What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

[Uphill Battle]

Then there should be scientific evidence to that effect, yes?

What am I missing here? If you have to appeal to miracles, then are you not saying that the empirical evidence is against a young-Earth?

The Earth can not look old and not old at the same time, can it?

nope, it can't. what I don't believe is the empirical evidence, such as the geological column, etc... I look at the evidence given, and don't believe it actually does describe a billion year age.

 

[TeddyKGB]

nope, it can't. what I don't believe is the empirical evidence, such as the geological column, etc... I look at the evidence given, and don't believe it actually does describe a billion year age.

There are multiple, independent lines of evidence that point to an old Earth. The geological column, while a nice representation of the progression of strata, is really just used for internal reference; it has little to say about absolute dating.

Most YECs cherry-pick the more ambiguous (or seemingly so) examples, thinking that successfully questioning carbon dating, for example, entails the collapse of the entire old-Earth paradigm.

I don't know exactly what you mean when you say you "look at the evidence given," but I suspect you have no idea just how comprehensive and substantial it is.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

nope, it can't. what I don't believe is the empirical evidence, such as the geological column, etc... I look at the evidence given, and don't believe it actually does describe a billion year age.

I wonder what energy companies believe? When it comes time to bet money on who to hire, these companies choose to hire thousands of geologists using the tried-and-true old-earth paradigm. I wonder why they are not willing to bet the company's assets on the young-earth approach? Bias?

 

[Uphill Battle]

There are multiple, independent lines of evidence that point to an old Earth. The geological column, while a nice representation of the progression of strata, is really just used for internal reference; it has little to say about absolute dating.

Most YECs cherry-pick the more ambiguous (or seemingly so) examples, thinking that successfully questioning carbon dating, for example, entails the collapse of the entire old-Earth paradigm.

I don't know exactly what you mean when you say you "look at the evidence given," but I suspect you have no idea just how comprehensive and substantial it is.

geological column etc...

I didn't base my views on one or even a few "ambiguos: examples.

I can't say I have studied fully every evidence for old earth. but alot of them that are touted as falsifying YEC have holes in them.

things such as dendrachronolgy, lake varves, any of the radiometric dating (not just carbon) and more. None of them satisfy me that they are correct.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I wonder what energy companies believe? When it comes time to bet money on who to hire, these companies choose to hire thousands of geologists using the tried-and-true old-earth paradigm. I wonder why they are not willing to bet the company's assets on the young-earth approach? Bias?

I'm not sure that it makes that much of a difference. I know a young earther who works for an energy company. and?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

I'm not sure that it makes that much of a difference. I know a young earther who works for an energy company. and?

I am quite certain no energy company bases its search for energy deposits on the proposition that the geological column is bunk.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I am quite certain no energy company bases its search for energy deposits on the proposition that the geological column is bunk.

Glad you are certain.

 

[Edx]

Glad you are certain.

Shouldnt he be?

Ed

 

[Uphill Battle]

Shouldnt he be?

Ed

not according to the adage "creationists have certainty without proof, Evolutionists have proof without certainty."

 

[nvxplorer]

I'm not sure that it makes that much of a difference. I know a young earther who works for an energy company. and?

What does your friend do? Does he employ YEC “science” in his work?

 

[Uphill Battle]

He helps find deposits, yes. And suprisingly, he doesn't have to believe the world is billions of years old to do so.

 

[nvxplorer]

He helps find deposits, yes. And suprisingly, he doesn't have to believe the world is billions of years old to do so.

One can follow a method without believing the implications of that method.

 

[Uphill Battle]

One can follow a method without believing the implications of that method.

tell you what. next time I see him I'll ask him. I don't know enough about it. I merely posted it because it was stated that Energy companies would only hire old earthers, which simply isn't true.

 

[nvxplorer]

tell you what. next time I see him I'll ask him. I don't know enough about it. I merely posted it because it was stated that Energy companies would only hire old earthers, which simply isn't true.

In theory, energy finds do imply an old earth, but in practice, personal belief is irrelevant. In that sense, I agree with you. All that matters is job performance. A bus driver can believe the bus is powered by pixies. As long as he is competent driver, he will find employment.

 

[Uphill Battle]

In theory, energy finds do imply an old earth, but in practice, personal belief is irrelevant. In that sense, I agree with you. All that matters is job performance. A bus driver can believe the bus is powered by pixies. As long as he is competent driver, he will find employment.

fair enough. both the assertion and the rebuttal are irrelevant, really.

 

[Split Rock]

I can't say I have studied fully every evidence for old earth. but alot of them that are touted as falsifying YEC have holes in them.

things such as dendrachronolgy, lake varves, any of the radiometric dating (not just carbon) and more. None of them satisfy me that they are correct.

We went over these dating methods and how they agree with each other before in several threads. You are not satisfied because you cannot allow yourself to accept dates that do not agree with a young earth. Period.

Many YECs (not all) admit the earth looks old, but they just cannot accept an old age. On the other hand, we are told by YECs that if it looks designed, then it is designed.

 

[Uphill Battle]

We went over these dating methods and how they agree with each other before in several threads. You are not satisfied because you cannot allow yourself to accept dates that do not agree with a young earth. Period.

Many YECs (not all) admit the earth looks old, but they just cannot accept an old age. On the other hand, we are told by YECs that if it looks designed, then it is designed.

yep, I know we went over these in several threads. I am not satisfied because the evidence does not point to carte blanche acceptence of an old world. None of the dating methods are TRULY self supporting. Period.

Not all is right. I think the earth looks to be about 6000 years old. It doesn't look like a billion year old planet to me, no matter how you splice it.

 

[Donkeytron]

yep, I know we went over these in several threads. I am not satisfied because the evidence does not point to carte blanche acceptence of an old world. None of the dating methods are TRULY self supporting. Period.

Not all is right. I think the earth looks to be about 6000 years old. It doesn't look like a billion year old planet to me, no matter how you splice it.

Then why don't companies hire YEC geologists to scout oil/natural gas/whatever deposits using their catastrophic flood models?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Then why don't companies hire YEC geologists to scout oil/natural gas/whatever deposits using their catastrophic flood models?

have you even bothered to READ the posts before?

 

[Donkeytron]

have you even bothered to READ the posts before?

No, considering you always say the same thing without providing any substantive evidence.