1309Re: The empirical fact of antiquity - for Michael
- Jun 1, 2003--- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1276):
> Hello Todd,Hi, Michael.
> I am catching up on the messages so please be patient with me. I
> work long hours and do not have a great deal of time to keep up
> on a daily basis.
>Then what do you hold? You certainly wouldn't be the first young
>> Analogy: Let's say you and I have a dispute concerning the
>> length of a particular road that we both know about. Here's the
>> nature of the dispute: You claim that the road stretches only
>> about 6,000 feet long (a little over a mile). I say, "Well, I'm
>> not sure just how long the road is, but I'm quite certain that
>> the road is considerably longer than a mile...
> Your analogy is a good one if it actually described the situation
> between us. I do not hold to a claim that the earth is 6-10K
> years old.
earth creationist why ends up getting real shy when met by a critic
of young earth creationist ideas who happens to know a little about
what he's talking about.
Besides, this, with respect to YEC itself and your argument that the
YEC model is just as "okay" as the antiquity model, my analogy is a
great one. It describes the situation perfectly, and gives a picture
of just how silly the YEC position really is.
> David, in the Bereanlikespirit club, however, made a boldI agree that there exists factual evidence that the earth is
> statement that there exists factual evidence that the earth is
> 4.6 billion years old. It appears that you do not hold this
> position as factual (I suppose you can tell me if you do or not).
approximately 4.6 billion years. I come down on the "approximately"
side of the fence. If it happened to be the case that the earth was
really 3.8 billion years old or 5.3 billion years old, I couldn't
care less. What I've been pointing out to you is that estimations of
the actual age of the earth are totally irrelevant with respect to
whether or not the YEC position is a false idea about the world. Why?
As I have already pointed out to you WE DO NOT NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING
AT ALL about how old the earth actually is. ALL WE NEED TO KNOW FOR
SURE is whether or not the earth has been in existence substantially
longer than 10,000 years, and this we do know. YEC is a false idea
about the real world, so when people like you start arguing that YEC
is a good scientific model (or, say, at least as good as the
antiquity model), then I will discuss why your argument is flatly
>I know that the earth, and the universe, has been around for AT LEAST
> Now, you do go on to say in your analogy you are quite certain
> there is no evidence that suggests the earth is less than 10,000
> years old. How high of a figure would you consider? Would you
> suggest that this same evidence also indicates that the earth is
> older than 50K years? 100K years? What is the threshold of your
> certainty? Is it one billion, or 2, or 3?
millions of years. That is all I need to know personally in order to
declare quite openly and publically that young earth creationism is a
position that is falsified by the empirical facts.
The difference between the knowing this about the earth, and about
the universe, has to do with the nature of the area of scientific
investigation. With geology you have to deal with piecing together a
lot of detailed information about the past. This is different from
astronomy, because in the case of astronomy, yes you still have to
piece a lot of detailed information together, but with astronomical
observation we literally OBSERVE for ourselves firsthand the distant
past that YECs claim doesn't exist.
>Golly, Michael, why do you keep ignoring what I've pointed out to you
> Since you state that you are quite certain then I presume that
> you can quite certainly give a ball-park figure with regard to
> the age of the earth.
so clearly and even helped you to understand with the road analogy.
WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT HOW OLD THE EARTH
ACTUALLY IS. With respect to knowing whether or not YEC is a false
idea about the real world, all we need to know for certain is that
the earth, and the universe, have been in existence substantially
longer than 10,000, and we do know this for certain. In the case of
the universe, we know this by direct observation.
>Sure you did. In the Bereanlikespirit group you replied to at least
> You also said:
>> With the particular example of the supernova SN1987A
>> that I have explained to you...
> Sorry, I have not gotten a chance to read this from the other
> club. I will get to it this weekend or early next week and post
> my remarks to this then.
one of my posts in which I explicitly stated the SN1987A example for
you and provided you with online references. I resposted this post to
this group: repost #1:
Why are you ignoring what I stated in this post?
>You have argued that the YEC "model" is just as good as the
>> Yet this is precisely the argument that you've been making with
>> respect to the antiquity of the universe...
> The antiquity of the earth is what is under discussion, and, no,
> this is not really the argument that I have been making.
antiquity "model". I know that your argument is wrong, and I have
explained to you why it is wrong.
> The argument isActually, your argument has been much stronger than that. You have
> not that your odometer reads 32 miles, but is whether the odometer
> you are using is accurate. See?
argued that there is no odometer. Any odometer that cannot
distinguish the difference between 1 mile and 32 miles - and 1,000
miles - is completely useless.
I have simply pointed out that the odometer (actually, there are many
different odometers) is quite good enough to know that we have
traveled much, much farther than 1 mile. It is you who are disputing
this. Even while you completely ignore the clear and specific SN1987A
example that I have pointed out to you that proves that your argument
>I haven't been talking about radiometric dating methods. I don't need
> I am quite certain that the radiometric dating methods used
> produce the results you rely upon, but whether those results are
> factual is what I question.
to know a thing about radiometric dating to know that young earth
creationism is false. The geologists of 200 years ago didn't need to
know anything about radiometric dating methods either.
Thousands of feet of solid rock don't erode in 10,000 years - and,
no, not even in a global flood that lasts for a year. The YEC notion
is absurd in geology, which is why it hasn't been taken seriously in
geological science for about 200 hundred years.
> In your analogyI already did, Michael, but you've keep ignoring it:
> you have as your evidence something that can be actually
> measured. You then equate this with your evidence and its
> measurements. Ok, let's discuss, one at a time, the measurements
> you are using-let's see your odometer readings! I bet I can roll
> them back for you.
The case of supernova SN1987A is the explosion of a star that took
place 168,000 years ago. Since in the case of SN1987A we know that
the universe has been in existence for at least 168,000 years, we
know that the YEC "model" is a false idea about the real world.
Todd S. Greene
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>