False evidence of age or mature creation?

[heddle (David Heddle)]

Yikes! You made it look as if the quote is mine!

[Wookin_Panub]

@jasonbourne4

More than 99% (easily) of the scientists who devote their lives to understanding the natural world through the sciences, including many Christians, would take issue with this claim. I will side with them on this matter. It is analogous to the examination of a crime scene. A skilled investigator has validated tools to interpret forensic evidence leading to facts.

I never said that most scientists are not sincere. This reminds me of the 90% of scientists believe in climate change argument. “Argumentum ad populum” It only takes 1, my friend

[Wookin_Panub]

For a Christian to assert something that is unbiblical is tantamount to saying something nonsensical. I just used more succinct language.

I have come across OEC who agree with my statement.

Your form of “proof by assertion” is indicative of a closed mind.

The same can be said of you. The only way one can find truth is to do it. See which form of exegesis holds a more consistent interpretation of scripture.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Wookin_Panub

Please notice the full stop between the fallacy category and reductio ad absurdum

OK, so I take it that we are in agreement that reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. Fair enough.

But you haven’t provided a shred of justification for any of the alleged fallacies (your attempts to do so took snippets of what I said out of context and ignored other things that I said to qualify them: in other words, they were quote mining), and in any case, as I’ve already stated, the young earth scientists themselves were the ones who reductioed a young earth ad absurdum.

@Wookin_Panub

Moreso, how our worldviews see, interpret and shape the evidence. We all have the same evidence. We just have different presuppositions when looking at it.

That does not apply to measurement Wookin.

I know you’ve said that the age of the Earth can not be measured, but as I’ve pointed out, that is simply not true. The fact remains that the age of the Earth is determined from measurements. That is not a presupposition: it is a fact about what geochronologists actually do. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying to you, or doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about.

Look, Wookin, if you want to claim that it’s all down to presuppositions, you need to be specific. You need to state exactly what you believe is being presupposed, exactly how it is being presupposed, and exactly how those specific presuppositions could be in error. As I said, if you want to make a case, you need to say something of substance. Just crying “presuppositions” as if it were some kind of magic shibboleth, as you have been repeatedly doing up to now, is an unsubstantiated assertion. It is nothing but hand-waving, and it wastes everybody’s time.

[jasonbourne4]

@Wookin_Panub

I never said that most scientists are not sincere. This reminds me of the 90% of scientists believe in climate change argument. “Argumentum ad populum” It only takes 1, my friend

I don’t understand what point you’re making here. The matter at hand was the issue over whether science is fit to make observations about the age of the earth or evolution. Since this discussion has failed to progress intelligibly, I will refrain from further commentary.

[Laura]

Fixed it. Unintentional libel won’t do.

[Laura]

And on that note… as has been noted, this discussion has wandered from the topic at hand and isn’t really progressing, so I think it makes sense to close it down. If anyone would like to start a spin-off discussion on something related to this topic, feel free.