Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Thor]

How do you define solid evidence? Remember don’t’ appeal to consensus when you do this!

This would be evidence that is tangible, measurable and/or observable. It would also include evidence that is repeatable (as when conducting experiments or tests).

Actually scientists do have beliefs, they start off with axioms (senses can be trusted, one’s memory can be trusted) which of course are beliefs.

Yeah, like this is what I meant when I said scientists don't have "beliefs".

Actually, I probably would have said "What an interesting idea! Is there any evidence to support it?".

LOL! Yeah that’s you, Mr. Objective.

Yes, I give serious consideration to scientific explanations that don't involve supernatural nonsense or woo-woo bullshit.

Any examples in the last century?

Majority of scientists were wrong about space and time before the General Theory of Relativity. Majority of scientists were wrong about the inner workings of the cell before the discovery of DNA. Both of those were in the last 100 years.

So, to you, TWO examples where the majority of scientists were wrong qualifies as being wrong "time and time again"? As for the General Theory of Relativity, that was published in 1916, so it just barely falls into "the last 100 years". Also, the theory corrected what was previously incorrect. In other words, science progressed! Same goes for the discovery of DNA. Science progressed! Science long ago moved past the point where a young Earth was thought to be the case. You and your ilk have been left in the dust of scientific advancement.

No, but we can directly observe the results of radiometric dating.

Directly observing claims about the past does not mean you can directly test the validity of those claims. Not the same thing.

Uhhhhh... yes, we can test the validity of those claims. We do not use ONE method of radiometric dating. We use several. And they all produce similar results.

Comparing radiometric dating with growth rates for people? Now THAT is a horrible analogy...

Nope not so. They are both dating methods that use very similar starting assumptions. It’s a very strong analogy actually.

No, it's a pretty poor analogy. It would be foolish to assume a person grows at a constant rate. This is not comparable to radiometric dating.

Yes, I'm wrong... the planet is really only 6,000 years old and I'm too blind to see it.

It’s not a matter of being blind; you can’t observe the age of the Earth remember?

No, but I can observe rock formations. And the claim that layers of rock thousands of feet deep (such as at the Grand Canyon) formed in just a few thousand years (a blink of an eye in geologic time) is simply absurd.

You just have a worldview that interprets the evidence incorrectly.

And what is the "correct" interpretation for the rock layers at the Grand Canyon?

Okay... now show me a legitimate scientific source that agrees with your contention that these things are all evidence of a young Earth. Good luck!

Logical fallacy, you have defined a “legitimate scientific source” arbitrarily as one that agrees with your position.

Where did I say this? A "legitimate scientific source" would be a national scientific organization, a scientific publication or a paper written by a scientist that has been peer reviewed and accepted within the scientific community. It's not my fault if your crackpot theory has no support among experts in the field.

I can play the same game; show me a legitimate scientific source that says the Earth is old! Good luck! (Keep in mind that I have defined legitimate scientific source as only young earth creation journals).

And you have just committed the logical fallacy of making a faulty definition. I did no such thing.

Can you provide a scientific source that reached this conclusion? Because I'll bet you can't.

Sure, the Journal Of Creation reached that conclusion. By definition it is a scientific source, so that was easy.

By definition, "The Journal of Creation" is most certainly NOT a "scientific source".

So you can't cite a legitimate scientific source. Didn't think you could.

No I can, just not one you think is scientific because as I already pointed out you are committing a logical fallacy.

And as I pointed out, it is YOU who are committing a logical fallacy.

I don’t know that for sure, and neither do you. I can say that there is strong empirical evidence to suggest that Lincoln was killed long before 1920 since empirical evidence is based on observation.

And I can say there is strong empirical evidence to suggest the Earth is much older than 6,000 years. Recall those rock layers at the Grand Canyon?

You seem to have the misconception that we can't know something for sure unless it is observed. That is a crock. In fact, we can know things much better when they aren't observed! Which would you give more weight? The testimony of a woman who claims she was attacked by Tom Smith? Or the results of a DNA test that indicates the skin found under the woman's fingernails most certainly was NOT from Tom Smith? According to what you're trying to sell here, you would throw out the scientific results, believe the testimony and convict Tom Smith.

You are comparing observable evidence with observable evidence so this is a false analogy.

How do you figure this? The DNA evidence is observable. What the woman is testifying to is NOT observable. We can't observe what she witnessed, we can only take her word for what happened.

We can directly observe DNA testing and repeat it; we cannot do this with the age of the Earth.

Yes, we can! We have numerous methods of radiometric dating that all give us similar results. Of course, all can you do is try to discredit all radiometric dating.

However, in a court of law witness testimony is considered stronger than circumstantial evidence just like in science.

And where have I offered "circumstantial evidence"?