789
edits
Changes
no edit summary
: "''The evidence absolutely contradicts your theory.''": On the contrary, that last link mentions some anomalous dates that could be explained by allowing for the effects of the flood. Further, every test for C14 in coal and diamonds shows that they still have C14, which they should not if they were as old as supposed. Again, empirical, repeatable, tests, arranged by creationary scientists, but usually rejected solely because they support a YEC age, usually with various ''ad hoc'' explanations that are only invoked in these cases (i.e. special pleading), and ones that often don't stand scrutiny (for example, you can't get contaminant C14 into the crystal structure of a diamond).
: "''The evidence absolutely contradicts your theory.''": On the contrary, that last link mentions some anomalous dates that could be explained by allowing for the effects of the flood. Further, every test for C14 in coal and diamonds shows that they still have C14, which they should not if they were as old as supposed. Again, empirical, repeatable, tests, arranged by creationary scientists, but usually rejected solely because they support a YEC age, usually with various ''ad hoc'' explanations that are only invoked in these cases (i.e. special pleading), and ones that often don't stand scrutiny (for example, you can't get contaminant C14 into the crystal structure of a diamond).
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:16, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:16, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
''Which is entirely consistent with YEC cosmologies that propose that billions of years have passed out in space whilst six days passed on Earth.''
I have heard some YEC claim that the whole universe was created at the same time, including the Earth. What exactly is the hypothesis here? Would it be fairly stated as, "The universe was created by God in its current form billions of years ago, and the Earth was created six thousand years ago"?
''So all other possible explanations, including presumably ones that have not yet been thought of, have been ruled out? I think what would be more accurate to say would be "...''as far as we know at the moment'' any change in the former would have to be because of a change in the latter", which doesn't rule out other possibilities that haven't been thought of yet. Scientists have previously claimed that the rate of decay can't change, yet (minor) changes in the rates of decay ''have'' been observed.''
Of course. Let it be assumed in the future that when I speak of something as "must" or a "certainty" when talking about such things, it is according to everything we currently know in science. No science is sacrosanct, of course, so nothing is absolute. But logic and everything we currently understand indicates the above conclusion. It's possible that later we will learn something new that contradicts our current understanding. And at that time, it will be warranted to create hypotheses based upon that new data. But you don't create the hypotheses and assume that your current data must be flawed.
''When Barry Setterfield proposed a change in the speed of light, "the main anti-creationist (and progressive creationist) argument was the supposed constancy of fundamental laws ... [a change in the Fine Structure Constant] would supposedly solve some problems with the ‘big bang’ theory. Apparently, this is OK for the big bang—it’s only wrong to question established theories when this is done to support Biblical creation, it seems!"[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430].''
From what I can find, Setterfield did just that... "proposed" it. He didn't have any evidence or reason to believe it, except that he wanted to do so and it would help justify his preconceived notions. There is a great deal of evidence and reason to believe that the speed of light is constant, and so evidence to contradict that must be proportionately large as well.
I am sure there must be some prejudice against creationist theories in science, and it is unfortunate. But it is also understandable. The creationist "theory" is always that God created everything at some unagreed-upon point... and the mechanism for arriving at that conclusion changes according to what seems like might be true. It's not very good science. Imagine a phrenologist arguing with neurologists for the legitimacy of his position: he could use most of the same arguments a creationist uses. "We don't ''know'' that the shape of the head doesn't indicate certain aspects of personality. We should be open to that possibility and the controversy should be taught to children. The fact that the hypothalamus can lead to subdural pressure if it becomes hyperactive means that the same thing that Bob Phrenologist proposed forty years ago is true... but apparently it's only okay if a neurologist says it!"
''Then your reading has been one-sided, I'd suggest.''
In the sense that you intend, that is accurate. I am crippled by my insistence on only reading reputable publications like ''Scientific American'' and ''Nature.''
''Tend to correlate with what? And are consistent with what? The point that you were replying to said, "...many tests done with other methods ''on items of known dates'' have falsified the methods". Most dating is not done on items of known ages. I've ''often'' had said to me that this is because those items are "too young" to measure. Now you're trying to tell me that many such tests have been done, successfully?''
I was being vague, sorry. What I meant to say was that the formation of strata in the earth leads to consistent results, and the "uniformitarian" theories currently being worked on tend to mesh very well and explain each other's unusual phenomena. For example, Archeopteryx examples (or however you spell it, heh) was found in limestone deposits that would have been formed at the appropriate time to capture the fossils, the Jurassic; the biological explanation of millions of years correlates and is consistent with the geological one. This is from Gould's ''The Panda's Thumb'', incidentally.
''Actually, the amount of C14 would be ''much less'' prior to the flood. C14 dating is done by measuring the C12:C14 ratio, and the ''less'' C14, the older the item is presumed to be. So ''more'' C14 prior to the flood would make the items appear ''younger''.''
Whoops, good call. Yes, that is what I meant.
''Not unless the C12:C14 ratio ''suddenly'' changed at the time of the flood. Rather, it would take time to change, as new C14 was being formed. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf this].''
I read that, and it appears to agree with me (and thereby disprove itself). Its graph has a pretty sharp step there, and there is no evidence given for an increase in the carbon cycle of that degree over time.
''On the contrary, that last link mentions some anomalous dates that could be explained by allowing for the effects of the flood. Further, every test for C14 in coal and diamonds shows that they still have C14, which they should not if they were as old as supposed. Again, empirical, repeatable, tests, arranged by creationary scientists, but usually rejected solely because they support a YEC age, usually with various ''ad hoc'' explanations that are only invoked in these cases (i.e. special pleading), and ones that often don't stand scrutiny (for example, you can't get contaminant C14 into the crystal structure of a diamond).''
I am not familiar with this... I'm going to examine the issue a little and reply further on this point... thanks :)--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:43, 28 April 2008 (EDT)