Difference between revisions of "Talk:Old Earth"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(reply re: decay rate)
Line 25: Line 25:
 
:::::[[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)
 
:::::[[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)
 
::::::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)

Revision as of 12:58, 25 June 2009

! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

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

This is true. 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.--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.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.--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. 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.--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. 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.--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. 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.--Andy Schlafly 13:58, 25 June 2009 (EDT)