Originally posted by Lionhearte
1. Indeed, it tells me that the age old science motto of "If the Data don't fit, change the rules a bit" still apply by so-called "professionals"
today. If you go under the assumption that the world is 4 BYO, then you will search for data based that this theory is correct. Other evidence that
strongly and clearly states that the world isn't older than X TYO (thousand), is thrown out. I could post more links, if you want.
Huh? We have scientific data that can be reproduced in COUNTLESS disciplines by a myriad of different testing methodologies. I'm not "ignoring
evidence". Meanwhile, the ONLY "evidence" that the earth is 13,000 years old comes either wholly or in part from the circumstantial evidence
contained in the written version of a nomadic peoples oral tradition from thousands of years ago. However, if we take into account circumstantial
evidence from other cultures, they frequently place the earth at MUCH older than 13,000 years.
2. Don't try the "argument from authority". I shouldn't have to explain why that is always utter crap. I don't claim "the Earth is 13,000 years
old because GOD says so." I believe the Earth is 13,000 years old because of what research has been done to prove this AND falsify all claims that
the Earth could possibly be OLDER than a few certain years. You think I don't consider ALL possible "Time Clocks"? Do you? The sun, the receding
moon, the magnetic field, Niagra falls, helium/lead in zircon, etc?
Just as I don't claim the earth is somewhere to the north of 4 billion yrs old "because scientists say so". However, it is the norm in both
inductive and deductive reasoning to conclude in accordance with the evidence. Likewise, physical evidence normally takes precedence over
circumstantial. Think about a murder trial...which is regarded as more reliable...hearsay, videotape, or DNA evidence? It's always a bit debatable
depending on the specifics, however in most circumstances those security cameras are a little fuzzy and preference is given to the DNA evidence which
puts the accused on the scene rather than a somewhat imperfect video or just plain old gossip, right? In fact, hearsay is often not admissible EVEN
WHEN it agrees with the physical evidence on the basis that hearsay is inherently not reliable in and of itself. When an experiment or a set of
experiments can be reproduced with the same or similar results tens of thousands of times, a rational person concludes that they tests themselves are
probably pretty accurate.
Don't get me wrong. Sometimes the tests can be inaccurate for one reason or another. Hell...water boils at 100 degrees celsius at sea level but
only 86 degrees Celsius at 14,000 feet. Of course, there is a REASON for this. Namely...air pressure. The higher the elevation, the lower the air
pressure. The less air pressure, the easier it is for convection to occur. Simple.
Furthermore, we can REPEAT these findings at simliar altitudes TIME AND TIME again. True...if we have a miscalibrated or faulty thermometer we may
find a discrepancy of a degree or two, but using a new and working thermometer will produce similar results again. This isn't "making the data
fit". It's just part of the scientific process. However, if the temperature that water boils fluctuates wildly by a spread 60 degrees at sea level
irrespective of what thermometer we are using...we would begin looking for other factors other than just "temperature" alone.
3. It's funny how in the same breath, you could possibly argue that there are contradictions in the Bible, yet when Christians everywhere give a
POSSIBLE explanation (because one possible explanation completely eradicates a contradiction claim) as to why it isn't a contradiction, they are
called delusion, changing their stories, "that's your interpretation", etc.. Though, as to your response, what about those who remember a "long
day"? How do you explain that?
Simply not true. I'm totally open to the idea that our generally accepted dating methods for geologic and human history may be inaccurate. All I
ask is for some PHYSICAL evidence that doesn't REQUIRE "faith" as a prime component. Mathematical calculations based upon the bible which has had
it's mistranslations mistranslated for the last 1700 years is not academically sound. Personally, I think a WHOLE LOT of the "official story" is
incorrect. However, I base this conjecture off of the READILY OBSERVABLE erosion patterns on the Sphinx, the archeological record, and quite a few
anomalous findings of artifacts and remains. These all tend to point to at least HUMAN civilization being in a pretty advanced state even 30,000
years ago. But again...I don't say I AM CERTAIN of this...only that there is some pretty compelling physical evidence which makes me HYPOTHESIZE
that this MIGHT be the case.