without providing evidence) any support that is offered. I guess you favour the goose-gander dichotomy.

The issue is not what belief you declare deluded or not. The issue is what is belief or not.

That doesn't parse. Perhaps that reflects your confused thinking. This is a thread on geology. Belief is irrelevant here. What counts are evidence and established theory, both of which have been presented succinctly by Komatiite and others, then dismissed by you just because you don't believe.

 

[pitabread]

Right, however in my scenario, nature would be different, so no such thing would exist or be a problem at all.

Which, for all intents and purposes, is no different than -insert miracle here-.

What it does is show you are truly very much out of touch.

You've effectively confirmed that creationism *is* about reality denial. So I'm not sure what you think I'm out of touch with here.

Do you think you have something to demonstrate this to the contrary?

 

[dad]

Belief is a vastly overrated personal delusion. I generally avoid it. I was paraphrasing, for your benefit, how your expressed beliefs come across to the critical observer.

I am a critical observer, and your beliefs are your own, regardless of how you think the world looks to you.

Which I do: either accompanying the claim if it is non-mainstream, or upon request if it is something that is generally understood and accepted.

Not interested in what you want to declare 'non-mainstream'!

I had ceased responding to you for some time since you typically ignore or reject (without providing evidence) any support that is offered. I guess you favour the goose-gander dichotomy.

No, I prefer speaking plainly and making a case.

That doesn't parse. Perhaps that reflects your confused thinking. This is a thread on geology. Belief is irrelevant here.

If beliefs were not involved then the so-called dates offered in geology could be shown as more than beliefs. They can't. The clear basis upon which they are fabricated is known and must be dealt with if the dates are offered as anything other than belief.

What counts are evidence and established theory,

Ridiculous. The established theory of the 1800s is now a laughing matter. The establish beliefs of science even 50 years ago are a laughing matter in many cases. Nothing is established in science it is ever-changing, ever learning. To be established means it arrived at the truth which can NEVER happen.

both of which have been presented succinctly by Komatiite and others, then dismissed by you just because you don't believe.

Speaking of truth, that is not true. But if you claim your position is more than belief, how can it be dismissed by belief?

 

[dad]

Which, for all intents and purposes, is no different than -insert miracle here-.

For all intents and purposes, science does not know. Therefore when you insert the same nature in the past as having created all the ratios then you are invoking belief and fantasy.

You've effectively confirmed that creationism *is* about reality denial.

I have pointed out that you are in no position to deny creation actually. It is also true that you do not have a monopoly on what reality is. In fact you have yet to demonstrate any familiarity to it here.

So I'm not sure what you think I'm out of touch with here.

Regardless of what you are in touch with, or think you are in touch with or not, we can only go by your posts.

Do you think you have something to demonstrate this to the contrary?

Done.

 

[pitabread]

For all intents and purposes, science does not know.

Within the framework of scientific inquiry we do know. If your only counterargument is an appeal to subjectivism, that's not a compelling argument.

You might as well be trying to argue in support of Last Thurdayism or claiming the moon is made of green cheese.

I have pointed out that you are in no position to deny creation actually.

I have never actually done such. I simply go where the evidence leads.

My own philosophical belief is that whether or not their were a creator of the universe, my own opinion cannot change what is.

It is also true that you do not have a monopoly on what reality is. In fact you have yet to demonstrate any familiarity to it here.

See above. This is a dead-end argument.

And you're no philosopher in this regard.

Regardless of what you are in touch with, or think you are in touch with or not, we can only go by your posts.

All I did was point out that science (including Earth's age) have useful applications. And I all you've done in response is engage in banal denialism.

So who is out of touch again?

Done.

Done what?

 

[dad]

Within the framework of scientific inquiry we do know.

Within the framework of flat earth beliefs, many think they know. Within the framework of Satanism, many think they know. Within the framework of Moheamedism, many think they know. Now you talk about within the confines of only the physical and present natural-based sciences, that they think they know. The problem is that creation does not fit in those confines, as God does not fit, spirits do not fit, and concrete knowledge of nature in the past does not fit.

If your only counterargument is an appeal to subjectivism, that's not a compelling argument.

No one needs a counter-argument to Mother Goose actually. Nor do we need one addressing so-called scientific inquiry when we are actually talking about beliefs. You might as well be trying to argue in support of Last Thurdayism or claiming the moon is made of green cheese.

I have never actually done such. I simply go where the evidence leads.

Well, if you have never denied that the creation spoken about in all the bible, including the last chapter was true, then confirm here and now you believe it is true. Simple.

My own philosophical belief is that whether or not their were a creator of the universe, my own opinion cannot change what is.

That says nothing at all.

All I did was point out that science (including Earth's age) have useful applications.

I pointed out that the ages are not known and what is actually useful is the patterns of layers and isotopes etc that you interpred as ages.
And I all you've done in response is engage in banal denialism.

So who is out of touch again?

With the bible? Three guesses. With actual knowledge? Science is regarding origins issues.

 

[pitabread]

Now you talk about within the confines of only the physical and present natural-based sciences, that they think they know.

We're not just talking about what we know. We're talking about what works (re: real world application).

You can keep denying this all you want, but it doesn't change these facts.

The problem is that creation does not fit in those confines, as God does not fit, spirits do not fit, and concrete knowledge of nature in the past does not fit.

Which speaks to the problem creationists have with so many contradictory ideas. You have no base methods for distinguishing what is correct or not nor even a consistent philosophy to support those ideas.

No one needs a counter-argument to Mother Goose actually.

I agree, the mother goose description is certainly apt with what you are trying to claim here. There needs be no counter-argument for such claims since there is no support for such argument in the first place.

Well, if you have never denied that the creation spoken about in all the bible, including the last chapter was true, then confirm here and now you believe it is true. Simple.

Oh, I don't believe the Bible is true at all (insofar as what it describes about creation). It's just one of thousands of different world religious beliefs. In fact, the very idea that this one particular belief at this one particular point in time happens to be The Truth(TM) in lieu of every other religious belief in history is just absurd. It would be the most ridiculous of coincidences if that turned out to be the case.

As it stands, I have no more reason to think the Bible is true than any other set of religious beliefs on the planet. Consequently I believe that if there really were some omnipotent creator of our universe that they aren't likely represented by any religions on Earth. After all, if 99.9% of the them are wrong, it's not much further to accept that they are 100% wrong.

And the claims for validity of one religious belief over another seem mostly dependent on cultural bias. If you were born in a Christian country, you're more likely to be a Christian. Conversely, if you were born into a Muslim country, you're more likely to be Muslim. And so on.

I pointed out that the ages are not known and what is actually useful is the patterns of layers and isotopes etc that you interpred as ages.

Which is done in the context of understanding how the physics of radioactive decay works. Now if you reject basic understanding of physics and our universe (as it appears you do), then you can make up whatever you want to believe.

With the bible? Three guesses. With actual knowledge? Science is regarding origins issues.

You can keep decrying science all you want, but the proof is in the pudding. Creationism has yielded zero practical applications (besides ministry donations, tourism and merchandising) and certainly nothing to replace what science has done.

 

[dad]

We're not just talking about what we know. We're talking about what works (re: real world application).

The example given was finding oil. It was pointed out that what finds oil is the ratio patterns and layer patterns. What is not known is that the ratios of isotopes or layers were formed in this nature.

You can keep denying this all you want, but it doesn't change these facts.

Nothing to deny. Your attempt to credit old ages to a belief based scheme is simply exposed.

Which speaks to the problem creationists have with so many contradictory ideas. You have no base methods for distinguishing what is correct or not nor even a consistent philosophy to support those ideas.

False. Name some base idea you think you have and watch how I can have some too.

I agree, the mother goose description is certainly apt with what you are trying to claim here. There needs be no counter-argument for such claims since there is no support for such argument in the first place.

Correct, and the claim is old ages based on the assumption nature of today was responsible for it all.

Oh, I don't believe the Bible is true at all (insofar as what it describes about creation).

OK fine, so your opinion is stated.

It's just one of thousands of different world religious beliefs. In fact, the very idea that this one particular belief at this one particular point in time happens to be The Truth(TM) in lieu of every other religious belief in history is just absurd. It would be the most ridiculous of coincidences if that turned out to be the case.

It may seem that way to you that is fine. The reality is that there is only one true Creator and God and all other religions

As it stands, I have no more reason to think the Bible is true than any other set of religious beliefs on the planet.

Well we wish you the best in finding out.

Consequently I believe that if there really were some omnipotent creator of our universe that they aren't likely represented by any religions on Earth.

I agree. Only in Jesus and His believers. They are the true religion and aside from that, there are other religions, just as we saw at the tower of Babel where they started.

After all, if 99.9% of the them are wrong, it's not much further to accept that they are 100% wrong.

In seeking truth we should not use false religions as the guidepost.

And the claims for validity of one religious belief over another seem mostly dependent on cultural bias. If you were born in a Christian country, you're more likely to be a Christian. Conversely, if you were born into a Muslim country, you're more likely to be Muslim. And so on.

There are no Christian countries. But hopefully, if a child has believing parents they will do the right thing and teach them.

Which is done in the context of understanding how the physics of radioactive decay works. Now if you reject basic understanding of physics and our universe (as it appears you do), then you can make up whatever you want to believe.

Wrong. How it now works in this present nature has no relevance to how the nature of the past worked. Only in your belief system does it seem that way, and for no apparent reason and with no proof at all.

You can keep decrying science all you want, but the proof is in the pudding.

Separating beliefs that have been included in what is called science is not decrying science.

Creationism has yielded zero practical applications (besides ministry donations, tourism and merchandising) and certainly nothing to replace what science has done.

Actually, great compassion has risen from Christian values. They may not have invented Nukes and white phosporus, and land mines, and napalm, but they have fed the poor, and had charity. That is practical.

 

[pitabread]

Nothing to deny. Your attempt to credit old ages to a belief based scheme is simply exposed.

Again, appealing to subjectivism isn't "exposing" anything. It's just appealing to an indefensible philosophy.

False. Name some base idea you think you have and watch how I can have some too.

This doesn't follow from what I posted. I'm saying that creationists don't have a consistent base philosophy for distinguishing competing ideas. In fact, we've already been through this when I asked you to define your epistemological basis and you couldn't. You simply have no basis for knowledge.

Correct, and the claim is old ages based on the assumption nature of today was responsible for it all.

It's the fundamental assumption that we live in an objective universe. But from a position of rationality I don't see why anyone would reject that. Unless one is of course trying to reconcile ideas that don't otherwise rationally reconcile.

That just seems like a recipe for insanity.

In seeking truth we should not use false religions as the guidepost.

What if Christianity was a false religion? How would you tell?

This is the problem with appealing to arbitrary subjectivity without a philosophical baseline.

There are no Christian countries.

I'm talking about in the context of demographics. There are certainly countries where Christianity is the dominant religious belief.

Wrong.

You can keep asserting all you want, but unless you can demonstrate this you don't have anything but a blind assertion. And as past discussion indicates, you don't have anything beyond blind assertions.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to accomplish here.

Only in your belief system does it seem that way, and for no apparent reason and with no proof at all.

Like I said, the idea of an objective universe is simply a rational idea and one that has worked out well so far. If the universe isn't objective then it really doesn't matter because nothing you experience can be trusted. Even your own belief system falls victim to this.

Separating beliefs that have been included in what is called science is not decrying science.

Sure it is. You reject science as an epistemological basis for knowledge acquisition. The fact you do so using modern technology borne out of that same science is more than a little ironic if not hypocritical.

Actually, great compassion has risen from Christian values.

I'm not talking about Christian values. I'm talking about creationism. There is a difference for the purpose of these discussions.

Besides, Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the values it espouses so such argument is moot to begin with.

 

[dad]

Again, appealing to subjectivism isn't "exposing" anything. It's just appealing to an indefensible philosophy.

No one appealed to that. Here is the definition

"Subjectivism is the doctrine that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience",[1] instead of shared or communal, and that there is no external or objective truth." wiki

Acknowledging the actual limits of what science knows as well as accepting the bible is anything but subjective.

This doesn't follow from what I posted. I'm saying that creationists don't have a consistent base philosophy for distinguishing competing ideas. In fact, we've already been through this when I asked you to define your epistemological basis and you couldn't. You simply have no basis for knowledge.

The issue is not pie in the sky so-called basis for knowledge. The issue is that science does not know certain things. It is not up to me to define knowledge when there is none, and that is why the debate exists.

It's the fundamental assumption that we live in an objective universe. But from a position of rationality I don't see why anyone would reject that. Unless one is of course trying to reconcile ideas that don't otherwise rationally reconcile.

It doesn't matter what you believe about the unknown. Nor does it matter how much you believe the unknown has to be a certain way s that it fits in your little scheme of things.

That just seems like a recipe for insanity.

Nor does it matter what you think is sane or not.

What if Christianity was a false religion? How would you tell?

Nor does it matter what dark doubts exist in your head.

This is the problem with appealing to arbitrary subjectivity without a philosophical baseline.

As explained your strawman is a joke.

I'm talking about in the context of demographics. There are certainly countries where Christianity is the dominant religious belief.

So?

Like I said, the idea of an objective universe is simply a rational idea and one that has worked out well so far.

Nothing about science's idea of a universe popping out of hot soup has worked in any way actually.

If the universe isn't objective then it really doesn't matter because nothing you experience can be trusted. Even your own belief system falls victim to this.

I do not base experiences or faith or Scripture or God on some mistaken foolish notion that the universe is objective. So it does not affect what matters to me in the slightest way. Part of the observed facts believers base how they view the universe is the observation in their lives that God the creator is real. Those who deny that are not objective but selective!

Sure it is. You reject science as an epistemological basis for knowledge acquisition.

False. In many areas, science is a great thing and involves actual knowledge.

The fact you do so using modern technology borne out of that same science is more than a little ironic if not hypocritical.

The fact that you pretend modern technology has anything to do with beliefs of some same nature in the past shows us that you are unconnected from reality.

I'm not talking about Christian values. I'm talking about creationism. There is a difference for the purpose of these discussions.

No. God created man and the heavens and earth. Non-negotiable.

Besides, Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the values it espouses so such argument is moot to begin with.

Since that is a large part of God's word as to how we should live, the contribution it makes is quite practical.

 

[pitabread]

No one appealed to that.

I'm referring to it in the context of assuming the past is magically different just for the sake of the argument you are making.

You have no basis for your claims are are invoking an arbitrary, subjective reality just for the sake of arguing against things you don't like.

The issue is that science does not know certain things.

Science has its limits. But within the context of scientific inquiry we do know certain things. You're claiming we don't and using arbitrary, unsupported claims to do so.

The ball is entirely in your court to support your contentions but since you're invoking unsupportable arguments, there really isn't anything of value here.

You have untenable beliefs about the nature of the universe and that's that.

At any rate, I'm bored of this discussion and since you aren't espousing anything new or interesting, I'd say we're done.

 

[dad]

I'm referring to it in the context of assuming the past is magically different just for the sake of the argument you are making.

I assume God's word is right. Science cannot deny it or confirm.

You have no basis for your claims are are invoking an arbitrary, subjective reality just for the sake of arguing against things you don't like.

You have no basis to doubt the record of the past in the bible.

Science has its limits. But within the context of scientific inquiry we do know certain things. You're claiming we don't and using arbitrary, unsupported claims to do so.

Hey, a goat knows certain things. That doesn't say much. What things?

The ball is entirely in your court to support your contentions but since you're invoking unsupportable arguments, there really isn't anything of value here.

Totally supported in the fail of science to be able to know, and support it's foundation beliefs used for models of the past.

You have untenable beliefs about the nature of the universe and that's that.

Science has un untenable position in claiming nature was the same. It sure can't claim spirits did not exist! My position is based on God and reality. Not pretending to know things I don't know as science does.

At any rate, I'm bored of this discussion and since you aren't espousing anything new or interesting, I'd say we're done.

Me too. Try finding something new to say.

 

[Ophiolite]

Cognitive dissonance, strong in this one is!