Heck, for all we know God makes a new universe every Thursday and implants false memories in us all. Is that the kind of God we have?
We have solid evidence that they have been. But tell, us what is your evidence that radiometric decay took on the values you promote? Has there ever been decay measurements supporting that claimed rate. What were the controlled conditions? These are your numbers, your very own, no one else’s. The onus is on you to substantiate them.
And while you are tuning the dials on radiometric decay, you still have not answered my prior question. Why did it change? As radiometric decay is determined essentially by the atomic and nuclear geometry, that part is a given. That leaves the two nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force. How were these altered, and what are the cosmological implications? If the universe is supposedly fine tuned, how do you alter these constants and maintain life as we know it?
What do you think of a disturbances to gradual processes…like …Noah’s Flood? So tell me: What God do you serve then? That one who had to try things out by evolution before he came about with an organism representing his imago dei, or that one who got it right from the beginning?
God is eternal and patient. Time is no constraint for Him.
3 Likes
He was and still is sovereign. It is interesting that you refuse, not unlike an ostrich, to engage my private message about that.
Yes, we can.
You would have to change the most basic fundamental forces in nature in order to change decay rates, and in doing so you would make the universe inhospitable to life. Such changes would be seen throughout the universe in the most simplest of observations, such as spectra from stars and the brightness and decay of type Ia supernovae. Even more, we can directly observe past decay rates in things like supernovae.
The only reason you doubt the constancy of decay rates is that it leads to conclusions you don’t like.
Here are 29 verifications of evolution:
That’s simply false. Creationism can’t explain the nested hierarchy, or tons of other observations that are explained by evolution.
The scientific method uses inference, not deduction. Also, science infers from observations.
Radioactive elements decay throughout the life of a rock. The cause is right here in the here and now.
What do you think is responsible or humans and chimps looking different from each other?
The DNA makes the proteins that produce epigenetic differences. Mutations to either the genes responsible for those proteins or to the targets of those proteins will change the epigenetic profile of that genome in different tissues. More to the point, there is very little evidence of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in the vast majority of vertebrates. In humans, those epigenetic patterns develop after fertilization. So where do these patterns come from? Your DNA.
You can easily observe retroviruses inserting themselves into host genomes. Here is a paper that mapped thousands of HIV, ASLV, and MLV insertions in the lab:
They observed that the retroviruses inserted all over the genome.
Science is the interpretation of data. What you are saying is that you reject the very concept of testing a hypothesis using observations. You reject the scientific method.
3 Likes
Nice one, really. I can give you evidence that radiometric dating is not working. So why should creationists use it at all, then?
Just read…
Pick a specific piece of evidence, start a new topic, and let’s discuss.
2 Likes
Not a petty god who plants false evidence in his creation.
3 Likes
This is not about radiometric dating and it validates the consistency of radioactive decay:
Extinct Radioactive Atoms
I’ll respond tomorrow or in a few days.
I can assure you that nothing of what you wrote isn’t based on unprovable assumptions.
Well, why are you believing in evolution, then? 
Is English your first language?
No, I’m german. And I’ve never been to an english-speaking country. That’s all I’ve learned at school. And that’s been long before and far away.
1 Like
23:20 here. I’m offline.
Well I’m sorry if you resent it, but if you don’t want to be called a science denier, then don’t deny that subjects that follow the scientific method and adhere to scientific standards of quality control are science.
Nebraska Man? That was retracted ninety-three years ago. In any case, even if the list isn’t complete, it still barely scratches the surface of the vast number of other studies out there.
On the contrary, it’s a perfectly valid analogy. The point is that you are expecting us to reject hundreds of thousands of studies right up to the present day as erroneous on the basis of just a tiny minority of fraudulent outliers from decades ago.
Science simply doesn’t work that way. Nor does anything else for that matter.
Not true. Interpretations of the evidence must obey the rules. In particular, they must obey this one:
¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
I am yet to see a single claim of evidence for a young earth that comes even remotely close to obeying that verse of Scripture.
Not true. When different methods are cross-checked against each other and found to give the same results within a few percent, that is proof that radiometric decay rates have always been the same.
In any case, accelerated nuclear decay is science fiction. For starters, in order to change nuclear decay rates, you would have to change the fundamental constants of physics, and if you changed those then you would change everything. The chemical and biological properties of matter itself would change to the extent at which life itself would no longer be possible. The earth would be vaporised into oblivion.
And that was the young-earth scientists’ own admission. They themselves admitted, in the conclusion to the RATE project, that the accelerated nuclear decay they needed would have raised the temperature of the Earth to 22,000°C. Don’t believe me? Here’s a link to the place in the RATE report where they did the calculations.
4 Likes
What YECs give is a tiny minority of outliers, whose extent and significance is blown out of all proportion.
There is a difference between “doesn’t always work” and “never works.”
There is a difference between “occasionally out by a few percent” and “consistently out by a factor of a million.”
There is a difference between “doesn’t work when you do it wrong” and “doesn’t work when you do it right.”
There is a difference between “doesn’t work at the limits” and “doesn’t work anywhere.”
3 Likes
The central organizing principle of biology, evolution is well-supported by evidence.
1 Like
Ok guys, this has become a gauntlet run instead of a civil discussion. I will not go on fighting at a dozen fronts the same time.
Just to get things straight:
Deep-time has no influence on overlapping variation ranges, so I don’t even have a problem with an old-earth view.
Again:
My position is that neighboring or overlapping variation ranges suffice to explain genotypic and phenotypic similarities - no matter how old the planet is.
The only thing that could be an argument against my hypothesis is the >order< of fossils.
This order isn’t necessarily a result of deep-time evolution.
A flood model would predict the exact same order by sideways mudflows coming from the ocean floor which embedded life forms according to their habitat, body mass, tissue density, intelligence an mobility.
The material of the rocks could be way older than its depositions. The fossils have absorbed the matter until nearly no organic material has been left. So even if radiometric dating is working and dates rock material with old ages, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the material has been deposited millions of years ago.
The sand you use to make a sand castle at the seaside could very well be millions of years old, but the sand castle is from today.
Same with rock layers.
Look at these limestones, here:
Guess how old they have been dated! They are older than the culture that used them to construct their buildings. They filled mud into bags and built these walls with them. Then the mud hardened and the bags dissolved, leaving behind a solid wall of tightly fitting bricks older than their makers. Dating may work to find out the relative ages of matter, but not absolute ages of what has been made of it.
If you want, I can discuss other objections to my model with you, but radiometric dating is no problem for my model. Whether you like it or not.