[TRoutMac]

Brad:

Welcome aboard. I think you and I agree on many things. I am an unapologetic supporter of I.D. and evolution detractor. I have made some remarks in this topic which have made a few participants' jaws drop open, including the rather audacious statement that teaching Intelligent Design is actually more religiously neutral than teaching evolution. I also reject completely the assertions made by many that Intelligent Design is not "science". I have made numerous arguments here on this topic which demonstrate the absurdity of their claims, and they have been unable to counter those arguments. They resort simply to spewing evolutionist talking points which unwittingly argue for Intelligent Design. I have also said numerous times that macro-evolution, in fact, is not science, however I have made it clear that natural selection and micro-evolution are very well supported by science, but that they cannot be used as support for macro-evolution.

I would not compare the anti-Intelligent Design movement to "the Taliban"… I think that's a little too strong. However, it's obvious that the opponents of I.D. are using tactics which, while not violent, are nonetheless reprehensible, dishonest and, in fact, threaten science and, to some degree, freedom. That evolutionists have thrown a fit about Kansas' decision to teach weaknesses of evolution as well as strengths demonstrates this reality all too clearly. If they were not aware of how truly fragile the scientific foundation of macro-evolution is, they wouldn't be threatened in the least by the teaching the weaknesses. In fact, they would welcome it. But they know all too well that the weaknesses are indeed fatal, and that's why they get so frustrated and desperate when such decisions are made, even to the extent that they misrepresent such decisions by saying things like "I.D. has won in Kansas" even when I.D. wasn't even on the table. They wouldn't need to resort to these tactics if they any legitimate confidence in their own theory.

I think there are a few remarks you made which are overstated to one extent or another, but as I say, I think we agree on a lot.

Anyway, again… welcome. Best of luck to you… but beware, these folks are stubborn! (he, he)

[pgrmdave]

Originally Posted by Brad_1234

ID must be taught in all public schools. To impose an Evolution-only agenda is no different than the Taliban imposing their extremist views forcibly on their victims.

The taliban oppressed their people, and taught only untested, mostly untestable ideas from a literary writing. Evolution has not oppressed people, has been tested, and has been taught from highly respected, peer reviewed journals.

Originally Posted by Brad_1234

Evolution of life is one concept, but where did life begin?

I will say this once more, EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINS OF LIFE!!! EVOLUTION DOES NOT SUPPORT ABIOGENISIS, AND IN FACT CANNOT SUPPORT ABIOGENISIS!!!

Originally Posted by Brad_1234

People who utterly abhor the Jewish/Christian concept of the universe being created in 6 literal earth days, holding fast to all physical science claims in Scripture as inerrant fact, etc. want to force upon everyone their own specific "religion" of atheism.

Evolution does not claim that there is no god, does not claim that there is a god, does not tell you how to live your life. How does that become a religion?

Originally Posted by Brad_1234

This is not fair. Just as forcing any specific religion onto people who didnt willingly choose it, is not fair. Imagine a world religion marching into science classes and demanding they change what is printed and taught? They have. Evolutionism and the evolution-atheist concept. Its religion, not science.

See above.

Originally Posted by Brad_1234

Evolution-ists tend to be atheists. Atheists tend to prefer communism, they always have, just as Red China is, just as Cuba is just as the former USSR was.

Poisening the well. A well known illogical attempt a debate. You attempt to discredit the other side personally rather than attack their position - it doesn't matter who says the truth, it's still true. In addition to which, many of the people here who support evolution are also religious (like me). Approximately 50% of the people on these boards are religious in some way.

Originally Posted by Brad_1234

Taking away any shred of "religion" from society seems to be the actual goal, not discussion of science. Sort of a hijacked pseudo-science, evolutionism is a fraud. It uses some big words, professors teach it, its got a (cult) following as they say, but if the interest was in literal, actual, fundamental, foundational, practical and genuine "SCIENCE"? Then our "science" would be saying something like: here are the widely held beliefs for how life began, 1. Creation literally as the bible says; 2. Intelligent Design 3. Spark of life/random mutation and evolution

Actually, science does not support the bible, never has, and never should. The bible is a wonderful literary work, and some parts of it give good advice as to how to live one's life, but it is not a scientific document.

Originally Posted by Brad_1234

The debate over ID isnt a real debate, even the nonsense that "since God or Creationism cannot be falsified? it doesnt exist" is further proof this isnt about getting facts. Lets reword the falsify-able thing there:

1. "If ID isn’t Darwinian Evolutionism? Then it is not valid, and may not be taught in school"

Actually, many evolutionists don't agree with Darwin, including myself. Darwin believed that all changes took place over millions of years, and very slowly. However, I believe that most changes come during short periods of time when there are extreme pressures. I believe in evolution, not Darwinism.

Originally Posted by Brad_1234

It is not 'teaching religion' to tell students that MOST of the human population believes in Creation, it is the correct and responsible approach.

Except, of course, that most of the world doesn't believe in Creationism. Most of the world believes in Evolution. Even in the United States, roughly 50% of the people don't believe in evolution, but not all of them believe in creationism. Which means that many more people believe in evolution than creation.

Originally Posted by Brad_1234

Can YOU travel back in time 4.5 billion years or whatever guesstimate it is, and measure the creation of life? ouch! no, you cant. If you don’t have the means to disprove religion other than throw aspersions? It (Creation or ID) is to be taught in science class as one of the currently held beliefs of how life began, God did it.

But you're wrong, it was the Great IPU, because you can't disprove it. Inability to disprove something does not mean that it becomes proven.

Originally Posted by Brad_1234

2. But... its... religion? And we hate religion!

I'm religious. I don't hate religion, I simply think that science has an edge over religion when it comes to scientific fact. Religion can tell me what is right, and what is wrong. It can tell me why I exist, and give me hope and faith. But it cannot tell me the gravitational forces between two objects, or the mechanics of creating a laser. Science excells at explaining our natural world.

Originally Posted by Brad_1234

How about this one: "the earth is flat and carried along on the backs of giant Elephants. When an elephant sneezes? that’s an earthquake..." Do you trust science or that ancient folklore recorded as absolute fact? I trust science to disprove such an idiotic, misguided claim.

But science doesn’t want to go there, because they will have to eventually challenge what is written in the bible, at least the physical science claims which have stood as inerrant for centuries. So lastly, ID and Creationism must be taught in public schools. We need people to keep trying to disprove physical science claims in the bible, no one ever has. But now, all evolutionists want to do is give up and just hide the bible from the public and then claim victory...

Science doesn't need to disprove the bible, because the bible doesn't contain scientific fact. Science can only be used to disprove science, which means that it has NO BEARING on religious truth, until religion tries to supersede science and tell us about our natural world.

[Brad_1234]

|| I don't remember science classes telling me that god does not exist, or that god exists. Or anything like that. The god concept is left out of science classes. And it should be that way.

There are people who believe that the earth is flat. So, telling people in classes that the Earth is round is imposing a religious belief?

There are also people that say that the moon is not real. Or at least they claim to believe that. Should we stop teaching the Solar System and everything discovered in it thanks to them.
||

In science classes Ive had in public school, the teachers specifically pointed out they could not even mention “God”.

Earth is flat, etc. No, I use science to point out the earth is spherical. Any one claiming a religious reason to say flat-earth would lose because science knows without doubt the earth is not flat. I want that standard held. Moon also, even visiting the moon, its conclusive fact, no room for another theory.

|| In the past it was believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, once science showed it wasn't like then religious people had a problem because it went against their beliefs. Yeah, I guess you are right. We should stop science trying to explain things and to develop technology because religious people do not like it. [/sarcasm]
||

Great example. I’m cheering for science, not fanatic religions, but I point out when either side is wrong, IMO just to be fair and impartial. Now the earth as the center of the universe? I will assert that this is NOT a biblical idea, if I may? I find it disgusting that religious fanatics in that day promoted a center of the universe type earth and wouldn’t allow discussion. But in the book of Job, there are references that describe the earth apparently as spherical, and it moves like a rolling pin about an axis; It describes the sun as in motion, being on an endless circuit moving through the heavens. How would anyone have known that? It says rain comes from an evaporation/condensation cycle.

These kinds of physical science topics are all Im referring to. If even one had been proven false? It wouldn’t have any credibility.

||
Then our "science" would be saying something like: here are the widely held beliefs for how life began, 1. Creation literally as the bible says;

Do you have any scientific evidence that may back this claim up?

If not, then we should also include the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. Also we should include the theory which says that aliens created us. They are as possible as creationism. (Well, in fact the alien theory is more possible, but whatever) . Let's be fair like you said, include the FSM and the alien theory in science.
||

Evidence? I simply point out that most people in the world hold to a Christian/Catholic/Jewish belief that uses either the bible or the book of Genesis and that account of creation. The FSM sounds dangerous, but its not mainstream. People who want to apply belief that aliens started life on earth would be ID’ers, right?

||
Science has challengued the Bible. Where's Noah's ark? Where's the proof that Adam and Eve existed? etc.

If that's the case then there's nothing to challengue, what's your point?

The things on the New Testament, as history, etc. have been proved true in some cases.

However, prove that Jesus was god's son. You can't right? Does that mean it is false? No, but it does not have any scientific evidence to back that claim.
||

Wheres Noah’s ark? I don’t know. Proof of Adam and Eve? There is a recorded lineage predating the flood of Noah; but it seems more of a faith thing, not science. Science does seem to suggest a common ancestor; Was Jesus Gods Son? He claimed to be in the text and the text records amazing things, but it’s a matter of a person having personally seen the proof they need, then taking Gods word on faith. Those discussions should not be in science class, but a teacher should say see me after class so I can direct you to study materials because its off topic for this class.

In the early 1900s one of the goals of the ‘Progressive Movement’ was to push out religion from being a driving force in society. A strong ally was found in the ‘Evolution-only’ debate, and so that’s why I link the evolutionism that way. Yes of course there are fundamental concepts that are scientific in the discussion of Evolution. I want them in science class, but have not found reasons why an inclusive discussion of life must omit the widest held views of mankind.

[TRoutMac]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Evolution does not claim that there is no god, does not claim that there is a god, does not tell you how to live your life. How does that become a religion?

You're pretending that question hasn't been answered. I answered it earlier. The Bible is a religious book. The theory of evolution conflicts with the Bible. Therefore, teaching evolution is tantamount to teaching that the Bible is wrong. On that basis, evolution does make a religious statement… that is, a statement which pertains to religion. Also, since evolution cannot be proven scientifically, it a belief that is based on faith, not science. And on that basis, and by virtue of the fact that religion can be defined as "a particular system of faith" or "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion", evolution can be referred to as a "religion".

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Actually, science does not support the bible, never has, and never should.

Hmmm. Science never support the Bible? What about where the Bible describes the Earth as round, or implies sphericity? Science can't then teach that the Earth is a sphere?

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Except, of course, that most of the world doesn't believe in Creationism. Most of the world believes in Evolution. Even in the United States, roughly 50% of the people don't believe in evolution, but not all of them believe in creationism. Which means that many more people believe in evolution than creation.

Oh. I guess I didn't realize that majority rule can define reality. I'll simply ignore the scientific facts then and accept evolution just because a majority of people in the world do as well.

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Science excells at explaining our natural world.

For the most part, you're right. Science does excel at explaining our natural world. But, science makes mistakes, misreads evidence, reverses its conclusions periodically. Thus, science is capable of being wrong.

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Science doesn't need to disprove the bible, because the bible doesn't contain scientific fact.

The Bible indeed does contain scientific fact. Obviously, the Bible's primary purpose is not to advance a particular scientific idea… so where it does do this, it is incidental. Nevertheless, the Bible does contain scientific fact. There are examples of scientific processes (the hydrologic cycle, for example) which are described in the Bible long before science described them.

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Science can only be used to disprove science, which means that it has NO BEARING on religious truth, until religion tries to supersede science and tell us about our natural world.

It can have a bearing on religious teachings. It doesn't always have a bearing on religion, in fact I'd grant you that it usually does not. But it certainly can if the science being taught conflicts with religious teachings. That's not to say that necessarily means the science is wrong but it does mean that either the science is wrong, or the religion is wrong. If we correctly understand the two opposing views, and they disagree, they cannot both be true at the same time. You admit this in your statement above, but you fail to recognize that it goes both ways. Religion may try to supersede science and tell us about our natural world, but science might also try to supersede religion and tell us that a religious belief is false. It's a two-way street.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Brad_1234

Science has challengued the Bible. Where's Noah's ark? Where's the proof that Adam and Eve existed? etc.

|| Try this link.

http://www.creationscience.com/HydroplateOverview3.html

[pgrmdave]

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

Hmmm. Science never support the Bible? What about where the Bible describes the Earth as round, or implies sphericity? Science can't then teach that the Earth is a sphere?

That's taking it completely out of context. It was in reply to Brad claiming that:

Then our "science" would be saying something like: here are the widely held beliefs for how life began, 1. Creation literally as the bible says

There is no reason for science to consider the bible any more than any other writing, religious or not. Hence, science doesn't support the bible. It had nothing to do with potential facts within the bible.

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

Oh. I guess I didn't realize that majority rule can define reality. I'll simply ignore the scientific facts then and accept evolution just because a majority of people in the world do as well.

Once more, out of context. Brad claimed that:

It is not 'teaching religion' to tell students that MOST of the human population believes in Creation, it is the correct and responsible approach.

His fact was wrong, hence that statement was wrong. Perhaps you should pay closer attention to context, you seem to miss a lot.

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

For the most part, you're right. Science does excel at explaining our natural world. But, science makes mistakes, misreads evidence, reverses its conclusions periodically. Thus, science is capable of being wrong.

Yes, of course science is capable of being wrong, I never said that it was perfect.

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

It can have a bearing on religious teachings. It doesn't always have a bearing on religion, in fact I'd grant you that it usually does not. But it certainly can if the science being taught conflicts with religious teachings. That's not to say that necessarily means the science is wrong but it does mean that either the science is wrong, or the religion is wrong. If we correctly understand the two opposing views, and they disagree, they cannot both be true at the same time. You admit this in your statement above, but you fail to recognize that it goes both ways. Religion may try to supersede science and tell us about our natural world, but science might also try to supersede religion and tell us that a religious belief is false. It's a two-way street.

So, if there is a conflict between the two, which should people assume to be correct? Can you provide one scientific fact, which can be proven, which conflicted with religion, in which the religion was correct? Or is it not true that EVERY time science and religion conflict, and the scientific meathod was well executed, religion has been found to be wrong?

[Edge]

Originally Posted by Brad_1234

In science classes Ive had in public school, the teachers specifically pointed out they could not even mention “God”.

Earth is flat, etc. No, I use science to point out the earth is spherical. Any one claiming a religious reason to say flat-earth would lose because science knows without doubt the earth is not flat. I want that standard held. Moon also, even visiting the moon, its conclusive fact, no room for another theory.

Mmm, I must say that teachers not being allowed to mention god whenever it's wrong. However, teachers putting god to explain things science can't is wrong too.

Great example. I’m cheering for science, not fanatic religions, but I point out when either side is wrong, IMO just to be fair and impartial. Now the earth as the center of the universe? I will assert that this is NOT a biblical idea, if I may? I find it disgusting that religious fanatics in that day promoted a center of the universe type earth and wouldn’t allow discussion. But in the book of Job, there are references that describe the earth apparently as spherical, and it moves like a rolling pin about an axis; It describes the sun as in motion, being on an endless circuit moving through the heavens. How would anyone have known that? It says rain comes from an evaporation/condensation cycle.

True. Now, why is teaching evolution against religion? It has evidence to back it up, creationism does not. If people stop doubting their religious beliefs thanks to this, it's their faith's problem not science's. And how do you know that you haven't misunderstood the bible? Again?

Also, evolution does not deny god. It's merely scientific.

These kinds of physical science topics are all Im referring to. If even one had been proven false? It wouldn’t have any credibility.

Evidence? I simply point out that most people in the world hold to a Christian/Catholic/Jewish belief that uses either the bible or the book of Genesis and that account of creation. The FSM sounds dangerous, but its not mainstream. People who want to apply belief that aliens started life on earth would be ID’ers, right?

Yeah, they would be ID'ers. And just because many people believes that is not reason enough to stop teaching evolution or to introduce creationism.

If that's the case then we should also include teaching Global Warming. Yeah, I know it's false, but hey, many people believe in it.

Wheres Noah’s ark? I don’t know. Proof of Adam and Eve? There is a recorded lineage predating the flood of Noah; but it seems more of a faith thing, not science. Science does seem to suggest a common ancestor;

Seems to suggest a common ancestor, that's what it should be told on Biology classes. Seems to suggest, not that it is confirmed.

Was Jesus Gods Son? He claimed to be in the text and the text records amazing things, but it’s a matter of a person having personally seen the proof they need, then taking Gods word on faith. Those discussions should not be in science class, but a teacher should say see me after class so I can direct you to study materials because its off topic for this class.

I'm just discussing the material on science classes. So, this is no problem for me.

In the early 1900s one of the goals of the ‘Progressive Movement’ was to push out religion from being a driving force in society. A strong ally was found in the ‘Evolution-only’ debate, and so that’s why I link the evolutionism that way. Yes of course there are fundamental concepts that are scientific in the discussion of Evolution. I want them in science class, but have not found reasons why an inclusive discussion of life must omit the widest held views of mankind.

Because evolution has scientifical evidence to back it up. That's why.

Again, if that were the case then should teach Global Warming.

[TRoutMac]

Originally Posted by Edge

I guess that history should be also taught as a belief as well. Because we weren't back then on the Civil War, we weren't back then on the Crusades, We weren't back there on the Christopher Columbus' Era. It's all a belief. History is a religion class, who would have guessed?

The ID bashers claim that ID isn't science because it "can't be tested" (hogwash) or isn't potentially "falsifiable" (also hogwash). How is it, then, that dating methods are "scientific"? How do you test radiometric dating's ability to accurate measure age over a span of 4.5 billion years? And how is it possible to potentially "falsify" these dating methods? It turns out, the criticisms of I.D. can easily be applied to our methods of dating and the conclusions those methods lead to. Brad is absolutely right… there is no way to empirically, positively determine the age of the Earth. We can measure decay rates 'til we're blue in the face, but extrapolations are ultimately not testable, verifiable nor potentially falsifiable. Therefore, according to the ID bashers, they are not scientific.

Regarding history, while it is true that by and large we learn history "by faith", that is, we are taking some authority's word for it and didn't witness it ourselves, it's also true that people actually were present during recorded history… somebody was there to witness events of recorded history, but nobody was there to witness the creation of the universe. Therefore, it's really not a fair comparison.

Having said that, understand that I'm not saying that we should therefore teach that the Earth is young. We should teach that, well, we just don't know how old the Earth is, and cannot know. These people believe that, those people believe this, but none of them can prove it, so we just aren't sure.

Originally Posted by Edge

Science has challengued the Bible. Where's Noah's ark?

We don't know. If Noah's Ark landed up on the top of Ararat like many believe it did, then it's entirely possible that it's trapped permanently under that glacier, and/or has long since been ground to bits. That we haven't found it doesn't prove it didn't exist, right? What if they do find it?

Originally Posted by Edge

However, prove that Jesus was god's son. You can't right? Does that mean it is false? No, but it does not have any scientific evidence to back that claim.

You're correct. There's no way to scientifically prove that Christ was God. That is a proposition that is held entirely on faith.

Originally Posted by Edge

About ID, I don't think it should be taught. However, it is more plausible.

Sorry, Edge. No offense, but it's as though you don't realize what you're saying here. You think I.D. is more plausible, and yet you don't think it should be taught? Are you advocating that a theory which is less plausible should be taught? Isn't it true that a proposition that is "less plausible" is more likely to be false? Doesn't that mean that you're comfortable with the idea of teaching students a theory which is probably false? How can you suggest that it's wrong to teach the more plausible of two competing theories? Please clarify.

[Edge]

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

The ID bashers claim that ID isn't science because it "can't be tested" (hogwash) or isn't potentially "falsifiable" (also hogwash).

I don't know, TroutMac. Even if Evolution is proven true people will say that it was god's work or an alien's work.

How is it, then, that dating methods are "scientific"? How do you test radiometric dating's ability to accurate measure age over a span of 4.5 billion years? And how is it possible to potentially "falsify" these dating methods?

Test it with other methods, I don't know. Another methods that show to be accurate. If they turn out to agree on the age, then it's true.

Or most probably true, remember that science is not absolute. Now, just because it's not absolute does not mean that we should trash everything we know for evidence. Example: 2nd law of thermodynamics, Gravity Theory (different than law of gravity), etc.

It turns out, the criticisms of I.D. can easily be applied to our methods of dating and the conclusions those methods lead to. Brad is absolutely right… there is no way to empirically, positively determine the age of the Earth. We can measure decay rates 'til we're blue in the face, but extrapolations are ultimately not testable, verifiable nor potentially falsifiable. Therefore, according to the ID bashers, they are not scientific.

They can do more tests. I don't know in here. Maybe you are right.

Regarding history, while it is true that by and large we learn history "by faith", that is, we are taking some authority's word for it and didn't witness it ourselves, it's also true that people actually were present during recorded history… somebody was there to witness events of recorded history, but nobody was there to witness the creation of the universe. Therefore, it's really not a fair comparison.

In some way, you're right. However, it's obvious that no one witnessed the creation of life on Earth (let's not go to creation of universe since evolution does not explain that, the Big Bang does, but we are not discussing it). However, just because of that we should not try to understand it? not to try to explain how it was created? I don't agree. I think that we should try, no matter which are the consequences (proving evolution false or true, or whatever it comes down to be)

About history, well, you gotta understand that those people who explain it do not agree at all either. It depends from their point of view, yet, I agree, that's the best thing we have to make conclusions.

Having said that, understand that I'm not saying that we should therefore teach that the Earth is young. We should teach that, well, we just don't know how old the Earth is, and cannot know. These people believe that, those people believe this, but none of them can prove it, so we just aren't sure.

I agree...

We don't know. If Noah's Ark landed up on the top of Ararat like many believe it did, then it's entirely possible that it's trapped permanently under that glacier, and/or has long since been ground to bits. That we haven't found it doesn't prove it didn't exist, right? What if they do find it?

True that. However, until not found you can't include Noah's ark in science classes. We haven't found aliens? That does not mean they don't exist. However, there is no evidence pointing that they exist other than believing that because of the universe's size there must be a high chance they do. Therefore, it should not be taught either.

If they find Noah's ark then they should include it on science and as history. And we can include it to another evidence in favor of the Bible. Something along those lines.

You're correct. There's no way to scientifically prove that Christ was God. That is a proposition that is held entirely on faith.

Agreed.

Sorry, Edge. No offense, but it's as though you don't realize what you're saying here. You think I.D. is more plausible, and yet you don't think it should be taught?
Are you advocating that a theory which is less plausible should be taught? Isn't it true that a proposition that is "less plausible" is more likely to be false? Doesn't that mean that you're comfortable with the idea of teaching students a theory which is probably false? How can you suggest that it's wrong to teach the more plausible of two competing theories? Please clarify.

Well, to explain myself better. ID is more plausible than creationism since ID also includes the theory of we (humans) designed by aliens, god, allah, etc. It does not say anything about Adam and Eve, or Noah's ark, etc.

And also, OK, we conclude or propose that since DNA, RNA, etc. is too complex that it should be designed by another intelligent being . That goes inside ID, but it does not exactly go into creationism. That's what I meant.

About ID vs. evolution. I don't know how to decide which is more possible...

The thing about ID, that I may be mistaken, is that I find it more to be an "against evolution" theory rather than another proposal of how life was made. I mean, yes, they have their points, but most of them are based on doubts around evolution.

I will check ID's sites again to understand it better, but please correct me if I'm wrong on the last paragraph.

[TRoutMac]

Originally Posted by Edge

Test it with other methods, I don't know. Another methods that show to be accurate. If they turn out to agree on the age, then it's true.

What other methods are there that are also testable and verifiable? There are none. All methods suffer from the same shortcoming. There are many indicators of age of the Earth… for example, the recession of the moon. The moon is receding from the Earth every day. Very slightly, very slowly, almost imperceptibly. Over a short term, we can calculate the rate at which the moon is falling away, and if you take that rate and extrapolate backwards in time, the Moon collides with the Earth at less than 20,000 years. Now, to be fair, this is just as speculative as radiometric dating in that we can only assume that the rate of recession is constant, just as radiometric dating assumes that decay rates, etc. are constant.

Also, the speed of the Earth's rotation is decreasing slightly. Again, this rate can be calculated, and if extrapolated backwards in time, the Earth's rotation becomes so fast that, well, we'd all just go flinging off into space at some point. Or, perhaps more likely, all of the continents would be amassed along the equator due to the centrifugal force. Using this 'clock', the Earth could not be more than 325,000 years old. Again, this is speculative, as we are assuming that the rate of deceleration is constant. Trouble is, we don't know that it's constant, because we can't go back in time and measure it.

Again, let me emphasize that I do not present these as evidence that the Earth is young, old, or whatever. I only offer it to illustrate that it's just plain impossible to know with any certainty how old the Earth is, and there's no way to calibrate dating results against any "control".

Here's a better illustration: Imagine you find an antique toy buried in the back yard, and you'd like to find out how old it is. Since the toy is man-made, you could probably do some simple research to find out when the toy was made. If the manufacturer's name is on the toy, it's a good bet that you could find some records somewhere of when that company existed and when they made that particular toy. Let's call that "Method A". Or, you could use some sort of allegedly 'scientific' laboratory dating method. Let's call this "Method B". If you only try to estimate the age of the toy using Method B, have you proven the age of the toy or that Method B is accurate as a dating method? No. But you could prove that Method B is accurate by checking those results against the results of Method A. If the methods agree, then you could be certain that Method B is reliable and accurate.

Trouble is, with respect to testing our dating methods, there's no "Method A" to check the results against. We have a whole bucket full "Method B's", but no "Method A" to compare them against. Therefore, our methods of dating are untestable, unverifiable, unscientific and should not be relied upon. For all practical purposes, all we know about the Earth is that it is at least 6,000 years old. Could it be 4.5 billion years old? Maybe so. We just don't know.

Originally Posted by Edge

I think that we should try, no matter which are the consequences (proving evolution false or true, or whatever it comes down to be)

I think we should try to discover answers to every scientific question there is, and let the chips fall where they may. I wish evolutionists were as open-minded, because they will not let the chips fall on the side of I.D.

Originally Posted by Edge

The thing about ID, that I may be mistaken, is that I find it more to be an "against evolution" theory rather than another proposal of how life was made. I mean, yes, they have their points, but most of them are based on doubts around evolution.

It's true you will find plenty of criticism of evolution in I.D. circles. But I have presented lots of positive evidences for I.D. right here on this forum and any of the numerous I.D. sites out there will give you plenty of positive evidence for I.D.