Scientists propose 'missing' law for the evolution of everything in the universe

[Bradskii]

You got the foundation of my premise incorrect.
I do not suggest that a Christian come up with the experiments. There would be the issue of bias.

I suggest a non-Christian, you, create an experiment that assumes the Bible is accurate. What would you expect from a global flood?
Would you pass over evidence that is contrary to your opinion or contrary to the opinion of the experiment?

That's not science. Period.

 

[sjastro]

A typical creationist trick is to claim C-14 which has a half life of 5730 ± 40 years is found in coals millions of old.
This "proves" the coal cannot be millions of years old and therefore the earth is 6000 years old.

This is the false dichotomy at work, C-14 can be accurately detected down to levels where the age is around 20,000 years.
So why isn't the age of the earth around 20,000 years or even 80,000 years in the AIG description below, instead of 6,000 years if one is to assume the claim is accurate?

Here is the claim made in AIG (Answers in Genesis).

AIG

Other important findings of the RATE project include detecting carbon-14 in coal and diamonds. If these substances were really millions or billions of years old respectively, there should be no carbon-14 left in them. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. With the most accurate mass spectrometers, the oldest calculated age of items containing carbon-14 is about 80,000 years. Diamonds are assumed to be many billions of years old and should contain no detectable carbon-14 as it would have all decayed to nitrogen-14 long ago. The same is true of coal which was supposedly deposited hundreds of millions of years ago, according to the evolutionary model. The presence of carbon-14 in these materials clearly supports the idea of a young earth as described by the Bible.

Here is the science rebuttal of this claim.

Science

Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even you agree that there is no physical evidence of the Earth being 6000 years old.

That's the Y part of YEC.

One down, two to go.

And I support it with Scripture, by the way.

Let's see this science that other posters claim pwns YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

That one's still open, every experiment involving E constitutes an experiment on C.

Do you really expect me to believe that?

Show me an experiment in a laboratory that materializes an object, raising the amount of mass/energy in the universe accordingly.

Then I'll give your previous post some consideration.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not science. Period.

Then science can take a hike.

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you really expect me to believe that?

Other than in the effect where else would one expect to find evidence of the cause? Is there somewhere else that you suggest we look for evidence of the Creator other than in what He created?

Show me an experiment in a laboratory that materializes an object, raising the amount of mass/energy in the universe accordingly.

My point exactly, show me an experiment that demonstrates the aftereffects of what you just described and I'll show you evidence for your version of God. There's no need to repeat the event, just show evidence that the event occurred. It's like the Big Bang, we don't need to repeat it to find evidence for it.

Which is odd, because we can find evidence for pretty much every event from the Big Bang onward, but for God and His miraculous act of creation... bupkus.

 

[partinobodycular]

Show me an experiment in a laboratory that materializes an object, raising the amount of mass/energy in the universe accordingly.

I'm curious... in what way would this be evidence for a Creator? If anything it would demonstrate that you don't need one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Other than in the effect where else would one expect to find evidence of the cause?

Good question.

I have a challenge thread on that very topic HERE

Is there somewhere else that you suggest we look for evidence of the Creator other than in what He created?

No, sir.

Can't think of any.

My point exactly, show me an experiment that demonstrates the aftereffects of what you just described and I'll show you evidence for your version of God.

Ah ... a scientific quid pro quo for something that isn't scientific.

Is that what you're asking me to do?

There's no need to repeat the event, just show evidence that the event occurred.

This is where the Bible comes in handy.

And faith.

It's like the Big Bang, we don't need to repeat it to find evidence for it.

You might think you have evidence for it, but the Bible says otherwise.

Which is odd, because we can find evidence for pretty much every event from the Big Bang onward,

Only on paper.

... but for God and His miraculous act of creation... bupkus.

What you call "bupkus," I call "ex nihilo."

Both terms mean "absolutely nothing."

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm curious... in what way would this be evidence for a Creator?

Good question.

I submit it can't be done by natural means.

Therefore, it was done by supernatural means.

Meaning science can take a hike.

If anything it would demonstrate that you don't need one.

Correct.

And you're doing a good job of demonstrating that science can take a hike.

By your own laws of science, mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

 

[partinobodycular]

You might think you have evidence for it, but the Bible says otherwise.

Ah, but actually we do have evidence for the Big Bang. Most notably the CMB. Now you might argue that the CMB is irrelevant, because the Big Bang never actually happened. To which I would counter that it doesn't matter... it's still evidence.

Consider for example something that I mentioned up thread... that I'm a solipsist. Now some people would assume that that means that I don't think you exist, none-the-less I have evidence for your existence. That evidence is there, whether you're actually there or not.

Thus as far as a solipsist like myself is concerned, that evidence is the only thing that I know exists. Hence in this case semantics is important. There is indeed evidence for the Big Bang.

Your mission... should you choose to accept it, is to demonstrate that that evidence is wrong. But let me be clear, as a solipsist I don't assume that there is no God, I'm just constrained by the fact that I see no evidence for this supposed God.

And no... having 'In God We Trust' on my currency isn't evidence.

I submit it can't be done by natural means.

Therefore, it was done by supernatural means.

And your evidence for this is what? As you should now understand, evidence is important to me.

 

[Larniavc]

So you came up with the experiment based upon the accuracy of the Biblical account?

Assessing the RATE Project

www.asa3.org

 

[dwb001]

Assessing the RATE Project

www.asa3.org

So is that a yes or a no?

 

[dwb001]

Ah, but actually we do have evidence for the Big Bang. Most notably the CMB. Now you might argue that the CMB is irrelevant, because the Big Bang never actually happened. To which I would counter that it doesn't matter... it's still evidence.

Consider for example something that I mentioned up thread... that I'm a solipsist. Now some people would assume that that means that I don't think you exist, none-the-less I have evidence for your existence. That evidence is there, whether you're actually there or not.

Thus as far as a solipsist like myself is concerned, that evidence is the only thing that I know exists. Hence in this case semantics is important. There is indeed evidence for the Big Bang.

Your mission... should you choose to accept it, is to demonstrate that that evidence is wrong. But let me be clear, as a solipsist I don't assume that there is no God, I'm just constrained by the fact that I see no evidence for this supposed God.

And no... having 'In God We Trust' on my currency isn't evidence.



And your evidence for this is what? As you should now understand, evidence is important to me.

Evidence is totally correct... possibly misinterpreted.

It is there.... but what does it indicate?
You have your guesses... everyone has an opinion.

 

[dwb001]

That's not science. Period.

Explain how oh great scientist.

 

[Larniavc]

So is that a yes or a no?

Read the bloody paper a draw your own conclusions.

Here comes the informational aeroplane flying into the tunnel…… nom nom nom.

 

[dwb001]

Read the bloody paper a draw your own conclusions.

Here comes the informational aeroplane flying into the tunnel…… nom nom nom.

Did you write the paper?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, but actually we do have evidence for the Big Bang. Most notably the CMB. Now you might argue that the CMB is irrelevant, because the Big Bang never actually happened. To which I would counter that it doesn't matter... it's still evidence.

Only on paper.

You look at the CMB and see cosmic evolution.

This is because academia has found a way to incorporate it into their doctrine.

I look at the CMB and see the mighty power of God.

So who's right? you or I?

So to quote Kent Hovind:

Don't call what you believe "science" and what we believe "faith".

 

[AV1611VET]

And no... having 'In God We Trust' on my currency isn't evidence.

Then your appeals to cause-and-effect can take a hike.

If you're going to pick and choose what you determine evidence, do you think I'm surprised that you'll reject anything that points to God's existence?

And your evidence for this is what?

LOL -- back to that again.

As you should now understand, evidence is important to me.

Yup, and I think I know why.

You want us to give you evidence, so you can put it on your blacklist.

Case in point, here's my list of causes-and-effects for God:

1. The Bible
2. Time divided into BC and AD.
3. Organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army.
4. Hospitals built by Christian organizations.
5. Beautiful Christian artwork, edifices, statuary and literature.
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins and UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance.
7. The Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public.
8. Christmas & Easter
9. Symbols on bumper stickers and flags.
10. Public debates in the name of Christianity.
11. Crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ.
12. Two major nations founded on His existence.

I'm going to guess and say you're going to blacklist all twelve of those, aren't you?

 

[partinobodycular]

You have your guesses... everyone has an opinion.

I try very, very hard not to guess. Do I have an opinion? Absolutely. Do I mistake that opinion for fact? Nope. Do I favor certain points of view over others? Yes, and quite often without due consideration as to why. And therein lies, what is to me, one of the greatest joys in life... figuring out why I do what I do, and why you do what you do. And it's therein that your concept of God begins to break down, because it appears to be more likely that God is something that men would create, rather than men being something that God would create.

 

[partinobodycular]

I'm going to guess and say you're going to blacklist all twelve of those, aren't you?

You are correct.