[photon]

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.

So the foundation of your claim that carbon dating is not accurate is scientists go against their own basic tenants, the things that made them scientists to begin with, and throw data out when it isn't convenient to them?

Sorry, but you demonstrate a failure to understand science. What you claim isn't possible. A scientist CAN'T LIE! They can try, but if they falsify results in a published work, they risk their career, plus since the whole work is published (all tests, all measurements, everything is transparent), eventually it will come out. A person going over the data will discover the false data, it has happened before.

How can you call all of the different radiometric dating processes "subjective" when they all independantly agree? You'll have to provide more detail than simply saying it. And I only gave a few examples. Another is islands formed by volcanic activity are dated and they correlate with the expected dates due to the the movement of the tectonic plate. Milankovitch cycles which depend only on things like the precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity. Plus others I don't even understand like luminescence dating.

When ALL of these things are tested independantly and agree, you can either conclude that it's an accurate depiction of reality, or you can believe there's a conspiracy to falsify the information. But then you aren't saying it's inaccurate based on evidence, but based on faith that since the evidence disagrees with what you want to believe, there must be some reason, however improbable, that the evidence is wrong.

As for the plane on Greenland, that's nothing more than wishful thinking.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/k...tin_comedy.htm

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)

See now that's a reasonable idea. That's true, if God did create the earth with fully grown trees, animals etc then one could propose they'd have their rings, belly buttons, and whatever else they needed.

So would you also say then that God created everything that way? Created everything to give the illusion that it is billions of years old? He presumably created the light between the stars, created stars that looked billions of years old (since they're at the end of their life span and ready to go or have just gone supernova). Did he also setup the ratios of radioactive isotops so that no matter what way it was looked at it appeared very old? Did he create the sediment layers that span 20 million years of visible uninterrupted history to look that way? Did he pre-sort the fossil record when creating the earth so the order they appear supports evolution?

If he did all these things, are you saying God created it all so that we would have to choose between scientific observation and faith in the literal interpretation of the creation story (which many Christians do not believe as literal)?

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.

So there was some unknown magical event that contaminated all rocks (surface and inside the earth), altered tectonic plate movement, altered the ratio of radioactive substances in all rocks (not just one substance, multiple substances in the same rock, altered in different ways), all of these errors in the precise amount to alter the readings by the same amounts?

You can't falsify a theory just by making up things that might go against it. For that kind of claim, you'll have to provide some evidence of such an event.

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.

Lol.. again, you'll have to provide evidence for these things, imagining something doesn't equal evidence.

I've heard the idea that gravity is weakening before, though no one has been able to test for it yet or come up with evidence (you would be able to see it in early galaxies, they would rotate at higher rates but we don't see that).

For light, I assume you're talking about "c-decay" (for those who want to Google it). While interesting, it doesn't fit with observations. If light from supernova SN1987A left it at much higher than c and has slowed since then to the c we now see, we would see the supernova in slow motion. Plus they were able to calculate the half-life of cobolt-56 and cobolt-57 from the supernova, and both values match exactly what we observe on earth. You could again question the rates of decay, but I suggest you read this, it explains why that would do you no good:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovi...od-add.html#A6

"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.

We have data from far far into the past.. either 15 billion years in the past, or if you believe in c-decay despite there being little evidence for it and much against, at the very least 6000 years into the past.

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.

No one has stopped asking questions. More quesitons have been asked of evolution in the past 10 years than the time before that to Darwin.

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".

They are mocked not because they have a different theory, but because they have a theory that has no evidence. The only motivations imagined are the ones you imagine when you see tens of thousands of scientists all falsifying their data every day.