Jump to content


Photo

Time Vs. Age


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
12 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:59 PM

While there is plenty of evidence that the rest of the universe is billions of years old.  That is enough to infer that the solar system is old.

View Post


The post above made me think of a good question about time, so I thought I would start another thread to debate it. So here's the question for old earthers.

Can science absolutely prove that the age that things date, equals the actual passage of time so far? And how would you prove that this time has actually passed?

Why do I ask this question? Dating has already been proven not to be an exact science in every test. Which also means there are things that can make things date older than what they are. For even science it self gets caught up in it's own claims when something is proven to be not as old as first dated.

So how does science prove the actual dating of age equals the actual passing of time when these varibles are known?

Which also brings up another question about Big Bang. How do you get material that dates differently when it all came from one object?

Posted Image

If I take a rock, like the one on the left, and let's say it dates to 18 billion years old. And I blow it up. How do I get material from that rock to date differently from it's source?

And how do I prove that this time that this rock dates, actually passed as we know it today?

How do I prove that the dating markers were not influenced by something that made them age much quicker, which makes them date older. Which means that much actual time did not pass.

How do I prove that time itself has always passed the same as we see it today?

Example:
Let's say a Jane Doe walks into a hospital with no ID. And she has no memory of who she is. Now with all that science knows, could they actually guess her correct age. Then prove that this amount of time has actually passed in this person's life?

The point I'm trying to make is: Age dating does not prove how much time has passed as we know it today. And if someone would like to say it does. I would like to see absolute evidence on how you can prove this.

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 08 January 2007 - 02:51 PM

I think the ‘proof’ starts with an axiom – that the basic physics/rules of the universe has remain unchanged and apply universally. By this I mean the speed of light has not changed, atoms are atoms the universe all over, gravity is a universal property – that sort of thing.

If one holds to that axiom, then dating methods (various) are interpreted as we currently known them i.e. old earth.

Re the rock – one must know how to get a representative sample, e.g. one not exposed to the elements (surface) or contaminants (tools/chemicals), statistical averages may be required if the rock contains contaminants, for this we rely of archaeologists in doing the job they were trained to do.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 January 2007 - 06:22 AM

I think the ‘proof’ starts with an axiom – that the basic physics/rules of the universe has remain unchanged and apply universally.  By this I mean the speed of light has not changed, atoms are atoms the universe all over, gravity is a universal property – that sort of thing.

If one holds to that axiom, then dating methods (various) are interpreted as we currently known them i.e. old earth.

Re the rock – one must know how to get a representative sample, e.g. one not exposed to the elements (surface) or contaminants (tools/chemicals), statistical averages may be required if the rock contains contaminants, for this we rely of archaeologists in doing the job they were trained to do.

View Post


How do you get all matter from one object that dates differently, when the source for all things supposetly came from that object? This would mean that time is not required for age. For how do you get a 4.5 billion year old planet, in a universe that dates 18 billion years old, in which all matter contained within it came from one source? And that source should make all matter date back to it's origins.

So we have:

Matter 18 billion year old = a bunch of matter that dates no where near it?

So if this amount of time (18 billion years) actually passed. Should not the matter left by it, date at least near to it?

There is a difference of 13.5 billion years between our planet, and the supposed age (time passage) since the matter for our planet separated of it's source. In my opinion, 13.5 billion years difference does not even make our planet related to the universe that contains it, because it does not fall into the timeline of the universe that contains it.

That's like finding out of place fossils. What we have here is a whole universe that contains out of place matter (planets, stars, etc...).

Another way to put this so it's better understood. Big Bang sets the whole timeline for all that we see. So our universe is like a layer in our geologic column. A 18 billion year old layer. So if our universe were to be uncovered like a layer in our geologic column. And those who dug it up found bits of matter that did not date according how old that layer is. What would be wrong with that picture?

Let's say that the picture below is called the universe geologic column. Each layer represents a different universe, and age date. The one that is 18 billion years old is the middle one. So we dig into it and expect to find matter that dates according to the layer (universe) that contains it.

Posted Image

Let's say they find the material that makes up the earth. So the scientists date the material, and it was only 4.5 billion years old. A 13.5 billion years difference from the layer (our universe) it was found in. This made them think that maybe this was just a fluke. So they went back and dug up the rest of the material (our solar system).

They took each different piece of material (planets) and dated them. Now all of them did not date anywhere near the supposed 18 billion year old layer (our universe). In fact they dated not even close to one another in age. So what conclusion can be drawn from this find?

1) The layer date is wrong (layer = universe. Universe was dated wrong)?
2) All the material are just out of place (all matter contained in the universe is out of place)? Which would bring up another question as to what place did they come from?
3) Matter dating does not equal actual time passage?

So can anyone think of a good excuse as to why the matter contained within our universe does not even remotely date to it's supposed age of creation?

#4 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 January 2007 - 01:58 PM

How do you get all matter from one object that dates differently, when the source for all things supposetly came from that object? This would mean that time is not required for age. For how do you get a 4.5 billion year old planet, in a universe that dates 18 billion years old, in which all matter contained within it came from one source? And that source should make all matter date back to it's origins.


Ok, there are 2 things here:

1. The big bang created hydrogen and little else, gravitational collapse caused the first generation stars to shine. In the cores of these stars heavier elements are synthesised in two processes:
a. Nuclear fusion for elements of atomic weights up to and including iron,
b. Supernova for elements higher than iron.
The elements released from these first generation stars supernova (and all subsequent stellar formation) make up the matter in the universe today. So that’s a rather large chunk of the 18 billion to 4.5 billion taken care of.

2. Radiometric dating is a comparison of the ratio of original material you are measuring, against what ever it decays into. See the wiki. So if the radiometric material is eroded out and reburied, the ‘clock’ is reset as the decaying elements must be built up again. The axiom here is offcourse that radiation decay half-lives are, and always have been, constant.



<snip>So our universe is like a layer in our geologic column. A 18 billion year old layer. So if our universe were to be uncovered like a layer in our geologic column. And those who dug it up found bits of matter that did not date according how old that layer is. What would be wrong with that picture? <snip>


No, matter from the big bang is envisaged to precipitate out of raw energy (like ice melting into water) as the universe cooled. As the universe expands that cooling would be felt evenly (no layering), it quite literally would have been a “let there be dark” event.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 January 2007 - 04:23 PM

Ok, there are 2 things here:

1. The big bang created hydrogen and little else, gravitational collapse caused the first generation stars to shine.


In theory, no one has observed this. And it is not testable.

In the cores of these stars heavier elements are synthesised in two processes:
a. Nuclear fusion for elements of atomic weights up to and including iron,
b. Supernova for elements higher than iron.
The elements released from these first generation stars supernova (and all subsequent stellar formation) make up the matter in the universe today.  So that’s a rather large chunk of the 18 billion to 4.5 billion taken care of.


The supposed time that passed to achieve this is neither provable, or testable. Only that supposed matter dates that old. Dating does not equal actual time passage unless you would like to claim that age dating has become a absolute. In which I could easily prove that wrong.

Also there are more elements in the universe then what nuclear fusion, or a Supernova, can fuse pass. Unless you would like to show evidence for fusion that makes all elements that exist today possible? I'd like to see it as evidence, not in theory. Almost anything can be theorized.

2. Radiometric dating is a comparison of the ratio of original material you are measuring, against what ever it decays into.  See the wiki.  So if the radiometric material is eroded out and reburied, the ‘clock’ is reset as the decaying elements must be built up again.  The axiom here is offcourse that radiation decay half-lives are, and always have been, constant.


It's only a constant when it supports old earth. The half life of polonium halos have been questioned only because they support young earth through the quick formation of granite rock that contains them.
Posted Image



No, matter from the big bang is envisaged to precipitate out of raw energy (like ice melting into water) as the universe cooled.  As the universe expands that cooling would be felt evenly (no layering), it quite literally would have been a “let there be dark” event.

View Post


The layering was an example, not an absolute. I did not claim that I believed this. I was merely demonstrating how the materials contained inside a universe that is supposed to be 18 billion years old, are not even related to it in age dating.

And how do you get matter that cools down billions of years slower than another of almost the same make up. When the temps in space is always absolute zero? And it does not even go along with how close the matter is to a star. Some planets close to stars are cooled down more than planets further away that are still hot and molten. So that does not even work.

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 January 2007 - 07:54 PM

chance>
Ok, there are 2 things here:

1. The big bang created hydrogen and little else, gravitational collapse caused the first generation stars to shine.

ikester7579>
In theory, no one has observed this. And it is not testable.


However, that is the current theory, of which the wiki has ample material on how such was theorised, and what evidences are used.


chance>
In the cores of these stars heavier elements are synthesised in two processes:
a. Nuclear fusion for elements of atomic weights up to and including iron,
b. Supernova for elements higher than iron.
The elements released from these first generation stars supernova (and all subsequent stellar formation) make up the matter in the universe today.  So that’s a rather large chunk of the 18 billion to 4.5 billion taken care of.

ikester7579>
The supposed time that passed to achieve this is neither provable, or testable. Only that supposed matter dates that old. Dating does not equal actual time passage unless you would like to claim that age dating has become a absolute. In which I could easily prove that wrong.

Also there are more elements in the universe then what nuclear fusion, or a Supernova, can fuse pass. Unless you would like to show evidence for fusion that makes all elements that exist today possible? I'd like to see it as evidence, not in theory. Almost anything can be theorized.

(my italics)

Re-time. I’m not sure if you are arguing against nucleosynthesis as a mechanism or that time does not or did not, run at a ‘constant speed’. If nucleosynthesis is the argument there is ample data on the internet (but as far as stars go, Spectroscopic analyses of stars and supernova provide the evidence). If your question is about time axiom of consistent time I would think it would not help any argument anyway for two reasons:

1. If time periods are variable, then how matter and light behave would be consistent in that time period, i.e. from an observer in fast or slow time matter and light behave the same, thus all our measuring equipment would still give the same results.

2. If time passes is nether provable or testable then what ever theory you come up with to counter the status quo is equally invalid! Unless of course you have some way of measuring the passage of time while simultaneous being outside of it.

Also what did you mean with,

there are more elements in the universe then what nuclear fusion, or a Supernova, can fuse pass



chance>
2. Radiometric dating is a comparison of the ratio of original material you are measuring, against what ever it decays into.  See the wiki.  So if the radiometric material is eroded out and reburied, the ‘clock’ is reset as the decaying elements must be built up again.  The axiom here is offcourse that radiation decay half-lives are, and always have been, constant.

ikester7579>
It's only a constant when it supports old earth. The half life of polonium halos have been questioned only because they support young earth through the quick formation of granite rock that contains them.


? halos did you mean radioactive half-lives of Polonium? - from the wiki

Polonium has 25 known isotopes, all of which are radioactive. They have atomic masses that range from 194 amu to 218 amu. 210Po is the most widely available. 209Po (half-life 103 years) and 208Po (half-life 2.9 years)….


you seem to be referring to a specific example of Polonium half life with which I’m not familiar and will need a reference so as to reply. I should point out that radiometric dating is not restricted just to the element Polonium but in theory any radio active element.

chance>
No, matter from the big bang is envisaged to precipitate out of raw energy (like ice melting into water) as the universe cooled.  As the universe expands that cooling would be felt evenly (no layering), it quite literally would have been a “let there be dark” event.

ikester7579>
The layering was an example, not an absolute. I did not claim that I believed this. I was merely demonstrating how the materials contained inside a universe that is supposed to be 18 billion years old, are not even related to it in age dating.


I see. I’m a bit of a fan of “thinking out loud” myself, it helps to organise ones thoughts.

And how do you get matter that cools down billions of years slower than another of almost the same make up. When the temps in space is always absolute zero? And it does not even go along with how close the matter is to a star. Some planets close to stars are cooled down more than planets further away that are still hot and molten. So that does not even work.


ok …. The initial cool down of the big bang is not the same thing as matter cooling down due to physical processes like thermal conduction or thermal radiating. The post big bang creation of matter is a change of state (like ice to water), caused by the finite amount of radiation (very hot) occupying a bigger volume (space expanding), at some critical volume, the temperature becomes low enough, and matter ‘condenses out’ (like water on cold glass).

#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 January 2007 - 10:52 PM

As far as age, but without the passing of time goes in God's word. The examples are not only in creation:
Posted Image

But aging something without the passage of time was also done else where in God's word:
Posted Image

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 January 2007 - 02:12 AM

However, that is the current theory, of which the wiki has ample material on how such was theorised, and what evidences are used.
(my italics)


But the problems with certain PO is left out. A usual tactic of old earthers. Tell the story that fits, but leave out what does not so that it just works with no problems.

Re-time.   I’m not sure if you are arguing against nucleosynthesis as a mechanism or that time does not or did not, run at a ‘constant speed’.  If nucleosynthesis is the argument there is ample data on the internet (but as far as stars go, Spectroscopic analyses of stars and supernova provide the evidence).   If your question is about time axiom of consistent time I would think it would not help any argument anyway for two reasons:

1. If time periods are variable, then how matter and light behave would be consistent in that time period, i.e. from an observer in fast or slow time matter and light behave the same, thus all our measuring equipment would still give the same results.


Speed of light being a constant is already in question enough that it would only take one scientist brave enough to prove it wrong. The reason it is still fought tooth and nail is because several theories will either have to be re-worked, or totally thrown out. The damage to current theories, and the trickle down affect on the rest of science, boggles the mind. A lot of things hing on some things remaining a constant.

2. If time passes is nether provable or testable then what ever theory you come up with to counter the status quo is equally invalid! Unless of course you have some way of measuring the passage of time while simultaneous being outside of it.

(my bold)
You just hit on a creation theory that goes along with 2Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

If the Lord is outside of our timeline, then our timeline has no effect on His creation. Or how He did it. For a 1000 years to equal 1 day, is two different timelines

Also what did you mean with,
? halos did you mean radioactive half-lives of Polonium? - from the wiki

you seem to be referring to a specific example of Polonium half life with which I’m not familiar and will need a reference so as to reply.  I should point out that radiometric dating is not restricted just to the element Polonium but in theory any radio active element.


Yes, from the wiki: http://en.wikipedia....pes_of_polonium

Can granite rock form in three minutes? Remember it would also have to cool in this same amount of time as well. But then PO 214 half life is less than one second. Can science prove that granite rock can form and cool in less than one second? In order for both PO 214 and PO 218 to be found in that rock, before it's half life expired, would mean the rock was created in less than one second.

Also here is an example of what happens in the science community if one scientist refuses to conform to the evolution theory: http://www.creationi...ert_Gentry.html

Which I think is the reason you are acting as if you don't know what I am speaking of.

I see.  I’m a bit of a fan of “thinking out loud” myself, it helps to organise ones thoughts.
ok …. The initial cool down of the big bang is not the same thing as matter cooling down due to physical processes like thermal conduction or thermal radiating.  The post big bang creation of matter is a change of state (like ice to water), caused by the finite amount of radiation (very hot) occupying a bigger volume (space expanding), at some critical volume, the temperature becomes low enough, and matter ‘condenses out’ (like water on cold glass).

View Post


That granite rock sure formed and cooled down quick to catch that PO halo. I wonder if the thermal conduction of granite rock works that fast?

#9 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 10 January 2007 - 07:14 AM

Speed of light being a constant is already in question enough that it would only take one scientist brave enough to prove it wrong. The reason it is still fought tooth and nail is because several theories will either have to be re-worked, or totally thrown out.

View Post


I'm not aware that it *is* being fought tooth and nail. Proving that the speed of light is not a constant would be Nobel prize material.

It would also be fiendishly difficult.

#10 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 January 2007 - 03:07 PM

Sorry ikester7579 your post #7 is a little lost on me.
I understand that the creation event (or the turning of water into wine) is more or less instantaneous, but not sure what point you are trying to make.

chance>
However, that is the current theory, of which the wiki has ample material on how such was theorised, and what evidences are used.

ikester7579>
But the problems with certain PO is left out. A usual tactic of old earthers. Tell the story that fits, but leave out what does not so that it just works with no problems.


But here you have no such restrictions or fear of being edited out, I can only suggest that we do our best in this forum, and present your evidence for any given topic.


chance>
Re-time. I’m not sure if you are arguing against nucleosynthesis as a mechanism or that time does not or did not, run at a ‘constant speed’.  If nucleosynthesis is the argument there is ample data on the internet (but as far as stars go, Spectroscopic analyses of stars and supernova provide the evidence). If your question is about time axiom of consistent time I would think it would not help any argument anyway for two reasons:

1. If time periods are variable, then how matter and light behave would be consistent in that time period, i.e. from an observer in fast or slow time matter and light behave the same, thus all our measuring equipment would still give the same results.

ikester7579>
Speed of light being a constant is already in question enough that it would only take one scientist brave enough to prove it wrong. The reason it is still fought tooth and nail is because several theories will either have to be re-worked, or totally thrown out. The damage to current theories, and the trickle down affect on the rest of science, boggles the mind. A lot of things hing on some things remaining a constant.


Such is the claim, what is the evidence? If the speed of light is or was not a constant I think it would or should “in theory” be able to be detected, deduces, or even observed. I am not certain this would also hold for variation in “the speed of (universal) time”.


chance>
2. If time passes is nether provable or testable then what ever theory you come up with to counter the status quo is equally invalid! Unless of course you have some way of measuring the passage of time while simultaneous being outside of it.

ikester7579>
You just hit on a creation theory that goes along with 2Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

If the Lord is outside of our timeline, then our timeline has no effect on His creation. Or how He did it. For a 1000 years to equal 1 day, is two different timelines


Re- peter 3:8, I am rather of the opinion that that is a metaphor for the wiseness and immortality of God,

Which still leave us humans forever trapped in our own time line with no feasible way of measuring, or observing externally.


Also what did you mean with,
? halos did you mean radioactive half-lives of Polonium? - from the wiki

you seem to be referring to a specific example of Polonium half life with which I’m not familiar and will need a reference so as to reply.  I should point out that radiometric dating is not restricted just to the element Polonium but in theory any radio active element.


Yes, from the wiki: http://en.wikipedia....pes_of_polonium

Can granite rock form in three minutes? Remember it would also have to cool in this same amount of time as well. But then PO 214 half life is less than one second. Can science prove that granite rock can form and cool in less than one second? In order for both PO 214 and PO 218 to be found in that rock, before it's half life expired, would mean the rock was created in less than one second.


? no it would not. The half life refers to the time take for half the material to decay into something else (perhaps another isotope of PO, with a different half-life). PO itself is a by product of the radioactive decay of Uranium (I think).

Ill look at the second part (re-Robert_Gentry) later.

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 January 2007 - 07:10 PM

From the Dr R. Gentry site you posted is this claim

Magnified cross-section of a Polonium 218 halo in a granite rock. It has a half life of about three minutes.  In other words, it takes very little time for this radioactive isotope to fully break down and create this halo in the granite. If the rock is heated, it destroys these halos. According to evolutionary geology, the granites now containing these special halos had originally formed as hot magma slowly cooled over long ages. On the other hand, the radioactivity responsible for these special halos had such a fleeting existence that it would have disappeared long before the magma had time to cool and form the granite rocks. How did they get there? 


My initial reaction is what have halo’s got to do with anything when the same argument Dr. Gentry makes will hold equally well with the element Po (i.e. how can Po exist in the rock when it should have decayed long ago?)

It got there from via radiation decay of Uranium 238, or Thorium 232.

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 January 2007 - 08:15 PM

I can see this debate has turn into a time wasting debate where some of the debaters have decided to play dumb. I thought evolutionists were seasoned debaters. And have webistes they can pull info from on just about every creation subject. For even talk origins has a write up about Gentry's claims. I am sure you can find usefull info their to debate here. And maybe a more one sided view towards evolution might make it more understandable.

So that the other debaters can brush up on what they claim they do not understand. I will close the thread for a week, and suggest that you read the info on Dr.Gentry's website.

I'm not going into great detail about something as easy as to understand as a PO half life. And why it supports a quick creation. When what I have already posted has already stated this.

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 January 2007 - 02:23 PM

ikester7579 I have taken the time to read up on Po halos, I went to http://www.halos.com/ but find it mainly an advertising site for books and videos. Strangely, rather than list the evidence and methodology about how he formulated his hypothesis I find a long laundry list of rebuttals. The youngest of which is dated 1998 the bulk 70’s and 80’s. The data is there but it’s hard to find.

At this point I was forced to resort to talk origins to see if could make any headway, to find out exactly what is the claim and what if any are the objections to it.


From TO (extract) Dr. Robert V. Gentry claim is simply stated as

Ring-shaped discoloration haloes in primordial granite rocks are the result of damage from alpha-particle emission by radioactive isotopes of the element polonium (Po).
Since radiogenic polonium has a very short half-life (usually measured in fractions of a second), Gentry argues that, if granite takes thousands to millions of years to form as mainstream geology believes, any polonium originally present would have decayed away long before the granite could have formed and could not have produced these haloes.

Please let me know if you feel this is not the claim.

TO has an article that examines the claims here http://www.talkorigi...los/gentry.html . There is an awful lot to read but I invite you to take a look to see whose explanation is the more sound, but basically the rebuttal is summarised as follows:

a. Unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes.
b. The samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked.
c. his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth.



In addition to the above, Dr. Gentry relies on non scientific explanations i.e. "singularities" (events in the past that did not conform to non natural influences), see his article http://www.halos.com...tm-app-17-h.htm. Now to my way of thinking, this invalidates his halo hypothesis, no so much via the evidence, but because there is an expectation from a casual reader that the halo hypothesis is purely scientific (naturalistic) and can stand alone on it’s scientific merits.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users