nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Where does Wikipedia get it's sources on the Earth's age and related date estimates: Reply to TomMoore
: "''I've never understood why one can't accept an old-earth view AND the wisdom in the Bible at the same time. The science in the Bible doesn't have to be accurate for the lessons in values to be.''": Because if it gets the factual history wrong, why trust it on the wisdom? "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" {{Bible ref|John|5:46-47|NIV}} "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" {{Bible ref|John|3|12|NIV}}
: "''I've never understood why one can't accept an old-earth view AND the wisdom in the Bible at the same time. The science in the Bible doesn't have to be accurate for the lessons in values to be.''": Because if it gets the factual history wrong, why trust it on the wisdom? "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" {{Bible ref|John|5:46-47|NIV}} "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" {{Bible ref|John|3|12|NIV}}
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:09, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:09, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
:Replying to TomMoore:
:"''...PJR, I think you're on the wrong side of just about every issue, but I respect that you always have well-thought-out reasons for being there.''": Thanks. I don't want to seem ungrateful, but I continually get frustrated at anti-creationists arguing against an idea that they clearly haven't studied sufficiently, or in many cases apparently not at all (except from anti-creationist sources).
:"''If we examine the chemical composition of the most distant protostars, for example, we will find that it consists partially of one element and partially of the element into which it decays as it breaks down, and the proportion conforms to exactly what we would expect if it had been decaying for billions of years...''": Which is entirely consistent with YEC cosmologies that propose that billions of years have passed out in space whilst six days passed on Earth.
:"''atoms decay according to the most fundamental laws of physics, and any change in the former would have to be because of a change in the latter.''": 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.
: "''But more to the point, it was discovered through an empirical and repeatable test''": As is the case with creationist research on radiometric dating methods.
: "''If any creationist had done that test, no one would try to gainsay them because it would be science.''": Hah! 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].
: "''But creationists do precious little to explore further, generally concentrating on attacking evolution. This is for ideologically understandable reasons, but it does mean the number of actively researching creationist physicists is tiny (if extant at all).''": The only reason that "precious little" research is done and that the "number of actively researching creationist physicists is tiny" is that they don't have access to the funds that uniformitarians and evolutionists have. Yet they do what research they can manage.
: "''This is generally not true, according to everything I have read.''": Then your reading has been one-sided, I'd suggest.
: "''While there have been unusual exceptions, which are seized upon by critics, for the most part results tend to correlate and are consistent with each other.''": 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?
: "''If the amount of C14 was so hugely greater prior to the Flood...''": 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''.
: "''...In other words, the graph would look like a single stair, rather than a sloping trend downwards.''": 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].
: "''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)