Posted on 05/06/2009 10:28:23 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
It does get a bit thick, but once you see it, you'll be like Homer Simpson (Dohh!!). It really is not as hard as people make it out to be.
Thomas C. Van Flandern, founder of Meta Research died January 9, 2009. I certainly hope someone at NASA took him aside to show him the proof of artificial structures on Mars obtained since 2001 ... if they exist; the public paying for the exploration certainly is not getting the truth.
Yes, except that nobody can directly observe the past to know the age of the universe, it is all circumstantial, and radioisotope dating is not strictly physics (it was covered in chemistry); and once you apply it to rock ages because you must presume initial conditions to know the age, and once again nobody was around taking measurements at the beginning to know what the original composition of the rocks were.
The broader point I was trying to make is that evolution touches a lot less of science than evolutionists insist, and it appears evolutionists impose evolution on other hard science disciplines simply to gain greater credence when they stray from science into origin mythology.
Yeah, but I hear the sailing there is fantastic...
I’ve known it all along.
Gravity sucks.
The summary was just that, a summary. Detailed discussion requires far more space. I do dispute special relativity, but in a more narrow scope than you may expect.
No one has asked for an explanation of a nuclear bomb. Yes, the energy is liberated from mass. You remind me of the unjust king, who demanded to be given all knowledge while standing on one leg. I never claimed to know all things. Just a plausible framework. Before you tear it apart, perhaps you should attempt to understand the halting scratched I have made.
Gravity is not just a good idea. It’s the law!
Nobody can directly observe an electron, either. The circumstantial evidence of it's existance is sufficient for me.
Regarding radioisotope dating, it IS physics rather than chemistry. Where you have an isotope with a known half life, and can measure the proportion of the isotope and its decay products, you can have a pretty good idea of how long that isotope has been sitting there.
The age of the Earth and the universe has nothing to do with evolution, except that creationists need to disallow both an old Earth and evolution to retain their faith.
As I said, radioactive decay, and all information regarding atoms, was covered in Chemistry, not Physics. If that has changed recently, I wouldn’t know about it, but that’s how it was when I went to school.
LOL!
What’s the “Theory of Cosmology”?
And Newton was overturned in 1915. The problems were recognized back in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Creationists were too busy keeping people from putting up lightning rods to notice.
While I entirely agree with you that the scientific theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth, or the universe, or even the origin of the species or the history of how we came to be.
However, as an evolutionist pointed out to me a few weeks ago on these boards, evolution can’t work in short periods of time, which is why we can’t observe it creating new species, but if you just give it millions of years then it is a fact.
Evolution is a scientific impossibility if the earth is too young.
On the other hand, a young earth is not a necessity for the creation story, it just adapts easier to history as described in the Bible.
I don’t believe the earth or the universe is old, but I also don’t believe the earth is 6000 years old. Actually, I have no firm belief on how old the earth is, because looking at all the evidence, I don’t see a reason to accept as fact any of the numbers.
It takes a year to build a skyscraper. If someone created one out of thing air, but we lost all knowledge of how it was created, it would look like the top floor was put on a year after the bottom floor, because that is what science would say is necessary.
When an electron hit a positron (anti-electron), the result is two or more gamma ray photons with no particle results.
It can't work in long periods of time either.
However, I see that there are physics hits for the same search (Physcs radioisotropic dating), which means that it has bled over into physics from it's natural home in Chemistry. Can't say why.
Physics - (used with a sing. verb) The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.I guess the "modern extension" of nuclear physics would cover radioactive decay, and by extension dating methods, even though we covered atoms and decay in chemistry when I went to school.
Chemistry - The science of the composition, structure, properties, and reactions of matter, especially of atomic and molecular systems.I guess at some point they decided that radioactive decays wasn't an "atomic system" so much as a "nuclear physics" question.
Radioactive decay is a relatively simple process, and was easily understood in a basic Chemistry class when I went to school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.