How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?

[Idolater]

You guys try this stunt all the time. It is as silly as saying that I am committing an "appeal to authority" fallacy if I argue that smoking causes cancer because medical experts agree that it does. Strictly speaking, yes, I am "appealing to authority". And if we were having a formal debate, it would be inappropriate for me to appeal to experts.

That's not true, it's completely appropriate to validly appeal to authority in formal debate, this is just a poor example. My example is a dictionary, or for another example, a reference that defines and identifies logical fallacies. You can't just claim that someone's committing a logical fallacy before establishing that the thing you're accusing them of is actually a logical fallacy, and you can't do that without appealing to authority, unless you know the fallacy so well that you can set out for your debate opponent exactly what makes it a logical fallacy, without appealing to any kind of authority on the matter.

Nobody can argue with me that looking up a word in the dictionary is a valid appeal to authority. This is why your example is poor, even though we probably agree on your point.

But we are not having a formal debate, we are discussing in an internet forum what is, and what is not the case.

Tomato tomahto as far as I'm concerned.

We need to defer to experts to make sense of the world - that is the nature of the beast. We cannot determine for ourselves whether cigarettes cause cancer, or whether space is curved, or whether we evolved from lower forms. But is inane to suggest that cigarettes do not cause cancer! You surely know this. And you surely know the analogy to evolution is valid - in both domains, highly trained experts have reached a definitive conclusion.

Evolution isn't anything like the dictionary definition of a word. I can validly appeal to authority for the uniformly agreed to dictionary definition of 'evolution' among all the world's PhD biologists, but that is categorically different from appealing to them to establish that evolution is true.

 

[Skeeter]

Logic must be your second language.

Yes- logic is my second language and English is my first. You are proficient in neither.

Evidence can never improve or modify a theory.

It can only ever falsify them.

You are ignorantly or willfully using the wrong definition of the word theory despite the context being clear. Stop that.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes- logic is my second language and English is my first. You are proficient in neither.

You are ignorantly or willfully using the wrong definition of the word theory despite the context being clear. Stop that.

Please get back on topic.

 

[ok doser]

... if I argue that smoking causes cancer ...

Then you reveal yourself to be an ignorant retard.

... medical experts agree that it does.

No they don't

 

[Skeeter]

Again, direct observations are best.

No need to repeat off topic comments.

But not everything is (or was) directly observable.
Some particles were discovered using vapor chambers. So the particle was not directly observed, but was indirectly observed.

Progress!

Fossils exist in the present.

Nice!

Their location and surroundings are due to a global flood and not some supposed millions of years of deposition.

Explain this. There is absolutely no evidence of a global flood. We see floods locally via geological analysis, but nothing widespread. What is the evidence of large flood regions?

Indeed then can. And there are MANY different ways to compare. Different methods of comparison lead to different results.

Yes!

It has nothing to do with being a logical person. Those "observations" are NOT unequivocally supportive of "macro-evolution". They are interpreted that way despite much evidence to the contrary.

Speak of the contrary evidence AND debunk the supportive evidence. Then, we will get somewhere.

I give you a C- for this last post. Your first passing grade. Congrats!

 

[Right Divider]

Explain this. There is absolutely no evidence of a global flood.

There is TONS of evidence for a global flood. The fossil record itself is evidence for a global flood.
Burying your head in the sand is no excuse.

We see floods locally via geological analysis, but nothing widespread. What is the evidence of large flood regions?

For one, huge areas with consistent sedimentary layers. You likely will not understand this, but so be it.

Yes!

Different and contradictory comparisons thrill you?

Speak of the contrary evidence AND debunk the supportive evidence. Then, we will get somewhere.

You need to do some research of your own. There is many sources for just such information. I would suggest that you get a copy of Dr. Walt Brown's book, In the Beginning - Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood.

No doubt that you may not be "compelled". But you should be.

I give you a C- for this last post. Your first passing grade. Congrats!

Your evaluation is meaningless since you are not qualified to judge in this area.

 

[Idolater]

No need to repeat off topic comments.

Progress!

Nice!


Explain this. There is absolutely no evidence of a global flood. We see floods locally via geological analysis, but nothing widespread.

Where's your "control"? You don't have one. I'll answer. You have here an earth that either did or did not experience a global flood within the past 6000 years, but in no case do you have a 'control' earth, against which to measure the effect of a global flood. It either happened or it didn't, and you don't have any 'control' to compare this earth with one that either did or did not experience a global flood within the past 6000 years.

What is the evidence of large flood regions?

Yes!


Speak of the contrary evidence AND debunk the supportive evidence. Then, we will get somewhere.

I give you a C- for this last post. Your first passing grade. Congrats!

You've got a fat 'F' in human rights so far, but fortunately there's nowhere to go but up.

 

[Skeeter]

There is TONS of evidence for a global flood. The fossil record itself is evidence for a global flood.

That is a good introductory sentence. You need to fill in the details and layer in the analysis. Your work has just begun.

Burying your head in the sand is no excuse.

Fossilizing your head might be the best way for us to get some knowledge out of it.

For one, huge areas with consistent sedimentary layers. You likely will not understand this, but so be it.

You need to explain how and why we should understand them as consistent first. Then I would have a chance to misunderstand.

You need to do some research of your own. There is many sources for just such information. I would suggest that you get a copy of Dr. Walt Brown's book, In the Beginning - Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood.

I am not reading your discredited authors. Present the science yourself or buzz off. Stop appealing to a fake authority.

 

[Skeeter]

A flood for a year should show a signature sedimentary layer at a consistent time across the earth and a mass die out in the same layer. No such thing has been found. Instead we see sedimentary layers accumulated over time. Predicably lower layers have fossil specimens of forms of earlier variants of life and later variants in upper layers. Later versions are not found mixed in the same layer as earlier variants.

 

[JudgeRightly]

your discredited authors.

Calling him discredited doesn't make him so.

 

[Right Divider]

That is a good introductory sentence. You need to fill in the details and layer in the analysis. Your work has just begun.

Do your own homework. I'm not getting paid to be your instructor.

Fossilizing your head might be the best way for us to get some knowledge out of it.

Childish and somewhat retarded response.

You need to explain how and why we should understand them as consistent first. Then I would have a chance to misunderstand.

I am not reading your discredited authors.

Nice dodge... you wouldn't want to read anything that disagrees with your preconceived ideas.
Just how do you determine that Dr. Brown is "discredited"? Probably because you don't like what he says.

Present the science yourself or buzz off. Stop appealing to a fake authority.

I made no "appeal to authority". Get real or I'll have you booted from this thread.

 

[Right Divider]

A flood for a year should show a signature sedimentary layer at a consistent time across the earth and a mass die out in the same layer.

The layers were SORTED and LAYERED as a result of the physics of a global flood. Your gross ignorant is on display here.

No such thing has been found.

Yes, it has.

Instead we see sedimentary layers accumulated over time.

A claim without support. You are like most evolutionists.

Predicably lower layers have fossil specimens of forms of earlier variants of life and later variants in upper layers.

Fake news. The layers were laid down during a global flood where liquefaction sorted the plants, animals and sediments.

Later versions are not found mixed in the same layer as earlier variants.

Irrelevant, since you do not understand the dynamics of a global flood.

 

[JudgeRightly]

A flood for a year should show a signature sedimentary layer at a consistent time across the earth and a mass die out in the same layer.

You clearly do not understand the physics of such a large scale flood. Hence why RD told you to go read a book by someone with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT.

No such thing has been found.

It's called, colloquially, "the fossil record."

Instead we see sedimentary layers accumulated

Which were laid down by water...

over time.

Yes, over the period of a year.

Predicably lower layers have fossil specimens of forms of earlier variants of life and later variants in upper layers.

Nope. Sorry. It's called "liquefaction," and it's what resulted in the sorting of the fossil layers.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 1

www.creationscience.com

Liquefaction Made Most of the Paper Thin Fossils | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Later versions are not found mixed in the same layer as earlier variants.

Why would they be? They would have been sorted into their respective layers by liquefaction.

 

[Skeeter]

Do your own homework. I'm not getting paid to be your instructor.

I gave you a list of authors and that was horrible and off topic. You give me one and that is entirely appropriate? Are you trying to be consistent? Do you even know what being consistent means?

I am trying to conform to YOUR earlier requirements and discuss the science rather than name drop. Follow your own rules, dude. I do not want to trade names of so called experts, google searches, and links. I want to discuss our own understanding of the evidence, You are dribbling out yours bit by bit. I have not read what you did. Present your picture and will present mine. Links to support specific contentions only- are appropriate.

Follow your own guidelines, or I will leave your thread forever.

 

[Right Divider]

I gave you a list of authors and that was horrible and off topic. You give me one and that is entirely appropriate? Are you trying to be consistent? Do you even know what being consistent means?

I've already explained a couple of things to you. It's up to you to do more research. I'm not going to write an entire book in these posts.

I am trying to conform to YOUR earlier requirements and discuss the science rather than name drop.

I've already explained a couple of things to you. You've provided NO support whatsoever for "millions/billions" of years.

Follow your own guidelines, or I will leave your thread forever.

Please feel free to do that!

 

[Skeeter]

You've provided NO support whatsoever for "millions/billions" of years.

The results of radiometric dating is good support. Why do you think it is unreliable?

 

[expos4ever]

Do your own homework. I'm not getting paid to be your instructor.

Let me get this straight. You claimed that there was a tons of evidence for a global flood. Since you made the claim, you bear responsibility for providing evidence, if you are so challenged.

And now you insist that we find the evidence to support your claim?

We'll be busy for a while, precisely there is no such evidence. At least none that is credible.

 

[Right Divider]

The results of radiometric dating is good support. Why do you think it is unreliable?

This has been explained many times here... but here it is again:

There are several unproven assumptions (some of which cannot be proven).

• Starting conditions.
• Constant decay rates.
• No outside influences (contamination by outside isotopes, both parent and daughter).

It has been proven that decay rates can be affected by certain conditions. So much so that the rates can be changed a BILLION fold.

 

[Right Divider]

Let me get this straight. You claimed that there was a tons of evidence for a global flood. Since you made the claim, you bear responsibility for providing evidence, if you are so challenged.

This thread is NOT about the global flood.

And now you insist that we find the evidence to support your claim?

No, I do not insist on that. But I do insist that you get back on the topic of this thread.

We'll be busy for a while, precisely there is no such evidence. At least none that is credible.

You are retarded if that is what you believe.

 

[marke]

Why don't you read what you have quoted? It answers your own foolish criticism. It's almost like you are ignoring the details on purpose. Not the biggest surprise.

Scientific evidence and biased interpretations of data are not the same thing. Evolutionists have never observed macroevolution just like they have never observed God or the big bang creating the earth. The Big Bang is a theory and so is evolution.