Why won't some people answer Yes or No questions?

I agree with the rest of your premise as a possible reason, just thought that question had 3 answers, yes, no, 'I never beat my wife'

 

According to the Jews this is the year 5775 last October on the birthday of the creation of the world.

 

By the time you said "I never..." Hannity would be going "Whoa! Hold on! I asked you a simple question! Yes, or no? Don't try to change the subject!"

 

Most likely questions are invalid or self incriminating.
do you still beat your dog?

 

What? Created to be what way? The thread isn't about that. It's whether a) the Earth is really 6000 years old, and b) why people won't answer straight up "yes" or "no" to that and to other, similar questions.

I'm not an atheist, if that's where you're going.

 

Okay, sorry. I thought it was a very reasonable inference from your post. I didn't say that you were limiting it to Christians, so pointing to Jews and Muslims doesn't help. So you're a bad guy. That's a joke.

Let's agree that most deeply religious people, of any denomination, are necessarily conservative -- exalting tradition, prescription, uneasy with change, standing on shoulders of the wise (even if unschooled) elders of their cultures, eschewing worldly concerns like politics, rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, and suspicious of science to the extent it conflicts with their creeds.

 

But you're still "refusing" a yes or no answer if you say that.

 

It's the modern incarnation of a medieval argument--Adam's navel. The medieval argument was about whether Adam had a navel. On one side, people say no, as he was created, he would have no need for a navel (which is basically the scar/remnant from an infant's umbilical cord). On the other side, to make things consistent with his future children, he was created with a navel.

In terms of creation, one thought is that God created the earth 6000 years ago, looking as if it was 4.54 billion years old. I don't buy it, as it doesn't fit with my view of God, but it's a strongly held view by creationists.

 

Not really. Pope Francis is decidedly liberal for a Catholic, especially in questioning who is he to judge gays. He's also rather religious, I would hope. That 's just one example, liberation theology is VERY liberal, but it is also very religious. Many people are liberal BECAUSE they are religious.

 

Actually there is a perfectly legitimate third alternative.

 

Yes, I figured someone would cite liberation theology. It's an outlier. Francis too, whom I love and respect, is aberrant in this regard.

Also, as to "many people are liberal because they are religious," I don't know "how many" there are, but in my experience it's a minority.

But I understand your point.

 

Because all too often, certain people here (particularly from the far right) are too afraid of the TRUTH.

 

Most "Yes or no only" questions are gotcha's. Why are you against people refining what they say?

 

Then don't ask the question that someone "believes" in the exact number of years you stated when you posed the question if you wanted a yes or no answer.

 

Because the question posed that way with a number added to it is not a "straight up" question.

What if the person answering the question believed the earth is 5,763 years old? The answer to the question as it was posed would be no.

But what if the person answering with a no is a believer of what Christian scripture and interpretation tells us regarding the age of the earth?

Would their "no" answer suggest that they are a non-believer of at least what Christianity teaches regarding the age of the earth?

 

The 4.6 billion figure is probably inaccurate. Evidence exists that solar activity can effect the rate of radioactive decay, namely it speeds it up. This could potentially alter the primary method of dating pre-historic items, using the decay rate of Carbon-14 as a constant. Prior to the recent discovery (2010) that solar activity may effect the rate of decay, science assumed all radioactive decay was constant therefore a reliable means to date an item.

It may turn out, solar activity has no influence at all over the decay rate of Carbon-14, but enough evidence exists to cast at least a shadow on the absolute statement the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.

 

Answer me this then...

Is the crux of your question whether or not that someone "believes" in the Christian teachings and interpretations of what the age of the earth actually is?

Yes or no?

 

C-14 has nothing to do with dating the age of the earth. It's only useful to around 600,000 years.

We use multiple different isotopes and other methods. All give a result of 4.5 billion years, give or take.

Also, we have calibrated C-14 dating back with tree ring dates to at least 11,000 years. The above averages out over thousands of years.

 

Sicentists look at rocks at use radiometric dating as the primary method.

A study condcuted by Stanford University in 2010 linked solar activity to altering the decay rates of several isotopes...it basically sped them up.

Other peer reviews attribute the readings to instrument error, so the jury is still out, but there remains a possible link between solar activity and radioacive decay.. Some, as yet unknown particle may be changing decay rates that were otherwise pre-supposed to be Universal constants.

You want to deny that...be my guest.

Perhaps I was incorrect about Carbon-14 specfically, but several studies indicated a link between solar activity and radioactive decay rates. Radiometric dating remains the primary method in which the age of the Earth and Universe has been determined.

I don't know what you mean by "other methods"...because radiometric dating remains the primary way to determine of our planet's age. This is dependent upon a Universal constant rate of decay as one element changes into another. By knowing the rate of decay and the type of isotope in a rock, scientists extrapolate the age by the rate of decay....however if the rate of decay is effected by outside influences, such as solar activity, well that certainly changes the radiometric dating process which assumes the rate of decay is a Universal constant under all conditions.

If indeed radioactive decay rates prove to be inconsistent and influenced by outside sources...it does throw a wrench into the whole process.

As I say the jury is still out on whether solar activity does have an effect on only certain isotopes and not for others, however evidence does exist, subject to peer review, that it changes the decay rate thus effecting the Universal decay rate...thus making any sort of radiometric dating inaccurate when these outside influences have an effect over extensive lengths of time.

Certainly the Earth is older than 6,000 years as Genesis infers...but it's not an absolute the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and neither is it an absolute the Universe is 13 billioin years old. ...thus it is a matter of belief and not an absolute.

 

A question of yes or no attempts to force a binary choice when there may be more than two possible answers. But there are other more selfish reasons, like one not wanting to answer a question that they perceive as damaging their premise.

One of humanities greatest weakness is the need to be right vs being correct if you get my drift. I see being wrong as an opportunity to learn while my ego screams "being wrong is a sign of weakness!" Lucky for me as I have gotten older I have learned to ignore the annoyance of my ego to an increasing degree.

 

It's based on evidence, not just a wild guess. It's not an absolute, but it's a pretty good estimate (give or take a few hundred million years). All the methods give similar ages. We use helioseismology to estimate the age of the sun, and the answers are similar to the age of the earth--around 4.5 billion years. Basically speaking, every method we use gives us an answer of around 4.5 billion years (give or take). It's a pretty good estimate.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...339.1156G4

 

You're going too far here.

Dating methods also include the relative dating methods of examining the surrounding material. For example, large volcanoes leave signature layers around the world, allowing comparative analysis to show relative dates.

Radiometric dating covers a range of materials - certainly not limited to carbon.

In the end, the various methods of dating can be cross checked whenever there is doubt or need for greater accuracy or where the issue is studying the validity of the various dating methods.


Please cite your Stanford 2010 study.