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

[expos4ever]

Some definitions of science require observable and repeatable conditions, but by this it is not meant that the past cannot be studied. Rather testing of the evidence is the focus. The phenomena itself does not need to be repeated before our eyes. Each piece of evidence that converges to form a theory does.

Indeed. And we both know that the creationists here are seizing on an overly simplistic definition of "science" and abusing that definition to try to exclude certain categories of evidence a priori. More specifically, if they can get away with tricking readers into believing you need direct observation of a phenomena in order to be doing "science", they can sew the seeds of doubt that the theory of evolution is well-supported.

We both know that evolution is indeed robustly supported by the evidence. And so do the naysayers, I suggest. But they are not concerned with honesty (as threads on Covid bear witness) and are willing to engage in all manner of trickery.

 

[marke]

This kind of argument is frequently used by creationists - "it cannot be directly observed, therefore it is not science" argument. It is a clever, if deceptive strategy - you are trying to squeeze way too much out of definitions. Let's suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the "definition" of science requires that something be directly observed to count as science. Fine.

But that is hardly evidence that evolution is not correct, it is an argument that evolution does not meet a particular definition.

The big bang was never observed, but the evidence for it is very compelling.

Secular scientists cannot speculate on the origins of the universe and life on earth because those origins cannot be explained in natural terms. Secular science has banned itself from dealing with issues that cannot be seen and detected in the natural world.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.

 

[Right Divider]

We both know that evolution is indeed robustly supported by the evidence.

Start some threads about the "robust support by the evidence".

But in THIS thread, get back on the topic.

 

[marke]

Mere claims, with no supporting evidence. Why would any reasonable third party believe your unsupported claim against the claims of tens of thousands highly trained experts?

How many highly trained experts supported the Piltdown man? Likely thousands, considering the prominent place the fraud held in public school textbooks for so many decades. How many educators or government officials spoke out against Piltdown? Likely very few, considering the prominent place the fraud held in public school textbooks for so many decades.

What am I saying? Just that majority support from experts is no guarantee the experts are right.

 

[marke]

Some definitions of science require observable and repeatable conditions, but by this it is not meant that the past cannot be studied. Rather testing of the evidence is the focus. The phenomena itself does not need to be repeated before our eyes. Each piece of evidence that converges to form a theory does.

A secular age test of a rock sample will always yield a date of some kind. If more than one test is done on the same rock, the differences in results can vary significantly, as have been clearly demonstrated in repeated tests like that.

 

[Idolater]

Indeed. And we both know that the creationists here are seizing on an overly simplistic definition of "science" and abusing that definition to try to exclude certain categories of evidence a priori. More specifically, if they can get away with tricking readers into believing you need direct observation of a phenomena in order to be doing "science", they can sew the seeds of doubt that the theory of evolution is well-supported.

We both know that evolution is indeed robustly supported by the evidence. And so do the naysayers, I suggest. But they are not concerned with honesty (as threads on Covid bear witness) and are willing to engage in all manner of trickery.

I'm a creationist. :idunno:

 

[Clete]

No, it's not all that "compelling". There are TONS of problems with the "big bang" theory.
RSR has an excellent list of such issues. @JudgeRightly Do you have the link handy?

RSR's 2013 List of Evidence Against the Big Bang​

 

[Clete]

You mean this one?

Evidence Against the Big Bang Theory | KGOV.com

rsr.org

The best thing about Bob's lists is that they aren't going to be what one would typically expect from an overtly Christian website. Typically, what you get from Christian websites is really sort of half-baked, severely dumbed down and sort of hokey presentations that are intended for members of the choir to read. On Bob's site it reads like something you'd find in Astronomy Magazine or Sky and Telescope. It's not overly technical but it isn't written for the completely uninformed either. It's substantive enough that any professional scientist could engage with it and would have more than he'd need to confirm every syllable of it but it's not so technical that it glazes normal people's eyes over. It's just so well done.

 

[Stripe]

creationists here are seizing on an overly simplistic definition of "science"

Science is the process of throwing out ideas based on the evidence, reason and logic.

This allows the process to operate upon literally any idea.

 

[marke]

Science is the process of throwing out ideas based on the evidence, reason and logic.

This allows the process to operate upon literally any idea.

Here's an idea. Since science has not come up with a valid theory of the origin of life on earth, why not step outside the bounds of the narrow constraints imposed on natural science and explore the possibility that God may have been involved?

 

[Stripe]

Since science has not come up with a valid theory of the origin of life on earth

"Science" does not come up with ideas, valid or otherwise.

Science is the process of throwing them out. Until they have been excised, they are all valid.

why not step outside the bounds of the narrow constraints imposed on natural science and explore the possibility that God may have been involved?

"Natural" science is a tautology, as is the case almost any time a descriptor is added to "science." People either respect the method, or they respond irrationally. It does not help to create categories beyond that. Listen to their ideas and apply the scientific method. It's that easy.

 

[marke]

"Science" does not come up with ideas, valid or otherwise.

Science is the process of throwing them out. Until they have been excised, they are all valid.



"Natural" science is a tautology, as is the case almost any time a descriptor is added to "science." People either respect the method, or they respond irrationally. It does not help to create categories beyond that. Listen to their ideas and apply the scientific method. It's that easy.

Science that refuses to consider the operations of forces that cannot be seen or measured is blind natural science.

 

[Stripe]

Science that refuses to consider the operations of forces that cannot be seen or measured is blind natural science.

A process that refuses to consider the operations of forces that cannot be seen or measured is not science.

 

[Clete]

"Science" does not come up with ideas, valid or otherwise.

Science is the process of throwing them out. Until they have been excised, they are all valid.

This is false. There would be no ideas to throw out if this were the case.

Ever heard of an hypothesis or maybe you've come across the use of the term "theory"?

"Natural" science is a tautology,

No it isn't!

There's political science, economics, mathematics, psychology, etc. None of those and probably several others that I can't think of right now are physical sciences but they all do apply sound reason to an area of study, which is all science is.

as is the case almost any time a descriptor is added to "science." People either respect the method, or they respond irrationally. It does not help to create categories beyond that. Listen to their ideas and apply the scientific method. It's that easy.

The scientific method is nothing more than the application of logic to an area of study. It does not have to be the natural world or even anything that actually exists (i.e. ontologically). The goal of science (natural science or otherwise) is to yield answers to questions that are consistent with reality and while the scientific method is a very efficient way of achieving this, any method that yields such answers is as valid as any other. Einstein's thought experiments are a great example of what I'm referring to. Thought experiments certainly do not conform to the scientific method but what they definitely do is to "come up with ideas, valid or otherwise", which can then be tested by more rigorous methods.

Clete

 

[Stripe]

This is false. There would be no ideas to throw out if this were the case.

An idea is valid until it has been shown impossible.

My sentence structure includes the implication that validity was not being used as a permanent marker on a proposal, rather just a suggestion that ideas are free.

Ever heard of an hypothesis or maybe you've come across the use of the term "theory"?

Heh. Yeah.

No it isn't!

It is in the sense that Marke was using it. I wouldn't pick the same fight with the list you made.

The scientific method is nothing more than the application of logic to an area of study.

Yep.

It does not have to be the natural world or even anything that actually exists (i.e. ontologically). The goal of science (natural science or otherwise) is to yield answers to questions that are consistent with reality and while the scientific method is a very efficient way of achieving this, any method that yields such answers is as valid as any other. Einstein's thought experiments are a great example of what I'm referring to. Thought experiments certainly do not conform to the scientific method but what they definitely do is to "come up with ideas, valid or otherwise", which can then be tested by more rigorous methods.

I dunno. I'd lump thought experiments inside the rubric of science.

 

[Idolater]

Here's an idea. Since science has not come up with a valid theory of the origin of life on earth, why not step outside the bounds of the narrow constraints imposed on natural science and explore the possibility that God may have been involved?

Exactly right Marke. @JudgeRightly introduced me to the fact (that was always right in front my face!) that the 'perfect' conditions for abiogenesis is already plentiful----we call them "corpses". And we all know what has NEVER happened!

RESURRECTION.*



* Exception proves the rule.

 

[Idolater]

"Science" does not come up with ideas, valid or otherwise.

Science is the process of throwing them out. Until they have been excised, they are all valid.



"Natural" science is a tautology, as is the case almost any time a descriptor is added to "science." People either respect the method, or they respond irrationally. It does not help to create categories beyond that. Listen to their ideas and apply the scientific method. It's that easy.

It's really philosophy* is what you're saying, and I agree 100%. The matters of science that are argued on TOL are not really matters of science, they are matters of philosophy**.

* I actually have ethics as the 'umbrella' discipline but that's 'neither here nor there'.
** Including rhetoric, which is the art and science of persuasion (convincing); and as such it is also ideological.

 

[Stripe]

Yip.

If you're only talking about it, it's philosophy.

 

[Idolater]

Yip.

If you're only talking about it, it's philosophy.

That is exactly why I consider ethics to be the discipline which includes philosophy (and all the other disciplines too) in it. Ethics is always about what we're going to do, and not only what we are going to say or think.

 

[Dale McClenning]

Can anyone provide information on the scientific method used to determine that the earth is billions of years old? Thanks.

The current dating technique used can not be verified with anything less than 2 millions years old. Please ignore the fact that this makes the process unverifiable is you want to believe the scientists.