Young-Earth Creationism is an Embarrassment - according to a Christian Philosopher

Would you mind substantiating your claims? What language specifically, please use direct quotations from my sources specifically. Also, I would like you to dispute the evidence specifically, this is your burden as you have made an assertion.

People in this topic who are scientists who have performed experiments to demonstrate age of the world = 0

People in this topic who simply believe what they read = everyone

The facts which point to an old earth...

Prove that claim

In the beggining , not 6 billion ( or whatever the current age is supposed to be) after the beginning. All evidence is open to interpretation so it's just a matter of which interpretation one chooses to believe. Christian use the geniology list in scripture to estimate how long human life has been around.

But that is referring to different spans of evidence, we are talking about what evidence is reliable. It's 4.5 billion years btw, yes evidence is open to interpretation its the range of that reasonable interpretation is, which is limited. 

The discourse level on this forum is at "I collect a crazy check from the government" level. 

But if you want to believe this forum is full of scientists who make it their business to figure out the age of the world, go on doing so without any evidence.

Do you think my evidence is from the forum? No. I got it from a scientific collection

Mmhm, and that the thing explaining what they found, proof that they found it, and explaining how it works is pretty good evidence. 

Hey, I believe the Earth is round, but it isn't like I've flown a shuttlen into space to see for myself or anything.

But... you have seen the wealth of evidence, no? If you could only accept evidence you've directly seen, then homicide investagators would be out a job, they can see the effect of things, or the consequence of one thing being true and track backwards, have you seen the live videos of say... the highest skydiver? Or a drone being fed into the upper atmosphere?

Of course, I have seen enough evidence to at least convince me. That is, to prove to me that the Earth is round. Certainly, I could simply be fooled. I am convinced the Earth is round.

That said, I did not apply the scientific method to my being proven that the world is round. I simply was convinced by what seemed to be an authoritative opinion. I have been told of experiments allegedly held by others. Have I personally acted as a scientist in my aquisition of this so called knowledge? I cannot admit so.

Who determines what evidence is reliable ?

If one were to do a population growth experiment.  And if one were to estimate population growth for humans - and work backwards - will it fit the young earth scenario better or the old age scenario better? Or will the non-biased scientist make an educated assumption - and say - well we have to factor in the old age earth because the young age is obviously wrong - which is what they do with dating methodology.  

There are several kinds of dating methodology available. We all know that.  Yet we don't use the methodology used for millions of years on something which we know to be only thousands of years. Why not?  because if we did - then the evidence would show that what we know to be 1000s of years has been falsely proved to be millions of years. And we know that cannot be right. So we make educated - or non-biased - (Lol) assumption which put certain things into particular time frames with the proper dating methodology. 

Yet, if those assumptions are not used - and we took any particular item and put it into a non-biased testing regime - we would discover that everything can be dated within each of the specific dating methods and be any particular age.  

Yet, no one would even attempt to date a rock from the moon with a dating methodology that could be specific to a coupe of thousand years.  Why not? Because it does not fit with the perceived wisdom that the moon is millions of years old. Not science - bias. Assumptions rule the age. Not science. Science is our friend - but bias and assumptions are not. 

For the record I am not saying the earth is old or young.  I am happy to go with the perceived wisdom - but I am not persuaded by it.  

The reason I find that specific reasoning off-kilter, is because you are assuming the reason that they don't use it because it contradicts other evidence - while in reality - the new evidence (the dating methods which find 4.5 billion years) contradicted them - the evidence which is shown to be most reliable, the least deviational, etc. my point here is that there other sources for why, this is speaking generally here, those sorts of data methods aren't valid. Its not because they contradict the 4.5 billion dating method, but because the 4.5 billion dating method contradicts it, as well as general veracity and lack of reliability.

There's nothing about "In the beginning" that conflicts with a rendering of the earth's age. If you were actually making sense, or bringing up a real contradiction between the Bible and sources that date the earth then there could be a legit debate. Or one worth at least looking at. 

If the Bible has no conflict with a scientific rendering of the age of this planet then there is absolutely no reason to begin a conflict. If you don't know how old it is, and the Bible doesn't state how old it is then there should be no problem with considering an expert on the subject matter so why instigate a problem? This is exactly the kind of nonsense that causes unnecessary friction between Theists and unbelievers, why would you even care if the earth is billions of years old? what's wrong with that? it makes no difference to your personal beliefs. 

You can "choose" to believe whatever it is you have reason for. But there is no conspiracy against the Bible when experts are dating the earth's material. 

Two different questions here, the age of the earth is irrelevant to how long human life has been around. 

In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth and everything that is in them, meaning that he did it in the beginning , not millions of years after. Many experts have an estimate of millions of years, but that doesn't mean they are right and appealing to authority is a logical fallacy anyway, just because someone has a degree it doesn't mean they always know what they are talking about.

 Of course i know an expert as well, who indicates that the universe is maybe 10,000 years old tops, but you will likely discount Him.  

And who decides what is the reasonable interpretation range?

Of course scientists don't use the other dating methods if they have a bias.  Why would they?   To say that the new evidence contradicted previous measures is a bit rich and biased.  It is not contradiction to show that something is much older than previously thought.  But it would be a contradiction to demonstrate that something was much younger than previously thought. 

Scientists might at times use the word "contradict" but that is not really what they mean.  You see it is ok if a scientist with older tools finds a date which is millions of years in the first place. You cannot measure something if it is billions of years if your measuring tool only goes to millions.  Yet, once the tools are manufactured which goes to billion - then the millions of years are obviously obsolete.  But the point is the trajectory is one that is always expanding.  It won't be long before the current dates become obsolete because newer technology will have found ways to provide greater evidence that everything is so much older than we believe at the moment. 

This is why it is not really contradictory when the newer evidence contradicts the older methodology.  Yet, if a scientist came along and used new tools to prove the earth was young, it would be thrown out - despite the accuracy of the evidence. Why - it contradicts the bias.  Not the science.  It would be ridiculed - and not because of the science or the methodology or any thing scientific. It would be ridiculed simply because it is in line with the correct bias.  This is what I mean when science is our friend but bias is not. 

You see, despite the rhetoric of scientists saying that they seek the truth, they don't. Not unless it already fits within the mainstream of perceived bias. My favorite subject at school was science. I loved science and I still do.  I loved math - which is why I studied economics as well as laws and a whole range of other things. Yet, statistics and math are tools that scientists love to use - despite all of their assumptions being demonstrably unsound.  

Scientists are also intensely proud beings.  They hate being ridiculed. Depending upon where they work, they don't want to lose tenure.  Or funding - so they use their knowledge to assist their lords and masters - whether public like the UN or private like their multi-national corps.  But the scientific peer system is also extremely cruel. If it does not like your new evidence - you will be cast out - ridiculed, called a pseudo-scientist, extremist, or doing what your master tells you because he paid you.  This is not science. 

I actually think science will not really develop in our world until it develops a system of freedom for people to seek the truth - no matter how much it contradicts the perceived wisdom.  This can only happen if - we reduce the size of governments and stop giving grants based on pre-conditions for scientists to receive funding. Science has become stunted in its purity. It is now disfunctional - and has too many people who have too many fingers in the pie. It has all become a system where self interest outweighs truth. 

Science is our friend.  Bias is our enemy. The peer group system is our enemy - unless we can find a way to enrich it with less self-interest. 

So basically..... a bunch of unproven assumptions (with some truth sprinkled in there for maximum persuasion), some either misunderstandings or misrepresentations of science (technically you misunderstanding would still be a misrepresentation but its meant to highlight the dichotomy between intent and no intent), and the fact that scientists change their mind whenever new evidence comes to light? We have believed that the earth has orbited the sun for nearly a millennium, that hasn't changed. You are assuming a lot of things here, not to mention, ignoring nuance. Of course, as our technology rapidly (and I do mean rapidly) advances we get better data, more accurate understandings, etc, because these things are based on evidence. Evidence which forms a preponderance, where that majority of evidence points is where we follow, you can believe all of this if you feel like - but its unsubstantiated. The evidence points out that our old understanding was incorrect, and that is explained so much, why these "dating" or any outdated method is wrong. Its not because people "change their mind according to mainstream media" its because of reason and evidence. in fact - science has been all about breaking away from what the masses thought and using investigation and observation to fuel beliefs instead of bandwagon.

So - ok - you are a sheep.  Cool!

Baaa! 

So... so.. you have nothing to substantiate your claims? That's about what I expected.

Additionally the fact that you presented no rebuttals? Yes, I guess I'm the sheep here, for using reason to decide what to believe or not, and not... well... opinion.

Fair call. It was rude of me to call you a sheep.  That was uncalled for and I apologize. 

Yet, I did not attempt to rebut what you wrote because - there was not anything I could see that needed rebutting.  No offence meant - it just seemed like you wanted to take the presumed position. 

"seemed" Why did it seem like I wanted to take the presumed position? Did I not explain it properly, if you have an objection in my writing, then do point it out. There is plenty of things that are specifically calling you out as being incorrect factually, so if you feel the need to disagree and also prove a point, then I would suggest making a point. Otherwise its reasonable to assume you have none. Besides being obtuse or contrarian.

You are just going along with the perceived wisdom.  That is a choice for you. I cannot be bothered arguing the toss - because historically, the two paths are quite different with different perspectives. 

I disagree with you.  I also like to pick my battles - and succeeding at this one with you will not help me win the war.  In fact it might hinder it.  

I respect your intellect by the way.  And I enjoy engaging with you.  Yet today I am pre-occupied with quite a lot of other real world stuff to do.  

Interesting rhetoric there, if you say you have no interest in continuing our back and forth, fine - I would only ask that if you want any reasonable credence to your claims that you substantiate them. You don't have to have any reasonable credence, I'm only reminding you that you haven't.