That's just faux-naif, Mr Viljoen.

>>If by sophistry you mean that I’m clever with words, well, I don’t know what other currency we’re supposed to deal with here at OLO.<<

If, indeed.

You have a good command of the language, so you should know better.

"sophistry n. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning"

>>So if the best explanation is a ‘young earth’, why are you claiming that this is inadmissible?<<

I make no such claim. What I did say, as you well know, was that the argument for a young earth belongs with geologists, not with philosophers.

You seem to suggest that a different philosophical view will change the outcome of the scientific examination. Not at all. The rock either was, or was not, formed millions of years ago.

It is the job of the scientists to allow for all possibilities, not merely the ones that appeal to their belief systems.

Which is why the two discussions are separate. Only if it can be proven that the rocks were created five thousand years ago, will it bring into play the possibility that they were formed as described in the scriptures.

Only then the debates can start - this time with the atheists slightly on the back foot.

But not until.

DSM,

The issue of the aging of the rocks, along with many others attempt to exploit gaps in evidence or anomalies, and rather than using science and logic to find where these fit, they trumpet them as proof that the vast collection of information must be wrong.

They then almost exclusively omit to submit their findings or "evidence" for peer review. The few times they have done so the recognised bodies don't seem to reach the same conclusion.

They also have a complete blind spot for the 99.9% of information that contradicts their findings.

So I'm sorry, but I find the term "Christian scientist" an oxymoron.

Pericles,
If you’re accusing me of being ‘subtle or tricky’, all I can say is that that wasn’t my aim. In my article and posts I aimed to communicate transparency and clarity in message and style. I hope that my writing speaks for itself.

One obvious point of difference between evolutionists and young earth creationists is the age of rocks. These rocks were either formed millions of years ago or they were not formed so long ago but much more recently. You say let the geologists decide. Yes, but which geologists?

Can it be proven that certain rocks were created five thousand years ago? I am not sure of your ‘standard of proof’. Unless someone invents a time machine, the standard of proof will not be by direct observation.

You say that it is the job of the scientists to allow for all possibilities, not merely the ones that appeal to their belief systems. So ought not geologists be open to the idea that the rocks are relatively young?

Until this happens, the discussions will indeed be separate.

“Can it be proven that certain rocks were created five thousand years ago?” Dan asks, and dismisses acceptance of proof “Unless someone invents a time machine”.

Dan, I hope that truth will set you free: we have had good, reliable, time machines for half a century; So good today that we can measure time to 30 billionths of a second per year. If that’s a bit much for you to accept, then maybe it is your faith enabling messages to arrive on your mobile phone.

The same science of atomic physics, that controls our clock standards to the accuracy above, is the time machine for dating rocks; to an age beyond 3.5 billion years. That is a transparent communication. Sadly, personal transport can not be provided for your convenience.

Geologists have no trouble with rocks being young. They even admit to watching the birth of new rocks – without even blushing. Nor do they have trouble with old rocks. Like broody hens, they cluck constantly over the ages of the clutch of rocks under their wing; especially since the new you-beaut time machine became available.

But, if you don’t like this new-fangled time machine, consign you mobile phone (and sundry other such-like gadgets) to the devil.

Good to see you back, Dan.

<<You [Pericles] say let the geologists decide. Yes, but which geologists?>>

Those that conform to the scientific method.

<<Can it be proven that certain rocks were created five thousand years ago?>>

Yes, carbon dating and radiometric dating would reveal if they were that young. And as I’ve mention previously to you, there are many different dating methods that work on different clocks and different principals, and all point to the same magnitude of age. Not one method of dating supports the young Earth view.

<<Unless someone invents a time machine, the standard of proof will not be by direct observation.>>

As I’ve pointed out before, this is a very narrow and naïve understanding of what “observation” is in a scientific context. We can observe things in many ways. The most unreliable way is to observe it directly. Experiments and tests have shown that eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable method of finding out what occurred at a particular point in the past.

Like I said once before, I think those who have been convicted based heavily on eyewitness testimony, and then later released when science and technology eventually proved them to be innocent would have something to say about your assertion that eyewitness testimony is the most reliable way to determine what happened in the past.

<<You [Pericles] say that it is the job of the scientists to allow for all possibilities, not merely the ones that appeal to their belief systems. So ought not geologists be open to the idea that the rocks are relatively young?>>

Absolutely.

The problem is, that none of the evidence supports the idea, so it is abandoned in accordance with the scientific method.

One problem though, Dan, Athiesm, the acceptance of evolution and/or the view that the Earth is very old, is not a “belief system”. The only belief system here is religion, and a scientist cannot conclude that the Earth is ancient based on a belief system, if this said “belief system” does not exist in the first place.

More observation than accusation, really, Mr Viljoen.

>>If you’re accusing me of being ‘subtle or tricky’, all I can say is that that wasn’t my aim.<<

Verbal sleight-of-hand is your stock-in-trade. I've already pointed out this one:

“For scientific pioneers such as Isaac Newton, it was integrated into their thinking. 'The most beautiful system of the sun, planet and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being.'”

You offer this as a sly suggestion that Newton's spirituality informed his science, when in fact it merely suggests that he was a somewhat spiritual individual. It is perfectly possible, feasible and quite unexceptional for a scientist to be religious, measured on a range extending from mild to intense.

However, when examining rocks to determine their age, all scientists will leave their religious beliefs - if any - at the door, and concentrate on the observable facts before them.

>>So ought not geologists be open to the idea that the rocks are relatively young?<<

Well of course they ought. And are.

Which is why, when they determine that some rocks were formed four billion years ago, they invariably back it up with science.

>>Until this happens, the discussions will indeed be separate<<

At least we can agree on that.

Which, of course, renders any discussion between Dawkins and Wieland totally pointless, does it not.