Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth

I've got to add to this - it's a bit disingenious to an extent to make such a demand. I could understand it if we were dealing with new members of the forum but with a poster like Faith (I've singled out faith because who the hell else is posting for the other side in this thread?) with a long long established track record of ad-hoc reasoning (and you only have to look at the irdium stuff here for a current example), what do you expect to change? What purpose is making such a demand to someone who quite freely admits that no evidence is going to alter or impact a literal belief in the bible?Faith was banned from the science forums wasn't she? What's changed in her behaviour since then?

That's a bogus argument for two reasons:1) because there is no incompability with being a believer in say the christian God and Science. Jar and may of the others do it all the time. However Faith starts from a position that whatever the scientific evidence is, it's has to be wrong if it does not match 100% with the bible2)This is more of a technical answer. This topic is in Science forums therefore any arguments here have to be based around science as we currently know it. What you are suggesting is a matter for the "faith and belief" forums or "is it science?"What Percy said herealso applies to what's happening here: Just sub in the words Hydrologic evidence for an old earth for "stars".If Faith doesn't want to believe that's her business but means that in reality she's unable to argue in good faith here in the science forums. Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by CK, : Copy-edit.

Sorry I might be misunderstanding what you are saying: The way I read your statement it appears you are saying that they have drilled down to 3 miles or about 4828 metres in the ocean?I thought that was beyond current technology?

quote:

---

And again, we have a book of divine revelation, that IS evidence for OUR view.

---

that's great but this is the science forums - what scientific evidence do you have?Edited by CK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I find it very odd that a written testimony to a physical event is not regarded as scientific evidence. I'm sure a written record that there was an earthquake in a remote part of the earth 300 years ago would be regarded as evidence that the event did in fact occur.

---

It would be regarded as evidence that something might have had and taken in context with other sources from the time. In no way shape or form would it consist "scientific evidence".Why is the silliness and gameplaying allowed to continue? How long has faith being here? And she still pretends not to know the boundaries of science and scientific enquiry.How is it hard to understand that citing the bible to support the bible is not how things are done in the science forums? It has nothing at all to do with a discussion of the evidence either way.Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by CK, : No reason given.