Young earth vs old earth theory?

I have no clue what you mean and I'm sure you don't either

 

We tested it. Young Earth can be conclusively ruled out. In fact, we know the age of the earth within less than 1%.

 

I said:
yes a MYTH isnt evidence but it is useful suggesting validity of nonsensical "here be giants" claims.

Perhaps you should examine your own use of mythology in attempting to trump science with faith. "here be giants" is a reference to early map makers pointing to the currently UNKNOWN.

 

Thank you for that marvelous example of how outrageously dismissive simple ignorance can be..

 

This is a common problem with those who require the Bible to be right and then claim that correlations prove that.

Correlations do not show causation. They are not evidence.

The most one can say about a correlation is that there is a possibility that something could be learned by investigating whether the correlation is MORE than just a correlation.

#Cougarbear wants us all to look at ICS. The first article on that site today claims there is a correlation between someone's Noah/flood timeline and the end of he dinosaurs - thus the article claims that science is wrong about the demise of the dinosaurs. But, even if there were such a correlation (for which no evidence is given), it is no more than a correlation. On it's best day it's not evidence.

Finding things in the Bible that aren't clearly refuted by evidence today is just not a valid process for supporting the notion that some piece of the Bible is literal history or accurate science..

So, in this particualr case you mention, whether there is a "fit" with Genesis 6 makes no difference. At best, it's a correlation. And, correlations aren't evidence.

 

There is no science involved with that sort of dating... We don't know how old the Earth is.

 

No, they are simply people who hold a different religious belief than you do.

 

Seems like you might understand that this is all just religious belief and that we actually have no clue about how old the Earth is... We can only guess based off of various assumptions...

 

Indeed. We know that the Earth is not flat.

 

Scientists can hold whatever religious beliefs they please. Young Earth or Old Earth religious beliefs have nothing to do with science.

 

No, they need not do any of that... Their young earth religious belief is completely separate from any science. So is any old earth religious belief.

Laws of science are not proven, either... They do contain mathematical and/or logical proofs, since laws of science are simply theories of science that have been formalized via math/logic, but science does not make use of proofs (it is an open functional system). It does not make use of supporting evidence either. It only makes use of conflicting evidence (which is what falsifies theories). Theories of science only continue to be theories of science so long as they continue to survive null hypothesis tests against them. Once they fail such a test, the theory is no longer a theory of science. It is utterly destroyed.

 

Earth's age is known within +- 1%.

As you sort of intimate, there are various techniques for determining the age of Earth and other stuff in our solar system. So, there is plenty of cross checking.

Beyond that, the differences between "young Earth" and actual measurement is just plain gigantic. There is no possibility of closing a gap that large OTHER than to believe that a God carefully created a profound lie that permeates EVERYTHING in our universe - even to the point of making it look like photons are coming from stars that don't even actually exist.

Is your god that kind of liar?

 

No, it hasn't. Youth Earth theory is unfalsifiable, as is Old Earth theory. It is religion, not science.

 

Science does not make use of supporting evidence. That is what religion does. Science only makes use of conflicting evidence (which falsifies theories).

 

How did you test an unfalsifiable theory?

No, we don't. We don't know how old the Earth is.

 

there is a difference between a scientific Law, a scientific Theory and a scientific hypothesis or working theory. Laws are not theories

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/topics/resource-library-age-earth/?q=&page=1&per_page=25

"Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years. Scientists have scoured the Earth searching for the oldest rocks to radiometrically date. In northwestern Canada, they discovered rocks about 4.03 billion years old. Then, in Australia, they discovered minerals about 4.3 billion years old. Researchers know that rocks are continuously recycling, due to the rock cycle, so they continued to search for data elsewhere. Since it is thought the bodies in the solar system may have formed at similar times, scientists analyzed moon rocks collected during the moon landing and even meteorites that have crash-landed on Earth. Both of these materials dated to between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years."

 

No, it isn't. Earth's age is not known... at all.

No, there is only guesswork.

There is no "actual measurement". There is only religious belief.

There is no "gap" to close... There are simply opposing religious beliefs...

Personally, I remain atheistic on this issue.

 

In my particular case... it is even more serious than that......
Near death experiencer Dr. Kevin Zadai has stated that the Book of Genesis was given to Moses while he was
doing one of those forty days of fasting when he was with HaShem on Mt. Sinai.........

...... I have already taken eighteen online courses by Dr. Kevin Zadai.... I think that he is brilliant and astoundingly accurate...... I would have to do a lot of rethinking in order to come up wit a better explanation for what happened in the past than what he explained............ so I admit it....... I am biased toward the Dr. Kevin Zadai explanation for what happened previous to the Flood of Noah!

 

Amen - evidence of Earth's age is not limited to what is found on Earth.

 

Laws (with regard to science) are simply theories of science that have been formalized via mathematics and/or logic.

 

I was personally impressed by the information related to there being lines in the glaciers on Antarctica and on the Greenland land based Ice Sheet that are much like the annual rings on trees. Those layers in the ice on Antarctica and Greenland do put the age of the earth into the range of five hundred thousand years or more at least.................. and frozen and petrified sub tropical or tropical type vegetation under the ice in both Antarctica and Greenland indicate that the earth is far more than merely twenty thousand years old but.......... I am open to the idea that a lot more did happen on the earth in these last twenty thousand years than tend to be taught just about anywhere.

I was taught since the 1970's that the earth could well be nearly five billion years old or so.

 

Your view denies ALL of science in its entirety - way beyond what evidence is actually found as you include a rejection of all methods of observing our universe from the particle level to cosmology.

While it's true that leaves you with a purely religious view, that religion is totally divorced from the reality we see around us.

 

No. Theories state HOW something works. They describe a mechanism, or they aren't theories.

Laws only formalize a relationship.

 

We have ice cores that go back 800,000 years.

The idea that the age of Earth is limited to the age of ice cores that we have today has NO basis of any kind.

I've never heard of this 20,000 year limit. I'd suggest the only reason for limiting to 20,000 years is if you want to limit to the last 10% of the history of modern man or have some other such draconian and totally artificial constraint in mind.