Is this still a thing?  You've been asking for close to a year.  I don't think you're getting an answer.  Leave the troll alone and move on.

Sorry, burnsy, I can't help it. I know BL is the classic definition of a troll, but I just enjoy making him dance.

Posted by bistiza on 9/17/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):

So far, the only argument you've made is "well, science could be wrong about light years...radioactive decay...tectonic shifts...erosion rates...coral growth rates...length of day calculations...shifts in the earth's magnetic field...chromosome mutation...ice layering...the frequency of asteroid strikes...lack of DNA in dinosaur fossils...etc."

I'm not arguing something so broad as "science could be wrong".

I'm arguing specifically that there is not enough scientific evidence for me to believe anyone who says they have reached a solid and accurate conclusion on even a close estimate of the age of the earth and/or the universe. 

The reason is simple: Everyone who thinks they know the answer is presenting nothing more than conjecture based upon assumptions which cannot be shown to be true.

As I've said before, many of those assumptions may even be reasonable, but that doesn't make them facts. If you can show me an observable and repeatable way to draw the conclusions you think are correct, then I might believe you.

None of the things you mention has that. To make sure you understand, I'll give a couple of examples. You said "the age of the sun can be inferred...", but clearly we cannot observe the sun age over long periods of time and then repeat that to make sure it's correct. You also said several phrases regarding guesses at time periods, such as "generally takes thousands of years", and "it takes several million years", and yet no one can observe (much less repeatedly observe) those periods of time passing to make certain those statements are absolutely true.

Sure, there is a possibility that science could be wrong about all of these things. I would guess that that possibility is extremely unlikely.

I must point out the same statement could come from those on the other side of the issue. Each side claims to be "right" about things, but both make assumptions too.

Do you have any evidence of a young earth?

You keep wanting me to argue for the side opposite yours when that has never been my position to begin with.

I'm not here to promote either side of this issue. My only argument has been that both sides are equal and I see no reason why any is better than the other.

I've pointed out how assumptions could lead to incorrect conclusions in the ideas you presented, and I would do the same to anyone on the other side of the issue.

I'm in the middle. You should have no quarrel with me, but you make one anyway because you just like to argue with anyone since you think your opinions are always correct, so much so that you tout them as being facts. Get over yourself.
 

If both sides are equal it should be easy to find credible scientific evidence of a young earth. Even if the evidence is based on assumptions (like the speed of light in space, a constant isotope decay rate, a constant coral growth, a normal erosion rate, etc., etc.), it should still be credible and easy to find.

I've never seen any credible evidence of a young earth. I've seen a lot of credible evidence for an old earth (even if it relies on assumptions like the ones above).

Do you have young earth evidence?

oh I see why badluck not respond in other topic bc he too busy here with bis ramming their hard heads into each other. no matter what headache they get or cause for anyone else they just keep ramming harder and neither smart enough to just walk away.

If both sides are equal it should be easy to find credible scientific evidence of a young earth. Even if the evidence is based on assumptions (like the speed of light in space, a constant isotope decay rate, a constant coral growth, a normal erosion rate, etc., etc.), it should still be credible and easy to find.

It is easy to find evidence on both sides of the issue. Whether that evidence is something you personally agree with, find credible, or determine to be scientific is up to each person to decide.

You, however, seem to think you get to determine those things for everyone. I find that not only presumptuous but tremendously arrogant on your part.

I've never seen any credible evidence of a young earth. I've seen a lot of credible evidence for an old earth (even if it relies on assumptions like the ones above).

I'm sure you've seen evidence on both sides of the issue as there is plenty of it out there in both directions. I'm also sure you dismissed the evidence as not scientific or not credible or both for the side you personally disagree with. That's your choice, but you can't simply pretend the evidence isn't there to begin with.

Do you have young earth evidence?

I am not looking to provide evidence for either side of this argument. I'm merely pointing out both sides are equal. Once again, you keep wanting me to argue for the side opposite yours when that has never been my position to begin with.

If you're honestly so confused you don't know what my position is and somehow think I'm opposed to you, maybe you need to step back and stop arguing.

Posted by bistiza on 9/17/2013 2:01:00 PM (view original):

If both sides are equal it should be easy to find credible scientific evidence of a young earth. Even if the evidence is based on assumptions (like the speed of light in space, a constant isotope decay rate, a constant coral growth, a normal erosion rate, etc., etc.), it should still be credible and easy to find.

It is easy to find evidence on both sides of the issue. Whether that evidence is something you personally agree with, find credible, or determine to be scientific is up to each person to decide.

You, however, seem to think you get to determine those things for everyone. I find that not only presumptuous but tremendously arrogant on your part.

I've never seen any credible evidence of a young earth. I've seen a lot of credible evidence for an old earth (even if it relies on assumptions like the ones above).

I'm sure you've seen evidence on both sides of the issue as there is plenty of it out there in both directions. I'm also sure you dismissed the evidence as not scientific or not credible or both for the side you personally disagree with. That's your choice, but you can't simply pretend the evidence isn't there to begin with.

Do you have young earth evidence?

I am not looking to provide evidence for either side of this argument. I'm merely pointing out both sides are equal. Once again, you keep wanting me to argue for the side opposite yours when that has never been my position to begin with.

If you're honestly so confused you don't know what my position is and somehow think I'm opposed to you, maybe you need to step back and stop arguing.

It is easy to find evidence on both sides of the issue

Your next sentence should be, "and here it is..."

I'm sure you've seen evidence on both sides of the issue as there is plenty of it out there in both directions

Or not. But I guess now works to. Your next sentence could be, "and here it is..."

I am not looking to provide evidence for either side of this argument. I'm merely pointing out both sides are equal. Once again, you keep wanting me to argue for the side opposite yours when that has never been my position to begin with.

Oh well. I'm not asking you to argue any side. I'm asking you to show me where all this evidence is that you insist exists. Because I've never seen it. I even googled "evidence for a young earth." The first result was a website called Answers in Genesis that said (paraphrasing), "we don't need scientific evidence, we believe in the Bible." Everything after it was flawed anti-old earth arguments. Not evidence for a young earth.

It took five minutes on google to provide a lot of scientific evidence for an old earth. If both sides are equal, it should be easy to do the same for a young earth.

Your next sentence should be, "and here it is..."

No, it shouldn't. You're still confused. How many times must I tell you I'm not here to argue either side before you get it?

Or not. But I guess now works to. Your next sentence could be, "and here it is..."

No, it shouldn't. You're still confused. How many times must I tell you I'm not here to argue either side before you get it?

I'm not asking you to argue any side. I'm asking you to show me where all this evidence is that you insist exists.

Providing evidence for either side is creating an argument for either side, and I have no plans to do that.

You already created an argument. You said, "both sides are equal."

If they are, show it. Otherwise, you lose.

Both sides are equal is not an argument for either side; in point of fact, it's just the opposite.

Let's break it down for you one step at a time:

I contend your argument is no better than the other side because you both base things on assumptions which cannot be proven.

If you want to say otherwise, the onus is on you to produce an argument not based upon assumptions.

I haven't seen one from you yet, so unless or until I do, I'll consider it a concession that you cannot get it done, meaning your position has no more merit than the other side, exactly as I have suggested.

I think that's why you're so determined to "prove" me wrong - you can't stand the idea that your side is equal to the other side because you like deriding the other side as being somehow inferior and I'm showing you how that isn't the case and it's driving you absolutely batty.

If I'm wrong it should be easy to prove it. Provide one piece of evidence not based upon assumptions. Not a hundred, not ten, not five, not even two - ONE. If your position is so superior to the other one, that shouldn't be difficult.

Posted by bistiza on 9/17/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Both sides are equal is not an argument for either side; in point of fact, it's just the opposite.

Let's break it down for you one step at a time:

I contend your argument is no better than the other side because you both base things on assumptions which cannot be proven.

If you want to say otherwise, the onus is on you to produce an argument not based upon assumptions.

I haven't seen one from you yet, so unless or until I do, I'll consider it a concession that you cannot get it done, meaning your position has no more merit than the other side, exactly as I have suggested.

I think that's why you're so determined to "prove" me wrong - you can't stand the idea that your side is equal to the other side because you like deriding the other side as being somehow inferior and I'm showing you how that isn't the case and it's driving you absolutely batty.

If I'm wrong it should be easy to prove it. Provide one piece of evidence not based upon assumptions. Not a hundred, not ten, not five, not even two - ONE. If your position is so superior to the other one, that shouldn't be difficult.

That both sides are equal is your opinion. I disagree. My argument is that no, both sides are not anywhere near equal. You seem to disagree with that premise.

I've provided a ton of evidence for an old earth. Is some of it based on reasonable assumptions (that the speed of light doesn't change in space, that isotope decay rates remain constant, that coral growth rates are constant, that tectonic shifts happened as slowly as scientists think they did, etc., etc)? Sure.

No one has every shown any evidence that these assumptions are incorrect. And the assumptions line up with things we know about the universe.

On the other hand, you have provided no evidence for a young earth. That's necessary for your argument that both sides are equal to be true. At this point we have a ton of evidence that the earth is old (for the sake of argument lets say that all of it is based on assumptions) and no evidence (even assumption based evidence) that the earth is young.

Again, for your argument that both sides are equal to be true, there needs to be scientific evidence of a young earth. There isn't any.

look, the Earth is young... And the evidence is this:  God said "make it so".  And it came into being.  10,000 yrs ago.  Simple.  And he is so omniscient that he simply made everything so perfectly flawless so as to confuse science about the origins of Earth and the universe. 

Personally speaking I dont believe this drivel. 

Posted by greeny9 on 9/17/2013 6:55:00 PM (view original):
look, the Earth is young... And the evidence is this:  God said "make it so".  And it came into being.  10,000 yrs ago.  Simple.  And he is so omniscient that he simply made everything so perfectly flawless so as to confuse science about the origins of Earth and the universe. 

Personally speaking I dont believe this drivel. 

If bis just said that, I'd let it go. That's a religious belief, not a scientific one.

"**** what the science says, my religious beliefs are my religious beliefs." Nothing to argue about.

"The science supports both sides equally." Huge problem.

That both sides are equal is your opinion. I disagree.

Sure, it's my opinion. I never said otherwise. You are free to disagree. However, if you're going to tell me I'm wrong, you're going to have to prove it.

I've provided a ton of evidence for an old earth.

And all of it is based upon the same types of assumptions used by the other side of the argument, which is precisely WHY I say they are both equal.

No one has every shown any evidence that these assumptions are incorrect. And the assumptions line up with things we know about the universe.

These same things are true for assumptions made by the other side of the argument as well. That's what you just don't get - your assumptions aren't any better (or worse) than those made by the other side.

Your presumption that you assumptions are somehow better is where you continue to go wrong.

On the other hand, you have provided no evidence for a young earth.

Nor do I need to do so, since I'm not arguing in favor of one. I'm merely pointing out that your argument isn't any better because it contains the same fundamental flaws.

That's necessary for your argument that both sides are equal to be true.

It is not necessary to argue for either side in order to show the sides are equal.  You wish that were the case because you consider your side to be superior and you want to attempt to degrade any argument made for the other side, but that's just too bad, because I'm not arguing in favor of the other side.

At this point we have a ton of evidence that the earth is old (for the sake of argument lets say that all of it is based on assumptions) and no evidence (even assumption based evidence) that the earth is young.

No, what we have is you arguing in favor of an old earth based upon the same assumptions commonly used to argue for a young earth.

You desperately want someone to argue against you and in favor of a young earth, but the fact that no one here is presently doing that is irrelevant. Why?

Because I've already shown how you use the same assumptions in your arguments they do in theirs. That's all I need to show to establish your arguments are no more effective than theirs would be. Despite your insistence otherwise, I don't need to argue for the other side to show how your own arguments are flawed.

Again, for your argument that both sides are equal to be true, there needs to be scientific evidence of a young earth. There isn't any.

My argument is that both sides are equal because the arguments for both are based upon assumptions. Therefore all I have to do is show how your side uses those assumptions, which I have done successfully (you even admit it yourself).

I don't need to provide evidence for the opposite point of view of yours to show that yours is based upon assumptions. It's completely irrelevant and unnecessary.

So I'll say it again: Your argument is flawed because, based upon what I've already shown and by your own admission, it is based upon assumptions. There is absolutely ZERO need to argue for the other side in order to show that.

The ONLY way for you to overcome your argument being no better than the opposition is to attempt to argue without using assumptions. Unless or until you can accomplish that, you're done here.

"The science supports both sides equally." Huge problem.

Actually, my position is this: The arguments for both sides are based upon equally problematic assumptions. I have absolutely shown that is the case, and you have absolutely failed to present anything for your side that isn't based upon assumptions.

Go ahead, though. I'll give you another chance. Give one single argument for your side not based upon assumptions. ONE.

i'm bored let me read through all this crap then i'll say more

"These same things are true for assumptions made by the other side of the argument as well. That's what you just don't get - your assumptions aren't any better (or worse) than those made by the other side."

What assumptions made by the other side?

okay so that took a little bit bc you guys are windier than a sack full of *** holes  here. 

if I wasn't bored and wanting to end this stupid argument I wouldn't even bother but since I am....

first both of you are pathetic losers. let get that out of the way.

next bis has got you dead to rights on this one badluck. no way around that. sure bis has not provided evidence for young earth but like he said that not his argument anyway. bis says you are wrong bc you make assumptions and you admit you do. bis proved his point, so he wins.

this wont' end tho bc badluck you will prolly come back with some dumbassery about how bis is wrong and if I agree with bis I must be bis or some stupid **** like that.

so you two will rant and rave until the end of time or the end of this site or something. but I tried.