As I stated above, and one should be able to deduce, you are still basing the date off of a series of assumptions (i.e. unknowns). When you do that you are not dealing with empirical science anymore.Reference my "irreducible complexity" argument above. In addition, reference my radiometric dating arguments.
Dating, while heading towards millions of years. Isn't 100% exact, we don't know the exact year, the exact hour, the exact minute. Which is why you're never told the exact date, but you're given the general time-line.
Radiometric dating, while it does have many kinds under it. Has been constantly improving as technology and our understanding goes. For an 100% accurate dating, to know exactly. That all depends on the half-life of the isotope involved.
You didn't address the errors. Like dating recent lava flows to potentially several million years old and finding C14 in fossils supposedly hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. In addition C14 levels have not been constant throughout history and a global flood would affect that even more.Which is why in many modern methods, you'll only find an extremely small error. Things like less than 20 million years, in two-and-a-half billion years.
Carbon dating, is determined when an organism ceased taking in carbon14, which happens at death. This gives the limit around 58,000 to 62,000 years.
So even with errors, dating is quite close in our modern age. It destroys '6000 year old Earth', by a very very long shot.
As I have continually pointed out, I don't claim the evidence is not there. I just think it points to something other than evolution.No, I am not going to do it anymore. I have tried to show you facts. I have for the past few pages. But I already learned that's a waste of time because you cherry pick what you do or do not like. You say there's no evidence for evolution - which is straight out ignorant. Arguing carbon dating is understandable, but saying there is no evidence? Once again; the evidence is overwhelming. Your unawareness of evidence doesn't mean it is not there.
No. I deny what the evidence points to. To deny that it exists would be absurd.And you can say 'show me the evidence'. You've been saying that from the very beginning.
I am not going to waste anymore time on this. You disagree with this - which I have no problem with. But you do deny evidence.
I'm going to take that to mean you couldn't find where I did it either.When you say 'what evidence did I dismiss' just read your posts in the past few pages, and if you don't see it - fine.
No, you show me evidence then give your interpretation of the evidence as "fact" and assume I must agree.But I hardly wonder if you'd ever 'agree' with a fact that proves you wrong. Because, you see, you can just say 'it is not true'. Bam, there's your argument. I show you a fact > your response: 'it is just not true'. That's why it is a waste of time.
I read/watched many of them. I've browsed talkorigins.org. I've debated this many times over with other people.I like to debate on this. But this just doesn't work. If you want to know more about the topic, there are tons of books and documentaries that explain this better than I do.
As I stated above, and one should be able to deduce, you are still basing the date off of a series of assumptions (i.e. unknowns). When you do that you are not dealing with empirical science anymore.
You didn't address the errors. Like dating recent lava flows to potentially several million years old and finding C14 in fossils supposedly hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. In addition C14 levels have not been constant throughout history and a global flood would affect that even more.
Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little C14 to measure. But labs have found C14 in fossils supposedly millions of years old. No source of coal has been found that lacks C14, yet coal is supposedly millions of years old.
Other Radiometric methods: These rely on parent-daughter products. The isotopes can be measured very accurately but to derive dates from the concentrations some assumptions have to be made:
1. The starting conditions are known (no daughter isotope present or a known amount)
2. Decay rates have been constant
3. Systems were closed (no isotopes were lost or added)
If anything, Evolution PROVES Intelligence was at work behind Creationism. In other words, we were built to be able to withstand change.
Evolution and Creationism can go hand in hand when you consider this.
As I have continually pointed out, I don't claim the evidence is not there. I just think it points to something other than evolution.
As stated: dating the age of rocks/fossils is not empirical science. The scientific method requires observation and repeatable experiments. We don't have the time to wait a couple billion years (or even million years) to test. If it is not empirical science it cannot be proven and cannot become fact. What you have is their "best guess".Science never uses one thing, to prove something. It's tested, different, and when several methods point to the one conclusion. It then becomes Scientific fact.
As stated: dating the age of rocks/fossils is not empirical science. The scientific method requires observation and repeatable experiments. We don't have the time to wait a couple billion years (or even million years) to test. If it is not empirical science it cannot be proven and cannot become fact. What you have is their "best guess".
I have to ask, what do these counter? We(everything living) are still the most complex machines ever made. One thing I will never get is people asking " Why would God let this happen."
You can't "prove" one potentially faulty method using another potentially faulty method. . .As stated: dating the age of rocks/fossils is not empirical science. The scientific method requires observation and repeatable experiments. We don't have the time to wait a couple billion years (or even million years) to test. If it is not empirical science it cannot be proven and cannot become fact. What you have is their "best guess".
Absolute certainty is not required. Assumptions are made based upon observations. The reliability of the assumptions is ultimately tested by crosschecking to independent dating methods. Radiometric dating is known to be accurate not because it is assumed to accurate, but rather by cross-checking and proving it is accurate.
But this isn't a matter of timing an event with a wristwatch. It's like finding a stopwatch on the ground, assuming the stopwatch originally started at 0 was never stopped and restarted and tracks time accurately.This could be applied to you, in a debate between Creationism and Scientific Radiometric Dating.
Has only provided evidence that argon dating has some undefined error in some cases, and that a few cases of carbon dating are in error. He offers some unrefereed papers by avowed creation scientists that there are broader problems, but even in those claims, there is nothing that questions the overall statistical accuracy. The arguments are akin to claiming that a wristwatch cannot be used to measure time, because sometimes the battery fails or the display is misread. Errors do happen, but they are well within the claimed error bounds and they are limited by cross-checking. With a wristwatch you check with a different clock, with radiometric dating the checks are with different dating methods and different isotope pairs.
You misrepresent my argument. I am not saying that because it hasn't been observed it is not true. I'm saying that it can't be "proven" true as you keep claiming. I'm saying there is reason to remain skeptical rather than accepting it on blind faith.I can't observe God, nor have I ever observed God creating the Universe. Therefor by that same logic, God cannot be.
Uggg, wall-o-text. . .
I'll admit I only read part of it before going cross-eyed. It would be best to break it into smaller chunks as I have neither the time nor the patience to read through a bunch of copy/pasted text.
You misrepresent my argument. I am not saying that because it hasn't been observed it is not true. I'm saying that it can't be "proven" true as you keep claiming. I'm saying there is reason to remain skeptical rather than accepting it on blind faith.I can't observe God, nor have I ever observed God creating the Universe. Therefor by that same logic, God cannot be.
For the record, I don't accept Christianity on blind faith.
Not with modern science. It can be supported with evidence but it cannot be proven. Scientific proof requires observation and repetition.It can be proven true.
You've said this before and it simply is not true. There has been wide-spread support for evolution almost from the beginning.Once again: the evolution theory was an extremely unpopular idea in the 20th century. You did not want to be associated with that as a scientist, because people would hate you for it. There was no advantage whatsoever in being in favor of evolution, other than that it is true.
I never claimed to have an open mind. I have not misrepresented myself.You are going to repeat it can't be proven anyway. There wouldn't be a single piece of evidence that would change your mind. You even said in the beginning of the debate that 'you were not going to be convinced anyway'. That was one of the first things you said. That, to me, indicates that you did not enter this debate with an open mind.
Yet when I brought up things such as Irreducible Complexity you didn't even bother to refute it. I understand that the evidence could conceivably point to evolution, but there are issues which don't make sense that need to be addressed.You ask people to be skeptics. Of course, they should be. But there is a difference between being critical and just not believing anything at all - regardless of how much evidence there is in favor of it.
Provide me, please, with one piece of evidence in favor of creationism. And I know that Jesus existed, there is evidence for that. But I am talking about evidence that is going to show me how God created the world in 6 days. I asked you before, and you said: 'well, that is a miraculous event'. You can keep drawing that card. And that's fine, but then you're the last person to start about skepticism and evidence, buddy.
snip
You can't "prove" one potentially faulty method using another potentially faulty method. . .
All of the methods rely on assumptions. They have to. That they give similar results merely attests to the general accuracy of the calculations, not the accuracy of the assumptions.
But this isn't a matter of timing an event with a wristwatch. It's like finding a stopwatch on the ground, assuming the stopwatch originally started at 0 was never stopped and restarted and tracks time accurately.