[connectthedots]

Thankfully, the age of the earth, as measured by a number of methods, is not subject to your opinion. No errors possible would change the 4.5by age to 7000 years.

When I said estimates about the age of the Earth are largely speculative, that included both ends of the range.

ID admits that complexity can can be produced by nature but nature cannot produce 'specified' complexity.

Your comment is not clear.

[b_sharp]

"When I said estimates about the age of the Earth are largely speculative, that included both ends of the range."

Radiometrics are accurate to +- 1% based on current half-lives, calibration against other knowns, and they correlate with a number of other measuring methods.

"Your comment is not clear.

My comment was poking fun at the IDist idea of 'specified complexity'.

The idea is that both nature and intelligence can 'design' complexity, however only intelligence can produce complexity that is 'specified'.

For example, if you were to shoot an arrow from a bow at a large wall, the path the arrow took would be complex. To verify this, try to calculate the trajectory it should take beforehand, considering the bow, wind, steadiness of hand and eye, smoothness of release and so on. Even with this complexity, there is no specificity to it, no intent, no target. However, if you paint a bullseye on the wall and then shoot with the intention of hitting the centre of the bullseye, that path, including the point of impact, now has a purpose. It is now considered specifically complex as the point of impact was specified prior to the shot. This specified complexity can supposedly be applied to information.

Does that clear up my post for you?

I am curious how you determine specificity without knowledge of the designer. Anybody have any ideas?