What is science (or how do you define it?)

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@adamjedgar

@T_aquaticus

If that document did not exist, what evidence outside of that document would lead people to believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?

is there a question somewhere here or are we simply interested in promoting hypotheticals in order to obtain some kind of credible reference in support of something that simply isn’t a reality?

The question was addressed here:

@jammycakes

For example:

• We would not see any stars more than six thousand light years away, with additional stars regularly coming into view with measurable distances of one light year further per year.
• Zircon crystals never being found containing more than about eighteen parts of lead per billion.
• We would have sequenced the entire T-Rex genome by now. In fact we would have whole T-Rex carcasses preserved in Arctic permafrost, just as we do with the woolly mammoths.
• Deposits of chalk, shale or other sedimentary rocks formed from fine particulate matter would never be more than a few metres thick.
• Levels of carbon-14 in ancient coals and diamonds would consistently reach as high as 25%-50% modern carbon in almost every sample that was tested. These levels would be consistent across all sorts of samples with very little variation in the lower limit.
• A measurable decrease in the speed of light or radioisotope decay rates of 0.1% per year – certainly well within the sensitivity range of lasers and other instruments.
• Alternatively, strong sensitivity of radioactive decay rates to temperature or pressure.

The fact is that there are plenty of things that would indicate that the earth was young if it actually were. The only problem is that those things are not what we observe.

@adamjedgar

Oh but there is physical evidence…lots of it (Behee, Myer, Wise, Hackett, Jeanson, Chadwick and more)

A list of people’s names is not physical evidence. Neither, for that matter, is a bunch of quotes and sound bites from those people.

What is physical evidence? Measurements. Data. Graphs and charts. Maps. Photographs. Computer simulations. Laboratory reports. That sort of thing.

@adamjedgar

The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast.

As I’ve already pointed out, the word “Darwinism” in this context is a weasel word. It is so vague and ambiguous that it is perfectly possible to question it while acknowledging the universal common ancestry of humans, animals, and all life on earth.