Jump to content


Photo

Volcanic Island Chains


  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

#161 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 12 April 2017 - 11:16 PM

Nothing.  That's their right and their business.  However, you should not expect that approach to be considered valid within the scientific communities.  

Why not? What in science limits it to atheistic hypothesis?

 

For all we know it could be that the RATE group is on to something, maybe the truth is that God created the earth and did use miraculous events in the past. Are you saying that the truth can't be investigated by science in that case? Then what use do we have of science (in this area) if your claim is true and God created the earth? And how will you know if God created the world or not if science are unable to handle one of the cases?

 

Not that I personally think that your statement is true, rather I think you are wrong in your statement. But I just wanted to show the possible logical consequences of your reasoning.



#162 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,519 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 April 2017 - 08:47 AM

 

Nothing.  That's their right and their business.  However, you should not expect that approach to be considered valid within the scientific communities.  

Why not? What in science limits it to atheistic hypothesis?

The Newtonian Synthesis which basically says:  "The natural laws apply at all times and in all places."  Remember, YEC are fond of pointing out Newton was a creationist.

 

I prefer "non-theistic" to atheistic.  When God chooses to suspend the natural laws He is acting outside the limits of scientific investigation.  Simply stated, science is unable to deal with supernatural events.

 

But why don't you tell us how science can go about testing a hypothesis of Divine Intervention.....

 

This is what I keep trying to explain about "methodological naturalism" in science.

 

For all we know it could be that the RATE group is on to something, 

Except for two minor problems....

a)  They say their proposal melts the planet.

b )  There is no proposed mechanism to accelerate nuclear decay, one of the most stable processes in the universe, by a factor of a billion .... then slow it back down.

 

Here's a hypothesis for the RATE findings:

"God intervened and miraculously removed the heat of accelerated decay from the Earth to save Noah and his passengers."  Now, how do you test that?

 

maybe the truth is that God created the earth and did use miraculous events in the past. Are you saying that the truth can't be investigated by science in that case? 

Exactly.  When God chooses to exercise His supernatural power and perform a miracle, science is useless.

 

 Then what use do we have of science (in this area) if your claim is true and God created the earth? 

None at all.  Science is not equipped to deal with the miraculous.

 

Of course, God is also fully capable of using natural processes to achieve His ends.......

 

And how will you know if God created the world or not if science are unable to handle one of the cases?

By faith.

 

Not that I personally think that your statement is true, rather I think you are wrong in your statement. But I just wanted to show the possible logical consequences of your reasoning.

I'm fully aware of the limitations of science and I'm quite certain SN is too.

 

The logical consequence is that there are some things science can't investigate.


  • StormanNorman likes this

#163 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,073 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 13 April 2017 - 10:09 AM

Why not? What in science limits it to atheistic hypothesis?

 

For all we know it could be that the RATE group is on to something, maybe the truth is that God created the earth and did use miraculous events in the past. Are you saying that the truth can't be investigated by science in that case?

 

 

 

 

It can be investigated scientifically, but they'll likely be wrong if indeed a miracle did occur.

 

 

Then what use do we have of science (in this area) if your claim is true and God created the earth? 

 

I assume that you believe God created the earth and maybe even did so outside the bounds of natural laws.  You tell me .... have we not all benefited from science and the scientific method?

 

 

And how will you know if God created the world or not if science are unable to handle one of the cases?

 

Not that I personally think that your statement is true, rather I think you are wrong in your statement. But I just wanted to show the possible logical consequences of your reasoning.

 

I think piasan already addressed this very well, but I'll just say that I understand the limits of science and the scientific method....repeatable, testable, etc.  It doesn't lend itself to addressing faith-based hypotheses whether or not they are true or false.  And, there's nothing wrong with that.....



#164 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,519 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 April 2017 - 11:18 AM

 

Where did I say that I accepted accelerated decay in this thread?

You have suggested it as a possible explanation at least three times now.... including one since this post was made.

 

Here:

.... to falsify this you could demonstrate a significant change in radioisotope decay rates ...

and here:

... there are more factors that could play a role. Things like heat, changing decay rates or that the sample has not been a closed system for the entire period. ....

and here:

For all we know it could be that the RATE group is on to something,....

So, if I'm mistaken that you think accelerated decay is a viable option, there may be a reason for my confusion.

 

I've tried to criticize radiometric dating from known facts, not from speculative ideas. That's not to say that accelerated decay couldn't have happened, .....

Accelerated decay is a speculative idea.  One that, according to its proponents, would melt the planet.  That alone should be grounds to reject the claim outright without further consideration.

 

And where did I talk about statistically valid measurements? I said that ALL K-Ar measurements (statistically valid or not) should have been withdrawn as soon as the Ar-Ar method was invented. 

Well, the comment about withdrawing the dates was in response to a post I had made showing how a statistical analysis of a sample is done and  how to determine if it is a valid result or not using statistical methods.

 

The people who do carbon dating will tell you any C14 date before about 1980 is suspect.  The older C14 dates haven't been withdrawn either.

 

I guess due-diligence is necessary to differentiate between those measurements that are valid and those that are not.... just like what needs to be done with older C14 dates.

 

And what do I care about Setterfields original 1987 paper, I've never brought it up. I'm thinking more about his ideas on zero point energy, creation and plasma physics. I'm not at all sure if his ideas are reasonable or not. 

You brought up Setterfield.  His 1987 paper is fair game .... especially considering you insist older K-Ar dates should be withdrawn.   Setterfield has not withdrawn his 1987 paper nor has he withdrawn the manipulated data that was the sole justification for his finding in that paper.

 

If Setterfield's ideas were reasonable, they might get some traction.  To the best of my knowledge, there is little support for them.... even among creation scientists.

 

But is it important to know how God created the universe? The important question (for a theist) would be to know if God created the universe, but to know that I don't need to be sure about how God did it.

Apparently how, or at least when, is important, or we probably wouldn't even be having this exchange.....

 

I've pointed this out many times here..... we disagree about how and when ..... not Who.

 

Then what is the problem with the RATE team referring to miraculous events in the past, from a theistic point of view?

From a theistic point of view?   Nothing at all.

 

From a scientific point of view..... miraculous events are outside the limitations of scientific investigation.  Simply stated, science doesn't have the tools to investigate miracles.

 

Methodological naturalism is a philosophical limitation that some people (mostly atheists) which to impose on science, which really don't have much merit. You are simply wrong on this. Please read Plantingas take on this and after that we could start discuss the issue. Currently it seems like you really don't understand the subject.

I understand just fine.  There is a difference between methodology and philosophy.

 

This is really off topic and should be discussed in a new thread.  If you don't start it, I will......

 

So you reject the BigBang theory because it is special pleading?

I'm not all that stuck on the Big Bang.  Whatever the creation event was, the evidence indicates it took place much closer to 13.8 billion years ago than 6000.

 

The difference is not insignificant.

 

I really don't see any scientific problems if Setterfield would in a theory plead for a new kind of mass, if he had good reasons to do so in his theory. But I've never read that he does. 

Then you may not have examined Setterfield's claims as closely as you think.  He seeks to differentiate between "subatomic" and "atomic" mass.  This was necessary to rescue his theory from the consequences when c-decay runs into Einstein's theories of relativity.  If I have to choose between Einstien's claims and Setterfield's, it isn't even close.....

 

Here's what happens.....

if light is a million times faster, then according to Einstien (e=mc2) the energy of nuclear decay will be a trillion times greater.  Without even doing the calculations, it should be pretty obvious the Sun putting out a trillion times the energy it does would quickly vaporize the Earth, and likely the entire solar system.  To compensate for this, Setterfield must propose a drastically reduced value for mass.  Then he runs into a problem with gravity  (FG = Gm1m2/r2).  With mass being a trillionth of the value, gravity would not be strong enough to hold planets together.  So, he had to propose the gravitational constant (G) was a trillion trillion times greater.  Even then, he was unable to simultaneously satisfy both the Law of Conservation of Energy (Ek = 0.5mv2) and the Law of Conservation of Momentum  (p=mv) because v would need to change by different amounts at the same time.  Satisfaction of those laws is necessary to, for example, keep the planets in orbit around the Sun.

 

By attempting to differentiate sub-atomic and atomic masses, Setterfield tries to avoid the need to change masses and the associated issues.  Unfortunately, the change of mass in nuclear chain reactions takes place at the sub-atomic level.  So, Setterfield's "new mass" still doesn't really solve the problem.

 

 And I don't see any problems (as a theist) with the RATE team thinking that some past creation events involved miracles performed by God. Why would I?

From a theistic perspective, miracles are a non-issue.  From a scientific perspective, they are a non-starter beyond the ability of science to investigate them.

 

If creation science is forced to include miracles by God, my question is why do they even attempt a scientific explanation?  Almost every time they do so, it adds layers of complexity to the issue that shouldn't be necessary.



#165 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 15 April 2017 - 03:35 PM

And I don't see any problems (as a theist) with the RATE team thinking that some past creation events involved miracles performed by God. Why would I?


If your theory is so weak that it has to be supported by miracles then you have no reasonable argument at all. It wouldn't matter to you if the naturalistic explanation is infinitely more rational as you can constantly fend off the obvious with the get out of jail free card and relying on a God apparently trying to deceive us into disbelief.



#166 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 15 April 2017 - 10:48 PM

The Newtonian Synthesis which basically says:  "The natural laws apply at all times and in all places."  Remember, YEC are fond of pointing out Newton was a creationist.
 
I prefer "non-theistic" to atheistic.  When God chooses to suspend the natural laws He is acting outside the limits of scientific investigation.  Simply stated, science is unable to deal with supernatural events. But why don't you tell us how science can go about testing a hypothesis of Divine Intervention.....

This is what I keep trying to explain about "methodological naturalism" in science.


Did you read what Plantinga wrote about "methodological naturalism". As one of the more influential modern day philosopher his say on this weighs quite heavy. So instead of just using bare assertions, you have to actually argue why Plantinga is incorrect when he claims:

"It would be very much worth knowing (if possible) which things he did do directly; to know this would be an important part of a serious and profound knowledge of the universe. The fact that such claims are science stoppers means that as a general rule they won't be helpful; it doesn't mean that they are never true, and it doesn't mean that they can never be part of a proper scientific theory. (And of course it doesn't even bear on the other ways in which Christianity or Christian theism can be relevant to science.) It is a giant and unwarranted step from the recognition that claims of direct divine activity are science stoppers to the insistence that science must pretend that the created universe is just there, refusing to recognize that it is indeed created."

And Newton did not adhere to "methodological naturalism". He was more a pragmatic naturalist in his theories and had no problem to invoke God in theories when they simple didn't add up, like for the unstability of our solar system.

So until you and Norman start to actually argue for your assertions (regarding methodological naturalism), it seems like your assertion is simply unwarranted. Especially since I have shown that modern day philosophers doesn't agree with what you are saying. Why do you think Plantinga is incorrect?
 

Except for two minor problems....
a)  They say their proposal melts the planet.
b )  There is no proposed mechanism to accelerate nuclear decay, one of the most stable processes in the universe, by a factor of a billion .... then slow it back down.
 
Here's a hypothesis for the RATE findings:
"God intervened and miraculously removed the heat of accelerated decay from the Earth to save Noah and his passengers."  Now, how do you test that?
 
When God chooses to exercise His supernatural power and perform a miracle, science is useless.


But again you are arguing using the same bare assertions, why? And what do you mean by how do you test?

Why can't the hypothesis the RATE team present be a proper scientific theory? It might even be true, for all we know ...

Please try to answer this without a bare assertion this time.



#167 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 15 April 2017 - 11:02 PM

If your theory is so weak that it has to be supported by miracles then you have no reasonable argument at all. It wouldn't matter to you if the naturalistic explanation is infinitely more rational as you can constantly fend off the obvious with the get out of jail free card and relying on a God apparently trying to deceive us into disbelief.

 

Why don't I have an argument? In what way? This is written in the context on how theists are allowed to form scientific theories. It is not in the context on how theist would try to convince atheist that God exists. That would involve a completely different line of reasoning. And what about science stoppers from the naturalistic camp? Are those theories to be rejected as well. I'm thinking about (for example) dark energy and dark matter that is invoked to save the math calculations in the BigBang theory? Why is that handled differently, from a scientific point of view? 



#168 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 16 April 2017 - 06:32 AM

Why don't I have an argument? In what way? This is written in the context on how theists are allowed to form scientific theories. It is not in the context on how theist would try to convince atheist that God exists. That would involve a completely different line of reasoning. And what about science stoppers from the naturalistic camp? Are those theories to be rejected as well. I'm thinking about (for example) dark energy and dark matter that is invoked to save the math calculations in the BigBang theory? Why is that handled differently, from a scientific point of view? 

 

You don't have an argument for the Hawaiian chain if you have to invoke miracles. And you have to face up to God being a deceitful trickster to place the argon in the rocks in the exact right way so that it looks like the islands have shifted at a near constant rate over millions of years. As for dark energy etc., if we stopped and invoked God did it every time we came across a challenge to our scientific understanding and just stopped thinking about it, we'd still be hunter gathering as a species.



#169 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 859 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 16 April 2017 - 11:05 AM

Why don't I have an argument? In what way? This is written in the context on how theists are allowed to form scientific theories. It is not in the context on how theist would try to convince atheist that God exists. That would involve a completely different line of reasoning. And what about science stoppers from the naturalistic camp? Are those theories to be rejected as well. I'm thinking about (for example) dark energy and dark matter that is invoked to save the math calculations in the BigBang theory? Why is that handled differently, from a scientific point of view? 

 

Dark matter is heavily implied by the data. Galaxies and clusters of galaxies rotate as if there is many times more mass in the system than what we can see. With gravitational lensing we can see that galaxies have much more mass than what we can see with the majority of it in the halos of galaxies. Then to top it off when we map out galaxy collisions what we find is that the majority of the mass goes through the two galaxies when they collide (i.e. doesn't interact electromagnetically like 'normal' matter) before it does a double take and settles into the 'new' galaxy due to the gravitational interaction. These pieces of evidence demonstrate that dark matter is real without ever invoking the big bang, although studies into the CMB do support the dark matter model and more generally the standard Lamda-CDM model which combines dark matter, energy, and big bang. Dark matter is hardly a cop-out; we have direct observational evidence that it physically exists, and scientists are actively looking into it including its' properties and what it actually is.

 

Dark energy was proposed to explain why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate; it's based off of direct observation. Before we observed this Einstein discovered it playing around with his equations and at the time thought it was a blunder. Admittedly little is definitively known about dark energy, but one popular idea is that it is vacuum fluctuations. The point being that scientists are well aware of the unknowns of dark energy, but there is both observational and theoretical reasons for thinking that it exists, and scientists are actively trying to solve the mystery through the scientific method. Ditto to what Wibble said about invoking God every time science ran into an uphill battle.



#170 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 16 April 2017 - 10:18 PM

You have suggested it as a possible explanation at least three times now.... including one since this post was made. So, if I'm mistaken that you think accelerated decay is a viable option, there may be a reason for my confusion. Accelerated decay is a speculative idea. One that, according to its proponents, would melt the planet. That alone should be grounds to reject the claim outright without further consideration.


Yes I think it is a viable option. But that is a long way from accepting that it is true. It might be true (as some creationist theories suggest) but again it might not be true. But this does nothing to help radiometric dating, since I haven't used this as a critique of the dating game.
 

I've tried to criticize radiometric dating from known facts, not from speculative ideas. That's not to say that accelerated decay couldn't have happened, .....

Accelerated decay is a speculative idea.  One that, according to its proponents, would melt the planet.  That alone should be grounds to reject the claim outright without further consideration.

This is just you trying to avoid my critique. I've never used accelerated decay rates as an argument against the soundness of radiometric dating. So I'll just ignore this for the time being. Radiometric dating has enough problems as it is.
 

Well, the comment about withdrawing the dates was in response to a post I had made showing how a statistical analysis of a sample is done and  how to determine if it is a valid result or not using statistical methods. ... The people who do carbon dating will tell you any C14 date before about 1980 is suspect.  The older C14 dates haven't been withdrawn either.


I don't know how to explain this to you. But you can't statistical analyze something if the data is invalid. What would that show? If you have some imaginary data what does your statistical analyze show anyway?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Why can't the scientist just simply remove all suspect dates, what could happen?
 

You brought up Setterfield.  His 1987 paper is fair game .... especially considering you insist older K-Ar dates should be withdrawn.   Setterfield has not withdrawn his 1987 paper nor has he withdrawn the manipulated data that was the sole justification for his finding in that paper.

If Setterfield's ideas were reasonable, they might get some traction.  To the best of my knowledge, there is little support for them.... even among creation scientists.


If the 1987 paper is wrong, it should be withdrawn. But that you have to discuss with Setterfield, I'm not defending his 1987 paper in this thread. But your comment on traction is not historically accurate. Many scientific theories (like Mendels theories) didn't get traction during the scientists lifetime. So the amount of traction doesn't say anything about the theory really.
 

Then you may not have examined Setterfield's claims as closely as you think.  He seeks to differentiate between "subatomic" and "atomic" mass.  This was necessary to rescue his theory from the consequences when c-decay runs into Einstein's theories of relativity.  If I have to choose between Einstien's claims and Setterfield's, it isn't even close.....
 
Here's what happens.....
if light is a million times faster, then according to Einstien (e=mc2) the energy of nuclear decay will be a trillion times greater.  Without even doing the calculations, it should be pretty obvious the Sun putting out a trillion times the energy it does would quickly vaporize the Earth, and likely the entire solar system.  To compensate for this, Setterfield must propose a drastically reduced value for mass.  Then he runs into a problem with gravity  (FG = Gm1m2/r2).  With mass being a trillionth of the value, gravity would not be strong enough to hold planets together.  So, he had to propose the gravitational constant (G) was a trillion trillion times greater.  Even then, he was unable to simultaneously satisfy both the Law of Conservation of Energy (Ek = 0.5mv2) and the Law of Conservation of Momentum  (p=mv) because v would need to change by different amounts at the same time.  Satisfaction of those laws is necessary to, for example, keep the planets in orbit around the Sun.
 
By attempting to differentiate sub-atomic and atomic masses, Setterfield tries to avoid the need to change masses and the associated issues.  Unfortunately, the change of mass in nuclear chain reactions takes place at the sub-atomic level.  So, Setterfield's "new mass" still doesn't really solve the problem.

From a theistic perspective, miracles are a non-issue.  From a scientific perspective, they are a non-starter beyond the ability of science to investigate them. If creation science is forced to include miracles by God, my question is why do they even attempt a scientific explanation?  Almost every time they do so, it adds layers of complexity to the issue that shouldn't be necessary.


I'm fully aware that Setterfields theories are riddled with problems. But which cosmological theory exist today that doesn't have problems? But he isn't the only scientist suggesting that the speed of light has changed or slowed down. Paul Davies came out with similar thoughts in 2002. So how do we know (scientifically) that things are constant over time? Did God actually change things over time? Who knows?

If you wish to speculate on how God did it, you will run into problems. One hard thing with theistic theories about the creation event is how you distinguish between what God used natural process to create and what God created ex nihilo. But it is important for theists not to get stuck in the 'naturalistic' pit, since we know that God created things. When making theories about the past we should take Gods actions into account when developing creation theories. And according to me and Plantinga that also includes scientific theories about the past.

I have mostly played the skeptic in this thread, trying to challenge peoples preconception of things. The old earth/young earth debate aren't really that crystal clear. As a christian I really think there are very good and convincing arguments for a young earth. But those arguments are mostly scoffed at or ridiculed, instead of actually take the arguments seriously and try to see if their are any truth in the arguments. I guess one reason there are so many bad scientific theories floating around for both old and young earth is since this is also a debate on philosophical foundations. And perhaps the fact that science might not be the ultimate tool to investigate one time events in the past.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#171 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,073 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 17 April 2017 - 08:47 AM

 

But again you are arguing using the same bare assertions, why? And what do you mean by how do you test?

Why can't the hypothesis the RATE team present be a proper scientific theory? It might even be true, for all we know ...

Please try to answer this without a bare assertion this time.

 

Is there any specific scientific research, evidence, reasoning, etc. that would explain a several order of magnitude (thousands-fold) increase in the radioactive decay rates across the board? And is there any physical evidence that this, in fact, did occur in the past?  What is the RATE team's proposed explanation for this?

 

Of course, then there is the problem of surviving during such high radiation rates.  Is there any scientific data/evidence that supports the possibility of anyone or anything surviving during such high radiation rates?

 

If these questions cannot be adequately answered, then it's really a non-starter as a scientific hypothesis; that doesn't make it absolutely impossible (with the help of the supernatural)...just a non-starter in the scientific arena.



#172 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 April 2017 - 12:27 PM

 

 

StormanNorman: If these questions cannot be adequately answered, then it's really a non-starter as a scientific hypothesis; that doesn't make it absolutely impossible (with the help of the supernatural)...just a non-starter in the scientific arena.

 

But this is the whole point, Tirian nor I, ever said it was a scientific hypothesis, we have always believed as Christians that God caused Noah's flood, which means it was a miraculous cause, God Himself physically closed the door of the Ark, so we wouldn't hypothesise as to how the Ark door closed on it's own, according to methodological naturalism. 

 

Basically as apologists for the flood scenario, we argue that a flood could have happened and makes a lot of sense of the majority of the direct evidence. Planation, water gaps, canyons (patterns, Mt St Helens proving identical in it's mini canyon patterns), polystrate fossils, the preservation of many forms of life fossilised while living, in positions of fighting, giving birth, digesting, suffocation positions, etc, marine forms in all rock, erosional remnants.

 

Whether you like it or not a flood answers for the catastrophe we see and you are basically choosing to put all of the focus on the evidence that suits you.

 

As for nuclear decay speeding up, that is only one hypothesis, this does not alter the fact that there the leak rates from the helium match for about 6,000 years old, not billions of years. So to focus on the nuclear decay rate is a bit of a red-herring Piasan enjoys sending us on, to take away the focus from the fact that there is 6,000 years of helium.

 

We also have a correlation, and I know how important correlations are to you Norman, you have made it clear you would never dismiss correlations;

 

 

 

This 5,100-year argon diffusion age is consistent with RATE’s helium diffusion age of (6,000 ± 2,000) years for the same rock formation. So now we have two different age measurements using two different gases from two different types of nuclear decay in two different minerals—and the two methods agree within their error bounds.


#173 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,519 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 April 2017 - 01:30 PM

As for nuclear decay speeding up, that is only one hypothesis, this does not alter the fact that there the leak rates from the helium match for about 6,000 years old, not billions of years. So to focus on the nuclear decay rate is a bit of a red-herring Piasan enjoys sending us on, to take away the focus from the fact that there is 6,000 years of helium.

I guess I'll have to cite the dozen or so papers that disagree with Humphreys' findings.

 

Name another hypothesis.

 

Quote

 

 

This 5,100-year argon diffusion age is consistent with RATE’s helium diffusion age of (6,000 ± 2,000) years for the same rock formation. So now we have two different age measurements using two different gases from two different types of nuclear decay in two different minerals—and the two methods agree within their error bounds.
Source?


#174 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,073 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 19 April 2017 - 03:35 PM

But this is the whole point, Tirian nor I, ever said it was a scientific hypothesis, we have always believed as Christians that God caused Noah's flood, which means it was a miraculous cause, God Himself physically closed the door of the Ark, so we wouldn't hypothesise as to how the Ark door closed on it's own, according to methodological naturalism. 

 

 

One has to wonder then ...why are we having debate.  I won't argue miracles because I have no means to confirm or deny them.

 

 

 

 

We also have a correlation, and I know how important correlations are to you Norman, you have made it clear you would never dismiss correlations;

 

This 5,100-year argon diffusion age is consistent with RATE’s helium diffusion age of (6,000 ± 2,000) years for the same rock formation. So now we have two different age measurements using two different gases from two different types of nuclear decay in two different minerals—and the two methods agree within their error bounds.

 

The problem I have with this argument, Mike, is that you are trying to have it both ways, e.g., having your cake and eating it, too.  On the one hand, you will turn to miracles for explanation (which is fine), but, then when it is convenient turn to science, when its results somehow supports your faith in those miracles.  That's extremely inconsistent in my view.

 

Also, for your statement in bold, I'd have to see the data before making judgement.   



#175 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 19 April 2017 - 04:24 PM

There is very high proportion of endemic (not found anywhere else) amongst the native species of flora and fauna on the Hawaiian Islands, which is what you would expect of remote volcanic islands 2300 miles distant from the nearest continental land mass. The chances of lucky dispersal is very low in any one year but becomes more likely over millions of years. Those that did arrive found lots of empty niches to colonise thus the adaptive radiation.


Researchers believe that a flora of about 960 species of flowering plants (Wagner et al. 1990) has evolved from about 270 colonizing ancestors(Fosberg 1948); 168 species of ferns and fern allies evolved from about 135 original immigrants (Fosberg 1948). The 6,000–10,000 insects and allied forms native to Hawaii evolved from about 300 to 400 ancestral immigrant species (Hardy 1983; Gagné and Christensen 1985); about 1,200 native land snails evolved from as few as 22–24 long-distance immigrants, probably carried by birds(Zimmerman 1948); and about 115 endemic land birds (including some species only known as fossils) evolved from as few as 20 ancestral immigrants (Olson and James 1982; James 1995).https://www.nwrc.usg...andt/Hawaii.pdf

If these islands were born after the Flood had wiped out life just a few thousand years ago, firstly how do you explain the species richness on these remote oceanic locations and secondly, the high endemism. Did hundreds of new species evolve in this time ?

 

Is it to be explained away by more miracles ?



#176 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 20 April 2017 - 06:20 AM

 

StormanNorman

The problem I have with this argument, Mike, is that you are trying to have it both ways, e.g., having your cake and eating it, too.  On the one hand, you will turn to miracles for explanation (which is fine), but, then when it is convenient turn to science, when its results somehow supports your faith in those miracles.  That's extremely inconsistent in my view.

 

No the two aren't two separate matters, in physical reality, if both are part of reality, even if they are two separate subjects in academia.

 

I think you are conflating the two. I would be guilty of arguing miracles if I were to say, "this flood deposit would have preserved marine creatures in the Cambrian BUT the missing bunnies were miraculously chosen for eradication so as to mislead men into believing evolution."

 

Logically speaking the flood is a miracle and we can't fully know to what extent God had to step in to stop things from happening but the forces were enough to destroy the Ark. To say the flood would be allowed to destroy the Ark because of problem P would defeat the point of the flood to begin with.

 

Think about it properly, think about the logic. Imagine if by analogy I said to you; God is going to set your house on fire, to destroy certain wicked members who have been squatting in your house illegally. Imagine now if God gave you instructions to stay in the house but to create a safety blanket.

 

The first thing you might say is; "the smoke will choke you to death", but then logically speaking that is to say, "God isn't God and doesn't know what He is doing." Which is a contradiction.

 

If I say to you, "God is omniscient according to the bible", and you say, "this thing here God didn't know or couldn't handle" then your statement contradicts God's omniscience and God's omnipotence. 

 

I think the mistake with atheists is they think that the Ark saved Noah. It didn't, and would be battered to bits in no time. Physically, it was not possible for the flood to occur randomly so the Ark only had to be tough enough for where God would direct it according to the path-of-survival, the trajectory only He could know.

 

Therefore it follows logically that there may be some consequences that either only God could solve miraculously. (this is perfectly consistent with the rest of the bible, where God commonly steps in to do the miraculous like turning the soaking wet wood altar ablaze for Enoch if I remember correctly.) Or alternatively there may be a scientific explanation of how for example, the heat dissipated, or how seeds and marine creatures survived, but that I don't have that explanation not being a scientist that knows a hypothesis to explain it, doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one. I just haven't worked on solving it.

 

So it's not inconsistent for biblical Christians that accept all of the miraculous activity in the bible, to say that the miraculous flood of Noah may involve some miraculously inexplicable elements. 

 

As subjects the miraculous and science may differ, but this doesn't preclude the inventor of science being able to defy science in reality. To suppose a flood to begin with, is to suppose God was capable of doing it so our assumptions right from the start, is that God has the capability to step in when He needs to.

 

You can still falsify a flood logically. You can show a history of the earth which shows macro evolution, rather than the destruction of a planet of animal kinds, which is what we see. For a flood would of course dump wet mud sediment all over the planet. Just think how atheists would complain had there never been a trace of it - yet all we find is fossilised organisms that were preserved while living, and of all animal phyla, since all life perished in the flood - just as we would expect.

 

If it was a world flood we wouldn't just expect a few certain types of animal to be fossilized, as might be expected with evolution, but we would expect all types of plants, mammals, reptiles, etc...and it is the exact expectation, since all life perished. (see, you didn't even think of that did you, because you have been brainwashed into thinking the fossils are some type of history of evolution when there is no evolution in them.)



#177 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 20 April 2017 - 03:53 PM

I would be guilty of arguing miracles if I were to say, "this flood deposit would have preserved marine creatures in the Cambrian BUT the missing bunnies were miraculously chosen for eradication so as to mislead men into believing evolution."

Were all the fish (apart from a few primitive jawless ones) miraculously chosen for eradication ? (nobody ever answers this, I've mentioned it several times in various threads, it just gets avoided and you fixate on bunnies because that is easier to deal with)
 

For a flood would of course dump wet mud sediment all over the planet. Just think how atheists would complain had there never been a trace of it - yet all we find is fossilised organisms that were preserved while living,


All we find is fossilised organisms that were preserved while living ? You sure about that ? You don't seem to realise that complete fossil skeletons are extremely rare. Feel free to prove me wrong if you can but as far as I'm aware a complete dinosaur skeleton of any kind has never been found, there are always at least some bones missing and usually most are absent. For example, in the Weald Clay which is exposed not far from where I live (the Weald is a formation from the Lower Cretaceous which was laid down in a freshwater environment - not marine like you seem to think every fossil layer is), dinosaur bones can be found but they are never articulated, always just single and not well preserved.

 

Again, this is the problem when you only read creationist sites, like you seem to do. You get a completely misleading impression of what the fossil record actually shows.

 

Ok, I've been diverted off topic, any views on the species richness of the Hawaiian Islands ?



#178 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 April 2017 - 06:05 AM

 

 

Wibble: Were all the fish (apart from a few primitive jawless ones) miraculously chosen for eradication ? (nobody ever answers this, I've mentioned it several times in various threads, it just gets avoided and you fixate on bunnies because that is easier to deal with)
 

 

Nobody avoids it Wibble, we just know your style of debate is to give a forever-list of complaints. This is a trivial one, fish are generally fast, the fish that aren't in particular layers I call chance, ecological zonation is a factor, if there were fresh fossils created today, chances are White sharks wouldn't be found buried anywhere near the U.K. 

 

Also we have to consider that when Peter fished all night he got no fish, but when Jesus said to fish, he caught a load.

:D

 

 

Wibble: All we find is fossilised organisms that were preserved while living ? You sure about that ? You don't seem to realise that complete fossil skeletons are extremely rare. Feel free to prove me wrong if you can but as far as I'm aware a complete dinosaur skeleton of any kind has never been found, there are always at least some bones missing and usually most are absent. For example, in the Weald Clay which is exposed not far from where I live (the Weald is a formation from the Lower Cretaceous which was laid down in a freshwater environment - not marine like you seem to think every fossil layer is), dinosaur bones can be found but they are never articulated, always just single and not well preserved.

 

Again, this is the problem when you only read creationist sites, like you seem to do. You get a completely misleading impression of what the fossil record actually shows.

 

Not at all, this is nothing but a red-herring to focus on what isn't preserved, so as to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. The camel being the most exquisitely preserved insects for example, such as dragonflies. 

 

All you have to do is google, "fossils" and press on "images"; you will see how abundant the preservation is. Jerry Bergman done a show on Origins, he goes through all of the fossils they've found, they always look as though they have just died. 

 

To say, "fossilisation is rare" is a tautology, because it would be rare under any circumstances, including a flood, because obliteration would be common. Uniformity doesn't explain the exquisite preservation we do find, and we find a lot of it. The fact is, if it happens slow, you would expect it to die. The textbook evolutionary explanation that they show, is some little animal floating to the bottom of the sea, then slowly sediment building up around it. This type of uniform scenario doesn't fit with this evidence.

 

Your style is usually to say, "this evidence can never be creation," but this time this type of evidence "can't be evolution".

 

Here's Bergman's show - notice the complete absence of transitionals but he can pretty much show every organism has remained unevolved and unchanging;

 

 

(after watching this show it just gives me tear-jurking belly laughter that anyone could still have the self-deception to say evolution is anything more than fiction.)

 

Notice each and every fossil is exquisite and can be compared to the living species next to it..Did you ignore the funnel-nose ray I shown lately? You could tell it was one because of the clear anatomy immaculately preserved. In my "list of unchanged organisms" if you follow the links you will see many exquisitely preserved fossils, even leaves identifying trees. Leaves being fossilised so immaculately presents a problem because they don't last forever. A couple of years for some to rot. 

 

When we consider all of the leaves, and soft bodied insects of many types, it is much more reasonable to believe they were buried quickly. 

 

Evolutionists argue that planation was caused by water. So then for you to say, "this isn't evidence of Noah's flood, and isn't the expected evidence for watery catastrophe", is to also say that the evolutionary explanations are wrong.

 

And you thought I was ignorant - you don't even seem to know that a lot of the evidence for watery inundation, is also argued to be evidence of watery inundation, by evolutionists.

 

You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "if Piasan wears a nice tie it's evidence he dresses well, but if mike wears the same nice clean tie, it isn't."

 

So evidence for inundation by water, is evidence for inundation by water, you can't say, "that's fine just as long as it's not Noah's water."

 

LOL!

 

Sometimes in life, certain evidence simply does follow consequentially. If a flood occurs, like Noah's, certain types of evidence we would expect to see, such as live animals preserved, would follow. We would expect this, so removing the focus from this evidence won't work, for we would expect all types of life to be buried alive like that, and types of mammals, reptiles, insects if they were all destroyed, and we would expect those kinds of animal, to still be the same today, which Bergman shows in his video, that they haven't changed and there is no evolution of them present. This is exactly what we would expect if the bible says they are created according to kind - that the same animals today, would be found fossilised, or a representation of them, as obviously animals have went extinct since then.

 

What are you going to do, pretend that this general theme in the fossils isn't there, and pretend it doesn't favour the flood? It can't "not" favour it, according to the law of non-contradiction.


  • Tirian likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users