Is the evidence currently on the side of a young or old earth?

[r_speir]

@swamidass

I did not discuss this.

Technically, you did not discuss this. Correct. But what you did do is make a priori assumptions that since dinos were obviously millions of years old that only leave YECs with 1 or 2 options and they both involve deception. So actually, I was very much on point with my comments. I have said hundreds of times – dinos are only old in your paradigm. If they are really, truly young, then deception does not even enter the conversation!

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@r_speir

@swamidass

I did not discuss this.

Technically, you did not discuss this. Correct. But what you did do is make a priori assumptions that since dinos were obviously millions of years old that only leave YECs with 1 or 2 options and they both involve deception.

This is just totally false @r_speir. Try reading more closely please. I just explained it in my last post:

@swamidass

Of course, no one says that is what God did. No YEC I know believes this. I just asked if God did do this in some other universe, would that make him deceptive?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@r_speir

@swamidass

, this is a warning. Do not call people hypcrites like this. I expect more of you.

Oh no. Please don’t go there with me. On the other thread you just called me an “idolator”.

We are all idolators, even me, so I do not see your point. I’m just pointing out you are declaring devotion to your anti-evolution idol. I found that Jesus is greater. Come follow him.

[John_Harshman]

@r_speir

If they are really, truly young, then deception does not even enter the conversation!

This isn’t what @swamidass was talking about, as he’s specifically told you at least twice so far. But your claim there is not valid regardless. If fossils are really, truly young, it would be necessary for God to falsify the data that make them look old. This is analogous to case #2 of his original post:

@swamidass

What if God created you, and your family, de novo a few weeks ago, and miraculously implanted false memories of a life on earth before you were created, miraculously gave us false memories of interacting with you on the forum, and miraculously created evidence and memories that make seems as though you were naturally born to parents and have lived on earth for decades. Would that make him deceptive?

You have never managed either to understand or answer any of his questions.

[r_speir]

@John_Harshman

Also “If science was honest” is a clear accusation of dishonesty.

But on my side, have you considered that repeatedly we have asked you - or whomever - to please date the soft tissue, but you refuse claiming “contamination”. This is clearly a double standard because a true scientist would not care what the creature was he was trying to date. If he saw soft tissue, he should immediately consider C14 dating

[r_speir]

@John_Harshman

for God to falsify the data that make them look old.

Unbelievable. THEY DO NOT LOOK OLD. What a strange choice of words. What gave you that idea?

[r_speir]

@swamidass

your anti-evolution idol

Sorry but I do not have an anti-evolution idol. No other way to say it.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

When I was serving that idol, it was hard for me to see too. You can know its there because you don’t want evolution and Scripture to be reconcilable. But that is circular reasoning. If evolution and Scripture were not in conflict, there would not be reason to oppose it. So you should be glad to see a way to resolve the conundrum. You are not glad. In the past, I also was not glad. That’s how I came to see whom I was really serving.

[r_speir]

@swamidass

Try reading more closely please. I just explained it in my last post:

Ok, I will give this a re-read - probably tomorrow morning. I really do not believe I missed you intent, but I could be wrong. I will take another stab at it then. Maybe I will see something I missed.

[John_Harshman]

@r_speir

THEY DO NOT LOOK OLD. What a strange choice of words. What gave you that idea?

The fact that they come embedded in very old rocks, so determined by that radiometric dating you reject. And yet radiometric dating is real science using real data, consistent across many assayed decay chains. Add magnetic reversals, continental latitudes determined from remanent magnetism, and all the other data of geology. Add all the other indications of a very old earth and a sedimentary record that is clearly not the result of a single year’s accumulation, no matter how violent the supposed flood.

Consider, for a moment, the Hawaiian Chain, including the Emperor Seamounts. Why do the islands grow lower as one proceeds up the chain, eventually becoming atolls, eventually submerging to great depth, and yet showing signs of great erosion while formerly at the surface? And why do the radiometric dates of these islands all become systematically older as one proceeds up the chain? Your favorite, CPT, can’t explain any of that. Either the Hawaiian Chain is really old or God has systematically falsified the data.

[r_speir]

@John_Harshman

And yet radiometric dating is real science using real data,

Not so. For instance, I was just looking a the dates of the Cardenas Basalt this afternoon.

1. 516 mya
2. 1,111 mya
3. 1,588 mya

Point. If #2 is 2 times older than #1 and #3 is 3 times older than #1 and twice as old as #2. Will the real date please stand up?

I know you are thinking that at the least I would have to agree on #1 at 516 mya, but your logic is incorrect. Because in actuality, if #2 is twice #1 and #3 is 3 times #1, then based on logic alone I do not even have to accept the 516 mya date. Why? Because it in itself may actually be twice or three times a date of zero or mere 1000s of years old.

If the 516 mya date is skewed just like #2 and #3, then I am perfectly within my rights to believe that #1 is also skewed. I mean, logically, who could stop me?

This is why people do not trust radiometric dating - nor should they trust it. But more to the point, it is from a completely different part of the planet and should in no wise be used to date anything on the surface of the planet.

You have no proof -with dates all over the place like I have just described - that the radiometric clock has reset itself when the proper cooling point was reached after an eruption

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@r_speir

This is clearly a double standard because a true scientist would not care what the creature was he was trying to date. If he saw soft tissue, he should immediately consider C14 dating

What do you have in mind? You cannot be referring to Mary Schweitzer’s work on soft dinosaur tissue, because that requires a high power microscope to even be visible, and the amounts available are far too small for AMS to be attempted.

But all is not lost. You will be pleased to know C-14 has been attempted on mastodon collagen. Drawing from 36 fossils, all results were beyond the range of sensitivity, meaning that however old mastodons are, they are older than 50,000 years.

American mastodon extirpation in the Arctic and Subarctic predates human colonization and terminal Pleistocene climate change

Using collagen ultrafiltration and single amino acid (hydroxyproline) methods, these specimens consistently date to beyond or near the ∼50,000 y B.P. limit of 14C dating.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@r_speir

If science was honest it would agree that dating sedimentary rock using foreign material erupted from deep within the earth should be completely disallowed.

Science is honest. And it honestly disagrees with your position.

[T.j_Runyon]

@swamidass

I expect more of you.

Really?

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@r_speir

But what you did do is make a priori assumptions that since dinos were obviously millions of years old that only leave YECs with 1 or 2 options and they both involve deception.

You must be reading something different from what I read.

As I read it @swamidass posed a question based on a hypothetical. And the age of dinosaurs was not at all relevant to the question that he posed.

[T.j_Runyon]

@r_speir

have you considered that repeatedly we have asked you - or whomever - to please date the soft tissue,

Who is “we” and who have they asked to date soft tissue? Can you provide one example?

[John_Harshman]

@r_speir

For instance, I was just looking a the dates of the Cardenas Basalt this afternoon.

You’re going to need a real citation for that. Nobody can check your assertions otherwise.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@PDPrice

but this sounds like you’re saying that we don’t have any evidence outside the Bible that would indicate a young earth.

@PDPrice

We have more than tree where we can specifically count years of growth, with 10,000+ years of annual growth.

How can you top the eyewitness evidence of tree rings? If you are willing to agree that the Earth is AT LEAST 10,000 years old, then we could move onto the next issue.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@swamidass

The situation is a bit complex in theology, but to get a sense of it, let’s consider a few possibilities.

1. What if dino’s didn’t actually ever exist, but God just put dino fossils in the ground to confuse us and test our faith. Would that make him deceptive?
2. What if God created you, and your family, de novo a few weeks ago, and miraculously implanted false memories of a life on earth before you were created, miraculously gave us false memories of interacting with you on the forum, and miraculously created evidence and memories that make seems as though you were naturally born to parents and have lived on earth for decades. Would that make him deceptive?
3. What if God did something surprising, that we did not expect, would that make him deceptive?

Hmm…well I find that in both questions #1 and #2 there is an underlying assumption that is outside the character of the God of the Bible. I was thinking about it while putting my kids to bed, and a verse didn’t come to mind, except that God is love. I’ll think on it some more.

@swamidass

Most people would say that 1 and 2 would only be done by a deceptive God, but a truthful God can do 3. For many people, as you look at the scientific evidence, it seems for the earth to be young, it would have to be something like #2. However, sometimes this argument is absurdly extended to apply to #3.

If I thought #2 had to be true, I would reject YEC too. I would reject anything that didn’t fit the character of God.

But I’ve never thought that way about it. I always figured that scientists would interpret the evidence without God; that that’s what 2 Peter 3 is saying. And it’s comforting because we know Jesus is coming again to get rid of evil; just like God got rid of the evil before the flood. I just assumed I would not really get to know the shape of things on this side of heaven. But now I found that’s not true. I can generally see the shape of science and what questions need to be answered, to explain what I’ve always believed to be true about what God says in His Word.

Growing up, my parents took us to a lot of national parks. It was disheartening to always read the signs that talked about how many millions of years old especially when it was always beautiful but there was no mention of God.

But also sometimes it got to be absurd. We were at Mesa Verde in Colorado and got a tour through the cliff dwellings and supposedly a hut nearby was many thousands of years older. It looked like it would just be a dwelling used by the same people: A rock could see that wasn’t true or maybe a rock couldn’t, ironically

@swamidass

You can know its there because you don’t want evolution and Scripture to be reconcilable.

Really? I’d rather take that way out if the Bible would let me. I wouldn’t have so many questions left in my head…I’d sure like to know everything, but I’m not going to

Have you shared on the forum why you find the evidence for common descent to be so persuasive? I would be interested in reading it.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@thoughtful

Hmm…well I find that in both questions #1 and #2 there is an underlying assumption that is outside the character of the God of the Bible. I was thinking about it while putting my kids to bed, and a verse didn’t come to mind, except that God is love. I’ll think on it some more.

Yeah that’s the problem. It isn’t that it had the assumption of God being deceptive, but it certainly looks like he is. That would be contrary to the God of the Bible.

@thoughtful

If I thought #2 had to be true, I would reject YEC too. I would reject anything that didn’t fit the character of God.

So that’s the situation I’m in. I’ve looked closely at the evidence and that is what it looks like to me. Maybe I’m wrong, but YEC science hasn’t produced a better explanation that I know of.

@thoughtful

But I’ve never thought that way about it. I always figured that scientists would interpret the evidence without God;

Well, I’m a Christian scientist. A lot of Christians are interpreting the data with God and coming to a different conclusion than YEC. Maybe we are wrong, but we have no reason to lie to you.

@thoughtful

@swamidass

You can know its there because you don’t want evolution and Scripture to be reconcilable.

Really? I’d rather take that way out if the Bible would let me. I wouldn’t have so many questions left in my head…I’d sure like to know everything, but I’m not going to

I was talking about @r_speir not you, and that was based on specific things he said. I haven’t yet seen that anti-evolution bend to you, and maybe I never will.

@thoughtful

Have you shared on the forum why you find the evidence for common descent to be so persuasive? I would be interested in reading it.

This might help: Livestream: How I Changed My Mind on Evolution.