539
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 89:
Line 89: + +
→The Circular argument issue
Who assumes that physical laws such as the rate of [[radioactive decay]] have remained constant? Is this a matter of faith? Is it (considered) a proven fact? Radiation has only been studied for a century and a half. Can we extrapolate from recent experience to all of history? If so, on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:34, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Who assumes that physical laws such as the rate of [[radioactive decay]] have remained constant? Is this a matter of faith? Is it (considered) a proven fact? Radiation has only been studied for a century and a half. Can we extrapolate from recent experience to all of history? If so, on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:34, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:The science is complicated (and my background is in biology) but within a naturalistic framework then yes, observations of decay rates can be extrapolated into an assumption that they've remained constant. For them to vary would require changes in various constants, and without the intervention of an all-powerful intelligent force (which is where science breaks down...) the consequences of this would be somewhere between the universe cooling rapidly to absolute zero as fusion shut down or it collapsing back into an infinitely dense, infinitely hot point. It's hard science; decay rates don't seem to vary. Of course it takes no account of God, and personally I believe that with God's intervention decay rates DID vary. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:47, 15 September 2011 (EDT)