9/16/2013 2:13 PM (edited)
Those are just a few pieces of evidence. I could go on, and on, and on. But I'll wait until you "systematically tear the[se] to shreds" and post any young earth evidence you have before I post any others.


9/16/2013 2:19 PM
If you'd like I can address each of those specifically, but for most of them the response is simply going to be me pointing out where the potentially flawed assumption lies.  In fact, several of these have multiple assumptions which may lead to incorrect conclusions.

The fact is every single thing you mentioned - without fail, every single thing - is potentially flawed for the same fundamental reason: Underlying assumptions which may not be true. Everything is based upon those assumptions.

Now they may even be reasonable assumptions (in some cases they are, in others, not even close). However, even the reasonable assumptions are still assumptions which may not be true.

If you conclusion is based upon an assumption or set of assumptions which isn't true, what does that say about the conclusion? The only logical deduction is that the conclusion is incorrect.

So do me a favor, BL: Tell me a single reason for why you believe what you do which does NOT draw its conclusions based upon something which isn't known for certain (because NONE of the things you've given so far do that).





9/16/2013 2:21 PM
Posted by bistiza on 9/16/2013 2:19:00 PM (view original):
If you'd like I can address each of those specifically, but for most of them the response is simply going to be me pointing out where the potentially flawed assumption lies.  In fact, several of these have multiple assumptions which may lead to incorrect conclusions.

The fact is every single thing you mentioned - without fail, every single thing - is potentially flawed for the same fundamental reason: Underlying assumptions which may not be true. Everything is based upon those assumptions.

Now they may even be reasonable assumptions (in some cases they are, in others, not even close). However, even the reasonable assumptions are still assumptions which may not be true.

If you conclusion is based upon an assumption or set of assumptions which isn't true, what does that say about the conclusion? The only logical deduction is that the conclusion is incorrect.

So do me a favor, BL: Tell me a single reason for why you believe what you do which does NOT draw its conclusions based upon something which isn't known for certain (because NONE of the things you've given so far do that).





I would like you to address each one specifically. And then give one piece of evidence for a young earth.
9/16/2013 2:21 PM
Seriously, give me just one reason which isn't based upon an assumption. Just one. I dare you, because it can't be done.
9/16/2013 2:25 PM
Still waiting for you to do what you offered to do. Please "tear these to shreds." "Each one, specifically."

Thanks in advance,
BL
9/16/2013 2:38 PM
Fine, here are just some of the assumptions in each one, copied and pasted:

estimated that the original collision happened 160 (±20) million years ago

tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process

This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow

the length of time for which the surface has been exposed can be inferred

When astronomers look at objects in the region of space known as the "Hubble ultra deep field", they are seeing the stars there as they were over ten billion years ago.

using the normal rate of erosion seen in water

decaying uranium emits fragments at a constant rate

generally take thousands of years

the age of the Sun can be inferred

the only factor affecting the makeup of the DNA on the chromosome ismutation,

only one layer will form per year

It takes several million years to form one centimeter

should be very few

it will persist for as many as one million years

the rate of change of the rotation of the Earth is relatively predictable

would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year

Based on classical crystal growth theory

It takes long periods and high pressures for the nitrogen atoms to be squeezed into the diamond lattice

it would have taken much more than the few thousand years allotted by creation theory to produce some of the deepest permafrost

These are all statements which are or represent ASSUMPTIONS.

In some cases they are reasonable but are still assumed. In others, it is so absurd as to leave me asking: How do you know that? How do you know those things have always been what they are now? How do you know there isn't another explanation for the phenomenon? The answer is simple: YOU DON'T.

9/16/2013 2:39 PM
So, this discussion is over unless you can provide something which is not based upon assumptions. The ball is now in your court.
9/16/2013 2:55 PM
We know the speed of light. We know how far away stars are. It takes billions of years for the light from distant stars to reach earth.

Please provide one piece of evidence for a young earth.
9/16/2013 3:03 PM
ps, very weak "tear[ing] to shreds."
9/17/2013 8:30 AM
Weak? I did exactly what I said I would do. I pointed out the assumptions inherent in each of the things you presented, and I did it quite easily.

As for this:
We know the speed of light. We know how far away stars are. It takes billions of years for the light from distant stars to reach earth.

Scientists believe the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum. Even given this information is true, are we sure everything we see as "space" actually exists as we perceive it? Not at all. Many theories abound as to the actual size and shape of the universe. Additionally, many theories abound as to what actually makes up the "space" we see, and they suggest it isn't "open space" at all. In fact, many people believe the universe is filled with "dark matter" and/or "dark energy", but we know incredibly little about how these things work.

Since we know so little about the universe, it stands to reason these statements you make so boldly, such as "we know how far away stars are" can easily be incorrect, as they are based upon assumptions, which seems to be all it takes for you to believe whatever you're told.

You don't get to ask for information until you can provide what was asked of you; copying and pasting flawed ideas based upon assumptions didn't get the job done. If you've got nothing else, you once again come out on the losing end of another "argument" you've tried to have with me.

9/17/2013 9:52 AM
Posted by bistiza on 9/16/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Fine, here are just some of the assumptions in each one, copied and pasted:

estimated that the original collision happened 160 (±20) million years ago

tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process

This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow

the length of time for which the surface has been exposed can be inferred

When astronomers look at objects in the region of space known as the "Hubble ultra deep field", they are seeing the stars there as they were over ten billion years ago.

using the normal rate of erosion seen in water

decaying uranium emits fragments at a constant rate

generally take thousands of years

the age of the Sun can be inferred

the only factor affecting the makeup of the DNA on the chromosome ismutation,

only one layer will form per year

It takes several million years to form one centimeter

should be very few

it will persist for as many as one million years

the rate of change of the rotation of the Earth is relatively predictable

would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year

Based on classical crystal growth theory

It takes long periods and high pressures for the nitrogen atoms to be squeezed into the diamond lattice

it would have taken much more than the few thousand years allotted by creation theory to produce some of the deepest permafrost

These are all statements which are or represent ASSUMPTIONS.

In some cases they are reasonable but are still assumed. In others, it is so absurd as to leave me asking: How do you know that? How do you know those things have always been what they are now? How do you know there isn't another explanation for the phenomenon? The answer is simple: YOU DON'T.

For the earth to be young, every single one of these has to be wrong.

What young earth evidence do you have?
9/17/2013 11:56 AM
For the earth to be young, every single one of these has to be wrong.

No. Science makes many assumptions and most of them are based upon other assumptions. Each field of science isn't independent of one another.  In fact, it's such a delicate balance that if any one assumption were proven incorrect, it would change what we think we know across many other fields of science.

The same underlying assumptions are true across many scientific fields of study. For example, a classic assumption is that things have always behaved the same way they do when we observe them now, i.e. the growth rate of crystals, the pressure upon diamonds, the speed of light, the growth of permafrost, etc. are all based upon that core assumption which if it is incorrect for one may in fact be incorrect for more or even all.

The evidence on BOTH sides of this issue is based upon assumptions like these, and that's why I stay neutral. For you to contend your side is somehow the "correct" one, you'll need to produce something which isn't based upon assumptions, because so far all you've done is produce the same assumption-based materials the other side can (and does) also produce.
9/17/2013 12:43 PM
Posted by bistiza on 9/17/2013 11:56:00 AM (view original):
For the earth to be young, every single one of these has to be wrong.

No. Science makes many assumptions and most of them are based upon other assumptions. Each field of science isn't independent of one another.  In fact, it's such a delicate balance that if any one assumption were proven incorrect, it would change what we think we know across many other fields of science.

The same underlying assumptions are true across many scientific fields of study. For example, a classic assumption is that things have always behaved the same way they do when we observe them now, i.e. the growth rate of crystals, the pressure upon diamonds, the speed of light, the growth of permafrost, etc. are all based upon that core assumption which if it is incorrect for one may in fact be incorrect for more or even all.

The evidence on BOTH sides of this issue is based upon assumptions like these, and that's why I stay neutral. For you to contend your side is somehow the "correct" one, you'll need to produce something which isn't based upon assumptions, because so far all you've done is produce the same assumption-based materials the other side can (and does) also produce.
I'm curious what evidence exists on the other side?

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."

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

Do you have any evidence of a young earth?
9/17/2013 12:48 PM
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.
9/17/2013 1:34 PM
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.
 

of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.