How can YEC's ignore ALL the data of old Earth?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolutionists have been claiming they would find the evidence ever sense Darwin proposed this theory. But there is still no evidence and in a thousand years there will still be no evidence because it ain't true. Dogs will never evolve into horses or cats or any other kind of animal. But perhaps a man may devolve into a monkey in a few hundred years.

You still can't see your nose in front of your face. A couple hundred years of science and we are still in first grade. To answer that question and others like it, science needs to be at college level and that is not going to happen for another few hundred years so stop bitching at the 6 year olds.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You still can't see your nose in front of your face. A couple hundred years of science and we are still in first grade. To answer that question and others like it, science needs to be at college level and that is not going to happen for another few hundred years so stop bitching at the 6 year olds.

The six year old needs to listen to his parent sometimes instead of trying to figure everything out on his own and making a mess of things. Science has no way of proving the age of the earth, because all their studies and experiments to determine the earth's age requires too many assumptions. It only takes one assumption to invalidate the result.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The six year old needs to listen to his parent sometimes instead of trying to figure everything out on his own and making a mess of things. Science has no way of proving the age of the earth, because all their studies and experiments to determine the earth's age requires too many assumptions. It only takes one assumption to invalidate the result.

You have played that card out. Science can and does measure dates and all your grousing will not change that. You are a roomer in your own mind. Relax. Join the 21st century and stop obsessing about religion. Like I said, you must be really ticked off the fire and brimstone stuff never happened and here it is 2000 odd years later and I say it won't be happening in 3000 years or 4000 or 5000 or however many thousands of years the human race has left. We might have a million years or more left, especially if we can sham the shackles of organized religion and stop all this religious warfare. Then we can have regular wars in peace.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You have played that card out. Science can and does measure dates and all your grousing will not change that. You are a roomer in your own mind. Relax. Join the 21st century and stop obsessing about religion. Like I said, you must be really ticked off the fire and brimstone stuff never happened and here it is 2000 odd years later and I say it won't be happe ...[text shortened]... organized religion and stop all this religious warfare. Then we can have regular wars in peace.

Historical data indicates the earth and human civilization is only a few thousand years old. Science can only measure time as it passes and does not have the ability to accurately measure time before we had instruments to do so and the ability to record the results. Recorded history only goes back to 6000 years at most, so that would indicate a young earth in agreement with the Holy Bible.

I have examined all the scientific measurement techniques and found they are based on several assumptions that can not be known to be true. Therefore, none of them can be used to prove the age of the earth. All we can do is give an approximate minimum age of the earth based on the reliable data that can be checked by more than one source and method.

Radiometric dating has been shown to be highly unreliable and should not even be used until the many problems that cause errors are solved with that method.

Originally posted by C Hess
You forget. It's your god who does that kind of magic. 😛

Yes, my God can speak things into being by just the power of His Word.
I know what I believe, but you on the other hand, have what, nothing?
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
...perhaps a man may devolve into a monkey in a few hundred years.

That would be evolution, silly.


No, actually, silly me. A man turning into a monkey. I should have read more carefully. 😳

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, my God can speak things into being by just the power of His Word.
I know what I believe, but you on the other hand, have what, nothing?
Kelly

The beauty of not knowing everything, and having the balls to admit it, is that there's still plenty of exploring to do; the only way is up. Hiding in make beliefs cracking at the seams with every new discovery must be pure hell. I don't envy you.

Originally posted by C Hess
That would be evolution, silly.


No, actually, silly me. A man turning into a monkey. I should have read more carefully. 😳

Well, I was being facetious. However, you seem to misunderstand the theory of evolution, if you believe that "evolve" and "devolve" are synonyms. Here is the dictionary definitions I am using:

evolve

verb

: to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state : to develop by a process of evolution

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolve

de·volve

verb

: to gradually go from an advanced state to a less advanced state

Synonyms for devolve: atrophy, decline, degenerate

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devolve

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I was being facetious. However, you seem to misunderstand the theory of evolution, if you believe that "evolve" and "devolve" are synonyms. Here is the dictionary definitions I am using:

evolve

verb

: to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state : to develop by a process of evolution

h ...[text shortened]... s for devolve: atrophy, decline, degenerate

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devolve

If you read the meaning of the word as used in evolutionary biology, it means:

From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=evolve

2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.

To devolve in a biological sense would be to develop in a way that makes it impossible for your species to survive. It means that what was an evolved species can become devolved if the environment changes drastically. Thus, to use the word devolve in biology makes little sense. There is no more or less advanced species in biology, only more or less well adapted to its environment.

Also, note the keyword "often" in your definition.

Originally posted by C Hess
The beauty of not knowing everything, and having the balls to admit it, is that there's still plenty of exploring to do; the only way is up. Hiding in make beliefs cracking at the seams with every new discovery must be pure hell. I don't envy you.

I have not told you I know! I tell you and everyone else it is a matter of
faith for me, which if more than I can say about those that claim they know
a great deal about the distant past here! The great claims of knowledge
about what MAY have occurred billions or millions of years ago are huge
statements of arrogance in my opinion when they don't use words like
"may have' and simply go on as if it is all factual.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have not told you I know! I tell you and everyone else it is a matter of
faith for me, which if more than I can say about those that claim they know
a great deal about the distant past here! The great claims of knowledge
about what MAY have occurred billions or millions of years ago are huge
statements of arrogance in my opinion when they don't use words like
"may have' and simply go on as if it is all factual.
Kelly

What he is saying when people talk about faith is they would not do a scientific analysis on something they take on faith. For instance, virgin birth, creation, and that sort of thing, a person taking that on faith would never even attempt to do the logical analysis or scientific experiments to refute or confirm. That would be forbidden science. So religious folk will always be behind the 8 ball when it comes to science. Sure, they can make valid discoveries in areas that don't collide with their faith, like the dude who just won the Nobel prize for figuring out blue LED's. No religious collision there.

But similar work in evolution? Evolution is being held back by the political obstructions of creationists. They would stop evolution science in its tracks if they could. That is what he is talking about.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What he is saying when people talk about faith is they would not do a scientific analysis on something they take on faith. For instance, virgin birth, creation, and that sort of thing, a person taking that on faith would never even attempt to do the logical analysis or scientific experiments to refute or confirm. That would be forbidden science. So religiou ...[text shortened]... They would stop evolution science in its tracks if they could. That is what he is talking about.

You cannot analysis what is beyond your ability to know! How did
everything get here, answer, don't know! If you don't know, then you really
no clue what to look at with respect to dating the place!

Was that star there a million years ago, a billion years ago, thousands of
years ago, if it was just put there so that it could be seen as soon as it was
made then looking at rates and distances are meaningless in using it for
dates, the same thing would be true for every process you use to look back
for great amounts of time!

If you could come up with something that talks about how it all got here so
we can look at that process, than you'd have something. Instead you have
a bunch of rates with no way of knowing how long they really have been
in play!

Evolution, within in kind I agree with, but going from non-living material, to
life, to the vast array of life we see today, magic!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Evolution, within in kind I agree with, but going from non-living material, to
life, to the vast array of life we see today, magic!

You consider minor changes accumulating slowly over vast passages of time through nothing but physical laws to be magic? Wow, everyday must be absolutely spectacularly wondrous to you.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You cannot analysis what is beyond your ability to know! How did
everything get here, answer, don't know! If you don't know, then you really
no clue what to look at with respect to dating the place!

Was that star there a million years ago, a billion years ago, thousands of
years ago, if it was just put there so that it could be seen as soon as it was ...[text shortened]... th, but going from non-living material, to
life, to the vast array of life we see today, magic!

Well, a lot of scientists think they can analyze beyond the ability to know. If I understand that sentence, I think you mean, we look at a star we think is say 50,000 light years away and we can't know that till we gain the ability to go there. Is that the gist? Or looking at the Grand we can't say it took 6 million years to carve out because we weren't there? According to Hinds, that GC was carved out in a matter of days but it is easy to see the results if it was. There are differences between catastrophic events and the slow grind of millennia's worth of a river gradually carving out that structure.

We see events that HAVE catastrophic causes and there is a HUGE differences in the results, like places where there are deep crevices carved very quickly by huge eddies and such. NOTHING like that is evident in the GC, so we can safely say it was a slow process that carved it out.

Hinds is too pig headed to get past that kind of data. Everything in his brain first goes through the YEC filter and anything that even remotely refutes that is rejected and entire sciences that lead up to refutations is rejected, even though he is quite happy with any other science that uses the exact same fundamental scientific method to come to its conclusions, THAT kind of science is great in his deluded mind. He can't get past the idea that scientific methods work across all sciences and so he is stuck in the tenth century and will never get out of it.

It seems you are a bit more amenable to logic. So take a look at the Grand Canyon and see if you can imagine that happening in say, one week during a giant flood 5000 years ago.

If you can't, you need to prove that the logical process that leads scientists from point A to point B are false.

If you cannot prove a logical falsehood in their thinking then you are just grousing with no real attacks other than 'It can't be that way'.

Originally posted by C Hess
You consider minor changes accumulating slowly over vast passages of time through nothing but physical laws to be magic? Wow, everyday must be absolutely spectacularly wondrous to you.

I've considered it all, can things as complex as life just happen, in my
opinion no, they would not by random chance. Can everything come from
nothing, no, that too is impossible. Magic is all you have not me! I do
believe in an absolutely spectacular God, yes! He is beyond wondrous and
you are missing out on the best part of life in my opinion due to your
acceptance of the impossible.
Kelly