Atheists and Agnostics risk infinite loss for no gain.

Well the no God assumption is a false assumption and that is why the ages are all wrong and the false theory of evolution creeps in.
Do I have done what you asked. It is not an assumption that is the problem. It is a false assumption.
Since I have not yet offered an example of evidence for something existing before 6,000 years ago, you cannot possibly have shown that my evidence rests on "the no-God assumption" or any other "false assumption."
 
Since I have not yet offered an example of evidence for something existing before 6,000 years ago, you cannot possibly have shown that my evidence rests on "the no-God assumption" or any other "false assumption."
There is where your blindness shows.
All dates given by AOS for the age of the earth and the universe rest on the fact that they will not consider that God created all things about 6000 years ago.
 
There is where your blindness shows.
All dates given by AOS for the age of the earth and the universe rest on the fact that they will not consider that God created all things about 6000 years ago.
Essentially you are saying that those who accept an old age of the earth and universe are not, in fact, Young Earth Creationists. This is true by definition, obviously. It does not at all follow that their conclusions rest on a "no-God" hypothesis. Take the following argument:

P1 Radiometric dating, especially when multiple types give congruent results, is highly reliable.
P2 Multiple types of radiometric dating give congruent results showing the earth to be about 4,5 billion years old.
C. We may therefore reliably conclude that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Neither of these premises explicitly say "there is no God." If they assume it implicitly, you should be able to show how. Let me give an example of an attempted demonstration which does not work:

P1 Those who trust radiometric dating do not believe that God created or altered the forces of nature in such a way as to make such dating unreliable.
P2 If they do not believe that God made such dating unreliable, they are assuming that there is no God.
C. Therefore, those who trust radiometric dating are assuming that there is no God.

This argument fails because P2 is false. Many Jews, Christians and other theists do not believe that God made such dating unreliable, but still very much believe there is a God.
 
Essentially you are saying that those who accept an old age of the earth and universe are not, in fact, Young Earth Creationists. This is true by definition, obviously. It does not at all follow that their conclusions rest on a "no-God" hypothesis. Take the following argument:

P1 Radiometric dating, especially when multiple types give congruent results, is highly reliable.
P2 Multiple types of radiometric dating give congruent results showing the earth to be about 4,5 billion years old.
C. We may therefore reliably conclude that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Neither of these premises explicitly say "there is no God." If they assume it implicitly, you should be able to show how. Let me give an example of an attempted demonstration which does not work:

P1 Those who trust radiometric dating do not believe that God created or altered the forces of nature in such a way as to make such dating unreliable.
P2 If they do not believe that God made such dating unreliable, they are assuming that there is no God.
C. Therefore, they are assuming that there is no God.

This argument fails because P2 is false. Many Jews, Christians and other theists do not believe that God made such dating unreliable, but still very much believe there is a God.
Actually the radioactive dating and all clocks used show widely varying results.
This is easily explained by 3 great miraculous events - the fall because of sin, 6 day creation, and the worldwide flood.
 
Actually the radioactive dating and all clocks used show widely varying results.

If you could show this to be the case (without cherry-picking from outlier results whose causes are known and accounted for), you would have a reasonable objection to Premise 1. You would still not have a reasonable basis for concluding that those who accept radiometric dating do so because they accept the "no-God hypothesis."

This is easily explained by 3 great miraculous events - the fall because of sin, 6 day creation, and the worldwide flood.

If you could show this, and show that these "easy explanations" were not incompatible with other things we know to be true about nature and history, you would have a good reason for doubting that nothing but actual great age could reasonably account for radiometric results.
 
If you could show this to be the case (without cherry-picking from outlier results whose causes are known and accounted for), you would have a reasonable objection to Premise 1. You would still not have a reasonable basis for concluding that those who accept radiometric dating do so because they accept the "no-God hypothesis."



If you could show this, and show that these "easy explanations" were not incompatible with other things we know to be true about nature and history, you would have a good reason for doubting that nothing but actual great age could reasonably account for radiometric results.
Dinosaur tissue in dinosaur tissue is not an outliner. It proves that the radioactive dating is not reliable.
 
Dinosaur tissue in dinosaur tissue [in "dinosaur fossils"?-K] is not an outliner. It proves that the radioactive dating is not reliable.

It is almost the definition of an outlier, in that it is a very few cases out of literally millions of fossils. And it is not an example of different radiometric methods having incongruent results, which was the claim you had just made.

And you seem to have abandoned the claim that the "no-God hypothesis" has anything to do with the acceptance of radiometric dating. Or at least you're not offering to defend that claim, or show why I'm wrong to reject it.
 
Last edited:
It is almost the definition of an outlier, in that it is a very few cases out of literally millions of fossils. And it is not an example of different radiometric methods having incongruent results, which was the claim you had just made.

And you seem to have abandoned the claim that the "no-God hypothesis" has anything to do with the acceptance of radiometric dating. Or at least you're not offering to defend that claim, or show why I'm wrong to reject it.
The fossil record also disproves evolution and billions of years.
All the many millions of missing chains of missing links are missing.
 
All the many millions of missing chains of missing links are missing.
Of course they are missing. Once they are found, they are no longer 'missing links' but are 'found links'. Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik are both found links.

I also thank you for showing us that YEC is false, with 100% missing links. Where are the fossils of Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain, Mrs Cain, Seth, Mrs Seth and so on, up to Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives? You have no found links at all, only missing links. There is a saying about people in glass houses...
 
Of course they are missing. Once they are found, they are no longer 'missing links' but are 'found links'. Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik are both found links.

I also thank you for showing us that YEC is false, with 100% missing links. Where are the fossils of Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain, Mrs Cain, Seth, Mrs Seth and so on, up to Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives? You have no found links at all, only missing links. There is a saying about people in glass houses...
You do not understand statistics. There should have been millions already found.
That also disproves evolution and billions of years.
 
You do not understand statistics. There should have been millions already found.
That also disproves evolution and billions of years.
You are wrong on this ….

Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered.
Though the fossil record is incomplete, numerous studies have demonstrated that there is enough information available to give us a good understanding of the pattern of diversification of life on Earth.[9][10][11] In addition, the record can predict and fill gaps such as the discovery of Tiktaalik in the arctic of Canada
Found here.
 
The fossil record also disproves evolution and billions of years.
If you could provide a good argument for this claim, based on sound premises . . .

All the many millions of missing chains of missing links are missing.
And/or if you could describe what exactly is "missing" and why it would reasonably be expected to be present . . .

Then you would have a case that would have to be listened to.

You would still, however, have no case for any "no-God assumption" being responsible for accepting an old earth.
 
Last edited:
You do not understand statistics. There should have been millions already found.
That also disproves evolution and billions of years.
Statistics don't determine how many fossils are found. That's determined by geology, location , circumstances at death and climate.
 
Statistics don't determine how many fossils are found. That's determined by geology, location , circumstances at death and climate.
Statistics does determine the likelihood of distributions of types when randomly selected.
Evolution and billions of years are falsified by all things.
 
You do not understand statistics. There should have been millions already found.
That also disproves evolution and billions of years.
Where are your 'missing links'? You are lacking any evidence at all. No Adam, no Eve, no Cain, no Mrs Cain. Nothing at all. Zero. Zilch. Zip.

Get back to us when you have some found links.
 
Statistics does determine the likelihood of distributions of types when randomly selected.
Evolution and billions of years are falsified by all things.
No, it doesn't. Since the circumstances of fossilisation isn't random so the distribution of fossils is not even. You are making false assumptions again.
 
Back
Top