Can any creationist tell me ...

[Looncall]

Translation: I prefer Man's speculations to the word of God.

No translation is needed. My post expresses my thought exactly.

You left an important word out of your post. It should read "alleged word of God": there is no evidence either for divine authorship of the bible nor even for the existence of your god.

Your beliefs do not take precedence over reality. Psychiatric wards house folk who think they are Napoleon; do their beliefs make it so?

 

[Looncall]

Sorry, I had missed it among my 35 alerts.

It's still just speculation based on assumption. All 3 are. The math looks impressive but nothing is proved that I can see.

Try these:

Is there evidence for a young earth? | Bibleinfo.com

Evidence for a Young World | The Institute for Creation Research

The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth

ICR? AIG? It is to laugh. Why do you have the gall to cite notorious liars? Look at the statements of faith of those outfits: they explicitly commit their members to lying through their teeth. Their so-called evidences have been soundly debunked and are persuasive only to the ignorant. You have been duped by scoundrels.

Anyone can have the misfortune of falling for a scam. The real test of character is whether one insists on remaining so.

 

[sayak83]

How I approach the topic is very different from the way you do. I posted those for you, I don't need them.

I believe God and I believe the Bible because God revealed the truth to me by the Holy Spirit. A true believer has the benefit of prayer. God reveals truth to those who trust in Him.

I believe you trust in the wrong thing. But if you are not interested, it's fine by me.

 

[Polymath257]

I already have. Go back and read up.

Yes, I have a problem with a scientific method that has a few million years error ratio. If a statement in the Bible was off by several thousand years you'd have a field day with it.

Off by a few million years? Yeah, I think all of modern geology is off by about that many years but it's only a few million years, right? So, no biggie.

I would point out that a 'few million years' is NOT an error *ratio*. It is an absolute error. A ratio is what you get when you divide the error by the actual date.

So, if a date is off by 1 millions for an object that it 5 million years old, that would be a 20% error ratio. But to be off by 1 million years for an actual date of 100 million years is to have a 1% error ratio. And to be off by 1 million years for an actual date of 500 million years is to be off by a .2% error ratio.

The first error (20%) would be intolerable. The second (1%) would be quite reasonable. And the third (.2%) would show incredible accuracy.

So, yes, for dates that are hundreds of millions of years, it is 'no biggie' to be off by a million years or so. For dates that are 5000 years ago, a comparable *ratio* would be 50 years. And guess what? Such an error for that time period is quite good.

 

[Polymath257]

1. Creation by God. What if God created the rock 8000 years ago with the elements already having the properties of having decayed for the period indicated by the dating method? I guess the dating method would have to be thrown out in that case.

Yes, and everything *could* have been made last Thursday, complete with all of our memories.

What if some other kind of radiation or very similar radiation from a different source affected the rate of decay in the rock? Again, the current dating method would be no good.

Nothing like this would affect the decay rates significantly. Unless, that is, you have a level of 'outside' radioactivity that would be enough to kill off all life *and* be easily detectable by its affects on the *other* isotopes in the rock.

You are reaching for impossibilities to support your mythology.

Geologists are forced to assume that the rock was in its pristine state when it formed with zero decay for their dating methods to be even somewhat accurate.

Not true. For example, contamination, if it exists, can be detected by many of the methods. For example Rb/Sr dating can detect such fairly easily.

2. Do you know of an instance when a geologist is 100% sure his dating method is 100% accurate? No, there is always margin for error many times it is millions of years or 100s of millions of years. Rock dating is far from an exact science.

No scientific measurement is 100% accurate. There are *always* error bars. The question is the size of those error bars compared to the final result. Having an error of 1 million years for a date of 500 million years is quite different than having an error of 1000 years for a date of 2000 years.

 

[Polymath257]

Translation: I prefer Man's speculations to the word of God.

I believe the evidence from the real world over the writings of superstitious people from over 2000 years ago.

 

[blü 2]

"The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes"
^ it's right there- declaring evolution a 'known' process

Again, we know with utter 100% certainty, that information systems like these can be originated through creative intelligence- that's a 'known process'

But (as we observed before) the article is dealing with natural processes. It takes creative intelligence to do the maths applicable to nested hierarchies. It takes nature to do evolution.

The strangest thing to me about doubting evolution is that (a) the process of survival-of-the-fittest-in-the-situation-it-finds-itself-in-at-any-particular-time is so freakin' obvious and (b) as trial and error experiments go, this one's had about 3.5 bn years and the entire world, land and ocean, to play out in.

we cannot say the same for evolution, there is simply no direct, empirical, repeatable observation, experiment, measurement that can verify this

(a) It's so freakin' obvious (b) there'a a freakin' HIMALAYAS of evidence to support it (c) there are puzzles but not one established counterexample after a century and a half (d) 'creation science'. which has sworn a blood oath that the theory of evolution must die, has had some 56 years since The Genesis Flood was published to smash it to pieces; yet not one tiny scientific scratch have they delivered, not even one in 56 years, nada, zip, sweet Fanny Adams.

I get that it's a very attractive, intuitive theory, just like classical physics was

Classical physics these days is the Standard Model, just over the hangover from the party for the Higgs Boson. But Newton still does all the daily chores. Newton wasn't wrong, simply incomplete. We think all science is incomplete, so we keep looking and thinking.

I'm a stickler for the scientific method, it often points elsewhere

What aspect of scientific method do you say is not followed in the theory of evolution? What's an example? If there isn't one, then, you ol' stickler you, you're still in love with it, no?

belief in Darwinism- i.e as a completely unguided natural process, is about 19% in US according to Gallup.

I say again, truth isn't democratic, the earth is not flat, the sun does not go round it, those prayed for do not show better medical outcomes than those not prayed for, and if there's a Savior he's not in the White House at the moment.

 

[blü 2]

At first I wasn't certain but now that I know Jesus I am. The Holy Spirit tells us the truth and makes it known to us. Jesus is truth.

The only thing I'd suggest is that you keep asking questions and keep an open-minded outlook. Otherwise, live long and prosper!

My parents moved here when I was very young. I don't even have a Scottish accent but I wish I did. My mother doesn't, either, she's American.

It's been said that Sean Connery has a mid-Atlantic accent with a Scottish tint. If you like ancient James Bond movies ...

 

[DavidFirth]

The only thing I'd suggest is that you keep asking questions and keep an open-minded outlook. Otherwise, live long and prosper!

It's been said that Sean Connery has a mid-Atlantic accent with a Scottish tint. If you like ancient James Bond movies ...

God continues to teach me more and more, strengthening my faith daily.

 

[DavidFirth]

I believe the evidence from the real world over the writings of superstitious people from over 2000 years ago.

Yes, you believe in Man's speculations. You believe in the evidence interpreted in a way you choose to understand it. I already know that.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, you believe in Man's speculations. You believe in the evidence interpreted in a way you choose to understand it. I already know that.

And I know you will refuse to acknowledge anything that shows your faith to be wrong.

 

[DavidFirth]

I believe you trust in the wrong thing. But if you are not interested, it's fine by me.

Jesus is truth. There is no other.

 

[DavidFirth]

And I know you will refuse to acknowledge anything that shows your faith to be wrong.

My faith isn't wrong. I abhor anything that suggests my faith is wrong. You've got a long way to go "show" in a definite way that it is wrong. In other words, prove it's wrong. You can't and we both know it.

 

[Polymath257]

My faith isn't wrong. I abhor anything that suggests my faith is wrong. You've got a long way to go "show" in a definite way that it is wrong. In other words, prove it's wrong. You can't and we both know it.

And I find such blind faith to be immoral. It removes the responsibility we all have to for ourselves and evaluate the evidence ourselves. Yes, even if that means that it shows faith is wrong.

There are plenty of ways to show your faith is wrong. But because of your blindness, you will refuse to see any of them.

 

[DavidFirth]

And I find such blind faith to be immoral. It removes the responsibility we all have to for ourselves and evaluate the evidence ourselves. Yes, even if that means that it shows faith is wrong.

There are plenty of ways to show your faith is wrong. But because of your blindness, you will refuse to see any of them.

My faith isn't blind. The evidence supports it as I have already shown. Also, God has confirmed my faith to me personally. What more do j need?

 

[Polymath257]

My faith isn't blind. The evidence supports it as I have already shown. Also, God has confirmed my faith to me personally. What more do j need?

You want believe, so you do no matter what the evidence otherwise.

 

[sayak83]

Jesus is truth. There is no other.

Brahman is Truth. There is no other.

 

[DavidFirth]

You want believe, so you do no matter what the evidence otherwise.

The evidence for is what you ignore. The evidence against is just speculation based on assumption.

 

[DavidFirth]

Brahman is Truth. There is no other.

Hmm.. What did Brahman do that is so great?

 

[Polymath257]

The evidence for is what you ignore. The evidence against is just speculation based on assumption.

Then it is against *all* religious belief.

/E: You have to speculate and make assumptions to know that there is a 'real world'. It *could* all be a delusion. But the consistency and testability is why we believe.