Well, I checked it out.
If you start out with the assumption that natural processes can assume whatever rate you think they should have, then, yes, you can "prove" anything.
If Chapter 7 is true, you're sort of left with the question of "Well, what the heck
happens to the "billions of times" higher background radiation?" The current background rate is on the order of a millisievert (mSv) per year. A "billion times" that rate is enough to not just cook any living matter, but probably enough to re-melt the earth's crust. (But really, I can't be bothered to do the back-of-the-envelope calculation.)
A more interesting question relating to their topic - which I don't think they address - is "Where's the Technetium?"
If the world is only a few thousand years old, there should be noticeable amounts of
Tc lying around. The fact that there
isn't is pretty good evidence (
all by itself!) that the world has to be more than several hundred million years old.
(Take a look at the relative abundances: Between element #42 (Molybdenum, Mo) and element #44 (Ruthenium, Ru) there's NOTHING found for element #43 (Technetium, Tc). Why should that be?
Where did it go? Anybody thinking about the problem of "Radioisotopes And The Age Of The Earth" pretty much has to address this question. They don't.)
OK, fair's fair - I looked at your ebook - you might want to check out
this free ebook, from the National Academy of Sciences:
Science, Evolution, and CreationismEdited to add a direct link:http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876Message edited by its author, Jul 31, 2008, 7:45pm.
**If you start out with the assumption that natural processes can assume whatever rate you think they should have, then, yes, you can "prove" anything.
At least you agreed that by ASSUMING constant rate, you can “prove” anything like an old age for earth.
**A "billion times" that rate is enough to not just cook any living matter, but probably enough to re-melt the earth's crust.
RATE has already discussed this issue in Chapter 7.
**If the world is only a few thousand years old, there should be noticeable amounts of Tc lying around.
That’s assuming that Tc exists in more than noticeable quantity right from the beginning of creation!
**The fact that there isn't is pretty good evidence (all by itself!) that the world has to be more than several hundred million years old.
This is a good example of the fallacy of arguing from silence.
For a refutation of Science, Evolution, and Creationism, sees this article below.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5620Btw, as discussed in RATE, the amount of helium in the rocks is not consistent with the earth’s being billions of years old. How then do you explain the substantial amounts of helium found in the rocks? If the earth evolved over billions of years, the helium should have already escaped.
And what about diamonds which are thought to be millions/billions of years old by evolutionists? They contain significant levels of carbon-14 and since carbon-14 decays quickly, carbon-14 should not have been found in them if the evolutionary age is correct.
Message edited by its author, Aug 12, 2008, 9:46pm.
At least you agreed that by ASSUMING constant rate, you can “prove” anything like an old age for earth.
Well, no. It's not an assumption: it's a series of measurements. Over nearly a century now.
**Well, no. It's not an assumption: it's a series of measurements. Over nearly a century now.
To be precise, it is a series of measurements for the last century only. So when you project back the 100 years worth of measurements (for the last century) back into the millions and billions of years in the past, you are actually assuming that the rate has been constant at all time.
Yes! Exactly!
The assumption is made that the universe is not capricious - but rather, that the universe is comprehensible to the human mind.
It's actually been working out surprisingly well, in the few short centuries that we've been trying this approach.
And the alternative assumption - that we are mere flies for the sport of the gods - is both unproductive and unworthy.
If you wish to worship a god that changes the rules of the construction of the universe capriciously, well, good luck with that. I would prefer not to, thank you.
(You don't seem to have reciprocated by actually looking into the link that I've suggested - - so I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to bow out now.)
AYK_Bob, you're doomed. Did you see the group description?: "For saints who are concerned with the overriding issue - the authority of God's Word versus man's opinions..." (emphasis mine).
Observation will never subvert an argument from authority.
Having said that, I don't imagine that he'd be convinced even if Jesus came down and dope-slapped him while berating him for perverting the wonderful gift that is the human brain.
**Yes! Exactly!
Exactly, by assuming constant rate, you can “prove” anything like an old age for earth.
**The assumption is made that the universe is not capricious –
Btw, there’s a difference between uniformity and uniformitarianism.
**but rather, that the universe is comprehensible to the human mind.
Precisely because we can comprehend God’s creation, hence we are without excuses.
**And the alternative assumption - that we are mere flies for the sport of the gods - is both unproductive and unworthy.
There is a better alternative as revealed in the Scripture.
**If you wish to worship a god that changes the rules of the construction of the universe capriciously, well, good luck with that. I would prefer not to, thank you.
Thanks, but I don’t worship a god that is only a caricature in your mind.
**You don't seem to have reciprocated by actually looking into the link that I've suggested - - so I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to bow out now.
If you want to discuss about it, I would be happy to reciprocate. But do take a look at that article I posted earlier.
**Observation will never subvert an argument from authority.
Perhaps you want to clarify why we observe substantial amounts of helium in the rocks and carbon-14 in diamonds?
**Having said that, I don't imagine that he'd be convinced even if Jesus came down and dope-slapped him while berating him for perverting the wonderful gift that is the human brain.
We could use less of ad hominem argument here, for it doesn’t prove anything.
The first question is trivial: "helium in the rocks" is continuously generated by alpha decay.
Off the top of my head, I don't know the isotope ratios in diamond - but I'm sure it's equally well understood.
But if you're under the impression that the link at #3 refutes anything, then I fear that conversation here is hopeless. On the one side, there's the National Academy of Science - representing a couple of hundred thousand men and women who are working to try to understand the universe - and on the other hand, you put forward a link that includes the claims of the self-styled "Discovery Institute" - a half-dozen cranks funded by the far right to think up new lies to tell our children.
Sorry, but they are not a serious source for
anything, and their very presence destroys the credibility of anything even associated with them.
Message edited by its author, Aug 15, 2008, 10:32pm.
**The first question is trivial: "helium in the rocks" is continuously generated by alpha decay.
I think you missed the point that the small fast-moving atoms of helium gas have no trouble escaping from the rocks into the atmosphere. Try again.
**Off the top of my head, I don't know the isotope ratios in diamond - but I'm sure it's equally well understood.
You are certainly well entitled to your mere opinion.
**But if you're under the impression that the link at #3 refutes anything, then I fear that conversation here is hopeless.
And on what basis do you conclude that it doesn’t refute anything?
**On the one side, there's the National Academy of Science - representing a couple of hundred thousand men and women who are working to try to understand the universe - and on the other hand, you put forward a link that includes the claims of the self-styled "Discovery Institute" - a half-dozen cranks funded by the far right to think up new lies to tell our children. Sorry, but they are not a serious source for anything, and their very presence destroys the credibility of anything even associated with them.
It’s tempting to fall into the fallacy of appealing to majority, not to mention committing the genetic fallacy, when one have nothing better to offer. Since you do not wish to interact with the content in that article, perhaps we should rest the case here.
>9
"Perhaps you want to clarify why we observe substantial amounts of helium in the rocks and carbon-14 in diamonds?"
No, thank you; I've beaten my head against this wall before.
"...it doesn’t prove anything."
ROTFLMAO
(back to top)
