Age Correlations and an Old Earth

You entire blue box is irrational.Your terminolgy is hysterical:From, "absolute minimum" to "inferred minimum" to "minimum scientific"....what scientific process determined 4.6 billion ?That is rhetorical, there is no scientific basis for 4.6 billion, it is the subjective number created by evos - a number needed to accomodate uniformitarianism theory.Your own choice of words matched against the fact that all evolutionary mega dates were originally determined by the subjective needs of the ToE exposes the voodoo in your "science".

Those allegedly "independant examinations" are not independant because they all stay tethered to what is already generally accepted.
Discard dates and why they are as such fuels this skepticism.Is this not circular ?4.6 billion is a number which started much lower but increased gradually to fit what evolution needed - billions of years.You have heard the criticism - rocks dating fossils - fossils dating rocks - round and round.You evos have a theory which NEEDS billions of years.Okay.Nobody ever produces a date for any material which contradicts the already known parameters.Please show me ONE independant date determined externally by which the "rationality" of a biased scientist had no part in producing ?Once again, this criticism lingers and is valid until an external benchmark is proven.Most disturbing is when the age of material is already known and the dating technique fails. As you know this number was settled on over a period of time. It is so large that evolution finally feels safe that it can account for the time needed for anything to have evolved.Crashfrog:I see from your posts that you have participated seriously and genuinely. This approach alone, to me, evidences confidence/honesty/truth.WT

Your response to my compliment instantly proves me wrong.In reality, your calm and "genuine" involvement is exposed to be phony and contrived all along. Your words reveal a seething and implacable anger. All because you are incapable of adequately refuting the stinging criticism that convergence dating can be synonymously and accurately described as circular.Persons who have had their God-sense removed all agree that it doesn't exist. This is a foundational symptom of its effects.I only counter with this truth of God-sense removal when opponents depart from the debate and initiate/declare that unless I agree with their view I am irrational, which is of course a nice way of saying you are crazy/insane.

I am not a YEC - you just assume.According to the best scholarship there are eons and eons of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.The same scholarship translates 1:2, "and the Earth BECAME a waste and a desolation".Because of these facts, evos can (and have) argued that this vast gulf of time can accomodate their 4.6 billion age of Earth. Technically they are correct because "eons and eons" can be interpreted as such as it can also be interpreted to mean hundreds or even tens of thousands of years.Other Biblical passages indicate that the Earth's initial use was a meeting place for intelligent beings. Yet, at some point, the fall of Lucifer occurred and the subsequent cursing which is implied in the rendering "the Earth BECAME a waste and a desolation."This truth is also evidenced here:Genesis 1:28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earthNotice God said REplenish and not PLENISH.The point is that the Earth has a very long pre-history, of which even a ballpark timespan cannot be ascertained other than what I have just described. The point is that God retains some secrets. And according to my worldview you are the irrational person because you don't believe that God is the Creator. And the reason you don't believe is because God has punished you for resisting His perceived encroachments one too many times.Rhetorically speaking, how does evolution disprove Genesis ?Answer: Only when the filter of your worldview interprets the evidence to say so.

Why do you have to ask that every other avenue to be excluded ?Is it because all the other avenues you want no part of ?You are a typical rank and file member of the religion of scientism.Scientism is the branch of science that elevates science to be the only avenue to determine truth. Have at it. This narrow view reveals fear of other avenues. This view reminds me of medieval friars who excluded science for the same reason you exclude theism. The same business on the other side of the street.Only irrational people reject the Creator.Only irrational people believe science is the ONLY way to truth.Jesus said He is THE way THE truth and THE life.If science depends on a foundation of defining rational then you are basing science on philosophy and not science.Subjective views defining who is rational is not scientific - that is a philosophical argument - you are confused - and confused persons are known to be irrational.

A fish somehow evolved into a land animal and a land animal somehow evolved into a human being.This is the creation empowered by God sense removal.There is zero evidence that the above happened as it is made up because God is not an option.How about biogenesis ?Why do evos evade biogenesis ?Because they have no answers that make any sense.They have Stephen Hawking type of theories = crank artist cranking out the crank while never supplying any evidence.Why is Hawking a theorist ?Because he has given up on evidence because it leads to God.

I will suspend myself from this topic, as it probably doesn't matter because I will be suspended anyway or even worse before the day is over.WT

Hawking is an atheist.He only uses God as a concept, just like Nazi's did to justify their use of Darwin's theory to conduct ghoulish experiments on Jews.Hawking thinks that when he figures it all out everyone will come to him for the answers - hence his definition of God.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-07-2004 05:40 PM

You start the topic.I have too many irons in the fire presently.Be also warned that my posting ability will be censored soon as per the threats of Admin.Seems like I must accept opponents evidence as fact but my evidence is not evidence when it is seen to prove my claims.Edit:Loudmouth:I am not ignoring you.I just can't respond to that right now and here.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-07-2004 06:29 PM

For the first time ever I agree with Wj.

content deleted.I responded to the wrong postThis message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-08-2004 06:14 PM

Who's defense are you asking about ?Because you are a straight shooter I will answer what I think you mean.Wj's comment Message 247 assumes theistic truth to be non-intellectual.But the portion of his quote that I cited can be taken either way depending on your worldview.The correlation of dating methodologies is only relevant to me when an evo slips the bias of his worldview into the meaning of the said evidence.If part of the meaning and interpretation is to suggest Genesis is somehow wrong then the theological truth of God-sense removal applies.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-08-2004 09:29 PM

According to my source, Richard Milton, your above blue box is a "database of self-fulfilling predictions." Milton is not a creo which makes his criticism very objective.But my only real interest is how and why evolutionists interpret evidence to disprove Genesis.

My argument is how does the alleged scientific evidence disprove the Bible ?Your argument, derived from the blue box, is that the scientific methodologies is the only way and best way to determine truth.Loudmouth:Why don't we have the debate that was discussed in our emails ?Just create the topic and lets go at it. Radz is eager to participate too. You cannot eviscerate the meaning of Genesis by employing the emotive term of "literalness". Genesis is not a science book/source of error - it is the eternal word of God - massive difference.This is only done to accomodate your methodologies and brand them with Biblical support.If science says nothing about Genesis then what are 90 % of the debates in this Forum talking about ?

Yes.