@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidA link on age when I'm not arguing age, exactly what do you think I'm disputing with that link?
You are overlooking this science (or more likely pretending it isn't there).
'Earth scientists have devised many complementary and consistent techniques to estimate the ages of geologic events. Annually deposited layers of sediments or ice document hundreds of thousands of years of continuous Earth history. Gradual rates of mountain building, erosion of mountains, ...[text shortened]... n Earth history.'
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0226-0
1 edit
@KellyJay saidOf course you are arguing age when you say you believe in a young Earth. What are you on about?!
A link on age when I'm not arguing age, exactly what do you think I'm disputing with that link?
Nothing I provided in the link is compatible with a young Earth.
"Scientists have devised many complementary and consistent techniques to estimate the ages of geologic events. Annually deposited layers of sediments or ice document hundreds of thousands of years of continuous Earth history. Gradual rates of mountain building, erosion of mountains, and the motions of tectonic plates imply hundreds of millions of years of change. Radiometric dating, which relies on the predictable decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon, uranium, potassium, and other elements, provides accurate age estimates for events back to the formation of Earth more than 4.5 billion years ago."
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidBS, stop being disingenuous, how low are you willing to go, I said you win the
Of course you are arguing age when you say you believe in a young Earth. What are you on about?!
Nothing I provided in the link is compatible with a young Earth.
"Scientists have devised many complementary and consistent techniques to estimate the ages of geologic events. Annually deposited layers of sediments or ice document hundreds of thousands of years of c ...[text shortened]... s accurate age estimates for events back to the formation of Earth more than 4.5 billion years ago."
argument on age, I don't care! How is that arguing the age of the earth, when I say
it doesn't matter I grant you all the time you want! You cannot let go of age
when you are the only one who cares enough about it to argue the point when I'm
not disputing it.
The only thing you are doing by continuing this line of rhetoric is avoiding the
things that do matter, the nuts and bolts of all of the necessary mechanisms that
would be required to produce genetic instructions so that both reproduction,
cellular replication, and all life's forms and functions occur due to the information
in life's genetic code. That you don't address, you take the something that has
nothing at all to do with the things I am arguing.
@KellyJay saidIt is 'you' who asked what science you were ignoring. - Science cares about the age of the Earth Kelly, and science has conclusively evidenced that the Earth is very old indeed. So when you say you believe in a young Earth, while simultaneously saying you don't ignore science, you sound a bit daft to be honest with you.
BS, stop being disingenuous, how low are you willing to go, I said you win the
argument on age, I don't care! How is that arguing the age of the earth, when I say
it doesn't matter I grant you all the time you want! You cannot let go of age
when you are the only one who cares enough about it to argue the point when I'm
not disputing it.
The only thing you are ...[text shortened]... u don't address, you take the something that has
nothing at all to do with the things I am arguing.
Indeed, I'm left wondering if your head really is full of straw.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidScience is a means to discover what is true in a systematic way, it has no feelings
It is 'you' who asked what science you were ignoring. - Science cares about the age of the Earth Kelly, and science has conclusively evidenced that the Earth is very old indeed. So when you say you believe in a young Earth, while simultaneously saying you don't ignore science, you sound a bit daft to be honest with you.
Indeed, I'm left wondering if your head really is full of straw.
it doesn't care about anything, and that is something only reserved for people.
You just have something you want to focus on that has nothing to do with the
real issues of cause and effect things that can be repeated, and validated through
experimentation, you are left with mechanisms that can only be accepted on
blind faith to get things in reality, not through means that we know can do things
as we see in the code readable, executable, instructions that only a mind can
produce.
@KellyJay saidScience has evidenced the Earth is very old. (Billions of years). It is not about science caring or having feelings about the age of the Earth. It is, as you say, a means of discovering the truth.
Science is a means to discover what is true in a systematic way, it has no feelings
it doesn't care about anything, and that is something only reserved for people.
You just have something you want to focus on that has nothing to do with the
real issues of cause and effect things that can be repeated, and validated through
experimentation, you are left with mechanisms t ...[text shortened]... n do things
as we see in the code readable, executable, instructions that only a mind can
produce.
How are you not ignoring this truth by claiming the Earth is young?
Can you not answer that question?
And again Kelly, it was you who asked what science you were ignoring. I provided you one example.
Kelly - "I don't ignore science."
Ghost - "Science tells us the Earth is very old."
Kelly - "I think the Earth is young?"
Ghost - But science tells us the Earth is very old. By claiming the opposite, are you not ignoring science?"
Kelly - ".............I don't ignore science."
Ghost - "So you agree with science that the Earth is very old?"
Kelly - "I think the Earth is young."
Ghost - "Science tells us we evolved as a species."
Kelly - "I think humans were created in a garden 6,000 years ago."
Ghost - "So you are ignoring the science that tells us we evolved as a species."
Kelly - "I don't ignore science."
Ghost - "Science tells us dinosaurs lived on Earth millions of years ago."
Kelly - "I don't think dinosaurs lived millions of years ago as I believe in a young Earth."
Ghost - "So you are ignoring the science about when dinosaurs existed?"
Kelly - "I don't ignore science."
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidI am not making a claim about age outside of saying it doesn’t matter.
Science has evidenced the Earth is very old. (Billions of years). It is not about science caring or having feelings about the age of the Earth. It is, as you say, a means of discovering the truth.
How are you not ignoring this truth by claiming the Earth is young?
Can you not answer that question?
And again Kelly, it was you who asked what science you were ignoring. I provided you one example.
1 edit
@KellyJay saidYou have said you believe in a young Earth. That 'IS' making a claim about the age of the Earth and it 'IS' a valid example of you ignoring science.
I am not making a claim about age outside of saying it doesn’t matter.
And of course knowing how old the Earth is matters? - Unless of course you want to fiercely protect the contents of dusty old book from scientific advancement.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidYes, in my claim I have repeatedly stated it doesn’t matter as far as I am concerned. It isn’t anything I try to prove or convince anyone about, yet you simply cannot leave a meaningless argument to me, to suggest I am making one about the age.
You have said you believe in a young Earth. That 'IS' making a claim about the age of the Earth and it 'IS' a valid example of you ignoring science.
And of course knowing how old the Earth is matters? - Unless of course you want to fiercely protect the contents of dusty old book from scientific advancement.
I told you to claim victory about age, you believe science has shown you the age of something you have no idea how it started, what it looked like at its inception. Okay by me yeah you, now address the problems I have been highlighting!