Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Baseless assertion. Where is this evidence? Anybody can just say that there is evidence...

I'm saying the truth still exists, even if none of us has found it. The main problem we all face is how do we determine what's true and what's false in the land of fantasy and confusion where everyone has a different opinion about every subject

 

[Audie]

The burden of proof is on YOU since YOU are making the claim. I come to conclusions based on proof. There is absence of proof for the claim of the Christian God.

And you of all people shouldn't be upset with the guys with the PHD's. At least they honestly investigate stuff which is more than can be said of you. All you do is believe without any investigation whatsoever.

Why are you so dishonest with yourself and others?

Stirring a dumpstrr fire

 

[Polymath257]

All the evidence is available, for those who are equipped to examine it.

I agree: examine without previous bias.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Not true at all. By the way, scientists knew and could demonstrate that the Earth is many millions of years old long before radiometric dating came along. Before radiometric dating they had only rough estimates. Radiometric dating allowed a hard date to be given to those ages.

That's fine if you can prove that radiometric dating actually works, it's all too easy to make a machine in order to convince others that your theory can float but there is no way to test it's accuracy

 

[Polymath257]

But you have produced a big fat ZERO amount of evidence. All you have done is ask me to join you on your magical mystery tour and I decline because I stick with facts only. No mysterious stuff for me thanks

You gave an intellectually dishonest argument saying that all the evidence was put there to deceive. You also merely claimed this: you gave no evidence to even suggest it might be the case.

I have asked you what sort of evidence would convince you. For example, what do you consider to be convincing evidence that the sun is made mostly from hydrogen and helium and is about 93 million miles away?

If you can show me what can convince you, I am sure we can find some evidence to convince you that the Earth is much, much more than 10,000 years old.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

The burden of proof is on YOU since YOU are making the claim. I come to conclusions based on proof. There is absence of proof for the claim of the Christian God.

And you of all people shouldn't be upset with the guys with the PHD's. At least they honestly investigate stuff which is more than can be said of you. All you do is believe without any investigation whatsoever.

Why are you so dishonest with yourself and others?

I don't put my faith in men with PHD's without investigating their claims for myself. I have investigated all of their claims and found them to be false so I have no choice but to trash them.
We are dealing with questions which can't be proved in the here and now. Those who invent testing methods to test the age of something have no way of proving their method's accuracy. All they offer you is a hypothesis for which there is no proof of reliability so you are left with blind faith, just as I am but the only difference is you believe in a man (a created thing) and I believe in the One who created him

 

[Subduction Zone]

Billions of us don't believe that the scientific method has any credibility whatsoever. We believe it was hashed up by people with an agenda to replace true science with pseudo science.
Now why would I use the enemies method of testing to determine anything

Your actions here belie that claim. You could not communicate here without the scientific method. It is rather hypocritical to rely on the method and then deny it.

Just because you have a belief does not make it so. But having a false belief and posting falsehoods about that belief while benefitting from it is truly an act of incredibly bad behavior.

And no, billions do not agree with you. Only fringe Christians agree with you. Most Christians accept the theory of evolution. One does not have to call God a liar to be a Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not calling anyone a liar, I'm just stating exactly what you're stating about me. you think I'm deceived and deluded and I think you guys are, now where's the truth judge to determine who's right.

You do not realize it, but you are calling your God a liar. You would have to learn to understand how you are doing that, but it appears that you want to refuse to learn. We can demonstrate that our ideas work, you . . . not so much.

 

[Polymath257]

That's fine if you can prove that radiometric dating actually works, it's all too easy to make a machine in order to convince others that your theory can float but there is no way to test it's accuracy

Actually, there is. Quite a number of ways, actually.

Theoretical: we understand a fair amount about radioactive decay and can *predict* on first principles the decay rates of most nuclei. We can then verify those rates in a lab. Unless you can give a reason why the fundamental principles would be different *and how* they would be different, this is good evidence that the rates are constant.

Observational: different methods, based on very different properties of the nuclei involved with wildly different decay rates, manage to give the same ages. This happens across numerous conditions and with a variety of different nuclei. Unless you can explain why conditions should have changed and explain how they could change in a way that makes things consistent across the different methods, across different produced ages, and across different conditions, the *evidence* is that they are consistent and give reliable results.

But it isn't simply radioactive decay involved in dating. We can also count, for example, varves in lakes or layers in ice fields. And, once again, the results obtained by simple counting agree with those obtained by radioactive decay AND the known events whose results are recorded (such as the eruption of known volcanoes at known dates). This is sufficient to show the Earth is *at least* hundreds of thousands of years old because we have counted ice layers agreeing with other methods going back past that.

The upshot: unless you can explain why hugely different methods, based on wildly different physical processes and in various situations across numerous obtained ages should be *consistent*, any denial is simply 'denying the evidence'.

Using the Omphalos argument without justifying it is simply denying the evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

OK,granted. You must have the Monopoly on facts, my apologies

Nobody claimed that. The facts are public and readily available to those who educate themselves about them.

But, *you* are the one that claims to have this monopoly: by your own claims you say that those who disagree with you cannot obtain the real facts since they are withheld from them.

You are accusing others of what you, yourself, do.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

You gave an intellectually dishonest argument saying that all the evidence was put there to deceive. You also merely claimed this: you gave no evidence to even suggest it might be the case.

I have asked you what sort of evidence would convince you. For example, what do you consider to be convincing evidence that the sun is made mostly from hydrogen and helium and is about 93 million miles away?

If you can show me what can convince you, I am sure we can find some evidence to convince you that the Earth is much, much more than 10,000 years old.

I know that God created everything fully formed with the appearance of age to make them more interesting than just embryonic soups. Even if the scientific measuring techniques were accurate, they would still conclude that 6000 year old rocks were 4.5 billion years old.
God created things in such a way that it would fool the proud into arriving at false conclusions and it would reveal the truth to the humble.

 

[Polymath257]

I know that God created everything fully formed with the appearance of age to make them more interesting than just embryonic soups. Even if the scientific measuring techniques were accurate, they would still conclude that 6000 year old rocks were 4.5 billion years old.
God created things in such a way that it would fool the proud into arriving at false conclusions and it would reveal the truth to the humble.

Do you not see how that is simply denying the evidence?

 

[Samael_Khan]

I don't put my faith in men with PHD's without investigating their claims for myself. I have investigated all of their claims and found them to be false so I have no choice but to trash them.
We are dealing with questions which can't be proved in the here and now. Those who invent testing methods to test the age of something have no way of proving their method's accuracy. All they offer you is a hypothesis for which there is no proof of reliability so you are left with blind faith, just as I am but the only difference is you believe in a man (a created thing) and I believe in the One who created him

OK. Now we are getting somewhere.

So you admit that the Christian God cannot be proven, at least as of yet.
And you also admit that you have blind faith.

The difference is that I consider a being which I can prove to exist as more reliable than a being that I cannot prove exists. And I don't blindly follow men anymore (which I used to do as a believer ironically), but I check whether they follow the method and I accept that my views are subject to change depending on the evidence that is discovered.

You on the other hand, say that you blindly follow a creator, when in fact you are blindly following men, as you are blindly following what is written by them, that is, you blindly follow the Christian Bible.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Stirring a dumpstrr fire

I am trying to live up to your example

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Actually, there is. Quite a number of ways, actually.

Theoretical: we understand a fair amount about radioactive decay and can *predict* on first principles the decay rates of most nuclei. We can then verify those rates in a lab. Unless you can give a reason why the fundamental principles would be different *and how* they would be different, this is good evidence that the rates are constant.

Observational: different methods, based on very different properties of the nuclei involved with wildly different decay rates, manage to give the same ages. This happens across numerous conditions and with a variety of different nuclei. Unless you can explain why conditions should have changed and explain how they could change in a way that makes things consistent across the different methods, across different produced ages, and across different conditions, the *evidence* is that they are consistent and give reliable results.

But it isn't simply radioactive decay involved in dating. We can also count, for example, varves in lakes or layers in ice fields. And, once again, the results obtained by simple counting agree with those obtained by radioactive decay AND the known events whose results are recorded (such as the eruption of known volcanoes at known dates). This is sufficient to show the Earth is *at least* hundreds of thousands of years old because we have counted ice layers agreeing with other methods going back past that.

The upshot: unless you can explain why hugely different methods, based on wildly different physical processes and in various situations across numerous obtained ages should be *consistent*, any denial is simply 'denying the evidence'.

Using the Omphalos argument without justifying it is simply denying the evidence.

I appreciate all of that, but just say everything was created to look billions of years old. You shouldn't dismiss other possibilities just because they don't fit the narrative. a true scientist must consider all possibilities

 

[Polymath257]

I appreciate all of that, but just say everything was created to look billions of years old. You shouldn't dismiss other possibilities just because they don't fit the narrative. a true scientist must consider all possibilities

So, you are denying the evidence to keep your particular set of views?

The possibility that ALL the methods give the same answers in any given situation *is* the evidence and any true scientist would accept them based on that alone. But we also have the theoretical understanding.

To use the Omphalos argument is simply denying the evidence and nothing more.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

OK. Now we are getting somewhere.

So you admit that the Christian God cannot be proven, at least as of yet.
And you also admit that you have blind faith.

The difference is that I consider a being which I can prove to exist as more reliable than a being that I cannot prove exists. And I don't blindly follow men anymore (which I used to do as a believer ironically), but I check whether they follow the method and I accept that my views are subject to change depending on the evidence that is discovered.

You on the other hand, say that you blindly follow a creator, when in fact you are blindly following men, as you are blindly following what is written by them, that is, you blindly follow the Christian Bible.

Thank you for admitting that you blindly follow yourself, and for admitting that you don't know the truth since you may change your mind tomorrow.
My faith may be blind since I don't know what God has in store for tomorrow but it's not blind in the sense of His existence. I have no doubt about that as I have an intimate close personal relationship with Him

 

[Audie]

I am trying to live up to your example

Humph.

I will get you for that!

 

[Audie]

So, you are denying the evidence to keep your particular set of views?

The possibility that ALL the methods give the same answers in any given situation *is* the evidence and any true scientist would accept them based on that alone. But we also have the theoretical understanding.

To use the Omphalos argument is simply denying the evidence and nothing more.

Anyone know how to draw an
Omphaloceratops?

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

So, you are denying the evidence to keep your particular set of views?

The possibility that ALL the methods give the same answers in any given situation *is* the evidence and any true scientist would accept them based on that alone. But we also have the theoretical understanding.

To use the Omphalos argument is simply denying the evidence and nothing more.

I'm not denying that the evidence may appear to be true and it may appear to be same in many different methods of examination. What I'm trying to say is what if it was created old already. Like Adam was 1 minute old when scientists would have sworn he was 33 years old