Facing the angry YEC neighbor

[Patrick_S]

@Dale

Why is that not irrelevant and sidestepping the question? That does nothing to disprove the validity and importance of forensic evidence. Did anyone make a claim that it solved all murder investigations?

@Dale

‘Outside of historical ones’ where there were live witnesses? Is that what you mean? Then we should stop trying to solve murders based on M.O. and forensics, and we should close all crime labs.

As you can see, you brought up forensics as part of proving past history. If we can’t solve something as simple as who robbed the store on the corner or who killed a random victim, what does that say for real mysteries of the past, particularly pre-history?

Who built stonehenge? What happened on Easter Island? Where is Atlantis? What happened to the bones of the giants found worldwide? Who killed the dragons? Why have we never observed evolution in all of recorded history? And why do so many ancient structures look like they were built with modern tools?

Giza's Basalt Floor ~ Proof Of High Technology

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

How does that address what I said?

@Dale

According to YEC thinking and if their thinking were consistent, there could be no cold cases solved by DNA.

[Patrick_S]

@"Dale

How does that address what I said?

@Dale

According to YEC thinking and if their thinking were consistent, there could be no [ cold cases solved by DNA ]

You’ll have to explain your logic here. I don’t see the parallel.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

All you are saying is that forensics does not solve all mysteries. No one said it did. The point is, it does solve some, and it is therefore not the absolutely worthless and completely illegitimate enterprise like you (and YECism) are trying to imply.

[Patrick_S]

@jammycakes

I’ll discuss reconciling an old earth with Genesis if you can discuss reconciling a young earth with Deuteronomy 25:13-16:

¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.

I’ll be happy to discuss this if you’ll tell me what honest weights and measures we’re dealing with here.

[Patrick_S]

I’m saying that science is severely limited in what it can and can’t explain, especially when dealing with things that happened in the past. It can define what it observes, measures, etc, and make predictions about future actions, but you can’t go back and answer the types of questions I asked in my previous post. You can hypothesize and make conjectures, but ultimately, the answer will require some faith to believe because it cannot be proven.

The most honest science sites dealing with the past are filled with words like “we think”, “may be”, “possibly” and other words saying they can’t prove what they’re saying, but they believe it.

I deleted my last post on the AIG thread since you’re doing better here and actually interacting.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

“We think the earth may be older than 4 ka.” No, we know positively, as well as better than you know your own age. There is a lot more evidence.

(The post you deleted was in a PM. )

[Patrick_S]

PM works even better.
I’m still getting used to the forum.

4 ka? Yes, it’s older. 6,000 years +/-

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Patrick_S

Yes, it’s older.

Way older. Positively. Better than you know your own age. There is way, way, way more evidence.
 

100 Reasons the Earth is Old

 
This is cool, because the different dating methods validate and calibrate each other:
 

A 60,000 Year Varve Record from Japan Refutes the Young-Earth Interpretation...

[Patrick_S]

I hope you don’t expect me to refute everything on those.

Most of the first link’s timelines are based on uniformitarianism. The earth changes and has changed in the past. What science thinks takes millions of years is often done within days or weeks. Coal, oil, gas and diamonds. All are not only continuously being made, they can form in a very short time.

Earth is actually an oil-producing machine. We call energy sources such as crude oil and natural gas fossil fuels based on the assumption that they are the products of decaying organisms, maybe even dinosaurs themselves. But the label is a misnomer. Research from the last decade found that hydrocarbons are synthesized abiotically.

Earth Is An Oil-Producing Machine — We're Not Running Out

[Patrick_S]

@Dale

This is cool, because the different dating methods validate and calibrate each other :

So many different tests of the annual nature of the varves have been conducted here because these varves play a critical role in calibrating the radiocarbon (C14) clock.

Radiometric ‘clocks’ shouldn’t need calibration, should they? It seems that kind of defeats the whole purpose of them.

About those tree rings…

In this light, it’s extremely interesting that Methuselah, the tree with the world’s oldest “confirmed” age of 4,900 years, was, according to one of D&W’s own references, not dated by “simple” ring counting. Rather, it too was cross-dated! In fact, the oldest tree dated by simple ring counting appears to be a 2,200-year-old redwood from northern California. So, even if Woodmorappe is correct that mature bristlecones are incapable of producing multiple rings per year, the true age of Methuselah could still be less than 4,500 years, the time allowed for tree growth since the Genesis Flood!

Tree Rings, Varves, and the Age of the Earth: An Update

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Patrick_S

I’ll be happy to discuss this if you’ll tell me what honest weights and measures we’re dealing with here.

Start here:

A review of Answers in Genesis’s ten best evidences for a young earth —...

Not a single one of these claims provides a shred of evidence for a young earth. Every single one of them — and in fact, every other claim of evidence for a young earth that I’ve ever seen — plays fast and loose with the basic rules and principles of how measurement works, some of them even to the extent of completely disregarding the role of measurement in determining the ages of rock strata altogether. Tiny samples with huge error bars are presented as “overwhelming” evidence for absurd new laws of fantasy physics that would have vaporised the earth if they had any basis in reality. The extent and significance of discrepancies in conventional dating methods is repeatedly blown up out of all proportion, with errors of just 20-30%, and results from techniques pushed to breaking point, being touted as evidence that all dating methods are consistently out by factors of up to a million. Isolated claims that were retracted a century ago are cited as evidence of pervasive systematic fraud in hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed studies right up to the present day. Despite their repeated denunciations of “uniformitarianism,” many of them are based on assumptions of constant rates that are totally out of touch with reality. Some of the claims that they come up with are so bad that it’s very difficult to believe that they really were made by the young-earth PhDs themselves, and not by a hacker or rogue sysadmin messing with their site in an attempt to discredit them.

@Patrick_S

Radiometric ‘clocks’ shouldn’t need calibration, should they? It seems that kind of defeats the whole purpose of them.

Of course they should. Every system of measurement needs calibration. Your car’s speedometer needs calibration. Petrol pumps need calibration. Kitchen scales need calibration. Wristwatches need calibration.

It seems you’re arguing against the basic principles of measurement itself here.