Originally posted by RJHindsMost scientist do not consider the creationist point of view in estimating the ages.
Most scientist do not consider the creationist point of view in estimating
the ages. That is where they go wrong. The scientific method requires
the correct point of view to start with to arrive at a correct conclusion.
They see Adam being formed from the sperm and egg and therefore by
todays standards there is no way he could have been created in a da ...[text shortened]... view in the scientific method and must result in the wrong conclusion.
Do you get my point now?
That should be 'nearly all scientists'. But you are correct, they don't. For good reasons, it's nonsense.
That is where they go wrong.
LOL!!!! I see, they go wrong because they don't agree with you?!🙄
The scientific method requires the correct point of view to start with to arrive at a correct conclusion.
Okaaaaaaaaay?! 🙄 Thank goodness you're not a scientist.
They see Adam being formed from the sperm and egg and therefore by todays standards there is no way he could have been created in a day.
I have no idea what that statement even means, let alone what relevance it has to what we're discussing?!
They view everything like the evolutionist do
You mean by looking at the evidence and following scientific procedures?
That is the wrong point of view in the scientific method and must result in the wrong conclusion.
Don't even know what that means Ron.
Do you get my point now?
Absolutely not. I don't think you have ever made less sense.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI give up with you because you ae not open to any view but your own.
[b]Most scientist do not consider the creationist point of view in estimating the ages.
That should be 'nearly all scientists'. But you are correct, they don't. For good reasons, it's nonsense.
That is where they go wrong.
LOL!!!! I see, they go wrong because they don't agree with you?!🙄
The scientific method requires the corre ...[text shortened]... u get my point now?
Absolutely not. I don't think you have ever made less sense.[/b]
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm open to any view but you have to put it across to me in a form other than nonsense. These last few posts of yours have been the biggest garbage you've written since you arrived here.
I give up with you because you ae not open to any view but your own.
Recap, this is what you said -
(The) Laws of physics, such as the Inverse Square Law, laws dealing with magnetism, movement, force and pressure to name a few..........appear to limit the earth to thousands of years of age.
You were asked to elaborate on that statement.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI have to go now. My wife just reminded me that I have to go pick up
I'm open to any view but you have to put it across to me in a form other than nonsense. These last few posts of yours have been the biggest garbage you've written since you arrived here.
Recap, this is what you said -(The) Laws of physics, such as the Inverse Square Law, laws dealing with magnetism, movement, force and pressure to name a ...[text shortened]... earth to thousands of years of age.
You were asked to elaborate on that statement.
her medicine, etc.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe creationist you mention does not have a hypothesis that is subject to falsification conditions. That means he should rightfully get ignored when it comes to scientific work aimed at establishing the age of the earth. Let me explain why this is so.
This may be difficult to explain to someone who does not know anything about
Physics, so I hope you at least had High School Physics.
The problem in dating the age of the earth is complicated by the different
world views of the creationists and the evolutionists. The creationists
view the universe and the earth as being created fully formed and ready f atures of creation and can not be used
as valid estimators of age.
Do you understand this?
The creationist you mention basically holds that the earth was created only thousands of years ago but in a mature form that ostensibly looks much, much older that what it really is. Well, that certainly seems broadly possible. But please tell me exactly what testing conditions would serve as falsification conditions for this hypothesis. In other words, please outline for me what observations we could make in principle that would show that this hypothesis of yours is thereby disconfirmed. This is exactly where the problem comes in. Your hypothesis entails that the earth is only thousands of years old. In order to falsify this, the natural thing to do would of course be to submit evidence that suggests that, on the contrary, the earth is much, much older than only thousands of years. But, your hypothesis already provides that the earth should ostensibly appear and test as much, much older than it really is; so it appears your hypothesis is so plastic that it can stretch to accommodate any such observations and simply deny that they constitute falsification conditions.
Do you understand my point? Look at what you are doing in this post of yours. For example, you say that scientists estimate the earth's age as billions of years, based on various testing methods; then you object to their estimate on the basis that they have not considered the aforementioned creationist hypothesis that the earth was created recently but in a mature form that ostensibly tests as much older than what it really is. But, sorry, these scientists are not obligated to consider that. In fact, on the contrary, they are pretty much obligated to ignore it, since it has no working falsification conditions. You can always say, "Well, your tests suggest that the earth is that old because God created the earth in a mature form consistent with that observation; but, nevertheless, God created it only thousands of years ago." This is not a competing scientific hypothesis that anyone should take seriously. If a hypothesis has no disconfirmation conditions, it basically does not assert anything that scientists can take seriously. Them's the breaks.
Just because you can clutter up the scientific discussion of the earth's age with such considerations, it does not follow that scientists are obligated to take you seriously or that they are obligated to retract their previous work. If you bring a supposedly competing hypothesis to the table, you are responsible for making sure it satisfies very basic criteria, like having disconfirmation conditions. Failing that, you get ignored, and justifiably so.
Originally posted by RJHindsSorry, but you clearly have no clue how science works.
Most scientist do not consider the creationist point of view in estimating
the ages. That is where they go wrong. The scientific method requires
the correct point of view to start with to arrive at a correct conclusion.
They see Adam being formed from the sperm and egg and therefore by
todays standards there is no way he could have been created in a da ...[text shortened]... view in the scientific method and must result in the wrong conclusion.
Do you get my point now?
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't think we need to speculate on any outside calamities occurring
to the earth before man was created to live on it. I do not see any
evidence of any such thing happening in Genesis 1:1-2. It simply
indicates a work in progress in my opinion. I don't think there is any
justification for us to believe in any speculations that men might
dream up t ...[text shortened]... y opinion, all these things you have heard is science fiction and
we should treat it as such.
I don't think we need to speculate on any outside calamities occurring
to the earth before man was created to live on it. I do not see any
evidence of any such thing happening in Genesis 1:1-2. It simply
indicates a work in progress in my opinion. I don't think there is any
justification for us to believe in any speculations that men might
dream up to explain how they imagine the earth appeared in the past.
In my opinion, all these things you have heard is science fiction and
we should treat it as such.
You speculate on moon dust and radiometric dating. I can muse a little on evidence of mass extinctions.
It doesn't replace the word of God. But I don't think you do less musing on science discoveries than I do. I don't think you speculate less on these things. Your speculation just brings you to other opinions.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI do not recall speculating on moon dust and radiometric dating. I did
[quote] I don't think we need to speculate on any outside calamities occurring
to the earth before man was created to live on it. I do not see any
evidence of any such thing happening in Genesis 1:1-2. It simply
indicates a work in progress in my opinion. I don't think there is any
justification for us to believe in any speculations that men might
ink you speculate less on these things. Your speculation just brings you to other opinions.
mention at one time that some scientists associated with the moon
landing speculated that the age of the moon should result in a lot of
moon dust and designed the moon lander with long legs with pods
to make sure they did not sink down into the deep layers of moon dust
they expected to find there. The moon dust turned out to be very thin
probably because it had not been in existence as long as they believed.
P.S. I believe the mass extinctions was due to the worldwide flood
during Noah's day. You might call that speculation but we have written
and physical evidence of this flood all around the world.
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat you are saying is ridiculous. How can anyone provide a way to
The creationist you mention does not have a hypothesis that is subject to falsification conditions. That means he should rightfully get ignored when it comes to scientific work aimed at establishing the age of the earth. Let me explain why this is so.
The creationist you mention basically holds that the earth was created only thousands of years ago b like having disconfirmation conditions. Failing that, you get ignored, and justifiably so.
falsify the truth? The evolutionists can not figure out how to falsify
creation so they argue that since they are not intelligent enough to
come up with a believeable way to falsify it, then it becomes the
responsibility of the creationists to give them a way; and until they
do they are jusified in ignoring the idea of creation. That is nonsense
if I ever heard any nonsense. You can falsify something that is false;
but there is no truthful way to falsify the truth.
I was trying to present the two ways of thinking about the world to
Proper Knob so that he would be able to understand better how one
must use the right methods in dating the earth. He would not even
consider the creationists point of view, so obviously he will do the same
for scientifiic laws and evidence that limit the earths age. So it becomes
a waste of my time to go any further.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe evolutionists can not figure out how to falsify
What you are saying is ridiculous. How can anyone provide a way to
falsify the truth? The evolutionists can not figure out how to falsify
creation so they argue that since they are not intelligent enough to
come up with a believeable way to falsify it, then it becomes the
responsibility of the creationists to give them a way; and until they
do they ar ...[text shortened]... ws and evidence that limit the earths age. So it becomes
a waste of my time to go any further.
creation so they argue that since they are not intelligent enough to
come up with a believeable way to falsify it, then it becomes the
responsibility of the creationists to give them a way; and until they
do they are jusified in ignoring the idea of creation.
No, that is not the argument I put forth. What I claimed and attempted to defend is that the assertion you ascribed to the creationist does not properly count as a testable empirical hypothesis to begin with. There are no disconfirmation conditions for the idea that some supernatural being created the world only thousands of years ago but in a robustly mature form that naturally looks and tests as much, much older. Such an idea is just trivially compatible with any observations that suggest that the earth is much, much older than only thousands of years. Speaking from a scientific standpoint, this creationist may as well have asserted nothing at all. You obviously do not understand this, but it is actually a good scientist's obligation to ignore such a creationist claim. Such creationists should just quit polluting the scientific landscape with their non-science.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe problem I see with your idea is the scientist were not there to observe
[b]The evolutionists can not figure out how to falsify
creation so they argue that since they are not intelligent enough to
come up with a believeable way to falsify it, then it becomes the
responsibility of the creationists to give them a way; and until they
do they are jusified in ignoring the idea of creation.
No, that is not the argument I Such creationists should just quit polluting the scientific landscape with their non-science.[/b]
when and how the earth came into existence. So their statement that the
earth is 4.5 billion years old is just a belief system, not pure science. It
is not even as good as the creation belief because creationists at least
have the testimony of the one who says He was in the beginning and
created it.
Originally posted by RJHindsBeing present at a phenomena is not a requirement of science. Science is based on evidence, not on personal experience.
The problem I see with your idea is the scientist were not there to observe
when and how the earth came into existence. So their statement that the
earth is 4.5 billion years old is just a belief system, not pure science. It
is not even as good as the creation belief because creationists at least
have the testimony of the one who says He was in the beginning and
created it.