SAS #fundie

SAS #fundie parade.com

People take what scientists say about the age of the earth as absolute fact. There are many ASSUMPTIONS made in the calculations related to aging methods. The assumptions are generated from the idea that the earth is very old. This is circular reasoning. If the mathematical calculations were made using assumptions based upon the idea of a young earth, then the results from these calcs would be one of a young earth. People have been fed infomation based upon half-truths. Bottom line - "Let God be true, and every man a liar".

43 comments

old comment by Anonymous

There were no assumptions. People had no real idea if the world was old or not. They then discovered various dating methods which showed the Earth to be old, they searched for secondary evidence, double checked their results, and eventually concluded that it was old after a long a tiresome process that spanned years.

Even if there were assumptions on the matter, they would not change the facts which are beyond your limited understanding. For example, I could assume 1+2=4 (if I was an idiot - know any of those btw?). By then typing 1+2 into a calculator I could then see my assumptions was wrong and that my assumption had no result on the cold hard facts. If I was a scientist, I would then attempt to learn how a calculator worked to see if it's figures could be trusted and I would then test the machine at great length to see if it's reliable at all times.

As far as your bottom line comment goes - God can be attempt to be true when he speaks to us directly, until then we have only the men who wrote the bible to believe. If what you say is true and every man is a liar than what makes you so sure they didn't lie when they claimed that their biblical words were inspired by god?

old comment by David D.G.

<< There were no assumptions. People had no real idea if the world was old or not. They then discovered various dating methods which showed the Earth to be old, they searched for secondary evidence, double checked their results, and eventually concluded that it was old after a long a tiresome process that spanned years. >>

#290851: Actually, it's even better than that. They DID start out with an assumption -- an assumption that the Bible stories they had grown up with for centuries were true! Only gradually and reluctantly did they concede that the Bible stories couldn't be literally true because the evidence unequivocally told an entirely different story.

Instead of by a worldwide flood, boulders had been moved by ice-age glaciers. Instead of being created in their current form and being constant and unchanging, animals and humans had evolved from other, earlier forms of animals, many of which had gone extinct. Instead of a planetary age of 6,000 years, everything that could indicate Earth's age (volcanic mountain formation, for instance, long before radiometric dating was discovered) indicated that the planet was far, far older, and everything that could indicate the age of the universe (e.g., the time for light to reach us from distant stars) indicated that it was vastly older still.

In short, even WITH the head start of the scientists initially believing implicitly in the literal truth of the Bible, religious fables could not stand up against factual, physical evidence. In light of this, the sheer bloody-minded tenacity of biblical literalists really ought to be considered a kind of mass mental illness.

~David D.G.

old comment by Freboy

Must... disect... find... element of... Wrong.

People take what scientists say about the age of the earth as absolute fact.
If they do, they have missed the point. Just like you.

There are many ASSUMPTIONS made in the calculations related to aging methods.The assumptions are generated from the idea that the earth is very old.
I would suppose you have some sort of degree in geology to make that statement?

This is circular reasoning. If the mathematical calculations were made using assumptions based upon the idea of a young earth, then the results from these calcs would be one of a young earth.
Riiiight. And then this would NOT be circular reasoning. Hope you have a degree in philosophy too, cause I'm loosing the track here.

People have been fed infomation based upon half-truths.
Well, I take half-truths over complete lies any day.

Bottom line - "Let God be true, and every man a liar"
Where... the... fuck did you find that line?

old comment by anevilmeme

Never cracked a science book award?

"People take what scientists say about the age of the earth as absolute fact."

Lie #1: No people look at the evidence science presents, unlike religion there is no dogma involved.

"There are many ASSUMPTIONS made in calculations related to aging methods."

Lie #2: Really? Care to name some? I didn't think so.

"The assumptions are generated from the idea that the earth is very old."

Lie #3: Everyone "knew" the Earth was young because that's what the bible claims. It's only after discovering overwealming evidence that the Earth is old that people stopped believing it was young.

"This is circular reasoning."

Lie #4: Your strawman is circular reasoning, the real facts are not.

"If the mathematical calculations were make using assumptions based upon the idea of a young earth, then the results from these calcs would be one of a young earth."

Lie #5: The assumption was the Earth was young, the evidence proved otherwise, see lie #3 above.

"People have been fed information based upon half-truths."

Lie #6: Unless you're talking about the half-truths of religon.

old comment by BlackWolfe

Wait, I cannot possibly have read this right. Not a chance.

*reading reading reading reading*

Still can't be right. Have to do a line by line.

People take what scientists say about the age of the earth as absolute fact.
Funny, I always took it as an estimation. You know, a guess with evidence to back it up.

There are many ASSUMPTIONS made in the calculations related to aging methods. The assumptions are generated from the idea that the earth is very old. This is circular reasoning.
Um.

Yeah, you, uh... you just keep telling yourself that. Go... go out among them thar heathens and argue against circular reasoning, because that's... that's... Just OW.

If the mathematical calculations were made using assumptions based upon the idea of a young earth, then the results from these calcs would be one of a young earth.

Actually, that doesn't work at all. See, the assumptions are based on... now, this is a long word, so bear with me while I say it slow for you: E-VI-DENCE. They're not just numbers pulled out of asses. You know, numbers like the whole 4,000-year-old-earth thing.

People have been fed infomation based upon half-truths. Bottom line - "Let God be true, and every man a liar"."

Translation: "That thar sciencey stuff sounds awful KAWMpleykatered."

old comment by Tempus

If the mathematical calculations were made using assumptions based upon the idea of a young earth, then the results from these calcs would be one of a young earth. People have been fed infomation based upon half-truths. Bottom line

Except that that would mean that radioactive decay rates have slowed over time, and if they were, they would still be slowing NOW.

Decades of research using ever-more-sensitive instruments and detection methods haven't uncovered any evidence of changes in radioactive decay rates. You have no idea how sensitive our instruments are now. The only thing that seems to affect decay rate is the rate of time's passage in a gravitational well or a change in the speed of light. And again, there's no evidence that the gravitational constant has changed, and pretty much no evidence that the speed of light has changed, either--at least not to the point that it caused radioactive decay rates to be millions of times faster in the past. There are multiple lines of evidence from different fields of study verifying that no, radioactive decay has proceeded at the same rate for most, if not all, of the universe's existence.

So no, not assumptions. Solid, verifiable evidence.

SAS #fundie parade.com

43 comments

Confused?