The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Statler Waldorf]

@Statler Waldorf

Where are the peer-reviewed experimental research papers of creationists? Link me to, oh, say, ten of them from this year. I'll read them. Not reviews of other scientists' work, not theoretical work: peer-reviewed (that means by other scientists) experimental data. If you're right that good experimental work with good examination of the data exists in the YEC community, I will retract my comments to you, and accept that there is a double standard. It's certainly possible that I'm just missing the YEC work in the literature, and that I have things to learn. Show me that work. If apologies are due, you shall receive them.

You can post the links here or PM them to me.

I am curious as to why you all of the sudden moved the goalposts. Your initial claim was that creationists do not do any of their own research; well then shouldn’t one single peer-reviewed article from any year be enough to refute that claim? Why is it all of the sudden ten articles from this year? I do not mind hitting your target but I want to ensure you’ll stop moving it first.

Because of supporting evidence that stands up to rigorous scrutiny. "Darwinists" have creationists don't.

Such as?

It's seems to be worth pointing out that the concept of species being mutable pre-dates Charles Darwin (who picked up on the idea from his grandad). What Darwin did was to propose a viable mechanism for that change. By accepting so called micro-evolution, creationists are in fact saying that Darwin was right.

Actually the mechanism was first proposed by Blyth in 1835, who was a creationist- so by accepting the mechanism creationists are admitting that one of their own was right. Additionally, admitting that Darwin was right about a few things does not require a person to admit he was right about everything.

rea•son•a•ble (rz-n-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking
3. Being within the bounds of common sense
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair
(emphasis added)

Thanks, but that does not tell me why you think you have a reasonable basis for believing what you believe.

Well, let's see. Creationists sources love using the old penguin and shellfish C14 data whilst conveniently "forgetting" to mention that it was lifted from a scientific paper specifically warning other scientists that such irregularities would appear if the reservoir effect was not taken into account. This applies when atmospheric carbon wasn't the main source of carbon for the organism.

Most other claims that carbon dating doesn't work tends to focus on mammoths for some reason. Simply checking the sources for those claims shows that the claims themselves result from either misinterpretation, misrepresentation or outright lies.

I thought we were talking about the age of the Earth and Cosmos? Radiocarbon dating cannot be used to date either so why are we now talking about radiocarbon dating? Not only this, but you have not told me how they have proven that carbon dating is accurate (addressing objections to the dating method does not prove the method itself is accurate), which seemed to be your initial assertion.

Do you really expect me to list every piece of evidence? Why not save us both some time and just google it? If you like, go through all the creationist counter arguments too. Then, if you're feeling brave type those creationist arguments into google , followed by the word "debunked".

It was your claim; I was merely expecting you to back it up with at least something. You do not have to list all of the evidence, you could give me your best few lines of evidence; if they are really so compelling then that should more than suffice.

Really? I would love to know what they've come up with for that one

Is this where I am supposed to pull a play from your playbook and tell you to Google it?

---

---

So I will assume that you cannot refute those points since you did not even try to.

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, after re-reading my comment I can see how it might have seemed that way. The point I was attempting to make was merely that Origen opposed a literal and historical interpretation.

Sure, but as I pointed out he did this for erroneous philosophical reasons, he was trying to insert Platonic philosophy into scripture.

You cannot tell me why?

10,000 years doesn't even account for when man evolved into man.... he was still primitive at that point.

You know this how?

How do you answer the proof of the bronze and iron ages?

What about them?

The vikings?

I believe Vikings existed.

How come god hates native americans [sic] and gave them silly animals to worship?

How does the fact that Native Americans worshipped false idols prove that God hates them?

Tell me how science could get things so terribly wrong from your version;

Science is fallible and has been terribly wrong time and time again in the past. Why should today be any different?

This link shows nice clear crisp detail, while the image below is a little easier to understand.

Those 'm.y.' stand for millions of years ago...humanity as we're familiar with it is 0.01 million years ago. The last ice age itself lasted more than 10,000 years.

Sure, but that does nothing to demonstrate that this timescale is in fact correct. Creationists have their own timescale. Why is yours superior to theirs?

@OP,

I have a similar problem, but the Christian solution to my dilemma is somewhat attractive. You see, my balls are getting closer to my feet. Using Christian logic, a sagging scrotum isn't a sign of age; it's a sign that God only wants me to think that I'm getting older, but I'm actually still young. Fucking brilliant!

Your sagging balls aside, you’re not really trying to argue that simply because something appears old it is in fact old are you?

they believe the physcial laws changed over time including time itself.

No they don’t.

Ah Statler, still an overly verbose liar for Jesus I see.

Ah Zen, still lying about me being a liar I see. What are you going to do though? When you’re beat you’re beat.

How's the ol' anisotropic light propagation thingy going for you buddy

Still going strong, did you finally understand it?

Claim can be rejected because it is irresolvable. There's no way to possibly assert that from a basis of evidence. It is just a god of the gaps argument when trying to resolve inconsistencies with the belief and the evidence available.

I understand, however, that you are not making this claim

Creationists do not make that claim either. However, I am curious- from a purely naturalistic viewpoint- how can you prove that natural laws have remained regular over the history of the Universe?

They're also the same ones who claim that the speed of light changed between 6,000 years ago supposedly when the universe was created and now. It's nothing more than goalpost shifting, and they know there's no way to disprove it (or prove it, but they're not concerned with that).

They do not claim this either. I really wish you guys would actually learn the material before trying to address it.

Your God's a sadistic asshole who is worthy of his own hell.

Why?

I've heard this kind of argument from christians before, about natural disasters, predatory animals and such, and I've never understood why the christian isn't horrified by the implications: what they've essentially admitted is that, rather than just creating humans with a slightly adjusted fertility rate so as to keep the populations stable, god would rather turn the world into an engine of death, where he has to keep culling the population, in nasty and painful ways for whatever reason.

It just... how does that argument not scare the shit out of you, if you actually believe it to be true?

Come to think of it, that last part might be the problem...

What? You’re trying to argue that God ordains natural disasters in order to stabilize the Earth’s population? Where do you get this from?