what gives credibility?

[gseeker]

I did explain what you call lies.I also asked you a few questions on the subject too that you haven't answered. Maybe if you actually pay attention and read a little maybe we can actually get this debate going. Please refer to page 7 last paragraph.

 

[gseeker]

Kruk, just a few questions to help determine if you are a geologist.

1. What is the chemical formula for kyanite?
2. What affects the color and growth of kyanite?
3. What is kyanites hardness and what is its degree of cleavage separation?

4. What is under yellow stone national park?
5. What was the difficulty involved in determining this?
6. What are likely to be the future of Yellowstone?

7. What is the deepest trench on earth?
8. What is happening in that trench?
9. How is it happening and why are the results not typical?

10. How long does it take biological material to fossilize?
11. What are the normal conditions for Opal formation?
12. Explain the transformation of biological material to fossil material.

 

[gseeker]

This is all stuff this non geologist is knowledgeable about. There are a few trick questions but please try not to cheat too much.

 

[Krok]

..

Word salads surely are not going to hide the untruths you wrote down here. You lied.

 

[Curious George]

So, a buddy of mine happens to be a geologist. Degree came from UCSD and Graduate Degree from UCSB. Yes, there are certain factors that can affect carbon dating, however this is not the only radioactive decay that one looks at when establishing age. Moreover, other methods are also instituted in order to achieve dating such as looking at layers of sediment, and rock around said fossil or object. Now, we also need to keep in mind that when done credibly different institutions independently assess the age of the said item and the results are then compiled and most often substantiate not contradict each other. Yes, independently every dating method has some flaw or flaws; however, these flaws are mostly unique to one method. So, if you have 3 different dating processes suggesting 40k years and one that is off to 35k then it is strongly likely that you are looking at something 40k years old.

 

[uu_sage]

Creationism is not science. Believing God as the creator does not make you a creationist. In order to be a creationist you have to not only believe in God but also hold to the belief that the universe was created between 5 to 10,000 years (Young earth creationism) or older than 10,000 years (old earth creationism). Both forms of creationism deny evolution. Creationism is also contingent on belief in Biblical literalism. This type of belief is found amongst Evangelicals and fundamentalists.

This liberal Christian believes in theistic evolution. That while God created the universe it was guided by evolutionary process. I believe Earth is 4.5 billion years. Science and faith are not in conflict with each other. Science explains natural law and the principles by which the universe is governed and faith helps us wrestle with the mystery of God and the human condition.

 

[gseeker]

Sage, good answer. I'm not trying to prove that the age of the earth is 10 thousand or 4.5 million. Just trying to prove that you can never say the earth is so and so years old and claim its a fact. Yes there are multiple forms of radiometric dating systems but there are also so many mitigating factors involved that the older the sample the more factors are involved that could corrupt the end result. That includes mitigating factors that are unknown. What would seem like a small factor to most people can cause massively different results. You also have contamination issues involved.

 

[McBell]

I am not going to vote because I refuse to fuel such a self serving false dichotomy.

 

[Draka]

Sage, good answer. I'm not trying to prove that the age of the earth is 10 thousand or 4.5 million. Just trying to prove that you can never say the earth is so and so years old and claim its a fact. Yes there are multiple forms of radiometric dating systems but there are also so many mitigating factors involved that the older the sample the more factors are involved that could corrupt the end result. That includes mitigating factors that are unknown. What would seem like a small factor to most people can cause massively different results. You also have contamination issues involved.

No one trying to say it is an exact amount of years, but it's easily verified that it is billions of years old. It is easily enough proven that it is not merely thousands of years old. So, the evidence supports the fact that literal Creation is a no-go.

 

[gseeker]

No one trying to say it is an exact amount of years, but it's easily verified that it is billions of years old. It is easily enough proven that it is not merely thousands of years old. So, the evidence supports the fact that literal Creation is a no-go.

If the age of the earth isn't exact then it leaves itself open to interpretation, the earth has not been proven to be billions of years old and no evidence exists to prove such conjecture.

 

[gseeker]

The reason why it is just conjecture and not fact is because change is not constant and anything derived from modern observations cannot be used as evidence of the past. The more I study the subject the more I am accepting the old earth theory but even that is accepted of faith derived from evidence not fact derived from evidence.

 

[ChristineES]

Somewhat off topic: I believe it doesn't have to be creation vs. evolution, after all, God could have started the process of evolution for all we know. There is no way of knowing, of course.

 

[s2a]

Somewhat off topic: I believe it doesn't have to be creation vs. evolution, after all, God could have started the process of evolution for all we know. There is no way of knowing, of course.

What we can know it that all the available evidence clearly suggests that no "god" is required as explanation of either cosmological origin or evolution.

You are still free to insert a "god" into that equation/evaluation if you like, for the quantity/quality of zero has no impact in the calculations or results...

 

[Krok]

Creationism is not science. Believing God as the creator does not make you a creationist. In order to be a creationist you have to not only believe in God but also hold to the belief that the universe was created between 5 to 10,000 years (Young earth creationism) or older than 10,000 years (old earth creationism). Both forms of creationism deny evolution. Creationism is also contingent on belief in Biblical literalism. This type of belief is found amongst Evangelicals and fundamentalists.

This liberal Christian believes in theistic evolution. That while God created the universe it was guided by evolutionary process. I believe Earth is 4.5 billion years. Science and faith are not in conflict with each other. Science explains natural law and the principles by which the universe is governed and faith helps us wrestle with the mystery of God and the human condition.

You're right. That's how the overwhelming majority of Christian scientists also see it. Unfortunately for Christianity the lunatic fringe is very active on sites such as these.

 

[gseeker]

Lunatic fringe? Hmm habitual liars seem to congregate here too from what I've seen.

 

[Krok]

Lunatic fringe? Hmm habitual liars seem to congregate here too from what I've seen.

Exactly. We'll leave that for the readers to decide.

 

[Curious George]

The fossil record does not count? I understand that you believe the there to be a problem with some of the methods used. And, indeed there may be. However it still is evidence. If I were to find a gun that was used in a murder in your house, it would be evidence. There may be a problem with the evidence so as not to count it as absolute proof that you are guilty, but it is evidence nonetheless. There is also supportive evidence from the age of the universe which is also thought to be billions of years old. Maybe no one piece of evidence proves anything but when one starts taking into account all of the factors it is pretty far fetched to not believe the earth is billions of years old.

 

[mycorrhiza]

If the age of the earth isn't exact then it leaves itself open to interpretation, the earth has not been proven to be billions of years old and no evidence exists to prove such conjecture.

Radiometric dating has given us plenty of evidence. Do you have any evidence against the accuracy of it? Scientists adjust their results for possible contamination and use different types of radiometric dating to make sure that the datings are correct.

 

[Draka]

anything derived from modern observations cannot be used as evidence of the past.

Wait, what? Really now? We cannot not observe anything now that serves as evidence of past events? That can't really be your argument can it? Please say that isn't your argument.

If it is your argument it is ridiculous and can easily be shown to be so. If it is not your argument then try again.

 

[gseeker]

The fossil record does not count? I understand that you believe the there to be a problem with some of the methods used. And, indeed there may be. However it still is evidence. If I were to find a gun that was used in a murder in your house, it would be evidence. There may be a problem with the evidence so as not to count it as absolute proof that you are guilty, but it is evidence nonetheless. There is also supportive evidence from the age of the universe which is also thought to be billions of years old. Maybe no one piece of evidence proves anything but when one starts taking into account all of the factors it is pretty far fetched to not believe the earth is billions of years old.

Again I state, same evidence different interpretation. The evidence you hint at is disproven as a means to define the age of the earth because we use modern measurements trying to define the past though change isn't a constant. When we see something working in a certain way and think to ourselves, that must be exactly how that has always functioned that is a assumption that can't be proven.