Changes

:::::I figure you meant to ask what evidence we have for a ''young'' Earth?  Apart from the Bible (which we consider reliable ''historical'' evidence, not ''scientific'' evidence), there are various dating methods that, whilst not guaranteeing to give an accurate age, are inconsistent with the old Earth idea.  One is the amount of salt in the ocean, which gives an upper limit on the age of the oceans of (if I remember correctly) around 65 million years.  Another is the size of human population, which could not have been increasing (as it does) for the million years or so that humans have been about.

:::::I figure you meant to ask what evidence we have for a ''young'' Earth?  Apart from the Bible (which we consider reliable ''historical'' evidence, not ''scientific'' evidence), there are various dating methods that, whilst not guaranteeing to give an accurate age, are inconsistent with the old Earth idea.  One is the amount of salt in the ocean, which gives an upper limit on the age of the oceans of (if I remember correctly) around 65 million years.  Another is the size of human population, which could not have been increasing (as it does) for the million years or so that humans have been about.

:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is falsifiable.  If you could show me a modern human skull dated to 6 million years ago - well, slap me and call me Sally, that'd do it!  But you won't.  Also, your "age" evidence is specious.  The salt-in-the-oceans argument (1) contradicts the literal Bible (but what doesn't, these days?) and (2) is refuted [http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/28565/page/7;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0 here].  I notice that the only source that actually stands by the salt-in-the-oceans thing is AnswersinGenesis, so citing it to prove its own veracity is a bit circular, ne?  So here's an analogy I can give you to work out how science is falsifiable, but how theories work.  I have a box full of marbles.  I hypothesize, saying, "all marbles in this box are red."  I start pulling out marbles, and I get 3 red marbles, and 4 crimson marbles, and 2 pink marbles.  These new "findings" do not dispute my theory's major premise - that all marbles are red - but they inform what ''type'' of red the marbles are.  So I change my hypothesis, saying, "all marbls in this box are shades of red."  The theory still has strong predictive value, but has been strengthened by the finding of contrary evidence, since its major premise remains unchallenged.  If, however, I pulled out a blue marble, the whole theory would have to go.  So it is with evolution.  I've seen a lot of pink marbles that make the theory more complex, but well Philip, I'm still waiting for that blue one!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''_{[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]} 11:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is falsifiable.  If you could show me a modern human skull dated to 6 million years ago - well, slap me and call me Sally, that'd do it!  But you won't.  Also, your "age" evidence is specious.  The salt-in-the-oceans argument (1) contradicts the literal Bible (but what doesn't, these days?) and (2) is refuted [http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/28565/page/7;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0 here].  I notice that the only source that actually stands by the salt-in-the-oceans thing is AnswersinGenesis, so citing it to prove its own veracity is a bit circular, ne?  So here's an analogy I can give you to work out how science is falsifiable, but how theories work.  I have a box full of marbles.  I hypothesize, saying, "all marbles in this box are red."  I start pulling out marbles, and I get 3 red marbles, and 4 crimson marbles, and 2 pink marbles.  These new "findings" do not dispute my theory's major premise - that all marbles are red - but they inform what ''type'' of red the marbles are.  So I change my hypothesis, saying, "all marbls in this box are shades of red."  The theory still has strong predictive value, but has been strengthened by the finding of contrary evidence, since its major premise remains unchallenged.  If, however, I pulled out a blue marble, the whole theory would have to go.  So it is with evolution.  I've seen a lot of pink marbles that make the theory more complex, but well Philip, I'm still waiting for that blue one!-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''_{[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]} 11:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)