Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Old Earth

2009-06-25T18:20:28Z

Lexfundamen:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

There is already an article on this, check out this page: [[Old Earth Creationism]]. This article should be deleted or merged. --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 20:47, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

It's not the same thing because evolution proponents also support an old earth as well as OEC. --[[User:PeterMacKay|PeterMacKay]] 20:47, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

This is true. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:50, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

: The "4.5 billion years old" number just hangs there, suggesting a precision that does not exist and lacking an explanation of where it came from. I doubt 1 in 10 believers in an old earth could identify that number, and I don't even think that number has remain fixed for them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:27, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

I think that the educational value of this page would be enhanced if it was made more thorough. For example, I think detail regarding the processes by which earth came into existence by the old earth model would be a great help to anyone doing research here. Also, I am confused: how is it a fallacy to assume that radioactive decay rates are constant? Nobody knows of any reason why they shouldn't be, as the rate of radioactive decay of any given element is inherent in its structure. Besides, the vast range in rock ages as measured by radioactive dating shows that however decay rates may have changed, some rocks are billions of years older than others. Therefore, even if decay rates weren't constant, comparison with other dating methods would still enable adequate dating. Additionally, the 4.5 billion figure contains a margin of error of up to 500,000,000 years in either direction and has remained fixed for a long time. With current dating methods the 500,000,00 year margin is a reasonable amount of precision, while not so much as to appear suspicious from a statistical standpoint. As for an explanation of how scientists arrived at that figure, I would be happy to add one as I agree that it would be instrumental in improving the article's quality.[[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 16:16, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

:Claiming that radioactive decay rates have been constant throughout all of history is the same thing as saying the earth is old. The two claims tautological; one does not prove the other.

:The claim that radioactive decay was constant for all time is presumptively false because there is no reason to expect a rate of decay (or rate of movement of continents, or rate of recession of planets, or rate of burning of suns, etc.) to remain constant over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:21, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

::Things like the rate of movement of continents (which is pretty close to constant), the rate of burning of suns (which is pretty close to constant for any given star), and the rate of recession of planets are all large-scale phenomena which are much more subject to entropy and to small variations of the environmental conditions involved than the rate of radioactive decay of an element, because radioactive decay rate is inherent in the structure of the element in question. If Uranium-238 didn't have a half-life of 4.47 billion years, than it wouldn't be Uranium-238. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 22:27, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Your statement does not withstand scrutiny. Continental drift must have slowed down over time, and none of the other rates have always been constant either.

:::If you want to assign a new name to your element when you realize its decay rate has likely changed over time, that's fine with me. Call it "Real World Uranium-238" if you like, because in the real world rates are not constant for all time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

::::You wrote "Continental drift must have slowed down over time." Why ''must'' it have? Also, if there is actually evidence showing non-constant rates for any of the processes dicussed above, then they should be cited in the article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:35, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::[[Entropy]] is one reason why. Perpetual machines are impossible for the same reason. Lower energy is another reason. Friction is pertinent to continental drift. There are many manifestations of the basic phenomenon. It's silly for Old Earthers to pretend it doesn't exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:09, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::What does entropy have to do with this? I think AddisonDM is correct. If you are going to make broad assertions about continental drift and deny that the rate of decay of uranium is not constant you are going to have to provide justification for your statements. You did not do it yet. There are problems with carbon dating but the constancy of the decay rate of uranium is not one of them. [[User:Lexfundamen|Lexfundamen]] 13:34, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::The burden is on those who claim the decay rate was always constant. Prove it. Given that perpetual motion machines are impossible (do you doubt that?), the claim is implausible. The rates for everything else (as cite above) have obviously changed over time, and there is no reason to think that the decay rate is forever unchanged.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Is not the burden on the person who wrote the article stating "But it is a logical tautology to assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant, even at higher energy levels. Such assumption is identical to assuming that the Earth is old, and hence that argument is circular." This statement is not supported. You have not provided support. Why is friction different now than it was many years ago? [[User:Lexfundamen|Lexfundamen]] 14:20, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Old Earth

2009-06-25T17:34:34Z

Lexfundamen:

Natural Law

2009-06-20T20:48:40Z

Lexfundamen:

'''Natural Law''' is the concept that there is inherent in nature a set of laws, created by [[God]], which, unlike the varying customs and laws of man, holds true for all people and at all times. These laws are considered to be self-evident, in that they are able to be observed by everyone. It is debated whether or not natural law actually exists; in particular, it conflicts with [[sola scriptura]].<ref>[http://www.mun.ca/animus/1998vol3/kirby3.htm Richard Hooker's Discourse on Natural Law in the Context of the Magisterial Reformation]</ref>

These are distinguished from [[physical law]] in that they can be broken or disobeyed, and from [[civil law]] and [[common law]] by the fact that they have no enforcement agencies. However, it can be argued that it forms the foundation for many legal systems in the world.

Natural Law Theory is the official ethic of the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. It was espoused by [[Thomas Aquinas]], who based this of his scholarship on [[Aristotle]] to argue that, as [[God]] created the universe and revealed His mind to Man through the [[Bible]], Man can use his reason to discern God's Will by studying the natural world. For instance, a study of the male and female reproductive system naturally leads any sane person to see that their natural function is to come together for the sole purpose of procreation- so any acts other than this purpose, such as [[homosexuality]], [[autosexuality]], [[contraception]], and acts during [[menstruation]], are wrong. Before the encyclical ''Casti Connubii'' in 1930, some Catholics believed that acts during [[pregnancy]] or after [[menopause]] were also wrong as against natural law.

==See Also==
*[[Thomas Aquinas]]
*[[Thomas Hobbes]]
*[[John Locke]]
*[[Augustine]]
*[[Aristotle]]
*[[Jeremy Bentham]]
*[[Hugo Grotius]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Natural Law

2009-06-20T20:35:53Z

Lexfundamen: /* See Also */ I start to expand this article to look at what sources are here so far

'''Natural Law''' is the concept that there is inherent in nature a set of laws, perhaps created by [[God]], to which humans must adhere. These laws are considered to be self-evident, in that they are able to be observed by everyone. It is debated whether or not natural law actually exists; in particular, it conflicts with [[sola scriptura]].<ref>[http://www.mun.ca/animus/1998vol3/kirby3.htm Richard Hooker's Discourse on Natural Law in the Context of the Magisterial Reformation]</ref>

These are distinguished from [[physical law]] in that they can be broken or disobeyed, and from [[civil law]] and [[common law]] by the fact that they have no enforcement agencies. However, it can be argued that it forms the foundation for many legal systems in the world.

Natural Law Theory is the official ethic of the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. It was espoused by [[Thomas Aquinas]], and argues that, as [[God]] created the universe and revealed His mind to Man through the [[Bible]], Man can use his reason to discern God's Will by studying the natural world. For instance, a study of the male and female reproductive system naturally leads any sane person to see that their natural function is to come together for the sole purpose of procreation- so any acts other than this purpose, such as [[homosexuality]], [[autosexuality]], [[contraception]], and acts during [[menstruation]], are wrong. Before the encyclical ''Casti Connubii'' in 1930, some Catholics believed that acts during [[pregnancy]] or after [[menopause]] were also wrong as against natural law.

==See Also==
*[[Thomas Aquinas]]
*[[Thomas Hobbes]]
*[[John Locke]]
*[[Augustine]]
*[[Aristotle]]
*[[Jeremy Bentham]]
*[[Hugo Grotius]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]