Replies

> There is a possibility that all of the "data" indicating great age is God's idea of what an omnipotent sense of humor looks like. Rather remote, but possible.

Couple of questions if you have time. Since we can easily see that there are creatures "beneath" us that cannot possibly ever fathom many things we understand, we can see that there could be a being above us, understanding things we can't understand. That's God. Extend it: He's omnipotent (can do anything). He can create something out of nothing (at least that is how it would appear to us). So say He creates a Universe. How "old" does it look the moment He creates it? What does such a question even mean? I think if you look into it, you will find that there exists no scientific concept for a physical object that has no age! One more thought: if we discard our conditioning to believe that "scientific" methods have "proven" that things are "really old" (it's a belief, and I will challenge you here to prove that you are a scientist who understands any scientific dating method beyond carbon 14) we might think of a young Earth as more a test of our faith (in this age only -- "old Earth as science" is fairly new) than a cruel joke by God.

Well, it can be both, a test in faith, and God being amused, and not capriciously so...but not necessarily either is true. That old earth evidence is overwhelming can't be argued with me - I've been exposed to too much evidence. That said, you are STILL right.

Other than C14, the other chronometers rely on assumptions about past events that can't be refuted in a lab under any circumstances. Their assumptions are so reasonable that they can be accepted as gospel though...to a secularist.

So, as for proving dating methods, all have their shortcomings, including c14. However, many of the other methods are plausible too....and I don't use them professionally, so I can cop out of discussing them further.

As for an object that has no age....fair enough. But I submit to you very strongly the following. If the creation evidence were iffy enough to indicate a young earth, too many would be green lighted to pure discernment based living and given no incentive to sharpen their reason.

That is why I don't claim the "scientist" title, nor the theologn...but in professional circles I can pose as either with all the other posers and be taken seriously....

That's why I wrote to Zulu about my objections to agreeing to the secularists demands that "science and religion" are seperate.

I will challenge you here to prove that you are a scientist who understands any scientific dating method beyond carbon 14

Whats so hard to understand? Other radioisotope methods are just with elements having longer half lives. Then there's isotope ratios, which assume a relatively constant rate of formation in the atmosphere (from things like solar and cosmic radiation) which is cut off at deposition (burial) or creation (like a shells formation)...