demonfork wrote:sailorseal wrote:Regardless of whether or not Evolutionism is real, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, not even my conservative grand parents believe that
All of the current methods that scientists use to determine the age of something involve the utilization of unprovable
assumptions. For example, a scientist that uses any form of wave mechanics technology such as redshift, to determine the age of the galaxy, must plug in the speed of light into his little formula. When doing this the scientist must
assume that the speed of light has remained constant throughout the years, he is
assuming that the speed of light is the same now as it was say 200 years ago or 1000 years ago or however many years ago.
It's these little
assumptions that have allowed scientists to essentially "cook data" since the beginning of science.
The scientific age of the earth is no more provable than the existence of God, both belief systems require a bit of faith for their respective formulas to work.
You speak of all these "assumptions", but when challanged do not produce
anything.
When you do, it is usually taking something WAY out of context or something that has nothing at all really to do with Evolution or the age of the Earth.
EXAMPLE:
For example, a scientist that uses any form of wave mechanics technology such as redshift, to determine the age of the galaxy, must plug in the speed of light into his little formula. When doing this the scientist must assume that the speed of light has remained constant throughout the years, he is assuming that the speed of light is the same now as it was say 200 years ago or 1000 years ago or however many years ago.
I don't even have to know what "redshift" is> However, saying that scientists assume that the speed of light has remained constant throughout the years is not entirely true.
Yes, we CAN know that it was the same 200 years ago, but further back, the evidence gets more tenuous. It requires some pretty hefty physics and astronomy to actually show better where you are wrong, not my field. HOWEVER, let's assume that you are completely correct in that the speed of light has changed (some scientists have postulated that it might under certain conditions).
This is why these things are phrased (in short) "given the known universe", etc. Saying that scientists cannot say for sure this happened is a very far cry from proving it is not true OR EVEN presenting a logically acceptable argument. THAT is the problem with so-called "Creation science". It takes the most tenuous and unsupported of suppositions and then says "see scientists are bafoons and liars" ... The lie is in asserting that any dispute or lack of proof in this area still does NOT prove the Earth is young or that Evolution did not occur.
Its as if you were saying "see -- 2+3 does not equal 5, this 1rst grader claims that is true, he is wrong, so math is wrong."
IN FACT, you have it exactly backwards.
1. no one knows the age of the universe or very much at all about anything outside of our solar system. We know precious little about what happens/has happened IN our solar system and even parts of Earth. Therefore, even debating these things as if it will disprove Evolution or that the Earth is young is plain idiotic! They are not where the proof originates
2. Contrary to your assertion, scientists start with only what they can see, hear, feel, test, otherwise record, ... PROVE. THEN they look at the data and either keep the theory or (more often) wind up changing it.
Now, the confusion arises becuase scientists are, by nature thinkers and analyzers, often pretty creative individuals. So, scientists can come up with all sorts of theories and ideas. Many of these ideas get dismissed as "unprovables" that (more or less) might be fun to chat about in the "deep hours" or "crazy moments", but are not anything close to real science. Aliens, God, the origin of the universe, even the nature of good and evil are all in that realm, as are many, many other things. A few border on reality (what might it be like to live on Mars, for example). BUT, THIS IS NOT REAL SCIENCE, it is "play". Once in a great while something in those conversations will spur a scientist on to look at things in a different way and new ideas may well emerge.
Sadly, a lot of that junk now, in the internet days, gets "published" on blogs and so forth and somehow winds up becoming "scientific reality" for too many people.
But it is not really science! The old standard, one that still applies, but often gets dismissed as "too long and cumbersome" is that for something to be accepted as real and true information, it must be published in a credible journal, where it will be reviewed by experts in that particular field (called the "peer review process"). Creationists are quick to point to "bias" in this process, but the truth is that what these people look at is whether information presented follows the standards that are accepted in that field. How did those procedures get to be accepted? Because they were shown over and over and over again to give valid, predictable, repeatable results. Don't like
the methods? If you can prove your case, then you are almost certain to be published. Scientists want to know if there are better ways of doing things or if their procedures are shown to be wrong. In almost all cases, they know techniques have faults, and would very much like to do better. (the exception is when a study has been long-standing. In that case, they will often continue with the old method and then use the new method side-by-side, because there is value in being able to compare the SAME data from one year to the next)
All Creationists have to do to get published is to show error in the standard reasoning. Creationists too often want to just sidestep that process. They want to publish "this is true because I think this is what the Bible says"... and if challanged at all, fall back on that old saw "you are biased" or "you are making assumptions that are wrong". They never show the assumptions, challenge them in a real way, they just toss out that accusation
as if it were true.
The bottom line:
ALL OF EUROPEAN SCIENCE STARTED WITH THE BELIEF THAT THE EARTH WAS YOUNG, but then HAD TO CHANGE their beliefs BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THE EARTH WAS, in fact OLD.
Look at history. Those who believed that the Earth was not created in 6 days back in the 1600's and 1700's in Europe are very, very, very few. Denying this fact makes a convenient story for Creationist proponents, but it just is not true.
If you were refering to Evolution then what you say would make sense in as much that it is indeed not comparable to Creationism, but we have mostly all been saying that since page one . This thread has been a fraud from the start, the OP made no attempt to make a scientific case for Creationism ( wisely so considering that no case exists 
) and instead , like all Young Earthers, seeks instead to discredit Evolution in the mistaken belief that somehow that strengthens his own cause, as I said before it doesn't !
) we now know that it has to do with electricity flowing through from the clouds to the ground, and the sudden heat up of the air makes the molecules expand so rapidly that it creates a cracking noise that can be heard for miles.
