Answers for Alan
The blogger who calls himself ‘Rhology’, but is known as Alan to his mum, has been getting into a bit of a tizz over some questions he claims he asked and I ignored on in the comments on this blog post.
Initially I’d ignored the questions, as they were merely creationist nonsense asking variations of ‘how do you know that?’, and ‘were you there?’, but it turns out that Alan, and his followers actually want me to try and answer these ludicrously stupid queries. Mostly they’re responses to a list of independently verifiable methods of dating the Earth from here, so let’s see what the questions are, and I’ll try to answer as best I can….
I said “you believe it despite overwhelming evidence contradicting your view.”
Alan said: “Such as?”
Well, Alan, how about the literal tonnes of evidence for evolution? This handy link will provide you with over 1.4 MILLION articles on the subject.
I said: your belief is completely irrational and based on faith alone.
Alan said: Been over this. See above; try answering the question this time.
Alan, are you denying that your beliefs, at their base, eventually rest entirely on faith? You were not there to witness ANY of the events laid out in the Bible, and there is no material evidence to corroborate stories such as the crucifixion or Jesus’ tomb being empty. I’ll say it again – your beliefs rest on faith, and no amount of claiming to have had a supernatural revelation that can’t be verified by anyone, not even yourself, makes the slightest bit of difference.
I said: Bristlecone Pines: The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.
1) You do realise that 8000 years falls right in the wheelhouse of YEC, don’t you? Why would this bother me?
Alan, if you’re a strict Bible literalist, which you claim to be, then 8000 years is a full 2000 years BEFORE the Earth was supposedly created. A strict reading of the texts, if you assume it to be inerrant only leads to you 4004BC as the start of the Universe, only by being vague and creative with the figures can you claim the Earth to be any older, according to the Bible.
Alan said: 2) Please prove their ringing has always been done at the same rate.
Alan, growth rings are seasonal, with a new one being added each year. We have never seen an exception to this. The ONLY way tree rings would show a different rate of growth would be if years were shorter in the past (significantly shorter to get to the dates you need). You make an extra-ordinary claim that flies in the face of accepted knowledge, it is your responsibility to provide evidence that supports YOUR view.
Alan said: 1) Please prove their ringing has always been done at the same rate.
Alan said: 2) Please prove that they did not begin with some rings.
The first question is merely a retread of one I’ve already answered. The second one is so ridiculous to be ignored by any right thinking person, but in the interests of shutting you up, I’ll try and answer. If your god created trees, and the rest of Universe with the appearance of old age he would have known, if all knowing, that this would fool people into believing the Universe is as it looks – only a god who deliberately wanted to fool his creation would do this, as none of the things you mention are required for a tree, or glacier, or lake bed to function. Again, you are making an extra-ordinary claim, and it’s your responsibility to provide evidence to back up that claim.
Alan said: Lake Suigetsu, ice cores, Devil’s Hole
1) Please prove that the rate of deposit has always been the same.
2) Please prove that there were no layers to begin with.
These are just the same questions. Next!
Radiometric Correlations: the radiometric dates for a number of specific events
1) Which specific events?
2) Please answer the questions related to radiometric dating I posed above.
Look, you’re clearly not interested in any answers that don’t chime with your risible Creationist world view, so I’m not going to do your work for you. The article I linked to gave many many examples, and if you use a well known tool called ‘Google’ I’m sure you can get the info yourself. I’m sorry you’re so lazy.
Alan said: Bummer. I thought you were going to answer. Turns out you barely even read through the challenging material. You’re very faith-full. I prefer thought-through answers to talking points, however.
Bummer, I thought these questions were going to be worth answering, turns out you barely even understand the basics of reality. Alan, I’m not surprised Jim lost his rag with you – how could anyone not get annoyed at a man who is so blinded by his faith that he thinks ‘what evidence do you have that evidence is a good way to discover truth?’ is nothing but a deeply meaningless word huff that is purely circular in it’s logic.
You believe nonsense, and it’s YOUR responsibility to supply evidence to support that nonsense – and that’s my final word on these questions.