Are you sure you don’t have an incorrect number of negatives there?
(Also, physicists test the assumption that the laws of physics have remained constant.)
1 Like
Reminded me of this webcomic:
Off-topic, I know, but couldn’t help myself.
6 Likes
I bet a global flood on the basis of something like the hydroplate theory would have a great impact on the ratio between mother and daughter elements in the atmosphere without any changes to the laws of physics at all.
That wouldn’t affect radiometric dating techniques such as K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr. In order for Pb to be included in zircons during formation you would need to change the laws of physics. In order for Pb to be produced at a higher rate in zircons you would need to change the laws of physics. The same would apply to K/Ar dating where you would need to change the laws of physics so gasses don’t boil out of magma.
4 Likes
Hydroplate theory already involves changes to the laws of physics. But anyways, how does this impact which atmospheric ratios?
No it doesn’t. It only needs massive amounts ord water beneath the earth’s crust and an impact event. No changes to the laws of physics involved.
The Bible talks of water above the firmament. Ancient scholars talk of a crystal sphere around the Earth at times of the Garden of Eden. UV light could have been blocked by a canopy of ice before the flood - which would have had a great impact on the formation of mother elements. An impact of an asteroid which cracked the surface of the earth could have caused the waters of the great deep to burst out high into the sky. These waters must have been hot and could therefore have molten the ice-canopy - which then didn’t block the UV-light anymore. The whole scenario involved outbreaks of volcanoes all around the planet above and under the flood waters - causing a mixture of steam and ashes in the atmosphere. Massive erosion etc. . I see a great possibility of a major impact to the ratio between mother and daughter elements under such circumstances. But again: the burden of proof is not on the creationists! We don’t want our religion to be taught in the science class. The burden of proof is and has always been on the side of those who believe in Evolution and want it to be taught in a science class!
First:
You should take into account that God created the universe in a grown, mature and fully functional form. He created Adam as a mature man - not a child. Jesus made wine of water - completely bypassing the growth of any wine plants. Everything appeared old from the beginning.
Second:
God stretched out the heavens (space-time-continuum) >after< he created the earth and before he created humans, as it says in the Bible, so the light speed could have been enormously faster when he did it.
If the stars have been not that far away from earth in the beginning, that could have had a great impact on the ratio between mother and daughter elements.
You need to deduce from the premises that Genesis sets up - not from evolutionary ones. You could conclude absolutely logically sound and yet come to false conclusions, if you deduce from the wrong premises. And that’s the main problem when it comes to dating methods.
Please could explain your hermeneutical justification for understanding ‘heavens’ as the space time continuum based on the historical-cultural context of the Old Testament? I believe a basic principle of bible interpretation is “what it meant to them is what it means to us”. Please can you show me how an Ancient Israelite reader would have understood ‘God stretched out the heavens’ as a reference to the space-time continuum?
In addition, please could you provide citations to these ancient scholars and demonstrate why their position is justified by a plain reading of Genesis 1-2 in its historical cultural context.
I draw your attention to these points, because in an early exchange you said that you strive to take a ‘plain reading’ of the biblical text. Yet here it seems you are digressing from this approach and appear to be adding something to the text which I believe is not there. Why the change in approach, Henry? Perhaps, I misunderstood what you are saying? If so, I would be grateful for a clarification.
Enjoy your Friday. Liam.
3 Likes
The speed of light with reference to any frame is constant according to the laws of physics, regardless of the stretching of space-time.
Also, the stretching of space-time over time is measured by physicists. What the physicists have measured and what you have claimed differ by about 6 orders of magnitude. You need to be able to give a viable explanation for that difference – with the Friedmann equations worked out – if you want your claim to have any credibility.
Peace,
Chris
1 Like
Could you give a detailed explanation? Science and “I bet” do not dance together.
Peace,
Chris
I don’t have to give you >any< evidence at all!
Again: I admit that my position is religious.
You fail to see that the burden of proof is on >you< - not me! There’s no empirical evidence for a big bang cosmology, evolution of elements, evolution of celestial bodies, life from inorganic material, evolution from taxonomic family to taxonomic family. No repeatability, no experiments supporting anything of the above mentioned. Nothing demonstrable. Your whole paradigm lacks scientific substance. It’s completely forensic in nature and therefore open for worldview-dependant interpretation.
In short: It’s nothing but warm air. Learn living with it.
Archemedes’ principle is indeed a law of physics. Granite does not float on water. Ice does not float on air. If you insist that the burden of proof is not on creationists here, I can video evidence. An impact event would not be required to release the tremendous potential energies involved.
But even so, what is the mechanism by which isotopic ratios are perturbed under your scenario? Which decay sequences are impacted?
1 Like
Hubble constant, CMB
How else do you think stars work? Carbon synthesis, in particular, was predicted by consideration that our own existence demanded that stars had to have a way to generate carbon.
Collapsing gas clouds and nascent solar systems have been observed.
Direct evidence for this is long gone, so bio-genesis is indeed more inferential and speculative. I do not think the ideas put forth so far to be very compelling.
Not so. The fossil record has yielded tons of natural history here, and is being improved all the time.
There is a reason that the defendant’s mom is generally not allowed on the jury. You have made prior verdict and simply dismiss any contrary observation.
That does not entail that mainstream science is religious. There is no equivalence. Science is based on observation and evidence. These are incompatible with your YEC worldview, but entirely consistent with the outline of consensus science.
4 Likes
YECs don’t get it that the truth of God’s testimony in creation doesn’t lie, and if there appears to be a conflict with the truth in Bible, then their interpretation of one or the other or both is in error.
3 Likes
Not at all! Get me an actual telescope video of a collapsing gas cloud forming a star!
Hey, stars generate a bunch of things, but what came first? The stars that formed the elements or the elements that formed the stars? I think you are dreaming!
Well, then you leave a gap for God to exist in. Bravo!
Absolutely false! You put your worldview-dependant interpretations on the fossil “record” and see evolution into it! I can evidence an overlap of biblical kinds by the fossils as well! You have to assume that the rock layers are different ages to conclude evolution! But where do you think do the layers come from? Outer space? No! They are sedimentary rock shuffle up by the flood of Noah! Are the cards of a card deck differently old? No. They’re just shuffled up! Exactly the same is true for the rock layers you find the fossils in. I’ve linked the video “experiments in stratification”. Scroll up and watch it, per favore!
Reflect that statement onto the evolutionist side, would ya?
Science is what can be observed , tested and experimentally demonstrated in repetition! If you think that science is in conflict with the young earth creationist worldview, but not with Evolution, >you< seriously need a lighter to see the sun!
Hydrogen and Helium. Surely you know this.
2 Likes
You have just proven that you do not understand how scientific discussions are supposed to work.
You have just proven that you do not understand anything important about physics, astronomy, or biology.
Moreover, your persistence in saying such absurd things shows you have no desire to actually learn anything about these subjects.
Who am I to deprive you of your comfort? I will not further disturb you any further.
Peace,
Chris
3 Likes
Well here is the interesting thing. The fossil record is not shuffled, is it? It is in fact progressive, a fact YEC has never put forward a credible explanation for.
1 Like
You don’t know that helium and nitrogen were the first elements and you don’t know that the elements came before the stars that formed the elements. You don’t know any of it! You conclude it from your evolutionary presuppositions! Profound difference!
Fossil “record”: There are a lot of anomalies to the order of the fossils. Just sayin’. Google is your best friend - well…enemy, in this case.
Regarding the overall order: creationists would predict the exact same picture due to a burial of habitats from ocean to main land, as the flood started at the shallow pre-flood ocean floors.
Learn about creationist presuppositions and premises first before you try to debunk Genesis, I highly suggest!
Well at least we are finally to the point where all sides can agree this is not a scientific discussion or idea. It stems from scripture. Which is great!
So how do you harmonize the two different creation accounts?
1 Like