Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?

[Historicity]

PZ Myers pointed me to this.  It's Dr. James Kalkalios' answer to Rick Perry's evasion about the age of the Earth.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/09/07/guest-post-how-old-is-the-earth-who-knows/

[jetson]

Nice find, thanks for the link.

[raisemeup]

Really? You think this is a “nice find”? This article is essentially fact free nonsense filled with logical fallacies, deceptions and a total ignorance of what science really is and represents.

It starts with the ridiculously false claim that Perry (and Republicans in general) are somehow “anti-science”. If anything, they are supporting true science by encouraging consideration of dissent and alternative theories in the scientific community which is something bigoted atheist evolutionists do not want to allow in their own religious establishments or in our educational institutions. 

Then he suggests that if the majority of “scientists” believe something, it must be true. Well, we know that’s a crock since the majority of scientists once thought the earth was flat and that everything revolved around it. Of course, one could come up with numerous other examples. He also paints a very inaccurate picture of the number of global warming “skeptics”. In fact, the number of scientists represented in a UN report refuting global warming is a dozen times larger than the number that authored the original paper that started the controversy. And of course, we know this was a hoax from the beginning according to facts discovered during global-warming gate showing widespread forgery, cover-up and repression of any dissent.  This is clearly a political issue, not a scientific one, since numbers indicate the globe has actually been cooling over the last decade. When dissenters are punished, they are not likely to be truthful in “surveys” done by atheist organizations.

He then reveals his complete ignorance of science by suggesting that the “science” done to determine the age of the earth is equivalent to the “science” done to construct cell phones (or semiconductors or iPods…). Historical science is a completely different animal than operational science. Since his credentials would suggest he ought to know better, I would suggest that this is a purposeful deceit on his part. He caps this fallacy off by stating science “doesn’t ask for your faith, it just asks for your eyes”. That may be true of operational science, but NOT historical science which entails numerous unprovable assumptions derived by FAITH in one’s worldview. We may know the “mechanics of radioactive decay” in great detail, but our translation of those mechanics into an age for the earth through unprovable assumptions is highly suspect, particularly since there are hundreds of other methods which disagree.

The scientific process (the “operational” scientific method) that has “extended our lifespans, eradicated diseases” and “fed billons” has little to do with the scientific process (historical abductive reasoning) used in attempts to reconstruct ancient one-time events. To equivocate the two is to commit an egregious logical fallacy intended for the sole purpose of deceiving others. Shame on him. 

[Astreja]

It starts with the ridiculously false claim that Perry (and Republicans in general) are somehow “anti-science”.

Já, because praying for rain is sooo very sciency...

...something bigoted atheist evolutionists do not want to allow in their own religious establishments...

Ben Stein, is that you?

He then reveals his complete ignorance of science by suggesting that the “science” done to determine the age of the earth is equivalent to the “science” done to construct cell phones (or semiconductors or iPods…).

That's because it *is* equivalent.  Physics is physics and chemistry is chemistry, and molecules don't behave differently depending on whether they're in a radiometric dating sample or a cell phone.

We may know the “mechanics of radioactive decay” in great detail, but our translation of those mechanics into an age for the earth through unprovable assumptions is highly suspect, particularly since there are hundreds of other methods which disagree.

I disagree.  Modern radiometric dating uses multiple isotopes, with overlapping ranges, to bracket the probable age of a sample.  (And for the record, I know of no samples that point to a start date of 6,000 years ago.)

[raisemeup]

Really? (it appears I am going to be using that expression quite frequently). You really believe that the basis of historical science and operational science are “equivalent”? It appears that the author of the article is not the only one ignorant of science (and please, I am NOT calling you ignorant). That is not surprising since most atheists/liberals never bother to look past the propaganda and actually investigate the facts. These scientific terms and methods were not recently invented by creationists. They have been in use for centuries by scientists of all types.

The scientific method involves repeated observations, measurements and testing of things we can see and handle in the present. The concern of historical science (like evolution) is one-time events in the ancient past which have NEVER been observed and CANNOT be repeated or measured. It is NOT subject, nor can be, to the scientific method. The best we can do is make an inference to the best explanation based on ASSUMPTIONS (abductive reasoning). If the assumptions are wrong, then our explanation will also be wrong. In the case of radiometric dating, we must ASSUME the amount of original parent/daughter materials, the constancy of the decay rate and the flow of elements into our out of the system (among many other assumptions). “Modern” methods entail their own assumptions and do not get past these. Properly interpreted, radiometric dating indicates the earth is only thousands of years old, which agrees with probably a hundred other dating methods I have come across.

[Astreja]

You really believe that the basis of historical science and operational science are “equivalent”?

Yes.  The actual science is the same; only the implementations differ.

It appears that the author of the article is not the only one ignorant of science (and please, I am NOT calling you ignorant).

(reaches for Her Clue-By-Four™)

*BONK*

From the context, you did indeed call Me ignorant of science.   Attempt at apology rejected.

That is not surprising since most atheists/liberals never bother to look past the propaganda and actually investigate the facts.

Unsupported assertion and attempted mindreading.

Properly interpreted, radiometric dating indicates the earth is only thousands of years old, which agrees with probably a hundred other dating methods I have come across.

Three peer-reviewed studies from three different, legitimate mainstream geological journals or I'm calling argumentum ex rectum on your claim.

[One Above All]

BM. This is gonna be funny

Scratch that, imma participate. That will be more fun.

raisemeup, why is it that the only science that's wrong is the one that proves the Bible is a complete and utter lie? I assume you also believe the Earth is a flat disk[1] and that the sky is literally the limit, as it's a solid dome spread over the planet[2]

1.	Protip: A circle is not a sphere, I'm sure you know this
2.	Bronze is solid, last time I checked

[Anfauglir]

“Modern” methods entail their own assumptions and do not get past these. Properly interpreted, radiometric dating indicates the earth is only thousands of years old, which agrees with probably a hundred other dating methods I have come across.

Properly interpreted....you know, like the Bible. 

But go ahead, raisemeup.....I'd be interested to see a list of these "hundred other dating methods" that you have seen. 

Betcha one of them is counting the years of the gaeneology of Adam.....

[grant]

Welcome raisemeup!

Boy, looks like you're gonna really shake the forum to its very foundations.

[Ambassador Pony]

Three peer-reviewed studies from three different, legitimate mainstream geological journals or I'm calling argumentum ex rectum on your claim.

duh. They're all part of the grand conspiracy. Haven't you been paying attention?

[plethora]

Here's the video of the incident.

Rick Perry may be an dumbass creationist ... but I can't say I approve of a mother using her son that way. She was repeatedly instructing her son to "Ask him about evolution", "Ask him why he doesn't believe in science". Not cool. She can ask him herself, don't use kids.

[jetson]

Sigh...raisemeup...can you just get to your point, because so far, the two posts you wrote sound like defense of the deluded at a level that we have seen over and over.

Rick Perry is an idiot.  He could care less about real science, and what it means, and how it works.  He is a politician who will say anything to maintain his power, and to become president.  He thinks that Jesus is the answer to the problems in Texas, and will do so to our country if elected. 

I have no idea why you chose to post here, so perhaps you should just get your agenda on the table right now, so we can avoid all of the bullshit back and forth.

[Nick]

By the way...how is that praying for rain thing working out for Texas?  Seems pretty hot and dry there to me.

[raisemeup]

I have no idea why you chose to post here, so perhaps you should just get your agenda on the table right now, so we can avoid all of the bullshit back and forth.

I would have put it differently, but thank you nonetheless, that is a very good question. I would certainly be extremely interested to find out why anyone posts on this forum. I suspect that since participants are primarily atheist (in fact, I’ve seen no Christians here so far), that most participate because it makes them feel good about the poor theological choice they have made and need some rationalization, encouragement and propaganda from fellow believers to get them by. 

Regarding my own reasons, I came across this site quite accidently, but it caught my attention. While it was good marketing, as I read the first “reason why God is imaginary”, it affirmed to me that atheists are not at all interested in the truth, but simply rationalization for their own worldview. There was no balance or holistic search for truth in the reasoning behind why God doesn’t appear to answer atheists’ prayers, but rather it was simply cherry picking Bible verses to rationalize a belief they already had. This is not only a disservice to readers but an attempt to fool oneself as well.

While we all probably have better things to do, I thought it might be fun to see what would happen if I challenged any of those beliefs with the truth in a forum where I would definitely be the minority. This was the first current topic that peaked my interest since I have been researching creation vs evolution for some time now. I do have a few pet peeves in regards to that and one of the most “annoying” is the logical fallacy that if you do not agree with evolution that you are somehow “unscientific” or anti-science. This is a particularly strange allegation when you realize that creation scientists founded most of the science we enjoy today. So when I read the posted article that used those same fallacies and that it was applauded by one participant as a “good find”, I simply felt compelled to respond.

Now, as I’ve said, atheists on this forum do not appear to be searching for truth, but rather rationalization, so I’m not naïve enough to think I’m going to convince anyone with the truth. I was more curious to see if anyone would actually propose good arguments to challenge my own beliefs rather than the typical atheist responses I usually see which consist primarily of character attacks and blind assertions. Now, I may have started off a little strong myself, so I do apologize if I offended anyone. I don’t have canned responses, but if anyone is willing to be patient, I would be happy to respond to the challenges proposed in the replies to my post. Whether they are off topic or not will have to be judged as we proceed. I think the primary topic of this particular post revolves around whether operational and historical sciences are the same. Clearly they are not. I would have thought that was a rather intuitive fact, but apparently to justify evolution as “science”, it is necessary to ignore the facts.

[Omen]

I would have put it differently, but thank you nonetheless, that is a very good question. I would certainly be extremely interested to find out why anyone posts on this forum. I suspect that since participants are primarily atheist (in fact, I’ve seen no Christians here so far), that most participate because it makes them feel good about the poor theological choice they have made and need some rationalization, encouragement and propaganda from fellow believers to get them by.

What is this poor theological choice I made?

Why do I need rationalizations or encouragement for not believing that which I have no reason to believe?

Regarding my own reasons, I came across this site quite accidently, but it caught my attention. While it was good marketing, as I read the first “reason why God is imaginary”, it affirmed to me that atheists are not at all interested in the truth

What truth would that be?

How did you determine this truth?

but simply rationalization for their own worldview.

What world view would that be?

What requires active rationalization around a god not existing as part of a cohesive worldview?

There was no balance or holistic search for truth in the reasoning behind why God doesn’t appear to answer atheists’ prayers, but rather it was simply cherry picking Bible verses to rationalize a belief they already had. This is not only a disservice to readers but an attempt to fool oneself as well.

Can you provide any examples?

While we all probably have better things to do, I thought it might be fun to see what would happen if I challenged any of those beliefs with the truth in a forum where I would definitely be the minority. This was the first current topic that peaked my interest since I have been researching creation vs evolution

What does evolution have to do with the age of the earth?

for some time now. I do have a few pet peeves in regards to that and one of the most “annoying” is the logical fallacy that if you do not agree with evolution that you are somehow “unscientific” or anti-science.

Who made that argument?

If evolution is valid scientifically speaking and you reject it for unscientific reasons, can we not then call you out as being unscientific?

This is a particularly strange allegation when you realize that creation scientists founded most of the science we enjoy today. So when I read the posted article that used those same fallacies and that it was applauded by one participant as a “good find”, I simply felt compelled to respond.

Examples?

Now, as I’ve said, atheists on this forum do not appear to be searching for truth, but rather rationalization, so I’m not naïve enough to think I’m going to convince anyone with the truth. I was more curious to see if anyone would actually propose good arguments to challenge my own beliefs

Why do we have to give you arguments to challenge your beliefs?

Should not your claims be supported by evidence and reason already, the difference only being that you can coherently and logically support the burden of proof for those claims?

rather than the typical atheist responses I usually see which consist primarily of character attacks and blind assertions.

Examples?

Now, I may have started off a little strong myself, so I do apologize if I offended anyone.

You've made many accusations without warrant or citation, do you think its fair, reasonable, honest, and respectable to do so?

I don’t have canned responses

Can I point out any argument you make that I've heard other apologetics repeat, even for differing religious beliefs?

but if anyone is willing to be patient, I would be happy to respond to the challenges proposed in the replies to my post. Whether they are off topic or not will have to be judged as we proceed. I think the primary topic of this particular post revolves around whether operational and historical sciences are the same. Clearly they are not. I would have thought that was a rather intuitive fact, but apparently to justify evolution as “science”, it is necessary to ignore the facts.

What does evolution have to do with identifying an age for the earth?  What does that have to do with justifying evolution as science?

What facts are ignored?

[Astreja]

Now, as I’ve said, atheists on this forum do not appear to be searching for truth, but rather rationalization, so I’m not naïve enough to think I’m going to convince anyone with the truth.

You have to possess the truth before you can convince us.

I was more curious to see if anyone would actually propose good arguments to challenge my own beliefs rather than the typical atheist responses I usually see which consist primarily of character attacks and blind assertions. Now, I may have started off a little strong myself, so I do apologize if I offended anyone.

I will not accept your apology unless you fully retract your statement "Atheists on this forum do not appear to be searching for truth."

...Apparently to justify evolution as “science”, it is necessary to ignore the facts.

I disagree vehemently with your assertion.  My brother is a biologist, and I have seen his research.  I know for Myself that evolution is for real and that it is indeed science.

[Omen]

Raise, you've made several assertions that at face value do not logically follow in a manner that is coherent with the terminology you're using.

Perhaps you can begin simple and define science for us, as well as evolution?

[Avatar Of Belial]

I would certainly be extremely interested to find out why anyone posts on this forum.

   Why do we participate in this forum? Why do Christians go to church? Why do trekkies go to Star Trek conventions? Really, they're all the same. People want to be part of a like-minded community. We come here because we find smart, moral people who share similar interests, goals, and senses of humor.

This is a particularly strange allegation when you realize that creation scientists founded most of the science we enjoy today.

   Really? Because Creation Science only became anything resembling an organised force sometime around the 1960s. About 50 years for all the science we enjoy today? I don't think so. Worse off for your claim is that Creation Science only focuses on the narrow field of "Creation" and attempts to invalidate multiple actual scientific fields like biology and paleantology (for evolution), geology (for Earth's formation), as well as cosmology and physics (for the formation of the universe). As a direct result, the "science we enjoy today" is under attack.

   Now, I welcome you to provide examples otherwise, but I have heard of no actual science or technology that "Creation Science" has produced in its 50 years of fighting evolution.

[RaymondKHessel]

Wow. We've got a live one folks. This oughta be a hoot. 

I'm ready, Yoda. Enlighten the fuck out of me! Just blow my evil closed mind right open with your arsenal of jaw-dropping revelations and Eternal Trufs. Hand grenades of logic and reason abound! Hooray! I can FEEL it! Today my liberal, (and here I thought I was a libertarian) godless, baby-eating ways will be scattered to the four winds by the various "facts" and fictions of random-internet-guy-with-an-agenda-and-a-stick-up-his-ass #897!!!

I've waited SO long for this. I can barely contain myself. Where do we begin? Ooh! Let's start at the part after the rib lady eats the superfruit(tm) from the talking snake, but BEFORE the magic boat ride with the 600,000 species of scorpions on it!

Let me say though, I'm just a little skittish about eating people's flesh and drinking their blood, but if it's going to get me to open my closed mind and fill the gaping hole in my soulish region, I'm all for it!

...

Huh... That's weird.

Now I'm not psychic or anything, but on a whim, I DID just toss a fistfull of chicken bones into a copper plate along with a crow's egg and a couple of goat testicles, and they tell me... This can't be right... that somehow Barrack Obama is to blame for all the world's ills? And something about faggots being sub-human or something... That part's a little hazy...
 

Well, it is what it is! I can't question the Truth of the Bones! This is just swell, I have to say. I already feel more souliful and we haven't even started yet! This is just from me opening my heart and my legs to let the sunshine of your love in! Verily, I say unto thee... I am fucking STOKED!

LET'S GET EDUMACATED CATS AND KITTENS! <Awaits further text in rapt awe>

[nogodsforme]

The science that supports human evolution is the same science that explains who committed a murder on one of those CSI shows. Or do you think that the police can't catch a criminal unless they actually witnessed the crime?[1]

Forensic scientists use fingerprints, DNA, soil analysis, bone fragments and other human remains, plus that icky stuff about bacteria and maggots in dead bodies. With the right evidence, scientists can create a pretty accurate story of what happened at a crime scene yesterday, last year or many years ago. The murder was a one time event in the past but we can still reconstruct it. Now why would you not be able to apply the same principles to geological or climatological or biological evidence?

1.	Is this what you mean by "historical" as opposed to "operational" science? I have never heard those terms used before in any class or scholarly work in obtaining one BA, two MA's and one PhD from prestigious US educational institutions. Operated by narrow-minded deluded atheists, no doubt.

[jetson]

Ok, starting off well, what with actual paragraphs and decent grammar.  +1

But, immediately failing with all manner of unsupported nonsense.  But at least we know what we're up against.  It's one of those people who might amaze their fellow believers with their use of sciencey words, but falls completely short of actually saying anything remotely honest about topics that are obviously beyond his knowledge.

Look, you stepped into a thread, without first getting to know who we are, and obviously not having done much reading, and made some pretty amazingly ignorant claims. So, again, as we continue down this path of getting to know you, perhaps you can tell us how all the animals got here, and how old the earth is?  This should be fun.

[RaymondKHessel]

Ok, starting off well, what with actual paragraphs and decent grammar.  +1

But, immediately failing with all manner of unsupported nonsense.  But at least we know what we're up against.  It's one of those people who might amaze their fellow believers with their use of sciencey words, but falls completely short of actually saying anything remotely honest about topics that are obviously beyond his knowledge.

Look, you stepped into a thread, without first getting to know who we are, and obviously not having done much reading, and made some pretty amazingly ignorant claims. So, again, as we continue down this path of getting to know you, perhaps you can tell us how all the animals got here, and how old the earth is?  This should be fun.

Yep. It's what set me on the path to glory. 

[jetson]

Yep. It's what set me on the path to glory. 

Ha!  Me too!   

[Emergence]

This is a particularly strange allegation when you realize that creation scientists founded most of the science we enjoy today.

   Really? Because Creation Science only became anything resembling an organised force sometime around the 1960s. About 50 years for all the science we enjoy today? I don't think so.

My guess would be that rmu isn't talking about the same kind of "creation scientists" you have in mind. I think, that there is a certain level of interpreting the history of science where one could say, that science - or rather some form of "proto-science" - over a certain epoch was in large part advanced by individuals who set out to observe nature - or in their understanding "the creation"- as closely as possible in order to gain some - even minuscule - insight in the "mind" of the creator.

I think that it is possible to see at least western science to be rooted in part in the efforts of (predominantly) Christian clergy, who saw it as their obligation to scrutinize the "creation" in order to be able to appreciate all the "wonder" the Creator had in store, who therefore could be called "creation scientists". Of course such a view would overlook some important points:

A) This phase within western history of science was mainly a result of a Christian information monopoly following the collapse of the Roman empire and artificially upheld by the religious (the often also political) elites for several centuries.

B) The basic principles of organized observations of nature and formation of hypotheses was very much inspired by Greek and Roman "proto-science". And while generally ancient Greeks and Romans can be said to have held some form of belief in some kind of "creation", their 'natural philosophy' had already inspired some disbelieve in "theistic" conceptions back in their time. These tendencies were of course either ignored or actively suppressed by later Christian clergy devoting their lives to the study and advancement 'natural philosophy'.

C) Modern western science does rest on some other principles not stemming from the early Christian 'natural philosophy'. In large part our modern scientific progress can be tracked back to the enlightenment, which surely can not be said to have harbored "creation science" at its core. It rather helped to overcome the obstacles put in front of the pursuit of knowledge by religious single-mindedness.

D) And finally, historic "creation scientists" (or rather Christian 'natural philosophers') being the source of at least some of the scientific progress we enjoy today does in no way mean that todays "creation "scientists"" are the best source of science. If we would follow that type of reasoning, the best source of knowledge would be completely ignorant people with a pinch of curiosity, because of that type were likely the persons that started the whole endeavor way back in the misty depth of ancient human history.

Otoh: Maybe rmu does indeed talk of the "creation scientists" from 50 to 80 years back. If so, i apologize for building a strawman with my line of argument.

[raisemeup]

So many questions! I will advise anyone reading that there will come a time when I will not be able to respond promptly. If that is unacceptable, I will have to bow out. After all, it is likely to become very many against poor little ole me after a time. Nevertheless, I still have some time today.

Let me first respond to Astreja – Since you are not accepting my apology (which I only conditionally provided in this last post), you apparently were offended. Please do not take my comments personally. I do not know you. You may be a wonderfully kind, truth seeking atheist completely outside the norm, but based on your comments, you are at least uniformed about science. In addition, regardless of who you are, that does not change my opinion of the general nature of atheists that I see on this forum. Perhaps in time my opinion will change. Finally, the fact that your brother is a biologist has no bearing on the discussion. The vast majority of biologists have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Even most evolutionary biologists do not concern themselves with the theory of evolution except to tack on just-so stories to actual scientific research that primarily involves creation theory in the first place. You cannot “know” that evolution is “real” because it has NEVER been observed. If you have never observed evolution and you believe it is real, then what’s the big deal in believing that God is real?

Omen, I cannot answer all of your questions in sufficient detail in one post. However, let me make a stab at a few of them I feel are pertinent to the topic.

If I look out on the driveway at my car and refuse to believe it exists, I have made an irrational (poor) choice. It requires a purposeful choice on my part not to accept the evidence I see for its existence. So likewise it is the case with atheists who are willfully ignorant of God’s existence. Since the evidence for God’s existence is abundant and easily apparent, all atheists know He exists deep down. This is evident from the fact that they exhibit moral behavior. In an atheist worldview, there is no absolutely no reason to be moral. According to evolutionary standards, it should be perfectly acceptable to rape your neighbor’s daughter or to commit mass murder if it furthers your ability to procreate and evolve the species. By not doing those things, you have borrowed the morality which comes from God. Therefore, you acknowledge by your behavior that God exists and you have made an irrational choice to ignore it.

A worldview is a set of initial presuppositions that is used to interpret everything we perceive and believe. We most commonly seek out information in support of our worldview which is often not questioned. In time, evidence may come to light which contradicts our worldview and it can change. The single initial presupposition of the Christian worldview is that God is the ultimate source of all truth. Among other things, the atheist worldview presupposes God does not exist and that all things have come about only by materialistic means. Since logic (among many other things) is not materialistic, it has no rational explanation in the atheist worldview but it is easily explained in a Christian worldview since we have been made in God’s likeness.

Here is a link to a site which refutes some of the “amazing ignorance of the most basic Christian theology” found on GII (either that or GII’s author is a “POE”, wouldn’t that be funny). I could add much more to the argument on prayer I referenced earlier which deceitfully excludes fundamental verses on how and why God answer’s prayer, but for brevity, this should suffice for now in refuting the fundamental logic.
http://gii.josiahconcept.org/proof-1

The age of the earth has EVERYTHING to do with evolution. The age of the earth was purposely set to billions of years in order to support evolution. If the earth is 6000 years old (or even “just” millions of years old), then evolution becomes untenable. 

The article referenced in the original post made the claim in its opening remarks (and elsewhere) that the GOP was “anti-science” simply for questioning evolution. The guest author then went on to equivocate historical science with operational science in order to deceitfully support this absurd claim, finishing with another absurd claim that GOP candidates believe that “science is just another opinion”. I could more validly ask the questions – If evolutionary theory is invalid scientifically speaking and you accept it for unscientific reasons, can we not then call you out as being unscientific? OR If creation theory is valid scientifically speaking and you reject it for unscientific reasons, can we not then call you out as being unscientific? It appears to be a matter of opinion to me.

The following are some of the more well known creation scientists, many of which believed in a literal 6 day creation. I can provide a link to many more if you are interested – Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Linneaus,  Morse, Joule, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, Lister, Carver and of course thousands of scientists today accept the eye-witness accounts found in the Bible. Apparently, these scientists were perfectly capable of doing “science” while still accepting a special creation. 

My claims are supported by evidence and reason already. That is obviously why I accept them. I am not asking you for arguments to challenge my beliefs. My curiosity is whether you have any coherent and logical argument to support your opposing beliefs (which would obviously be a challenge to mine).  So far, I’ve not seen any.

You've made many accusations without warrant or citation, do you think its fair, reasonable, honest, and respectable to do so?

I am only following your (and others) example. If you do not think it is the proper etiquette, why are you and this forum engaged in it?

Lastly, while there are many facts evolutionists ignore, the fact I was referring to is the difference between historical and operational science and how they are deceitfully equivocated like they were in the article in question.

[jetson]

Yeah, this is not going to go well raisemeup.

It is abundantly clear that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, yet you do it with such authority, that you truly believe you have a grasp.  You don't.

Your ignorance of science, and the scientific method is clear, and I don't fault you for it, specifically.  What I find unfortunate, is that you are choosing to be willfully dishonest in engaging in a topic that you clearly have no understanding of.  You are completely misinformed about the world we live in, and you are doing nothing more than parroting the creationist nonsense that has been completely debunked.

If you cannot step up, right now, and provide evidence to that which you claim to know about the age of the earth, or evolution, you will leave me no choice but to consider you unworthy of discussing the topics.  I am truly tired of people stumbling across this wonderful forum, and making a mockery of discussions, just to support their personal delusions, and simultaneously stomping on well thought out replies, as well as ignoring very important questions.

How old is the earth, and how do you know your answer to be true?

[RaymondKHessel]

You've made many accusations without warrant or citation, do you think its fair, reasonable, honest, and respectable to do so?

I am only following your (and others) example. If you do not think it is the proper etiquette, why are you and this forum engaged in it?

Wow. Did you really just respond with "I know you are but what am I"? 

Yeeeeah. This is going to be priceless. Please, PLEASE, stick around. Don't ever leave us. EVER. This stuff is gold.

Gotta say, I'm impressed. In only 4 posts you've managed to demonstrate not only a completely arrogant, laughably ignorant, and straight-up grating personality in addition to a compendium of broken knowledge and deceit, but you've devolved into throwing jabs out of the Pee-Wee's Big Adventure play book.

What's next? You gonna blow a raspberry at somebody? Don't make me pull the car over.

Firstly, stop playing the persecution card. Put on your big boy pants and focus on your "arguments", instead of your sensitive widdle feewings. Religion is a hot button issue, and if you came here thinking you'd toss around your primitive and ugly beliefs as absolute facts, while simultaniously insulting and dismissing literally every person on this website (NONE of whom do you know, by the way - but way to judge!)... If you really thought you'd come here with that shitty attitude and bag of bullshit "facts" and get a warm reception, you're more ignorant than I thought.

Grown folks is talking here. Conversation may get colorful, or even <gasp> PG-13 + rated. Either grow some thicker skin and learn to roll with the punches, or go bitch to the Muslims.

Honestly though, I suspect whatever info it was that you read from the site's main portals just really got under your skin, hence your immediate defensiveness and eagerness to elevate yourself above the other members of this forum within the confines of your head. This will doubtless be confirmed a week from now when you've long since cooled down, realized you were completely out of your league, and abandoned the site.

Second, doesn't your religion say you're supposed to be the bigger man and be above such childish antics? Above judging people? Above dishonesty and deceitfulness and baring false witness? And let me tell you, I bet Jesus would be SO proud of your little jibs and jabs. I bet he bitched and moaned and stomped his feet like an 8 year old when people didn't immediately agree with him, too, huh? Called 'em a big ol' dumb head and then started making kooky assumptions about political affiliations, lifestyles, whatever... Anything to make yourself feel better, am I right?

When you just start rattling off such completely misinformed and embarassingly incorrect information like you know what you're talking about, and alternate every bogus statement with some sort of limp-wristed insult, you're doing nothing but being obnoxious and building more ill-will towards your viewpoint. Do you think this is an EFFECTIVE way to convince people of your opinions? It's certainly not intellectually engaging.

Seriously dude. You're just embarassing yourself with this stuff, and your making your religion look worse than it normally does. And your "debate" tactics have so far lead to absolutely NO substantial points whatsoever... Just a bunch of you saying "Well this is true and that is true and everybody knows it" and then doing nothing to back a stitch of it up.

Slow down. Take your time and address one idea at a time. When people ask you to elaborate, elaborate. That's a forum rule, by the way. You don't get to dodge people's questions here. It's rude and it's counterproductive to anybody understanding whatever the hell it is you're trying to say. And it comes across as slimey, too.

So don't just blow over their questions to continue rambling. We'll never get anywhere that way, and you'll quickly find yourself in a position where nobody wants to take the time to talk to you, because you don't actually DISCUSS anything, you just wait for your turn to talk.   

Again. Children do that. Big boy pants, k?

On the flip side, if you're planning on continuing to argue from some sort of holier-than-thou "I'm soooo enlightened" platform, like you've been doing, you need to seriously check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Ahhhh screw it. You've already wrecked. The moment you came in parroting your various "TruthInGenesis" bollocks, you wrapped the car around a telephone pole. I don't even think the Jaws of Life can help you, and you haven't even warmed up yet.

Congrats, Yoda. You managed to completely disinterest me from engaging in a theological discussion with you faster than 90% of the Divinely Handicapped that blow through here. That's quite an accomplishment.

Have fun with this one guys. Somebody PM me once he graduates from Pee-Wee and moves on to, I dunno, VeggieTales or something. 

lmao... WOW.

How old is the earth, and how do you know your answer to be true?

He's a YEC Doc. Give me a sec to grab the quote.

Edit: Here we go.

Properly interpreted, radiometric dating indicates the earth is only thousands of years old, which agrees with probably a hundred other dating methods I have come across.

What. A crock. Of s**t. A HUNDRED other dating methods, huh? Fascinating. Lay it on us, Geology Jones. Don't think you can make outlandish, blatently stupid claims like this here and not get called on it.

So yeah. Cite your sources, or STFU and stop lying for Jesus.

One more thing... stop putting quotations around the word "Scientist", like they're not really scientists or something. They went to school for it, you didn't. Until you do, you do not have the right to dismiss somebody's life work and chosen profession simply because they obliterate your fairty tales on the daily.

GAH does it grind my gears when theists do that s**t. Lulz @ "We're not anti-science! We just don't believe any of these so-called "scientists" when they contradict our 5,000 year old murderbook of desert fairty tales! How DARE they dismiss talking livestock and boats that carry 10 million animals for 40 days! Bathing in bird's blood does SO cure leporasy and I can prove it!...  I say as I type on my computer and drink my refridgerated broccoli smoothy in my synthetic cotton shirt in my centrally heated/cooled home, fortified by my bottle of antibiotics that TOTALLY don't prove evolution even though they, you know, WORK n' stuff." 

There ain't enough rolly eyes in the world for this s**t. 

[mrbiscoop]

   The whole Earth is 6000 years old is such a breathtakingly ignorant statement that it is impossible to get past it to even consider anything else you say. I would be fascinated to see the evidence supporting your claim. 

[jetson]

   The whole Earth is 6000 years old is such a breathtakingly ignorant statement that it is impossible to get past it to even consider anything else you say. I would be fascinated to see the evidence supporting your claim. 

I would be fascinated if I didn't throw up a little I'm my mouth after hearing this evidence.