Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: KING IYK
Post Volume: Total: 920,570 Year: 892/6,935 Month: 173/719 Week: 165/116 Day: 7/32 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Percy
Member
Posts: 23135
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1501 of 1525 (921150)
01-02-2025 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1499 by dad3
01-02-2025 4:13 AM


Re: pitter patter time to splatter
ringo hasn't participated in a while. We think it possible that he passed away in February of 2023.
Science is based upon evidence, and evidence tells us that the Earth is ancient - very ancient, about 4.54 billion years.
You don't say anything about the age of the Earth in your post, but I presume you believe in a young Earth that's about 6000 years old. Since you believe in supernatural evidence, you could compare your supernatural evidence for a 6000 year old earth to the Hindu supernatural evidence for a 4.32 billion year old Earth, or to the Buddhist supernatural evidence for an immeasurably old Earth, or to the Jainism supernatural evidence of an infinite age, and so forth.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1499 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 4:13 AM dad3 has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 835
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


(1)
Message 1502 of 1525 (921151)
01-02-2025 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1500 by dad3
01-02-2025 4:17 AM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
All science ignores that which can't be tested and so since there is no way to detect nor test the supernatural it is left with only the natural to test. Again this isn't unique to Evolutionary science but all science and it has proved a very useful process that has led to all the technology and other advances in knowledge. How else would you suggest that scientists proceed to expand human understanding of the universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1500 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 4:17 AM dad3 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23135
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1503 of 1525 (921152)
01-02-2025 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1500 by dad3
01-02-2025 4:17 AM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
dad3 writes in Message 1500:
Evoism: Demand only the natural be used.pretend that defeats a supernatural creation.rinse.repeat
This thread is about data correlations for an old Earth. If you'd like to discuss your supernatural evidence for an old Earth you could start a new thread over at Proposed New Topics. Your thread proposal could just briefly outline your evidence, or you might have your own ideas for how to proceed.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1500 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 4:17 AM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1505 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 2:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9626
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1504 of 1525 (921156)
01-02-2025 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1499 by dad3
01-02-2025 4:13 AM


Re: pitter patter time to splatter
dad3:
Ringo
Sadly, Ringo is now an integral part of nature.
​
quote:
People that use naturalonlydunnit reasoning will arrive at similar conclusions in any different direction they go. Cosmology. Radioactive dating. Etc.
Why? Because if creation was something God did, then all attempts to use only natural processes that go on now to discover how we came to exist will fail.
​
The question is, can you prove that there is nothing else but the natural/physical? Of course not. You can neither prove or disprove the supernatural using natural only science. That means science is admittedly ignorant of whether there is supernatural or not. Yet they base all models of where the universe and man came from based on the belief that only the natural must be used.
​
That is why different fields of natural only science arrive at similar wrong conclusions.
I can't help feeling that you've missed something important. Science would agree with you that it can't know anything about the supernatural, it concerns itself with what exists.
What is it that you think you are arguing against?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1499 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 4:13 AM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1506 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 2:34 PM Tangle has replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 1505 of 1525 (921161)
01-02-2025 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1503 by Percy
01-02-2025 9:41 AM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
Thanks for the reply
It is strange that I think both the poster I replied to and the thread originator passed away
I don't want to discuss supernatural evidence so much as to make it clear that all correlations from science involve only the natural. Therefore if we use the results as ages, the ages are basically a statement that only the natural is involved in causing the universe and man to come to exist. Once we confirm that, the dating correlations are put into their place - as a statement of faith that only the natural was involved. Why faith? Because no one knows either way.
I agree that correlations exist. Testable in many cases. For example the correlation of radioactive isotopes in a rock or layer. However those correlations are not about 'an old earth' They are only about using just the natural to explain earth and the universe's origins and 'age'.
Unless ONLY the natural was involved, then all such models are comically wrong.
Another poster here already admitted (tangle) that only the natural is involved in the correlations of 'age'
This is a statement based on not knowing if the natural was all that was at work or not. Would you not agree that science is supposed to be about knowing, rather than 'not knowing'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1503 by Percy, posted 01-02-2025 9:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1507 by PaulK, posted 01-02-2025 2:41 PM dad3 has replied
 Message 1509 by Percy, posted 01-02-2025 4:19 PM dad3 has replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 1506 of 1525 (921162)
01-02-2025 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1504 by Tangle
01-02-2025 11:14 AM


prove the natural did it
One cannot say that only that natural exists. In science, one can limit oneself to that, and must do so. But you cannot then claim that is all that exists! All you can say is something like 'IF there was just the natural and natural processes that caused what we see, then ... old ages and yada yada blah blah'
That is nothing more than a statement of faith that nothing else exists

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1504 by Tangle, posted 01-02-2025 11:14 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1508 by Tangle, posted 01-02-2025 3:01 PM dad3 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 18041
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 1507 of 1525 (921164)
01-02-2025 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1505 by dad3
01-02-2025 2:27 PM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
quote:
Therefore if we use the results as ages, the ages are basically a statement that only the natural is involved in causing the universe and man to come to exist. Once we confirm that, the dating correlations are put into their place - as a statement of faith that only the natural was involved. Why faith? Because no one knows either way.
No, it is a statement that the evidence from nature is not deceptive. And when the evidence is so broad and so consistent then only a deliberate deception can explain it.
Since I don’t see any point in joining an idolatrous cult that tells me that God is a deceiver I think you should peddle your religion elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1505 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 2:27 PM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1510 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 6:24 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9626
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1508 of 1525 (921167)
01-02-2025 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1506 by dad3
01-02-2025 2:34 PM


Re: prove the natural did it
dad3 writes:
One cannot say that only that natural exists.
Well one can, here I go "only the natural exists"
In science, one can limit oneself to that, and must do so.
Science limits itself to what can be observed, directly or indirectly.
But you cannot then claim that is all that exists!
Science doesn't claim that.
All you can say is something like 'IF there was just the natural and natural processes that caused what we see, then ... old ages and yada yada blah blah'
​
That is nothing more than a statement of faith that nothing else exists
You're very confused. Science forms conclusions about what it observes and so far that has all turned out to be natural. It makes no statements about things supernatural.
That is nothing more than a statement of faith that nothing else exists
Science makes no statements of faith, but I can so here I go again "only the natural exists"

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1506 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 2:34 PM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1511 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 6:35 PM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23135
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1509 of 1525 (921169)
01-02-2025 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1505 by dad3
01-02-2025 2:27 PM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
dad3 writes in Message 1505:
It is strange that I think both the poster I replied to and the thread originator passed away
See In Memoriam. Ringo's not there because we were unable to confirm. Usually a friend or family member reaches out.
I don't want to discuss supernatural evidence so much as to make it clear that all correlations from science involve only the natural.
Another way of saying the same thing is that science deals with what can be observed, i.e., with phenomena that are apparent in some way to our five senses. Anything you think supernatural that can be observed is actually natural.
Therefore if we use the results as ages, the ages are basically a statement that only the natural is involved in causing the universe and man to come to exist. Once we confirm that, the dating correlations are put into their place - as a statement of faith that only the natural was involved. Why faith? Because no one knows either way.
But saying that only the natural was involved is just another way of saying that only what we can observe was involved. Again, if you think the supernatural can be observed then it is actually natural.
I agree that correlations exist. Testable in many cases. For example the correlation of radioactive isotopes in a rock or layer. However those correlations are not about 'an old earth' They are only about using just the natural to explain earth and the universe's origins and 'age'.
The correlations that point to an ancient Earth are what we observe.
Unless ONLY the natural was involved, then all such models are comically wrong.
Again, what we observed is always alll that is involved. From our observations we can build internally consistent models of the universe. Put another way, if there are things that cannot be observed, then it isn't possible for us to ever become aware of them and no way for them to ever affect our models.
Another poster here already admitted (tangle) that only the natural is involved in the correlations of 'age'
It's less an admission than a simple fact that no one is trying to hide. We consider anything observable to be part of the natural world.
This is a statement based on not knowing if the natural was all that was at work or not.
Everything that can be observed is considered open to scientific study, and that's what we call natural. If there's something you consider supernatural that can be observed, then it is actually natural.
Would you not agree that science is supposed to be about knowing, rather than 'not knowing'?
Most people in science want to develop a better understanding of our universe. The question I have for you is why you're so sure that unobservable phenomena exist.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1505 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 2:27 PM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1512 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 6:55 PM Percy has replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 1510 of 1525 (921171)
01-02-2025 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1507 by PaulK
01-02-2025 2:41 PM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
Using only the natural is a statement that all you need is the natural. So that says that no creation happened, but rather a long sequence of natural processes. Since you have no evidence that this is the case, you cannot claim anything is deceptive. IT is simple a choice to accept/use.believe only in the natural.
The results are meaningless if there was a creation by God, and since you do not know either way, you actually have zero evidence. You simply call all the natural things and processes you have 'evidence'. Whatever they do evidence does not include any support for the belief that there is only the natural and nothing else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1507 by PaulK, posted 01-02-2025 2:41 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1516 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2025 12:11 AM dad3 has replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 1511 of 1525 (921172)
01-02-2025 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1508 by Tangle
01-02-2025 3:01 PM


Re: prove the natural did it
quote:
Well one can, here I go "only the natural exists"
You can say almost anything, but not as fact or science
quote:
Science limits itself to what can be observed, directly or indirectly
Correct, and that means just the natural. Will you admit that if there was a supernatural creation, that what you are able to observe could never explain how it happened?
quote:
Science doesn't claim that.
By claiming the universe and man came to exist a certain way, they certainly do claim that the naturalonlydunnit
quote:
You're very confused. Science forms conclusions about what it observes and so far that has all turned out to be natural. It makes no statements about things supernatural.
Yes it claims that only the natural dunnit all. That is as clear a statement as one could get.
No different than a Goddiddit statement. One cannot prove that the supernatural does not or does exist. Especially using ONLY the natural!
quote:
Science makes no statements of faith, but I can so here I go again "only the natural exists"
Your statement is not evidenced or supported. Obviously you do not speak for science. Natural science does not deal in anything but the natural, so could not tell us if anything else existed or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1508 by Tangle, posted 01-02-2025 3:01 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1524 by Tangle, posted 01-03-2025 8:59 AM dad3 has not replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 1512 of 1525 (921173)
01-02-2025 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1509 by Percy
01-02-2025 4:19 PM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
quote:
Another way of saying the same thing is that science deals with what can be observed, i.e., with phenomena that are apparent in some way to our five senses. Anything you think supernatural that can be observed is actually natural.
The supernatural cannot be observed. So it is not actually natural. Science deals only with the natural it observes.
quote:
But saying that only the natural was involved is just another way of saying that only what we can observe was involved. Again, if you think the supernatural can be observed then it is actually natural.
No, I do not think the supernatural can be observed. That does not mean it is real or unreal. We cannot observe God creating a universe with a few words one day. That does not mean it never happened. Millions of people observed miracles. They happened. What caused them was not observed. For you to say that only what you observed caused the miracles would be comical. The same is true if you claimed you saw the universe created and God did not create it. All we see is natural processes and things. Then we use these and these alone to extrapolate backwards and form a model of how it came to exist.
That is a statement of belief that the naturalonlydunnit. No proof. No evidence for the statement. You think that would be science?
quote:
The correlations that point to an ancient Earth are what we observe
The natural only processes that you believe created the earth are what point to age. Unless only those processes did it, the so called ages are meaningless across the board.
quote:
Everything that can be observed is considered open to scientific study, and that's what we call natural. If there's something you consider supernatural that can be observed, then it is actually natural
Most people in science want to develop a better understanding of our universe. The question I have for you is why you're so sure that unobservable phenomena exist.
History tells us that most people on earth have always accepted the supernatural for a variety of reasons and observations and experiences. The same is true as we speak today. So there is no question that the supernatural exists. If we used a very rough statistic, it might be that 25 billion people over all history have experienced enough to believe the supernatural does exist. If we counted all the natural experiments in laboratories that show the natural exists, we might only have say, a hundred million tests. So if we accept the one, why not the other?
The supernatural tests were not observing what caused something, but only the event itself. Hundreds saw Jesus alive again after dying. They did not see how He turned a decrepit old body into a new powerful body. They just saw Him risen. So it was both observed and unobserved. If the creation by God happened, then no one observed how it was done or the event itself. Yet we do observe the results it is believed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1509 by Percy, posted 01-02-2025 4:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1513 by DrJones*, posted 01-02-2025 8:33 PM dad3 has replied
 Message 1514 by Percy, posted 01-02-2025 8:59 PM dad3 has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2362
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 1513 of 1525 (921174)
01-02-2025 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1512 by dad3
01-02-2025 6:55 PM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
History tells us that most people on earth have always accepted the supernatural for a variety of reasons and observations and experiences. The same is true as we speak today. So there is no question that the supernatural exists.
wow that's a dumb argument. History tells us that people for a variety of reasons and observations and experiences thought (and still think) that the Earth is flat, but we know those sister fucking hillbillys are wrong.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1512 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 6:55 PM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1515 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 10:37 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 23135
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1514 of 1525 (921176)
01-02-2025 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1512 by dad3
01-02-2025 6:55 PM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
I don't want to draw this thread further off-topic, so I've posted my reply at Message 208 of the Studying the supernatural thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1512 by dad3, posted 01-02-2025 6:55 PM dad3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1518 by dad3, posted 01-03-2025 12:58 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
dad3
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 01-02-2025


Message 1515 of 1525 (921179)
01-02-2025 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1513 by DrJones*
01-02-2025 8:33 PM


Re: Naturalonlydunnit
Contempt for overwhelming evidence. On the issue of the correlations that are the topic here, they are ALL based on the natural only. That is a premise you cannot defend, and for which hatred of an identifiable group of people and big swear words won't help. Unless you do better we might as well ask Dr Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1513 by DrJones*, posted 01-02-2025 8:33 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025