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

[Stripe]

Yes- logic is my second language

Time for some remedial classes.

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

Nope.

Instead of just insisting that I'm wrong, accept the invitation to explain why evidence can be appropriately used to solidify a theory.

We know the part about how when evidence does not falsify a theory, we can be a little more confident that the theory might be useful, but that is simply rewording what I have presented in an insane attempt to create disagreement.

Theories should always be held on to lightly. The goal should always be to test them, because they are never a perfect description of reality.

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.

Yep. It's called the sedimentary record.

Show us a significant seds strata that did not require a massive watery event to form it.

 

[Idolater]

... Theories should always be held on to lightly. The goal should always be to test them, because they are never a perfect description of reality. ...

What do you do with Bell's Theorem though? How do you handle that one?

 

[marke]

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

How is the age of rock determined? Its age is determined by its position in the geologic strata. How are the ages of rock strata determined? They are dated by the age of fossils in them. How are the ages of fossils determined? They are dated by the ages of the rock strata in which they are found.

 

[Stripe]

What do you do with Bell's Theorem though? How do you handle that one?

The same way I would approach any other idea:
Does it seem reasonable? (No, in this case)
Do I have reason to be skeptical of it? (Yes)
Am I interested and capable of presenting a useful rebuttal or alternative? (not really)

Why is Bell's idea in particular the one you ask this question with?

 

[Idolater]

The same way I would approach any other idea:
Does it seem reasonable? (No, in this case)
Do I have reason to be skeptical of it? (Yes)
Am I interested and capable of presenting a useful rebuttal or alternative? (not really)

Why is Bell's idea in particular the one you ask this question with?

Just because it's so simple and seems so decisive. I mean it's quite unlike the Big Bang abiogenesis and evolution theories, none of those things can be tested like Bell's Theorem can (and which has been many times). And the design of the test is clever, and I don't detect cleverness in those other theories I mentioned either, they seem much more speculative than Bell's Theorem; and vague. Bell's Theorem is specific.

I just think that in Bell's Theorem you have something approaching the ideal scientific theory that the evidence always unambiguously and unequivocally confirms, and yet even still, what do we have? We have a theory with 100% predictive power, and yet still we are left with this non-local hidden variable problem that we cannot test (intrinsically we can't test it).

If Bell's Theorem is a PhD theory, then by comparison Evolution, Big Bang, "billions of years", abiogenesis; these theories aren't ABDs, they aren't even undergraduates, these are high schoolers and middle schoolers and elementary schoolers and kindergarteners.

Nursery school, theories, compared to how the evidence uniformly 'stacks up' to confirm Bell's Theorem.

And Bell's Theorem still leaves a gaping hole that we can never fill.

 

[Stripe]

Just because it's so simple and seems so decisive. I mean it's quite unlike the Big Bang abiogenesis and evolution theories, none of those things can be tested like Bell's Theorem can (and which has been many times). And the design of the test is clever, and I don't detect cleverness in those other theories I mentioned either, they seem much more speculative than Bell's Theorem; and vague. Bell's Theorem is specific.

I just think that in Bell's Theorem you have something approaching the ideal scientific theory that the evidence always unambiguously and unequivocally confirms, and yet even still, what do we have? We have a theory with 100% predictive power, and yet still we are left with this non-local hidden variable problem that we cannot test (intrinsically we can't test it).

If Bell's Theorem is a PhD theory, then by comparison Evolution, Big Bang, "billions of years", abiogenesis; these theories aren't ABDs, they aren't even undergraduates, these are high schoolers and middle schoolers and elementary schoolers and kindergarteners.

Nursery school, theories, compared to how the evidence uniformly 'stacks up' to confirm Bell's Theorem.

And Bell's Theorem still leaves a gaping hole that we can never fill.

OK.

I can respect your analysis even if I don't share your apparent enamor for Bell.

The point I'm trying to get across to the Darwin crowd is that there is no difference in the scientific process regardless of the power of the theory being discussed.

They are never confirmed and they should never be assumed without being explicit about it. They are only ever challenged by evidence.

The great thing about the scientific process is that it can deal with literally any idea from any source.

Evolutionists are forever attempting to call their idea "the science" and deny others a seat at the table.

 

[expos4ever]

This thread is NOT about the global flood.

Nice try. Let's review. In post 226, you posted this:

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

You were then challenged in post 229 as follows:

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

In post 239, I posted this:

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 are saying "this thread is NOT about the global flood."

Excuse me?

Let's be clear: you made a claim, you have the obligation to support it, you are trying to dance away from that obligation.

 

[marke]

Nice try. Let's review. In post 226, you posted this:

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

You were then challenged in post 229 as follows:

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

In post 239, I posted this:

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 are saying "this thread is NOT about the global flood."

Excuse me?

Let's be clear: you made a claim, you have the obligation to support it, you are trying to dance away from that obligation.

The geologic evidence of the flood is massive.

Folded Rock Layers: Evidence of Noah’s Flood?

A blog about Noah's Boys in the City of Mother Earth: a refreshing Christian fiction novel for teens. Related short stories are added constantly.

www.noahsboys.com

If your mind has jumped to the Great Flood (Noah’s Flood, or the Genesis Flood), the greatest worldwide cataclysm ever recorded, you are not alone. In fact, folded rock layers are actually regarded by some scientists as one of the more obvious geologic evidences for the Genesis Flood. And there are other lines of evidence, too, including the lack of weathering or bioturbation between rock strata, the rapid burial of plants and animals, the transport of great amounts of sediment over long distances, the lack of soil between rock layers, the presence of fossils of sea creatures high above sea level, and polystrate fossils such as petrified trees that extend through multiple strata.2,3 If our eyes are open to it, there is a lot of scientific evidence!

 

[expos4ever]

In this retard-fest, we are getting the old "it's just a theory" diversion.

The word "theory" is used in colloquial speech to denote a claim that has little or no support.

In the domain of science, the term has a much different meaning. From wikipedia:

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[6][note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[6] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid.

 

[Stripe]

In this retard-fest, we are getting the old "it's just a theory" diversion.

Guess what? "Billions of years" is just a theory.

The word "theory" is used in colloquial speech to denote a claim that has little or no support.

No, it's not.

In the domain of science, the term has a much different meaning.

No, it doesn't.

In everyday speech, theory can ...

...imply an explanation that represents a substantiated and not speculative idea.

Darwinists love to pretend that it is others who misuse words when they can't get the simplest aspects of the philosophy of science right.

 

[Skeeter]

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

This is only an outline of an explanation.

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

Which cannot be safely assumed?

• Starting conditions.

What starting conditions, besides no material with a particular isotope, are limiting?

• Constant decay rates.

Constant decay rates can be assumed when there is no evidence of conditions that would alter it. Each isotope decays uniformly, It's a chemical reaction.

• 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.

Nope - error can be as much as 50 million under certain circumstances. A small deviation when the range is 5 billion.

Checks are made by using multiple samples in the rock and elsewhere, and using different isotopes. Similar estimates mean no adulteration.

 

[Stripe]

Before anyone starts talking radioactivity, they have to answer the question of how such material is generated.

 

[Skeeter]

Before anyone starts talking radioactivity, they have to answer the question of how such material is generated.

No they don't.

 

[Stripe]

No they don't.

If you don't know how it is formed, you are going to be a paperweight in the discussion.

 

[Skeeter]

How is the age of rock determined? Its age is determined by its position in the geologic strata. How are the ages of rock strata determined? They are dated by the age of fossils in them. How are the ages of fossils determined? They are dated by the ages of the rock strata in which they are found.

A rock can be dated by radiometric dating, but not most fossils. They are embedded in rock so it makes sense to date the surrounding rock.

Radiometric dating is cross-checked by comparing it to estimates of the strata.

marke tries to create a false circularity here. Circular reasoning is marke's go-to justification of all his beliefs so this is odd.

 

[Skeeter]

If you don't know how it is formed, you are going to be a paperweight in the discussion.

Yeah right, just like I need to know the basis of the Big Bang to talk evolution? No way.

 

[Right Divider]

Nice try. Let's review. In post 226, you posted this:

Yes, numbskull... there have been some OFF-TOPIC posts in this thread, some of which I did respond to.

Get back on topic.

If you want to discuss the global flood, start a thread about it.

 

[Clete]

Stop with the silliness and PROVIDE THE INFORMATION. Otherwise, buzz off.

Silliness is his default because his whole worldview is silliness. He'll provide nothing else because he has nothing else.

 

[Right Divider]

This is only an outline of an explanation.

So what?

Which cannot be safely assumed?

All of them "cannot be safely assumed". Science is not about making unproven and unprovable assumptions.

What starting conditions, besides no material with a particular isotope, are limiting?

All of the starting conditions are unknown and unknowable with regard to your preferred origins model.

Constant decay rates can be assumed when there is no evidence of conditions that would alter it. Each isotope decays uniformly, It's a chemical reaction.

Where is your "no evidence of conditions that would alter it"? What evidence do you have that there have never been conditions of radical change?

Nope - error can be as much as 50 million under certain circumstances. A small deviation when the range is 5 billion.

You are uninformed and speak from your own ignorance.

Checks are made by using multiple samples in the rock and elsewhere. Similar estimates mean no adulteration.

No they don't. Also note that this assumption is the least problematic of the three.

Also note that "agreeable dates" from multiple bogus methods is not science, it is superstition.

 

[Right Divider]

Before anyone starts talking radioactivity, they have to answer the question of how such material is generated.

Indeed, this gets back to the GROSS assumptions of the "big bang" model and the unknown and unknowable conditions that it would have produced.