|
essentialsaltes -> RE: An emotional argument (7/21/2008 12:41:57 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: falcnjet
To answer ESSENTIALSALTES, you have made sweeping statements about theories and models based on uniformitarian and other evolutionary assumptions.
Physics, geology, climatology, and botany are not based on 'evolutionary' assumptions. They each, mostly independently, provide evidence that contradicts a 6000 year old earth.
'Uniformitarianism' is an assumption of just about all the sciences. And, insofar as it has been tested, it has been validated. Observations of starlight from distant galaxies provide direct evidence that many of the laws of nature are the same now as they were far away and long ago.
quote:
Stating that something is true based on ideas that are required in order to make it true is circular reasoning.
But that is not what science has done. Geophysics does not assume an old earth. An old earth is a conclusion. Certainly some assumptions are required to do anything in science, but uniformitarianism is not tautologically equivalent to 'old earthism'.
quote:
There are many serious problems with radiometric dating.
Not really. Certainly, there are difficulties, and scientists have to be very careful when certain phenomena (such as those you mention) are present. But the grand story is quite clear. Multiple dating methods with different isotopes provide a story that is consistent with our knowledge of geology - that (in general) deeper rocks are older rocks.
As I predicted, you have no way of using this evidence in favor of a young earth - you can only impugn its value and ignore it. But to do so, you have to ignore the consistent age relationships as a vast coincidence. What has produced this largescale order in the rocks?
Those who support evolution are often accused of ignoring 'design'. This is not true; evolution simply provides a different mechanism for producing apparent design. However, YEC supporters do ignore order when it is found in the natural world, such as the case of radiometric dating of rocks.
quote:
Recent evidence has shown that decay is often accelerated locally within a given sample.
Can you provide some more information?
quote:
The big bang theory has been changed, massaged, added to, and revised over and over again, because it fails to explain the evidence.
The modern Big Bang theory explains a great deal of evidence. Certainly it is probably not yet complete, but the prediction of the microwave background radiation spectrum alone is an astonishing triumph. As far as I know, there is no evidence that contradicts the Big Bang - there are simply some features that currently appear to be coincidences. However, inflationary theory has provided an explanation of some of these coincidences, and simultaneously provided a prediction about the anisotropy in the background radiation... which was later confirmed.
quote:
The very existence of the moon in the orbit it is in is inexplicable in the light of evidence.
Says who?
quote:
Stellar formation theories are again based on uniformitarian assumptions derived from observing our sun for a couple of hundred years.
Stellar formation is not just due to extrapolation from solar observations. Theoretical models based on gravity and nuclear physics lead directly to billion-year lifespans for stars.
quote:
There are many problems with accretion models. Many believe it cannot happen in space.
Like who? All you need is gas and gravity.
quote:
If we had honest and open science on Discovery and History channels, we might learn about problems with missing antimatter
The experimentally confirmed fact of CP-violation provides a mechanism for matter to be produced in preference to antimatter.
quote:
angular momentum in our solar system
What?
quote:
the lack of variation in cosmic background radiation (the horizon problem)
The inflationary BB model produces precisely the observed cosmic background.
quote:
the illogic of rocky planets close to the sun and gas giants far from it
What is illogical about that? The solar wind drives off light elements, such as hydrogen and helium, from the closer planets.
quote:
retrograde orbits and rotation
How many planets have retrograde orbits? Zero
How many asteroids have retrograde orbits? Zero, I think.
The number of moons that have retrograde orbits is quite small; most of them are small asteroid-oid moons that are far from their parent planets - indicative of being captured asteroids. This is hardly strong evidence against the nebular hypothesis. And what is the YEC explanation for the order in the solar system - that 99+% of the objects in it orbit and rotate in the prograde direction?
quote:
Honest inquiry would require that these very real problems be addressed.
Some of your problems are not problems, but certainly scientists are working on those that are. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the YEC position does not have any positive science of its own that points to a young earth. YEC simply flings accusations at science, so that it can ignore the conclusions it doesn't like. YEC does not take the same evidence and show how it leads to a young earth; it just ignores evidence as irrelevant.
quote:
As I said before, it's been shown in laboratory research that layers such as varves can be laid down in minutes
Reference? How would this explain the correlation between standard varve dating and radiocarbon dating (see Figure PE-5)? Again, for YEC it must just be a coincidence.
quote:
Constructing a substantive argument takes effort and time.
This is true, and YEC has not spent that time and effort to produce a positive case for YEC. Being skeptical of the manifold evidence of an old earth does not make YEC the winner by default. Where is the positive evidence for a 6000 year old earth? All I've seen are niggling reasons to reject the results of virtually every scientific discipline.
|
|
|
|