[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Wow your giving me a lot to explain! Lets see Radio carbon dating has not been proved accurate. You've been lied to. Scientist routinely take multiply test samples and throw out those that are wild; In other words don't fit in to their time line. As far as these other technique go they are subjective as well. The Greenland ice sheet for instance doesn't have an annual layer of Ice but rather adds layers depending on the temperature fluctuations and moisture throughout the year. This supposed constant is far from constant. Objects found in the ice that we can date have shown this. I'm thinking of a plane in particular that went down in WW2 and was found under the ice. I'll look for the article. The point being that the dating techniques that can be verified have proven unreliable.

You also have to consider the possibility of the earth being created when looking at your data. If the world was created in a short period of time things like trees would have to been created in various stages of maturity. They are Dependant on each other. Other species are also Dependant on these various stages of maturity and on each other. Would a tree created without rings stand up in a wind? I remember hearing about a Japanese experiment to genetically alter a tree to grow square rather than round. The reason being less wood waste when milling boards. This experiment terminated because they discovered that square trees didn't stand up in the wind.( I know off topic but, I found it interesting)




Which they surmise by looking at the layers of ice in Greenland or else ware and count each layer as one year. They have no way of knowing accurately what the C-14/C-12 ratios were 400 hundred years ago let alone 4000 years ago or beyond.

If environmental contamination has occurred it could be a localized event which multiply samples will detect or it could be a regional or even world wide event. These events wouldn't be identified by multiply samples because they would have effected all the samples equally. If one was to look they might find in such an instances large gaps in their time line with no apparent samples.



Yup. Light has been recently shown to be slowing down and if I remember right gravity is weakening. Both were thought to be constants at one time. Now if the rate that gravity is weakening was a constant we could tell approximately how long the earth could harbor life. This wouldn't disprove Creation but it might alter the current time line of evolution. But of course we have no way of knowing if it has been consistently weakening. I'm not sure if there are any theories out there that explain why light is slowing down but, I'm sure if there is; they have just as much chance at being right as being wrong.

Regarding my "outrageous claim" I didn't say it wasn't a constant. I said we don't know. You don't know. We have only been observing it for a little over a hundred years. If you read my link(in the last post) it addressed the difficulty in making an assessment with such limited data. Who would have though light was slowing down a few years ago. We are still learning and part of that process is recognizing the fallibility of our own assumptions. Science needs to keep asking questions. The problem with the theory of evolution is that scientists have quit asking the questions and instead are giving the answers. Conclusions are fine but, not when they cease to be open to question the science has crossed the line into religion. Evidence of this can be found all over this board: Theories of creationists are mocked; There scientists are minimized; Motivations are imagined; Any links provided are disregarded because they use the word "creation" or "God".

This general behavior is akin to folks reaction to articles questioning the causes of global warming. The mantra is soon heard: " All the respected scientists agree" or "that scientist is being paid by big business". I was on a Christian message board yesterday in the cults section. Some fellow had started a thread called "the newest religion" . He suggested that environmentalism was the newest popular religion and that it was quickly sweeping the nation (He was from England). I didn't fully agree with him but, I did suggest some current growing religions that use environmentalism as a plank. Kind of like their gospel or purpose.

Evolution Isn't a religion in and of itself but, it is the gospel of the Atheists. Without Evolution Atheism would be much poorer. That is why it is defended so vigorously here and else ware. That is why contempt is found in so many posts. The atheist clings to the theory of evolution like I cling to the finished work of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately that means that many atheists become scientist and seek answers that work within their belief system. Conversely, they don't ask questions that jeopardize their world view and obviously are hostile to those questions them self and those who ask them.

You see Creation scientists as a fringe group of religious zealots that have exchanged their scientific integrity for a faith system. I see them as a group of men and women who have dared to think out of the box. They risk the monetary and public rewards of following the pack in order to ask questions that have been blacklisted by their peers.

I'd like to know where it was that you read that light was slowing down and that gravity was decreasing (I assume you mean the gravitational constant). Cause those both seem like things I would have heard about. You know, cause they kind of affect the very fabric of the universe, so if they were happening, some physicists may have made a bit of a stink about it.

Edit: Allright, with a quick google search I did find some stuff on this, but so far it would seem to be a completely unsubstantiated theory. Far from the fact that you present it to be.

Another Edit: Hmmmm, it appears that all of the sites I could find that actualy advocated this theory were creationist websites, and none of them seemed to have doctors with any respectable credentials. So if you know of any astrophysicists that are willing to back this up (a like would be nice), I'd sure like to see it.