posted
The fact is, evolution is a fact. To deny that fact is, truthfully, denying a fact as obvious as the fact that cars work, and drive down the road. It's denying something as obvious as the fact that nuclear power works, and that electricity works the way we know it does. It's as obvious a thing to deny as the internet.
You don't deny those things. The strength of evidence for evolution is just as strong as they. (and they aren't in the Bible either.)
There are, quite literally, millions of pieces of individual evidence for evolution. Millions. Many, many millions. And many things which evolution predicted, which have turned out to be true.
Denying it, in the eyes of one who's seen even a relatively small amount of the evidence, is about as nonsensical as denying the earth is round.
I really just hoped to have an engaging discussion on supposed scientific evidence for a young earth. Of course I'm going to start from a position of extreme skepticism as I've made no attempt to pretend that I'm an unbiased agnostic on the age of the earth. I would expect that whomever put forth the evidence would be similarly biased in the other direction.
That shouldn't prevent us from being able to try to rigorously examine the evidence as much as a couple random people online can do and we can count on the peanut gallery to call us out if our biases are causing us to bend the evidence to our preconceptions.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
0Megabyte: I would caution you that since you have recently made an extremely difficult and life altering decision as huge as discarding belief in God and all religion. That since you were a strong believer in both, that you realize it seems fairly unwise to speak in such an overtly confident even arrogant manner about what is fact and what is not.
Far from me to insult your inteligence, and heaven knows I agree the evolution has enough evidence to be virtually a certainty. But please don't make the mistake I have seen many religious converts make. If it's wrong for a new convert to suddenly saturate their world with their new found faith and argue with all their friends that they are all fools, it's equally wrong for a new atheist to start scoffing and ridiculing the beliefs and characters of those who still believe strongly in religion.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take your word of caution, and appreciate it.
Before I read your response, I already acted to take some of what I deemed rude out of my most recent post.
As it is, yeah, it's a danger I definitely need to beware of, and it's good that you notice it.
Though I defintiely do not believe in God, and, through asking and listening, am still yet to ifnd any evidence, I should still respect that other people have different beliefs, and that I should respect at least those things that don't immediately fly in the face of evidence. (Such as, say, God's actual existence.)
That said, seeing people deny evolution so blatantly annoys me for a slightly different reason, the reason of seeing people deny obvious facts, which has always bothered me, and I will try to limit my words to that subject, and try hard not to attack belief in God itself.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To deny that fact is, truthfully, denying a fact as obvious as the fact that cars work, and drive down the road.
Come now, you know that's not true. That evolution is a fact is in no way as obvious as the fact that cars work.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That said, seeing people deny evolution so blatantly annoys me for a slightly different reason, the reason of seeing people deny obvious facts, which has always bothered me, and I will try to limit my words to that subject, and try hard not to attack belief in God itself.
You realize, of course, that they have the same opinion about your denying the "obvious fact" of God.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only becaues you don't look at the evidence every day.
I don't, either, of course, but if I was working in a lab, it would in fact be just as obvious. (at the very least because you can witness it with your own two eyes, and quite often in microorganisms!)
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Only becaues you don't look at the evidence every day.
Regardless of the reason, MPH is right. Evolution is not an obvious conclusion to those who haven't spent much time studying the evidence.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'd already decided to do at leas tsome self-censure.
I'm sure that kind of helped my mood.
And yes, I admit to only a little bit of hyperbole.
But if you'd never seen a car before, I wonder if you'd believe that they work? That's actually an interesting question, I think!
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
However... I request evidence, and they don't give anything.
And since I've studied the Bible at least a little, and know a lot about where it came from, it's harder for me to take "it says so in the Bible!" without a grain of salt, considering I also know it says a lot of other things, some of which are not historically accurate (not to say that that makes the Bible useless or invalid... it's just not in all places an historical document, it doesn't document things in the manner we expect from modern documents, regardless of its other virtues.)
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:However... I request evidence, and they don't give anything.
I have similarly been frustrated, but I started this thread in attempt to dig into an area which some people claim scientific support. The "you can't prove there is/is not a God" argument gets old, but I think the "the evidence shows that the earth is 6 thousand/4 billion years old" could be much more productive.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. In that case, I should probably be quite and stop bugging the thread, and let it get back to... whoever will or may come to give such evidence.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, since I've quoted Dawkins quite a bit on these forums, I'll switch to Gould this time who is known to be a bit more diplomatic:
quote: In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
I'm just preemptively attempting here to establish that that the statement "evolution is a fact" could be spun in such a way to be seen as an "extremist" view.
However, the statement by itself is actually quite mainstream.
I've actually seen a president of an evangelical Christian organization hang on this statement in a really smug manner on a CBC debate as evidence of "intolerance", as if stating that "evolution is a fact" was somehow extremist and intolerant. Sigh.
posted
Such a misunderstanding only comes from an ignorance of science. That is, not learning about it, not bothering to understand the meaning of the basic words, the very worldview.
The difference between the vernacular for theory, and the actual phrase in science, is enough to be considered pretty much different words. And that is the best damn definition of the word fact I've ever seen, by the way, and fits what I call a fact perfectly.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Why do you assume evidence will matter to someone who believes in their heart that their faith is true?
Lisa asked for evidence; I gave it. What she does is up to her. At the moment she appears to be busy worrying about dietary laws laid down 3000 years ago by people who would not know a bacterium from a Bactrian camel. Whatever.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Come now, you know that's not true. That evolution is a fact is in no way as obvious as the fact that cars work.
In some ways it is. Humans spend a significant amount of energy and attention noticing the differences and similarities of a child to her mother and father. That's pretty basic evolution. Likewise for farmers or anyone who raises hybrid flowers or breeds animals.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Why do you assume evidence will matter to someone who believes in their heart that their faith is true?
Because people convert to different opinions everyday. And not just about religious belief. I can remember being presented with evidence that glass was a liquid (by my father, who I had great faith in as a scientist) and later being presented with evidence that glass really is a solid, which controverted my belief, and which placed me in the position of having to realize that my father was wrong. Both of those conversions were difficult for me, and I can remember the cognitive dissonance that I experienced each time.
In reading this thread, it seems that 0Megabyte recently converted to atheism, which has me pretty confused, because it seems that someone who has gonve through that conversion would understand exactly why evidence would matter to someone who believes in their heart that their faith is true.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It occurs to me that if young earth creationism is actually based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, genesis in particular, then the term "young earth creationist" could actually be expanded. It could actually be "young galaxy creationist" or "young universe creationist" depending on which the phrase "the heavens" refers to since it was created the day before the Earth.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, thank you for the Gould quote. It sums up my view of the evolution / creation debate very well. That man can use words like very few people can.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: But if you'd never seen a car before, I wonder if you'd believe that they work? That's actually an interesting question, I think!
The first time I sat in an airplane, I looked out over the enormous wing extending away from the fuselage, and thought, no way can this thing work. I mean, intellectually I knew it would, but it seemed inconceivable to me that this skinny little piece of aluminum would not snap right off if it tried to lift off.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Conviently though, God promised not to send another one, so nobody can observe it properly to see what impact it would really have, or even how it happened. We can only theorize.
I suppose those old Jews who made the whole thing up were smart enough to realize that eventually people would be interested in repeatable experiments and deliberately put in that bit about no more floods just to mess you up.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: *** Edited for clarity *** He also conveniently got rid of all the extra water it would take to flood the entire planet.
[/quibble]
So... just for the record, you'd say that the Earth was never covered by water? Answer carefully.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
QUOTE We go, then, to the key problem: God can, logically, only be two of these three things: omnipotent, omniscient, and good. This world, and its current state, makes it clear that God isn't working in it to save people, or to make justice occur.
Either he's all powerful, not all seeing and good (like an absent-minded father), he's not all powerful, but all seeing, and good (basically, doesn't have the power to make good happen), he's neither all powerful nor all seeing, but good (so, he can't see all injustice, and can't stop it) or he's all powerful, all seeing and evil (at least by human perspectives. If we saw a man watch someone die, who they could have saved, and willingly stand back and not allow it, would that not be evil? By that standard, God is no better.) The other possibilities exist too, that God is evil but not all powerful, but we don't need to get into that.
How is this reconcilable? UNQUOTE
It's very simply and logically resolved in Mormon theology, without any huge leaps having to be made. This isn't meant to be a religious thread so I'm not going to go into details (I don't have time right now either). I'm still wanting to see some answers to MattP's original post.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Physical evidence for a young earth includes the findings of Creationist scientists that the rate of helium diffusion from granitic zircon is compatible with only thousands of years of diffusion, not millions or billions. (The radioactive decay of uranium in granite produces helium, which because of its small molecular size gradually diffuses out of the rock at a rate that has been measured by independent laboratories.) Here is a link to an article about this: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm Also check the Creation Research Society website for related articles and updates. Go to the home site at: http://www.creationresearch.org and search on "helium diffusion"
Despite the loudly shouted claims to the contrary, this evidence has not been scientifically refuted. If someone says it has been refuted, follow the arguments, and see how it has been answered by Creationist scientists.
Over 30 years ago, Robert V. Gentry discovered many polonium haloes in granite which are lacking some of the outer haloes. (Actually they are globes, but sliced for microscopic viewing they look like haloes as the various stages in nuclear decay which discolor the rock take place.) For some of the outer haloes to be missing, and considering the extremely short half-lives of the radioactive decay elements involved, Gentry pointed out that the rock had to change from a liquid to a solid state in a matter of seconds. Here is a link to Gentry's website: http://www.halos.com/
Again, you will hear loud, red-faced shouts that the evidence has been refuted. It has not. Check any claims to the contrary, and see how Gentry has performed lab tests to refute the supposed refutations.
Another evidence involves the amount of sedimentation in the world's oceans. Quote: "Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e., mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago."
Link: http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/young_world2_rp.PDF (Note that Adobe Reader is required to read it.) This link brings you to an article that lists many physical evidences for a young earth/young solar system/young universe. You will be interested in reading the whole article.
And then of course there is the matter of soft tissue being found in "fossil" T-Rex bones. How easy is it to believe these fossils are at least 65 million years old? Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11385533
[ August 27, 2007, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Despite the loudly shouted claims to the contrary, this evidence has not been scientifically refuted. If someone says it has been refuted, follow the arguments, and see how it has been answered by Creationist scientists.
The evidence was not refuted, the methodology was questioned and some of the primary criticisms remain unanswered. I've got to run for now, but I'll come back to this tomorrow.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
You can find quartz crystals that are as large as small cars. We know how long it takes to form crystals of that size. How? Because we grow quartz crystals for processors and other applications.
They wouldn't grow that big in space. It's too cold. Therefore, they formed here. Therefore, we know the Earth must be noticeably older than those crystals.
Creationists are deeply silent about this.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, the request was for physical evidence not derived from Scripture that supports the Biblical account of origins. Do you also want me to go through all the evidences claimed by evolutionists in favor of their theories and show what is wrong with them? I have done that on many occasions in the past, but then the evolutionists would claim that I am just trying to make a case for Creationism by finding fault with evolution arguments.
As for what you say about crystals, could you supply a little more precise information, with sources? Why do you say cold inhibits formation of crystals? (Try forming ice crystals without cold!) And what does that have to do with anything?
It is likely that for the time being, people will continue their devotion to whatever philosophical/religious traditions please them. Convincing them against their will, no matter how logically persuasive the evidence, will only leave them in a greater state of denial and defiance if they are already committed to evolution. And no, I do not acknowledge the same about Creationists. I find scientifically literate Creationists tend to be far more genuinely open-minded--people such as Dr. Robert V. Gentry who was agnostic and believed in evolution until he made his discoveries involving radiohaloes in granite. He had the integrity to refuse to be subjugated by the tyranny of the scientific establishment and its traditions, and went by the evidence--truly.
[ August 27, 2007, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is this scientific tyranny that you're talking about, Ron? I seriously have not seen it. Please give me examples.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, you could only be unaware of the enormous current if you have only been swimming with it. See if you can get a job in science, a grant, tenure, if you let it be known you give the least bit of provisional credence to Creationism.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To creationism, yes. I understand that, because creationism has a stigma attached to it.
You seemed to say in your post that this tyranny was coming down on people who are against or want to test evolutionary theory because they think it could be wrong. That's what I disagree with.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh. Why is it always Biblical young earth creationists?
We never seem to get young earth Pangu believers (18,000 years+) or young Earth Hindu believers (millions of years). I could sure use the change of pace.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a sickeningly dry brainstorm of humor, I came up with this in my head today:
"Trying to persuade a creationist is like playing Dungeons & Dragons with an infallible dungeon master. You can dig up all the facts you want; they're just going to change the rules on you."
*dodges flamethrowers* I thought it was kinda cool Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that helium content in rocks is known to be highly dependent on conditions, and radioactive decay is not as dependent, a pretty strong case needs to be made that we ought to depend on helium diffusion instead of radioisotopes. In fact, even if the case for a "helium clock" were as good as that for radioisotopes, we would still need to figure out a way to decide between the two. The paper argues that there was a burst of very fast radioactive decay, resulting in the older ages we see today. Unfortunately, they don't say what sort of effect that would have, so that is not a testable conclusion at this time. What would the effects of sped-up decay be, according to their theory? What's the mechanism? Was there an accompanying change in either nuclear force, and did this apply to the earth only, or to larger areas?
I see that the paper also argues that even if there were an outside source of helium, the diffusion rates would still not permit the helium to be retained for millions of years. That assumes that the helium contamination wasn't recent. Apparently, you can test for it by looking for isotopes that wouldn't have been generated by the radioactive materials in the zircon. That would be the best way to shut up the critics: right now, I see a lot of back and forth about the possibility, and I'm puzzled as to why the experiment apparently hasn't been done.
The clincher, of course, would be to test a number of samples from a number of sites. If similar results can't be obtained from other zircon samples, then this site likely has some peculiarities. Keep in mind that lower bounds for the age of the solar system have been established using a wide array of rocks and dating techniques. Radioisotope dating has met this standard (see this PDF for an overview, or do your own search to find all the many papers out there), so it is not at all unfair to ask helium diffusion dating to meet the same standard.
I'm also vaguely aware of some astronomical observations of supernovae which seem to indicate that radioactive decay rates were pretty much the same back when the supernova happened, so there's some additional evidence for the constancy of radioactive decay rates in general. I will try to find that information later, and I will also look into the halo and sedimentation rate arguments.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A point to consider is that speeding up the rate of radioactive decay will also heat the Earth, since heat is a byproduct of decays and has to be radiated into space to disappear. If you speed it up sufficiently to produce the amount of decay products we see in a mere 6000 years, you heat up the Earth to the point of melting iron on the surface.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Floodwaters don't help unless they are removed. And yes, yes, miracles can do anything, but the Creationists keep claiming to be doing science; if they have to put in "And then a miracle occurs" at any point, they've lost.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was suggesting that God was using watercooling, and if the water boiled off, that solves both the heat problem and the where'd-the-water-go problem. That is, assuming the heat release and the energy needed to vaporize the water with enough energy to drive it into space were approximately equal.
Also, there would probably need to be an explanation of how the rest of the solar system managed to not melt, and the existence of relatively young rocks would also need to be explained.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'd still need to account for where the water goes after that. It's not going to disappear in a mere six thousand years - in fact most of it should still be orbiting the Earth. Also, I strongly suspect that we are talking about way more energy than is needed to vaporise a water layer only a few miles thick. Furhter, if the steam is hot enough to reach escape velocity, then the rest of the atmosphere should be too. Further, there are supposed to be humans on the earth while all this flooding is going on; how come they are not parboiled? Obviously, the answer is going to boil down to "Miracles".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP I respect your request for inquiry here and appreciate your desire to try to give people with a radically different perspective a chance to voice their thoughts, but I suspect you're not going to make much progress. It is hard to have the sort of dialog that I think you are looking for on an online forum. Note for instance the fact that I explicitly stated that my beliefs were based purely on trust in scripture and not on the available evidence viewed from secular assumptions, and the next three posts tried to address me with questions of why I cannot believe what I believe because of certain evidence. This obviously demonstrates the fact that I do not think the same way they do.
For the record,
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: You claim God is omnipotent.
I claim what? Be careful about making assumptions about what other people claim when they have not claimed any such thing.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Note for instance the fact that I explicitly stated that my beliefs were based purely on trust in scripture and not on the available evidence viewed from secular assumptions, and the next three posts tried to address me with questions of why I cannot believe what I believe because of certain evidence. This obviously demonstrates the fact that I do not think the same way they do.
That's why I asked for scientific objections in this thread. Even if I presuppose old earth and someone else presupposes young earth, we can discuss how the evidence does or does not fit either/both/neither of our conclusions.
Ron has gamely offered up a couple good examples. I will write a reply to the first one, but as I'm making an effort to synthesize the initial report, its criticisms, responses to criticisms, etc, I'll need to find a block of time to put together a response.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shigosei, fair enough, I would like to see further research to ascertain the answers to the questions you raise. Such research does cost something, and Creationist scientific researchers typically are not very well-funded, lacking access to government grants, so it may take a while for them to do the research. Evolutionist scientists could do the research, if they are willing to be truly objective and report the findings without any selection or "cooking" of the data (which is what they accuse the Creationists of doing).
I recall reading about a year ago a report from a research team of astronomers in Hawaii that their observations of certain nebulae indicated that one or more supposed universal constants (like the Plank length, speed of light, etc.) must have been different at some time in the past. Let me see if I can find it (my old computer recently died, and I'm having to resconstruct all my old favorites reference links).
quote:Now, Lamoreaux, along with LANL colleague Justin Torgerson, has re-analysed the Oklo data using what he says are more realistic figures for the energy spectrum of the neutrons present in the reactor. The results have surprised him. Alpha, it seems, has decreased by more than 4.5 parts in 108 since Oklo was live (Physical Review D, vol 69, p121701).
That translates into a very small increase in the speed of light (assuming no change in the other constants that alpha depends on), but Lamoreaux's new analysis is so precise that he can rule out the possibility of zero change in the speed of light. .... And in March, Flambaum claimed that the ratio of different elements left over from just after the big bang suggests that alpha(s) must have been different then compared with its value today (Physical Review D, vol 69, p 063506).
Thus we see the issue is still open.
As I have pointed out in the past, changes in the speed of light could also imply changes in the rate of radioactive decay (which we already know can change drastically, on the order of a trillionfold, when matter is heated to the plasma state, as has been shown in the laboratory). So changes in the speed of light can imply changes in radioactive decay rate, and vice versa.
Yes, a period of increased nuclear decay rate would have an effect on earth's biosphere. I suspect those who suggest it would turn earth's surface into a molten state are exaggerating. I would suggest that the increased nuclear decay rate might produce a dramatic increase in genetic mutation. The book of Genesis mentions a special "curse" that was pronounced on the ground because of Adam's sin, which in turn resulted in thorns and thistles suddenly making an appearance. Creationists find it easy to see there might be a connection.
Just as "any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic," so also unusual and very subtle operations of natural processes may be indistinguishable from miracles. Of course, even if we can determine how God accomplished something extraordinary and amazing using very esoteric natural properties and processes, we still admit that He did it. If God does in fact exist, is the Creator, and does at times intervene by His own directed will, then that is not an unscientific proposition. Since it is a logical and viable alternative, it is not scientific to rule out this possibility completely. Rather it would be the arbitrary exercise of personal subjective prejudice, and therefore would constitute a failure of the scientist to be objective.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I have pointed out in the past, changes in the speed of light could also imply changes in the rate of radioactive decay (which we already know can change drastically, on the order of a trillionfold, when matter is heated to the plasma state, as has been shown in the laboratory).
We know nothing of the kind. I believe you are confusing rates of decay with rates of fusion; they are totally different. Decay rates do not change when matter is heated.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A further point: You quote misleadingly. Your quote has alpha changing by 4.5 parts in 108, which is a lot. The article has alpha changing by 4.5 parts in 10^8, or in other words, essentially zero. This would change the age of the earth from 4.3 billion years all the way down to 4.3 billion years minus a few hundred. Try again.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it just me, or has there been absolutely no scientific evidence put forward to suggest that the earth could even potentially be young? So far, all I've seen is feeble nitpicks made against the mountain of evidence for an old earth. Nit picking old earth theory does not make young earth theory correct.
I was actually curious to see some real evidence.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, fair's fair: Ron mentioned the polonium halos and the hoary old seabed-mud thing. I believe MattP is working on the halos, so I won't duplicate his effort; as for the mud, subduction is not the only mechanism removing it:
quote:Originally posted by TalkOrigins Some sediment deposited on the continental margin can become part of the continent itself if the sea level falls or the land is uplifted. Some calcium and organic sediments become biomass or ultimately dissolve. Some sediment becomes compacted as it deepens, so its volume is not indicative of the original sediment volume. Some sediment is "scraped" off of subducting plates and becomes coastal rocks.
The uniformitarian assumption in the claim is not valid. Tectonics involves ocean basins forming and spreading, but it also involves them closing up again (the Wilson cycle). When the basins close, the sediment in the oceans is piled up on the edges of continents or returned to the mantle. Much of British Columbia was produced when the Pacific Ocean closed a few hundred million years ago and land in the ocean accreted to the continent.
This is an old claim and has been debunked many times.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
