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

[Statler Waldorf]

THe problem with that is that the claim is that the god was ALL KNOWING - past - present - and future

So - the word "day" would - for the god - have the same meaning today as it would at any other time

I do not ascribe to the day-age theory, but you lost me on this point. Care to elaborate?

Ooh, quote-mining! My favorite tactic of creationists. Nobody does it with more callous disregard for the truth than the Discovery Institute, though. You have a ways to go if you want to be in their league. I prefer to see quote-mining from peer-reviewed papers on actual experimental data, though- ideally, you should find a few words that, with the help of ellipses, you can make look like the exact opposite of the actual findings of the experiment.

Just trying to be helpful.

Deflecting from the issue at hand is one of my favorite tactics used by Darwinists; needless to say, you did not disappoint.

If that quote was out of context, then why did Dawkins place it on the very cover of The Blind Watchmaker? Is he quote-mining himself?

You now have a bit of an issue, some creationists (not me) argue that the Universe presents the illusion of being old, and Darwinists argue that life presents the illusion of being designed. What’s fair for one is fair for the other.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-11-23/

[ThomM]

THis is Nonsense and the beginning to the end of religion - which is falling apart around the world

There is NO question that the earth is far older than 10,000 years - which is 4000 years more than the bible says it is as well.

For those who do not accept modern dating methods - one can prove it by counting Yearly layers in ice core samples

WE have ice core samples that show the earth is over 750,000 years from several places - and the Epica Core sample from the Antartica goes overthe 800,000 year mark. THere is NO possibility that the earth is 10,000 years old - none at all. Knowing that the earth's poles have shifted several times over the years - we know that this is only a partial amount from what would be if they never did.

As we learn more about the earth - we have learned that there was NO worldwide flood like the great flood of the bible - even just in the Middle east. The hebrew bible dating of the flood would place it AFTER the building of the Great Pyramid - and a column of water the height claimed would have pulverized every man made structure - yet there is NOT ANY water damage showing in the great pyramid. OF course - the story of the ark is nonsense to begin with - since they had NO fish onboard - and the mixing of fresh and salt water would have killed all the fish living them - but then of course - a layer of salt would have prevented the growth of plants for thousands of years - and where would they come from - very few on the ark too. And remember - the majority of life on earth cannot actually be seen by the naked eye - where did they keep the bacteria on the ark.

Why are YOU even considering believing the nonsense of the bible - which is clearly the superstitions and MYTHS of a bunch of ancient cave dwellers and sheep herders from an insignificant place in the middle east? YOU may as well believe in the tooth fairy!

[Zazzy]

Deflecting from the issue at hand is one of my favorite tactics used by Darwinists; needless to say, you did not disappoint.

If that quote was out of context, then why did Dawkins place it on the very cover of The Blind Watchmaker? Is he quote-mining himself?

What a good question. Thanks for raising your hand in Biology class today. This is shot in the dark, since I didn't publish the book, but it seems like Dawkins and his publishers would think that readers conversant in the English language would understand the meaning of the word "illusion." The entire book is written to discuss how we are prone to seeking pattern and attributing meaning to it, and yet can be fooled by this tendency (like the 3-year-old who has just learned the alphabet and keeps finding sticks shaped like letters).

You now have a bit of an issue, some creationists (not me) argue that the Universe presents the illusion of being old, and Darwinists argue that life presents the illusion of being designed. What’s fair for one is fair for the other.

You now have an issue where you quote-mined Dawkins to make it appear as if he disagrees with his own conclusion. The problem is that you didn't quote-mine with enough panache. A better way to make it seem as you want it to would be this:

the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with... design and planning.”

Do try to keep up with your betters at the DI.

[Statler Waldorf]

THis is Nonsense and the beginning to the end of religion - which is falling apart around the world

Religion is falling apart? 2.3 Billion Christians.

There is NO question that the earth is far older than 10,000 years

Assertion.

For those who do not accept modern dating methods - one can prove it by counting Yearly layers in ice core samples

“For those who do not accept modern dating methods I will now appeal to another dating method.”

WE have ice core samples that show the earth is over 750,000 years from several places [quote]

How do they show this?

[quote] THere is NO possibility that the earth is 10,000 years old - none at all.

Another assertion.

Knowing that the earth's poles have shifted several times over the years - we know that this is only a partial amount from what would be if they never did.

How do you know this?

As we learn more about the earth - we have learned that there was NO worldwide flood like the great flood of the bible - even just in the Middle east.

Another assertion.

The Hebrew [sic] bible dating of the flood would place it AFTER the building of the Great Pyramid - and a column of water the height claimed would have pulverized every man made structure - yet there is NOT ANY water damage showing in the great pyramid.

No, the pyramids were built after the flood.

OF course - the story of the ark is nonsense to begin with - since they had NO fish onboard - and the mixing of fresh and salt water would have killed all the fish living them [sic]

This assumes that oceanic saline concentrations were the same as they are now, which would not have been the case.

- but then of course - a layer of salt would have prevented the growth of plants for thousands of years –

What layer of salt and why?

and where would they come from –

Most plants come from seeds.

- where did they keep the bacteria on the ark.

The bible says that only land animals that breathed through nostrils were brought upon the Ark.

Why are YOU even considering believing the nonsense of the bible –

I value deduction.

which is clearly the superstitions and MYTHS of a bunch of ancient cave dwellers and sheep herders from an insignificant place in the middle east?

Clearly? To whom?

YOU may as well believe in the tooth fairy!

The tooth fairy does not exist.

What a good question. Thanks for raising your hand in Biology class today. This is shot in the dark, since I didn't publish the book, but it seems like Dawkins and his publishers would think that readers conversant in the English language would understand the meaning of the word "illusion." The entire book is written to discuss how we are prone to seeking pattern and attributing meaning to it, and yet can be fooled by this tendency (like the 3-year-old who has just learned the alphabet and keeps finding sticks shaped like letters).

If life has the illusion of being designed then can the Universe also have the illusion of being billions of years old?

You now have an issue where you quote-mined Dawkins to make it appear as if he disagrees with his own conclusion. The problem is that you didn't quote-mine with enough panache. A better way to make it seem as you want it to would be this:

Dawkins clearly believes that life presents the illusion of being designed. Are you arguing that he is wrong? Why is it fair for Dawkins to dismiss contrary evidence as being illusory but not for creationists to? I smell special pleading.

[Chas]

He is being overly courteous by including human shaped sacks of shit like you amounts "us", sack of shit. Such infantile anthropamorphizing [sic] never impressed any of us real humans, sack of shit.

Wow, I really touched a nerve by pointing out your hypocrisy, Dawkins is that you?

You clearly didn't understand what Dawkins said.

[Zazzy]

If life has the illusion of being designed then can the Universe also have the illusion of being billions of years old?

It doesn't have to seem illusory, because that's what all the data points to. So it may have the illusion of that, and that illusion would happily reconcile with the evidence. I appreciate what you are trying to do- equate something with no evidence to something with mountains of evidence- but it's yawningly weak. Your reputation indicated that you were more pitbullish than this weak-ass argument. Can you try harder?

Dawkins clearly believes that life presents the illusion of being designed

Every scientist I know believes that life often presents to an uneducated eye as being designed. The key word here is "uneducated." Since most people don't understand anything about how genomes behave, or how cells react to genomic changes, it's easy for them to misunderstand what they see.

Are you arguing that he is wrong?

I think Dawkins is wrong about many things, but his take on the illusion of design is spot-on, and his science tends to be sound (although his books do get out of date).

Why is it fair for Dawkins to dismiss contrary evidence as being illusory but not for creationists to? I smell special pleading.

I think maybe you don't understand what illusory means. If creationists were to claim that design was an illusion, they'd be summarily drummed out of the pack. Since no creationist claims that the appearance of design is illusory, I hear your point whimpering as it dies.

Again, I'd love for you to live up to your reputation here. Have some caffeine and come back to me when you're cognizant of your own people's arguments.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

There is NO question that the earth is far older than 10,000 years

Assertion.

Agreed. This should read: "There is no reasonable basis to question that the earth is far older than 10,000 years"

For those who do not accept modern dating methods - one can prove it by counting Yearly layers in ice core samples

“For those who do not accept modern dating methods I will now appeal to another dating method.”

The dating methods you refer to have been completely vindicated from bullshit YEC accusations and has proven accurate time and time again.

The only "evidence" I've ever been able to find that would indicate the contrary has always been a case of misrepresentation, ignorance and/or a deliberate attempt to deceive

THere is NO possibility that the earth is 10,000 years old - none at all.

Another assertion.

One that fits all available evidence

Knowing that the earth's poles have shifted several times over the years - we know that this is only a partial amount from what would be if they never did.

How do you know this?

Geomagnetic reversal was discovered in the '60's (IIRC) when investigating magnetic anomalies in the ocean floor. It was the discovery that lead to proving plate tectonics.

This assumes that oceanic saline concentrations were the same as they are now, which would not have been the case.

So when did god create the salt water creatures? I don't remember reading that bit in the bible

The bible says that only land animals that breathed through nostrils were brought upon the Ark.

Really? What about the insects? If god hates insects so much, why make so bloody many of them?

Sorry, but whole flood story was one of the main things that made me question the bible when I was a child. Even then, the entire premise struck me as being so overwhelmingly ridiculous that it required not faith, but foolishness to believe such a thing. I mean, the logistics alone are absurd.

I can't understand how anyone could believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and expect to be taken seriously. The literal interpretation was rejected in christianity as early as the 3rd century. Origen Adamantius is a prime example, but certainly not the earliest.

That anyone could believe such nowadays is truly staggering.

[Statler Waldorf]

You clearly didn't understand what Dawkins said.

Nuh-uh! You clearly don’t understand what he said.

It doesn't have to seem illusory, because that's what all the data points to.

No, that’s the illusion the data point to. Since Dawkins has allowed us to invoke “illusion” we could also merely assume that all contrary data are also merely illusory.

So it may have the illusion of that, and that illusion would happily reconcile with the evidence. I appreciate what you are trying to do- equate something with no evidence to something with mountains of evidence- but it's yawningly weak. Your reputation indicated that you were more pitbullish than this weak-ass argument. Can you try harder?

There’s no need to try harder, I am making you look rather silly with very little effort. Dawkins admits that life appears to be designed, which is no different than you saying the Universe appears to be old. If the former is merely an illusion then the latter could also be merely an illusion. I am just trying to make you consistently play by the same set of rules.

Every scientist I know believes that life often presents to an uneducated eye as being designed.

Dawkins is uneducated?

The key word here is "uneducated." Since most people don't understand anything about how genomes behave, or how cells react to genomic changes, it's easy for them to misunderstand what they see.

It is also easy to falsely attribute an old age to the Universe; that’s the whole point.

I think Dawkins is wrong about many things, but his take on the illusion of design is spot-on, and his science tends to be sound (although his books do get out of date).

How do you know that it is the appearance of design that is the illusion and not the natural selection mechanism that is the illusion?

I think maybe you don't understand what illusory means. If creationists were to claim that design was an illusion, they'd be summarily drummed out of the pack. Since no creationist claims that the appearance of design is illusory, I hear your point whimpering as it dies.

You failed to even address my point, so I assure you it still lives as it stands un-refuted. Why is it fair for Darwinists to assert that the appearance of design is illusory but not fair for creationists to claim that the appearance of deep time in the Universe is illusory? You seem to be fallaciously arguing that claims made about life cannot also be made about the Universe; or is it that Darwinists can make certain claims but creationists cannot make the same claims? Either way your logic fails.

Agreed. This should read: "There is no reasonable basis to question that the earth is far older than 10,000 years"

Depends on what you mean by “reasonable basis”, I do not see any reasonable basis to believe it is older than that.

The dating methods you refer to have been completely vindicated from bullshit YEC accusations and has proven accurate time and time again.

Proven accurate how? I need specifics.

The only "evidence" I've ever been able to find that would indicate the contrary has always been a case of misrepresentation, ignorance and/or a deliberate attempt to deceive

That’s unfortunate.

One that fits all available evidence

This is of course just another assertion. Why do those believing in deep time always resort to such meaningless posturing? If your position is really that undeniable then it should be easy to demonstrate.

Geomagnetic reversal was discovered in the '60's (IIRC) when investigating magnetic anomalies in the ocean floor. It was the discovery that lead to proving plate tectonics.

Yes, but magnetic field reversals and plate tectonics are all part of the current creation model, so I am not sure why you are acting as if they merely support your position.

So when did god create the salt water creatures? I don't remember reading that bit in the bible

He didn’t create salt water creatures; he merely created sea creatures that have since adapted to live in water containing higher concentrations of salt. Even today many fish can move freely back and forth from salt and fresh water.

Really? What about the insects? If god hates insects so much, why make so bloody many of them?

Arthropods do not breathe through nostrils, so they would not have been on the Ark. Insects would have easily survived on large floating masses of bio-material created by the flood.

Sorry, but whole flood story was one of the main things that made me question the bible when I was a child. Even then, the entire premise struck me as being so overwhelmingly ridiculous that it required not faith, but foolishness to believe such a thing. I mean, the logistics alone are absurd.

No need to apologize to me. The story of Noah is actually one of my favorite Biblical stories.

I can't understand how anyone could believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and expect to be taken seriously. The literal interpretation was rejected in Christianity [sic] as early as the 3rd century. Origen Adamantius is a prime example, but certainly not the earliest.

This is a bit of a misconception, Origen still believed in a global flood. He was arguing that God did not create the Universe in six literal days but rather instantaneously. This was influenced by Origen’s sympathies for neo-Platonic philosophy, not by anything in the Biblical text itself.

That anyone could believe such nowadays is truly staggering.

Why?

[Zazzy]

No, that’s the illusion the data point to. Since Dawkins has allowed us to invoke “illusion” we could also merely assume that all contrary data are also merely illusory.

So in your mind the experimental data point to an illusion, and there is contrary data. I'm pretty sure I know where you're getting this "contrary data"- from the folks at the DI, who love to misrepresent the scientific works of practicing scientists because they know their base is too ignorant to read the papers themselves. Let me know when that data yields something useful in medicine.

There’s no need to try harder, I am making you look rather silly with very little effort.

What are you, five years old? Although there's the yippy pitbull I heard about. You've got pep, for sure.

Dawkins admits that life appears to be designed, which is no different than you saying the Universe appears to be old. If the former is merely an illusion then the latter could also be merely an illusion. I am just trying to make you consistently play by the same set of rules.

If your god exists, it would be entirely consistent with his character to plant mountains of evidence for common descent and genomic change over time just to fool people. If this is the case, he's sure busy making sure living organisms adhere to the illusion consistently, and allowing useful discoveries based on evolutionary principles. What a great joke!

Every scientist I know believes that life often presents to an uneducated eye as being designed.

Dawkins is uneducated?

No wonder everyone here hates you- you are a dishonest fellow. If you need to play word games to feel better about your position, there's no helping you.

It is also easy to falsely attribute an old age to the Universe; that’s the whole point.

No- it's very difficult to ignore the evidence. You seem to be doing it well, though.

How do you know that it is the appearance of design that is the illusion and not the natural selection mechanism that is the illusion?

Because I see natural selection every day in the lab I work in, as do all other geneticists?

You failed to even address my point, so I assure you it still lives as it stands un-refuted. Why is it fair for Darwinists to assert that the appearance of design is illusory but not fair for creationists to claim that the appearance of deep time in the Universe is illusory?

Well, you did word the point really badly. Evolutionary biologists do experiments all over the world every day that shore up evolutionary theory and teach us more and more about the behavior of genomes. Creationists do their best to misrepresent that work while doing none of their own experimental work. So get cracking in the lab and then you can show me what your experimental data says- then we'll have a fair scientific argument about it.

[Statler Waldorf]

So in your mind the experimental data point to an illusion, and there is contrary data. I'm pretty sure I know where you're getting this "contrary data"- from the folks at the DI, who love to misrepresent the scientific works of practicing scientists because they know their base is too ignorant to read the papers themselves. Let me know when that data yields something useful in medicine.

You do realize that the founders of the Discovery Institute believe the Universe is billions of years old don’t you? I am not sure why you keep bringing them up then. My point is that whenever you allow for the concept of illusion in scientific inferences you have undermined the very possibility of science itself.

If your god exists, it would be entirely consistent with his character to plant mountains of evidence for common descent and genomic change over time just to fool people. If this is the case, he's sure busy making sure living organisms adhere to the illusion consistently, and allowing useful discoveries based on evolutionary principles. What a great joke!

You’re committing the fallacy of reification. A person must first possess a working conceptual scheme before they can interpret evidence, if you begin with an anti-Biblical conceptual scheme and then use that to interpret the evidence incorrectly that is not God’s fault, it’s your own. What evidence for common descent are you referring to by the way? I am intrigued.

No wonder everyone here hates you- you are a dishonest fellow. If you need to play word games to feel better about your position, there's no helping you.

Not everyone here hates me, only those I embarrass in debates. You clearly stated that only an uneducated person would believe that life appears to be designed, and yet Dawkins has admitted that to him life appears designed (he merely believes this appearance is an illusion)- so I merely asked if that means Dawkins is uneducated.

No- it's very difficult to ignore the evidence. You seem to be doing it well, though.

You’ve presented no evidence to be ignored.

Because I see natural selection every day in the lab I work in, as do all other geneticists?

And you see the appearance of design everyday as well so that does not answer my question. How do you know that it is the appearance of design that is the illusion and not the Darwinian mechanisms at work?

Well, you did word the point really badly.

I’ll use smaller words next time.

Evolutionary biologists do experiments all over the world every day that shore up evolutionary theory and teach us more and more about the behavior of genomes. Creationists do their best to misrepresent that work while doing none of their own experimental work. So get cracking in the lab and then you can show me what your experimental data says- then we'll have a fair scientific argument about it.

More fallacious reification, data doesn’t say anything. You seriously believe creationists do not do any of their own research? I was laboring under the misconception that you were knowledgeable regarding this subject.

-SW