Evidence for an ancient earth

[shunyadragon]

That's a general statement you've made, referring to magical thinking (all things are answered by science; science will find all answers). It's also uninformed thinking (science exceeds the scriptures in all areas). It does not.

Science cannot tell us how long a murderer should spend in jail (metaphysics). Science cannot exist with a priori assumptions (truth exists, the law of noncontradiction and other logic laws, etc.)

Science is good at inductive observation but cannot be used to prove/disprove metaphysics/spirituality/God/logic/math.

Don't worship science, it's a false god.

Science is not worshiped nor does it represent a God.

Simply, Methodological Naturalism thesis excludes the above, metaphysical thesis assumptions of 'worlds' beyond the physical as not testable nor falsifiable by scientific methods.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you are familiar with their work, you must also be conversant with the numberless anomalies in stratigraphic layers when digs are done worldwide.

99% of fossils are marine life--much it found as high as the Himalayas, coincident with Flood theory.

Nothing here coincident with the flood theory. It has been brought to your attention the fossils on the ground on the high mountains, like Everest, are in geological formations extent (primarily limestones and limey shales) formed in shallow seas like in today's Bermuda platform, and not in flood sediments. These formations extend under the Mountains in extensive folded and faulted formations observed directly by exploration drill holes just like I did in my work as a geologist. All over the world these formations contain fossils like at the surface. First hand experience by me, a supervisor geologist logging dill holes.

 

[gnostic]

That's a general statement you've made, referring to magical thinking (all things are answered by science; science will find all answers). It's also uninformed thinking (science exceeds the scriptures in all areas). It does not.

Science cannot tell us how long a murderer should spend in jail (metaphysics). Science cannot exist with a priori assumptions (truth exists, the law of noncontradiction and other logic laws, etc.)

Science is good at inductive observation but cannot be used to prove/disprove metaphysics/spirituality/God/logic/math.

Don't worship science, it's a false god.

Now that reply contain so many illogical and straw man claims.

I don't worship science.

Science is just a method of acquiring knowledge and that knowledge is a tool that enable people to their work effectively.

Take for instance, a baker. A baker require knowledge to make dough from flour, water and any other ingredients he may add, and he would shape dough as bread loaf or as roll, knowledge in how to use the oven, knowing how hot the oven needs to be and how long to bake it, and so on. A baker don't worship his flour, dough, bread, oven or fire.

Similarly, a fisherman will need knowledge to catch fish or carpenter to construct a cabinet for living room. What a person needs to do the their work, are tools and materials, knowledge, skill and experience of how to do any work. It doesn't require god, prayers or miracles.

It is the same with science. Science provide the know how.

Only primitive ignorant people think God can teach him how to do their works or expect the god to do for him.

Do you pray to or worship a god to know how to farm or how to fix the plumbing?

It is not worshipping science to use science. You are just being dishonest fool to make such obvious dishonest claim that people worship science, BilliardsBall.

 

[Sapiens]

Please describe any 10th changes, then, shown in the flora and fauna of this world over the last 5,000 years...

There are lots of such examples, look up Holocene or Sixth Extinction. One example is the extinction of mammoths that allowed grasslands mammoths had maintained through their grazing habits to become birch forests. The new forest and the resulting forest fires may have induced climate change.

See: Doughty, C. E.; Wolf, A.; Field, C. B. (2010). "Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: The first human‐induced global warming?". Geophysical Research Letters. 37 (15).

 

[Malicex]

Science is good at inductive observation but cannot be used to prove/disprove metaphysics/spirituality/God/logic/math.

The general concept of a god/creator is unfalsifiable. That's not exactly a good thing. It's extraordinarily easy to come up with unfalsifiable/untestable explanations. If I kill my neighbor, I can say the Devil did it and framed me. There is a good reason why unfalsifiable explanations are not accepted in science. The fact is, a creationsist can just make up whatever they want on a whim, whenever they can't explain something. You are free to adjust your creation explanation as much as you like to fit the evidence / our observations, even if it sounds ridiculous (e.g. the ERVs explanation is definitely cringy). If you can't explain something then <insert magic here>. It's a pointless exercise and doesn't further our understanding of anything.

Don't worship science, it's a false god.

Right. We should worhsip a god that thinks it's a good idea to avoid telling people he's the real god, because it makes so much more sense to choose a few people here and there, so that they can write it down, and then tell other people, that god told them, to tell us, that he is real. Makes complete sense. Perhaps after he's done playing peekaboo with the universe, he'll start coming up with better ideas. We can only hope.

 

[Polymath257]

That's a general statement you've made, referring to magical thinking (all things are answered by science; science will find all answers). It's also uninformed thinking (science exceeds the scriptures in all areas). It does not.

Science cannot tell us how long a murderer should spend in jail (metaphysics). Science cannot exist with a priori assumptions (truth exists, the law of noncontradiction and other logic laws, etc.)

Science is good at inductive observation but cannot be used to prove/disprove metaphysics/spirituality/God/logic/math.

Don't worship science, it's a false god.

Don't worship at all. THINK.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nothing here coincident with the flood theory. It has been brought to your attention the fossils on the ground on the high mountains, like Everest, are in geological formations extent (primarily limestones and limey shales) formed in shallow seas like in today's Bermuda platform, and not in flood sediments. These formations extend under the Mountains in extensive folded and faulted formations observed directly by exploration drill holes just like I did in my work as a geologist. All over the world these formations contain fossils like at the surface. First hand experience by me, a supervisor geologist logging dill holes.

It's common for creationists to repeat the talking point of "marine fossils on Mt. Everest are evidence of the Biblical flood". Yet whenever I've asked the simple follow-up question...."How did the fossils get there as part of the flood".....I get nothing.

IOW, it's a simplistic talking point with little to no thought put into it.

 

[gnostic]

Don't worship at all. THINK.

It is quite obvious here, that BilliardsBall don't know how to "think", when he can such apparent inane and dishonest straw man.

Has he ever thought about all the Christians and Jews who do understand and recognise evolution as the natural phenomena and mechanisms for biological changes over time ("time" measured in "generations", and not just "years"), passing genes through genetics?

Apparently he hasn't.

The problem with BilliardsBall, as with every other ignorant and dishonest creationists, they continued to belabour evolution doesn't explain origin of life, and we have to tell again and again that evolution isn't abiogenesis, that evolution don't need to explain origin.

Explaining the differences between evolution and abiogenesis don't help creationists because they are too dishonest and too stubbornly ignorant to learn from their mistaken understanding about evolution.

It would seem stubborn ignorance is a trait common among all Young Earth Creationists.

 

[gnostic]

It's common for creationists to repeat the talking point of "marine fossils on Mt. Everest are evidence of the Biblical flood". Yet whenever I've asked the simple follow-up question...."How did the fossils get there as part of the flood".....I get nothing.

IOW, it's a simplistic talking point with little to no thought put into it.

How those fossils get there...and how old those fossils really are.

BilliardsBall Has not presented any "age" to the fossils and to the sedimentary rocks they were found in.

He make claims about being Flood being responsible for marine life found in the Himalayas, but never presented any evidence as to how old those fossils are. His omission about the age just showed his lack of honesty and integrity in his bogus claims.

K-Ar radiometric dating (potassium and argon) revealed that every single fossils all predated the Bronze Age, so older than 5000 years.

 

[viole]

Evolutionists have had the courts, the schools and the culture for nearly a century. Half of Americans believe in Creation. With good reason!

Does that entail that the other half does not believe in creation for bad reasons?

By the way, is it true? Here in Europe YEC are as ubiquitous as flat earthers. I suspect your education system needs a review, if those numbers are right.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

How those fossils get there...and how old those fossils really are.

BilliardsBall Has not presented any "age" to the fossils and to the sedimentary rocks they were found in.

If you get any sort of genuine answer, I'll be shocked.

He make claims about being Flood being responsible for marine life found in the Himalayas, but never presented any evidence as to how old those fossils are. His omission about the age just showed his lack of honesty and integrity in his bogus claims.

Well, that's creationism. His behavior isn't any different than any other creationist.

K-Ar radiometric dating (potassium and argon) revealed that every single fossils all predated the Bronze Age, so older than 5000 years.

True, but that carries no weight to someone who bases their reality on something like the Bible. For those folks, the K-Ar results are simply wrong....they have to be, because they contradict the Biblical version of history.

There really isn't anything more to this "debate". That's why citing and explaining the science to them is fruitless. You're appealing to something they just don't value.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is quite obvious here, that BilliardsBall don't know how to "think", when he can such apparent inane and dishonest straw man.

Has he ever thought about all the Christians and Jews who do understand and recognise evolution as the natural phenomena and mechanisms for biological changes over time ("time" measured in "generations", and not just "years"), passing genes through genetics?

Apparently he hasn't.

The problem with BilliardsBall, as with every other ignorant and dishonest creationists, they continued to belabour evolution doesn't explain origin of life, and we have to tell again and again that evolution isn't abiogenesis, that evolution don't need to explain origin.

Explaining the differences between evolution and abiogenesis don't help creationists because they are too dishonest and too stubbornly ignorant to learn from their mistaken understanding about evolution.

It would seem stubborn ignorance is a trait common among all Young Earth Creationists.

Honestly, it's no different than me being ignorant of what's in the Koran. Think of it this way......if a Muslim cites the Koran to you, what's your first response? It's something like "I'm not a Muslim, so quoting the Koran is meaningless to me", right? Well, it's the same for fundamentalist Christians when we cite the scientific literature to them. Just like you place little to no value in the Koran, fundies place little to no value in science.

If you want to get anywhere with a creationist, you have to stop appealing to things they don't value. You have to address the real issue behind it all.....their religion and what it means to them. But even then, it's extremely rare to find a creationist who will even start to go down that road with you. In my experience, once they realize where the discussion is going they end it. The prospect of losing even a part of their faith is terrifying to them, so it's far safer to just avoid it altogether.

Of course if you're just in this for the entertainment value of watching creationists scramble around and make all sorts of goofy excuses to wave away inconvenient data....then by all means, carry on.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are lots of such examples, look up Holocene or Sixth Extinction. One example is the extinction of mammoths that allowed grasslands mammoths had maintained through their grazing habits to become birch forests. The new forest and the resulting forest fires may have induced climate change.

See: Doughty, C. E.; Wolf, A.; Field, C. B. (2010). "Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: The first human‐induced global warming?". Geophysical Research Letters. 37 (15).

An extinction is not an evolution. If we press the nuclear button and kill every species, is that an evolutionary imperative?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, thus a dismissal is all it deserves, and I am quite qualified to issue it. But then, so is anyone who opened his eyes while hiking in the mountains.

Hiking in the mountains we can ascertain the billions of years of geologic layers? Please tell us more.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Don't worship at all. THINK.

I agree, which is why I cannot abide when skeptics say "science will answer X, solve Y, eventually." Science cannot be used to think through metaphysics, although we can use scientific methods to test the metaphysical--if we dare.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Someone beat me to the punch, but let me just say that your response above clearly shows that this is a subject that you simply are not very familiar with. In physical anthropology, we cover the basics of this in our education even though it's not our area of specialization.

The Himalayas are "new" mountains, versus "old mountains" like the Appalachians, and many of these ranges are created by the rubbing and lifting of the edges of tectonic plates.

Also, when it comes to stratigraphy, disrupted layers are distinguishable by the fact that their lines of demarcation tend to disappear or become "blurred".

Do you really think that geologists are stupid people who don't know their own field?

I don't think geologists are stupid. Nor do you. Don't be facetious.

I think sometimes they miss certain indications of the data. The Appalachians are presumed older when it could be that they were laid down by post-Flood silt and other deposits.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you have read the book you should be able to provide cogent summaries of its main arguments and why both mine and shunyadragon's objections are without basis. You have done nothing of that kind. All you have done so far is posting links and brushing away criticisms made of regarding the content of those links. Neither have you posted any refutation regarding any positive evidence of ancient earth that I and others have presented. Why is this?

I believe it is possible that the Earth is indeed very old (billions of years). Why would I refute something so logical? What I would like to do, however, is use my time effectively. I don't think I should prepare much time citing hydroplate theory because some people (not you) are dismissive.

 

[Sapiens]

There are lots of such examples, look up Holocene or Sixth Extinction. One example is the extinction of mammoths that allowed grasslands mammoths had maintained through their grazing habits to become birch forests. The new forest and the resulting forest fires may have induced climate change.

See: Doughty, C. E.; Wolf, A.; Field, C. B. (2010). "Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: The first human‐induced global warming?". Geophysical Research Letters. 37 (15).

You asked for rapid changes in flora and fauna, extinction is just such. Additionally the ecosystem's response to the extinction of a capstone species is a massive change in flora and fauna

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nothing here coincident with the flood theory. It has been brought to your attention the fossils on the ground on the high mountains, like Everest, are in geological formations extent (primarily limestones and limey shales) formed in shallow seas like in today's Bermuda platform, and not in flood sediments. These formations extend under the Mountains in extensive folded and faulted formations observed directly by exploration drill holes just like I did in my work as a geologist. All over the world these formations contain fossils like at the surface. First hand experience by me, a supervisor geologist logging dill holes.

How would a geologist know that the shallow seas did not form from flooding? I'm curious to learn more. Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please explain 10th changes. 5,000 years does not represent any significant time in terms of 100,000 years or more even in what is described as rapid evolution.

Still waiting for you to respond to my questions and specific references . . .

You are a geologist and not an evolutionary biologist, yes?

It was said that punctuated equilibrium describes events including rapid speciation across 50,000 year time frames. We have 5,000 of recorded data until now extant. Why are we clearly not in a time of punctuated equilbrium now?